HIDDEN MESSAGES within famous painting of Henry VIII and his children | The Family of Henry VIII
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 09. 2022
- What are the HIDDEN MESSAGES within this famous painting of Henry VIII and his children and how has it been misunderstood in the centuries since it was created? Painted in around 1545 and entitled The Family of Henry VIII, this is one of the few pictures of Henry VIII and his children (any of them) and is the earliest surviving image of Elizabeth I before she was queen. It is crammed full of symbolism, most of which is lost on a modern audience. From the dynastic reasons for its creation, to the placement of the individuals within it and even the clothing and famous royal jewels worn by its sitters, there is a mountain of information to be gleaned about the family and court of Henry VIII.
The painting has raised a number of questions too, some of which have been answered, some not. The woman next to Henry has caused much confusion for instance, as historians have debated which Tudor Queen she is; Jane Seymour or Catherine Parr? Jane was dead by the time of the painting’s commission, while Catherine was alive and married to Henry and yet the woman looks strikingly like Jane. If it is her, why were dead people put in paintings? As for the artist, their name is unknown, though for many years it was assumed to be Hans Holbein the Younger. He can be ruled out for several reasons though and in this Tudors documentary from History Calling, I’ll tell you what they are, as well as answering the other questions (as far as is possible) that this painting has raised. I’ll also discuss its provenance, explaining what happened to it between the time it was completed and presented to Henry VIII and today, when it may be found in Hampton Court Palace as one of the many paintings in the royal collection. This will include a discussion of what happened to Charles I’s art collection at the time of the interregnum, when this painting along with countless others, was sold off to the highest bidder. Please enjoy this video on one of the most famous pictures of Henry VIII and his children.
Instagram: / historycalling
Patreon: www.patreon.com/historycalling
SUBSCRIBE for new videos every week
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
TUDOR MONARCHS PLAYLIST
• Tudor monarchs
SIX WIVES OF HENRY VIII PLAYLIST • Six wives of Henry VIII
TUDOR FERTILITY PROBLEMS • TUDOR ROYAL FERTILITY ...
LIFE OF MARY I, PART 3 • THE LIFE OF QUEEN MARY...
ANNE BOLEYN’S B NECKLACE • ANNE BOLEYN’S B NECKLA...
THE LIFE OF WILL SOMER • The life of WILL SOMME...
HISTORY OF ELIZABETH I'S PORTRAIT • History of ELIZABETH I... WHAT DID LADY JANE GREY LOOK LIKE? • What did LADY JANE GRE...
DIGGING UP ANNE BOLEYN AND OTHERS • DIGGING UP ANNE BOLEYN...
BUY A VERSION OF ANNE BOLEYN’S B NECKLACE (some items only available in UK or US):
amzn.to/3vqQJqR (UK LINK) OR amzn.to/3xUgn90 (US LINK)
amzn.to/3Kr7vua (UK LINK)
amzn.to/3vTihDY (UK LINK) OR amzn.to/3kDWTOd (US LINK)
amzn.to/3EUyQnc (UK LINK)
amzn.to/3KjsA9T (US LINK)
GEAR USED
DJI Drone: amzn.to/38h1vXr (UK LINK) OR amzn.to/39hROZm (US LINK)
Go-Pro Hero 10 camera: amzn.to/3EPIK9U (UK LINK) OR amzn.to/3rTWScL (US LINK)
GoPro 3-Way 2.0 (Tripod/Grip/Arm): amzn.to/37CdC1r (UK LINK) OR amzn.to/3vaVxjU (US LINK)
Memory Card: amzn.to/36QvcOQ (UK LINK) OR amzn.to/3KeLZZs (US LINK)
Microphone: amzn.to/3MFtoaK (UK LINK) OR amzn.to/3rYtjH8 (US LINK)
BUY OR RENT
Becoming Elizabeth, season 1 (Starz, 2022): amzn.to/3MSn2Ei
Elizabeth I and Her Enemies (2017) - starring Lily Cole: amzn.to/3tApusk
Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007) - starring Cate Blanchet: amzn.to/3MKyMJ6
Elizabeth (1998) - starring Cate Blanchet: amzn.to/3ofW6UD
Elizabeth I (2006) - starring Helen Mirren and Jeremy Irons: amzn.to/3NRqPTX
Elizabeth I - The Virgin Queen (2006) - starring Anne-Marie Duff: amzn.to/3xkDBDi
Elizabeth R (1972) - starring Glenda Jackson: amzn.to/3xu1CaV
The Tudors, season 1 amzn.to/3rFmveg (UK link) OR amzn.to/2VCwQ0j (US link)
The Tudors, season 2 amzn.to/3m64HIn (UK link) OR amzn.to/2VMPnHw (US link)
The Tudors, season 3 amzn.to/3wiwPwi (UK link) OR amzn.to/3BijsPB (US link)
The Tudors, season 4 amzn.to/3rNeggF (UK link) OR amzn.to/3z16S58 (US link)
NB: Links above may be affiliate links. This means if you make a purchase through one of these links, I earn a small commission. It in no way affects the price you pay.
Thumbnail: Family of Henry VIII, c. 1545. Royal Collection Trust, 2022 (detail)
Creative Commons licenses used see creativecommons.org/licenses/
Do you think the painting shows Jane Seymour or Catherine Parr and Mother Jack or Jane the Fool? Let me know below and remember to check out my Patreon too at www.patreon.com/historycalling
Jane Seymour definitely.
Sadly one queen it is unlikely to be is Anne of Cleves who apart from the famous miniature seems to have been "air-brushed" out of things. ☹
Catherine Parr of course. Jane Seymour died giving birth
I do think it was Jane Seymour and Jane the Fool. Jane Seymour because she actually was related to Edward. Having a blood relation makes the painting more meaningful to the future owner of it- which would be Edward. I Think the person on the left is Jane the Fool because she actually looks a little “off” and sort of confused. From what we know of her, she was a real person who was developmentally delayed. I think a Nanny for Edward would look more reserved.
Jane Seymour. Henry wanted a family picture even though she had died. He wanted to show a united dynasty.
Interesting! It never occurred to me that the queen in the painting could have been anyone other than Jane Seymour.
Me neither. I was very surprised when I started researching this that it was ever even in doubt. She looks so much like Holbein's picture of Jane.
Me tooo..
Me neither, as Jane gave Henry the so dearly desired son he always wanted, it always was clear to me that the whole family (Henry, Jane and their son) was perpetuate in this painting. Plus he said at his final days Jane was the only woman he really loved. So no question: The Queen on the painting must be Jane
It makes perfect sense for it be Jane Seymour, since she gave him the son he craved so much. Then he wished to be buried with her, which did happen.
Love how all the classic artists have always been (even comissioned) to be subtle, satirists and nuanced.
Holbein was rather good at it in his own way. Always liked that skull that didn't look like a skull until you were in the right spot in front of it *to get it.*
*The Ambassadors, 1533*
The fact that he is buried with Jane and that there are other paintings that show her as part of the family I am going with Jane Seymour.
Yes, I don't think it can be anyone but her either.
I had always assumed this painting depicted Jane Seymour and that the Holbein painting was used as reference, I didn't even realize until now that hoods were in opposite directions, but I'm glad to see my assumption was proven likely correct.
Having just learned of it's existence recently, I would love to hear your thoughts on the Chequers ring and on Elizabeth's relationship to her mother throughout her life. I like to believe that the "A" pendant in this portrait is meant to be a subtle nod to Anne that would go mostly unnoticed in the court, but supporters of her mother would implicitly understand, and that the chequers ring supports the idea that Elizabeth knew of the importance of initial jewlery to the legacy of her mother. An entirely indulgent fantasy of mine, but a harmless one.
Yes, I definitely think this is Jane given its similarities to the Holbein image of her. Regarding the Chequer's ring - in short, I think it's Anne :-)
When Queen Elizabeth I died, they found a small portrait of her mother in her locket that she was supposed to have worn around her neck throughout her life. Heartbreaking.
I read Phillipa Gregory's "Taming of the Queen," which makes reference to this painting. Gregory presents the idea that Katherine Parr was the sitter for the portrait, and was led to believe that she would appear in the final product; then later it is revealed that Jane Seymour was painted in her place (and Queen Katherine was rightfully miffed about it). Of course, I don't take Gregory's work as gospel, given that it is a fictionalized account; but it's definitely something I'd see Henry VIII doing.
Ah, Philippa Gregory. She plays it a little fast and loose with reality (Lady Margaret Beaufort is now thought by many to be a double child killer thanks to Gregory's efforts, despite there being not a shred of evidence), but she has been good at bringing more people to history and I do appreciate her for that. If she would even just admit that things like MB killing the Princes in the Tower were just made up for the purposes of selling books and not try to pretend that it's a real possibility, I could get behind her a lot more easily.
I read The Red Queen too and actually don't remember that sub-plot at all; but I can see how that's problematic. Margaret Beaufort needs more love in historical media because she's often painted as the Mother-In-Law/Grandmother-In-Law from Hell. She's more complicated than that. Anyways, love your work as always HC, thanks for teaching me cool stuff!
@@HistoryCalling I can't read her books...
@@HistoryCalling Ugh, I swear, if I hear one more person say that about Margaret Beaufort...
I read the same book. I love Ms Gregory's books, by the way.
I read somewhere that Elizabeth and Mary’s faces were deliberately painted to resemble Henry rather than their individual mothers, because Henry did not like to be reminded of them and because he commissioned these painted.
That's definitely an intriguing idea. Can you remember where you read it?
But wouldn't their necklaces (Elizabeth's A and Mary's cross) be a reference to their mothers? Also, is it possible that the cross Mary wears is the one that Catherine of Aragon left her?
Except Elizabeth looked more like him facially and had his shade of red hair. Her brown eyes and olive skin came from her mother. She always tried to look paler. I don't know who Mary looked like or who it was said she looked like. The paintings of Catherine of Aragon don't look like Mary. But Catherined portraits all look like different women to be. So chances are high Mary looked more like Henry's family or was a good mix of the two of them.
I am fully convinced that Elizabeth got her mother's pearls and, being as clever and smart as she was, had them refashioned into a very subtle tribute to her. Elizabeth was smart, so she would have known just what to do with them.
Yes, that might have happened. The idea that it's a reference to Anne is certainly the simplest explanation, even though it does come with problems.
@@HistoryCalling Yes, especially when she lived much of her young life not knowing if she would be imprisoned or killed. I think wearing the letter "A" was a bit risky if anyone thought it represented her mother.
How much choice would Elizabeth have had in how she was depicted? Not much, I'm guessing.
Another thing that helps point to the woman being Jane is that she has the same nose shape as the portrait of Jane, where as the portrait of Catherine showed her having a very different shaped nose.
Yes, I definitely think it's Jane. It looks so much like her Holbein portrait.
@@HistoryCalling Always thought so, too. Makes sense that Henry would posthumously honor her for providing a legitimate son. I'm no fan of Jane's. Her behavior towards Anne Boleyn I thought was inexcusable. Far from being docile and sweet, seems - at least in my view - to have been cunning, grasping and manipulative.
@@verak66 as was Ann towards Queen Catherine. We often blame the men especially the king but ignore the fact that these women knew what they were doing. They had the power to mold him around their fingers and did so for their own benefit crushing others along the way. They were not weak, just bc they didn’t have ‘power’ as we think of it today, I think we do a disservice to these women by ignoring the true power they held and used against the king and many others to get what they wanted. None of them were innocent.
We did this on my 8th grade humanities class; studied several paintings to learn how to look at the details to see what might be going on and 37 years later I still love doing that. Shout out to Mary Baker and this channel!
Yes, it is fascinating to try to pick apart the details and the hidden messages. I don't think I'd ever really noticed the Tudor roses on the ceiling for instance, until I was doing this video.
I actually agree with you that it is Jane Seymour depicted as the queen, mainly because I think he continue to see her as his queen after her death. She gave him the son he always wanted and did nothing to earn his disfavor because she died so quickly after giving him his long awaited son. As far as the figure in the far left I would lean towards it being Catherine parr’s fool opposed to the nurse to Edward. I think she is a nod to his “current queen“. Since Catherine Parr was not represented as herself in the painting I believe this other woman was there to indicate that Katherine was a present in Henry’s family at the time of the painting. Overall I thought this is a very interesting video. I loved learning not only about the symbolism and the placement of the characters, but also how you came to your conclusion. I always appreciate how you come to your conclusions. You’ve definitely are as unbiased as possible when looking at facts and assumptions to draw your conclusions. I look forward to your new videos each Friday!
Thanks Steffani. I think it's Jane too. I love your idea though that the other Jane is a stand-in for Catherine Parr. I'd never considered that she was there as a nod to her mistress.
I totally agree. Sons were important and she gave the one legitimate son he had.
@@HistoryCalling It is interesting and a very Henry thing to do, being the kind and gracious man he was. Lol
He’s buried beside Jane , so he considered her to be the “one” , since she gave him a son .
Imagine commissioning a family portrait and having 2 of your children placed on the other side of the pillars. It seems so awkward.
Love your research! Enjoyed hearing about the provenance of the painting. To my mind, it is a miracle that items from the 16th century have survived at all. Thoroughly enjoying your channel.
It really is, especially when you consider how much was lost. That fire at Whitehall Palace in 1698 and Cromwell's breaking up of the royal collection of jewels and art were just awful. As historians we're still suffering from those losses even today :-(
Would love to hear your opinion on the new King Charles III choosing the Tudor Crown as a symbol on his insignia above his initials.
This is 2022, not 1522.
@@nadyarossi5102 history never gets lost and we only learn more from it. I think it would be a good idea since I am part of a royal family
How interesting that both you and Dr Kat (Reading the Past) both showed that picture of the supposed female fool in videos released today!! I really enjoy your insights!
Oh gosh I nearly had a heart attack when I read this in case we'd done the same video, but upon a quick look at her channel, I see that thankfully we haven't. I actually live in fear of that happening at some point.
Hi, I'd wanted to know, what's a fool?
Another excellent delve into the past - I've seen this image a few times and have not once realised that Henry was barefoot and his feet resting on pillows. I've strangely always concentrated more on the subjects outside the group in the arches.
Yeah, you had to be extra special to get a pillow in the 16th century :-) That really was luxury. Even his immediate family didn't get one.
@Karina Bailey - Henry is not barefoot. He has his stockings in and has silver slipper type shoes with a strap.
I've seen the painting in person several times. The first visit my now husband got bored with me standing studying it and went off for ages taking photos all around Hampton Court to come back and finding me STILL in front of it!
My mum took me down to London for my 21st and I remember seeing this painting in the Haunted Gallery at Hampton Court so vividly. It's long been a favourite of mine (as has this channel!) so thank you so much for the fab video! I'm certain it's Jane Seymour depicted, and I'd like to think the figure farthest left is Jane the Fool. I think what you say about the symmetry of her on the left to Will Somer on the right makes good sense to me!
I really must get back to Hampton Court Palace myself. I don't think I've been since about 2006! I can hardly remember it in fact.
Let's start thinking psychologically... Little Edward would have wanted a family portrait of dad and mum and sisters and Henry would have wanted that for him as well... Plus Jane was untouchable... Because she died Henry wasn't able to grow to hate her...or cheat..she was perfect she gave him a son...
I LOVE how you labeled parts of the painting while describing them! Thank you!!!
Oh this mixes mystery, art history and tudor history- could I ask for more? Nay
My thoughts exactly :-)
I really enjoy your art related videos! I gobble up anything you put out though hehe
You are one of my very favorite history channels ❤️
Thank you for yet again another thought provoking and informative video. I’ve loved history for many years and am learning so much from you. On another note, your voice is so soothing that it completely relaxes me listening to your videos, so again I thank you!
Thank you so much. I always get a little smile when people say they like my voice as my family and friends out here in the 'real' world don't ever tell me that :-) In fact my best friend tells me I have a specific 'CZcams voice' not heard at any other time :-)
@@HistoryCalling 😂❤️😂
You have one of the most lovely voice-over history channels on CZcams! Keep up the good work, as a writer I know that research can be so exhausting but I also know the push to get all of the details as correct as you can and you do seem to do a really good job with that, especially with telling us where historical records have left gaps in knowledge
Very interesting analysis! Someday I’ll have to look at this painting in person, or at least on a bigger screen; a phone doesn’t do the details justice! I definitely wouldn’t have been able to tell the ceiling was Tudor Roses without you having said so!
I’d normally sign off by saying I’m looking forward to next week, but as I’m a bit behind in watching, it’s already out and I’m planning on watching it tomorrow! 😊
Thank you so much for your research and time as always
No problem. I quite like the art history videos. It's something a little different to my usual fare.
this sounds super intriguing, can’t wait to watch!
This is so detailed and facinating that I had to watch it 4 times. Beautiful art and wonderful skills and work on your part. Thanks for doing what you do.
Wow, four times! Thank you. I don't even think I've watched it through 4 times :-)
@@HistoryCalling The intricacies of painting (s) kept me going back. I love art. Spent 3 days visiting the Hermitage in St.Petersburg, Russia and spent a month in Amsterdam with a hotel across the street from the Reichs museum and eight blocks from the VanGogh museum and went to one or the other 4 or 5 days a week for a month. VanGogh has couches and stuffed chairs so you can sit and absorb some favorite pieces. With your presentation and fine photos I enjoyed absorbing. Really excellent work on your part. Love the way you diversify content.
I discovered your channel recently, I'm obsessed with the war of the roses and the Tudors era, so this feel like a Christmas blessing hahaha anyway, I love the fact that you talk about the art, the portraits and the interpretations because I never have see this kind of content about this eras before and I feel is very original and interesting. Your voice is also very pleasant. 🥰
Found your channel and had to subscribe! Great content and I look forward to seeing more.
Thanks Catherine and welcome aboard :-)
I have alwasy wanted to know more about the history of royals etc but it always was so darn overwhelming. I was also afraid to get caught up in lies and rumors but now I have found a few channels like yours I found today that put videos together in a way that I can learn and retain. Thank you so very much. I am a new sub and will be checking more of your videos.
Hi Nancy. Thank you for subbing and welcome. I'm glad you find the videos interesting and accessible :-)
This is avery significant painting. I agree it is a symbolic one and it is Jane Seymour beside the King. This follows the traditions of religious painting from previous centuries where even the less important individuals were painted as smaller figures in relation to those more significant. Portraiture as we know it today was a phenomenon of the Renaissance revolution in art. This grand painting is definitely a cross-over demonstrating the succession intended by Henry. Thanks for another intriguing story. Greetings from Australia.
Thanks Julia and good morning in Australia. I would not be stirring out of my bed as early as you have on a Saturday, no matter which Australian time-zone you're in :-)
😊💐
Excellent presentation, very detailed. I enjoyed it very much and I'm looking forward to your next.
Thank you very much :-)
Thanks for sharing this informative video. I've learnt a lot here. It's always intriguing to study these paintings up close. There's a few interesting paintings in the Queen's House in Greenwich especially of Elizabeth I. So full of detail.
Wonder why he called both Mary and Elizabeth “Queen” but he called Edward “Prince”.
Fascinating. Never really looked around at the other bits other than the royal family
Thank you for this interesting video.
How extraordinary that this painting survived almost 500 yrs!! I want to touch it!! I think it’s Jane Seymour in the painting( it looks just like her) and I believe Jane the fool was in the picture and I think so because I’ve never hear of mother Jack! I would love to research them both tho! Great video! Keep doing what you do! 😊
Thanks Kimberley :-)
Thoroughly fascinating and thanks HC for another wonderful presentation.
The Queen in the picture must be Jane Seymour. Not only because of the likeness but of the fact that she gave Henry the thing he most desired, a son.
So the picture portrays Henry’s family as seen from Henry’s own opinion.
Thanks again and looking forward to tomorrow’s video.
Thanks James. Not long to wait now :-)
I'm enjoying going back and watching your videos
Thanks again🌺🌷🌸
Brilliant video. This is like the 16th century version of analysing body language. 😊
Thanks you very much 😃
That was great, and very interesting and yes I do believe that is Jane Seymour. I just love looking at painting or photos and seeing all the different details.
Thanks Vernon. Me too! :-)
thank you for your work and time. Very interesting. It’s all about perception.
I’ve always enjoyed this painting and now I can enjoy it more because of your interesting commentary. Thank you very much.
My pleasure 😊
Great job with the video. What your thoughts on Isabella II of Spain ?
Thank you. I don't really know anything about her I'm afraid, but perhaps I'll look at her in the future :-)
great video!
Great job thanks!
Thanks Nathan. Enjoy :-)
Thankyou so much! So interesting. I am an avid fan of Tudor and Plantagenet history ❤️
Thank you and if you like Tudors and Plantagenets, you'll be happy to know there's plenty more of them in the next few weeks.
Wow never thought of it that way.. thanks for showing me how to look at it another way... wouldn't it be awesome to go back and have a conversation with them all ..
It would indeed. Sometimes I do wish for a time machine :-)
Very interesting video. Where are the wax figures of Henry and his wives located? It was cool to see facsimiles of what they look like in 3 dimensions. Thanks for making such interesting videos.
Warwick Castle. I walked into that room when I was there over the summer and immediately though 'JACKPOT' and got filming :-)
I think you are spot on. It really does look like Jane Seymour. It's also interesting to me that the Whitehall Palace garden in the backdrop looks just like the one at Hampton Court. Was it common to use the same design? It's even the same green and white fencing pattern with the statues of animals. I've seen this painting several times there at Hampton and never knew it was a different garden. Thanks!
I would have to say Jane Seymour next to Henry, and as you pointed out the other lady is Jane the fool, superb research and well presented as you always do HC, thank you as always.
Thanks Simon. Same here. I don't know how viewers in earlier centuries mistook her for Catherine. She so strongly resembles Holbein's solo portrait of Jane.
@@HistoryCalling I agree HC seems strange its definitely Jane Seymour.
Thank you for another well presented and informative video. I've always thought the queen in the image to be Jane based on her bone structure and how much she resembles Jane in other works.
I can't help but wonder if the depiction of Henry's family being surrounded by fools was meant as a silent commentary.
You nearly finished me off when annes eyes started moving in that portrait.
Just keeping you on your toes :-)
I am far from an expert but as soon as I saw the painting my reaction was "oh, Jane Seymour."
I always assumed that the Queen in this portrait was Jane Seymour.
It always gives me a bit of a laugh that Edward is painted as a miniature Henry, very much resembling the Holbein portrait of Henry standing with his hand on his hip. He even has the face of a grown man, not a young boy.
Fools are no laughing matter.
Rahere, Henry I's jester, founded St. Bartholomew's Church and Infirmary in 1123. "Bart's" is one of London's most prestigious hospitals and internationally famous. 🙂👌
Awesome video a little creepy when blinking starts
Thank you. Yes, the blinking is a real marmite thing. People ever love it or hate it.
Great informative video. I am finishing the Wolf Hall trilogy by Hilary Mantel and this tells me a lot more about the Tudors
Thanks Gary. It's so sad that Hillary Mantel just died. She's a real loss to Tudor studies (and I rarely hold that opinion of historical fiction writers, but she was in a class of her own).
I thought it was a sad detail that Hillary Mantle & Queen Elizabeth II died within days of each other. The world seems a bit darker without these extraordinary women 🌹
Do you have a video where you speak more about the role of the fool in a court? I’m curious how accurate our modern view is on them.
I didn't even realize until you told us that Jane Seymour died giving birth to Edward. So I presume that the woman beside Henry could have been Catherine Parr, one that only had survived among Henry's wives and we also could have seen Elizabeth I, before she was queen as well as Mary, both in an adulthood. I like H C explained the painting in further details and every other videos, so that we must think the matter over before giving our answer. I look forward to seeing more of your video. Thanks.
The first time I came across this painting, the Queen was described as being Jane Seymour and I didn't doubt it, as she looks a lot like Holbein's portrait of Jane. I never knew there was any controversy on the issue.
I was surprised to hear you describe the painting as oil on canvas, as I was under the impression it was a wall mural painted on a wall of a main hall or corridor at Hampton Court (like Da Vinci's Last Supper) rather than a transportable painting.
Also interested to learn that "jaconaps" means a monkey. I have seen it used as an insult in a book somewhere (I *think* the Chronicles of Narnia) and thought it was a variant of "jackass" and the character was calling someone a donkey, apparently he was actually calling him a performing monkey.
I had to go look up jaconaps actually. I'd never come across it, though I have read the Narnia books, so possibly I should have been paying more attention (to be fair I haven't read most of them for a very long time).
@@HistoryCalling I remembered it. It *was* Narnia. Specifically, Prince Caspian, when Miraz tells his men “See what a pack of nursery tales our jackanaps of a nephew has sent.”
I've seen it as jackanapes, I think, in more than one place. Always used of a male human, usually young and irresponsible. Deriving it from a word meaning monkey seems entirely plausible.
Jane Seymour, due to being the Mother of the long wanted Prince. Mother Jack seems to be the most likely as Henry would have preferred a link for his son rather than a daughter he had had problems with. -- Well done on the video.
I so wish we had actual photography of the Henry clan! That would be a treat. One can keep imagining. I find it so interesting they had their own fool....lol 😃 that certainly helps with depression. 😃 video.
Fascinating, HC! It's somewhat comforting to know that the fools were held in some regard. I take pride in being the clown at social events (much to Lena's chagrin).😉 See you next week!
THANK YOU SO MUCH STEPHEN 😀 and I'm sure she loves it really. It's better than being a very maudlin person, always glum. Until next week.
Rahere, the jester of Henry I, founded St. Bartholomew's Church and Infirmary in 1123, now internationally known as "Bart's" it's one of London's prestigious hospitals.
You're in very exalted company. 🙂
As strange as it may sound, I wouldn’t be surprised if this painting was commissioned by Catherine Parr to depict Jane Seymour and Henry’s children. As I understand it, Catherine worked tirelessly to reunite Henry with his daughters and knew that his most beloved wife was Jane. The inclusion of Jane the fool, Catherine’s own servant, would therefore make more sense as it reminds the viewer who the present Queen is despite her absence from the portrait. It may have been presented to Henry as a gift to show her modesty and loyalty but also to cunningly present the image of an idyllic, united family.
At least that’s my theory… 🤷🏻♀️
Frankly, the idea that the woman next to Henry is anyone other than Jane Seymour is ludicrous to me. I vote for the woman on the left being the other Jane. You mentioned both earlier Charles' which made me wonder if you were surprised that today's Charles chose to reign as III. That name doesn't have a very good track record in British history.
No, not surprised. I know he toyed with the idea of something else, but I think it would be very strange for him to use a name that he's never been called in his life. It could even give one an identity crisis. I believe George VI only used George instead of Albert because he didn't want to sound too Germanic (this being the 1930s), then the poor man had to constantly practice his new signature in case he wrote Bertie by accident.
Gotta love historical people not writing or noting things that to them seem obvious but in later centuries actually cause a lot of confusion. This portrait, like the Darnley-Lennox Jewel, has probably got hidden meanings that we have completely missed which would have seemed blindingly obvious to a Tudor audience. Still, it is a fascinating portrait for what it did decide to include. For example, why have a court fool (or fools if the woman is in fact Jane the Fool and not Edward's nursemaid) in a picture which for all intents and purposes is supposed to be a family portrait?
Fools were prestige. They could get away with things no others could. This was especially valid in Henry's court were the headsman was kept busy.
To see how important fools were please see my note on Rahere. He is Still saving lives to this day.
When you you hear of "Bart's" think Rahere!
Yes, I must admit I don't really understand the point of including the fools either. You're so right about people not noting things down and then later generations not having a clue who's in a picture or what the meaning of something is. I have old photographs of long-dead relations in my house and literally no idea who they were because no one wrote their name on the back. It's both annoying and sad :-(
@@HistoryCalling A Tudor mystery - solved, kind of. It is common currency that a Tudor Portrait that is in plain sight and missed by many because perhaps they're not looking for it is that a portrait of Henry VIII's mother and is probably in most Western homes. More copies of it exist than of the Mona Lisa. That Henry VII was so distraught at losing his wife who loved playing cards that he charged her portrait would be used for the "Queen in the Hearts suit". Myth apparently it's actually probably Elizabeth de Mowbray from Holy Trinity Church at Long Melford Suffolk one of the famous "wool churches" founded by a Lancastrian.
I almost imagine people had a real fear of putting anything down to be witnessed for the imagined or otherwise slight of angering their betters!
☮️
this was awesome, thank you! i’m going with Jane Seymour
Thank you. Yes, I think it really has to be her.
The way I have always taken this image is that the painting is OSTENSIBLY meant to be Catherine Parr (hence Parr's Fool in the background) but with adjustments made so that it could also pass for Jane Seymour, either with or without being acknowledged. I also think given Parr's work in reintroducing Mary and Elizabeth to the court that the necklace Elizabeth wore was her own way of acknowledging her mother, such a move not being as controversial by that point. There is no way it could be for Our Lady.
The more I look at it the more I think it's in reference to Anne too, though as I said in the video that is problematic too. I like the idea that the Queen is meant to be generic enough to pass for both wives. That would have been very diplomatic on the part of the painter :-)
Interesting take!
I'm studying artists in the reins of Elizabeth and James I, in particular that of two aristocrats who were disguised painters. Many connections to Holbein seem to exist with them. They often did arts (paintings, engravings, literature, etc.) which were done in time later than the works' subject matter would suggest. While many of these works were unsigned, it was also customary for them to create aliases or masks to sign their works. They were so incredibly talented that they could replicate anyone's stlye, but they added some symbolic messages for those who could understand them. The frames and writings on or around the paintings also contained clues. They worked beyond England as well. I hope the countries, who believe that one of their own created their nations' most important works, won't be too disappointed by the truth. I suspect that denial will be rampant. Frankly, with scientific analysis used today, I wonder that their greed and denials have outlasted what I have clearly witnessed.
Thank you for another fun and informative video! I hope you (and my fellow viewers) have a great weekend! 🙂💕
Thank you! You too :-)
Thank you!
I think it's Jane Seymourand Jane the fool. Thank you so much for the very interesting video!
Thank you too :-)
I’ve always seen Jane in this image. Henry really did underestimate his daughters.
He sure did :-)
Thanks!
THANK YOU so much Jennifer for your very kind donation to the channel. I hope you enjoyed hearing about all the different layers to this painting :-)
Whenever you mentioned Holbein I think of the song "House of Holbein" from Six the musical.
I NEED to see that musical. I think it's coming to Belfast in the not-too-distant future actually, so maybe I'll finally get to go then.
@@HistoryCalling I watched a bootleg. The real thing would be too overstimulating
Interesting video! I think it's Jane Seymour in the painting.
Thank you. Yes, I think it has to be her. The woman in this painting is the spitting image of Holbein's Jane.
Ahhh, getting Da Vinci Code on us this week, bloody cool! :) I'll watch it now. :)
Now I'm thinking of how many millions of views I'd have got if only I'd come up with the Da Vinci code's analysis of The Last Supper and posted it on CZcams. *sigh* so much ad revenue...
Definitely Jane Seymour based on the similarity of appearance and yhe dated fashion. Remember too which queen Henry is buried with. I rather think Katharine Parr was married as companion, stepmother and to thwart Thomas Seymour. Unless she could have provided a Duke of York she couldn't compete with Jane ...... and perhaps not even then.
Nevertheless the painting is a fascinating insight as to how Henry viii wished to be seen. The earlier 'Who is the greater?' portrait featuring his father and mother even more so!
@@HistoryCalling I actually fell asleep watchin TDC movie & book first time around. :)
Ivan the Terrible and Henry the 8th would have been friends.
Or would they have killed each other? 😯
@@HistoryCalling Nah. A conversation would go something like this:
Henry: Wait A minute(...) You disregard your wivies ? That's what I do !
Ivan the Terrible: No way !
Haha, that made me smile :-)
When I saw the Queen's fool, before you explained who it might be, I honestly thought it might be Bessie Blount, the mother of Henry;'s illegitimate son, Henry Fitzpatrick. He did seem to hold the boy in high regard, but after Edward's birth, I guess it didn't seem so important for Fitzpatrick to be the only male son. Just a thought. I love your videos!!
Just a tiny correction, as it's Fitzroy rather than FitzPatrick. It would have been quite the scandal to include her, but her son was long dead by this point, having died in 1536 before Edward came along. Sadly we don't have any pictures of Bessie :-(
First of all let me say that both English headgears knock the French hood into a cocked hat (sic). The gabling sets them apart. The Burgundian conical headgear of the 1430's takes a lot of beating though.
Whitehall Palace was originally confiscated from Cardinal Wolsey's York Place. Palaces were prone to fire due to lack of health & safety and the amount of open fires.
Henry's parents and his maternal grandmother escaped with their lives with minutes to spare, especially his father, when they visited Sheen Palace for Christmastide in 1497. A blazing roof beam crashing down just after he left the room.
Henry was born downstream at Placentia Palace founded as a home by Humphrey brother of Henry V. Henry VIII loved his palaces particularly in the Thames valley, especially as he got older as he found riding difficult and had boatmen.
Henry's childhood was spent at neighbouring Eltham Palace.
As king he used Westminster Palace until the first great fire in 1513 when he temporarily used Bridewell Palace before "White Hall Palace" due to its colour. Latterly Whitehall.
Sadly Charles I probably hoped Whitehall Palace burned down before it actually did as he was executed there.
Henry's father rebuilt Sheen as Richmond Palace.
Having long dead people in paintings with living relatives was not unusual. It is long held that Van Eyck's "Arnolfini and his Bride" was a memorial to her as she sadly had passed-away at the time.
On the continent Pieter Brueghel the Elder and no doubt others used coded objects in paintings. So aesthetically it works on one level but to the cognoscenti on a much deeper level. The Netherlands were under the power of the Spanish at the time so look out for people wearing "fox-tails" the badge of the Dutch Resistance or objects like eggs walking with a knife through them.
I'd say the queen is Jane Seymour.
For the figure on the left I'd say it was the female jester, as you say to provide symmetry for Will Sommers.
Maybe only a fool would think otherwise. 😉
Thank you.
Nice little pun on the word 'fool' :-)
I look at this painting & what comes to mind is how the Tudor reign came into being - in turmoil & bloodshed.
With Henry V11.
Slaying Richard 111 at the Battle of Bosworth.
Then merging the Tudor White Rose with the Red upon Henry V11 marrying Elizabeth of York.
Uprising after uprising to secure the Tudor dynasty & throne.
Henry V111 inheriting the throne, as the spare, from his deceased brother Arthur.
Marrying his deceased brother’s wife Catherine of Aragon, who was the mother of Bloody Mary, Henry’s eldest daughter.
All the bloodshed & turmoil in Henry’s obsessive quest for a son. Culminating in the eventual birth of Edward V1 with his marriage to Jane Seymour.
Upheaval, bloodshed, Monasteries raided & looted.
Making himself Head of the Church of England.
All in Henry’s quest to marry Anne Boleyn.
The countless beheadings, especially that of his Statesman, Thomas More & all those, that refused to recognise Anne as his future Queen with future heirs.
Especially that long awaited for, promised, Male Heir.
Tossing aside all that bloodshed & upheaval.
Henry had Anne beheaded on trumped up charges.
Because she failed to deliver that legitimate Male Heir.
Then the sweetest revenge.
Anne’s greatest legacy to Henry.
The greatest ruler of England, a mere daughter, Elizabeth 1st.
Elizabeth never married & died childless.
The short & bloody reign.
The dynasty of the Tudors was over in a mere short 3 generations!
What a history of insatiable turmoil & bloodshed.
All in the quest of Tudor rule, & dominance, via the need for Male heirs !!!
Its why we are so fascinated by this period of history & the insanity of its rulers to have a dynasty carried forward by a male heir.
Placing little value on the female gender, & daughters.
Sadly there are some in our modern era who still have this archaic way of thinking.
That sons are far more important than daughters.
The Tudor reign is a good lesson to observe for those who are still trapped in that way of thinking today.
Women, today, can choose to keep their family names, & they can also choose to have successful careers.
Rising to the very top, if they so wish.
I believe the painting shows Jane Seymour... the hair color, shape of the nose, even a similar positioning of her hands.
Yes, I think so too. If it was Catherine, it would be spooky that Henry had married two women who looked so much alike.
Thanks
THANK YOU so much for your kind donation to the channel Sharon and I hope you enjoyed hearing all about this famous Tudor painting :-)
Maybe you could do a video on Audrey/Etheldreda Malte Harrington. She was rumored to be Henry VIII's illegetimate daughter by a washerwoman named Joan Dingley. And somewhere out there is a portrait of her.
I really enjoyed this. The Tudors were an interesting period to me.
Thank you and me too :-)
@@HistoryCalling 😀❤️
I had never thought that it could be anyone other than Jane, it just makes the most sense to me. Question about those hoods, though-were they comfortable?
An excellent question. I think the answer is yes because otherwise I don't think the fashion would have lasted as long as it did. People also still wear them today for historical re-enactments and I've never heard any complaints.
Certainly Jane Seymour. She gave him his longed for son, She died before he could tire of her or irritate him in some way. I’d like to think he truly grieved her death.
I KNOW that I should just be grateful for all of the items and knowledge that amazingly has survived until today. I can't help but to feel a sadness whenever I hear about centuries old fires and the like destroying important items. Think of all of the additional pieces and information about royal history we would have today if just that one fire wouldn't have happened. I am so fascinated with the history of the royal family, I'd just love to have even more.
I know. It's heart-breaking. Spare a thought for us here in the island of Ireland though. The Dublin record office burnt down in 1922 and took about 800 years of history with it. It was completely catastrophic.
@@HistoryCalling that's terrible, so much history lost. Seriously makes me want to cry.
Look I understand Art is open to interpetation, and two paintings of the same person can look wildly different (for instance I think Catherine of Aragon has had many paintings that don't particularly look like the same woman) however this painting has always appeared to me to depict Jane Seymour... as Edward is on Henry's right, the logical conclusion is that the women to his left, was the mother of his future heir.... Plus the two portraits looks so identical, down to even their posture, it leads me to believe that there was not live person to paint, and thus they could only reference a portrait of her
Yes, I firmly agree that this portrait seems to be heavily based on Holbein's images of Jane. It looks nothing like the Catherine Parr pictures we have.
By the by, I was watching your “Princes in the Tower” video, and I remember you mentioned a “Rui de Sousa”, and as a portuguese, just thought you might want to know how we pronounce it (this is by no means a correction, and you did a great job, think of it as a fun fact :)
Rui- strong “r” like the french “r”, followed by an “u”, read like the u in “put”, followed by an “i” as in “feet”.
De- “d” as in “distress” and “e” as in the “e” in “notice”, almost nonexistent
Sousa- “S” as in “serpent”, followed by “o” as in “no”, then a “u” wich, together with the “o” sounds like “no”, followed by an “s” read as a “z” in “zipper”, and an “a” as in “Isabella”.
This has nothing to do with the video (wich is very interesting), but I have been thinking about it since tuesday so had to let it out.
Once again, just a fun fact, and your work is amazingly well reaserched and explained: not taking anything out of proportion or exaggerated but accessible!
Hi, no offense taken at all. Thank you for explaining it as I do in fact struggle quite often with pronunciations which are foreign to me. I'm working on a video at the moment with quite a lot of French and Italian and it's been torture trying to find native speakers saying things like Therouanne (there's an accent on the e but I don't know how to put it in in my computer) so that I can copy it. You'll know the video I mean when it comes out at the end of October :-) I'm pretty awful at the French r unfortunately. I just can't do it. We don't have that sound in Northern Irish English :-(
@@HistoryCalling Oooh👀 I must say, though, you make a good job at the pronouncing of most names (I’m not french nor Italian though, but sounds good enough to me!). And about the “r”, it can be a bummer :’) but it’s like you are gargling with water “rrrrrrrr” or clearing your throat in a very indiscreet way haha. But I think that’s normal- some french sounds I too van not achieve- and my mother can, while I can achieve most english sounds whereas my mother can not- it’s normal haha :)
I take it you are a fan of the Lancastrian House rather than the Yorkist House. Portugal is England's oldest trading partner from this period. John of Gaunt helped out Pedro the Cruel in Spain against his brother and married into the Castillian + Laon dynasty after his first wife Blanche had sadly died in the Black Death. Many English monarchs can trace their ancestry back to John of Gaunt (Edward III's third living son).
The English language is chiefly a mix of German (Saxon) and Norman French with a smattering of Latin. Geoffrey Chaucer is convincingly accredited to codifying it and Henry IV the first to use it officially in court circles, being a pragmatic people we tend to miss out on feminine or masculine nouns and for plurality just use an "s". Never really use gluttal stops or rolling "r's. Or the Spanish "¿".
Still, fado is fado, don't stop using that! 😊
@@HistoryCalling You think you've got problems! Henry V's brother the great John Duke of Bedford won an against the odds victory at Verneuil which some equal to Agincourt. Yet goes through almost uncredited. Can you believe how Verneuil is pronounced!!!!!
If it was more intelligible he would be up there with his older brother. Such is the importance of the vernacular in history.
You will remember the campfire talk of the Irishman, Scotsman, Englishman & Welshman in Henry V. 😊
@@English_Dawn Ha! Yes, if I was to go solely by which house was allied to my country, I’d be a Lancastrian. John of Gaunt gave one of his daughters, Phillipa of Lancaster’s hand in marriage to John I of Portugal, the founder of our second dynasty (The Dynasty of Avis). But about being a supporter of the Lancastrian or Yorkist House, I lean towards the Yorks, but the War of the Roses was an extremely complex conflict. Henry IV was an usurper, and the Yorkists were the descendants of the rightful monarch. However, when Richard duke of York started trying to take power from Henry VI, almost half a century had passed since the Yorks had been deposed… So, I really can not make my mind when it comes to this: The Yorks had a closer claim to the throne, but the Lancastrians had already established a dynasty, so it’s very complicated. The only ones that had no real claim were the Tudors lol. They were the descendants of a Queen consort and her second husband. But that’s another story…
Has to be Jane S, included specifically as the heir's mother imo. It also seems to me that Henry would wish to immortalize her as the queen mother, which she would not get to be in life.
I’m American we have no accident at all I can listen to you talk especially because it’s so intelligent and well spoken for days
Americans have an accent
The message is a clear politic and dynastical one. The royal family with the true queen, mother of the royal heir. And... if things go pearshaped... we got reserves. Who actually are slightly above the rank of jester. It reflects Henry's state of mind insecurities about legitimy and fertility and all to a tee! Which to me makes it an unhappy and forced piece.
I’ve never thought of the queen next to him as anyone other than Jane.
I like the theory of it being both Janes... it seems to fit best.
Hello I'm a new subscriber, I really enjoyed this video and have subsequently watched a few more. I've always thought that it was Queen Jane Seymour and I think it's a beautiful painting , the colours are magnificent, many thanks x
Hi Angela. Thank you for subscribing and welcome aboard. Yes, I think it's Jane too.
Perfect example demonstrating why on the back of a photo, I always write the name of who is shown.
Me too! :-)
Was thinking if they are both the jesters in the doorway why isn’t Henry’s on the right with the important ones?
Makes me think the lady in the door must be someone of more importance.
Great content love the accent
Thank you 😁 It's Northern Irish (possibly you already knew that, but I thought I'd throw it out there just in case).
@@HistoryCalling I did not know so thanks.
If my school history teachers sounded like you I would have paid attention more.
This is the first time I’ve seen this picture. I found this intriguing. My guess is Jane Seymour. She was his beloved because she gave him a son. I read there were hidden messages on Anne Boleyn’s prayer book. Any thoughts? Thank you for bringing history to us. Have a good evening.
That prayer book will be getting a quick mention in an upcoming video, but you'll have to wait and see. :-)
@@HistoryCalling
That’s okay. I understand that you’re working on other projects.