Tea at Trianon: Portrait of Mary I

John Wilson Croker on Marie-Antoinette

"We have followed the history of Marie Antoinette with the greatest diligence and scrupulosity. We have lived in those times. We have talked with some of her friends and some of her enemies; we have read, certainly not all, but hundreds of the libels written against her; and we have, in short, examined her life with– if we may be allowed to say so of ourselves– something of the accuracy of contemporaries, the diligence of inquirers, and the impartiality of historians, all combined; and we feel it our duty to declare, in as a solemn a manner as literature admits of, our well-matured opinion that every reproach against the morals of the queen was a gross calumny– that she was, as we have said, one of the purest of human beings."

~from History of the Guillotine by John Wilson Croker, 1844

Edmund Burke on Marie-Antoinette

"It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely there never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she had just begun to move in, glittering like a morning star full of life and splendor and joy. Oh, what a revolution....Little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fall upon her, in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor and of cavaliers! I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards, to avenge even a look which threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded...."

~Edmund Burke, October 1790

Thursday, November 21, 2024

Portrait of Mary I

From ArtNet:

A miniature painting of a woman long been believed to be Katherine Parr, Henry’s sixth wife who managed to survive the curse of his courtship, may actually be Mary Tudor, Henry’s first daughter who is better known today as “Bloody Mary.” According to art historian Emma Rutherford, it’s all in the nose.
“Mary’s nose, frankly, was rather bulbous and upturned, while Parr’s was more aquiline,” she told the Guardian. “Both Mary and Katherine had reddish hair and blueish eyes, and were a similar age of around 30 when this miniature was done. Hence some confusion. They wore similar clothes too, though Parr’s were usually more dressy. But the noses are clearly different.”
Rutherford began studying the work while putting together the exhibition “The Reflected Self: Portrait Miniatures” at Compton Verney House, about 100 miles northwest of London, until February 23, 2025. She initially made comparisons with other portraits of the two women. Parr’s preeminent portrait is Master John’s full length painting at London’s National Portrait Gallery. The best known of Mary, painted in the 1550s while she was queen, is by Antonis Mor in Madrid’ Prado museum; another by Hans Eworth is also in London’s Portrait Gallery.

Her observations about both women’s noses led her to seek more evidence and her claim was soon backed up by Tudor jewelry expert Nicola Tallis. Tallis noted that the sitter in the miniature painting is wearing a cross with black diamonds that matches a necklace described in Mary’s expenses records. Henry VIII gave it to his daughter in 1546, the same year that the portrait was likely painted, Rutherford believes. It was very likely by Susanna Horenbout, the first known female artist in England and a friend of Mary. The portrait may even have been commissioned by Parr, who was a strong advocate for both Mary and her half-sister Elizabeth’s interests at court. (Read more.)