«The excess of detail in the canvases is in keeping with the taste for the precise representation of surfaces typical of Flemish painting. The affiliation with that school is evident, despite the doubts that exist about its authorship. Allende Salazar considered it from the hand of Paul van Somer (c.1576-1621). However, the age represented by the monarch, much younger than in the years of main activity of this artist in the English court, has ruled out his participation. It is also related to the work of Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger (1561-1635 / 1636), who spent most of his career in London. According to an unsigned 1922 note from the National Portrait Gallery , the Prado painting is the work of this author. Indeed, the hieratic and solemnity coincide with other well-known works of his, but also with the general atmosphere of the court portrait of the Elizabethan and Jacobean times.
Other voices have claimed the authorship of his brother-in-law John de Critz, also of Flemish origin and trained in London since his childhood with the painter Lucas de Heere (c.1534-1584). There is documentary evidence of payments from Critz for some portraits of James, his wife Anne of Denmark and the Prince of Wales. Those preserved in the Hatfield House or in the Maritime Museum in Greenwich are considered by this artist or his circle. The portrait kept in Loseley Park, and attributed to Critz, bears a great similarity to the work of the Prado. It is evident that these are two works by the same author that repeat a common formula, so the work of the Museo del Prado could well be from this artist. Beyond attribution, the painting illustrates the impact of Flemish portraitists active in the English Court, which will have its emergence with Daniel Mitjens (c.1590-c.1647) and, above all, with Anthony van Dyck (1599-1641).»
John de Critz Portrait of King James – Loseley House
«DPG548 is one of four known full-length versions of a type originated probably by De Critz in 1606. The others are at Loseley Park, in the Prado and in a private collection. DPG548 was attributed in 1926 to Gheeraerts and said to be signed, but the 'signature' (which had already been doubted) was presumably false and must have been removed during cleaning in 1953.» James VI and I – Dulwich Picture Gallery
Whoever painted these four portraits, the one of Katherine Knyvett, Countess of Suffolk and the three of King James VI and I, I should think it was one and the same painter.
07.12 | 21:47
It looks like The Tau cross derives from the Egyptian Ankh and basically they are wearing it around their necks, life rebirth, salvation mirror. sun.Stonehenge looks like it is made up of Ts to form c
07.12 | 21:30
are wearing the symbol on effigies at Ingham church Norfolk and Henry StanleyD1528 at Hillingdon Middlesex.Countess Jacquline of Hainaut and husband Frank Borsele are also wearing the insignia others
07.12 | 21:23
These Queens could of been members of the order and i think the Tau cross is a symbol of the Holy Trinity also.These pendants could of been reliquaries.Lady margaret de Bois and Roger de bois
07.12 | 21:17
I think the Tau cross that they are wearing could be linked to the(knights) order of St Anthony, Mary 1st collar looks like it may represent the knotted girdle/waist cord of st Anthony .