Portrait Sets

This

Lee Porritt in his article The Lyndhurst Portrait was the one who suggested that these two portraits may once have belonged to the same set.

They very much look as if they are the work of the same painter. The composition pattern is the same: «The sitter is placed behind a red cushion or cloth that has been embroidered with the use of gold thread.»

Though not the inscription pattern.

Katherine of Aragon – KATHERINA · VXOR · HENRiCi · Viii · 

Jane Seymour – IANA VXOR̃ HENRiCi OCTAVi · 

The little drawing behind the inscription of the Jane Seymour painting is very similar to the one behind the inscription on the portrait of Mary I Tudor in the Royal Collection. That set is missing its Jane Seymour (presuming it ever had one), but the painting style of that set is very different to this. I therefore wonder if the painting of Mary I Tudor belonging to the set in the Royal Collection could instead be based on the portrait of her that once belonged to this set. RCIN 404739 Mary Tudor has the same composition pattern as these two.

Very similar inscription pattern to this Jane Seymour as well: 

Mary I Tudor – MARIA · REGINA · FILLIÆ · HENRiCi · OCTAVi

Portrait of Jane Seymour in the Collection of the Marquess of Bath – little_miss_sunnydale | Flickr

I am wondering if NPG 668 could originally have been a part of the portrait set now at Longleat. The portrait set was missing its Anne Boleyn already in 1672, presuming it ever included one.

It looks very much as if the same artist could have painted these two pictures.

“The group listed in the 1672 inventory comprised portraits of Edward III, Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI, Edward IV, ‘Queen Elizabeth’ (Elizabeth Woodville), Edward V, Richard III, Margaret Beaufort, Henry VII, Henry VIII, ‘Queen Jane’ (Jane Seymour), Edward VI, Mary I and James VI and I. The pictures offered by Robinson in 1704 included all of the same sitters except Lady Margaret Beaufort and James VI and I, neither of whom are represented in the set currently at Longleat.” Portrait Sets in Tudor and Jacobean England – Two Volumes (Volume One) by Catherine Daunt

I am wondering if these two, the National Gallery of Ireland Anne Boleyn and the Weiss Gallery Mary I Tudor, were not originally part of the the same portrait set. The composition is the same, and the inscription pattern is the same. They also definitely look as if they are by the same hand, though this was apparently not a pre-requisite for portrait sets, but which fact does strengthen the supposition that these were created for and belonged to the same set.

Anne Boleyn – ANNA · BOLINA · VXOR · HENRiCi · OCTAVi

Mary I Tudor – MARIA · REGINA · FiLiA · HENRiCi · OCTAVi

European School, 16th Century Style, Possibly after Anthonis Mor (Spanish, 1519-1577) Portrait of Queen Mary, Daughter of Henry the VIII Unsigned, sitter identified in a Latin inscription along the top edge. Oil on panel, 21 x 15 5/8 in. (53.0 x 39.5 cm), unframed. – European School, 16th Century Style, Possibly after Anthonis Mor (Spanish, 1519-1577), Portrait of Queen Mary, Daughter of Henry the VIII – Skinner 

This portrait looks “older" than the Weiss Gallery and the Deanery, Ripon versions. Possible original of this composition pattern? With the red line at the bottom?