Lady Jane Grey Giving her Girdle Prayer Book to Master Thomas Brydges, the Lieutenant’s Brother

Illustration

From the collection of LadyJaneGreyRevisited

And then she kneeling down, she turned to Feckenham, saying, “Shall I say this Psalm?” And he said, “Yes.” Then she said the Psalm of Miserere Mei Deus in English in most devout manner to the end. Then she stood up and gave her maid Mistress Tylney her gloves and handkerchief, and her book to Master Thomas Brydges, the Lieutenant’s brother. – The Lady Jane Grey’s Prayer Book, J. Stephan Edwards, p. 4

1. I first became aware of your research into Lady Jane Grey in an article in The Sunday Times in 2005; this was followed by the article in History Today (A New Face for the Lady). In these you suggested that a portrait at the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge (previously labelled as ‘formerly Mary I when Princess), was perhaps Jane Grey. How did you discover this portrait?

I first saw the painting in the summer of 2000, during which I was at Gonville and Caius College as a study-abroad student at the University of Cambridge. But it was not until the spring of 2005 that I was able to return to the Fitzwilliam, meet with curators Dr Scrace and Dr Munro, and investigate the painting in a formal manner. It was primarily the ‘D’ (for Dorset?) on the prayerbook that attracted me. Now, of course, I have been completely persuaded that the painting is not Jane Grey. The Fitzwilliam portrait was my first foray into portrait research, and it was an invaluable learning experience. Stephan Edwards (Portraits) – Lady Jane Grey Reference Guide

If the cryptic statement under provenance in the Royal Collection (which has already led me to chase after two wrong Lady Capels) is meant to indicate that this portrait came to the Royal Collection after Frederick, Prince of Wales's acquisition of Kew Palace, the Lady Capel referred to must be Dorothy, daughter Richard Bennett and wife of Henry Capel, 1st Baron Capell of Tewkesbury (1638 – 1696).

The house the Capels lived in at Kew Gardens was an inheritance from Dorothy's father, Richard Bennett. I cannot find any connection between the Bennetts and the old families, while there are plenty of connections in the family tree of Henry Capel.

The painting may of course also have been bought to be a part of their collection at any time.

The reason this portrait is interesting, besides it likely being by the same hand as the Grimsthorpe Portrait, is its incription:

[Shore's?] WIFE MISTRIS TO A KING

Compare this to the entry in the Lumley inventory:

Of Shores wyfe concubyne to K: Edw: 4.

The Lumley Inventory

The painting in the Lumley Collection must be the same portrait that is registered in the Arundell Collection in 1655 as:

714. Joan Shorr, advocate.

The Life, Correspondence & Collections of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel by Mary Frederica Sophia Hervey

Through this connection he was a second cousin of the Frances Montagu who married John Manners, 8th Earl of Rutland (10 June 1604 – 29 September 1679). They had seven children:

• Lady Grace Manners (died 15 February 1700), who married, first, Patrick Chaworth, 3rd Viscount Chaworth, and after his death, married Sir William Langhorne, 1st Baronet; she died less than a year after this second marriage.
• Lady Margaret Manners (died 1682), who married James Cecil, 3rd Earl of Salisbury, and had children
• Lady Frances Manners (c. 1636–1660), who married John Cecil, 4th Earl of Exeter, and had children
• John Manners, 1st Duke of Rutland (1638–1711)
• Lady Elizabeth Manners (c. 1654–1700), who married James Annesley, 2nd Earl of Anglesey, and had children.
• Lady Dorothy Manners (c. 1656–1698), who married Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 2nd Earl of Shaftesbury and had children.
• Lady Anne Manners (born 1655), who married Scrope Howe, 1st Viscount Howe.

This may or may not be important.

What is certain is that all of these people lived their lives within the same window of allotted time as Henry Capel.

His mother Elizabeth Morrison was the daughter and sole heiress of Sir Charles Morrison and Mary Hicks, daughter of Baptist Hicks, 1st Viscount Campden.

If you compare the "cap" on the lady in the Jane Shore portrait with the headdress Elizabeth Woodville is wearing, it makes me wonder if headdress the lady in the Jane Shore painting is wearing is, in fact, also a henin.

The earliest instance I have seen of the type of hat she is wearing is from 1590's, a full decade after the ruff which is firmly dateable to the 1580's, making me wonder if the hat is, in fact, a later addition.

Also, the bodice doesn't seem to be as tightly laced as the bodice of women's wear was in Elizabethan times. It seems to follow more the body's curves.

Lady Jane Grey – The Grimsthorpe Portrait and Jane Shore

According to J. Stephan Edwards's assessment of the Grimsthorpe Portrait, «Past assessors of the painting have on occasion questioned the age of the work. The authors of several handwritten notes affixed to the reverse of the panel reveal that each independently concluded that the painting technique seen in this picture was inconsistent with that of the sixteenth century. The consensus among those assessors dated the paintwork to the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century. Yet the technique exhibited in the jewels and costume are entirely consistent with that seen in other English paintings authentically dating to the middle of the sixteenth century. Only the face appears inconsistent with sixteenth-century technique, that it is perhaps more likely that an early attempt to "restore" and to "improve" the paintwork of the face resulted in a confusing appearance.» A Queen of a New Invention, by J. Stephan Edwards, p. 118

If the Grimsthorpe Portrait is indeed an actual painting of Lady Jane Grey (as I have come to believe that it is), the question is: Is it another portrait painted from life or is it a copy (or an elaboration) of another portrait?

According to Leo Gooch in his A Complete Pattern of Nobility: John, Lord Lumley (c.1534-1609) some of the pictures in the Lumley Collection were bequeathed to Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury. His granddaughter, Lady Elizabeth Cecil, the daughter of his son William Cecil, 2nd Earl of Salisbury, married William Cavendish, 3rd Earl of Devonshire. They were the parents of Lady Anne Cavendish, Countess of Exeter, whose first husband was the eldest and only son of the Earl of Warwick. Lady Anne Cavendish, Countess of Exeter, was the great-grandmother of Lady Elizabeth Cecil Sutton Chaplin and Brownlow Cecil, 9th Earl of Exeter.

I am wondering if this is a red herring, though. Instead, there is another interesting link between the Cecils and the Capels and Lady Jane Grey.

Lady Jane Grey's uncle, Lord John Grey of Pirgo, was one of the few family members still standing after the events of 1554.

He too had been convicted for high treason for his involvement in Wyatt's rebellion alongside his brothers Henry Grey, Duke of Suffolk and Lord Thomas Grey, but his wife and her family's close friendship with Mary I Tudor saved his life.

Two of his children were:

• Henry Grey, 1st Baron Grey of Groby, eldest son and heir, seated at Pirgo Place, who re-established the Grey family presence both at court and at their ancestral domains including Bradgate and Groby in Leicestershire. His grandson was Henry Grey, 1st Earl of Stamford.
• Margaret Grey, wife of Sir Arthur Capell of Hadham, Sheriff of Hertfordshire in 1592, reputed to have had eleven sons and nine daughters. She was the ancestor of the Barons Capell of Hadham later Earls of Essex.

Henry Grey, 1st Earl of Stamford married Lady Anne Cecil, daughter of William Cecil, 2 nd Earl of Exeter. Due to some tragedies, the 3rd Earl of Exeter (and the ancestor of Lady Elizabeth Cecil Sutton Chaplin and Brownlow Cecil, 9 th Earl of Exeter) was Lady Anne's cousin, not her brother.

Strangely enough, Lord John Grey of Pirgo was one of the few people who might have been in possession of both a portrait of Lady Jane Grey and Jane Shore.

His devotion to his family can be gathered not only from the fact that he was willing to die for them, but also how he named his children for his lost family: Henry, Margaret, Frances, Elizabeth, Jane ...

As her uncle he could easily have been the recipient of a portrait of Jane from her in happier times, or come by one of her when nearly all of their family was gone. 

Lord John Grey of Pirgo's grandfather Thomas Grey, 1st Marquis of Dorset was the lover of Jane Shore, as was his step-great-grandfather Edward IV and his other step-great-grandfather William Hastings, 1st Baron Hastings.

If anyone were inclined to order a portrait of Jane Shore, it might have been one of her rich and powerful lovers, who were all very devoted to her.

She must also have had a strong friendship with Elizabeth Woodville, the wife of Edward IV and mother of Thomas Grey, 1st Marquis of Dorset respectively, for Jane Shore to risk so much for her in order to help Elizabeth Woodville and her daughters in the (ultimately very successful) plot of replacing Richard III with Henry VII.

So even Elizabeth Woodville might have been in possession of a portrait of her old friend, the mistress of her husband, son and of the step-father of her daughter-in-law.

By way of inheritance it might have wandered from any of these people to Lord John Grey of Pirgo, especially after so much of the Grey family was obliterated in 1554.

This theory is, however, dependent on the Grimsthorpe Portrait moving sideways rather than the more traditionally thought of linear way once more in its history.

We know that it did for certain once.

From Sophia Matilda Wright Heathcote to her sister-in-law, Clementina Drummond Willoughby Heathcote, 24th Baroness Willougby de Eresby.

The portrait had in all likelihood been a dying bequest from Sophia Matilda's mother Sophia Frances Chaplin Wright to her daughter.

Sophia Frances Chaplin Wright may have received the portrait as a gift from her aunt-by-marriage, Lady Elizabeth Cecil Chaplin. The two women had a shared interest in painting. Two paintings the two of them executed together are still in existence in the Burghley Collection.

Lady Elizabeth Cecil Chaplin may have been gifted the Grimsthorpe Portrait by her brother, Brownlow Cecil, 9th Earl of Exeter, a childless widower. She was his favourite sister. We know that he gave her a handsome portrait of himself. In addition, he donated handsomely to the British Museum, clearly not being overly invested in all of his art remaining in the principal estate of the family.

The last time the portrait must have moved sideways instead of linearly according to our theory was from Henry Grey, 1st Earl of Stamford (c. 1599–1673) to his wife's family, the Cecil Earls of Exeter.

Either as a gift outright, or for some sort of pecuniary incentive.

Between the time Henry Grey, 1st Earl of Stamford married Lady Anne Cecil c.1620 (based upon the approximate year of birth of their first child) and until his death in 1673, there were four Earls of Exeter or people who would one day hold that title.

His father-in-law William Cecil, 2nd Earl of Exeter (1566–1640), his wife's cousin David Cecil, 3rd Earl of Exeter (c. 1600–1643), his wife's cousin's son John Cecil, 4th Earl of Exeter (1628–1678), and his wife's cousin's grandson John Cecil, 5th Earl of Exeter (c. 1648–1700), the Travelling Earl who married our Lady Anne Cavendish, whose first husband was the eldest and only son of the Earl of Warwick, and became the great-grandparents of Brownlow and Elizabeth Cecil.

«At least three early copies of the Wrest Park Portrait are documented, though the locations of only two are known today. Of the two known, the first and presumed earliest was produced in the middle of the eighteenth century for Harry Grey (1715-1768), 4th Earl of Stamford. It was held at Enville Hall until the beginning of the twentieth century, when it was removed to Dunham Massey at the behest of Roger Grey, 10th Earl of Stamford.» A Queen of a New Invention, by J. Stephan Edwards, p. 193 (This portrait)

This suggests to me, like the Seymours creation of the Syon Portrait, that by the middle of the eighteenth century, the Greys were no longer in possession of a genuine portrait of Lady Jane Grey. This is in itself odd. Lord John Grey of Pirgo was one of the few adults walking out of the situation alive in 1554, and he came into possession of Bradgate, Lady Jane Grey's childhood home, already in 1563.

Reason dictates that if anybody had a genuine portrait of her, he would be the most likely candidate.

Yet, in the middle of the eighteenth century, in possession of the same property, his descendants did not.

Or had they had one and traded it away?

In a move worthy of his forebear, Henry Grey, 1st Duke of Suffolk, Henry Grey, 1st Earl of Stamford managed to be on the winning side of the English Civil War and still be reduced to poverty.

The Cecil Earls of Exeter fared the treacherous waters of the Civil War much better, financially.

The fifth Earl of Exeter, for instance, was a notable Grand Tourist and filled his family home, Burghley House, with treasures purchased on his travels in 1679, 1681 and 1699 in Italy. He purchased 300 works of art during his 22 years in Burghley and spent on his last visit to Europe £5,000 (c. £535,000 in 2017 currency).

It is interesting to note, but probably of no matter, that Lord Exeter married Lady Anne, daughter of William Cavendish, 3rd Earl of Devonshire, in circa 1670, three years before the death of Henry Grey, 1st Earl of Stamford.

The Cavendishes, who had their own portrait of Lady Jane Grey, which they were not willing to alienate from the principal estate of the family.

Lady Anne Cavendish, whose first husband was the eldest and only son of the Earl of Warwick, who may instead have brought with her a copy of this portrait, the Ansty Hall Miniature Portrait.

Perhaps the Lady Jane Grey was of some particular importance to her, the way the images we grow up with often are.

And Lady Jane Grey too had married a son of the Earl of Warwick.

The Portrait Called Jane Shore

Alright, according to some entries in the Royal Collection there is another candidate for Lady Capel.

According to the entry for the portrait of Emperor Maximilian I «[t]his portrait was acquired as part of a set at the same time as the purchase of Kew Palace. Provenance Acquired with other historical portraits in 1731 when Frederick Prince of Wales purchased the lease of Kew House from Samuel Molyneux, husband of Lady Elizabeth Capel (d. 1731).»

This Elizabeth is the same Elizabeth mentioned in the Wikipedia article as the great-niece Lady Capel left Kew House to, but the Wikipedia article omits to mention that Elizabeth was actually Lady Capel's great-niece-by-marriage, the great-niece of her husband, and thus actually a Capel herself. Lady Elizabeth Capel's father was Algernon Capell, 2nd Earl of Essex. Her first husband was Samuel Molyneux, her second husband Nathaniel St. André.

Her taste in men seems to have been ... interesting.

What practical difference this makes is uncertain. Lady Elizabeth Capell through her father would naturally have been related to all the same people that her great-uncle was.

In addition, there is her mother's and her grandmother's line.

If anything, her parents even were closer in status to the Cecil Earls of Exeter and the Cavendish Earls and Dukes of Devonshire and even more likely to move in the same circles.

And again, the portrait could naturally have been purchased at any time.

We must also allow for the possibility that the difference in the entries in the Royal Collection is that the portrait called Jane Shore came from a collection that had been known to have belonged to Dorothy Bennett, Lady Capel.

According to History of Parliament Online Dorothy Bennett, Lady Capel died in 1721. Any changes in the collection must have taken place between that time and the death of Samuel Molyneux in 1728.

Since Samuel Molyneux died in 1728, any transactions must necessarily have been conducted prior to that time.

So we know the portrait called Jane Shore must predate 1728. Any attempt to date it based on the centemporary popularity of its sitter is hopeless, however. 

Thomas More, writing when Shore was very old, declared that even then an attentive observer might discern in her shriveled countenance traces of her former beauty.

She is a significant character in The True Tragedy of Richard III, an anonymous play written shortly before Shakespeare's Richard III. 'Mistress Shore' is frequently mentioned in William Shakespeare's play, Richard III, believed to have been written around 1593. The story of Jane Shore's wooing by Edward IV, her influence in court, and her tragic death in the arms of Matthew Shore is the main plot in a play by Thomas Heywood, Edward IV printed in 1600. The Tragedy of Jane Shore by Nicholas Rowe is a 1714 play.

A Conspicuous Courtesan By daseger

There were five women of the older generation who lived through the Wars of the Roses recorded in the Lumley Inventory: Elizabeth Woodville (c.1437 – 8 June 1492), Jane Shore (c.1445 – c.1527), Margaret of Anjou (23 March 1430 – 25 August 1482), Margaret Beaufort (31 May 1441/3 – 29 June 1509) and Margaret Beauchamp, Countess of Shrewsbury (1404 – 14 June 1467).

This suggests that Jane Shore was already a popular and famous character in Thomas More's day and still a popular and famous character in the 1590's when a portrait of her was in the Lumley Collection.

The Tragedy of Jane Shore by Nicholas Rowe was published in 1714, a year we can see is very close to 1728. 

In short, in every year from her own lifetime to 1728 there might have been an interest from a member of the public to possess a portrait of her.

What would have been very interesting was to know if the inscription on the painting was original to it or a later addition.

Because if the inscription dates to the painting of the portrait, that means that it was painted as a representation of Jane Shore, not misattributed later, and that is interesting in itself.

Furthermore, it would be interesting to see if the 'anachronistic details' are a part of the original painting, or if they were added later on.

Because, remove the hat and cloak, and you would pretty much have a lady dressed in Wars of the Roses fashion.

Lastly, it would have been interesting to see the result of a dendrochronological analysis.

Esther Inglis (1569–1624), Calligrapher and miniaturist

1595

Oil on panel | 32.30 x 23.10 cm

Scottish National Portrait Gallery | PG 3556

While the portrait of a lady called Jane Shore and the portrait of Mary Rogers, Lady Harington are undated (an erroneous date inscription AÑO DÑ 1533 was added or altered well after the Harrington Portrait was created), we do have one painting of a lady with the same type of ruff and a very similar hat to the lady in the portrait called Jane Shore which is clearly dated to 1595.

(Unlike the portrait called Jane Shore, you will notice that this has all the period typical details, the cone-shaped bodice and the drab little cap that goes with the ugly hat.)

It would be very interesting if both dendrochronological analysis confirmed that this portrait was painted around 1595 and technical analysis showed that the inscription was original to the portrait.

While, as I have written, there does not seem to have been a time when Jane Shore was *not* popular, it is possible to argue that she enjoyed a particular surge of popularity in the years around 1595.

Shakespeare's Richard III is believed to have been written around 1593. Jane Shore is a significant character in The True Tragedy of Richard III, an anonymous play written shortly before Shakespeare's Richard III. On the 28th August 1599 was licensed the play History of the Life and Death of Master Shore and Jane Shore his Wife.

An important event to both the Greys of Bradgate and the Capells took place around the same time. In 1592, Margaret Grey, daughter of John Grey of Pirgo, was the wife of Sir Arthur Capell of Hadham, Sheriff of Hertfordshire.

She was reputed to have had eleven sons and nine daughters. She was the ancestor of the Barons Capell of Hadham later Earls of Essex.

Above I have suggested that the Grimsthorpe Portrait of Lady Jane Grey was a wedding present from John Cecil, 5th Earl of Exeter to his bride Lady Anne Cavendish in 1670.

Here I suggest that a copy of the portrait of Jane Shore that I suggest was in the Greys' possession at Bradgate was given to Margaret Grey and Sir Arthur Capell as a wedding present.

Or, they may have commissioned a copy for themselves, as we by now have seen many examples of were done by new branches off of the family tree.

While this would explain both the inscription and the creation of this portrait in the mid-1590's, it does not explain the added 1590's elements, the hat and the cloak.

While I have speculated earlier that these elements may have been added at a later time, well after the creation of actual the portrait itself (which could speak to the portrait dating to earlier than the mid-1590's), if also these elements were an original part of the picture, it could be possible that they were added to make the painting more 'cool' and 'modern' for the young people.

Looking back, I am not sure why the importance of the Grimsthorpe Portrait of Lady Jane Grey and the portrait called Jane Shore in the Royal Collection being painted by the same painter impressed itself so strongly on me.

After all, the fact that two portraits were painted by the same sitter does not mean that there is a connection between the sitters, nor a connection between the provenance of the paintings. One only has to look at all the diverse sitters of Hans Holbein and Hans Eworth, for example, to dispel that notion.

If I am right in the Grimsthorpe Portrait being a portrait of Lady Jane Grey which hung at Bradgate until c. 1670, then it is possible that executor of that painting was a local painter, whom the Grey family of Bradgate again hired to make a copy of an heirloom painting of Jane Shore as a gift to the newlyweds Margaret Grey and Sir Arthur Capell in c. 1592.

I am not suggesting that person only took local assignments, as it is my belief he or she also painted Mary Rogers, Lady Harrington of Kelston, but that he or she was someone the Greys of Bradgate was familiar with, so familiar that he or she was their go-to person for such assignments.

The way many families have a standard photographer for their family pictures.

One, because they take great pictures.

Two, because ... They're there.

If this is correct, we are talking about a painter who was active in England in c. 1553 when the Grimsthorpe Portrait of Lady Jane Grey was painted, and was still active in c. 1592, when the portrait called Jane Shore in the Royal Collection was painted, nearly forty years later.

No such painter is known today.

It is tempting, based on the above to speculate that the Grimsthorpe Portrait itself could be a copy from around the 1580's-1590's of an older original.

English painting style from the mid-1550's is not really distinguishable from English painting style from the mid-1580's-1590's, after all.

Yet, I don't believe this.

For two reasons.

In the opinion of J. Stephan Edwards, the Grimsthorpe portrait very likely originates sometime in the mid-sixteenth century, with the face likely having been re-done in the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century. From a purely artistic-connoissuerial perspective, there is nothing in the technique or materials of the painting that would conclusively date it to any one decade of the century.

My gut instinct, for what it's worth, agrees with him.

The second reason is the lack of inscription in itself speaks of the portrait being an original to me.

After all, we have by now seen countless of portraits not of Lady Jane Grey being inscribed Lady Jane Grey, you would think that they would have managed to do that with a copy of a real one.

Any artist at this time would be compelled to be “active” (i.e., earning a living by selling his works) from the end of his apprenticeship until very near to his death. In the Tudor period, one had to work in order to eat. They did not have pensions and retirement schemes. And artists never accumulated wealth ... the endeavour was not a wealthy-making one in that era. Most artists completed their apprenticeship and began selling their own wares under their own name in their early 20's.

There is current research into the likelihood that “artists” were actually compelled to work in multiple artistic fields simultaneously (portraits, painting designs on pottery, painting scenery for the theaters, painting murals and frescoes in houses, designing jewelry, designing cutlery and tableware, designing church plate and accessories, etc.) simply because most could not earn a sufficient living from a single artistic pursuit such as portraiture. Holbein, for example, obviously painted portraits, but he also designed jewelry, designed silver goblets and vessels, designed architectural elements (e.g.: ceiling bosses), and other such non-painting things. John Bettes the Elder, the only relatively well documented and native English artist of the mid-Tudor period, worked from about 1530 to his death in about 1570. So he had a rather long career, at circa 40 years. But no other English-born artist is known to have been active in England prior to the 1560's. Many of those active after 1560 seem to have had reasonably long careers, however ... sometimes in excess of 25 years.

So it is not without the realm of possibility that such a painter could have existed.

For such a long career, however, one could expect to find many more paintings by this person's hand. I have, in spite of being on constant lookout for a long time, only been able to find these three in this distinctive style, and the fourth one, which lacks some of the distinctive traits, but which I am still reasonably certain is by the same hand.

The shiny fabrics, the rendition of which is seemingly ahead of its time, the dark background, and the white, somewhat mask-like faces.

One way to test the possibility of the portrait called Lady Jane Shore actually being Jane Shore would be to compare it with unidentified portraits of Plantagenet women and see if we got a match.

To the best of my knowledge, there aren't many unidentified portraits of Plantagenet women around.

If there had been, I expect there would have been sites trying to identify them.

You know, like this one.

Lionel Cust rightly made much of this portrait in 1908 when it was purchased by the National Gallery as a rare and important example of early English portraiture.

You know, until it was revealed to be a forgery.

Unknown woman, formerly known as Lady Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby

19th century

National Portrait Gallery | NPG 1488

«When the Gallery purchased this painting in 1908, very little was known of its history but it was thought to be the only portrait of Henry VII’s mother painted from life, in around 1475. The Gallery’s director, Lionel Cust made much of it as a rare and important example of early English portraiture. The Gallery’s earliest record of the portrait dates from 1883 when it was purchased by Lord Powerscourt. He invited the first director, George Scharf to view it, but Scharf was not convinced of its authenticity. He sketched it on the back of Lord Powerscourt’s letter describing it as ‘A fabrication’. Powerscourt promptly resold it at Christie’s, probably the lot titled ‘A lady, in nun’s dress’. By the time it again appeared at auction in 1908 Scharf’s opinion was apparently lost sight of and it was purchased for the Gallery as a portrait of Lady Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby. Cust’s successor, Sir Charles Holmes, had his doubts however, and in January 1911 wrote a report on the portrait noting some peculiarities, for example that it was painted on a very fine linen laid down on a modern panel and that the coat of arms was a later addition. His suspicions were confirmed in 1939 when two x-ray photographs were taken. These revealed that a portrait of an unknown young woman in the costume of circa 1510-50 was painted underneath, probably an early copy of a donor or donor’s wife from an early 16th century Flemish altarpiece; it had been painted over and a coat of arms added in order to sell it as a portrait of Henry VII’s mother. What we see today is now known to be a 19th century painting.»

Another portrait I have seen referred to as Margaret Beaufort is in fact Vittoria Farnese.

In fact, there aren't many identified ones of Plantagenet women, either.

Of the seven mentioned in the Lumley Collection, we have widely disseminated images of Elizabeth of York, her mother Elizabeth Woodville and her mother-in-law Margaret Beaufort.

There is one portrait in the National Portrait Gallery which is probably her cousin Margaret Pole (NPG 2607).

The portrait of Margaret Beauchamp, Countess of Shrewsbury that was in the Lumley Collection is still in existance today and is in the Collection of the Marquess of Northampton at Compton Wynyates.

Which means that the portraits of Jane Shore and Margaret of Anjou that were in the Lumley Collection must be of particular interest to us.

Leo Gooch writes of the portrait of Margaret of Anjou that it was «Probably one of a standard set of royal portraits». (A Complete Pattern of Nobility, p. 149)

The problem is that no such widely disseminated image of Margaret of Anjou seems to exist. See the portraiture of Margaret of Anjou at Queen's College, Cambridge.

Leo Gooch continues «one of which is in Queen's College, Cambridge.»

Queen's College, Cambridge, themselves, however, does not make any mention of this portrait in their excellent overview of the portraiture of Margaret of Anjou.

An entry in the Arundel Collection was for Joan Shorr, advocate (goodness only knows what the original Italian was for that*), which makes me believe that the portrait of Jane Shore that was in the Lumley Collection followed the Arundels to the Continent.

(*One Italian transcription reads Joan Shorn, advocato, actually, which made me wonder briefly if it could be a misreading of John, and it instead referred to a portrait of John Schorne or something similar. The Arundel Inventory of 1655 has precisely one entry for Joan, however, this one, and 27 involving the name John, making me believe that the chances of a misreading are slim.)

«Audrey remarked upon 'a rare picture, viz. of that pretty creature Mrs. Jane shore, an original' in the possession of Lady Southcot.» A Complete Pattern of Nobility by Leo Gooch, p. 156

«Noble also says, quoting Aubrey's notes, that Lady Southcot, sister of Sir John Suckling, had at her house in Bishopsgate Street ‘a rare picture, viz., of that pretty creature, Mrs. Jane Shore, an original.’» Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900, Volume 52 Shore, Jane by William Arthur Jobson Archbold

«My lady Southcot, whose husband hanged himselfe, was Sir John Suckling's sister, to whom he writes a consolatory letter, viz. the first. She afterwards maried ... Corbet, D.D., of Merton Coll. Oxon. At her house in Bishop's Gate-street, London, is an originall of her brother, Sir John, of Sir Anthony van-Dyke, all at length, leaning against a rock, with a play-booke, contemplating. It is a piece of great value. There is also another rare picture, viz. of that pretty creature, Mris Jane Shore, an originall.» ́Brief Lives ́, chiefly of Contemporaries, between the Years 1669 & 1696 Volume II  by John Aubrey

«Ann Davis, Lady Southcote» Doubtful Readers: Print, Poetry, and the Reading Public in Early Modern England by Erin A. McCarthy

Sir John Suckling (10 February 1609 – after May 1641) was an English poet.

«The poet's father, Sir John Suckling (1569–1627), entered Gray's Inn on 22 May 1590 (Foster, Register, p. 77), and was returned to parliament for the borough of Dunwich in 1601 (Members of Parl. i. 440). In 1602 he was acting as secretary to the lord treasurer, Sir Robert Cecil [...] Martha, who married Sir George Southcott of Shillingford, Devonshire, and, after his suicide in 1638, married as her second husband William Clagett of Isleworth, and died at Bath on 29 June 1661 (she is said to have been the favourite sister of the poet, who sent her a consolatory letter in 1638); Anne, who married Sir John Davis of Bere Court (Le Neve, Pedigrees of Knights, p. 162), and died on 24 July 1659; Mary and Elizabeth, who died unmarried» Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900, Volume 55 Suckling, John by Thomas Seccombe

History of Parliament Online confirms that Sir George Southcote married Martha. George Southcote (1572-1638) of Shillingford, Devon – History of Parliament Online

I am not sure if the painting now in the Royal Collection would have been old enough in the mid-1600's to be considered an 'original' from two hundred years past.

It looks, if the 'modern' additions were not added later, to be precisely from around the mid-1590's, which means that the portrait would have been from 40 to 70 years old in the mid-1600's, depending on when John Aubrey saw it at Lady Southcote's.

Martha Suckling was Lady Southcote from when she married in 1635 until she died in 1661.

Our copy could very well have been the copy of an original, however, which fits so very well with the elements of the portrait that is not consistent with the fashion of the 1590's, such as the headdress that looks so suspiciously like a henin underneath the hat, and the soft, non-boned bodice so at odds with the typically heavily boned and relatively rigid silhouette of this period.

And that original could very well have ended up with Lady Southcote.

Of an 'original' of Jane Shore, we potentially know of one. The one that may have been in the possession of Lord John Grey of Pirgo, of Bradgate, almost the sole survivor of the elder generation of the Greys, who were themselves descendants of a great number of Jane Shore's lovers and friends.

Henry Grey, 1st Earl of Stamford's monetary difficulties appear to have started around 1643 and lasted until his death in 1673.

There exists a link between the him and Lady Southcote and Sir John Suckling, albeit distant.

His wife, Anne Cecil, was the great-niece of Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury (1563–1612), whom Lady Southcote and Sir John Suckling's father had been secretary to.

It is also possible that it was the portrait from the Lumley Collection, making a brief appearance there on the way from the estate of Elizabeth Darcy of Chiche, Lady Lumley, the widow of Lord Lumley to the Arundels, or that it was amongst the artworks 'bought in by Britain' after the Arundel Collection was gradually dispersed after 1655 after the deaths of the Arundels.

If the Greys were indeed in possession of a portrait of Jane Shore, which may or may not have been sold by Henry Grey, 1st Earl of Stamford c. 1643–1673, odds are that it was from this portrait the Lumleys copied theirs.

Henry FitzAlan from whom they inherited the nucleus of the collection was married to Katherine Grey, the sister of Lord John Grey of Pirgo, and aunt of Lady Jane Grey.

Jane Lumley was the daughter of Henry FitzAlan and Katherine Grey, and hence niece of Lord John Grey of Pirgo etc.

Before the temperature of family relations between those two branches fell below zero in 1553–1554, Henry FitzAlan could easily have made a copy of a portrait of 'that pretty creature, Mrs. Jane Shore'.

Sir John Suckling

c.1638

Anthony van Dyck (Flemish, 1599–1641)

Oil on canvas

85 1/4 x 51 1/4 in. (216.5 x 130.2 cm)

The Frick Collection | 1918.1.44

The other painting observed by Audrey at Lady Southcote’s, that of her brother Sir John Suckling, is today in the Frick Collection.

The provenance is given as: Lady Southcott. Sir Thomas Lee, Bart., and his descendants, Hartwell House, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire. Dr. John Lee, Hartwell. E.D. Lee, Hartwell. Frick, 1918.

Sir Thomas Lee, 1st Baronet (26 May 1635 – 19 February 1691) married Anne Davis, Lady Southcote’s niece, the daughter of her sister Anne Suckling who married Sir John Davis the younger. Magna Britannia; Being a Concise Topographical Account of the Several Counties of Great Britain by Daniel Lysons, Matthew Gregson and Samuel Lysons

It is not known when the portraits parted ways, or if they followed each other some of the way.

From 1714 the advent of our portrait type of Jane Shore makes it diffult to trace the portraits owned by Lady Southcote and Lumley. Sarah Lant, Lady Humble’s portrait was almost certainly one of this kind.

Equally almost certainly, the same artist painted the Jane Shore/Fair Rosamund and the Fair Rosamund/Roxanna portraits.

«The 1724 sale that did include a Fair Rosamund and a Jane Shore was of the effects of a Lady Humble.» Further information sought on portraits of ‘Jane Shore’

«Sir John Humble, who m. Sarah, daughter and co-heir of Andrew Lant, esq. of Thorpe Underwood, in the county of Northampton, and had surviving issue, William, his heir. Mary. He d. 7th February, 1723, and was s. by his son» A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies of England, Ireland, and Scotland by John Burke

staircase and hall, lot 10 10 Fair Rosomond, Jane Shore, and two other Heads 3qrs. A catalogue of the Lady Humble's large dwelling house and fine gardens, ... with the household goods [London 1724]; in 'The art world in Britain 1660 to 1735,' at http://artworld.york.ac.uk;

lot 3 Fair Rosamond, and three other heads 'Mr.Sykes sale of Pictures. 1733'; transcribed in Houlditch Manuscript vol 1, p.525, mid 18th cent, National Art Library, pressmark 86.00.18; in 'The art world in Britain 1660 to 1735,' at http://artworld.york.ac.uk;

We do, however, have one undisputed likeness of Jane Shore, that of her parents’ memorial brass in Hinxworth, Hertfordshire:

EDITED TO ADD 29.06.2021

The life of Elizabeth ‘Jane’ Shore after she married Thomas Lynom, Richard III’s Solicitor General, has largely been shrouded in mystery.

From the will of her father, John Lambert, we have the following:

Also I bequeath to Thomas Lyneham gentilman xxs. To Elizabeth Lyneham my daughter a bed of arras with the velour tester and cortaynes [and] a stayned cloth of mary magdalen and Martha. Also I bequeath to Julyan Lyneham xls.

We know that at some date before the death of Prince Arthur in 1502 Thomas Lynom alias Lyneham gained a post as clerk controller of his household, as well as other assorted other posts.[19]

We know that he probably died between 1516 and July 1518.[20] And that his wife was observed in her old age by Thomas More.

This day I have discovered that in addition to Julyan, they probably had (at least) two more children, Alice and Richard(!)!

Behold:

[North Wall of Chancel, with recumbent figure and arms.] Whittlesea St. Mary. (i.) Celastia seqvor terrestria sperno | Here Lyeth Bvried the Bodye of Thomas Hake, Esqvier | sonne and heire of Symon Hake of Depinge in | the countie of Lyncolne Esqvier and of Alice | his wife dovghter of Thomas Lynham Esqvier | somtyme President of Walles which Thomas | Hake died the first of March An° Dni 1590. | Who married Anne Dovghter of Roger Wylson of Govsner in the covntie of Lancaster Gent. | and of Jane his wife Dovghter of John Wallis which | Thomas and Anne had yssve 5 sonnes and 3 dovgh- | ters which died all yonge Bvt William Hake the | yongest ther only sonne and heire now livinge | [Capitals. in two panels. N. Wall of Sacrarium] Lincolnshire notes and queries. a quarterly journal...devoted to the antiquities, parochial records, family history, folk-lore, quaint customs, etc. of the county by E. Mansel Sympson

«[T]he King by commission maketh one of his nobles his deputy or lieutenant under him, to rule in those parts and to see the peace maintained, and justice ministered, indifferently unto all. This governor is called the Lord president of Wales, who for the ease and good of the country, officiates with one judge and divers justices, holdeth there his Termes and Sessions for the hearing and determining of causes within Wales and the Marches.» Other Englands: Regionalism in Shakespeare's first historical tetralogy

The Court of the Council in the Dominion and Principality of Wales, and the Marches of the same, commonly called the Council of Wales and the Marches was a regional administrative body based in Ludlow Castle. Under Henry VII, the Council was responsible for acting on behalf of his sons as successive Princes of Wales, first Arthur and then Henry.

The Hake memorial is still extant and perfectly legible to this day.

Thomas Hake (d.1590) and William Hake (d.1625) – Jane Shore’s grandson and great-grandson respectively – were both members of Parliament.[21][22]

William Hake of Peterborough went on to marry Lucy, daughter of Henry Gates of Gosberton, Lincoln, and had Henry, Fane, Thomas, Anthony, Symon, William (b. 1601), Elizabeth, Anne, Lucy, Frances, Grace and Mary. The Visitation of Northamptonshire 1618–19

The Visitation of Northamptonshire 1618–19 also gives William a sister named Elizabeth.

In the National Archives, C 1/1241/77-79, we find Thomas Lynon or Lynom, of the same place, Whittlesea, Cambridge, executor of Richard, son of Thomas Lynon.

Description: Short title: Lynon v Hyll. Plaintiffs: Thomas LYNON (Lynom) of Whittlesea, co. Cambridge, executor of Richard, son of Thomas Lynon. Defendants: Hugh HYLL. Subject: Stitchbrook Hall (in Curborough), of the demise of Richard Egerton, late master of the hospital of St John the Baptist, Lichfield. Staffordshire. Date: 1544–1551. Held by: The National Archives, Kew

Notes:

[1] A Queen of a New Invention by J. Stephan Edwards, p. 55-56

[2] The Streatham Portrait – Wikipedia Page

[3] Lady Jane Grey Reference Guide – A look at how the Streatham portrait has been displayed over the years …

[4] (29) Adams, later Woollcombe-Adams and Stopford-Adams, of Ansty Hall – Landed families of Britain and Ireland

[5] The Cecil Family (1914) by George Ravenscroft Dennis

[6] The Royal Compendium: Being a Genealogical History of the Monarchs of England, From the Conquest to the Present Time: Treating distinctly of their Marriages, Children, and Collateral Branches; And Shewing Their Titles, Offices, Births, Deaths, and Places of Birth and Burial; with a View of their Lives. Together with The Descent of the several Foreign Princes now reigning, and of the several Noble and Eminent Families in England, that are sprung from the Blood Royal of this Kingdom, down to the Present Year. (1757)

[7] Old Master Prints and Drawings: A Guide to Preservation and Conservation, edited by Carlo James, Marjorie B. Cohn

[8] Nicholas Lanier: Master of the King? Musick by Michael I. Wilson

[9] A Descriptive Catalogue of the Etched Work of Wenceslaus Hollar 1607-1677 by Richard Pennington

[10] A Queen of a New Invention by J. Stephan Edwards, p. 184

[11] Ibid.

[12] A Queen of a New Invention by J. Stephan Edwards, p. 185 and p. 192

[13] A Queen of a New Invention by J. Stephan Edwards, p. 185 

[14] A Queen of a New Invention by J. Stephan Edwards, p. 131-132

[15] A Queen of a New Invention by J. Stephan Edwards, p. 138

[16] Lady Jane Grey's grandfather was Thomas Grey, 2nd Marquis of Dorset. He was the brother of Cecily Grey, Lady Dudley who was the mother of Edward Sutton, 4th Baron Dudley. Cecily is the only one of the Marquis's then still living siblings whom he mentions in his will. Lord Guildford Dudley's father, John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland was the second cousin of John Sutton, 3rd Baron Dudley (c. 1494 – 1553), commonly known as Lord Quondam, the husband of Cecily Grey and the father of Edward Sutton, 4th Baron Dudley, through their mutual great-grandfather, John Sutton, 1st Baron Dudley. There is some evidence that John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland tricked his cousin out of his wealth. This did not stop Lord Quondam's son Henry Dudley from conspiring revenge on the behalf of his cousin, the Duke, however.

[17] The Lady Jane Grey's Prayer Book: British Library Harley Manuscript 2342, Fully Illustrated and Transcribed – Introduction by J. Stephan Edwards, p. 5

[18] She allowed him to scribble in her beloved girdle prayer book.

[19] The Children in the Care of Richard III: New References. A Lawsuit between Peter Courteys, Keeper of Richard III’s Great Wardrobe, and Thomas Lynom, Solicitor of Richard III, 1495-1501 by Anne F. Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs with Hannes Kleineke (2014), p. 56

[20] Ibid., p. 57-58

[21] Thomas Hake (d.1590) of Peterborough, Northamptonshire – History of Parliament Online

[22] William Hake (d.1625) of Peterborough, Northamptonshire – History of Parliament Online

Comments

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.