But it can be equally certainly be stated that the oil painting itself was neither the work of Hans Holbein the Younger or Lucas Horenbout/bolte, because they were both dead by the time of the Mary Rose's sinking on the 19th of July 1545.
So who executed the oil painting with such skill?
From Wikipedia: «Horenbout's miniature of Holbein (1543) is among his most accomplished works, not least because he copies the face from a self-portrait drawing by Holbein; his own drawing skills are not the strongest. This miniature was also nearly always regarded as a self-portrait, until recent technical examination made clear that the style of painting is actually very different from that of undoubted Holbein miniatures: there is "an absence of his subtle gradations of flesh tone and colour" and "no sign of the extremely thin pen-like lines which are so notable a feature in Holbein's drawing of such details as the embroidered edges of costume". There are two versions attributed to Horenbout, of which the better is in the Wallace Collection. It may be a memorial portrait, painted in the six months interval between the death of Holbein and that of Horenbout.»
One possibility is indeed that Lucas Horenbout executed the little miniature.
Another possibility is that Levina Teerlinc did it.
What makes me believe that this is the work of Levina Teerlinc rather than Lucas Horenbout is the beard. If you look at the beard, the workmanship is markedly different from say the drawing Holbein made of himself and which the miniature is based on.
The beard instead bears great resemblance to how Levina Teerlinc drew fur.
From Wikipedia: «The gold background is of a later date. According to art historian John Rowlands, "Although this drawing has been enlarged on all sides and heavily reworked, enough of it still shows to allow the assumption that the original work was executed by Holbein. The inscription, although late in date, evidently records an earlier one, of which slight traces remain. There is no evidence to suggest that Holbein ever executed a painted portrait based on this drawing". Painted versions of the drawing by other hands exist, including one by Lucas Horenbout, in which the left-handed Holbein is holding a paintbrush. Art historian Stephanie Buck notes that Holbein's direct gaze suggests he was looking into a mirror. Holbein died not long after completing this self-portrait, probably of the plague.»
Formerly (to 1941) in the Duke of Buccleuch's collection. This miniature was in the Buccleuch Collection in 1917, plate VIII. It was, as we have seen, previously at Stowe. Sold at the Stowe sale March 15 1849 (lot 145). Had descended directly in the Seymour family. (Strong, 1983, p. 87)
The National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, dates this miniature to 1545–1547, which fits perfectly with it being by Levina Teerlinc. Again, it is the beard that makes me think that this is her work.
There is something like looking through a hazy mist about this miniature too, which leads me to believe that it could be the work of Lucas Horenbout.
At the same time, the workmanship is more precise, leading me to believe that it could be the work of Holbein. And yet, it is not quite Holbein-esque, either. If you compare it with the miniature of Katherine Willoughby, Duchess of Suffolk, for instance, that is even more precise, the edges harder.
The workmanship resembles most of all the minatures above and below, and I am reasonably certain that both of those two are the work of Levina Teerlinc.
Again it is the beard that makes me believe that this is the work of Levina Teerlinc.
Probably a copy after Holbein.
This miniature was purchased by Paul Mellon as a pair with the Yale Miniature, sold by Sotheby’s London, on 1 June 1970 from the collection of Miss Dorothy Hutton. He later donated both to the the Yale Center for British Art. It was at the time thought that both miniatures were created by the same artist. If Levina Teerlinc indeed painted both, that would actually prove to be true.
And we have another example:
Edward Seymour, 1st Earl of Hertford and 1st Duke of Somerset
The Victoria and Albert Museum writes: «In Roy Strong's exhibition catalogue Artists of the Tudor Court: the Portrait Miniature Rediscovered 1520-1620, London, V&A, 1983, this miniature was cat. no. 110. Strong attributed it to Nicholas Hilliard, suggesting it was probably copied after a portrait by Levina Teerlinc from 1550, and was possibly of "Edward Seymour, 1st Earl of Hertford and 1st Duke of Somerset", and dated it to c. 1600.
In a recent reassessment of the workshop practice of Nicholas Hilliard Katherine Coombs and Alan Derbyshire of the V&A re-examined this miniature. Their conclusion was that "the miniature clearly dates from the 1550s". They further noted that the gold inscription, though 'not of a high quality, is in Hilliard’s manner.' (See Katherine Coombs and Alan Derbyshire, 'Nicholas Hilliard's Workshop Practice reconsidered', in 'Painting in Britain 1500-1630: Production, Influences and Patronage', ed. T.Cooper et al, Oxford, 2015, pp.241-251.). The inscription in the manner of Hilliard is discussed in the light of other works pre-dating Hilliard which are inscribed in Hilliard's characteristic curling gold calligraphy: such as Hans Holbein's 'Lord Abergavenny' in the collection of the Duke of Buccleuch. This suggests that it is plausible for this miniature of an unknown man to date from the 1550s but have an inscription added by Hilliard in the late 16th century. It is worth noting that the inscription on this miniature - 'Aetatis suae' - is unfinished, as the age of the sitter has not been added, and was perhaps unknown to the person adding the inscription.» The Victoria and Albert Museum | P.25-1942
Again, look at the beard.
Queen Elizabeth I in Coronation Robes
Unknown materials | 3.5 x 2 1/5 in.
Formerly in the collection of the Duke of Portland
It looks like The Tau cross derives from the Egyptian Ankh and basically they are wearing it around their necks, life rebirth, salvation mirror. sun.Stonehenge looks like it is made up of Ts to form c
07.12 | 21:30
are wearing the symbol on effigies at Ingham church Norfolk and Henry StanleyD1528 at Hillingdon Middlesex.Countess Jacquline of Hainaut and husband Frank Borsele are also wearing the insignia others
07.12 | 21:23
These Queens could of been members of the order and i think the Tau cross is a symbol of the Holy Trinity also.These pendants could of been reliquaries.Lady margaret de Bois and Roger de bois
07.12 | 21:17
I think the Tau cross that they are wearing could be linked to the(knights) order of St Anthony, Mary 1st collar looks like it may represent the knotted girdle/waist cord of st Anthony .
Share this page
Looking at these miniatures together a clear picture emerges.
People Queen Elizabeth I Tudor loved.
Her mother, her father, her half-brother, her grandfather, her beloved step-mother Katherine Parr, that step-mother's husband and Elizabeth's own first love, Thomas Seymour, Baron Seymour of Sudeley.
Of course it might be reasonably surmised that Elizabeth had barely any relationship at all with her half-brother Henry Fitzroy, who died before her third birthday.
But perhaps that was just it? He died before anything bad had time to happen. He did not cut her out of the succession (again) in favour of a distant cousin like Edward VI, or had her thrown in the Tower like Mary.
And we do not actually know that they did not have a relationship of some kind.
Same with Thomas Boleyn. He died when Elizabeth was five and a half, so there would certainly have been time. I have never heard of the two of them having any kind of relationship at all, but he was her grandfather and Elizabeth must have at least remembered him
«In 1564 Sir James Melville, Ambassador of Mary, Queen of Scots (1542–87), was shown some portrait miniatures belonging to Elizabeth I. The English Queen ‘took out the Queen’s [Mary, Queen of Scots’] picture, and kissed it’. It is possible Melville was referring to this miniature and that it subsequently remained in the Royal Collection. The manner in which Elizabeth I treated the miniature indicates the intimate use of such small-scale paintings.»
The above is from a description of a miniature of Mary, Queen of Scots in the Royal Collection. So we do know for certain, it is a matter of historical record, that Elizabeth did have a collection of portrait miniatures. And if she had a portrait miniature of Mary, Queen of Scots, whom she did not love at all, does it not stand to reason that Elizabeth also had miniatures of her loved ones?
The miniature of Katherine Parr engraved above (then called Lady Jane Grey), the Royal Ontario Miniature (then called Jane Seymour), Admiral (Thomas) Seymour, brother to the Protector Duke of Somerset, and the de Wet miniature possibly of Thomas Boleyn (then called the Protector, Duke of Somerset) were all given to Elizabeth Wyndham, Mrs. Grenville (1719 – 5 December 1769) by her grandfather Charles Seymour, 6th Duke of Somerset.
So we see that no less than seven of the Tudor miniatures we know of today can be traced to Theophilus Howard or his direct descendants.
Timeline-wise it makes no sense for his possession of the miniatures to have anything to do with the marriage of his daughter Elizabeth to Dorothy Devereaux's son Algernon Percy. That marriage took place several years after the gift-giving had occurred.
I immediately started looking for other connections.
Theophilus Howard, 2nd Earl of Suffolk, (13 August 1584 – 3 June 1640) had no less than two siblings who were married to direct descendants of Mary Boleyn and Catherine Carey:
Elizabeth Howard (c.1583 – 17 April 1658) who m. 1) William Knollys, 1st Earl of Banbury and had issue; 2) in June 1632 Edward Vaux, 4th Baron Vaux of Harrowden (some say that Elizabeth's and William's children were illegitimate and in fact the children of her second husband)
Frances Howard (31 May 1590 – 1632) who m. 1) Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of Essex (1591–1646); 2) Robert Carr, 1st Earl of Somerset had issue
However, Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of Essex, was still a mere child of 12 at the time of the Queen's death in 1603. Furthermore, his father and namesake Robert Devereux, the 2nd Earl of Essex, had led an unsuccessful rebellion against Queen Elizabeth I in 1601 and had been subsequently executed for treason. This cost the family the earldom, and the earldom was not restored to his disinherited son until the ascension of King James I Stuart after the death of Queen Elizabeth I.
As previously noted, he also shared much of his life, at Chartley and Drayton Bassett, with the elderly Lettice Knollys, Countess of Leicester, the detested rival of Elizabeth I Tudor. In spite of the fact that the man they had both loved had been buried for 15 years at the point when she herself passed away there is no sign that Elizabeth I ever forgave Lettice Knollys.
It is therefore supremely unlikely that Queen Elizabeth I would at any point have gifted him any portraits.
Besides, Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of Essex's marriage to Frances Howard was dissolved under the most scandalous circumstances possible, after only a few years. He was married at age 13 to the 14-year-old Frances Howard; before being sent on a European tour from 1607 to 1609, apparently without having consummated the marriage. The marriage was primarily a political union; they were separated after the wedding to prevent them from having intercourse, with the view that premature sex and pregnancy was to be avoided. Essex's European tour from 1607 to 1609 was probably specifically designed by their elders to prevent a consummation of the marriage.
Little did they know how well they would succeed.
Meanwhile, his wife began an affair with Robert Carr, Viscount Rochester, a favourite of King James I.
When Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of Essex, returned from his tour, Frances made every effort to avoid him. He was at the time seriously ill with smallpox, but she had also fallen in love with another.
After Essex's return, Frances sought an annulment on the grounds of impotence. Essex claimed that he was only impotent with her and had been perfectly capable with other women, adding that she "reviled him, and miscalled him, terming him a cow and coward, and beast."
The divorce was a public spectacle and it made Essex a laughing-stock at court.
The annulment was granted on the 25th of September 1613, and Frances Howard married her lover, who had been made 1st Earl of Somerset, on the 26th of December 1613.
This makes it extremely unlikely that a lover's gift of portraits of the old King was ever exchanged, unless it was a part of an exchange of what Robert Devereux wished that he could do to his fair bride. (He would later sit as a juror in the trial of his former wife when she and her new husband were involved in a murder scandal and pressed the King to send her to the scaffold.)
However, the marriage of Theophilus Howard's sister Elizabeth to William Knollys, 1st Earl of Banbury, shows more promise as regards our miniatures.
Could all four miniatures have been a gift to Theophilus from his sister Elizabeth, the widow of William Knollys?
William Knollys, 1st Earl of Banbury (1544 – 25 May 1632) was an English nobleman at the court of Queen Elizabeth I and later at the court of King James.
He would thus have been well known to Queen Elizabeth I. As the son of Catherine Carey and Sir Francis Knollys he would also have been the Queen's first cousin once removed and possibly her nephew if Henry VIII was indeed Catherine Carey's biological father.
He would therefore have been well placed to receive a gift of great sentimental value from the dying Queen Elizabeth I.
Who receives what of prized heirlooms will always be a matter of chance, interest and opportunity.
If Elizabeth wished to leave miniatures that were precious to her to someone in her Boleyn connection in the hope that they would be precious to them too, there were still many candidates. Sir Robert Knollys (1547–1626), Elizabeth Knollys, Lady Leighton (1549–c.1605), Sir Francis Knollys "the Younger" (c.1552–1643), Anne Knollys, Lady De La Warr (1555–1608) and Katherine Knollys, Lady Offaly (1559–1620) were all still alive of the children of Catherine Carey and Sir Francis Knollys and on reasonably good terms with the Queen. Many of them had been at court with her for years.
The miniatures could just as easily have passed to Dorothy Devereux, as I suggested earlier.
That being said, there are some things that might have made William Knollys particularly interesting to the Queen in this regard. With the exception of Lettice Knollys, Countess of Essex and of Leicester (1543–1634) (who the Queen hated like poison), William Knollys was the oldest surviving child of Catherine Carey and Francis Knollys.
In 1603, William Knollys was childless, like Elizabeth, and he was in love with someone he couldn't have, like Elizabeth.
Four miniatures, two of her father and his possible grandfather, one of her mother and his aunt.
Five. If Catherine Carey really were Henry VIII's daughter, that would have meant that Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Somerset and Richmond, was her half-brother too, and William Knollys the duke's nephew.
There were born two children in the marriage of Elizabeth Howard and William Knollys, but these were widespread presumed to be the children of Elizabeth's lover, Edward Vaux.
The children did not even take the Knollys name and were not even mentioned in the will of William Knollys.
There would therefore be little reason for Elizabeth and her two sons to keep the miniatures for sentimental reasons.
Within five weeks of her first husband's death, in June 1532, Elizabeth married her lover, Edward Vaux, 4th Baron Vaux of Harrowden, the likely father of her two children.
It is interesting to note that William Knollys, 1st Earl of Banbury, died in 1632, while Theophilus Howard, 2nd Earl of Suffolk, his brother-in-law, presented the two miniatures in the Royal Collection to Charles I c.1639.
Elizabeth Howard was the eldest daughter of Thomas Howard, 1st Earl of Suffolk (1561–1626) and Katherine Knyvett (c.1564–1638). At eighteen, she was courted by sixteen-year-old Edward, 4th baron Vaux of Harrowden (13 September 1588 – 8 September 1661) and plans were underway for them to marry. These had fallen through by 14 July 1605, when Edward was granted a license to travel abroad for three years. On 12 August 1605, when King James paid a visit to Harrowden Hall, Vaux’s mother tried to revive the suit, but the suspicion that she had foreknowledge of the Gunpowder Plot in November put an end to any hope of the match. On 2 December 1605, less than two months after the death of his first wife, Dorothy Bray, Elizabeth married William Knollys, Baron Knollys of Greys (c.1545–1632), who was created Viscount Wallingford in 1616 and earl of Banbury in 1626. In 1613, they entertained Anne of Denmark at Caversham Park, Oxfordshire. The entertainment included a masque by Thomas Campion. Elizabeth was a staunch Catholic with a domineering personality. In 1618, her parents were accused of embezzlement and later her sister Frances was charged with the murder of Thomas Overbury. After Frances and her husband were released from the Tower of London in 1622, they were confined for a time at Caversham Park by order of King James. Later, Frances was a frequent visitor to both Caversham Park and Rotherfield Greys. Elizabeth had two sons, Edward (10 April 1627 – 1645) and Nicholas (3 January 1631 – 14 March 1674). Some genealogies list an unnamed daughter (1606–1610). Both boys were born at Harrowden Hall, Northamptonshire. According to Godfrey Anstruther in Vaux of Harrowden, who dates the marriage to Knollys as 19 January 1606, Knollys was unaware of the birth of either boy until well after each confinement. Before the birth of her sons, Elizabeth began an affair with Edward Vaux, her first love. Less than five weeks after Knollys died, Elizabeth married Vaux. She was buried at Dorking, Surrey. Portrait: attributed to Daniel Mytens, c.1618-20. Elizabeth Howard – A Who's Who of Tudor Women
Elizabeth Howard (1586–1658), Countess of Banbury by Daniel Mytens
25 May 1632 – Death of William Knollys
By about 1639 – Theophilus Howard presents the two miniatures of Henry VIII to Charles I
Around 1636–1642 – George Stewart, 9th Seigneur d'Aubigny, Theophilus Howard's son-in-law, gifts the miniature of Henry Fitzroy to Charles I
1600's–1700's – The Royal Ontario miniature of Anne Boleyn, the lady in 1520's garb with an inscription, the de Wet miniature, and the miniatures of Katherine Parr and Thomas Seymour are in the possession of Charles Seymour, 6th Duke of Somerset (1662–1748), who is married to a direct descendant of Theophilus Howard, and subsequently, their descendents the Dukes of Buckingham at Stowe
1817 – The miniature of Katherine Parr (then called Lady Jane Grey), the Royal Ontario Miniature (then called Jane Seymour), the miniature of Thomas Seymour and the de Wet miniature possibly of Thomas Boleyn (then called the Protector [Edward Seymour], Duke of Somerset) are all registered at Stowe and as given to Elizabeth Wyndham, Mrs. Grenville (1719 – 5 December 1769) by her grandfather Charles Seymour, 6th Duke of Somerset
There is also one alternative trajectory the miniatures could have taken to Theophilus Howard.
His mother Katherine Knyvett, Countess of Suffolk (1564–1638) «gained a place in Queen Elizabeth's bedchamber and the title of Keeper of the Jewels in 1599. This honour went further as she was also granted authority over the lodgings where Queen Anne gave birth to the princess. In fact, she was in such a position of high esteem within the court, she would have been given the honour of godmother to Princess Sophia born of Queen Anne if the child had not perished. She danced in two of the queen's masques, one of which was written by Ben Jonson, titled The Masque of Blackness. King James wanted the actors to look African so the actors painted their faces black. In 1611, the poet Emilia Lanier chose to dedicate her poem Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum to her.
Howard strived with some success to gain rank in court but proved to be corrupt. She served as a liaison between Spain and Salisbury, and demanded bribes for doing so. Sir Thomas Howard was appointed Lord Treasurer, which allowed her more opportunity for financial gain. Howard was known to be very beautiful in her younger years, and during her time at court had many suitors and a string of alleged love affairs, using the position her husband achieved in the government to extort kickbacks from her lovers. However, in 1619, at the age of 55, she was the victim of an attack of smallpox "which spoiled that good face of hers, which had brought to other much misery and to herself greatness which ended with much unhappiness." Many of the details of her corruption came out in the Suffolk's trial in the same year, where Sir John Finet alleged "to be spared a bond of £500, a citizen gave £83 and a sable muff to the countess".
The Countess was ultimately caught and, as a result of her treachery, she and her family were banned from court. Peers generally sympathised with Sir Thomas for being caught in her web of corruption, and she endured the brunt of the blame for the Howards' fall from grace. After being expelled from court, she continued to write letters on behalf of others seeking court positions.» Katherine Knyvett – The History Jar
She does not seem to have been a woman unduly bothered by moral scruples.
As Queen Elizabeth I's Keeper of the Jewels at the time of the Queen's death in 1603, she probably had access to Queen Elizabeth I's collection of miniatures (which we know that she had, whether 'our' miniatures were among them or not), even if Queen Elizabeth I's miniatures were not kept among the jewellery itself, which it is exceedingly likely that it *was*. Miniatures were considered jewellery, and particularly women's jewellery in this period.
It is not without the realm of reason to imagine that such a woman would have used the opportunity of the confusion between Elizabeth I's death and the arrival of James I to help herself to some valuables she assumed would not be missed.
Katherine Knyvett's death in 1638 fits just as well with the miniatures' appearance in history as William Knollys's death in 1632.
Katherine Knyvett, Countess of Suffolk
Sir George Carew (c.1504 – 19 July 1545)
This is a posthumous oil painting of George Carew, an English admiral who died when the ''Mary Rose'' sank on the 19th of July 1545.
One is the exquisite Beaufort Miniature, which I believe is of the same lady as in the Yale Miniature. Please see our page The Yale Miniature.
However, that was not all. I also thought that there was something familiar about the features of the lady in the miniature portrait of an unknown lady once called Lady Frances Grey. To my surprise, I realised that the features I recognised in the little miniature belongs to the lady in the Fitzwilliam Portrait.
I have for a time now entertained the thought that this portrait, the Fitzwilliam Portrait, might be Frances Brandon. It was therefore a surprise to see that this little miniature which I believe is of the same woman had at one time been known as Frances Brandon. Could I be on the right track? I do think I detect some likeness with the sketch purportedly of her sister, Eleanor Brandon, (though others did not perceive this similarity), the sketch of her mother, Mary Tudor, Queen of France, and she has the Tudor red hair. It would of course also explain the similarity with her cousin Queen Mary I, with whom the portrait has long been associated with and the sitter identified as.
The possible 'D' on her girdle prayer book would then of course stand for 'Dorset'. Frances was known as the Marchioness of Dorset until late 1551 when her husband was created Duke of Suffolk and she became Duchess of Suffolk.
Frances would certainly have been in possession of enough finery to be the lady in the Fitzwilliam Portrait.
I have ultimately decided against this theory, though. Her collar dates to a later time than 1551, and she should thus have been portrayed with an 'S' for Suffolk, if anything. Of course, it could have been an old girdle prayer book (they were costly things) in a new portrait, but considering how obsessed people in this period were with status and their symbols, I hold this to be unlikely.
Also, I do not know how much of her finery Frances was in possession of after the events of 1554.
I have however found one candidate whose known facts about her life line up perfectly with what little we know of the lady in the Fitzwilliam Portrait.
KATHERINE BRYDGES (c.1524-April 1566)
Katherine Brydges was the daughter of John Brydges, 1st baron Chandos (March 9, 1491/2-April 13, 1557) and Elizabeth Grey (d. December 29, 1559). She was a gentlewoman of the privy chamber to Queen Mary. In early 1556, she married Edward Sutton, baron Dudley (d. July 9, 1586) and soon after found herself being questioned about her brother-in-law, Sir Henry Dudley, the conspirator. Her husband was imprisoned for debt in June 1558, by which time Catherine had given birth to their only child, Anne (c.1554-November 28, 1605). Lady Dudley was buried on April 25, 1566 in St. Edmund’s Chapel, Dudley.
The possible 'D' would then stand for Dudley, as Katherine Brydges would have been properly styled 'Lady Dudley' after her marriage. She was married in 1556, at the age of 32, which could fit with the age of the lady in the Fitzwilliam Portrait and the painting being a 'marriage portrait.' She was a gentlewoman of the privy chamber to Queen Mary, and thus at court and accessible to Levina Teerlinc.
«Showing Mary as princess, this may be the earliest surviving English portrait miniature. The inscription painted on her bodice, meaning 'The Emperor', probably refers to Mary's engagement to the Emperor Charles V between 1521 and 1525.» Purchased 1999. National Portrait Gallery | NPG 6453
'Charles V was Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, ruler of all the Habsburg domains. This miniature is a version of an oil painting (in the British Royal Collection) made in the studio of Bernart van Orley. King Henry VIII was married to the Emperor's aunt, Katherine of Aragon, and the Emperor probably sent the oil portrait as a gift to the Tudor court. Lucas Horenbout (also known as Hornebolte) made other reduced copies of oil portraits'
'On the basis of costume and the sitter's age, this miniature dates from the reign of Mary I (1553-1558), who Lady Jane Grey had unsuccessfully tried to usurp. Katherine would have been about 15 to 20 years old. Levina Teerlinc’s portrait composition is based on the formula of Hans Eworth, with the sitter painted to the waist with hands clasped together. Levina was the daughter of Simon Benninck, a famous member of the Ghent-Bruges school of illuminators. She was part of the royal household, a gentlewoman to both Mary I and Elizabeth I.'
Portrait miniature of Lady Katherine Grey and her son
'This miniature was described when in the collection of Charles I by his Surveyor of Pictures, Abraham van der Doort: 'done upon the right light in a white Ivory Box wthout a Christall a Certaine Ladies Picture in her haire a gold bone lace little ruff. and black habbitt lined with white furr wth goulden Tissue sleeves wth one hand over another supposed to have bin - Queene Elizabeth before shee came to the Crowne' and, in the margin, 'don by an unknowne hand. Supposed to be don for Queen Eliz: before she came to the Crowne'. The image can be confirmed as Elizabeth I with reference to another in the Royal Collection (420944) which clearly shows the same sitter. Both miniatures have recently been included by Graham Reynolds within a group of nine works which have been ascribed to the miniaturist Nicholas Hilliard and dated to the 1560s, the first decade of his long career.'
Elizabeth I ascended to the throne in 1558. If the picture was done before then, Nicholas Hilliard (c.1547-1619) would at the most have been eleven years old.
Even allowing for that the original supposition was incorrect and this was painted after her reign had begun, it must have been painted very early into it, probably closer to 1560 than 1565.
The description of its corresponding miniature in the Royal Collection, through dating that one more tentatively to 1560-5, acknowledges this.
'Inscription Content: Inscribed on the back in pre-Civil war hand La: Mary Sydney'
'Strong, Sir Roy, "The Leicester House miniatures: Robert Sidney, 1st Earl of Leicester and his circle", Burlington Magazine CXXVII, October 1988, p. 698, Cat. No. II, fig. 46. The following in an excerpt from a valuation report made by Christie's of the estate of the late Rt. Hon. Viscount Harcourt, K. C. M. G., O. B. E.
"The attribution to Teerlinc can only be tentative as little evidence has emerged to draw any substantiative facts. It is known that she painted a number of small paintings from the lists of the New Year gifts to the Queen, the attribution of a group of 14 miniatures is based on the 'Elizabethan Maundy' at Madresfield Court (Auberach, 1961, p.53). In a comparison to this miniature and that of Katherine Grey, Countess of Hertford, which is generally accepted as being part of the group, not only is the formal and composition similar, but there is the same thin application of colour, red rosebud lips and thin twiggy arms. it is possible, therefore, to add this miniature to the other small group painted at the time and bearing similar characteristics, which are all attributed to Teerlinc. The dress suggests a date of ca. 1570s as Teerlinc died in 157, it is probably one of the artist's last works. Lady Sidney (d. 1586) was the wife of Henry Sidney and mother of Robert Sidney, she nursed the Queen through smallpox, and it is therefore quite possible that she was granted the privilege of having her portrait executed by Teerlic. The miniature is extremely interesting in that it is the only example of this important sitter, and one of the last works of the artist." '
The two miniatures in the Royal Collection, RCIN 420987 and RCIN 420944, are no longer attributed to Hilliard.
 British miniature painters and their works(1898), by Joshua James Foster, p. VII.Title page and three photographs of miniatures, among those that of lady Guildford, identified as «Katharine of Arragon. Holbein (?) Magniac Collection»
 «One miniature, belonging to the collector Hollingworth Magniac, was catalogued as by Hans Holbein of Henry VIII's first wife, Katharine of Aragon. It is still in its 'Magniac frame' of blue, black and white enamel. Bequeathed to the V&A in 1941 as part of a larger collection, it was correctly identified as a copy of Holbein's oil painting of Mary, Lady Guildford, now in the Saint Louis Art Museum, USA. Magniac and the exhibition curators, however, had not been deceived by one of the many 19th century 'fakes' that were appearing on the market as recent examination of its materials and techniques suggest this copy was painted in the early 17th-century.» Portrait Miniatures at the V&A – The Victoria and Albert Museum
Picture taken by Lisby of portrait of Mary Boleyn located at Warwick Castle, Warwickshire, England in June 2011.
Gabrielle de Rochechouart by Corneille de Lyon, circa 1574, oil on wood, 16.5 x 14 cm (6.5 x 5.5 in), Musée Condé, Chantilly, France. Gabrielle was the second wife of Louis de Lansac (d.1589), bastard son of Francis I of France by his mistress Jacquette de Lansac. Following Gabrielle’s marriage in 1565, she served as a lady-in-waiting to the Queen Mother, the indomitable Catherine d' Médici. See J. Massiet du Biest, Inventaire Sommaire Archives Départementales Antérieures à 1790, Série E: Famille(Tours: Gibert-Clarey, 1955), 204.
The two top miniatures actually does look as if they could have been drawn by the same artist. like a skin-coloured crayon in a child's colouring box.
Queen Elizabeth I Tudor would have been supremely unlikely to have ordered a miniature of Amy Robsart Dudley, whose life and then mysterious death prevented a marriage between the Queen and her favourite Robert Dudley.
'Portrait miniatures first appeared in the 1520s, at the French and English courts. Like medals, they were portable, but they also had realistic colour. The earliest examples were painted by two Netherlandish miniaturists, Jean Clouet working in France and Lucas Horenbout in England.
Miniatures were particularly useful to the monarchy. They were small enough to be given personally, sometimes in a public ceremony, as a sign of the monarch's favour. But since a miniature could be presented unframed, the person receiving it often had the expense of providing a suitable locket.'