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.)