The French Hood on Continental Ladies
The French Hood on English Ladies
... And Scottish Ladies
Margaret Wyatt, Lady Lee (detail)
Agniete van den Rijne
First half of 16th century
Joos van Cleve
 Margaret Tudor, Queen of Scotland (1489-1541) by Daniel Mytens (c. 1590-1647), c. 1620-38, Oil on canvas | 238.8 x 141.3 cm (support, canvas/panel/str external) – The Royal Collection | RCIN 401181 (detail) – «The source was presumably a portrait of the Queen (now lost). [...] Inscribed on the contemporary cartellino: Margarita, vxor. Jacobi quarti. / regis Scotorum, filia henrici / Septimi Anglorum Regis. / aetatis suae 26. (The last line is smaller and paler script.)»
 The Wedding Portrait of Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk and Mary 'Rose' Tudor, Queen of France (detail)
 The Wedding Portrait of Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk and Mary 'Rose' Tudor, Queen of France (detail)
 I have dated this to 1527–1532, earlier than the National Portrait Gallery does, as I believe that this portrait (or rather the original it was based on) was painted before Anne's time as Queen (but after she caught Henry VIII's interest) – Anne Boleyn by Unknown English artist, Late 16th century, based on a work of c. 1533-1536, Oil on panel | 21 3/8 in. x 16 3/8 in. (543 mm x 416 mm) – National Portrait | NPG 668 (detail)
 I have dated this to 1532–1535, earlier than the Royal Collection does, as I believe that this sketch was drawn before Jane Seymour's time as Queen, while Anne and French hoods were in Vogue. See also our Consort Necklace page – Mary, Lady Monteagle (1510-before 1544) by Hans Holbein the Younger (1497/8-1543), c.1538-40 Black and coloured chalks, pen and ink, and brush and ink on pink prepared paper | 29.7 x 20.0 cm (sheet of paper) – The Royal Collection | RCIN 912223
 This sketch is usually identified as either Mary Zouch or Anne Gainsford. Neither of these identifications have ever made sense to me. The fashion is all wrong for the time either Mary Zouch or Anne Gainsford would have been favoured ladies-in-waiting. The fashion is more Katherine Howard than Jane Seymour or Anne Boleyn. Jane Seymour forbade the French fashions made so popular by Anne Boleyn. It seems strange that her favoured lady-in-waiting Mary Zouch would have chosen to flout this restriction. The type of French hood is virtually identical to the one worn by the lady Parker in the sketch below, and which can reliably be dated to 1540-1543 based on the partlet (and Holbein's year of death). These two sketches are the only ones I have ever seen featuring this particular version of the French hood. This is too late for Anne Boleyn's stint as Queen and her favourite lady-in-waiting Anne Gainsford. Furthermore, this is clearly a picture of a very young girl. Both Mary Zouche and Anne Gainsborough would have been around 30 in the 1540's when this sketch was drawn. Elizabeth Stanley, Mary Monteagle's daughter, married Richard Zouche, and would therefore have been properly known as Mistress Zouche at the time when John Cheke was tutor to Edward VI and identified these sketches. Mary Zouche would have been known to John Cheke as «Mistress Burbage», and Anne Gainsford would have been known to him as «Lady Zouche», respectively. Mary Brandon, the daughter of Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, married Thomas Stanley, 2nd Baron Monteagle, some time between 1524 and 1529. It looks as if Elizabeth was their eldest daughter. This means that she could very well have been in her mid-teens in the early 1540's when this sketch was drawn. Furthermore, we know that her grandfather, Charles Brandon, had portraits of his wife and two sons painted in 1541. Why not one of his granddaughter too? Especially if she was on the verge of marrying, as her age and the flower in her hand seemed to indicate. A pink or gillyflower or carnation is often seen held in the hand of a newly engaged bride or groom in Tudor portraiture. See also our The Greys page and our M Souch page – Mary Zouch (?) by Hans Holbein the Younger (1497/8-1543), c.1532-43 Black and coloured chalks, and pen and ink on pale pink prepared paper | 29.6 x 21.2 cm (sheet of paper) – The Royal Collection | RCIN 912252
 Grace, Lady Parker (1515- by 1549) by Hans Holbein the Younger (1497/8-1543), c.1540-43, Black and coloured chalks on pale pink prepared paper | 29.8 x 20.8 cm (sheet of paper) – The Royal Collection | RCIN 912230. From Wikipedia: «The identity of the sitter, inscribed merely as "The Lady Parker", has caused confusion among scholars and is not certain. Jane Parker, Lady Rochford, who played a part in the tragedies of Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, was ruled out by art historian K. T. Parker in his study of the Windsor drawings. He concluded that the sitter was the first or second wife of Sir Henry Parker, heir to Henry, Lord Morley, whom he predeceased in 1553. (Parker was certain she was not Lord Morley's wife, Alice.) Sir Henry Parker's first wife was Grace Parker and his second Elizabeth Parker, He married the latter in 1549, after Holbein had died, but the inscription also postdates Holbein and Holbein may just possibly have drawn her before she was married. Grace Parker is the more likely subject, if the inscription is reliable.» Sir Henry Parker (by 1514 – 6 January 1552), of Morley Hall, Hingham, Norfolk and Furneux Pelham, Hertfordshire, was an English politician. He was the son of Henry Parker, 10th Baron Morley and was the brother of Jane Boleyn née Parker, and thus the brother-in-law of George Boleyn when Anne Boleyn was Queen. He married twice: firstly Grace, the daughter and heiress of John Newport of Furneux Pelham, having at least 2 sons and a daughter, including Henry Parker, 11th Baron Morley. Secondly he married Elizabeth, the daughter and heiress of Sir Philip Calthrope of Erwarton, Suffolk, having at least 1 son who predeceased him. Nina Green gives her the following biography: «Grace Newport (c.1515–c.1549), who on 18 May 1523 married Sir Henry Parker (by 1514 – 1552), by whom she had at least two sons and a daughter.» She is mentioned in the will of her grandmother, PROB 11/21/102, the Prerogative Court of Canterbury copy of the will, dated 20 July 1520 and proved 24 April 1523, of Margery Danyell, whose husband, John Danyell of Felsted, Essex, was in the service of John de Vere (1442–1513), 13th Earl of Oxford.
GRACE NEWPORT (1515 – c.1549)
Grace Newport was the daughter of John Newport of Furneux Pelham, Hertfordshire (1497 – June 1522 or 26 May 1523) and Mary Daniel. On 18 May 1523, at the age of eight, she married Henry Parker (c.1513 – 6 January 1552). Their children were Henry, 9th baron Morley (January 1533 – 22 October 1577), Charles (b. 28 January 1537), Edmund, Mary (c.1539 – 7 November 1544), Margaret, and Ann (or Amy) (d. October 1571). According to Alison Weir’s Henry VIII: The King and His Court, Grace was one of Anne Boleyn’s ladies in waiting in 1533 and later. Portrait: Grace is generally accepted to be the subject of the Holbein drawing inscribed “The Lady Parker.” Grace Newport – A Who's Who of Tudor Women
ELIZABETH CALTHORPE (1521 – 26 May 1578)
Elizabeth Calthorpe was the daughter and heir of Sir Philip Calthorpe of Erwarton, Suffolk (1480 – 17 April 1549) and Amata Boleyn (c.1485–1543+). In 1548 she married Sir Henry Parker of Morley, Norfolk (c.1513 – 6 January 1552), by whom she had a son, Sir Philip (d.1604), who inherited the manor of Erwarton from her. The manor of Hingham, Norfolk was settled upon her as her jointure. On 16 November 1552, by a settlement dated 11 November 1552, she married Sir William Woodhouse of Waxham, Suffolk and Hickling, Norfolk (1517 – 22 November 1564). They had two sons and two daughters, including Thomas, William, and Elizabeth (1553 – 24 December 1590). Woodhouse had settled most of his estate on Elizabeth before he made his will and in it left her all his lands not otherwise disposed of and made her his executrix. Her third husband, married in 1564, was Dru Drury (1531–1617), younger son of a Buckinghamshire family. He acquired Riddlesworth and Lynstead, Norfolk through Elizabeth. They had no children. Elizabeth was buried in a magnificent chest tomb in the north chancel aisle of St. Martin at Palace Church, Norwich. Unfortunately, it does not feature an effigy or portrait brass. Elizabeth Calthorpe – A Who's Who of Tudor Women
 I have dated this to 1540–1543, a narrower time period than the Royal Collection does, based on the partlet, which is practically identical to that worn by the Lady Parker (shown above). On the basis of this partlet, the Royal Collection dates the sketch of the Lady Parker to 1540–1543. It therefore seems logical that this partlet also dates to 1540–1543, and consequently the sketch also. The sketch has traditionally been associated with Katherine Howard, but this association has long been discontinued. I have however come to believe that it may be Henry VIII's fifth Queen after all. Please see our Katherine Howard page – An unidentified woman c.1532-43 by Hans Holbein the Younger (1497/8-1543), Black and coloured chalks, and metalpoint on pale pink prepared paper | 27.7 x 19.7 cm (sheet of paper) – The Royal Collection | RCIN 912218
 I have dated this to 1540–1541, a narrower time period than the Metropolitan Museum of Art does, based on my belief that this is in fact Katherine Howard, and it must therefore have been painted prior to her fall from grace in November 1541. To the best of my knowledge, it was Conor Byrne who brought this painting to the attention of the general population as a possible portrait of Katherine Howard, and deserves the credit for popularising it as an image of Katherine Howard through the use of this portrait on the front cover of his book, Katherine Howard: A New History, though several other historians have also suggested this or support this theory. I am inclined to agree. See our Katherine Howard page. Katherine Howard – Portrait of a Young Woman ca. 1540–45, Workshop of Hans Holbein the Younger – The Metropolitan Museum of Art | 49.7.30
 I have dated this to 1540–1543, a narrower time period than the Royal Collection does, based on the type of sleeves, which firmly dates the sketch to 1540–1543, the only time when both those sleeves would have been modern and Holbein would have been alive. Which is also the exact time of Katherine Howard's rise to prominence and queenship. The lady is even wearing what appears to be the consort necklace around her throat, only with six pearl clusters alternating with the precious stones set in quatrefoils instead of the four pearl clusters or the two pearl clusters we have seen previously. The billiments on her French hood are certainly fine enough to be those of a Queen. See our Katherine Howard page. Katherine Howard – An unidentified woman by Hans Holbein the Younger (1497/8-1543), c.1532-43, Black and coloured chalks, pen and ink, and brush and ink on pale pink prepared paper | 28.9 x 21.0 cm (sheet of paper) – The Royal Collection | RCIN 912253
 Frances Murfyn, Lady Cromwell, whose direct descendants owned this portrait, had been dismissed as the sitter based on the erroneous belief that she died in 1533 and had been of an age to be married in about 1518. Newer research with access to more primary sources reveal that Frances lived until at least June 1542, when she is mentioned in a grant, and that is was Frances's parents who had been married about 1518, in 1519, not Frances herself. She had been born by the 2nd September of 1523, when her father, Thomas Murfyn, wrote his will, and she was married to Sir Richard Cromwell by the 8th of March 1534. This puts her not only as alive when these fashions would have been perfectly fashionable, but at presicely the right age to be the lady of 20 oe 21 years of age in the portrait. (ETATIS SVÆ 21 means 21 years of age. However, Holbein actually appears to use Anno Ætatis Svæ in several paintings and simply Anno Ætatis in several others, which is not proper Latin, making it unclear if he understood the literal meaning of the words. J. Stephan Edwards concludes: “Whether he understood "Aetatis Suae/His Age" to mean years from birth or ordinal year (i.e.: a newborn is in Year One and therefore "his age" is One) is unclear. In order to clarify that distinction, it would be necessary to research those sitters for whom a precise date of birth is known and then to determine precisely what time of year the sitter sat for the painting. The first data point is difficult but not impossible. The second is all but impossible. I am not aware that any artist or sitter of the 16th century documented the date(s) on which they sat for a portrait. I would therefore interpret Holbein inscriptions using "Aetatis Suae" as equivalent to the modern expression of age, plus or minus one.” I would therefore interpret Holbein inscriptions using "Aetatis Suae" as equivalent to the modern expression of age, plus or minus one.”) Painted between between the 27th of December 1539 when Anne of Cleves arrived in England and introduced this type of sleeves to that country and the 25th of March 1540 when the new year commenced for the Tudors, re: the inscription 1539 on the portrait of her husband, Sir Richard Cromwell. In Tudor times in England the calendar year started from Lady Day (25 March), thus, to them, it would still have been 1539 until that date, three months into what for us would have been the new year 1540. The paintings were probably painted to be a portrait set, like the Guildfords. See Sir Richard Cromwell: A King’s Diamond by Teri Fitzgerald for the identification of that portrait. For my identification of this portrait as Frances Murfyn, Lady Cromwell, his wife, see our The Toledo Portrait page – Portrait of a Lady, probably a Member of the Cromwell Family by Hans Holbein the Younger (German, 1497/98-1543), c. 1535-1540, Oil on wood panel | 28 3/8 x 19 1/2 in. (72 x 49.5 cm) – Toledo Museum of Art | 1926.57
 Katherine Willoughby, Duchess of Suffolk by Hans Holbein the Younger, c. 1541 – Grimsthorpe Castle
 Portrait of a member of the English court inscribed and dated to 1546. This was once asserted to be Mary Tudor, Henry VIII's eldest daughter and later Mary I of England. Owned by the Viscount De L'Isle in a private collection.
 Lady Jane Grey – The Duckett Portrait. For my identification of this portrait as Lady Jane Grey, see our Lady Jane Grey page and our the Anglesey Abbey Portrait page.
 Lady Jane Grey – The Grimsthorpe Portrait (detail). For my identification of this portrait as Lady Jane Grey, see our Lady Jane Grey page and our the Anglesey Abbey Portrait page.
 This portrait must be the one J. Stephan Edwards describes in A Queen of a New Invention, p.114-115 as «2 Queen Mary I, Hans Eworth, 1557, oil on wood panel, 8 x 6 1/2 in., private collection.» I have taken my dating of 1557 from there. Otherwise the portrait he mentions must be this portrait, which is almost (but not quite) identical. Mary is dressed in the same outfit, however, and this portrait, too, is dated to 1557. This excellent overview over the portraits of Hans Eworth has this portrait as being 8 x 6 ½ inches, while the one that we only have a black and white photograph of as being 9 ⅞ x 7 ½ inches, so it appears to be this portrait J. Stephan Edwards meant. The overview dates both portraits to 1557. Mary I Tudor – Mary I by Hans Eworth, Oil on panel | 22 x 17.3 cm. (8⅝ x 6¾ in.) – Dickinson Private Advisors & Fine Art Dealers
 I have dated this painting to 1572 based on the collar. It is identical to the one worn by Walter Devereux (1539–1576), 1st Earl of Essex in a portrait inscribed 1572, now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. For my identification of the sitter as Dorothy Petre Wadham see our For Reference page and our The Pagets page. The Royal Collection points to another portrait which appears to represent the same woman at Petworth, with another version of the portrait at Petworth belonging to the Duke of Sutherland. The copy owned by the Duke of Sutherland was sold by Christie's in 1972. It is inscribed with the date 1560 and the sitter's age, 24, meaning that she was born in either 1535 or 1536. This precludes Frances Brandon, whom the portrait in the Royal Collection has often been associated with. She was born in 1517. Petworth is the home of the Egremonts, and searching through their female ancestors, I came over Dorothy Petre Wadham. She is not a direct ancestress, as she and her husband did not have any children. However, the Egremonts are direct descendants of one of her husband's sisters, and were his eventual heirs. There is still another, fully authenticated portrait of her at Petworth, still belonging to the Egremonts. She had many portraits of herself painted, and we know, from these fully authenticated portraits that she was born in either 1534 or 1535. This matches precisely with the birth year of the sitter in the other portrait. Furthermore, there is a clear resemblance between the striking features of the lady in the portraits and the features of Dorothy Petre Wadham in her authenticated portraits. – Portrait of a Woman, c.1560, British School, 16th Century, Oil on panel | 48.9 x 36.4 cm (support, canvas/panel/str external) – The Royal Collection | RCIN 402655
07.12 | 21:47
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 .