MovieChat Forums > Lady Jane (1986) Discussion > Portraits of Jane

Portraits of Jane

posted 17 years ago by little_miss_sunnydale
7 replies | jump to latest

There have been several portraits proposed to be of Jane and unsurprisingly historians cannot agree with one another over their authenticity. In the 1990s, the portrait once believed to be of Jane Grey was identified as Katherine Parr by art historian Susan Edwards, because the dress the sitter wears matches the description of a dress Katherine wore as Queen sometime in 1544. Plus the broach the sitter wears does indicates Katherine and the evidence to say it was Jane in the first place is dubious.

So out of these portraits proposed to be of her, which do you think is authentic?:

The Streatham Portrait:
http://www.somegreymatter.com/streatham.htm

The Wrest Park Portrait:
http://www.somegreymatter.com/wrestparkportrait.htm
(Certainly painted after her death)

‘The Starkey miniature’
http://www.somegreymatter.com/miniature.htm
David Starkey believes this is a contemporary miniature of Jane.

The FitzWilliam Portrait:
http://www.somegreymatter.com/portrait2.htm
Proposed to be Jane by historian J. Stephan Edwards.

http://www.bitterwisdom.com/ladyjanegrey/life/brown.jpg
Could be of Jane, however it is also believed to be Mary I or Elizabeth I.

The 'Starkey miniature' is questionable as on the painting the sitters age is given as 18 and it is highly unlikely that Jane lived that long. Plus he argues that it could have been painted while she was imprisoned, and it is unlikely that Mary I would allow Jane's portrait to be done during this time.

There is a lot of evidence to suggest the FitzWilliam portrait is an authentic, contemporary portrait. The sitter used to be labelled as Mary I, however the artist who painted this (Hans Eworth) definitely painted Mary and she looks similar in all the paintings by him. However she looks nothing like the sitter in this portrait. Plus the sitter has red hair which Jane is believed to have had. And the jewellery she wears has been analysed and again there is evidence to indicate that it is Jane. So it could be her…..

‘Noli me tangere; for Caesar's I am’

[–] enigma126 17 years ago

I've seen the Starkey miniature and it looks like the sitter has blue eyes. Which we know from Spinola's contemporary description of Jane, that she did not have. (Assuming Spinola was correct in his description of her appearance).

I've also seen the Streatham portrait and the National Portrait Gallery are displaying it as a Memorial Portrait of Lady Jane Grey. I went to Justin Nolan's talk on the portrait in June and he made the following points:

'Why it might be Lady Jane Grey?

The sitter is someone of importance. Analysis (including ‘dendrochronology’) has shown that the wood used dates from after 1593. The question is why would someone paint a portrait of a woman after 1593 wearing clothing from forty years before? There must have been something about the sitter to make it worthwhile.

The inscription dates from the same time as the portrait and cross referencing it with the known ‘Lady Jayne’s’ at the time, shows that it could refer to Jane Grey.

The sitter’s hair is reddish.

Context of the painting

Jane was in the public consciousness in 1602. This is shown by Thomas Dekker’s play, ‘Sir Thomas Wyatt’. Some of this play survives and in it, Jane and Guildford are portrayed as lovers. So from very early on, the romantic notion of Lady Jane Grey existed.

‘It is possible that this painting belonged in the collection of a gentleman who wanted to promote his enthusiasm for Protestantism and could have been part of a series of paintings of ‘Protestant Worthies.’

This was probably not intended to be an accurate portrait of Jane but was using her as a badge of the Elizabethan Protestant Order.’

There isn’t anything in this portrait that supports an accurate representation, however, the question remains, why else produce this painting?'

http://members.aol.com/ladyjanegreyref/

[–] little_miss_sunnydale 17 years ago

I've seen the Starkey miniature and it looks like the sitter has blue eyes. Which we know from Spinola's contemporary description of Jane, that she did not have. (Assuming Spinola was correct in his description of her appearance).

I think the point Starkey makes about the broach the sitter wears is also debatale. He claims that each leaf on the foliage depicted in the broach represents one of John Dudley’s sons and therefore hints that this is Lady Jane Grey, wife of Guildford Dudley, wearing the badge of her new family (so this being painted in c.1553). However this emblem, I believe, has never previously, nor since, been linked to the Dudley family. Instead their emblem was the Bear and Staff. Why would Jane wear this slightly obscure badge and not the emblem of her husband’s family that was known well.

Also doesn’t he put forward the argument that this could have been painted during her captivity in the Tower? I it this would have been highly unlikely that Mary would have allowed Jane to sit for a portrait whilst she was a prisoner.

The Streatham one is interesting but as you say it certainly is not a contemporary portrait.
Around the collar of the sitter there is the fleur-de-lis; a reference perhaps to Jane’s grandmother Mary Tudor who married Louis XII of France?

‘Noli me tangere; for Caesar's I am’

[–] caymandj 17 years ago

I would say the Wrest as the lady looks like she could be related to Henry the VIII.

You would think with testing and all we have not they could identify the portaits.

caymandj

thanks for the hard work and letting us see them. I enjoy looking at ANY thing from that era
cay

[–] caymandj 17 years ago

[–] little_miss_sunnydale 17 years ago

Thank you!

I still think that we have yet to find a portrait of Jane painted during her life. I’m still not convinced by Starkey’s argument that the sitter in the miniature is Jane.

J. Stephan Edwards puts forth a good argument as to the Hans Eworth portrait being that of Jane and I certainly don’t think the portrait depicts Mary I, who is frequently said to be the sitter.

‘Noli me tangere; for Caesar's I am’

[–] sueveh 16 years ago

It's hard to believe some of these are portrayals of a 16 year old girl! Some of these ladies look 45!

[–] little_miss_sunnydale 16 years ago

Lol; exactly! Some overemphasis her youth, whilst others tend to portray her as a sombre girl, thus aging her.

‘Noli me tangere; for Caesar's I am’