A Girl, formerly thought to be Queen Elizabeth I as Princess, 1549, by Levina Teerlinc
Edward Seymour, Earl of Hertford and 1st Duke of Somerset (c. 1500 – 22 January 1552)
Edward Seymour, Earl of Hertford and 1st Duke of Somerset (c. 1500 – 22 January 1552)
«'Lady Elizabeth aged 17 Born 1532 Died 1602 by Holben' Inscribed on the back in a later hand
The girl in this miniature dated 1549 is also wearing a ruff, but a different kind to the girl in the possible Lady Jane Grey miniature.
I myself have entertained the idea that this miniature is another version of the Katherine Grey miniature in the V&A Museum, the one I believe was formerly in the Lumley Collection. To my surprise and joy the conservators at the V&A Museum (where both miniatures are currently located) also believed that the sitter in this miniature was a member of the Grey family, though perhaps not necessarily Katherine.
Sadly, the heavily overpainted nature of the miniature makes it difficult to make any assertions regarding fashion based on it. I would, however, believe that the coat is original, based on the similarity in technique to other coats painted by the same hand, but I am less certain about the ruff.
The ruff admittedly gave me pause. I was uncertain whether it could date from Lady Jane Grey's lifetime, and even more so if it could date from 1549 or from 1547–1548 when Lady Jane Grey lived with Katherine Parr. Henry VIII's last Queen was fond of children and portrait painting, and could easily have wished for a miniature to be painted of her husband's young ward.
All of her three royal step-children had their portraits painted in the time Katherine Parr was their step-mother.
Since Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset was executed in 1552, two years before Jane, the portrait must necessarily date to her lifetime.
The Greys and the Seymours also moved in the same circles, there has even been talk of there being plans to marry Jane to his eldest son.
Art historian Roy Strong has discounted the identification of this portrait as of Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset. On the other hand, he supports the portrait below as authentically him:
As we can see, this portrait features an identical ruff.
Furthermore, it looks as if Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey (1516/1517 – 19 January 1547) is sporting the same (or a very) ruff in the famous, fully authenticated portrait of him firmly dated to 1546 and attributed to William Scrots.
Sadly, becacuse of the size of the painting and the resolution of the photograph of it, it is impossible to say for completely certain, but the ruff does look identical or near to it.
Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey (1516/1517 – 19 January 1547)
Henry Howard Earl of Surrey, 1546, by Williams Scrots (detail)
Roundel portrait of a Lady of the court, late 1540s/ early 1550s
In the close-up you can see the ruff even better. Again, it is difficult to say for certain, due to size of the painting and the resolution of the photograph, but it does look similar.
It does look as if this particular ruff or collar may have been the fashion among the upper classes in the late 1540's, just when I speculate that Lady Jane Grey may have had a miniature painted of her whilst in the care of Queen Dowager Katherine Parr, which she may have presented as a gift to her goddaughter Temperance Cavendish, the daughter of family friend Bess of Hardwick, who we know was in possession of a portrait of Jane.
«Datable on the basis of costume to the late 1540s or early 1550s, this small portrait is a rare survival of a type known in Northern Europe as a kapsel portrait. The turned reverse of the present portrait and the rim still present on the obverse suggest that the work would have originally been hidden by a matching lid, now missing. The kapsel portrait functioned in a similar way to the portrait miniature or limning, still in its infancy as a portrait type in the mid-16th century when the present work would have been commissioned. Painted in oil on wood, kapsel portraits were portable and concealed behind a lid – they were therefore intimate objects in the same vein as the watercolour miniature.»
«The present portrait probably represents a lady of the court during the final years of the reign of Henry VIII. Her wealth is subtly declared through the biliments or hat jewels on her French hood, the gold aiglets piercing the austere black fabric on her shoulders and the heavy gold chain at her neck. Her pose and demeanour are close to the portraits of Queen consort Katherine Howard (circa 1518-1542) painted during the late 1530s. From the gold necklace at the sitter’s neck it might tentatively be suggested that she is in the employ of royal or noble household as a gentlewoman or lady in waiting, as such chains were a conventional gift, enabling monetary reward to be combined with a symbol of attachment.»
There is also the matter of the Grimsthorpe Portrait.
When I started researching the Anglesey Abbey Portrait, I did not expect to end up with the line that was in possession of the Grimsthorpe Portrait.
Two Classical landscapes with fishermen, shepherds and animals, by Elizabeth Chaplin & Sophia Chaplin
«Pen and grey ink and grey washes with wash line border, each 23.5 x 30.5cm. One signed ‘Sophia Chaplin J…’, the other signed and dated ‘Elizabeth Chaplin Feby ye: 4d/1775 Chaplin’. Lady Elizabeth Chaplin, née Cecil (1729-1813) was a daughter of Brownlow, 8th Earl of Exeter and his wife Hannah Sophia and a favourite sister of the 9th Earl. She married John Chaplin of Blankney, Lincs. in 1757. Sophia Chaplin was her husband’s niece.»
Elizabeth Chaplin was as the above intimates born Lady Elizabeth Cecil. She was the daughter of the 8th Earl of Exeter.
Sophia Chaplin was the Sophia Frances Chaplin Sutton Wright who was the first known owner of the Grimsthorpe Potrait.
Lady Elizabeth Chaplin, née Cecil (1729-1813)
Sir Richard Sutton 2nd Baronet (1799-1855), after a miniature by Cosway painted by his mother Sophia Frances Sutton, dated March 5th 1804
The intrepid pair may even have been the ones to 'improve' and 'repair' the face of the lady in the Grimsthorpe Portrait.
«Lady Elizabeth Cecil [was] a direct lineal descendant of the Cecil Earls of Exeter and of William Cecil, Lord Burghley. Through» this lineage, she was related «to the Dukes of Devonshire, the Dukes of Rutland, and the Earls of Salisbury. Each of those families had historical links to Jane Grey, so that any of them might have possessed a putative portrait of Jane. The painting may therefore have been a Chaplin family heirloom, thought it would have been rather unusual for it to have been alienated from the principal estates of the above-named families and to have passed instead into the female line represented by Sophia-Frances.» A Queen of a New Invention, by J. Stephan Edwards, p. 119
This puzzled me too. Until a possible reason for this conundrum practically fell into my lap while researching the Anglesey Abbey Portrait.
If one compares the layout of the Devonshire House ballroom, we see that this is not actually the first time we have seen this painting.
Unfortunately, it is absolutely impossible to make out any details from the drawing, not leading us any closer to determine if it is in fact the Anglesey Abbey Portrait itself.
It does however confirm that it was hanging there from at least 1850.
This is very interesting indeed.
We know that this was the 6th Duke of Devonshire's ballroom at Devonshire House, and that it was formed from two of the 2nd Duke's drawing rooms from William Kent's original design of the 1730's.
The 6th Duke of Devonshire was William Cavendish, 6th Duke of Devonshire (21 May 1790 – 18 January 1858). He ascended to the title in 1811. In fact, it was upon this occasion that we have one of the last observations of the painting that might have been Bess of Hardwick's portrait of Lady Jane Grey. A half-length which was said to be of «a Lady supposed to be Queen» was inventorised at Hardwick Hall in 1811.
As we see, it was a half-length portrait, perfectly in keeping with the Anglesey Abbey Portrait.
There is one more mention of the portrait of Lady Jane Grey at Hardwick Hall early in the nineteenth century, from an undated inventory in which it is listed as item number 22.
After that it disappears.
It is definitely not at Hardwick Hall in 1860, when Lady Louisa Cavendish Egerton compiled a catalogue of the pictures at Hardwick Hall.
Neither did it reappear in any subsequent cataloguing.
Timeline-wise it fits perfectly that the portrait was removed some time right after or around 1811 from Hardwick Hall by the new duke, only for the portrait to decorate his new ballroom.
It is an aestetically very pleasing picture, I think we can all agree on that.
The Althorp Portrait
The Madresfield Court Portrait
(For J. Stephan Edwards's assessment of the Althorp Portrait, see p. 130-135 of A Queen of a New Invention, for the Madresfield Court Portrait, see p. 136-139.)
The presence of a desk and a book in the Devonshire House Ballroom Edition of the Anglesey Abbey Portrait – if that is indeed what the white whatever-it-is on the left side of the lady is and that indeed is the Anglesey Abbey Portrait – has puzzled me.
They are not present in the miniature, nor in the present-day Anglesey Abbey Portrait, nor in the Ansty Hall Miniature Portrait, though there is something that looks like a desk or a small table in the Ansty Hall Miniature Portrait.
Then something occurred to me:
The Althorp Portrait «has been identified as Jane since at least the beginning of the eighteenth century. It enters the historical record through the Spencer ancestor Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough, a close confidant to Queen Anne and a devoted Whig supporter of the terms of the Act of Settlement of 1701. A paper label attached to the back of the panel and attributed by the Spencer family to the Duchess's own hand identifies the sitter as Jane Grey. The fifth Earl Spencer, a direct descendant of the Duchess, extended the longetivity of the identification to "as far back as the seventeenth century."»
J. Stephan Edwards believes that the Madresfield Court Portrait was probably rechristened as Lady Jane Grey about 1701.
These two, have over the years, been very popular representations of Lady Jane Grey.
We might actually here have an instance of an actual portrait of Lady Jane Grey being altered to be more alike paintings who were not of her.
Undoubtedly, all of these people moved in the same circles and knew each other and of each other's most precious works of art.
J. Stephan Edwards writes: «Madresfield Court has been owned by the Lygon family since the sixteenth century, but the family fortunes suffered to such an extent in the seventeenth century that a significant quantity of assets was sold to raise cash. It therefore seems more probable that the painting entered the Lygon collection early in the nineteenth century through an inheritance from the ancestors of Susannah Hanmer Lygon (d.1785), mother of the first Lygon Earl Beauchamp. The inheritance is said to have “transformed the family fortune ... and the collections of the house were enormously increased” as a result.
Susannah Lygon was one of several distant claimants to the estate of the immensely wealthy William “The Miser” Jennens (or Jennings) of Acton Place, Suffolk. Jennens was a godson of William III and was pro-Hanoverian and anti-Jacobite throughout his life, which spanned the whole of the eighteenth century. Jennens died unmarried, without legitimate issue, and intestate at the advanced age of 97 in 1798. The value of his estate, said at the time to have been greater than that of any other commoner in Great Britain, stimulated litigation on a massive scale filed by a multitude of claimants, both genuine and spurious. The descendants of Susannah Hanmer Lygon, Jennen’s niece at a remove of several generations, found themselves in possession of one third of the Jennens estate in the first decade of the nineteenth century.
The painting was probably rechristened as Jane Grey in the wake of the succession dispute resolved by the Act of Settlement of 1701, and that new identification made it appealing to Jennens. The rechristening was perhaps prompted in part by the presence in the lady’s hands, once again, of a book that could be read as emblematic of Jane’s perceived piety. Additionally, the veils worn by the sitter lend to the image an air of modesty and chastity, two virtues that began to be strongly associated with Jane early in the eighteenth century.» (A Queen of a New Invention by J. Stephan Edwards, p. 137-138)
The maiden name of Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough (1660–1744), was Jenyns, spelt Jennings in most modern references. She may have been a relation of William ‘The Miser’ Jennensor Jennings. Certainly his father Robert was aide-de-camp to John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, Sarah’s husband. There may therefore be some relation between the rechristening of both of these very similar portraits to ‘Lady Jane Grey’.
William ‘The Miser’ Jennens would have been 43 by the time Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough died. He would have almost certainly seen the Althorp Portrait hanging on her walls growing up.
This does, however, create a problem timeline-wise.
For the Ansty Hall Miniature to have been in the possession of Anne Cavendish, Countess of Exeter (c.1649–1704), or to have come into her possession in through her marriage in 1662 to Charles, Lord Rich, son of the 4th Earl of Warwick it seems as if the miniature must necessarily predate the popularity and identification as Lady Jane Grey of the other two portraits.
It has all along been my belief, without having anything concrete to back it up with, that the miniature dates to around 1610, after the initially secret marriage of Arbella Stuart to William Seymour, the grandnephew of Lady Jane Grey, prompted (as is my theory) Arbella's Cavendish relatives to cover up the Anglesey Abbey Portrait in a panic.
Timeline-wise, however, this presents a challenge if the miniature has a table/writing desk copied from the Althorp Portrait and the Madresfield Court Portrait – Portraits which would only be identified as Lady Jane Grey and gain popularity at a later time.
Certainly I believe that the Ansty Hall Miniature was in the possession of Lady Anne Cavendish when she married for the second time to John Cecil, later 5th Earl of Exeter in 1670.
After wracking my brain for a solution to this conundrum, the only thing I could think of was ... If the Devonshires changed the Anglesey Abbey Portrait to look more like the Althorp Portrait and the Madresfield Court Portrait, could the little miniature have been changed to look more like the Devonshire Portrait, that is to say, that what looks like a table/writing desk in the corner be a later addition?
I had trouble convincing even myself of this theory, but looking over the Ansty Hall Miniature, the paint is cracking and flaking precisely where the little table is, and only there, indicating that perhaps, indeed, it is a later addition to the picture.
What is revealed underneath the flaking paint could be wood, but it could also be parts of the lady's dark dress. It is impossible to say from the picture.
Portraits of Lady Jane Grey
«Most students of Tudor history are aware that Jane Grey Dudley died at barely seventeen years of age. As a result, there was little opportunity for production of a painted likeness. Portraiture of living persons was still a relatively new cultural phenomenon in England in the sixteenth century, though its popularity there was expanding very rapidly. But they were not often commissioned for sentimental reasons or in any effort to create a remembrance of a beloved relative. Paintings of quality usually cost significant sums of money and thus were largely limited instead to expressions of individual status within some larger social structure beyond the family. Portraits of men of the sixteenth century can often be shown to coincide with elevation to a new political office or title of nobility or to mark participation in some significant public event, such as a military battle. Women’s portraits can similarly often be associated with their marriage or their safe delivery of a male heir into the family. Women and children were seldom recognized as having individual status but were instead subsumed under that of their family. As an illustration of this, we might consider the scarcity of portraits of children from Tudor England. Very few portraits of individual children are known to have been produced, and few such portraits have survived. The exceptions are almost always minor children of the reigning monarch, such as Holbein’s portrait of the future Edward VI as an infant or William Scrot’s portrait of Princess Elizabeth from the 1540s. Since Jane was not the child of any reigning monarch, nor even the grandchild of one, we cannot today expect that any portrait of her would have been produced prior to her reaching the age of eligibility for marriage. For Jane, this did not occur until the winter or spring of 1552-1553, when she reached the age of sixteen. And while Jane may have been viewed at that time by her family and its allies as a potential bride for Edward VI, the king was instead negotiating for a match with Elizabeth of France. Jane did not become a serious candidate for marriage until May of 1553, when John Dudley began promoting her as a successor to the dying Edward. Further, it took some time for an artist to be selected, one or more sittings to occur, and the actual paint-work to be completed. The span between Jane’s marriage in May and her imprisonment in mid July was a very brief one crowded with other concerns that may well have left insufficient time to plan and to create a portrait of her. And it is perhaps noteworthy that every authentic portrait of Jane’s sisters Katherine and Mary actually post-date their own respective marriages by two or more years. There was precious little opportunity for any portrait of Jane to have been produced prior to July 1553, and probably no opportunity whatsoever thereafter.
Yet we have reliable documentation that at least one portrait of Queen Jane was produced before 1559 [...] at least two portraits of Jane did nonetheless survive, the first being the one owned by Bess of Hardwick in 1559 and the second documented in the collection of John Lumley, Baron Lumley in 1590.» Queen Jane, Where Are You? – Some Grey Matter
Bess of Hardwick
I too have found it odd, that 'so many' – paradoxically speaking, considering that we would like for there to be many more and how many purportedly of her have been shown to be of entirely other ladies – portraits of Lady Jane Grey were produced, precisely for the reasons outlined above. If we make the assumption that the Duckett painting was her 'wedding portrait', made sometime around or after her marriage to Lord Guildford Dudley in 1553, what then about the portrait owned by Bess of Hardwick?
Elizabethan Chatsworth, where the portrait of Lady Jane Grey hung
«Where male courtiers who could claim membership of the Order of the Garter almost uniformly chose the Lesser George to wear around their neck, women chose the miniature. The earliest known English miniature is of Princess Mary as a child painted between 1522 and 1524. Possibly a commission for Katherine of Aragon by Lucas Horenboult, it was painted to celebrate the Treaty of Windsor and Mary's engagement to Katherine's nephew, Charles V. Almost immediately the miniature came to be considered a woman's wearable ornament. The earliest record in an English document of a miniature worn as a jewel is found in the 1529 will of Maud Green, Lady Parr, who describes a jeweled tablet composed of miniatures of the king and queen given to her earlier in the decade by Katherine of Aragon. These miniatures from her former royal mistress Maud passed on to her daughter, Kateryn, who later as queen became the employer of three women miniaturists – Susanna Horenboult, Lievine Teerlinc and Margaret Holsewyther. Miniatures appear with some frequency in aristocratic women's wills, bequeathed to both men and women. In 1565 Elizabeth Brooke, Marchioness of Northampton, left miniatures to both her husband and to Elizabeth Fitzgerald, Lady Clinton, and in 1588, that same Elizabeth Fitzgerald, now Countess of Lincoln, left to Lady Frances Chandos 'my tablett ennamyled with black wherein is my Lordes picture'. In 1582, Lucy Somerset, Lady Latimer, left to her son-in-law, Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, 'my black tablet and picture in the same'. In 1622 Lettice Knollys, Countess of Leicester, left to her granddaughter, Frances Devereux, Countess of Hertford, 'my playne Tablett with her father's picture in it'. Frances also inherited a miniature of her grandmother.
From the reign of Henry VIII, women, too, frequently used the display of miniatures as political statements. In the 1520s, Maud Green, Lady Parr, wore miniatures of Henry VIII and Katherine of Aragon. In 1577, Margaret Douglas, Countess of Lennox, left to Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, 'my Tablett with the picture of Kinge Henrye the eighte therein', while in 1555 Jane Guildford, Duchess of Northumberland, widow of the man who had attempted to establish Jane Grey on the throne two years earlier, left to Jane Hawkes her miniature of Mary I, 'the greate jewell for the girdle withe two greate aggetts sett withe pearle and the quene's picthure within it'. In 1595, Anne Sackville, Lady Dacre, left to her brother 'my jewell of the Quenes Maiesties picture'. Such particular affection on the part of women for miniatures and the early documented interaction between them and this medium would continue throughout the century. Men also owned miniatures but until the last two decades of the century there is no indication that they wore them as jewelry and there are far fewer references to them in men's wills when compared with women's, A rare example of a child wearing a mourning miniature, A Young Boy Holding a Book with Flowers (now in the Weiss Gallery), dates from 1576 and is attributed to the Master of the Countess of Warwick. From surviving portraiture and amply supported by the testaments of their wills, the fashion for wearing miniatures appears to have been a peculiarly feminine one up until the later years of the reign of Queen Elizabeth. From the 1540s on they became a standard article of exchange within women's gift-giving networks and were part of the process of reciprocity of visual images that helped to hold such networks together.» The Feminine Dynamic in English Art, 1485-1603: Women as Consumers, Patrons and Painters by Susan E. James
Lady Jane Grey reading while her family is out hunting, by Frederick Richard Pickersgill
Jane has always struck me as a bit of a lonely girl. This is hardly a revolutionary interpretation, but whatever one thinks of Roger Ascham's anecdote of finding Jane alone reading while the rest of her family was off hunting and how typical this was of her home life, and what degree of horribleness one assigns her parents, her relationship with them was complicated at best.
They clearly thought nothing of using her as cannon fodder.
No family member visited her in the Tower.
While she may have been close to her cousins, she would not have enjoyed their daily company the way many teenagers do with their friends. No correspondance between Jane and her cousins, if it ever existed, has survived.
She failed to win over her older, sophisticated cousin Elizabeth whom she was undoubtedly eager to impress, considering the circumstances and the fact that Jane spoke warmly and respectfully of Elizabeth later.
She flourished in the household and under the care of Katherine Parr and Thomas Seymour. Within two years they were both dead. Both under horrible, tragic circumstances.
Like many a bit lonely, bookish children, Jane may have found it easier to converse with adults, and she may have formed a friendship with family friend Bess of Hardwick. Perhaps even powerful, outspoken, reformist Bess reminded her a bit of Katherine Parr.
And she may have given her a miniature of herself.
Or she gave it as a gift to her goddaughter Temperance, Bess of Hardwick's daughter.
Bess [of Hardwick]’[s] second child, Temperance, born within the year, also had illustrious god-parents – Jane, Lady Warwick (soon to be Duchess of Northumberland), Lady Jane Grey and Francis Talbot, 5th Earl of Shrewsbury. Such grand sponsors did not ensure the baby’s health, and she died within a few months. Tudor Times | Bess of Hardwick: Life Story (Lady Cavendish)
Either way, the miniature would have ended up with Bess.
And so little Temperance Cavendish becomes the fourth child of Bess of Hardwick to be of importance to us.
Like most 12-year-olds, Jane would probably have been honoured by the task. Like most 12-year-old girls she would probably have been excited by a baby. Jane, in her short life, with what little is recorded of it, still comes across as a giver. In those last days in the Tower it was what she had to give that she focused on. A lovingly written message in her beloved girdle prayer book to the father that had been her undoing and sealed her fate, her Greek Testament, with a little letter, to her sister Katherine, a ring of gold and a pair of gloves to the wife of Heinrich Bullinger, to remember her by.
The girdle prayer book Lady Jane could not bear to be parted with, it followed her to the scaffold.
Of course little Temperance Cavendish passed before a year had gone by, one of only two children of Bess of Hardwick's eight to die young, taking any excitement her short existence had brought with it with her.
She certainly wasn't born under a lucky star, Lady Jane Grey.
In a curious coincidence, but probably nothing more, Temperance was born in 1549, a point in time when Lady Jane Grey's future mother-in-law would still have been known as Jane, Lady Warwick.
In 1549 Jane would have been 12 years old. There is something slightly baby-ish about the features of the girl in the miniature in Tudor garb. In 1549 Jane had also just resided in the household of Katherine Parr, who we know was fascinated by the new art of portrait painting, and patronised a great number of the exercisers of this art.
I think that Bess of Hardwick had a portrait painted based on the likeness of the miniature.
If you look at the Anglesey Abbey portrait, you can see that it is in a feigned oval, as if it were ... painted after a miniature.
Grace Goldstone (c.1750–1798) m. 2) Sir George Jackson Duckett, 1st Baronet (1725–1822). In 1797 under the terms of the will of her uncle Thomas Duckett, Sir George assumed, by Royal Licence, the name and arms of that family, becoming Sir George Duckett, 1st Baronet. He was the owner of the Duckett Portrait when it was painted on enamel by Henry Pierce Bone
«Signed, dated and inscribed on the counter-enamel in red paint: Anne Boleyn / Second Wife of Henry 8 th & Mother of / Queen Elizabeth. London. Decemb r 1835. / Painted by Henry Pierce Bone Enamel / Painter to her Majesty & their R.H. the Duch ss of Kent & Princess Victoria From the Original / by Holbien [sic] formerly in the possess n of Sir George / Duckett Bar t (in whose family it remained from the time / of Elizabeth) & now in the collection of / Jos h Neeld Esq. M.P. and inscribed in ink on a label on the reverse: Anne Boleyn / Wife of Henry 8 th. From the Original / by Holbein in the collection of / Josh Neeld Esq. M.P. / Enamel H.P. Bone / 12 Percy Street / Bedford Square.» Anne Boleyn (1507-1536) by Henry Pierce Bone Signed and dated 1835 – The Royal Collection | RCIN 422369
Tudorqueen6 supplies with: For 300 years, it was owned by [...] Sir Lionel Duckett, and his family. In 1832, it was put on sale in London with the rest of Sir George Duckett’s collection, and sold to Sir Joseph Neeld of Grittleton House near Chippenham Wiltshire. In 1851, it was described in the Grittleton catalogue as ‘the portrait of Queen Anne Boleyn’.
Lady Jane Grey – The Dauntsey or Magdalene Portrait
According to Lee Porritt, this portrait is listed as being in the collection of from Mr. Robert Dauntsey at Agecroft Hall, Manchester in 1886.
Lee Porritt goes on to speculate that this portrait is the same portrait that was in the possession of Peter Peckard, D.D., Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge in 1790.
According to J. Stephan Edwards, Peckard left all but four of his ‘pictures’ to his wife Martha. The four exceptions were portraits of himself, his wife Martha, and Martha’s parents.
Peckard [née Ferrar], Martha (1729–1805), poet, was the eldest daughter of Huntingdon attorney Edward Ferrar, a descendant of the Ferrar family of Little Gidding. Little is known of her early life and education. On 13 June 1755 she married the Revd Peter Peckard (bap. 1717, d. 1797). She has an Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry and a Wikipedia entry.
An intriguing connection between Martha, the widow of Peter Peckard, D.D., Master of Magdalene College and Agecroft Hall is that a copy of her will is kept among in The Agecroft Collection, which originated at and is connected to Agecroft Hall and the Dauntseys.
The Agecroft Collection
The answer to this mystery came to me suddenly.
J. Stephan Edwards writes that Martha Peckard «in turn left at her death in 1801 all of her household goods, explicitly including her ‘pictures’, to her distant maternal cousin, the Reverend Philip Castel Sherard. Philip’s son, also named Philip Castel Sherard, became 9th Baron Sherard of Leitrim in 1859 upon the death of the his distant cousin the 8th Baron. It is not known whether Philip (II) Sherard inherited his father’s Peckard legacy, though he did sell the Sherard family seat of Stapleford Park near Melton Mowbray (Leicestershire) to John Gretton, 1st Baron Gretton in 1894. Even if it is assumed that he did inherit the picture, it is not now known whether it remained in some former Peckard residence that he may also have inherited, or was removed to Stapleford between 1859 and 1894, or was removed to some other Sherard residence.»
I have made several attempts to find links between the Sherards, Grettons or Stapleton Park to the Dauntseys of Agecroft Hall, all without result.
Instead the answer can be found in the short snippet I posted above from the 85-page long index of the Agecroft Collection: Rev Richard Buck, rector of Fletton, Fellow of Magdalene College, was one of the executors.
The Reverend Richard Buck, Rector of Fletton and Fellow of Magdalene College, and one of the executors of Martha Peckard's will, was the owner of Agecroft Hall.
«William Dauntesey of Agecroft, who died in 1622, (fn. 32) was succeeded by a son (fn. 33) and a grandson, also named William. The last-named, a minor at his father's death in 1637, was succeeded by his brother John, who, dying about 1693, (fn. 34) was succeeded in turn by his sons William and Christopher. (fn. 35) The latter of these married Mary daughter of Sir Edward Chisenhale or Chisnall, and had several children. (fn. 36) Edward, the eldest son, was subject to fits of lunacy, and his younger brother Christopher had the management of the estates, and succeeded. (fn. 37) He left a son John, in holy orders, who resided at Agecroft (fn. 38) till his death in 1811, and bequeathed his estate to cousins, the Hulls of Chorley. (fn. 39) John son of Richard Hull had but a short enjoyment of Agecroft, dying in 1813, when he was followed by his brother-inlaw, the Rev. Richard Buck, who had married Margaret Hull, and their son Robert succeeded. (fn. 40) His younger brother, John Buck, the next owner, took the name of Dauntesey in 1867, (fn. 41) and was followed by his sister Katherine Dauntesey Foxton, who died in 1878, when Agecroft Hall passed to Robert Brown, grandson of Thomas Hull. Mr. Brown took the name of Dauntesey on succeeding. Dying in 1905 he was succeeded by his brother, Captain William Thomas Slater Hull, who also adopted the surname of Dauntesey. (fn. 42)» Townships: Pendlebury | British History Online
At some point during the Reverend Richard Buck's duties as executor, the Magdalene Portrait seems to have ended up with him and his descendants at Agecroft Hall instead of with Martha's distant cousins the Sherards.
The above portrait of Alice Spencer is very similar to another one of Lady Harington: https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/gheeraerts-portrait-of-mary-rogers-lady-harington-t01872 Faces look identical
I completely agree. The likeness is startling.
Brownlow Cecil, 9th Earl of Exeter (1725-1793)
Portrait of Brownlow, 9th Earl of Exeter (1725-1793), Angelica Kauffman, R. A. (1741-1807)
«Captioned l.r. ‘Brownlow Earl Exeter’. Signed and dated l.l. Angelica Kauffmann fecit at aua Napolina/Ao 1764.
Oil on canvas, 101.5 cm x 74.5 cm.
The 9th Earl commissioned this portrait in Naples in 1764, whilst on his first Grand Tour. He had just met the highly talented young Swiss artist and would become one of her principal patrons. The portrait was bequeathed to his sister, Lady Elizabeth Chaplin and remained in the Chaplin family until 1972, when it was sold. It was acquired by the Burghley House Preservation Trust in 2003.»
«Lady Elizabeth, née Cecil (1729-1813) was a favourite sister of Brownlow, 9th Earl of Exeter. She was always entrusted to ‘keep an eye’ on things at Burghley whilst he was absent, particularly on his two Grand Tours of 1763 and 1768, when he left her with extensive instructions to cover all possible eventualities during his absence! She married John Chaplin of Blankney, Lincs. in 1757.» Portrait of Lady Elizabeth Chaplin, by Thomas Hudson
As we see he bequeathed her a painting of himself.
From an Original Picture in the Possession of Peter Peckard D.D. Master of Magdalen College, Cambridge
London. Pub. May 1.1790 by E Harding. 132 Fleet Street.
Peter Peckard (c. 1718 – 8 December 1797). In 1781 he was appointed to the mastership of Magdalene College, Cambridge, by the Visitor of the College, John Griffin, afterwards Lord Howard de Walden, who had the right of presentation as owner of the estate of Audley End. He was incorporated at Cambridge in 1782, appointed vice-chancellor in 1784, and created Doctor of Divinity (DD) per literas regias in 1785. In April 1792 he was advanced by the crown to the deanery of Peterborough. He has a Wikipedia entry.
It is perhaps noteworthy that John Griffin, afterwards Lord Howard de Walden, who had the right of presentation as owner of the estate of Audley End, and who in 1781 appointed Peter Peckard to the mastership of Magdalene College, was a direct descendant of Margaret Audley, the first cousin and sister-in-law of Lady Jane Grey. Margaret married as her second husband the widower of another first cousin of theirs, Mary FitzAlan.
Not only that, but he had a vested interest in paintings. «The collection of about 400 paintings at Audley End House was principally formed over three generations, from 1762, by Sir John Griffin and the 3rd Lord Braybrooke. Many of the works on display in the house are currently on long-term loan from the Braybrooke family.» English Heritage, Audley End House
«Audley End House takes its name from Sir Thomas Audley, Henry VIII's Lord Chancellor» – who was married to Lady Jane Grey's aunt Elizabeth Grey, Lady Audley – and «adapted the extensive buildings of suppressed Walden Abbey as his mansion. His grandson Thomas Howard, first Earl of Suffolk, rebuilt the house on a massive scale between 1603 and 1614.» English Heritage, Audley End House
John Griffin also had a vested interest in his family history. «English Heritage owns the group of thirteen portraits of the ancestors of Sir John Griffin, 4th Lord Howard de Walden, later 1st Lord Braybrooke by Enoch Seeman and Biagio Rebecca, which can still be seen inset into the panelling in the Saloon, part of the new decorative scheme designed in the 1770s.» English Heritage, Audley End House
Looking at the portraits from the Audley End Collection available online, they appear mostly to be embellished copies.
It does not seem without the realm of reason that John Griffin, afterwards Lord Howard de Walden, art collector with a vested interest in his own ancestors, might have come over and come into possession of a portrait of the Norris type, perhaps the Norris Portrait itself.
There is also the matter of the Lumley collection. «At John Lumley's death in 1609, a portion of the collection passed to Thomas Howard, 21st Earl of Arundel. The portrait of Jane Grey was not listed among the almost 600 paintings owned by the Howards in 1655, however. But the bulk of Lumley's collection passed to his cousin, Richard Lumley, who was later created Viscount Lumley in 1628. Richard's descendant in the sixth generation, George Lumley-Saunderson, 5th Earl of Scarborough, finally sold off much of the Lumley collection in 1785 and 1807. By the time of those sales, a significant percentage of the Lumley portraits had already lost their cartellini inscriptions, as evidenced by the large number of portraits described in the sale catalogues as simply "A Lady" or "A Gentleman". At least five half-length portraits of women were not able to be identified and none of either Katherine Parr or Jane Grey were included in either sale.» A Queen of a New Invention, by J. Stephan Edwards, p. 186
It would be tempting to speculate that Sir John Griffin, 4th Lord Howard de Walden, who did not die until 1797, could have picked up a portrait of Lady Jane Grey of the Norris type at the sale in 1785. However, if the portrait originally in the Lumley Collection of Lady Jane Grey was offered up for sale in 1785, it was as an unknown woman. John Griffin, 4th Lord Howard de Walden would have needed some sort of 'key' to unlock the identity of the lady, which means that he still would need to be in possession of or know of the Norris Portrait or some version thereof inscribed or otherwise known as Lady Jane Grey.
Besides, Leo Gooch writes on page 166 of A Complete Pattern of Nobility that: «Lady Lumley would have had to leave Keeper's Lodge at Nonsuch when her husband died and she probably removed any remaining pictures to her dower house at Stansted. She died on 4 February 1617 eight years after her husband and three months after writing her will. [...] As prearranged with her husband, she bequeathed the estates (Stansted and Lumley) with their contents to Sir Richard Lumley (who was knighted in 1616). Evidently, she was concerned about the future of her husband's collections for in her will she instructed Sir Richard that 'the marbles and pictures as shall be in the Castle of Lumley at the time of my death [are] there to remain as Airelooms to that house so longe as they will endure', and she said the same about the contents of her 'howse neare the Towerhill in the parish of St Olyffes in Hartstreete London' which she left to her brother Thomas, third Lord Darcy. But her instructions were soon set aside.» He goes on to describe the dispersal of many (if not all of) the paintings that were left in the south.
Since no visitor to either Lumley Castle or Sandbeck Park made note of a portrait of Lady Jane Grey there, I have wondered if it were not amongst those left in the south, along with the portraits of Jane Shore and other notables who were not registered anywhere after their inclusion in the Lumley inventory, and that they never made the journey up to the north.
If John Griffin, 4th Lord Howard de Walden had in his possession a portrait of the Norris type, it would have been the easiest thing in the world to gift a copy to Peter Peckard D.D. Master of Magdalen College, Cambridge, who had an interest in prints depicting subjects of a religious nature or theme. The fact that the Magdalene or Dauntsey Portrait is an embellished version of the Norris Portrait (or a version thereof) fits very well with John Griffin, 4th Lord Howard de Walden's own taste for embellished versions of portraits, as can be seen by the embellished copies of his ancestors painted in 1774 by Rebecca Biaggio. Or Peter Peckard may have commissioned a copy of the painting himself, this was very common. John Griffin, 4th Lord Howard de Walden may have even been the owner of the Dauntsey or Magdalene Portrait itself, and decided to gift it or sell it to Peter Peckard. J. Stephan Edwards believe that the portrait was known as Lady Jane Grey when it was acquired and owned by Peter Peckard: «Prints depicting subjects of a religious nature or theme comprise more than ninety-five percent of the Peckard collection, with the remainder devoted to educational and moral topics or to ancient history. [...] Given the evidence of Reverend Peckard’s interests as they are reflected by his print collection, his painted pictures must also been largely religious in theme, with the already-noted exception of four family portraits. It is therefore very probable that the picture from Reverend Peckard’s collection upon which the etcher based ‘Jane Shore’ was, in actuality, a painted portrait of Jane Grey that the artist freely adapted to depict Shore. A portrait of Jane Grey would have been thematically appropriate among Reverend Peckard’s other pictures and prints, while a portrait of Jane Shore would not have been.»
However, a commission of a copy which resulted in the Magdalene or Dauntsey Portrait would suit well with its apparent age. Lee Porritt writes: «Though hard to tell from the image stylistically this painting does appear to be more eighteenth century in approach rather than sixteenth century however this may possibly be due to over painting and re-touching.» The Streatham Portrait Revisited | Lady Jane Grey Revisited
If John Griffin, 4th Lord Howard de Walden did possess a portrait of the Norris pattern, it is not among the portraits from the Audley End Collection available online. If it were on display at Audley End or in the private collection of Baron Brayebrooke I feel that it would not have escaped the notice of either J. Stephan Edwards or Lee Porritt. Though that it is still in the private collection of Baron Brayebrooke could be a possibility, as I do not know to what degree the paintings in it not on long-term loan are available to the public and researchers.
After the death of John Griffin, 4th Lord Howard de Walden, Audley End passed to a kinsman. Overall, the subsequent owners of Audley End (the Barons Braybrooke until 1943, when it was sold to the Ministry of Works – the predecessor of English Heritage) seem to have preserved the house as it was to an impressive degree.
At least after the death of Richard Griffin, 3rd Baron Braybrooke, who inherited the house and title in 1825, installed most of the house's huge picture collection, filled the rooms with furnishings, and reinstated something of the original Jacobean feel to the state rooms.
We do know that the Norris Portrait was found in an unnamed picture shop in 1870. It is possible that this was connected to the death of Richard Cornwallis Neville, 4th Baron Braybrooke in 1861 and the change of owner to his brother Charles Cornwallis Neville, 5th Baron Braybrooke (1823–1902), but again, nothing much seems to have changed.
Another possibility, equally likely, if not more so, is that if the Norris Portrait were at once point in the possession of John Griffin, 4th Lord Howard de Walden, is that he sold it himself. Rejecting it, as he had apparently the Herωologia Anglica pattern, even though that was immensely popular, as a true representation of Lady Jane Grey. Like J. Stephan Edwards 250 years later, he could have decided that the Syon Portrait is the closest thing it is possible to get to Lady Jane Grey’s appearence, because it is a copy of the Syon Portrait that is at Audley End today.
Silvester (the artist of the watercolour) and Edward Harding (the publisher of the engraving)
HARDING, SILVESTER (1745–1809), artist and publisher, was born at Newcastle-under-Lyme 25 July 1745. He was placed when a child in the charge of an uncle in London, but at the age of fourteen ran away and joined a company of strolling actors, with whom he played under an assumed name for some years. In 1775 he returned to London and took to miniature-painting, exhibiting at the Royal Academy in 1776 and subsequent years. In 1786 he joined his brother Edward (see below) in starting a book and printseller's shop in Fleet Street, where they published many prints of fancy subjects designed by him and engraved by Bartolozzi, Delatre, Gardiner, and others. He chiefly employed himself in drawing portraits of theatrical celebrities, and in copying ancient portraits in water-colours. The latter were executed with care and skill, and were employed to illustrate various historical works issued by him and his brother. Their first publication of this kind was 'Shakespeare illustrated by an Assemblage of Portraits and Views appropriated to the whole suite of our Author's Historical Dramas,' &c., consisting of 150 plates, issued in thirty numbers, 1789-93. In 1792 they removed from Fleet Street to 102 Pall Mall, where they carried on a successful business. Here they produced the 'Memoirs of Count Grammont,' 1793; 'The Economy of Human Life,' with plates by W. N. Gardiner from designs by Harding, 1795; Burger's 'Leonora,' translated by W. R. Spencer, 1796; and Dryden's Fables,' 1797, both illustrated with plates from drawings by Lady Diana Beauclerk. The first volume of their extensive series of historical portraits, known as 'The Biographical Mirrour,' with text by F. G. Waldron, appeared in 1795. Before 1798 the brothers dissolved partnership. Silvester removed to 127 and Edward to 98 Pall Mall; the former continued the 'Biographical Mirrour,' of which he issued the second volume in 1798, and the third was ready for publication at the time of his death, which took place on 12 Aug. 1809. Among other original works by Harding were a portrait of Sir Busick Harwood, M.D., engraved on a large scale in mezzotint by John Jones, and a set of six illustrations to 'Rosalynde, Euphues Golden Legacie' (the original of Shakespeare's 'As you like it '), with notes by F. G. Waldron, which were engraved and published by his brother Edward in 1802. The largest of his water-colour copies, 'Charles II receiving the first pine-apple cultivated in England from Rose, the gardener at Dawney Court, Bucks, the seat of the Duchess of Cleveland, from a picture at Strawberry Hill,' was engraved by R. Grave in 1823. He was well known to and much esteemed by the collectors of his time. He married a daughter of Dr. William Perfect of Town Malling, Kent, by whom he had, with other children, George Perfect [q. v.] and Edward; the latter engraved some good plates for his father's publications, but died at the age of twenty in 1796. The print room of the British Museum possesses many copies of portraits by Silvester Harding.
HARDING, EDWARD (1755–1840), younger brother of Silvester, was born 29 March 1755 at Stafford, where he was apprenticed to a hairdresser. After pursuing this occupation for a few years in London he abandoned it, and set up with his brother as an engraver and bookseller. After the dissolution of partnership he for a few years carried on business alone, employing W. N. Gardiner [q. v.] as his copier of portraits, and publishing, among other works, Adolphus's 'British Cabinet,' 1802; but in 1803 he was appointed librarian to Queen Charlotte, and resided first at Frogmore, and afterwards at Buckingham Palace. He became a great favourite with the queen, and ' grangerised ' many historical works for her amusement. In 1806 he published a set of portraits of the royal princes and princesses, engraved by Cheesman and others, from pictures by Gainsborough and Beechey. After Queen Charlotte's death in 1818 Harding became librarian to the Duke of Cumberland, afterwards king of Hanover, and held that post until his death, which took place at Pimlico 1 Nov. 1840.
Called Jane Shore, watercoloured engraving attributed to Silvester Harding, 1790
Watercolour by Silvester Harding after an original picture in the possession of Peter Peckard, D.D., Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge.
«The watercolored engraving has been credited to Sylvester Harding but was reportedly copied by Harding from an anonymous engraving previously published in 1714. That earlier version had been included in a brief historical pamphlet entitled The life and character of Jane Shore, intended to inform playgoers of 1714 regarding the central character of the play they were attending, The Tragedy of Jane Shore.6 The author of the play was Nicholas Rowe, the same playwright who wrote The Tragedy of Jane Grey in advocacy of the Hanoverian succession in 1714.» A Queen of a New Invention by J. Stephan Edwards, p. 47
«6Called Jane Shore, Sylvester Harding, 1790, engraving printed on paper and watercoloured, Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington, DC. See Folger cataloguing data for discussion of the origins of the engraved image.» A Queen of a New Invention by J. Stephan Edwards, p. 49
When I first started researching the Duckett Portrait and tried to find out if anybody else had ever connected it to Lady Jane Grey or if it had ever been known as her, imagine my surprise when I found this:
«[H]e often told me that he design'd writing a Tragedy upon the Story of the Lady Jane Gray; and if he had liv'd, I should never have thought of meddling with with it myself. But as he died without doing it, in the beginning of the last Summer, I resolv'd to undertake it. And indeed, the Hopes I had of receiving some considerable Assistances from the Papers he left behind him, were one of the principal Motives that induc'd me to go about it. These Papers were in the hands of Mr. Ducket; to whom my Friend Mr. Thomas Burnet, was so kind as to write, and procure them for me.» The Tragedy of the Lady Jane Gray (1736) by Nicholas Rowe
«6 Mr. Ducket: George Duckett (1684–1732), author and Whig MP for Wiltshire, was a close friend of Addison and Edmund Smith, the latter dying at Duckett's country estate in July 1710. Duckett had invited Smith to work on his new play of The Lady Jane Gray. Here, against the advice of the prescribing apothecary, Smith took a purge for excessive food and alcohol consumption and subsequently died. For a comprehensive biographical entry, see William Roberts, rev. Freya Johnston, 'Duckett, George (1684–1732)', ODNB, vol. 17, pp.35–36.» The Plays and Poems of Nicholas Rowe, Volume III: The Late Plays, Edited by Stephen Bernard and Claudine van Hensbergen
This establishes a direct link between the Duckett Portrait and the engraving called Jane Shore.