Richard's Portrait
Richard's Portrait
Ishita
Re: Richard's Portrait
http://www.richardiii.net/r3_man_portraits.htm
Would love to read your painter's point of view of these portraits.
Renate
--- In , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Does anyone know who the painter for Richard's portrait was? I see two portraits, one of younger Richard and the other an older(I am presuming)! And many variations of these two. I am a painter by profession and would like to find out more about these portraits....... Another question is why Shakespeare's Richard is portrayed as so much OLDER than actually he was! The actors who had played him were well over 50 in most cases! He was 32 when he died, which makes him 4 yrs younger than I am and I think I am pretty young!!!
>
> Ishita
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
That was a very good article. Thanks for the link.
I am hoping that at least in some aspect Richard would have looked like the portrait, if not all. It is sad that we do not have a face to go with the story!
Another thing that is puzzling to me is why Henry VIII would bother at all with RIII's portraits. Either to alter them or not. I would think his father would have destroyed all his portraits and be done with it....
Is there any surviving portrait of Anne? Other than the stylized one we are used to seeing?
--- In , "walkerjaneway" <renatemm@...> wrote:
>
> I'm afraid the painters of the Richard portraits are unknown. Unfortunately none of them is contemporary, the one with the arched frame is believed to be a close copy of a lost original. Here's a lot of information about both paintings:
> http://www.richardiii.net/r3_man_portraits.htm
>
> Would love to read your painter's point of view of these portraits.
>
> Renate
>
>
> --- In , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone know who the painter for Richard's portrait was? I see two portraits, one of younger Richard and the other an older(I am presuming)! And many variations of these two. I am a painter by profession and would like to find out more about these portraits....... Another question is why Shakespeare's Richard is portrayed as so much OLDER than actually he was! The actors who had played him were well over 50 in most cases! He was 32 when he died, which makes him 4 yrs younger than I am and I think I am pretty young!!!
> >
> > Ishita
> >
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
> Does anyone know who the painter for Richard's portrait was? I see
> two portraits, one of younger Richard and the other an older(I am
> presuming)! And many variations of these two. I am a painter by
> profession and would like to find out more about these
> portraits.......
Both the earliest surviving easel portraits (the Society of
Antiquaries and Windsor version) are early 16C copies based on lost
originals, which probably derive from a single original, one version
simply being laterally inverted and the costumes painted in different
colours (this is quite common in 15C royal portraits: the well-known
Henry V profile obviously has been flipped, because of the absence of
the scarring which is *why* he was portrayed in profile!). John
Ashdown-Hill has argued, convincingly, I think, that the original
portrait dates from Richard being launched on the marriage market
again in early 1485, so they are meant to show him at 32. The quality
of both is probably poorer than the original, but suggests a very
good source (I suspect the original may have been by a Flemish
painter, given the family ties with Burgundy). Later copies of the
Windsor portrait (such as the National Portrait Gallery version) tend
to age it up.
> Another question is why Shakespeare's Richard is portrayed as so
> much OLDER than actually he was! The actors who had played him were
> well over 50 in most cases! He was 32 when he died, which makes him
> 4 yrs younger than I am and I think I am pretty young!!!
He's 15 years younger than me, which puts him pretty much in the
'kid' category!
The Shakespeare play cycle has him as an adult in the Henry VI plays,
when he was really a child, hence the tendency to cast him as much
older.
cheers,
Marianne
Re: Richard's Portrait
--- In , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Ishita,
>
> > Does anyone know who the painter for Richard's portrait was? I see
> > two portraits, one of younger Richard and the other an older(I am
> > presuming)! And many variations of these two. I am a painter by
> > profession and would like to find out more about these
> > portraits.......
>
> Both the earliest surviving easel portraits (the Society of
> Antiquaries and Windsor version) are early 16C copies based on lost
> originals, which probably derive from a single original, one version
> simply being laterally inverted and the costumes painted in different
> colours (this is quite common in 15C royal portraits: the well-known
> Henry V profile obviously has been flipped, because of the absence of
> the scarring which is *why* he was portrayed in profile!). John
> Ashdown-Hill has argued, convincingly, I think, that the original
> portrait dates from Richard being launched on the marriage market
> again in early 1485, so they are meant to show him at 32. The quality
> of both is probably poorer than the original, but suggests a very
> good source (I suspect the original may have been by a Flemish
> painter, given the family ties with Burgundy). Later copies of the
> Windsor portrait (such as the National Portrait Gallery version) tend
> to age it up.
>
> > Another question is why Shakespeare's Richard is portrayed as so
> > much OLDER than actually he was! The actors who had played him were
> > well over 50 in most cases! He was 32 when he died, which makes him
> > 4 yrs younger than I am and I think I am pretty young!!!
>
> He's 15 years younger than me, which puts him pretty much in the
> 'kid' category!
> The Shakespeare play cycle has him as an adult in the Henry VI plays,
> when he was really a child, hence the tendency to cast him as much
> older.
>
> cheers,
> Marianne
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
Whatever changes has been made on his portrait by subsequent artists, I still find him quite attractive:) Not handsome but striking. Idid not really notice the shoulders being uneven when I first saw the portrait, so probably the artist(copyists) did not make them as pronounced as even the Tudors would have it......
Ishita
--- In , "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@...> wrote:
>
> ...as even Morton couldn't accuse him of going back in time ;)
>
> --- In , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Ishita,
> >
> > > Does anyone know who the painter for Richard's portrait was? I see
> > > two portraits, one of younger Richard and the other an older(I am
> > > presuming)! And many variations of these two. I am a painter by
> > > profession and would like to find out more about these
> > > portraits.......
> >
> > Both the earliest surviving easel portraits (the Society of
> > Antiquaries and Windsor version) are early 16C copies based on lost
> > originals, which probably derive from a single original, one version
> > simply being laterally inverted and the costumes painted in different
> > colours (this is quite common in 15C royal portraits: the well-known
> > Henry V profile obviously has been flipped, because of the absence of
> > the scarring which is *why* he was portrayed in profile!). John
> > Ashdown-Hill has argued, convincingly, I think, that the original
> > portrait dates from Richard being launched on the marriage market
> > again in early 1485, so they are meant to show him at 32. The quality
> > of both is probably poorer than the original, but suggests a very
> > good source (I suspect the original may have been by a Flemish
> > painter, given the family ties with Burgundy). Later copies of the
> > Windsor portrait (such as the National Portrait Gallery version) tend
> > to age it up.
> >
> > > Another question is why Shakespeare's Richard is portrayed as so
> > > much OLDER than actually he was! The actors who had played him were
> > > well over 50 in most cases! He was 32 when he died, which makes him
> > > 4 yrs younger than I am and I think I am pretty young!!!
> >
> > He's 15 years younger than me, which puts him pretty much in the
> > 'kid' category!
> > The Shakespeare play cycle has him as an adult in the Henry VI plays,
> > when he was really a child, hence the tendency to cast him as much
> > older.
> >
> > cheers,
> > Marianne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
>
> Does anyone know who the painter for Richard's portrait was? I see two portraits, one of younger Richard and the other an older(I am presuming)! And many variations of these two. I am a painter by profession and would like to find out more about these portraits....... Another question is why Shakespeare's Richard is portrayed as so much OLDER than actually he was! The actors who had played him were well over 50 in most cases! He was 32 when he died, which makes him 4 yrs younger than I am and I think I am pretty young!!!
>
> Ishita
>
Carol responds:
First, thanks for signing your post. Now I don't have to call you "bandyoi"!
I've read (in a medical journal, of all places) that the portraits are in the style of Jan van Eyck. but, of course, he died before Richard was born. Still, if that's true (and you'd know better than I would), the idea that the original was by a Flemish court painter makes sense, especially given Richard's good relationship with his sister Margaret, the dowager duchess of Burgundy.
As for Richard's depiction as older than he really was, my theory is that the idea began with Sir Thomas More, who makes Edward IV fifty-three years old (rather than not quite forty-one) at his death and gives no indication that Richard was more than ten years younger than Edward (and seven years older than George). The natural assumption for any reader not wise to More's (or Morton's) distortion of Edward's age would be that the three brothers (there's no mention of Edmund) were born close together, making Richard around fifty rather than thirty when he assumed the throne.
Shakespeare, who may or may not have known Richard's real age (I don't recall whether the later Tudor chroniclers provided that information), took advantage of this idea of a fiftyish Richard to have him take part in the Battle of Wakefield, which took place in December 1460 when he was eight years old (and sent for protection to Burgundy with his eleven-year-old brother George). Shakespeare turns Richard's seventeen-year-old brother Edmund, killed after fighting in that battle, into a child brutally murdered on Wakefield Bridge. Essentially, Shakespeare has reversed their ages, except that his Richard is even older than seventeen in 1460; Shakespeare has him killing the Duke of Somerset at the Battle of Saint Albans, which was fought in May 1455 when Richard was two and a half years old! (These battle are depicted in the Henry VI plays, not in Richard III.)
These distortions (inventions, lies) fit quite well with More's implied age for Richard, some twenty years older than he really was. They also serve to make Richard's "murders" of Edward Of Lancaster (actually just one year younger than Richard) and Henry VI more plausible by disguising the fact that he was eighteen at the time (as opposed to, say, thirty-eight).
You'd think that the Tudor chroniclers (Grafton, Hall, Holinshed) would have suspected that something was amiss based on Edward's misstated age, but nothing of the sort. They took More (or Morton) at his word, and Shakespeare followed their example, placing Richard in battles fought during his childhood. After all, the more blood his Richard could shed, the better, and who among his spectators would know or care that Richard's age was off by twenty years?
It seems that the Tudor-era painters followed More as well, distorting both his age and his physique. Copies of the portraits made after 1601 would have followed Shakespeare as well
Carol
Re: Richard's Portrait
> Whatever changes has been made on his portrait by subsequent
> artists, I still find him quite attractive:) Not handsome but
> striking.
I think he's a nice-looking boy in the portraits, with pretty hair
(especially in the cleaned Royal Society of Antiquaries portrait,
where you can see the curls in it properly). Not a stunner, but, yes,
attractive. I'll be interested to see what comes out of studying the
skull.
> I did not really notice the shoulders being uneven when I first saw
> the portrait, so probably the artist(copyists) did not make them as
> pronounced as even the Tudors would have it......
The costume makes it hard to detect (gown on top of doublet), and
also the copyists' efforts at perspective. A lot of fairly naive 3/4
portraits of the time look somewhat lop-sided because the artists are
trying to give a sense of depth.
best wishes,
Marianne
Re: Richard's Portrait
Are we ever going to find out how he actually looked? If the cleaned up version is actually a portrait of RIII, I would think he is shown to be in his mid thirties.
Ishita B
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Ishita ("bandyoi") wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone know who the painter for Richard's portrait was? I see two portraits, one of younger Richard and the other an older(I am presuming)! And many variations of these two. I am a painter by profession and would like to find out more about these portraits....... Another question is why Shakespeare's Richard is portrayed as so much OLDER than actually he was! The actors who had played him were well over 50 in most cases! He was 32 when he died, which makes him 4 yrs younger than I am and I think I am pretty young!!!
> >
> > Ishita
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> First, thanks for signing your post. Now I don't have to call you "bandyoi"!
>
> I've read (in a medical journal, of all places) that the portraits are in the style of Jan van Eyck. but, of course, he died before Richard was born. Still, if that's true (and you'd know better than I would), the idea that the original was by a Flemish court painter makes sense, especially given Richard's good relationship with his sister Margaret, the dowager duchess of Burgundy.
>
> As for Richard's depiction as older than he really was, my theory is that the idea began with Sir Thomas More, who makes Edward IV fifty-three years old (rather than not quite forty-one) at his death and gives no indication that Richard was more than ten years younger than Edward (and seven years older than George). The natural assumption for any reader not wise to More's (or Morton's) distortion of Edward's age would be that the three brothers (there's no mention of Edmund) were born close together, making Richard around fifty rather than thirty when he assumed the throne.
>
> Shakespeare, who may or may not have known Richard's real age (I don't recall whether the later Tudor chroniclers provided that information), took advantage of this idea of a fiftyish Richard to have him take part in the Battle of Wakefield, which took place in December 1460 when he was eight years old (and sent for protection to Burgundy with his eleven-year-old brother George). Shakespeare turns Richard's seventeen-year-old brother Edmund, killed after fighting in that battle, into a child brutally murdered on Wakefield Bridge. Essentially, Shakespeare has reversed their ages, except that his Richard is even older than seventeen in 1460; Shakespeare has him killing the Duke of Somerset at the Battle of Saint Albans, which was fought in May 1455 when Richard was two and a half years old! (These battle are depicted in the Henry VI plays, not in Richard III.)
>
> These distortions (inventions, lies) fit quite well with More's implied age for Richard, some twenty years older than he really was. They also serve to make Richard's "murders" of Edward Of Lancaster (actually just one year younger than Richard) and Henry VI more plausible by disguising the fact that he was eighteen at the time (as opposed to, say, thirty-eight).
>
> You'd think that the Tudor chroniclers (Grafton, Hall, Holinshed) would have suspected that something was amiss based on Edward's misstated age, but nothing of the sort. They took More (or Morton) at his word, and Shakespeare followed their example, placing Richard in battles fought during his childhood. After all, the more blood his Richard could shed, the better, and who among his spectators would know or care that Richard's age was off by twenty years?
>
> It seems that the Tudor-era painters followed More as well, distorting both his age and his physique. Copies of the portraits made after 1601 would have followed Shakespeare as well
>
> Carol
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
> Is there any surviving portrait of Anne? Other than the stylized
> one we are used to seeing?
No, just the stylised manuscript drawings.
best wishes,
Marianne
Re: Richard's Portrait
> Here's a lot of information about both paintings:
> http://www.richardiii.net/r3_man_portraits.htm
Yes, it's that article that makes the point:
> When we come to the early copies of portraits of Richard III (Figs
> 2 and 3), it is clear that we are again dealing with a single
> image: although the costume is different, the two paintings are
> essentially mirror-images of one another. This practice, made easy
> by a simple reversal of the ad vivum drawing which would have
> served as the basic 'pattern' for both of the original paintings,
> gave greater flexibility to the image in terms of its use and is
> well attested in the portraiture of other late-fifteenth-century
> rulers, notably that of the heir of the Burgundian dukes, Philip
> the Fair ( ruled 1494-1506); the costume was often varied from
> painting to painting
Another obvious case of image reversal is the well-known profile
portrait of Henry V. Henry was painted in profile because of his
facial scar from Shrewsbury, but the portrait as we know it has
evidently been flipped as it gives what would have been the scarred
side in real life!
best wishes,
Marianne
Re: Richard's Portrait
<snip>
> > As for Richard's depiction as older than he really was, my theory is that the idea began with Sir Thomas More, who makes Edward IV fifty-three years old (rather than not quite forty-one) at his death and gives no indication that Richard was more than ten years younger than Edward (and seven years older than George). <snip>
Carol again:
Oops! I meant that *Edward* was more than seven years older than George. Richard was three years younger than George.
Carol
Re: Richard's Portrait
1) The author didn't realise that York lost at Wakefield and died or
2) Our Richard, not content with murdering people at St. Albans before he was three, was at it before he was born.
Ironically, making Richard much older than he was, but not doing the same for George, strengthens his claim compared to the truth.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:51 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's Portrait
Carol earlier:
<snip>
> > As for Richard's depiction as older than he really was, my theory is that the idea began with Sir Thomas More, who makes Edward IV fifty-three years old (rather than not quite forty-one) at his death and gives no indication that Richard was more than ten years younger than Edward (and seven years older than George). <snip>
Carol again:
Oops! I meant that *Edward* was more than seven years older than George. Richard was three years younger than George.
Carol
Re: Richard's Portrait
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Lark
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Portrait
One of the sources I read last week, whilst seeking burial places for Richard de la Pole and Marguerite, said that the 1450 beheading of the Duke of Suffolk was achieved by "Richard of York in his quest for the Crown", implying that:
1) The author didn't realise that York lost at Wakefield and died or
2) Our Richard, not content with murdering people at St. Albans before he was three, was at it before he was born.
Ironically, making Richard much older than he was, but not doing the same for George, strengthens his claim compared to the truth.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:51 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's Portrait
Carol earlier:
<snip>
> > As for Richard's depiction as older than he really was, my theory is that the idea began with Sir Thomas More, who makes Edward IV fifty-three years old (rather than not quite forty-one) at his death and gives no indication that Richard was more than ten years younger than Edward (and seven years older than George). <snip>
Carol again:
Oops! I meant that *Edward* was more than seven years older than George. Richard was three years younger than George.
Carol
Age of actors portraying Richard (was RE: [Richard III Society Forum
Just thinking of Laurence Olivier's Richard - the movie was made in 1955
(released in March, 1956) when Olivier was 48 years old. He had appeared as
Richard on the London stage about 10 years earlier. Alexander Korda, the
producer, proposed that he make the film of *Richard III* at that time, but
apparently they decided on *Henry V,* because it was more attuned to martial
atmosphere of wartime Britain. If *Richard III* had been made at that time,
Olivier would have been 38, much closer to Richard's actual age at the time
of his death.
Which suggests at least part of the reason that actors are usually
middle-aged who play Richard - it's a plum role, and the actors who get to
play parts like that have been (in the past, at least) mature actors with
established reputations - usually middle-aged. After all, even Romeo, who
was supposed to be a teenager, was usually played by a much older actor.
Same goes for Juliet, played by some wonderful actresses who were hardly
young slips of feminity at the time they played the role (in the MGM film
version in the 1930's, Juliet was played by Norma Shearer. I am not sure how
old she was, but she seemed a bit long in the tooth to me! :-) )
Best wishes,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of bandyoi
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 12:16 AM
To:
Subject: Richard's Portrait
Does anyone know who the painter for Richard's portrait was? I see two
portraits, one of younger Richard and the other an older(I am presuming)!
And many variations of these two. I am a painter by profession and would
like to find out more about these portraits....... Another question is why
Shakespeare's Richard is portrayed as so much OLDER than actually he was!
The actors who had played him were well over 50 in most cases! He was 32
when he died, which makes him 4 yrs younger than I am and I think I am
pretty young!!!
Ishita
Re: Age of actors portraying Richard (was RE: [Richard III Society F
--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Ishita -
>
> Just thinking of Laurence Olivier's Richard - the movie was made in 1955
> (released in March, 1956) when Olivier was 48 years old. He had appeared as
> Richard on the London stage about 10 years earlier. Alexander Korda, the
> producer, proposed that he make the film of *Richard III* at that time, but
> apparently they decided on *Henry V,* because it was more attuned to martial
> atmosphere of wartime Britain. If *Richard III* had been made at that time,
> Olivier would have been 38, much closer to Richard's actual age at the time
> of his death.
>
>
>
> Which suggests at least part of the reason that actors are usually
> middle-aged who play Richard - it's a plum role, and the actors who get to
> play parts like that have been (in the past, at least) mature actors with
> established reputations - usually middle-aged. After all, even Romeo, who
> was supposed to be a teenager, was usually played by a much older actor.
> Same goes for Juliet, played by some wonderful actresses who were hardly
> young slips of feminity at the time they played the role (in the MGM film
> version in the 1930's, Juliet was played by Norma Shearer. I am not sure how
> old she was, but she seemed a bit long in the tooth to me! :-) )
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of bandyoi
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 12:16 AM
> To:
> Subject: Richard's Portrait
>
>
>
>
>
> Does anyone know who the painter for Richard's portrait was? I see two
> portraits, one of younger Richard and the other an older(I am presuming)!
> And many variations of these two. I am a painter by profession and would
> like to find out more about these portraits....... Another question is why
> Shakespeare's Richard is portrayed as so much OLDER than actually he was!
> The actors who had played him were well over 50 in most cases! He was 32
> when he died, which makes him 4 yrs younger than I am and I think I am
> pretty young!!!
>
> Ishita
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Richard's Portrait
Re: Richard's Portrait
Marie replies:
Not sure I'm quite following your reference to giving things away. But on your other point, since the RC portrait seems, like the NPG one, to be a very good fit to Richard's actual head, then the person who owned the original should perhaps be assumed to have used an artist who had access to this hypothetical traceable drawing, which would have been "inherited" from Richard by the Tudors. Isn't it just easier to assume that it was painted at the royal command in the first place?
Richard's Portrait
" Doug here: Sorry, that first was a reference to HT's well-known penchant for gathering in, and keeping, money. And if money, why not paintings? If I understand the problem correctly then, as the RC and NPG portraits fit Richard's head fairly closely, it can be presumed that they were copies of a lost original and differ from it only because they (the NPG and RC portraits) were "adjusted" to reflect contemporary views about Richard rather than simply be faithful copies of the original? Doug (who still rather likes the idea of HT gloating over his latest "haul" from some unfortunate subject...)
Richard's Portrait
Re: Richard's Portrait
On Jan 10, 2014, at 10:27 AM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
Eva wrote: //snip// "I also wonder if the portraits of any other historic personality have been disfigured in the way as Richard's, I don't know of any. And why was it so important for the Tudors to do so. Somehow it seems to me to be untterly ridiculous to defame a person by clumsily overpainting portraits." Doug here: I've been presuming that something along the following is what occurred: - An actual portrait from life was done of Richard. - Sometime during the Tudor period a copy, for whatever reason was wanted. - As the portrait didn't match what was "known" about Richard, the "alterations" were made, either while the copy was being done or shorthly thereafter, because: - it was, and still continues to be, a well-known practice to show the sitter, whether using a painbrush or a camera, in as best a light as possible. It was likely *assumed* that last was what had happened with the *original* portrait and so portraying Richard as.the copies *did* was, according to the lights of the person having the copy made, merely showing the "true" Richard and not the Richard as he (Richard) wich to be shown. Hope the above makes sense! Doug
Re: Richard's Portrait
I agree with this.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: HRTest@... <HRTest@...>;
To: <>;
Cc: <>; Doug Stamate <destama@...>;
Subject: Re: Richard's Portrait
Sent: Fri, Jan 10, 2014 3:55:03 PM
It was probably done to fit the narrative that Richard was some type of demon from hell.
On Jan 10, 2014, at 10:27 AM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
Eva wrote: //snip// "I also wonder if the portraits of any other historic personality have been disfigured in the way as Richard's, I don't know of any. And why was it so important for the Tudors to do so. Somehow it seems to me to be untterly ridiculous to defame a person by clumsily overpainting portraits." Doug here: I've been presuming that something along the following is what occurred: - An actual portrait from life was done of Richard. - Sometime during the Tudor period a copy, for whatever reason was wanted. - As the portrait didn't match what was "known" about Richard, the "alterations" were made, either while the copy was being done or shorthly thereafter, because: - it was, and still continues to be, a well-known practice to show the sitter, whether using a painbrush or a camera, in as best a light as possible. It was likely *assumed* that last was what had happened with the *original* portrait and so portraying Richard as.the copies *did* was, according to the lights of the person having the copy made, merely showing the "true" Richard and not the Richard as he (Richard) wich to be shown. Hope the above makes sense! Doug
Re: Richard's Portrait
It was probably done to fit the narrative that Richard was some type of demon from hell.
Carol responds:
Although the idea had already been suggested (Rous's depiction of Richarrd as the Anti-Christ), the Royal Collection painting suggests cruelty but not outright diabolism. All we know about it is that it is the first extant likeness, painted between 1500 or 1520--or, at least, that's the age of the wood--that it was altered (shoulder, eyes, nose, mouth, even, apparently, that pointed thumb) to make Richard look meaner and slightly deformed soon after it was commissioned, presumably on the orders of the king (Henry VII or Henry VIII). I am guessing that it was Henry VIII; Henry VII would have had a good idea of what Richard really looked like and probably would not have wanted to see the face of the man who nearly killed him hanging in his hallway.
The idea, so often repeated in articles on the subject, that the RC painting is the basis for the NPG painting is absurd. No one in Tudor times would have altered a portrait of Richard to make it more benevolent. Also, of course, there had to be an original that the artist of the RC painting copied or traced, almost certainly the same original used by the NPG artist, which accounts for the nearly identical hair and face shape. Obviously, Richard didn't sit for the Royal Collection portrait.
As for influences on the alterations of the RC portrait, let's look at this analytically. The person who commissioned the alterations (presumably Henry VIII) must have had a description of Richard in mind. Rous's merely describes Richard's right shoulder as being higher than his left. It says nothing about his facial features except that he had a "smooth front" that hid a scorpion's sting. That could even mean that he was a handsome man with a pleasant expression. At any rate, it seems to indicate that there was nothing untoward in his physical appearance.
More's description of Richard as "little of stature, ill fetured of limmes, croke backed, his left shoulder much higher then his right, hard fauoured of visage, and suche as is in states called warlye, in other menne otherwise, he was malicious, wrathfull, enuious, and from afore his birth, euer frowarde" seems at first a good candidate, but it specifies the wrong shoulder as being higher. Also, though it was completed between 1512 and 1519, the right period to influence the painting, it was not published until a garbled version appeared in 1543. Rastell's corrected version did not appear until 1557. So, unless the book was circulating in manuscript, the artist probably did not use More's description.
That leaves us with Polydore Vergil, whose book undoubtedly influenced More's (regardless of whether More's was a satire, a morality play, or a serious history, the last being in my view unlikely). Vergil, following Rous but adding details from his own imagination, describes Richard as "lyttle of stature, deformyd of body, thone showlder being higher than thother, a short and sowre cowntenance, which semyd to savor of mischief, and utter evydently craft and deceyt." Vergil's book was not published until 1534, but since it was commissioned by Henry VII, Henry VIII certainly knew about it and probably had access to the manuscript. Vergil does not specify which shoulder is raised, so that detail probably comes from Rous. The strange idea that Richard had a short face (obviously not carried through in the portrait) appears to come from a mistranslation of a phrase in Rous, "curtam habens faciem," which can also mean "having a short [or defective] figure.
At any rate, even before the publication of More or Vergil, these ideas appear to have been in circulation. It may simply have been Henry VIII's idea to have Richard appear more sinister (and older) in the distorted RC portrait than he appeared in the original from which the unaltered version was copied or traced. It occurs to me that the RC painting, if it's as early as the beginning of Henry VIII's reign (1509) or, less likely, dates from Henry VII's reign, could have influenced More's and Vergil's descriptions rather than the other way around.
But that it did not influence the NPG painting, except for the slightly raised shoulder line, seems to me equally clear. That Richard, though he looks older than he probably did in 1485, and certainly careworn, looks intelligent, thoughtful, and benevolent, as he must have looked in the original portrait. His nose is straight, not hooked as in the RC version, his eyes are not narrowed, and his mouth is softer and less compressed than in the RC version, with one corner turned up in a half-smile. The thumb is bent backward and poorly drawn, suggesting that this artist and the RC artist (who made it pointed like a dagger blade!) had difficulty copying the original.
At first, I wondered whether the RC painter, unhappy with the alterations that Henry VIII (or VII) forced upon him, made another copy to satisfy himself and that version ended up in the National Portrait Gallery. Unfortunately, the provenance of the NPG painting (given to the NPG in 1862 by someone named James Thomson Gibson-Craig) is unknown, and the painting is dated by dendrochronology to about 1580, too late to be by the same artist.
However, I did find solid evidence that the NPG portrait is not based on the RC portrait. This detailed article shows the pre-established pattern traced onto the wooden panel of the NPG portrait--clearly not identical to the RC portrait--note the straight nose, unnarrowed eyes, and undistorted thumb. Since the pattern used by the RC artist is almost identical, according to the article, they obviously derive from the same source, which lacks the RC distortions, rather than NPG being based on RC.
http://www.npg.org.uk/research/programmes/making-art-in-tudor-britain/tudor-and-jacobean-painting-production-influences-and-patronage-december-2010/extended-abstracts-and-videos/evidence-from-portrait-sets-and-multiple-copies-richard-iii-in-focus.php
TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/ms4qtbs
Some of my ideas changed as I composed this post, so I hope it's not terribly inconsistent!
Carol
Re: Richard's Portrait
Hi Carol,
What you write about the origins of the distortion is very interesting and sounds plausible to me.
But I have other ideas about the NPG painting. I think it was influenced by an older distorted version.
But possibly the painter tried to make a more benign face. For it being a copy of an undistorted version
there a too many signs of of the distortions visible. The eyes are narrow, the nose is rather big and the face is lined. Also you say the thumb is undistorted which it is not-it is crippled with a tiny thumbnail, only the
precleaning version had a "normal"thumb.
I also want to point out that for it being a copy from a picture going back to Richard's time or near Richard's
time the style of the painting is not fitting round 1500.
Eva
Re: Richard's Portrait
IMHO, here's another wrinkle....
As I may have mentioned before, some artists who are adept at faces, can't seem to do proper hands. One famous example was Peter Paul Rubens. When you see a Rubens painting with well-draughted hands, these may well have been done by Anthony Van Dyke, Peter Paul's trusty, um, Right Hand Man. It was, in fact, common practice for a Maestro to begin a picture, then leave the finishing to apprentices. When business was booming for Raphael, he delegated a lot of the work to a fellow named Romano.
Copies were encouraged. Andrea del Sarto (of Rbt. Browning fame) specialized in reproducing the works of others. (A pity, since he left us too few of his own....)
And there were varying "styles" among portraits at that time. So a lot could depend upon the locale where the artist originated. Just compare work by Giovanni Bellini or Sandro Botticelli with that by Albrecht Durer. Or any of the Flemish painters. That lost original of Richard may have been painted by a non-English artist; the Tudors, starting with H7, employed foreigners, after all. Monarchs, as a rule, didn't seem especially devoted to painters of their own countries (Leonardo da Vinci, in his final days, was artist-in-residence to the French court).
Even Sir John Donne and family went to Hans Memling to do the altarpiece (c. 1478) that includes their "donor portraits." It's not unlike automobile buying in our own era. Really wealthy people don't buy cars from their own countries; if they want fancy wheels, it's a Lamborghini they seek out.
Judy Loyaulte me lie
On Sunday, January 12, 2014 1:30 PM, "eva.pitter@..." <eva.pitter@...> wrote:
Hi Carol, What you write about the origins of the distortion is very interesting and sounds plausible to me.But I have other ideas about the NPG painting. I think it was influenced by an older distorted version.But possibly the painter tried to make a more benign face. For it being a copy of an undistorted versionthere a too many signs of of the distortions visible. The eyes are narrow, the nose is rather big and the face is lined. Also you say the thumb is undistorted which it is not-it is crippled with a tiny thumbnail, only the
precleaning version had a "normal"thumb.I also want to point out that for it being a copy from a picture going back to Richard's time or near Richard's time the style of the painting is not fitting round 1500.Eva
Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Richard's Portrait
I wonder why you assume the point that you make about paintings' being done to show the subject in the best possible light does not apply to the original painting of Richard?
This seems to be begging the question.
The flattering of subjects was absolutely standard practice - especially when the subjects were powerful.
Now I know that you will look at the question from a Richard-centric view, but there may be a much more prosaic explanation. When Richard was no longer alive, artists simply felt liberated to produce less flattering images - or even caricatures, simply because it was something that caused amusement and for which one was unlikely to be punished under the Tudors.
It does not have to be part of a dark plot.
Kind regards
David
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>;
To: <>;
Cc: Doug Stamate <destama@...>;
Subject: Richard's Portrait
Sent: Fri, Jan 10, 2014 4:27:45 PM
Eva wrote: //snip// "I also wonder if the portraits of any other historic personality have been disfigured in the way as Richard's, I don't know of any. And why was it so important for the Tudors to do so. Somehow it seems to me to be untterly ridiculous to defame a person by clumsily overpainting portraits." Doug here: I've been presuming that something along the following is what occurred: - An actual portrait from life was done of Richard. - Sometime during the Tudor period a copy, for whatever reason was wanted. - As the portrait didn't match what was "known" about Richard, the "alterations" were made, either while the copy was being done or shorthly thereafter, because: - it was, and still continues to be, a well-known practice to show the sitter, whether using a painbrush or a camera, in as best a light as possible. It was likely *assumed* that last was what had happened with the *original* portrait and so portraying Richard as.the copies *did* was, according to the lights of the person having the copy made, merely showing the "true" Richard and not the Richard as he (Richard) wich to be shown. Hope the above makes sense! Doug
Richard's Portrait
Re: Richard's Portrait
On Monday, 13 January 2014, 15:07, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
(responses are to each separate question/remark) David wrote: "I wonder why you assume the point that you make about paintings' being done to show the subject in the best possible light does not apply to the original painting of Richard? This seesm to be begging the question. The flattereing of subjects was absolutely standard practice - especially when the subjects were powerful." Doug here: I never have. What I have stated is that there's quite a difference between, say, smoothing out wrinkle lines to provide a more youthful appearance (that's your "showing the subject in the best possible light" part) and adding a non-existant physical deformity, which is what was actually done. The few contemporary reports we do have on Richard's appearance make no mention of his scoliosis, let alone any "hump", so it's safe to presume that the latter was an addition not present in the original; not because Richard didn't want it, *but because it wasn't there.* The only question going begging is why more historians haven't acknowledged the fact that portraying Richard as a hunch-back is historically inaccurate. "Now I know that you will look at the question from a Richard-centric view, but there may be a much more prosaic explanation. When Richard was no longer alive, artists simply felt liberated to produce less flattering images - or even caricatures, simply because it was something that caused amusement and for which one was unlikely to be punished under the Tudors. It does not have to be part of a dark plot." Doug here: You're making un-warranted presumptions again. I repeat, there's a vast difference between "less flattering images" and falsely portraying someone with a deformity they never had. BTW, I'm also not too thrilled with your attempts to ridicule my proposed solution to what *is known to have been done to the protrait/s* as a "dark plot." Or are you saying the alterations *didn't* occur and the paintings, as they now appear, are true representations of Richard? Doug (who can *also* play this game)
Re: Richard's Portrait
"Hi Carol,
What you write about the origins of the distortion is very interesting and sounds plausible to me.
But I have other ideas about the NPG painting. I think it was influenced by an older distorted version.
But possibly the painter tried to make a more benign face. For it being a copy of an undistorted version
there a too many signs of of the distortions visible. The eyes are narrow, the nose is rather big and the face is lined. Also you say the thumb is undistorted which it is not-it is crippled with a tiny thumbnail, only the
precleaning version had a "normal"thumb.
I also want to point out that for it being a copy from a picture going back to Richard's time or near Richard's
time the style of the painting is not fitting round 1500"
Carol responds:
I was talking about the traced drawing, in which the eyes and thumb are normal, not the finished painting. The website says that the tracing is almost identical to the one used to paint the original, undistorted, RC portrait. Did you click the link and look at the tracing? If not, here's the link again:
http://www.npg.org.uk/research/programmes/making-art-in-tudor-britain/tudor-and-jacobean-painting-production-influences-and-patronage-december-2010/extended-abstracts-and-videos/evidence-from-portrait-sets-and-multiple-copies-richard-iii-in-focus.php
Sorry I can't go back to my previous post for the TinyURL without losing this one.
I agree that the thumb in the NPG portrait is oddly distorted (as it is in a different way in the RC portrait), which leads me to speculate that both artists had trouble following the pre-traced pattern in that respect. (Maybe thumbs are hard to paint?) Again, I don't think that the NPG was copied directly from the RC painting, which differs in important respects from the tracing.
Carol
Richard's Portrait
Re: Richard's Portrait
On Wednesday, 15 January 2014, 15:16, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
Hilary, Thank you for the kind words! While admitting that emails aren't the best means for conveying nuances and intonations that completely change the meaning/intention of what's written, I also don't like being patronised or ridiculed and while I fully intend to respond in kind if so treated, I'll try to do my best to remember in such instances what I wrote at the beginning of this sentence. At any rate, another thought *did* occur to me concerning the "when" and "why" of the making of the copy/ies. If I remember correctly, didn't H8 have major re/construction work done at Windsor? Is it possible the *original* was discovered when that work was being done, found to be in a bad state and a replacement ordered? After all, H8 wouldn't have the animus against Richard his father likely had and been more willing to have *a* portrait of Richard in his gallery. Most importantly, a discovery under such circumstances; ie, the need for a new copy, might also explain the alterations. The copyist did as ordered and copied the original but, when the copy was viewed by H8 (or someone of his household) it was seen to *not* match what was "known" about Richard and his appearance and so the alterations were made. And if the original of Richard was in such a bad state as to need a new copy made, might that *also* provide an explanation for what happened to its' likely companion piece - a portrait of Anne? Doug
Re: Richard's Portrait
On Jan 15, 2014, at 9:17 AM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
Hilary, Thank you for the kind words! While admitting that emails aren't the best means for conveying nuances and intonations that completely change the meaning/intention of what's written, I also don't like being patronised or ridiculed and while I fully intend to respond in kind if so treated, I'll try to do my best to remember in such instances what I wrote at the beginning of this sentence. At any rate, another thought *did* occur to me concerning the "when" and "why" of the making of the copy/ies. If I remember correctly, didn't H8 have major re/construction work done at Windsor? Is it possible the *original* was discovered when that work was being done, found to be in a bad state and a replacement ordered? After all, H8 wouldn't have the animus against Richard his father likely had and been more willing to have *a* portrait of Richard in his gallery. Most importantly, a discovery under such circumstances; ie, the need for a new copy, might also explain the alterations. The copyist did as ordered and copied the original but, when the copy was viewed by H8 (or someone of his household) it was seen to *not* match what was "known" about Richard and his appearance and so the alterations were made. And if the original of Richard was in such a bad state as to need a new copy made, might that *also* provide an explanation for what happened to its' likely companion piece - a portrait of Anne? Doug
Re: Richard's Portrait
Another possible explanation for the repainting of Richard's portrait, and loss of its predecessor, could be - just a thought - that the royal portraits had perhaps been hung at Shene and were destroyed in the fire, and all that was left were people's memories of them and preparatory cartoons still available for tracing. Am I right, for instance, in thinking that we have no original royal portrait between Richard II and Henry VII, and the one we have of Henry VII was painted late in his reign? I stand to be corrected on this because I haven't checked out what is known about the earlier royal portraits.
Marie
Re: Richard's Portrait
It is being challenged and argued with that helps us to firm up our true views on all sorts of matters.
It is a healthy and most interesting discussion here, and long may it continue.
Keep posting everyone so I and others can keep learning.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Richard's Portrait
Sent: Wed, Jan 15, 2014 3:28:19 PM
Great thoughts, and. I am so glad you are still posting. I hope everyone can and will type their thoughts and the rest of us who are not as well researched can learn from all who are.
On Jan 15, 2014, at 9:17 AM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
Hilary, Thank you for the kind words! While admitting that emails aren't the best means for conveying nuances and intonations that completely change the meaning/intention of what's written, I also don't like being patronised or ridiculed and while I fully intend to respond in kind if so treated, I'll try to do my best to remember in such instances what I wrote at the beginning of this sentence. At any rate, another thought *did* occur to me concerning the "when" and "why" of the making of the copy/ies. If I remember correctly, didn't H8 have major re/construction work done at Windsor? Is it possible the *original* was discovered when that work was being done, found to be in a bad state and a replacement ordered? After all, H8 wouldn't have the animus against Richard his father likely had and been more willing to have *a* portrait of Richard in his gallery. Most importantly, a discovery under such circumstances; ie, the need for a new copy, might also explain the alterations. The copyist did as ordered and copied the original but, when the copy was viewed by H8 (or someone of his household) it was seen to *not* match what was "known" about Richard and his appearance and so the alterations were made. And if the original of Richard was in such a bad state as to need a new copy made, might that *also* provide an explanation for what happened to its' likely companion piece - a portrait of Anne? Doug
Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Richard's Portrait
As you say emails are not necessarily the best way to exchange ideas. I had actually meant to agree with the broad gist of what you were saying. The 'plots' were ones that had been suggested by others on the forum.
Actually, in the 15th and 16th century, when portraits could not be mass produced fiddling about with one would be a very inefficient type of propaganda.
Kind regards
David
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>;
To: <>;
Cc: Doug Stamate <destama@...>;
Subject: Richard's Portrait
Sent: Mon, Jan 13, 2014 4:08:38 PM
(responses are to each separate question/remark) David wrote: "I wonder why you assume the point that you make about paintings' being done to show the subject in the best possible light does not apply to the original painting of Richard? This seesm to be begging the question. The flattereing of subjects was absolutely standard practice - especially when the subjects were powerful." Doug here: I never have. What I have stated is that there's quite a difference between, say, smoothing out wrinkle lines to provide a more youthful appearance (that's your "showing the subject in the best possible light" part) and adding a non-existant physical deformity, which is what was actually done. The few contemporary reports we do have on Richard's appearance make no mention of his scoliosis, let alone any "hump", so it's safe to presume that the latter was an addition not present in the original; not because Richard didn't want it, *but because it wasn't there.* The only question going begging is why more historians haven't acknowledged the fact that portraying Richard as a hunch-back is historically inaccurate. "Now I know that you will look at the question from a Richard-centric view, but there may be a much more prosaic explanation. When Richard was no longer alive, artists simply felt liberated to produce less flattering images - or even caricatures, simply because it was something that caused amusement and for which one was unlikely to be punished under the Tudors. It does not have to be part of a dark plot." Doug here: You're making un-warranted presumptions again. I repeat, there's a vast difference between "less flattering images" and falsely portraying someone with a deformity they never had. BTW, I'm also not too thrilled with your attempts to ridicule my proposed solution to what *is known to have been done to the protrait/s* as a "dark plot." Or are you saying the alterations *didn't* occur and the paintings, as they now appear, are true representations of Richard? Doug (who can *also* play this game)
Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Richard's Portrait
No expertise at all from me on this one Doug, but weren't there several paintings tampered with? Or are all the other ones copies of an original. Sorry for being terminally confused
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re : Richard's Portrait
Sent: Wed, Jan 15, 2014 7:47:59 PM
Doug,
As you say emails are not necessarily the best way to exchange ideas. I had actually meant to agree with the broad gist of what you were saying. The 'plots' were ones that had been suggested by others on the forum.
Actually, in the 15th and 16th century, when portraits could not be mass produced fiddling about with one would be a very inefficient type of propaganda.
Kind regards
David
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>;
To: <>;
Cc: Doug Stamate <destama@...>;
Subject: Richard's Portrait
Sent: Mon, Jan 13, 2014 4:08:38 PM
(responses are to each separate question/remark) David wrote: "I wonder why you assume the point that you make about paintings' being done to show the subject in the best possible light does not apply to the original painting of Richard? This seesm to be begging the question. The flattereing of subjects was absolutely standard practice - especially when the subjects were powerful." Doug here: I never have. What I have stated is that there's quite a difference between, say, smoothing out wrinkle lines to provide a more youthful appearance (that's your "showing the subject in the best possible light" part) and adding a non-existant physical deformity, which is what was actually done. The few contemporary reports we do have on Richard's appearance make no mention of his scoliosis, let alone any "hump", so it's safe to presume that the latter was an addition not present in the original; not because Richard didn't want it, *but because it wasn't there.* The only question going begging is why more historians haven't acknowledged the fact that portraying Richard as a hunch-back is historically inaccurate. "Now I know that you will look at the question from a Richard-centric view, but there may be a much more prosaic explanation. When Richard was no longer alive, artists simply felt liberated to produce less flattering images - or even caricatures, simply because it was something that caused amusement and for which one was unlikely to be punished under the Tudors. It does not have to be part of a dark plot." Doug here: You're making un-warranted presumptions again. I repeat, there's a vast difference between "less flattering images" and falsely portraying someone with a deformity they never had. BTW, I'm also not too thrilled with your attempts to ridicule my proposed solution to what *is known to have been done to the protrait/s* as a "dark plot." Or are you saying the alterations *didn't* occur and the paintings, as they now appear, are true representations of Richard? Doug (who can *also* play this game)
Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Richard's Portrait
On Jan 15, 2014, at 1:48 PM, "Durose David" <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
Doug,
As you say emails are not necessarily the best way to exchange ideas. I had actually meant to agree with the broad gist of what you were saying. The 'plots' were ones that had been suggested by others on the forum.
Actually, in the 15th and 16th century, when portraits could not be mass produced fiddling about with one would be a very inefficient type of propaganda.
Kind regards
David
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>;
To: <>;
Cc: Doug Stamate <destama@...>;
Subject: Richard's Portrait
Sent: Mon, Jan 13, 2014 4:08:38 PM
(responses are to each separate question/remark) David wrote: "I wonder why you assume the point that you make about paintings' being done to show the subject in the best possible light does not apply to the original painting of Richard? This seesm to be begging the question. The flattereing of subjects was absolutely standard practice - especially when the subjects were powerful." Doug here: I never have. What I have stated is that there's quite a difference between, say, smoothing out wrinkle lines to provide a more youthful appearance (that's your "showing the subject in the best possible light" part) and adding a non-existant physical deformity, which is what was actually done. The few contemporary reports we do have on Richard's appearance make no mention of his scoliosis, let alone any "hump", so it's safe to presume that the latter was an addition not present in the original; not because Richard didn't want it, *but because it wasn't there.* The only question going begging is why more historians haven't acknowledged the fact that portraying Richard as a hunch-back is historically inaccurate. "Now I know that you will look at the question from a Richard-centric view, but there may be a much more prosaic explanation. When Richard was no longer alive, artists simply felt liberated to produce less flattering images - or even caricatures, simply because it was something that caused amusement and for which one was unlikely to be punished under the Tudors. It does not have to be part of a dark plot." Doug here: You're making un-warranted presumptions again. I repeat, there's a vast difference between "less flattering images" and falsely portraying someone with a deformity they never had. BTW, I'm also not too thrilled with your attempts to ridicule my proposed solution to what *is known to have been done to the protrait/s* as a "dark plot." Or are you saying the alterations *didn't* occur and the paintings, as they now appear, are true representations of Richard? Doug (who can *also* play this game)
Richard's Portrait
Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Richard's Portrait
" <snip>Actually, in the 15th and 16th century, when portraits could not be mass produced fiddling about with one would be a very inefficient type of propaganda."
Carol responds:
Of the two portraits that have been "fiddled around with," one, the Royal Collection portrait, was deliberately altered to make Richard look more sinister soon after its original composition, as has been proved by X-rays. Presumably the order to do so came from the owner of the painting, Henry VII or VIII, as the artist would not have dared to alter the painting on his own. No plot involved. The owner simply wanted Richard to look cruel (and older than he really was).
The other painting, the Broken Sword portrait, was (oddly) altered in the other direction, removing the hump and trying to paint out the withered arm. Apparently, the owner had read either Buck or Walpole and believed (rightly) that Richard had been vilified by the Tudors. Again, no plot involved. In both cases, the alterations fit the owner's conception of Richard.
It is, however, interesting that the NPG painting, some eighty years later than the RC portrait, is *less* distorted. The underlying tracery or cartoon is virtually the same for both, indicating the existence of a lost original closely resembling the NPG portrait (but without the clumsily drawn thumb).
Later "portraits," as indicated by the National Portrait Gallery link I posted earlier, show Richard as a wicked old man--obviously influenced by More and Shakespeare. (Regarding the age distortion, More, for reasons known only to himself, made Edward IV fifty-two instead of almost forty-one, ignoring the age gap between Edward and Richard. Shakespeare, perhaps following More, makes Richard old enough to fight at Saint Albans, which occurred in May 1455 (Richard was two and a half). When artists take their history from Shakespeare, they come up with such "likenesses" as this: http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw123666/King-Richard-III?LinkID=mp03765&role=sit&rNo=3
No plot--just the result of repeated myths taken as fact.
Carol
Carol
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>;
To: <>;
Cc: Doug Stamate <destama@...>;
Subject: Richard's Portrait
Sent: Mon, Jan 13, 2014 4:08:38 PM
(responses are to each separate question/remark) David wrote: "I wonder why you assume the point that you make about paintings' being done to show the subject in the best possible light does not apply to the original painting of Richard? This seesm to be begging the question. The flattereing of subjects was absolutely standard practice - especially when the subjects were powerful." Doug here: I never have. What I have stated is that there's quite a difference between, say, smoothing out wrinkle lines to provide a more youthful appearance (that's your "showing the subject in the best possible light" part) and adding a non-existant physical deformity, which is what was actually done. The few contemporary reports we do have on Richard's appearance make no mention of his scoliosis, let alone any "hump", so it's safe to presume that the latter was an addition not present in the original; not because Richard didn't want it, *but because it wasn't there.* The only question going begging is why more historians haven't acknowledged the fact that portraying Richard as a hunch-back is historically inaccurate. "Now I know that you will look at the question from a Richard-centric view, but there may be a much more prosaic explanation. When Richard was no longer alive, artists simply felt liberated to produce less flattering images - or even caricatures, simply because it was something that caused amusement and for which one was unlikely to be punished under the Tudors. It does not have to be part of a dark plot." Doug here: You're making un-warranted presumptions again. I repeat, there's a vast difference between "less flattering images" and falsely portraying someone with a deformity they never had. BTW, I'm also not too thrilled with your attempts to ridicule my proposed solution to what *is known to have been done to the protrait/s* as a "dark plot." Or are you saying the alterations *didn't* occur and the paintings, as they now appear, are true representations of Richard? Doug (who can *also* play this game)
Re: Richard's Portrait
On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:39 AM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
Jess wrote: "No expertise at all from me on this one Doug, but weren't there several paintings tampered with? Or are all the other ones copies of an original. Sorry for being terminally confused." Doug here: I have to admit I'm really up on *when* the changes were made and it's that question that's important. *My* understanding (for what *that's* worth!) is that there are two portraits and *both* show signs of being , um, "adjusted" to fit preconceptions held about Richard and the real question is *when* and to a lesser extent *why* those changes were made. If the changes were made when there were still people alive who knew what Richard looked like, then it *could* be, and probably has been, argued that the changes were simply attempts to make the portraits more realistic by showing Richard, warts (so to speak) and all. In other words, the "original" portrait was done to make Richard look better than he actually did. Medieval airbrushing as it were. If, on the other hand, the changes were made sometime *after* the first part of H8's reign, then it could be argued, as I do, that the changes were made to bring what had been a fairly realistic portrait of Richard into conformity with what it was thought was "known" about Richard's appearance. If it *is the latter, then that would mean that the changes *weren't* made as some sort of *deliberate* attempt to portray Richard as deformed - they were simply done in a mistaken attempt to be more "real"! And once the original copy (!!) portrayed Richard as being deformed, then any copies of *that* would also do so. Hope this helps! Doug
Richard's Portrait
Re: Richard's Portrait
Doug wrote
If the changes were made when there were still people alive who knew what Richard looked like, then it *could* be, and probably has been, argued that the changes were simply attempts to make the portraits more realistic by showing Richard, warts (so to speak) and all. In other words, the "original" portrait was done to make Richard look better than he actually did. Medieval airbrushing as it were.If, on the other hand, the changes were made sometime *after* the first part of H8's reign, then it could be argued, as I do, that the changes were made to bring what had been a fairly realistic portrait of Richard into conformity with what it was thought was "known" about Richard's appearance.Marie here:I tend to think the alterations to the portraits were influenced partly by people's memories or oral tradition about what Richard had looked like and partly by Rous, More and Vergil. The Antiquaries artist may have set out from the start to exaggerate Richard's thinness relative to the original portrait, and that may be why the cheekbones are too sunken for the skull. On the other hand, the addition of the raised shoulder may have come from the Tudor histories since it seems few people noticed it who saw Richard during life because of the tailoring of his clothes. But the most striking thing to my mind is the alteration of the lower lip. When I look at it closely, particularly in the Windsor/NPG portraits, it looks not so much as though the artist was trying to make the lip thinner right across as trying to create the appearance that the lower lip was sucked in under the upper lip on one side - i.e. that Richard was biting his nether lip as described by Vergil.
Richard's Portrait
Richard's Portrait
Re: Richard's Portrait
Jess
On Thursday, 16 January 2014, 15:39, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
Jess wrote: "No expertise at all from me on this one Doug, but weren't there several paintings tampered with? Or are all the other ones copies of an original. Sorry for being terminally confused." Doug here: I have to admit I'm really up on *when* the changes were made and it's that question that's important. *My* understanding (for what *that's* worth!) is that there are two portraits and *both* show signs of being , um, "adjusted" to fit preconceptions held about Richard and the real question is *when* and to a lesser extent *why* those changes were made. If the changes were made when there were still people alive who knew what Richard looked like, then it *could* be, and probably has been, argued that the changes were simply attempts to make the portraits more realistic by showing Richard, warts (so to speak) and all. In other words, the "original" portrait was done to make Richard look better than he actually did. Medieval airbrushing as it were. If, on the other hand, the changes were made sometime *after* the first part of H8's reign, then it could be argued, as I do, that the changes were made to bring what had been a fairly realistic portrait of Richard into conformity with what it was thought was "known" about Richard's appearance. If it *is the latter, then that would mean that the changes *weren't* made as some sort of *deliberate* attempt to portray Richard as deformed - they were simply done in a mistaken attempt to be more "real"! And once the original copy (!!) portrayed Richard as being deformed, then any copies of *that* would also do so. Hope this helps! Doug
Re: Richard's Portrait
Re: Richard's Portrait
Doug wrote:
If the changes were made when there were still people alive who knew what Richard looked like, then it *could* be, and probably has been, argued that the changes were simply attempts to make the portraits more realistic by showing Richard, warts (so to speak) and all. In other words, the "original" portrait was done to make Richard look better than he actually did. Medieval airbrushing as it were.
Eva says:
I know I have no scientific prove for that, but when looking on late 15.century portraits I do not think they tried to make people look better than they actually looked. This was the time were they assayed to make
realistic portraits for the first time. Look for instance at the numerous Memling portraits, they seem to me more interested in reflecting the persons character than to flatter. For representing a powerful person it was more essential what dress he wore and what jewels,or what the hands did, to represent his importance.
It seems highly unlikely to me that the changes on the SoA and RC paintings were not made deliberately.
I used to wonder why the portraits were only tampered in Henry VIII's time. Now I think in Henry VII's
time there were too many people still living, who knew how Richard actually looked like.
Eva
Re: Richard's Portrait
Hi Carol
I have read the article, thank you for the link.Sorry, i mixed up the tracing and the finished painting.
But I want to say something about distortions: There are distortions that for me are obviously deliberate,
as the mouth on the SoA painting before cleaning and eyes,nose mouth on th RC one.But on the NPG portrait there are some that derive simply from poor skill, namely the position of Richard's left eye. That is why I think that even if the painter used a good master drawing (matching with that of the RC painting) and getting the outline right, it does not follow that he got Richard's appearance correct when applying his somewhat limited skills.
Eva
Re: Richard's Portrait
Doug wrote:
Would royal portraits be available for the public to look at in those circumstances?I just read in the catalog of an exhibition about Charles the Rash from 2009, that a series of royal portraits
very probably was exhibited at the Townhall at Lille in the 16. century. So it seems plausible that Royal portraits were shown to the English public in like wise.
Eva
Richard's Portrait
Re: Richard's Portrait
Marie here:The SA and RC portraits show signs of alteration - i.e. overpainting - but not the NPG. The NPG portrait was painted at the outset incorporating some of the alterations made to the RC portrait, but perhaps in a less exaggerated or hostile way (in particular, the mouth doesn't appear as tightly pressed together as in the RC version).I dunno, perhaps we should imagine the NPG artist having traced the outlines from the original preparatory sketch (explaining the very close correspondence between the outlines on the RC & NPG versions, and between these and Richard's actual skull), and then painted it up using the RC portrait as a guide. But I guess we'll never know for sure.
Richard's Portrait
Re: Richard's Portrait
"Hi Carol
I have read the article, thank you for the link.Sorry, i mixed up the tracing and the finished painting.
"But I want to say something about distortions: There are distortions that for me are obviously deliberate, as the mouth on the SoA painting before cleaning and eyes,nose mouth on th RC one.But on the NPG portrait there are some that derive simply from poor skill, namely the position of Richard's left eye. That is why I think that even if the painter used a good master drawing (matching with that of the RC painting) and getting the outline right, it does not follow that he got Richard's appearance correct when applying his somewhat limited skills."
Carol responds:
I won't dispute that. I think that the thumb, for example, is poorly executed in the NPG portrait from lack of skill rather than through deliberate distortion. My point was primarily that the NPG portrait, though later than the RC painting, can't be a copy of it (despite the number of people who confidently state that it is) because it appears to derive from the same tracing and does not contain the deliberate distortions found in the RC painting (done at the behest of either Henry VII or Henry VIII). Whoever painted it seems not to have shared the animus against Richard and was trying, however lacking in skill he might be, to reproduce the original painting as traced.
The question for me becomes, how did this unknown artist have access to the original painting--or its tracing--similar or identical to the one that the Royal Collection artist used in his undistorted original? Since we don't know the provenance of that painting, we can probably never answer that question. And, of course, there's the question of where the Society of Antiquities painting fits in and who distorted the mouth.
I doubt that the distortions stem from the comment of someone alive in Richard's time about how he held his lips as someone (Doug?) has suggested. They seem to have been distorted to resemble, to some degree, the official descriptions of Richard, not for the sake of realism but for political or symbolic reasons (as is overtly the case in the original version of the Broken Sword painting). Richard was the defeated tyrant, usurper, and child murderer in that view, and it would not do to make him look benevolent in a portrait designed for the Royal Collection. But whoever painted the NPG painting made him realistic to the best of his ability, attempting to recreate the original tracing (failing with the thumb and perhaps the eyes) but clearly with no intention of depicting the monster of Tudor propaganda (including by that time the description of Richard by Sir Thomas More regardless of More's original motivations in writing his unfinished and unpublished work).
As far as the NPG artist's getting Richard's appearance right, we can judge that for ourselves based on the imposition of his skull on the painting and the closeness of the painting to the tracing. It is certainly closer to his real appearance than is the deliberately distorted RC painting. It also seems closer, based on the imposition of the skull on both paintings, than the Society of Antiquaries painting (even the cleaned version with the undistorted mouth). However, it may well be that the SoA painting is facing the right direction and that Richard was indeed placing a ring on his wedding finger in the original portrait.
Beyond that, I think, our assessment becomes subjective when we bring in matters like skill in painting thumbs. I tend to think that the NPG portrait shows his intelligence, his suffering, and his benevolence but ages him ten years beyond his age at the time. The SoA portrait gets the age right and does a better job with the hands but fails, in my view, to capture the expression or the personality of the sitter. And the cloth of gold outfit is ghastly, but that's just my personal prejudice.
Anyway, let me state once more that my main point is simply that historians should stop stating that all subsequent portraits are copied from the RC painting as the NPG painting clearly is not (both use a tracing of the lost original) and the Broken Sword painting may be copied from the SoA portrait, itself a copy of a lost original but not of the RC painting, which has an altogether different face. Whether there was one portrait or two (one paired with Anne, the other a new portrait for Joanna of Portugal) we have no way of knowing at this point.
Carol
Re: Richard's Portrait
Hi Carol,hi all,
I totally agree with you, that because we just have these four portraits left, there need not be a close connection between them. That seems a bit over simplistic. Who knows how many other portraits existed?
But I want to tell you and everybody, who might be interested, a thing that occured to me this morning:
The NPG portrait for me stands alone among the others as the representation of Richard differs greatly
and it was painted many years later. I used to think that the painter was somewhat well meaning but not
very skilled. Suddenly there was this idea in my head that this was not so and than the features were deliberately made that way and not out of good intentions. Richard looks old before his time, careworn,with sorrow lines on his forehead, his lips tightly compressed, a rather poor sight to see. And this depiction
is most destroying for the image of a King, more than the meanness in the older portraits. It is the picture of a weak king, an unsuccessful king. If you look at portraits of H6, he does not look like a nice guy, but certainly like a King in his power. Or Elisabeth1's pictures showing her in all her glory.
I do not know what people on this forum think about this. I just wanted to share my thoughts with you,
not convince anybody. Maybe you could give it a thought!
Eva
Eva
Re: Richard's Portrait
Carol wrote:
However, it may well be that the SoA painting is facing the right direction and that Richard was indeed placing a ring on his wedding finger in the original portrait.
Marie:
In the 15thC the wedding ring was worn on the right hand.
Re: Richard's Portrait
Eva wrote:
I totally agree with you, that because we just have these four portraits left, there need not be a close connection between them. That seems a bit over simplistic.
Marie here:
There is certainly a close connection between the three in which Richard is placing a ring on (or removing one from) his finger. The RC and NPG portraits are simply slight variants of an identical picture, and as Geoffrey Wheeler has shown, the SA portrait, despite the different clothing, is basically the same picture reversed.
Eva wrote:
The NPG portrait for me stands alone among the others as the representation of Richard differs greatly
and it was painted many years later. I used to think that the painter was somewhat well meaning but not
very skilled. Suddenly there was this idea in my head that this was not so and than the features were deliberately made that way and not out of good intentions. Richard looks old before his time, careworn,with sorrow lines on his forehead, his lips tightly compressed, a rather poor sight to see.
Marie here:
The NPG portrait is an almost identical copy of the Windsor one. If you look closely, even the same wrinkles have been copied; they simply stand out more clearly on the cleaned NPG portrait. The clothing is identical, the outline of the face, the rings are on the same fingers, the same rubber left hand, even the background is the same. The NPG portrait retains the cleft chin that we see in the RC portrait (in both portraits, incidentally, suggested only by light and shade - ie there is no dip in the outline of the jaw), and which is absent from the SA portrait and apparently not discernible in the bones. The only real differences are in the way the facial expression has come out (as much as anything, because of subtle differences in the execution of the mouth and the line of the eyebrows), the position of that thumb and the top border.
Since it's agreed that the RC portrait was doctored, and the NPG one copied those changes across, I'm not sure how the NPG one cane be regarded as a fresh departure.
Eva wrote:
If you look at portraits of H6, he does not look like a nice guy, but certainly like a King in his power.
Marie here:
Did you mean Henry VII or Henry VIII? To me Henry VI always looks rather fatuous & bewildered in his portraits.
Re: Richard's Portrait
Carol responds:
And yet the RC portrait of Richard was unquestionably altered soon after it was painted (ca. 1500 to 1520), undoubtedly at the instigation of either Henry VII or VIII. If the king, especially a Tudor king, orders you to alter a painting of a predecessor to fit the official line, you obey the king or face the consequences. If someone such as Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk, who fought for Richard in 1485, happens to see the painting in the royal collection, as he almost certainly did, that person, having been released from prison and been belatedly restored to his father's titles, happens to see the altered painting and know it to be altered, he is likely, for his own sake and that of his sons, to remain silent.
Carol
Re: Richard's Portrait
Eva wrote:
and it was painted many years later. I used to think that the painter was somewhat well meaning but not very
skilled. Suddenly there was this idea in my head that this was not so
and than the features were deliberately made that way and not out of
good intentions. Richard looks old before his time, careworn,with sorrow
lines on his forehead, his lips tightly compressed, a rather poor sight
to see. And this depiction is
most destroying for the image of a King, more than the meanness in the
older portraits. It is the picture of a weak king, an unsuccessful king. <snip>"
Carol responds:
Eva, that's an interesting thought though as you can probably guess, I don't quite agree. You're right that Richard looks older than he should, but not, I think, because of deliberate distortion. The artist probably didn't know Richard's real age, which had been distorted first by More, whose addition of twelve years to Edward's age and omission of the age difference between Edward and Richard led, I think, to a general assumption that Richard was closer to fifty than to thirty, and then by Shakespeare, who had him fighting in battles that occurred when he was two and seven, respectively. So the painter, looking at the tracery, may have thought that it didn't look old enough and added facial lines not in the original to make him the "right" age.
Beyond that I won't go because to me, the face in the portrait looks intelligent, thoughtful, and benevolent. The botched thumb does indicate a lack of skill in painting hands, so perhaps the other elements of the painting, such as the mouth, might also indicate an amateur rather than a professional copyist. But if the artist wanted a model of a cruel Richard III, he had only to copy the RC painting directly. If he wanted to portray a defeated king, he had only to borrow the symbolism of the Broken Sword painting.
So I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree on this last suggestion. To me, the painting suggests a sympathy of the artist for the subject, an attempt, successful overall, to make him look like a good and intelligent man, if somewhat careworn and older than he should have appeared. I've seen the actual portrait, not just representations of it, and I had the same reaction. I never had any such reaction to the SoA portrait, even the cleaned version, which looks slightly mean (in the American sense of ill-tempered). Possibly, we see what we want to see.
I think I'll drop the subject now since we can no more convince each other to like one painting and dislike another than I can convince my grandson's girlfriend that black olives are delicious when she's determined to dislike them.
Carol
Re: Richard's Portrait
"However, it may well be that the SoA painting is facing the right direction and that Richard was indeed placing a ring on his wedding finger in the original portrait."
Marie responded:
"In the 15thC the wedding ring was worn on the right hand."
Carol responds:
Interesting. So it's the SoA painting that's reversed (all the others except the Broken Sword portrait face the other way). But the detail of putting on a wedding ring could still be correct--if the tracery used for the NPG and RC portraits comes from a different original. Just a thought. I don't like the SoA portrait, anyway!
Carol
Re: Richard's Portrait
"Since it's agreed that the RC portrait was doctored, and the NPG one copied those changes across, I'm not sure how the NPG one cane be regarded as a fresh departure."
Carol responds:
That was my idea. I've just spent several posts arguing that although the benevolent-looking NPG portrait shared an original tracery with the deliberately distorted RC portrait, it's unlikely, IMO, that it was copied directly from the RC portrait. If you haven't yet read my arguments, please read them and let me know what you think. If you've read them and rejected them, I guess we''ll just have to agree to disagree.
Carol
Re: Richard's Portrait
Am I right in thinking that the NPG painting is the one referred to in The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey?
As far as I can remember, and I only listened to the reading on the radio recently, I do not have the book to hand, it is Richard's kindly looks in this painting that lead Inspector Alan Grant to try to prove that he was not responsible for the deaths of the princes. I seem to recall it was suggested that he looked more like a judge than a murderer.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Richard's Portrait
Sent: Sun, Jan 19, 2014 2:01:56 AM
Eva wrote:
and it was painted many years later. I used to think that the painter was somewhat well meaning but not very
skilled. Suddenly there was this idea in my head that this was not so
and than the features were deliberately made that way and not out of
good intentions. Richard looks old before his time, careworn,with sorrow
lines on his forehead, his lips tightly compressed, a rather poor sight
to see. And this depiction is
most destroying for the image of a King, more than the meanness in the
older portraits. It is the picture of a weak king, an unsuccessful king. <snip>"
Carol responds:
Eva, that's an interesting thought though as you can probably guess, I don't quite agree. You're right that Richard looks older than he should, but not, I think, because of deliberate distortion. The artist probably didn't know Richard's real age, which had been distorted first by More, whose addition of twelve years to Edward's age and omission of the age difference between Edward and Richard led, I think, to a general assumption that Richard was closer to fifty than to thirty, and then by Shakespeare, who had him fighting in battles that occurred when he was two and seven, respectively. So the painter, looking at the tracery, may have thought that it didn't look old enough and added facial lines not in the original to make him the "right" age.
Beyond that I won't go because to me, the face in the portrait looks intelligent, thoughtful, and benevolent. The botched thumb does indicate a lack of skill in painting hands, so perhaps the other elements of the painting, such as the
mouth, might also indicate an amateur rather than a professional copyist. But if the artist wanted a model of a cruel Richard III, he had only to copy the RC painting directly. If he wanted to portray a defeated king, he had only to borrow the symbolism of the Broken Sword painting.
So I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree on this last suggestion. To me, the painting suggests a sympathy of the artist for the subject, an attempt, successful overall, to make him look like a good and intelligent man, if somewhat careworn and older than he should have appeared. I've seen the actual portrait, not just representations of it, and I had the same reaction. I never had any such reaction to the SoA portrait, even the cleaned version, which looks slightly mean (in the American sense of ill-tempered). Possibly, we see what we want to see.
I think I'll drop the subject now
since we can no more convince each other to like one painting and dislike another than I can convince my grandson's girlfriend that black olives are delicious when she's determined to dislike them.
Carol
Re: Richard's Portrait
"Am I right in thinking that the NPG painting is the one referred to in The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey?
As far as I can remember, and I only listened to the reading on the radio recently, I do not have the book to hand, it is Richard's kindly looks in this painting that lead Inspector Alan Grant to try to prove that he was not responsible for the deaths of the princes. I seem to recall it was suggested that he looked more like a judge than a murderer."
Carol responds:
Right on all counts. Here's the original description and Inspector Grant's initial reaction:
"It was the portrait of a man dressed in the velvet cap and slashed doublet of the late fifteenth century. A man about thirty-five or thirty-six years old, lean and clean shaven. He wore a rich jewelled collar, and was in the act of putting a ring on the little finger of his right hand. But he was not looking at the ring. He was looking off into space. Of all the portraits Grant had seen this afternoon this was the most individual. It was as if the artist had striven to put on canvas something that his talent was not sufficient to translate into paint. The expression in the eyes that most arresting and individual expression had defeated him. So had the mouth: he had not known how to make lips so thin and so wide look mobile, so the mouth was wooden and a failure. What he had best succeeded in was in the bone structure of the face: the strong cheekbones, the hollows below them, the chin too large for strength. Grant paused in the act of turning the thing over, to consider the face a moment longer. A judge? A soldier? A prince? Someone used to great responsibility, and responsible in his authority. Someone too-conscientious. A worrier; perhaps a perfectionist. A man at ease in a large design, but anxious over details. A candidate for gastric ulcer. Someone, too, who had suffered ill-health as a child. He had that incommunicable, that indescribable look that childhood suffering leaves behind it; less positive than the look on a cripple's face, but as inescapable. This the artist had both understood and translated into terms of paint. The slight fullness of the lower eyelid, like a child that has slept too heavily; the texture of the skin; the old-man look in a young face.He turned the portrait over to look for a caption. On the back was printed: Richard the Third. From the portrait in the National Portrait Gallery. Artist Unknown. Richard the Third."
Tey, Josephine, 1896-1952 (2012-07-31T08:43:48.891341+00:00). The Daughter of Time (Kindle Locations 388-391). The University of Adelaide Library. Kindle Edition.
The book is available from Kindle as you can tell from the source. If I'm not mistaken, it was either free or very inexpensive.
Carol
Re: Richard's Portrait
15th C. art relied upon a very specific iconography. The Portrait of Giovanni Arnolfini and Wife is usually cited as an example; every object, gesture, and colour served a symbolic purpose within the picture.
In her 1973 catalogue for the NPG, Dr. Pamela Tudor-Craig pointed out how their portrait of Richard had characteristics very much like a particular picture of Jesus, sometimes called "The Man of Sorrow." This was typically a painting of the Christ, post-crucifixion and bearing all the signs of the Passion. He is shown from the waist up. The face is often careworn and prematurely aged. This image was intended for personal contemplation during prayer, and it was so popular, many medieval painters did versions of it.
Might it be that the painter of the NPG copy of Richard's portrait was, in fact, "editorializing" from a sympathetic, rather than a negative perspective?
Just another thought to throw into the mix.
Judy Loyaulte me lie
On Saturday, January 18, 2014 8:42 PM, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Jessie wrote:
"Am I right in thinking that the NPG painting is the one referred to in The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey?
As far as I can remember, and I only listened to the reading on the radio recently, I do not have the book to hand, it is Richard's kindly looks in this painting that lead Inspector Alan Grant to try to prove that he was not responsible for the deaths of the princes. I seem to recall it was suggested that he looked more like a judge than a murderer."
Carol responds:
Right on all counts. Here's the original description and Inspector Grant's initial reaction:
"It was the portrait of a man dressed in the velvet cap and slashed doublet of the late fifteenth century. A man about thirty-five or thirty-six years old, lean and clean shaven. He wore a rich jewelled collar, and was in the act of putting a ring on the little finger of his right hand. But he was not looking at the ring. He was looking off into space. Of all the portraits Grant had seen this afternoon this was the most individual. It was as if the artist had striven to put on canvas something that his talent was not sufficient to translate into paint. The expression in the eyes that most arresting and individual expression had defeated him. So had the mouth: he had not known how to make lips so thin and so wide look mobile, so the mouth was wooden and a failure. What he had best succeeded in was in the bone structure of the face: the strong cheekbones, the hollows below them, the chin too large for strength. Grant paused in the act of turning the thing over, to consider the face a moment longer. A judge? A soldier? A prince? Someone used to great responsibility, and responsible in his authority. Someone too-conscientious. A worrier; perhaps a perfectionist. A man at ease in a large design, but anxious over details. A candidate for gastric ulcer. Someone, too, who had suffered ill-health as a child. He had that incommunicable, that indescribable look that childhood suffering leaves behind it; less positive than the look on a cripple's face, but as inescapable. This the artist had both understood and translated into terms of paint. The slight fullness of the lower eyelid, like a child that has slept too heavily; the texture of the skin; the old-man look in a young face.He turned the portrait over to look for a caption. On the back was printed: Richard the Third. From the portrait in the National Portrait Gallery. Artist Unknown. Richard the Third."
Tey, Josephine, 1896-1952 (2012-07-31T08:43:48.891341+00:00). The Daughter of Time (Kindle Locations 388-391). The University of Adelaide Library. Kindle Edition.
The book is available from Kindle as you can tell from the source. If I'm not mistaken, it was either free or very inexpensive.
Carol
Re: Richard's Portrait
Marie wrote:
"Since it's agreed that the RC portrait was doctored, and the NPG one copied those changes across, I'm not sure how the NPG one cane be regarded as a fresh departure."
Carol responds:
That was my idea. I've just spent several posts arguing that although the benevolent-looking NPG portrait shared an original tracery with the deliberately distorted RC portrait, it's unlikely, IMO, that it was copied directly from the RC portrait. If you haven't yet read my arguments, please read them and let me know what you think. If you've read them and rejected them, I guess we''ll just have to agree to disagree.
Marie again:
I did read your posts, but I'm afraid I don't agree. I had a good look at both blown up on my computer in detail before writing that post, and as I say the exact wrinkles have been carried across from the RC to the NPG portrait, as has the slightly raised shoulder line as per the altered RC portrait. In my above post I detail my reasons for suggesting that the NPG artist copied from the RC portrait; I have earlier suggested that he probably began by tracing from this hypothetical original cartoon and then used the RC portrait for guidance re the filling in. I still hold by that. I think that, copying just by eye, the outlines of the two faces are unlikely to have ended up so identical (the position of the hand has moved, for instance), but there is clear evidence that the alterations made to the RC painting after its completion were incorporated into the NPG portrait at time of painting. What perhaps the NPG artist did is to account for the wrinkles high up on the forehead by making Richard slightly raise his eyebrows to suggest a quizzical look rather than the straight-browed frown as in the RC portrait, perhaps because the wrinkles in the RC portrait aren't really in the right place for a frown.
Incidentally, I'm also interested in the difference between the positions of the hands re the body in the three paintings. It just occurred to me yesterday that maybe the hands were on a separate drawing all of their own.
Re: Richard's Portrait
Not really a reply to anything. Just, for anyone who hasn't read the article on the portraits on the RIII Soc. website the link is:-
http://www.richardiii.net/2_4_0_riii_appearance.php#portrait]
Might be a useful discussion point.
Marie
Re: Richard's Portrait
On Jan 19, 2014, at 6:17 AM, "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]> wrote:
Marie wrote:
"Since it's agreed that the RC portrait was doctored, and the NPG one copied those changes across, I'm not sure how the NPG one cane be regarded as a fresh departure."
Carol responds:
That was my idea. I've just spent several posts arguing that although the benevolent-looking NPG portrait shared an original tracery with the deliberately distorted RC portrait, it's unlikely, IMO, that it was copied directly from the RC portrait. If you haven't yet read my arguments, please read them and let me know what you think. If you've read them and rejected them, I guess we''ll just have to agree to disagree.
Marie again:
I did read your posts, but I'm afraid I don't agree. I had a good look at both blown up on my computer in detail before writing that post, and as I say the exact wrinkles have been carried across from the RC to the NPG portrait, as has the slightly raised shoulder line as per the altered RC portrait. In my above post I detail my reasons for suggesting that the NPG artist copied from the RC portrait; I have earlier suggested that he probably began by tracing from this hypothetical original cartoon and then used the RC portrait for guidance re the filling in. I still hold by that. I think that, copying just by eye, the outlines of the two faces are unlikely to have ended up so identical (the position of the hand has moved, for instance), but there is clear evidence that the alterations made to the RC painting after its completion were incorporated into the NPG portrait at time of painting. What perhaps the NPG artist did is to account for the wrinkles high up on the forehead by making Richard slightly raise his eyebrows to suggest a quizzical look rather than the straight-browed frown as in the RC portrait, perhaps because the wrinkles in the RC portrait aren't really in the right place for a frown.
Incidentally, I'm also interested in the difference between the positions of the hands re the body in the three paintings. It just occurred to me yesterday that maybe the hands were on a separate drawing all of their own.
Re: Richard's Portrait
Marie wrote:
"I did read your posts, but I'm afraid I don't agree. I had a good look at both blown up on my computer in detail before writing that post, and as I say the exact wrinkles have been carried across from the RC to the NPG portrait, as has the slightly raised shoulder line as per the altered RC portrait. In my above post I detail my reasons for suggesting that the NPG artist copied from the RC portrait; I have earlier suggested that he probably began by tracing from this hypothetical original cartoon and then used the RC portrait for guidance re the filling in. I still hold by that. I think that, copying just by eye, the outlines of the two faces are unlikely to have ended up so identical (the position of the hand has moved, for instance), but there is clear evidence that the alterations made to the RC painting after its completion were incorporated into the NPG portrait at time of painting. What perhaps the NPG artist did is to account for the wrinkles high up on the forehead by making Richard slightly raise his eyebrows to suggest a quizzical look rather than the straight-browed frown as in the RC portrait, perhaps because the wrinkles in the RC portrait aren't really in the right place for a frown.
Incidentally, I'm also interested in the difference between the positions of the hands re the body in the three paintings. It just occurred to me yesterday that maybe the hands were on a separate drawing all of their own."
Carol responds:
First, the cartoon is not hypothetical. Here's the link again if you want to look at it: http://www.npg.org.uk/research/programmes/making-art-in-tudor-britain/tudor-and-jacobean-painting-production-influences-and-patronage-december-2010/extended-abstracts-and-videos/evidence-from-portrait-sets-and-multiple-copies-richard-iii-in-focus.php
New TinyURL because I've lost the other one:
http://tinyurl.com/ms4qtbs
According to the very authoritative article also found at that link, "Infrared reflectography indicated that a pre-established portrait pattern was used and transferred via tracing onto the panel with a carbon-based medium. The melinex tracing of this pattern matched almost exactly with the pattern used for versions of the portrait at Hatfield House (probably late sixteenth century) and the Royal Collection (early sixteenth century)."
Second, the faces are not identical except for the face shape and hairstyle. The expression is different. The nose on the RC portrait is hooked rather than straight. The mouth is clenched and angry looking. I'm not sure about the eyes, which *in the context* of the RC portrait look sinister but in the context of the NPG look far away and thoughtful. It's odd how such subtle differences can create such a different impression, but the deliberate changes to the RC portrait certainly succeeded in their effect. We *know* that both artists worked from similar or identical tracings. There is no need for the NPG artist ever to have seen the RC painting.
Do you at least agree with me about the general impression created by the two paintings, one benevolent and one sinister? I really can't see how the NPG artist, working sixty to eighty years later when the Tudor mythology was in full flower, could have failed to make Richard look more, not less, sinister had he been influenced by the NPG painting. All the similarities that you note are fully accounted for by the tracery.
Our purpose here, and I know you agree with me on this point, is to examine frequently repeated statements that pass for truths to see if they stand up to examination. That's what I'm attempting to do with the statement that all subsequent portraits were copied from the RC painting. It seems to me that they were all copied from a common original (the Broken Sword perhaps directly from the SoA) by means of a tracery which could be reversed. We see that tracery under both the RC and NPG paintings. (You did look at it, I hope!) Again, it seems to me that all similarities between the NPG and RC paintings can be accounted for by that tracery, and all differences by what we know were deliberate alterations to the RC portrait which do not appear in the NPG portrait.
Carol
Re: Richard's Portrait
Not really a reply to anything. Just, for anyone who hasn't read the article on the portraits on the RIII Soc. website the link is:-
http://www.richardiii.net/2_4_0_riii_appearance.php#portrait]
Might be a useful discussion point.
Carol responds:
Yes. The important points are "Richard's face [in the RC portrait}, however, seems oddly inconsistent within this otherwise extremely positive image emphasizing wealth and piety. The eyes are narrowed into what looks like a malevolent glare, the mouth thin-lipped and the jaw grimly clenched. There is an explanation for this. X-ray examination of the Royal Collection portrait has shown that the facial features were altered, probably quite soon after the painting was initially finished and possibly by the same artist. What appears to have happened, therefore, is that the artist began by making an accurate copy of the lost original portrait, and was then asked, presumably by someone in authority over him, to make some changes to it. The changes evidently also involved making the king's right shoulder a little higher than it had been before"
and
"It has been noticed how well the reconstructed head 'morphs' into the NPG portrait image but the face in this particular painting was, for reasons that are now unknowable, made to look unusually sympathetic compared with almost all of the other derivatives from the Royal Collection portrait."
If, rather than viewing the NPG portrait as a direct copy of the RC portrait as the author of this article does, we consider them both as derived from the same cartoon or tracery--not hypothetical but real as shown in the previously quoted article--the mystery of the sympathetic portrait disappears. Could our mystery artist actually have seen the vanished original and copied *it*?
Does anyone know how these traceries or cartoons or whatever they are called are actually obtained?
Carol
Re: Richard's Portrait
Carol again:
I meant "had he been influenced by the RC painting," of course.
Carol
Re: Richard's Portrait
Sorry, yes I meant Henry VIII.
Eva
Re: Richard's Portrait
Marie wrote:
.http://www.richardiii.net/2_4_0_riii_appearance.php#portrait]
Might be a useful discussion point.
I read the article again just now,and it confirms two points that seem important to me: Firstly the importance of the SoA portrait and secondly the caution against taking the Facial Reconstruction for a real live image.
One thing ,that is not mentioned in the article is the size. The SoA portrait is much smaller and more in line with 15. century pictures. The RC portrait is too big for Richard's lifetime. Was an original painting enlarged
for the RC portrait? Technically that would not have been a problem, for the artists of the time had a very good method of making exact enlargements of drawings.
Another thought: If we accept that the SoA portrait has been reversed to make Richard look to the
left and the master drawing was the other way round, then before making the superimposition the image
should have been reversed again. Because now the face is compared to a skull looking to the left while the outline is really the reversed outline to the right. You can see it clearly in the pictures in bulletin the the skull
does not look identical from both sides, as is only natural.
I personally am not troubled by the fact that the superimposition of the SoA painting was not "stunning" like that of the NPG portrait, but the above said is a possible explanation for that.
I hope you can understand what I mean, it is sometimes not so easy for me to explain things in English.
Eva
---In , <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Marie wrote:
Not really a reply to anything. Just, for anyone who hasn't read the article on the portraits on the RIII Soc. website the link is:-
http://www.richardiii.net/2_4_0_riii_appearance.php#portrait]
Might be a useful discussion point.
Carol responds:
Yes. The important points are "Richard's face [in the RC portrait}, however, seems oddly inconsistent within this otherwise extremely positive image emphasizing wealth and piety. The eyes are narrowed into what looks like a malevolent glare, the mouth thin-lipped and the jaw grimly clenched. There is an explanation for this. X-ray examination of the Royal Collection portrait has shown that the facial features were altered, probably quite soon after the painting was initially finished and possibly by the same artist. What appears to have happened, therefore, is that the artist began by making an accurate copy of the lost original portrait, and was then asked, presumably by someone in authority over him, to make some changes to it. The changes evidently also involved making the king's right shoulder a little higher than it had been before"
and
"It has been noticed how well the reconstructed head 'morphs' into the NPG portrait image but the face in this particular painting was, for reasons that are now unknowable, made to look unusually sympathetic compared with almost all of the other derivatives from the Royal Collection portrait."
If, rather than viewing the NPG portrait as a direct copy of the RC portrait as the author of this article does, we consider them both as derived from the same cartoon or tracery--not hypothetical but real as shown in the previously quoted article--the mystery of the sympathetic portrait disappears. Could our mystery artist actually have seen the vanished original and copied *it*?
Does anyone know how these traceries or cartoons or whatever they are called are actually obtained?
Carol
Re: Richard's Portrait
Sorry, Carol, maybe I'm feeling more impatient than I should be. What I mean is that the cartoon is hypothetical in that we don't have it. I grant you that it is the only plausible explanation for the similarity of the drawn outlines in the different versions; I actually introduced the theory of the background drawing into this debate in the first place! I am simply trying to maintain the distinction between physical evidence (eg extant portraits) and hypotheses, however strong the case for them.
Also, you're evading the problem of the wrinkles and the raised shoulder. I've stated my belief on more thn one occasion that the expressions come out differently in the two portraits, so I'm not sure why you're asking me to repeat this. If you can give me an explanation for the raised shoulder and copying of worry lines not present in the SA portrait that does not involve copying from the RA portrait I'd be really interested.
Marie
Re: Richard's Portrait
Eva wrote:
Another thought: If we accept that the SoA portrait has been reversed to make Richard look to the
left and the master drawing was the other way round, then before making the superimposition the image
should have been reversed again. Because now the face is compared to a skull looking to the left while the outline is really the reversed outline to the right. You can see it clearly in the pictures in bulletin the the skull
does not look identical from both sides, as is only natural.
Marie responds:
Yes, that's occurred to me too. But it should be easy for anybody with the right software to test this by reversing the SoA painting and superimposing it on the image of the skull as fitted into the NPG portrait.
Re: Richard's Portrait
Claire's already done the superimposition of the skull onto the SoA portrait -- it's in the files section, or perhaps pasting this link to it might work:
https://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v2/TITcUpWQvcpf4f8Mh-thMLXl_7K3gHnbkpItcylZVV11eQOJ5QIYVwMpUpSYUWJtvL-BvqUzJ7kDmiXCBso4IQGeS8HRgvViJZfHpu0kRjJ4466orzqoC9WsC_T0OYC2L4n9/Richard%20SoA%20skull.jpg
Her comments are as follows:
"The fit is pretty good, although his right cheek is too high in the portrait - it looks like this may be a copying error relative to the original, as it doesn't look natural, and that's typical of the sort of error you get when you're drawing a copy of a picture, rather than really drawing a person.
"His chin really needs to be more prominent - but that's true of the NPG portrait as well, because that doesn't quite match his skull in the chin department either. He really did have a bit of a Desperate Dan thing going on there. It's just as well his hair was quite light, so at least it wouldn't have been an enormous *blue* chin - just a gingerish one."Tamara (quoting from Claire's email to me on this)
Re: Richard's Portrait
Sorry, Carol, maybe I'm feeling more impatient than I should be. What I mean is that the cartoon is hypothetical in that we don't have it. I grant you that it is the only plausible explanation for the similarity of the drawn outlines in the different versions; I actually introduced the theory of the background drawing into this debate in the first place! I am simply trying to maintain the distinction between physical evidence (eg extant portraits) and hypotheses, however strong the case for them.
Also, you're evading the problem of the wrinkles and the raised shoulder. I've stated my belief on more thn one occasion that the expressions come out differently in the two portraits, so I'm not sure why you're asking me to repeat this. If you can give me an explanation for the raised shoulder and copying of worry lines not present in the SA portrait that does not involve copying from the RA portrait I'd be really interested.
Marie
Carol responds:
Oddly, and I have no explanation, the raised shoulder and facial lines already appear in the traced overlay or cartoon or whatever it is--this thing here: http://www.npg.org.uk/assets/migrated_assets/images/research/programmes/making-art-in-tudor-britain/case-studies/TracedOverlay_NPG148.jpg
I don't understand why you're calling it hypothetical when it's right there for us to see. The article, which I hope you've read as it's very informative, says the traced overlay, visible using X-ray, is the same or almost the same in both paintings.Clearly, with that overlay, the NPG painter didn't need to see the RC painting. I'm glad you agree that the NPG painting has a more benevolent expression than the RC painting (a point addressed in the article you cited and presented as a mystery).
So the question becomes--where does that traced overlay, used by both painters, come from? Did the original painting already have a raised shoulder and worry lines? If we go by the traced overlay, it didn't have a hooked nose or compressed lips. (The tracing itself appears slightly botched, especially around the lips.)
What we need is, first, a cleaning of the RC painting to remove the alterations (and the jaundiced complexion) so that it can be compared to the NPG. I think the resemblance between the two will be striking since they both used the same--very unhypothetical--traced overlay.
Now if someone will just tell me how a traced overlay works . . . .
Carol
Re: Richard's Portrait
Tamara wrote:
Claire has already done the superimposition of the skull onto the SoA portrait...
I am sorry but in Claire's version the superimposed skull seems to be too big, so that it fits worse than
in the " wrong-sided " version Prof. Wilkinson made. Have a look at her superimpositions in September
Bulletin
Eva
Re: Richard's Portrait
Personally I think the best portaits of Richard are the Antiquities version and that of the Italian School.Richard was only 32 at time of his death.Although he had suffered such personal grief in a short space of time I do not think he would have looked as haggered and aged as some of the portraits depict him.
In the past I have thought he may of looked care worn etc because of his grief and maybe due to his scolosis.But he lived a very physical lifeso presumably riding,hunting,and jousting either daily or regularly did not affect him healthwise.He must have travelled a lot about his buisness in the north.Hence he would be lean in comparisson to his brother Edward as in their portraits.
Also if he had spent considerable time in London after Edward iv's death once he was King he would have relished the oppourtunity not only to show himself to his people but also to take delight in recapturing a part of his previous life as Lord of the North by travelling and visiting once again.
Kathryn
--- In , <eva.pitter@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Carol,hi all,
>
> I totally agree with you, that because we just have these four portraits left, there need not be a close connection between them. That seems a bit over simplistic. Who knows how many other portraits existed?
>
>
> But I want to tell you and everybody, who might be interested, a thing that occured to me this morning:
> The NPG portrait for me stands alone among the others as the representation of Richard differs greatly
> and it was painted many years later. I used to think that the painter was somewhat well meaning but not
> very skilled. Suddenly there was this idea in my head that this was not so and than the features were deliberately made that way and not out of good intentions. Richard looks old before his time, careworn,with sorrow lines on his forehead, his lips tightly compressed, a rather poor sight to see. And this depiction
> is most destroying for the image of a King, more than the meanness in the older portraits. It is the picture of a weak king, an unsuccessful king. If you look at portraits of H6, he does not look like a nice guy, but certainly like a King in his power. Or Elisabeth1's pictures showing her in all her glory.
> I do not know what people on this forum think about this. I just wanted to share my thoughts with you,
> not convince anybody. Maybe you could give it a thought!
> Eva
>
> Eva
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
I am glad that there are other people, like you, who think that Richard was a young active man and not a
pathetic person.Sometimes I have the impression that some people quite love the image of sadness, pain and suffering when it comes to Richard. I know his life was not an easy one,but considering the life he lived, he must have been rather healthy. John Ashdown-Hill made it clear in his book " The Last Days of Richard III" that even after the death of his brother and his family he was active and planned for the time to come .
In your post you mention a portrait of the Italian school.Is this the one were the man shows some rings in his hand? I personally think this is no portrait of Richard though I have seen it described that way somewhere in the web.
I tend to think it is a portrait of a jeweller, presenting the symbols of his trade.
Eva
Re: Richard's Portrait
Thanks for your reply.I think he was very active and obviously loved his life in the north.He was definitely planning for the future with his overtures to Joanna of Portugal.He had had previous setbacks in his life and overcame them so I am sure he would have been looking forward to getting to grips with ruling the country successfully.He had previously proven the necessary ability in his role as Lord of the North.
The portrait is the one where he's holding a ring between his finger and thumb.It's located at The Trustees of the Weston Park Foundation UK and a copy of it is at The Bridgeman Art Library.I have uploaded a picture of it on the Society's facebook page.If you scroll down you will find a link concerning Richard's portraits and it's with one of my comments.
Would you tell me where I could find a copy of your picture if it's different to the one I have described please?
When funds allow I will be certainly purchasing a copy of John Ashdown-Hill's book.
I am going to try and upload some more pictures of Richard's portraits to the same portrait link on the facebook page.Most of them you will probably know but I am hoping to include a photographed version of the reconstruction and some behind the scenes of The White Queen.
best wishes
Kathryn x
--- In , <eva.pitter@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Kathryn,
> I am glad that there are other people, like you, who think that Richard was a young active man and not a
> pathetic person.Sometimes I have the impression that some people quite love the image of sadness, pain and suffering when it comes to Richard. I know his life was not an easy one,but considering the life he lived, he must have been rather healthy. John Ashdown-Hill made it clear in his book " The Last Days of Richard III" that even after the death of his brother and his family he was active and planned for the time to come .
> In your post you mention a portrait of the Italian school.Is this the one were the man shows some rings in his hand? I personally think this is no portrait of Richard though I have seen it described that way somewhere in the web.
> I tend to think it is a portrait of a jeweller, presenting the symbols of his trade.
>
>
> Eva
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
I think the later portraits of Richard were to make him look old,weary and haggard.So not only would he look bad and seem a weak king but he also wouldn't outshine an aging Henry V11.Richard was only 32 when he died and he'd lead a healthy lifestyle so he couldn't possibly look so aged.The Antiquities Portrait and that of the Italian School Portrait both show him in a good light as a young and healthy young man.Some of the portraits may well have been lost through fire at Sheen and other various reasons,reformation,Cromwell and general deterioration.The ones that are similar, black velvet hat and gown, white ermine/fur trim and gold/coloured under shirt,seem to be either variations on a theme or how he was increasingly portrayed.More gaunt,more and more grasping of his gown until it looks almost like a roll possibly?....TR or jeweller's roll for rings....which seem less and less on his fingers.....no longer representing his power and authority? The golden shirt has rows upon rows of gold circles.Is this a symbol of Richard's motto Loyalty Binds Me.......a golden shirt resembling chain mail..his warrior/leadership? The jewellery will have had particular significance too.The portraits would all have had to resemble an original copy to a certain extent otherwise no one would know it was Richard.[Plus Richard probably had loads of copies done like he had with his boar insignia and sent out across the country to proclaim w he was now King.]It's just a question of what they could get away with......making him look meaner........or being more sympathetic.The distorted thumb(authority and power)resembles a scribe's stylo pointing to his(Richard's) chain of office? Not very nice.I may be being too romantic but I prefer to think of him as an elegant young King of England who looked to the future and showed a lot of promise.
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Another possible explanation for the repainting of Richard's portrait, and loss of its predecessor, could be - just a thought - that the royal portraits had perhaps been hung at Shene and were destroyed in the fire, and all that was left were people's memories of them and preparatory cartoons still available for tracing. Am I right, for instance, in thinking that we have no original royal portrait between Richard II and Henry VII, and the one we have of Henry VII was painted late in his reign? I stand to be corrected on this because I haven't checked out what is known about the earlier royal portraits.
> Marie
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
Hi Kathryn,
I really can't see that Richard could possibly have been feeling at his best if painted around the time of Anne's death, given the amount of bereavement he had endured in a very few years and how little family he had left. Also that people were simultaneously whispering that he was a monster who had murdered his nephews and his wife. I think he would have come through it, but if you've not been through serious bereavement yourself you won't yet understand the depths of what it does. Having said all that, I don't think Richard can have been as lined as he is shown in the RC and NPG portraits, and I've already referred to the fact that these lines aren't present in the Antiquaries portrait, and that the wrinkles are why I believe the NPG one to be based on the RC one, but this deformed thumb in the NPG portrait that is often mentioned isn't really present. The artist was simply trying to show the thumb partly concealed behind the revere of Richard's furred gown but couldn't get the perspective right so the thumb actually appears closer to the viewer than the fur collar it is supposed to be tucked behind. It is the perspective that is deformed rather than the thumb!
The pineapple-motif gown Richard is wearing in the Society of Antiquaries (not Antiquities) portrait is the same pattern as the gown Edward IV wears in the various copies of his portrait; this was done because it was painted as part of a set of two (EIV and RIII), with Edward facing one way and Richard facing the other - this is also why the image of Richard is reversed in the Antiquaries portrait. We know that the Antiquaries portraits of Edward and Richard are not just similar but were painted as part of a single commission because they are actually cut from the same piece of wood. Edward's gown in the Antiquaries portrait is similar to the one he wears in all the other versions, so we can I think be fairly confident that it was what Edward was wearing when he sat for his portrait, and not what Richard was wearing.
The outfit Richard has on in the RC portrait and others is actually a black velvet bonnet, a black velvet gown fully lined (not trimmed) with what I have read has been identified as spotted lynx fur (hence the thickness and stiffness), and underneath that a jacket (not shirt) of black-striped cloth of gold with gold sequinny things sewn along the stripes - I don't know if these would be the "nails" that are referred to in Richard III's wardrobe accounts. Underneath the jacket is a red doublet; the doublet was a strong close fitting garment constructed from two pieces of right-side cloth rather than a right side plus light lining (hence the name doublet); it had eyelet holes ('points') along the hem to which the hose would be tied to stop them falling down. Underneath that would be worn the shirt, which was always made of white linen (fully washable) and protected the other clothes from bodily secretions. This outfit is fully in line with the fashions of Richard's day and so I see no reason to question its authenticity.
The Italian School portrait, if it's the one I think you mean, shows Richard in what is basically the same outfit, with slight alterations, such as the sleeves of the gown being slashed right up to the shoulder and the replacement of the lynx-fur lining with simple ermine trim round the edges of the hanging sleeves. Setting aside the differences of detail, therefore, this is surely the outfit in which Richard was painted.
I don't believe that lots of copies would have been made of the royal portrait at this early date. Hanging portraits of kings in your new mansion was a fashion that began in the Tudor period. That's surely why none of the surviving portraits of the Plantagenet kings are earlier than 16th century.
There's really no point in any of us trying to make other members of the forum like the version of Richard's portrait that we ourselves like. We can state our preferences but I think we must leave it at that. Personally I like the NPG portrait because it has so much personality - I find it haunting. It is easy enough, if you have Paintshop or similar, to download a copy and wipe out the offending wrinkles. I've done it myself, using the Antiquaries portrait as a guide to exactly what facial lines should be left.
And I've also got to the age where even the NPG version of Richard looks young.
Marie
Re: Richard's Portrait
Thank you for taking the time to send me all this information,it's wonderful.
Kathryn x
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Kathryn,
> I really can't see that Richard could possibly have been feeling at his best if painted around the time of Anne's death, given the amount of bereavement he had endured in a very few years and how little family he had left. Also that people were simultaneously whispering that he was a monster who had murdered his nephews and his wife. I think he would have come through it, but if you've not been through serious bereavement yourself you won't yet understand the depths of what it does. Having said all that, I don't think Richard can have been as lined as he is shown in the RC and NPG portraits, and I've already referred to the fact that these lines aren't present in the Antiquaries portrait, and that the wrinkles are why I believe the NPG one to be based on the RC one, but this deformed thumb in the NPG portrait that is often mentioned isn't really present. The artist was simply trying to show the thumb partly concealed behind the revere of Richard's furred gown but couldn't get the perspective right so the thumb actually appears closer to the viewer than the fur collar it is supposed to be tucked behind. It is the perspective that is deformed rather than the thumb!
>
>
> The pineapple-motif gown Richard is wearing in the Society of Antiquaries (not Antiquities) portrait is the same pattern as the gown Edward IV wears in the various copies of his portrait; this was done because it was painted as part of a set of two (EIV and RIII), with Edward facing one way and Richard facing the other - this is also why the image of Richard is reversed in the Antiquaries portrait. We know that the Antiquaries portraits of Edward and Richard are not just similar but were painted as part of a single commission because they are actually cut from the same piece of wood. Edward's gown in the Antiquaries portrait is similar to the one he wears in all the other versions, so we can I think be fairly confident that it was what Edward was wearing when he sat for his portrait, and not what Richard was wearing.
>
>
> The outfit Richard has on in the RC portrait and others is actually a black velvet bonnet, a black velvet gown fully lined (not trimmed) with what I have read has been identified as spotted lynx fur (hence the thickness and stiffness), and underneath that a jacket (not shirt) of black-striped cloth of gold with gold sequinny things sewn along the stripes - I don't know if these would be the "nails" that are referred to in Richard III's wardrobe accounts. Underneath the jacket is a red doublet; the doublet was a strong close fitting garment constructed from two pieces of right-side cloth rather than a right side plus light lining (hence the name doublet); it had eyelet holes ('points') along the hem to which the hose would be tied to stop them falling down. Underneath that would be worn the shirt, which was always made of white linen (fully washable) and protected the other clothes from bodily secretions. This outfit is fully in line with the fashions of Richard's day and so I see no reason to question its authenticity.
> The Italian School portrait, if it's the one I think you mean, shows Richard in what is basically the same outfit, with slight alterations, such as the sleeves of the gown being slashed right up to the shoulder and the replacement of the lynx-fur lining with simple ermine trim round the edges of the hanging sleeves. Setting aside the differences of detail, therefore, this is surely the outfit in which Richard was painted.
> I don't believe that lots of copies would have been made of the royal portrait at this early date. Hanging portraits of kings in your new mansion was a fashion that began in the Tudor period. That's surely why none of the surviving portraits of the Plantagenet kings are earlier than 16th century.
> There's really no point in any of us trying to make other members of the forum like the version of Richard's portrait that we ourselves like. We can state our preferences but I think we must leave it at that. Personally I like the NPG portrait because it has so much personality - I find it haunting. It is easy enough, if you have Paintshop or similar, to download a copy and wipe out the offending wrinkles. I've done it myself, using the Antiquaries portrait as a guide to exactly what facial lines should be left.
> And I've also got to the age where even the NPG version of Richard looks young.
> Marie
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
I finally found the picture I was writing about in my post:.
www.agniphoto.com/viewrpr_e.asp?id=8548
Eva
Re: Richard's Portrait
Thanks for your reply.I have tried the link but don't seem able to access it. Do you have any suggestions please?
Many thanks
Kathryn x
--- In , <eva.pitter@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Kathryn,
>
> I finally found the picture I was writing about in my post:.
> www.agniphoto.com/viewrpr_e.asp?id=8548
>
> Eva
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
Hi Marie,
Regarding the NPG portrait I must contradict you! Do you mean the cleaned version with the golden foliage in the background? There the thumb is clearly not hidden in the revere but completely in front of it. And it is very exactly painted crippled.. The first joint of the thumb is tapering and ends in tiny nail. Not even the painter of this picture could have painted it so out of incapability.
As for Richard suffering from terrible bereavements at the alleged time of getting his portrait painted, I agree
with you But I see sadness in the SoA painting too, as well as resoluteness. It is earnest and thoughtful
and quite corresponding to a man in his circumstances.
Besides I want to say, that the cloth of gold dress is also contemporary and the fact that it was chosen to match with Edwards does not mean that Richard did not have one like this. Cloth of gold was a high status
garment fitting for a King. It was fitting to depict the two royal brothers so.
Eva
---In , <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Kathryn,
I really can't see that Richard could possibly have been feeling at his best if painted around the time of Anne's death, given the amount of bereavement he had endured in a very few years and how little family he had left. Also that people were simultaneously whispering that he was a monster who had murdered his nephews and his wife. I think he would have come through it, but if you've not been through serious bereavement yourself you won't yet understand the depths of what it does. Having said all that, I don't think Richard can have been as lined as he is shown in the RC and NPG portraits, and I've already referred to the fact that these lines aren't present in the Antiquaries portrait, and that the wrinkles are why I believe the NPG one to be based on the RC one, but this deformed thumb in the NPG portrait that is often mentioned isn't really present. The artist was simply trying to show the thumb partly concealed behind the revere of Richard's furred gown but couldn't get the perspective right so the thumb actually appears closer to the viewer than the fur collar it is supposed to be tucked behind. It is the perspective that is deformed rather than the thumb!
The pineapple-motif gown Richard is wearing in the Society of Antiquaries (not Antiquities) portrait is the same pattern as the gown Edward IV wears in the various copies of his portrait; this was done because it was painted as part of a set of two (EIV and RIII), with Edward facing one way and Richard facing the other - this is also why the image of Richard is reversed in the Antiquaries portrait. We know that the Antiquaries portraits of Edward and Richard are not just similar but were painted as part of a single commission because they are actually cut from the same piece of wood. Edward's gown in the Antiquaries portrait is similar to the one he wears in all the other versions, so we can I think be fairly confident that it was what Edward was wearing when he sat for his portrait, and not what Richard was wearing.
The outfit Richard has on in the RC portrait and others is actually a black velvet bonnet, a black velvet gown fully lined (not trimmed) with what I have read has been identified as spotted lynx fur (hence the thickness and stiffness), and underneath that a jacket (not shirt) of black-striped cloth of gold with gold sequinny things sewn along the stripes - I don't know if these would be the "nails" that are referred to in Richard III's wardrobe accounts. Underneath the jacket is a red doublet; the doublet was a strong close fitting garment constructed from two pieces of right-side cloth rather than a right side plus light lining (hence the name doublet); it had eyelet holes ('points') along the hem to which the hose would be tied to stop them falling down. Underneath that would be worn the shirt, which was always made of white linen (fully washable) and protected the other clothes from bodily secretions. This outfit is fully in line with the fashions of Richard's day and so I see no reason to question its authenticity.
The Italian School portrait, if it's the one I think you mean, shows Richard in what is basically the same outfit, with slight alterations, such as the sleeves of the gown being slashed right up to the shoulder and the replacement of the lynx-fur lining with simple ermine trim round the edges of the hanging sleeves. Setting aside the differences of detail, therefore, this is surely the outfit in which Richard was painted.
I don't believe that lots of copies would have been made of the royal portrait at this early date. Hanging portraits of kings in your new mansion was a fashion that began in the Tudor period. That's surely why none of the surviving portraits of the Plantagenet kings are earlier than 16th century.
There's really no point in any of us trying to make other members of the forum like the version of Richard's portrait that we ourselves like. We can state our preferences but I think we must leave it at that. Personally I like the NPG portrait because it has so much personality - I find it haunting. It is easy enough, if you have Paintshop or similar, to download a copy and wipe out the offending wrinkles. I've done it myself, using the Antiquaries portrait as a guide to exactly what facial lines should be left.
And I've also got to the age where even the NPG version of Richard looks young.
Marie
Re: Richard's Portrait
Cannot access the link sorry ! and sorry I've not responded for a while,been busy.Will definitely look at your recent descriptions and see if I can follow them(me not being able not you!lol x)and give an opinion if possible sometime today.
Kathryn x
--- In , "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Eva,
> Thanks for your reply.I have tried the link but don't seem able to access it. Do you have any suggestions please?
> Many thanks
> Kathryn x
>
> --- In , <eva.pitter@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Kathryn,
> >
> > I finally found the picture I was writing about in my post:.
> > www.agniphoto.com/viewrpr_e.asp?id=8548
> >
> > Eva
> >
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
I know you have said that you need to refresh and will eventually return.Please do it asap because you are a Custodian and we need you.
LML.
The link is great.If you want to start a discussion we will follow.
lol x
Kathryn x
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Not really a reply to anything. Just, for anyone who hasn't read the article on the portraits on the RIII Soc. website the link is:-
> http://www.richardiii.net/2_4_0_riii_appearance.php#portrait http://www.richardiii.net/2_4_0_riii_appearance.php#portrait%5d
> Might be a useful discussion point.
> Marie
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
I am sorry that you can't access the link. It is a homepage were you can order posters. The picture is
titled Richard of Gloucester, Richard III.Maybe you can find it If you google "Portraits of Richard III". It was there I found it.
Unfortunately I am not on Facebook so I cannot see your downloads. I am very curious about the Italian portrait you mention, for I know nothing about it. Could you possibly download it in the file-section of
this blog?
Eva
Re: Richard's Portrait
Kathryn x
--- In , <eva.pitter@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Kathryn,
>
> I am sorry that you can't access the link. It is a homepage were you can order posters. The picture is
> titled Richard of Gloucester, Richard III.Maybe you can find it If you google "Portraits of Richard III". It was there I found it.
> Unfortunately I am not on Facebook so I cannot see your downloads. I am very curious about the Italian portrait you mention, for I know nothing about it. Could you possibly download it in the file-section of
> this blog?
>
> Eva
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
"Hi Eva, the answer is No! lol.Have asked my son and he doesn't know how either.I have a copy along with some other images of Richard which I can send you if you send me your e-mail via my e-mail address it's [email protected] you can see the portrait at the Bridgeman Art Library on the internet at www.bridgemanart.com/enGB/...search Richard 111 and it's The Italian School Portrait and it really must be of him ! enjoy "
Carol responds:
Kathryn and Eva, I found the portrait here: http://www.bridgemanart.com/en-GB/asset/33724/italian-school-16th-century/portrait-of-richard-iii You're right, Kathryn. It's him and it's beautiful. The Italian artists must have used the same tracery as the NPG artist (the facial lines are there but they're faint and the raised shoulder is also present, but who's looking at the shoulders?). The hands and mouth are undistorted, and the nose is straight, and the expression is sweet and thoughtful.
I don't know why the Italians of ca. 1580 would be well disposed toward Richard, but maybe they just wanted a more faithful portrait than the ones circulating at that time. They can't have read Sir George Buck's book, which wasn't published until 1645, and then in adulterated form.
At any rate, if I had been Joanna of Portugal, I could not have said no to that face! And if that were the standard portrait of Richard III, a lot fewer people would believe that he murdered his nephews.
Carol
Re: Richard's Portrait
Kathryn x
--- In , <just
carol67@...> wrote:
>
> Kathryn wrote:
>
> "Hi Eva, the answer is No! lol.Have asked my son and he doesn't know how either.I have a copy along with some other images of Richard which I can send you if you send me your e-mail via my e-mail address it's kathryng56@ mailto:kathryng56@... you can see the portrait at the Bridgeman Art Library on the internet at www.bridgemanart.com/enGB/...search Richard 111 and it's The Italian School Portrait and it really must be of him ! enjoy "
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Kathryn and Eva, I found the portrait here: http://www.bridgemanart.com/en-GB/asset/33724/italian-school-16th-century/portrait-of-richard-iii You're right, Kathryn. It's him and it's beautiful. The Italian artists must have used the same tracery as the NPG artist (the facial lines are there but they're faint and the raised shoulder is also present, but who's looking at the shoulders?). The hands and mouth are undistorted, and the nose is straight, and the expression is sweet and thoughtful.
>
> I don't know why the Italians of ca. 1580 would be well disposed toward Richard, but maybe they just wanted a more faithful portrait than the ones circulating at that time. They can't have read Sir George Buck's book, which wasn't published until 1645, and then in adulterated form.
>
> At any rate, if I had been Joanna of Portugal, I could not have said no to that face! And if that were the standard portrait of Richard III, a lot fewer people would believe that he murdered his nephews.
>
> Carol
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
if you want to exchange some images of Richard etc my e-mail is with my post.
Kathryn x
--- In , "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Carol, I'm sure Eva will be, as are we all, delighted with Richard's portrait.
> Kathryn x
>
>
> --- In , <just
> carol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Kathryn wrote:
> >
> > "Hi Eva, the answer is No! lol.Have asked my son and he doesn't know how either.I have a copy along with some other images of Richard which I can send you if you send me your e-mail via my e-mail address it's kathryng56@ mailto:kathryng56@ you can see the portrait at the Bridgeman Art Library on the internet at www.bridgemanart.com/enGB/...search Richard 111 and it's The Italian School Portrait and it really must be of him ! enjoy "
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Kathryn and Eva, I found the portrait here: http://www.bridgemanart.com/en-GB/asset/33724/italian-school-16th-century/portrait-of-richard-iii You're right, Kathryn. It's him and it's beautiful. The Italian artists must have used the same tracery as the NPG artist (the facial lines are there but they're faint and the raised shoulder is also present, but who's looking at the shoulders?). The hands and mouth are undistorted, and the nose is straight, and the expression is sweet and thoughtful.
> >
> > I don't know why the Italians of ca. 1580 would be well disposed toward Richard, but maybe they just wanted a more faithful portrait than the ones circulating at that time. They can't have read Sir George Buck's book, which wasn't published until 1645, and then in adulterated form.
> >
> > At any rate, if I had been Joanna of Portugal, I could not have said no to that face! And if that were the standard portrait of Richard III, a lot fewer people would believe that he murdered his nephews.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
I've enjoyed following the whole portrait(s) discussion--thanks Carol for pointing us to the "Italian" portrait, which I had never seen. I suppose it's somewhat idealized, especially as it is not contemporary, but considering the posthumous uglification campaign that seems only fair. Now why can't publishers use this instead of that gawdawful "broken sword" picture? (oh, never mind).
Charming as the Italian image is, I'm still drawn to the NPG portrait which people seem to love or hate. It is one of those pictures that succeeds despite evident technical limitations. The expression, especially the eyes, is haunting indeed.
Earlier, Judy brought up the interesting observation by Pamela Tudor-Craig that by (we assume) emphasizing the careworn/suffering aspect the artist could have been making a subtle reference to the popular "Man of Sorrows" image. In his "Psychology of a Battle" book Michael Jones notes the use of the word "murder" for the death of the king "lately reigning mercifully over us" in the famous York council records entry--"murder" is a particular kind of killing, a word not normally applied, then or now, to death in combat.
Re: Richard's Portrait
Hope you have found Carol's link for Richard's Italian Portrait.I'm reading John Ashdown-Hill's The Last Days of Richard 111 and he's of the opinion that the Society of Antiquaries's portrait of Richard was commissioned as a marriage proposal portrait for Joanna of Portugal and that it was small enough to reproduce quite quickly for other proposals.Maybe the Italian Portrait was for Anne,ie Richard has found his bride and he means to marry her.Or,the act of sovereignty between King and his country.Both portraits show Richard as a young man.One is happy and the other is more reflective and perhaps showing saddness.Maybe it means he is making overtures of marriage and planning for the future whilst at the same time grieving for his wife Anne and showing his honouring of her.
Kathryn x
--- In , <eva.pitter@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Kathryn,
>
> I am sorry that you can't access the link. It is a homepage were you can order posters. The picture is
> titled Richard of Gloucester, Richard III.Maybe you can find it If you google "Portraits of Richard III". It was there I found it.
> Unfortunately I am not on Facebook so I cannot see your downloads. I am very curious about the Italian portrait you mention, for I know nothing about it. Could you possibly download it in the file-section of
> this blog?
>
> Eva
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
Judy Loyaulte me lie
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 12:34 AM, "friedaofalsace@..." <friedaofalsace@...> wrote:
I've enjoyed following the whole portrait(s) discussion--thanks Carol for pointing us to the "Italian" portrait, which I had never seen. I suppose it's somewhat idealized, especially as it is not contemporary, but considering the posthumous uglification campaign that seems only fair. Now why can't publishers use this instead of that gawdawful "broken sword" picture? (oh, never mind).
Charming as the Italian image is, I'm still drawn to the NPG portrait which people seem to love or hate. It is one of those pictures that succeeds despite evident technical limitations. The expression, especially the eyes, is haunting indeed.
Earlier, Judy brought up the interesting observation by Pamela Tudor-Craig that by (we assume) emphasizing the careworn/suffering aspect the artist could have been making a subtle reference to the popular "Man of Sorrows" image. In his "Psychology of a Battle" book Michael Jones notes the use of the word "murder" for the death of the king "lately reigning mercifully over us" in the famous York council records entry--"murder" is a particular kind of killing, a word not normally applied, then or now, to death in combat.
Re: Richard's Portrait
Re: Richard's Portrait
Of course, I could be wrong, only have basic knowledge of the history of European paintings.
Marc
On Wednesday, 29 January 2014, 18:36, "eva.pitter@..." <eva.pitter@...> wrote:
Hi Marie,
Regarding the NPG portrait I must contradict you! Do you mean the cleaned version with the golden foliage in the background? There the thumb is clearly not hidden in the revere but completely in front of it. And it is very exactly painted crippled.. The first joint of the thumb is tapering and ends in tiny nail. Not even the painter of this picture could have painted it so out of incapability.
As for Richard suffering from terrible bereavements at the alleged time of getting his portrait painted, I agree
with you But I see sadness in the SoA painting too, as well as resoluteness. It is earnest and thoughtful
and quite corresponding to a man in his circumstances.
Besides I want to say, that the cloth of gold dress is also contemporary and the fact that it was chosen to match with Edwards does not mean that Richard did not have one like this. Cloth of gold was a high statusgarment fitting for a King. It was fitting to depict the two royal brothers so.
Eva
---In , <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Kathryn,I really can't see that Richard could possibly have been feeling at his best if painted around the time of Anne's death, given the amount of bereavement he had endured in a very few years and how little family he had left. Also that people were simultaneously whispering that he was a monster who had murdered his nephews and his wife. I think he would have come through it, but if you've not been through serious bereavement yourself you won't yet understand the depths of what it does. Having said all that, I don't think Richard can have been as lined as he is shown in the RC and NPG portraits, and I've already referred to the fact that these lines aren't present in the Antiquaries portrait, and that the wrinkles are why I believe the NPG one to be based on the RC one, but this deformed thumb in the NPG portrait that is often mentioned isn't really present. The artist was simply trying to show the thumb partly concealed behind the revere of Richard's furred gown but couldn't get the perspective right so the thumb actually appears closer to the viewer than the fur collar it is supposed to be tucked behind. It is the perspective that is deformed rather than the thumb!
The pineapple-motif gown Richard is wearing in the Society of Antiquaries (not Antiquities) portrait is the same pattern as the gown Edward IV wears in the various copies of his portrait; this was done because it was painted as part of a set of two (EIV and RIII), with Edward facing one way and Richard facing the other - this is also why the image of Richard is reversed in the Antiquaries portrait. We know that the Antiquaries portraits of Edward and Richard are not just similar but were painted as part of a single commission because they are actually cut from the same piece of wood. Edward's gown in the Antiquaries portrait is similar to the one he wears in all the other versions, so we can I think be fairly confident that it was what Edward was wearing when he sat for his portrait, and not what Richard was wearing.
The outfit Richard has on in the RC portrait and others is actually a black velvet bonnet, a black velvet gown fully lined (not trimmed) with what I have read has been identified as spotted lynx fur (hence the thickness and stiffness), and underneath that a jacket (not shirt) of black-striped cloth of gold with gold sequinny things sewn along the stripes - I don't know if these would be the "nails" that are referred to in Richard III's wardrobe accounts. Underneath the jacket is a red doublet; the doublet was a strong close fitting garment constructed from two pieces of right-side cloth rather than a right side plus light lining (hence the name doublet); it had eyelet holes ('points') along the hem to which the hose would be tied to stop them falling down. Underneath that would be worn the shirt, which was always made of white linen (fully washable) and protected the other clothes from bodily secretions. This outfit is fully in line with the fashions of Richard's day and so I see no reason to question its authenticity.The Italian School portrait, if it's the one I think you mean, shows Richard in what is basically the same outfit, with slight alterations, such as the sleeves of the gown being slashed right up to the shoulder and the replacement of the lynx-fur lining with simple ermine trim round the edges of the hanging sleeves. Setting aside the differences of detail, therefore, this is surely the outfit in which Richard was painted.I don't believe that lots of copies would have been made of the royal portrait at this early date. Hanging portraits of kings in your new mansion was a fashion that began in the Tudor period. That's surely why none of the surviving portraits of the Plantagenet kings are earlier than 16th century.There's really no point in any of us trying to make other members of the forum like the version of Richard's portrait that we ourselves like. We can state our preferences but I think we must leave it at that. Personally I like the NPG portrait because it has so much personality - I find it haunting. It is easy enough, if you have Paintshop or similar, to download a copy and wipe out the offending wrinkles. I've done it myself, using the Antiquaries portrait as a guide to exactly what facial lines should be left.And I've also got to the age where even the NPG version of Richard looks young.Marie
Re: Richard's Portrait
Did Richard really have a missing part on his right little finger? Please could you give me more information as I have never heard of it before and would like to find out more.
I personally thought the ring he's holding has some sort of portrait inside of it.Either a portrait of Anne because spouses wedding rings usually had a portrait of their spouse on the ring.(If you were married the portrait faced towards you and the reverse if you were bereaved.Women placed their wedding ring on their thumb if their husband had gone to war or died.)Or it maybe more to do with his sovereignty and is an image of God(the father)and is a pledge to both God and Richard's father.
Although this is pure speculation on my part,I am more inclined to think the portrait is more connected with Richard and Anne's marriage.Because even though Richard would have been happy when becoming King it would have been tempered with all the saddness that had preceded the event.He is definitely joyus in the Italian portrait.Could be when Anne and he were given dispensation for their marriage to proceed fom the Pope so it could be a portrait of the Pope in the ring, acknowledging his role as God's representative on Earth,blessing the marriage.
The Antiquaries portrait of Richard,according to John Ashdown-Hill in his book The Last Days of Richard 111,is a portrait based on an original that Richard had made in 1452,actually prior to Anne's death) to offer marriage to Joanna of Portugal.It shows him in a reflective mood,ie he's thinking about marriage but he is sad about his wife,Anne's death and is honouring her memory at the same time perhaps.In the book there are also portraits of Joanna of Portugal and the Spanish Princess who would be an alternative if Johanna(aged about 30) declined the proposal.The young Spanish Princess seems to have been second in his and his council's thoughts so perhaps disproving the thoughts that Richard pursued young females ie Anne and Elizabeth.It also emphasises the regard he held Elizabeth in if he was arranging a suitable marriage for her.Which she seems eager for it to happen.
The Spanish Royal Family was a particularly happy one so Richard may not have only been thinking of political ties(Lancastrian connections,commerce and alliance against Spain) but personal ones for both himself and Elizabeth.
Kathryn x
--- In , <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> A friend looking at the Italian portrait pointed out that the ring he's fiddling with is covering up the end of his little finger that was missing in life.
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
Hi Kathryn
Yes, I finally could see the Italian portrait. It seems a bit idealised to me.
I had seen it before but not in colour. I agree with Marc that it is probably not Italian but, one of the numerous
"copies" of the NPG one. Some of them differ greatly in the facial expression from it. As I am not convinced of the NPG painting being a reliable depiction of Richard I don't care so much for its derivatives either.
All the portraits apart from the RC and SoA ones are from the late 16th century and later.
The SoA painting may have been made as marriage proposal but then again it may not. It could also have been made in 1483 or 1484. The late 15th century was a time when portrait painting flourished in northern Europe,as an artform becoming more and more independent from the religious context. As the Yorkist kings had great interest in the burgundian culture I think it very likely that Richard ordered a portrait of himself
without the reason of a marriage proposal.
Kathryn, I wanted to send you pictures,but were do I get a complete e-mail address of you? I am not much of a computer expert, you know.
Eva
Re: Richard's Portrait
Kathryn x
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> David and Doug
> Â
> I enjoy both your contributions so please don't fall out!
> Â
> For my sins I had to study 16th century paintings and they are allegorical - so it might be Richard fiddling with his rings, or where the rings are on his fingers, or a perceived hump, or broken sword are all there to tell a story, not to portray him as he was or more beautiful than he was - that came later with Holbein/HenryVIII and Van Dyke.  Holbein (unless under the cosh by Henry) was a master at this and of course 'The Ambassadors' has all sorts of messages. So it's quite reasonable that a Tudor regime (which had defeated the evil Richard) would choose to portray him as deformed. Deformity, as we know, in those days meant damned by God.
> Â
> I think it's more interesting to get back to Paul's point which is who was brave enough to commission a copy in Tudor times? It wouldn't have been cheap and who dare display it? Was it in some sort of priest's hole?
> Â
> Also remember there's a possibility there's a picture of Anne out there somewhere because Richard's picture, like that of Edward and EW, was almost certainly done as one of a pair.  H.  Â
>
>
>
> On Monday, 13 January 2014, 15:07, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
>
> Â
> (responses are to each separate
> question/remark)
> David wrote:
> "I wonder why you assume the point that you make
> about paintings' being done to show the subject in the best possible light does
> not apply to the original painting of Richard?
> This seesm to be begging the question.
> The flattereing of subjects was absolutely standard
> practice - especially when the subjects were powerful."
> Â
> Doug here:
> I never have. What I have stated is that
> there's quite a difference between,
> say, smoothing out wrinkle lines to provide a more youthful appearance
> (that's your "showing the subject in the best possible light" part) and
> adding a non-existant physical deformity, which is what was actually done.
> The few contemporary reports we do have on Richard's appearance make no mention
> of his scoliosis, let alone any "hump", so it's safe to presume that the latter
> was an addition not present in the original; not because Richard didn't want it,
> *but because it wasn't there.*
> The only question going begging is why more
> historians haven't acknowledged the fact that portraying Richard as a hunch-back
> is historically inaccurate.
> Â
> "Now I know that you will look at the question from
> a Richard-centric view, but there may be a much more prosaic explanation. When
> Richard was no longer alive, artists simply felt liberated to produce less
> flattering images - or even caricatures, simply because it was something that
> caused amusement and for which one was unlikely to be punished under the
> Tudors.
> It does not have to be part of a dark
> plot."
> Â
> Doug here:
> You're making un-warranted presumptions
> again.
> I repeat, there's a vast difference between "less
> flattering images" and falsely portraying someone with a deformity they never
> had.
> BTW, I'm also not too thrilled with your attempts
> to ridicule my proposed solution to what *is known to have been done to the
> protrait/s* as a "dark plot."
> Or are you saying the alterations *didn't* occur
> and the paintings, as they now appear, are true representations of
> Richard?
> Doug
> (who can *also* play this
> game)
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
Glad you have seen the Italian portrait,I do like it because it's the only portrait to show him smiling.If you click on the envelope on my address at the side of my post it comes up with my full e-mail address.Or this is it kathryng56@... keep in touch.
Kathryn x
--- In , <eva.pitter@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Kathryn
> Yes, I finally could see the Italian portrait. It seems a bit idealised to me.
> I had seen it before but not in colour. I agree with Marc that it is probably not Italian but, one of the numerous
> "copies" of the NPG one. Some of them differ greatly in the facial expression from it. As I am not convinced of the NPG painting being a reliable depiction of Richard I don't care so much for its derivatives either.
> All the portraits apart from the RC and SoA ones are from the late 16th century and later.
> The SoA painting may have been made as marriage proposal but then again it may not. It could also have been made in 1483 or 1484. The late 15th century was a time when portrait painting flourished in northern Europe,as an artform becoming more and more independent from the religious context. As the Yorkist kings had great interest in the burgundian culture I think it very likely that Richard ordered a portrait of himself
> without the reason of a marriage proposal.
> Kathryn, I wanted to send you pictures,but were do I get a complete e-mail address of you? I am not much of a computer expert, you know.
> Eva
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone here will correct me. Am still waiting for all those promised papers Leicester uni peoples are writing, looking more closely at the bones.
I don't know anything about medieval rings and so have no idea what they were. But I like his gold collar. :)
~Weds
---In , <kathryng56@...> wrote:
Hi Wednesday,
Did Richard really have a missing part on his right little finger? Please could you give me more information as I have never heard of it before and would like to find out more.
I personally thought the ring he's holding has some sort of portrait inside of it.Either a portrait of Anne because spouses wedding rings usually had a portrait of their spouse on the ring.(If you were married the portrait faced towards you and the reverse if you were bereaved.Women placed their wedding ring on their thumb if their husband had gone to war or died.)Or it maybe more to do with his sovereignty and is an image of God(the father)and is a pledge to both God and Richard's father.
Although this is pure speculation on my part,I am more inclined to think the portrait is more connected with Richard and Anne's marriage.Because even though Richard would have been happy when becoming King it would have been tempered with all the saddness that had preceded the event.He is definitely joyus in the Italian portrait.Could be when Anne and he were given dispensation for their marriage to proceed fom the Pope so it could be a portrait of the Pope in the ring, acknowledging his role as God's representative on Earth,blessing the marriage.
The Antiquaries portrait of Richard,according to John Ashdown-Hill in his book The Last Days of Richard 111,is a portrait based on an original that Richard had made in 1452,actually prior to Anne's death) to offer marriage to Joanna of Portugal.It shows him in a reflective mood,ie he's thinking about marriage but he is sad about his wife,Anne's death and is honouring her memory at the same time perhaps.In the book there are also portraits of Joanna of Portugal and the Spanish Princess who would be an alternative if Johanna(aged about 30) declined the proposal.The young Spanish Princess seems to have been second in his and his council's thoughts so perhaps disproving the thoughts that Richard pursued young females ie Anne and Elizabeth.It also emphasises the regard he held Elizabeth in if he was arranging a suitable marriage for her.Which she seems eager for it to happen.
The Spanish Royal Family was a particularly happy one so Richard may not have only been thinking of political ties(Lancastrian connections,commerce and alliance against Spain) but personal ones for both himself and Elizabeth.
Kathryn x
--- In , <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> A friend looking at the Italian portrait pointed out that the ring he's fiddling with is covering up the end of his little finger that was missing in life.
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
Hi Marc
I agree with you that the "Italian" painting is just another copy of the NPG painting. All the paintings apart from the Royal collection painting ( which is grossly overpainted ) and the Society of Antiquaries painting ( that was cleaned of the alterations) are from the late 16th century. These two were painted in 1520ties.
As you said the hands on most of the portraits are anatomically a disaster and should not be taken as
factual.
Eva
Re: Richard's Portrait
Thanks for the reply.I didn't realise that this was discovered during the discovery of Richard's remains.My brain's not working properly, sorry.Love the collar too. There's two flowers and the lozenge shapes with rectangles so could be to do with him and Anne and or the birth of Edward even perhaps.Whatever the reason it is, he does look happy!
Kathryn x
--- In , <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Am working from memory: the skeleton has the end bone missing from the left little finger. The next bone is smooth, indicating it was lost in life, not close to death.
>
> If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone here will correct me. Am still waiting for all those promised papers Leicester uni peoples are writing, looking more closely at the bones.
>
> I don't know anything about medieval rings and so have no idea what they were. But I like his gold collar. :)
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> ---In , <kathryng56@> wrote:
>
> Hi Wednesday,
> Did Richard really have a missing part on his right little finger? Please could you give me more information as I have never heard of it before and would like to find out more.
>
> I personally thought the ring he's holding has some sort of portrait inside of it.Either a portrait of Anne because spouses wedding rings usually had a portrait of their spouse on the ring.(If you were married the portrait faced towards you and the reverse if you were bereaved.Women placed their wedding ring on their thumb if their husband had gone to war or died.)Or it maybe more to do with his sovereignty and is an image of God(the father)and is a pledge to both God and Richard's father.
> Although this is pure speculation on my part,I am more inclined to think the portrait is more connected with Richard and Anne's marriage.Because even though Richard would have been happy when becoming King it would have been tempered with all the saddness that had preceded the event.He is definitely joyus in the Italian portrait.Could be when Anne and he were given dispensation for their marriage to proceed fom the Pope so it could be a portrait of the Pope in the ring, acknowledging his role as God's representative on Earth,blessing the marriage.
> The Antiquaries portrait of Richard,according to John Ashdown-Hill in his book The Last Days of Richard 111,is a portrait based on an original that Richard had made in 1452,actually prior to Anne's death) to offer marriage to Joanna of Portugal.It shows him in a reflective mood,ie he's thinking about marriage but he is sad about his wife,Anne's death and is honouring her memory at the same time perhaps.In the book there are also portraits of Joanna of Portugal and the Spanish Princess who would be an alternative if Johanna(aged about 30) declined the proposal.The young Spanish Princess seems to have been second in his and his council's thoughts so perhaps disproving the thoughts that Richard pursued young females ie Anne and Elizabeth.It also emphasises the regard he held Elizabeth in if he was arranging a suitable marriage for her.Which she seems eager for it to happen.
> The Spanish Royal Family was a particularly happy one so Richard may not have only been thinking of political ties(Lancastrian connections,commerce and alliance against Spain) but personal ones for both himself and Elizabeth.
> Kathryn x
> --- In mailto:, <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > A friend looking at the Italian portrait pointed out that the ring he's fiddling with is covering up the end of his little finger that was missing in life.
> >
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
I think I may have misled you all and confused some of the portraits, so please accept my apologises.
I think when rereading your reply Marie that I should have said/meant the Royal Collection Portrait that was purchased by Henry V111 had the deformed thumb that was pointing to the chain/collar.
The portraits of Edward and Richard ,perhaps, could be showing them both in their cloth of gold gowns when King,if they were commissioned by Richard and he was showing both respect to Edward and tradition by placing himself in the more subservient position.
Thank you for all the wonderful descriptions regarding Richard's clothes etc they are marvellous and I know may understand a little more what Philippa meant when she described Richard as a bonny lad.
(In all the portraits I have seen of Edward he seems to have brown hair, like Richard, but he is described as tall and fair which seems strange.)
Marie and Eva,
You may both be right regarding the NPG portrait,unfortunately I haven't a sufficently detailed picture of it to pass an opinion.I agree that both the portraits help convey the man. Some of Richard's portraits in the black gown resemble portraits of Edward.There's also one in the Government Art Collection and it reminds me of another of the black gown with gold coloured sleeves, set of portraits in that the face appears to be slightly different on either side.It could be draughtsmanship or an attempt to portray that there are two sides to Richard and he is not what the portrait may seem.Or it's he and Henry, who in some respects had a lot in common later on in their lives.Or it may just be that Henry V111 had to make Richard appear as bad as possible to make everyone think Richard was the villain and not the rightful king.And perhaps to also make Henry V111 feel better about himself when he grew older.
Hi Marc,
I referred to the portrait of Richard as Italian as it was described that,Italian School,in The Bridgeman Art Library where it is held. But you may well be right.I don't know.
There might be one or two lost originals that the portraits were based upon and that's why there are similarities.
Kathryn x
--- In , Marc Moris <macbrat88@...> wrote:
>
> Actually, I beg to differ. This painting is early Renaissaince and probably not Italian. We all know from the hard evidence of his skeleton he had a perfectly good shaped thumb. The painting of the hands is rather crude. Incorrect anatomy (even on the other hand). If you look at all available paintings, you see that they are all very similar, making it very likely they were copied from an original no longer in existance.
>
> Of course, I could be wrong, only have basic knowledge of the history of European paintings.
>
> Marc
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, 29 January 2014, 18:36, "eva.pitter@..." <eva.pitter@...> wrote:
>
> Â
> Hi Marie,
>
> Regarding the NPG portrait I must contradict you! Do you mean the cleaned version with the golden foliage in the background? There the thumb is clearly not hidden in the revere but completely in front of it. And it is very exactly painted crippled.. The first joint of the thumb is tapering and ends in tiny nail. Not even the painter of this picture could have painted it so out of incapability.
> As for Richard suffering from terrible bereavements at the alleged time of getting his portrait painted, I agree
> with you But I see sadness in the SoA painting too, as well as resoluteness. It is earnest and thoughtful
> and quite corresponding to a man in his circumstances.
> Besides I want to say, that the cloth of gold dress is also contemporary and the fact that it was chosen to match with Edwards does not mean that Richard did not have one like this. Cloth of gold was a high status
> garment fitting for a King. It was fitting to depict the two royal brothers so.
>
>
> Eva
>
>
>
> ---In , <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Kathryn,
> I really can't see that Richard could possibly have been feeling at his best if painted around the time of Anne's death, given the amount of bereavement he had endured in a very few years and how little family he had left. Also that people were simultaneously whispering that he was a monster who had murdered his nephews and his wife. I think he would have come through it, but if you've not been through serious bereavement yourself you won't yet understand the depths of what it does. Having said all that, I don't think Richard can have been as lined as he is shown in the RC and NPG portraits, and I've already referred to the fact that these lines aren't present in the Antiquaries portrait, and that the wrinkles are why I believe the NPG one to be based on the RC one, but this deformed thumb in the NPG portrait that is often mentioned isn't really present. The artist was simply trying to show the thumb partly concealed behind the revere of Richard's
> furred gown but couldn't get the perspective right so the thumb actually appears closer to the viewer than the fur collar it is supposed to be tucked behind. It is the perspective that is deformed rather than the thumb!
>
> The pineapple-motif gown Richard is wearing in the Society of Antiquaries (not Antiquities) portrait is the same pattern as the gown Edward IV wears in the various copies of his portrait; this was done because it was painted as part of a set of two (EIV and RIII), with Edward facing one way and Richard facing the other - this is also why the image of Richard is reversed in the Antiquaries portrait.  We know that the Antiquaries portraits of Edward and Richard are not just similar but were painted as part of a single commission because they are actually cut from the same piece of wood. Edward's gown in the Antiquaries portrait is similar to the one he wears in all the other versions, so we can I think be fairly confident that it was what Edward was wearing when he sat for his portrait, and not what Richard was wearing.
>
> The outfit Richard has on in the RC portrait and others is actually a black velvet bonnet, a black velvet gown fully lined (not trimmed) with what I have read has been identified as spotted lynx fur (hence the thickness and stiffness), and underneath that a jacket (not shirt) of black-striped cloth of gold with gold sequinny things sewn along the stripes - I don't know if these would be the "nails" that are referred to in Richard III's wardrobe accounts. Underneath the jacket is a red doublet; the doublet was a strong close fitting garment constructed from two pieces of right-side cloth rather than a right side plus light lining (hence the name doublet); it had eyelet holes ('points') along the hem to which the hose would be tied to stop them falling down. Underneath that would be worn the shirt, which was always made of white linen (fully washable) and protected the other clothes from bodily secretions. This outfit is fully in line with the
> fashions of Richard's day and so I see no reason to question its authenticity.
> The Italian School portrait, if it's the one I think you mean, shows Richard in what is basically the same outfit, with slight alterations, such as the sleeves of the gown being slashed right up to the shoulder and the replacement of the lynx-fur lining with simple ermine trim round the edges of the hanging sleeves. Setting aside the differences of detail, therefore, this is surely the outfit in which Richard was painted.
> I don't believe that lots of copies would have been made of the royal portrait at this early date. Hanging portraits of kings in your new mansion was a fashion that began in the Tudor period. That's surely why none of the surviving portraits of the Plantagenet kings are earlier than 16th century.
> There's really no point in any of us trying to make other members of the forum like the version of Richard's portrait that we ourselves like. We can state our preferences but I think we must leave it at that. Personally I like the NPG portrait because it has so much personality - I find it haunting. It is easy enough, if you have Paintshop or similar, to download a copy and wipe out the offending wrinkles. I've done it myself, using the Antiquaries portrait as a guide to exactly what facial lines should be left.
> And I've also got to the age where even the NPG version of Richard looks young.
> Marie
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
Sorry if some of my previous comments may have upset people and that I am taking a pro Lancastrian stand.I'm not even if it make come across like that.Richard and his family were remarkable and brave.They ruled England well to the very end.
Kathryn x
--- In , "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,especially Marie,Eva and Marc,
> I think I may have misled you all and confused some of the portraits, so please accept my apologises.
>
> I think when rereading your reply Marie that I should have said/meant the Royal Collection Portrait that was purchased by Henry V111 had the deformed thumb that was pointing to the chain/collar.
> The portraits of Edward and Richard ,perhaps, could be showing them both in their cloth of gold gowns when King,if they were commissioned by Richard and he was showing both respect to Edward and tradition by placing himself in the more subservient position.
> Thank you for all the wonderful descriptions regarding Richard's clothes etc they are marvellous and I know may understand a little more what Philippa meant when she described Richard as a bonny lad.
> (In all the portraits I have seen of Edward he seems to have brown hair, like Richard, but he is described as tall and fair which seems strange.)
>
> Marie and Eva,
> You may both be right regarding the NPG portrait,unfortunately I haven't a sufficently detailed picture of it to pass an opinion.I agree that both the portraits help convey the man. Some of Richard's portraits in the black gown resemble portraits of Edward.There's also one in the Government Art Collection and it reminds me of another of the black gown with gold coloured sleeves, set of portraits in that the face appears to be slightly different on either side.It could be draughtsmanship or an attempt to portray that there are two sides to Richard and he is not what the portrait may seem.Or it's he and Henry, who in some respects had a lot in common later on in their lives.Or it may just be that Henry V111 had to make Richard appear as bad as possible to make everyone think Richard was the villain and not the rightful king.And perhaps to also make Henry V111 feel better about himself when he grew older.
>
> Hi Marc,
> I referred to the portrait of Richard as Italian as it was described that,Italian School,in The Bridgeman Art Library where it is held. But you may well be right.I don't know.
> There might be one or two lost originals that the portraits were based upon and that's why there are similarities.
>
> Kathryn x
>
>
> --- In , Marc Moris <macbrat88@> wrote:
> >
> > Actually, I beg to differ. This painting is early Renaissaince and probably not Italian. We all know from the hard evidence of his skeleton he had a perfectly good shaped thumb. The painting of the hands is rather crude. Incorrect anatomy (even on the other hand). If you look at all available paintings, you see that they are all very similar, making it very likely they were copied from an original no longer in existance.
> >
> > Of course, I could be wrong, only have basic knowledge of the history of European paintings.
> >
> > Marc
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, 29 January 2014, 18:36, "eva.pitter@" <eva.pitter@> wrote:
> >
> > Â
> > Hi Marie,
> >
> > Regarding the NPG portrait I must contradict you! Do you mean the cleaned version with the golden foliage in the background? There the thumb is clearly not hidden in the revere but completely in front of it. And it is very exactly painted crippled.. The first joint of the thumb is tapering and ends in tiny nail. Not even the painter of this picture could have painted it so out of incapability.
> > As for Richard suffering from terrible bereavements at the alleged time of getting his portrait painted, I agree
> > with you But I see sadness in the SoA painting too, as well as resoluteness. It is earnest and thoughtful
> > and quite corresponding to a man in his circumstances.
> > Besides I want to say, that the cloth of gold dress is also contemporary and the fact that it was chosen to match with Edwards does not mean that Richard did not have one like this. Cloth of gold was a high status
> > garment fitting for a King. It was fitting to depict the two royal brothers so.
> >
> >
> > Eva
> >
> >
> >
> > ---In , <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Kathryn,
> > I really can't see that Richard could possibly have been feeling at his best if painted around the time of Anne's death, given the amount of bereavement he had endured in a very few years and how little family he had left. Also that people were simultaneously whispering that he was a monster who had murdered his nephews and his wife. I think he would have come through it, but if you've not been through serious bereavement yourself you won't yet understand the depths of what it does. Having said all that, I don't think Richard can have been as lined as he is shown in the RC and NPG portraits, and I've already referred to the fact that these lines aren't present in the Antiquaries portrait, and that the wrinkles are why I believe the NPG one to be based on the RC one, but this deformed thumb in the NPG portrait that is often mentioned isn't really present. The artist was simply trying to show the thumb partly concealed behind the revere of Richard's
> > furred gown but couldn't get the perspective right so the thumb actually appears closer to the viewer than the fur collar it is supposed to be tucked behind. It is the perspective that is deformed rather than the thumb!
> >
> > The pineapple-motif gown Richard is wearing in the Society of Antiquaries (not Antiquities) portrait is the same pattern as the gown Edward IV wears in the various copies of his portrait; this was done because it was painted as part of a set of two (EIV and RIII), with Edward facing one way and Richard facing the other - this is also why the image of Richard is reversed in the Antiquaries portrait.  We know that the Antiquaries portraits of Edward and Richard are not just similar but were painted as part of a single commission because they are actually cut from the same piece of wood. Edward's gown in the Antiquaries portrait is similar to the one he wears in all the other versions, so we can I think be fairly confident that it was what Edward was wearing when he sat for his portrait, and not what Richard was wearing.
> >
> > The outfit Richard has on in the RC portrait and others is actually a black velvet bonnet, a black velvet gown fully lined (not trimmed) with what I have read has been identified as spotted lynx fur (hence the thickness and stiffness), and underneath that a jacket (not shirt) of black-striped cloth of gold with gold sequinny things sewn along the stripes - I don't know if these would be the "nails" that are referred to in Richard III's wardrobe accounts. Underneath the jacket is a red doublet; the doublet was a strong close fitting garment constructed from two pieces of right-side cloth rather than a right side plus light lining (hence the name doublet); it had eyelet holes ('points') along the hem to which the hose would be tied to stop them falling down. Underneath that would be worn the shirt, which was always made of white linen (fully washable) and protected the other clothes from bodily secretions. This outfit is fully in line with the
> > fashions of Richard's day and so I see no reason to question its authenticity.
> > The Italian School portrait, if it's the one I think you mean, shows Richard in what is basically the same outfit, with slight alterations, such as the sleeves of the gown being slashed right up to the shoulder and the replacement of the lynx-fur lining with simple ermine trim round the edges of the hanging sleeves. Setting aside the differences of detail, therefore, this is surely the outfit in which Richard was painted.
> > I don't believe that lots of copies would have been made of the royal portrait at this early date. Hanging portraits of kings in your new mansion was a fashion that began in the Tudor period. That's surely why none of the surviving portraits of the Plantagenet kings are earlier than 16th century.
> > There's really no point in any of us trying to make other members of the forum like the version of Richard's portrait that we ourselves like. We can state our preferences but I think we must leave it at that. Personally I like the NPG portrait because it has so much personality - I find it haunting. It is easy enough, if you have Paintshop or similar, to download a copy and wipe out the offending wrinkles. I've done it myself, using the Antiquaries portrait as a guide to exactly what facial lines should be left.
> > And I've also got to the age where even the NPG version of Richard looks young.
> > Marie
> >
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
Been thinking about the NPG and SoA portraits again.Both are likenesses if the NPG is a portrait of Richard when first he became king,perhaps not with so many wrinkles etc but with some to show for grief and maturity and a possible reluctance and acceptance that his life would be different.He may have put on a little weight and that would account for his slightly fuller face.The SoA portrait was painted after Edward of Middleham's death and during the period proceeding Anne's death.If he was not eating and resting properly but still continuing his work as king he would definitely look leaner,paler perhaps and much more reflective whilst considering his past and making plans to ensure both the future of the country and, perhaps, a chance at second happiness.
Kathryn x
--- In , "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Kathryn again,
> Sorry if some of my previous comments may have upset people and that I am taking a pro Lancastrian stand.I'm not even if it make come across like that.Richard and his family were remarkable and brave.They ruled England well to the very end.
> Kathryn x
>
> --- In , "kathryng56@" <kathryng56@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,especially Marie,Eva and Marc,
> > I think I may have misled you all and confused some of the portraits, so please accept my apologises.
> >
> > I think when rereading your reply Marie that I should have said/meant the Royal Collection Portrait that was purchased by Henry V111 had the deformed thumb that was pointing to the chain/collar.
> > The portraits of Edward and Richard ,perhaps, could be showing them both in their cloth of gold gowns when King,if they were commissioned by Richard and he was showing both respect to Edward and tradition by placing himself in the more subservient position.
> > Thank you for all the wonderful descriptions regarding Richard's clothes etc they are marvellous and I know may understand a little more what Philippa meant when she described Richard as a bonny lad.
> > (In all the portraits I have seen of Edward he seems to have brown hair, like Richard, but he is described as tall and fair which seems strange.)
> >
> > Marie and Eva,
> > You may both be right regarding the NPG portrait,unfortunately I haven't a sufficently detailed picture of it to pass an opinion.I agree that both the portraits help convey the man. Some of Richard's portraits in the black gown resemble portraits of Edward.There's also one in the Government Art Collection and it reminds me of another of the black gown with gold coloured sleeves, set of portraits in that the face appears to be slightly different on either side.It could be draughtsmanship or an attempt to portray that there are two sides to Richard and he is not what the portrait may seem.Or it's he and Henry, who in some respects had a lot in common later on in their lives.Or it may just be that Henry V111 had to make Richard appear as bad as possible to make everyone think Richard was the villain and not the rightful king.And perhaps to also make Henry V111 feel better about himself when he grew older.
> >
> > Hi Marc,
> > I referred to the portrait of Richard as Italian as it was described that,Italian School,in The Bridgeman Art Library where it is held. But you may well be right.I don't know.
> > There might be one or two lost originals that the portraits were based upon and that's why there are similarities.
> >
> > Kathryn x
> >
> >
> > --- In , Marc Moris <macbrat88@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually, I beg to differ. This painting is early Renaissaince and probably not Italian. We all know from the hard evidence of his skeleton he had a perfectly good shaped thumb. The painting of the hands is rather crude. Incorrect anatomy (even on the other hand). If you look at all available paintings, you see that they are all very similar, making it very likely they were copied from an original no longer in existance.
> > >
> > > Of course, I could be wrong, only have basic knowledge of the history of European paintings.
> > >
> > > Marc
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, 29 January 2014, 18:36, "eva.pitter@" <eva.pitter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Hi Marie,
> > >
> > > Regarding the NPG portrait I must contradict you! Do you mean the cleaned version with the golden foliage in the background? There the thumb is clearly not hidden in the revere but completely in front of it. And it is very exactly painted crippled.. The first joint of the thumb is tapering and ends in tiny nail. Not even the painter of this picture could have painted it so out of incapability.
> > > As for Richard suffering from terrible bereavements at the alleged time of getting his portrait painted, I agree
> > > with you But I see sadness in the SoA painting too, as well as resoluteness. It is earnest and thoughtful
> > > and quite corresponding to a man in his circumstances.
> > > Besides I want to say, that the cloth of gold dress is also contemporary and the fact that it was chosen to match with Edwards does not mean that Richard did not have one like this. Cloth of gold was a high status
> > > garment fitting for a King. It was fitting to depict the two royal brothers so.
> > >
> > >
> > > Eva
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---In , <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Kathryn,
> > > I really can't see that Richard could possibly have been feeling at his best if painted around the time of Anne's death, given the amount of bereavement he had endured in a very few years and how little family he had left. Also that people were simultaneously whispering that he was a monster who had murdered his nephews and his wife. I think he would have come through it, but if you've not been through serious bereavement yourself you won't yet understand the depths of what it does. Having said all that, I don't think Richard can have been as lined as he is shown in the RC and NPG portraits, and I've already referred to the fact that these lines aren't present in the Antiquaries portrait, and that the wrinkles are why I believe the NPG one to be based on the RC one, but this deformed thumb in the NPG portrait that is often mentioned isn't really present. The artist was simply trying to show the thumb partly concealed behind the revere of Richard's
> > > furred gown but couldn't get the perspective right so the thumb actually appears closer to the viewer than the fur collar it is supposed to be tucked behind. It is the perspective that is deformed rather than the thumb!
> > >
> > > The pineapple-motif gown Richard is wearing in the Society of Antiquaries (not Antiquities) portrait is the same pattern as the gown Edward IV wears in the various copies of his portrait; this was done because it was painted as part of a set of two (EIV and RIII), with Edward facing one way and Richard facing the other - this is also why the image of Richard is reversed in the Antiquaries portrait.  We know that the Antiquaries portraits of Edward and Richard are not just similar but were painted as part of a single commission because they are actually cut from the same piece of wood. Edward's gown in the Antiquaries portrait is similar to the one he wears in all the other versions, so we can I think be fairly confident that it was what Edward was wearing when he sat for his portrait, and not what Richard was wearing.
> > >
> > > The outfit Richard has on in the RC portrait and others is actually a black velvet bonnet, a black velvet gown fully lined (not trimmed) with what I have read has been identified as spotted lynx fur (hence the thickness and stiffness), and underneath that a jacket (not shirt) of black-striped cloth of gold with gold sequinny things sewn along the stripes - I don't know if these would be the "nails" that are referred to in Richard III's wardrobe accounts. Underneath the jacket is a red doublet; the doublet was a strong close fitting garment constructed from two pieces of right-side cloth rather than a right side plus light lining (hence the name doublet); it had eyelet holes ('points') along the hem to which the hose would be tied to stop them falling down. Underneath that would be worn the shirt, which was always made of white linen (fully washable) and protected the other clothes from bodily secretions. This outfit is fully in line with the
> > > fashions of Richard's day and so I see no reason to question its authenticity.
> > > The Italian School portrait, if it's the one I think you mean, shows Richard in what is basically the same outfit, with slight alterations, such as the sleeves of the gown being slashed right up to the shoulder and the replacement of the lynx-fur lining with simple ermine trim round the edges of the hanging sleeves. Setting aside the differences of detail, therefore, this is surely the outfit in which Richard was painted.
> > > I don't believe that lots of copies would have been made of the royal portrait at this early date. Hanging portraits of kings in your new mansion was a fashion that began in the Tudor period. That's surely why none of the surviving portraits of the Plantagenet kings are earlier than 16th century.
> > > There's really no point in any of us trying to make other members of the forum like the version of Richard's portrait that we ourselves like. We can state our preferences but I think we must leave it at that. Personally I like the NPG portrait because it has so much personality - I find it haunting. It is easy enough, if you have Paintshop or similar, to download a copy and wipe out the offending wrinkles. I've done it myself, using the Antiquaries portrait as a guide to exactly what facial lines should be left.
> > > And I've also got to the age where even the NPG version of Richard looks young.
> > > Marie
> > >
> >
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
pardon my English, I'm not a native speaker. I thought this thread was about paintings as argument/proof of disformments of Richard III and only wanted to point out that none of surviving can be taken into account for this.
There are two good reasons (imho) : 1) none of the surviving paintings are contemporary originals; 2) the originals are 15th century paintings.
1) copies of painting were very rarely (almost never) made by masters, they are made by apprentices. This implies they're still lacking in quality.
2) 15th century paintings are tempera. A technique the Italians were masters in (hence my reference to the Italians). Any original has to be painted with this technique. This means nobody sat for a painting (like they did for oil paintings). Everything was drawn out at first and then combined into a painting. Usually many studies were used and that's why you'll see paintings of people in clothes they never wore, jewelry they never wore, hands that weren't really their hands etc. Tempera also means there's little room for corrections - often leading to disfigurements like the thumb in the copy they say is 15th century. The first English monarch to have a posed painting made was probably Henry the VIII - though there is a painting of Henry VII in oil.
Hope this clears up the point I was trying to make,
Marc
On Monday, 3 February 2014, 13:04, "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...> wrote:
Hi everyone,
Been thinking about the NPG and SoA portraits again.Both are likenesses if the NPG is a portrait of Richard when first he became king,perhaps not with so many wrinkles etc but with some to show for grief and maturity and a possible reluctance and acceptance that his life would be different.He may have put on a little weight and that would account for his slightly fuller face.The SoA portrait was painted after Edward of Middleham's death and during the period proceeding Anne's death.If he was not eating and resting properly but still continuing his work as king he would definitely look leaner,paler perhaps and much more reflective whilst considering his past and making plans to ensure both the future of the country and, perhaps, a chance at second happiness.
Kathryn x
--- In , "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Kathryn again,
> Sorry if some of my previous comments may have upset people and that I am taking a pro Lancastrian stand.I'm not even if it make come across like that.Richard and his family were remarkable and brave.They ruled England well to the very end.
> Kathryn x
>
> --- In , "kathryng56@" <kathryng56@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,especially Marie,Eva and Marc,
> > I think I may have misled you all and confused some of the portraits, so please accept my apologises.
> >
> > I think when rereading your reply Marie that I should have said/meant the Royal Collection Portrait that was purchased by Henry V111 had the deformed thumb that was pointing to the chain/collar.
> > The portraits of Edward and Richard ,perhaps, could be showing them both in their cloth of gold gowns when King,if they were commissioned by Richard and he was showing both respect to Edward and tradition by placing himself in the more subservient position.
> > Thank you for all the wonderful descriptions regarding Richard's clothes etc they are marvellous and I know may understand a little more what Philippa meant when she described Richard as a bonny lad.
> > (In all the portraits I have seen of Edward he seems to have brown hair, like Richard, but he is described as tall and fair which seems strange.)
> >
> > Marie and Eva,
> > You may both be right regarding the NPG portrait,unfortunately I haven't a sufficently detailed picture of it to pass an opinion.I agree that both the portraits help convey the man. Some of Richard's portraits in the black gown resemble portraits of Edward.There's also one in the Government Art Collection and it reminds me of another of the black gown with gold coloured sleeves, set of portraits in that the face appears to be slightly different on either side.It could be draughtsmanship or an attempt to portray that there are two sides to Richard and he is not what the portrait may seem.Or it's he and Henry, who in some respects had a lot in common later on in their lives.Or it may just be that Henry V111 had to make Richard appear as bad as possible to make everyone think Richard was the villain and not the rightful king.And perhaps to also make Henry V111 feel better about himself when he grew older.
> >
> > Hi Marc,
> > I referred to the portrait of Richard as Italian as it was described that,Italian School,in The Bridgeman Art Library where it is held. But you may well be right.I don't know.
> > There might be one or two lost originals that the portraits were based upon and that's why there are similarities.
> >
> > Kathryn x
> >
> >
> > --- In , Marc Moris <macbrat88@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually, I beg to differ. This painting is early Renaissaince and probably not Italian. We all know from the hard evidence of his skeleton he had a perfectly good shaped thumb. The painting of the hands is rather crude. Incorrect anatomy (even on the other hand). If you look at all available paintings, you see that they are all very similar, making it very likely they were copied from an original no longer in existance.
> > >
> > > Of course, I could be wrong, only have basic knowledge of the history of European paintings.
> > >
> > > Marc
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, 29 January 2014, 18:36, "eva.pitter@" <eva.pitter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Hi Marie,
> > >
> > > Regarding the NPG portrait I must contradict you! Do you mean the cleaned version with the golden foliage in the background? There the thumb is clearly not hidden in the revere but completely in front of it. And it is very exactly painted crippled.. The first joint of the thumb is tapering and ends in tiny nail. Not even the painter of this picture could have painted it so out of incapability.
> > > As for Richard suffering from terrible bereavements at the alleged time of getting his portrait painted, I agree
> > > with you But I see sadness in the SoA painting too, as well as resoluteness. It is earnest and thoughtful
> > > and quite corresponding to a man in his circumstances.
> > > Besides I want to say, that the cloth of gold dress is also contemporary and the fact that it was chosen to match with Edwards does not mean that Richard did not have one like this. Cloth of gold was a high status
> > > garment fitting for a King. It was fitting to depict the two royal brothers so.
> > >
> > >
> > > Eva
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---In , <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Kathryn,
> > > I really can't see that Richard could possibly have been feeling at his best if painted around the time of Anne's death, given the amount of bereavement he had endured in a very few years and how little family he had left. Also that people were simultaneously whispering that he was a monster who had murdered his nephews and his wife. I think he would have come through it, but if you've not been through serious bereavement yourself you won't yet understand the depths of what it does. Having said all that, I don't think Richard can have been as lined as he is shown in the RC and NPG portraits, and I've already referred to the fact that these lines aren't present in the Antiquaries portrait, and that the wrinkles are why I believe the NPG one to be based on the RC one, but this deformed thumb in the NPG portrait that is often mentioned isn't really present. The artist was simply trying to show the thumb partly concealed behind the revere of Richard's
> > > furred gown but couldn't get the perspective right so the thumb actually appears closer to the viewer than the fur collar it is supposed to be tucked behind. It is the perspective that is deformed rather than the thumb!
> > >
> > > The pineapple-motif gown Richard is wearing in the Society of Antiquaries (not Antiquities) portrait is the same pattern as the gown Edward IV wears in the various copies of his portrait; this was done because it was painted as part of a set of two (EIV and RIII), with Edward facing one way and Richard facing the other - this is also why the image of Richard is reversed in the Antiquaries portrait.  We know that the Antiquaries portraits of Edward and Richard are not just similar but were painted as part of a single commission because they are actually cut from the same piece of wood. Edward's gown in the Antiquaries portrait is similar to the one he wears in all the other versions, so we can I think be fairly confident that it was what Edward was wearing when he sat for his portrait, and not what Richard was wearing.
> > >
> > > The outfit Richard has on in the RC portrait and others is actually a black velvet bonnet, a black velvet gown fully lined (not trimmed) with what I have read has been identified as spotted lynx fur (hence the thickness and stiffness), and underneath that a jacket (not shirt) of black-striped cloth of gold with gold sequinny things sewn along the stripes - I don't know if these would be the "nails" that are referred to in Richard III's wardrobe accounts. Underneath the jacket is a red doublet; the doublet was a strong close fitting garment constructed from two pieces of right-side cloth rather than a right side plus light lining (hence the name doublet); it had eyelet holes ('points') along the hem to which the hose would be tied to stop them falling down. Underneath that would be worn the shirt, which was always made of white linen (fully washable) and protected the other clothes from bodily secretions. This outfit is fully in line with the
> > > fashions of Richard's day and so I see no reason to question its authenticity.
> > > The Italian School portrait, if it's the one I think you mean, shows Richard in what is basically the same outfit, with slight alterations, such as the sleeves of the gown being slashed right up to the shoulder and the replacement of the lynx-fur lining with simple ermine trim round the edges of the hanging sleeves. Setting aside the differences of detail, therefore, this is surely the outfit in which Richard was painted.
> > > I don't believe that lots of copies would have been made of the royal portrait at this early date. Hanging portraits of kings in your new mansion was a fashion that began in the Tudor period. That's surely why none of the surviving portraits of the Plantagenet kings are earlier than 16th century.
> > > There's really no point in any of us trying to make other members of the forum like the version of Richard's portrait that we ourselves like. We can state our preferences but I think we must leave it at that. Personally I like the NPG portrait because it has so much personality - I find it haunting. It is easy enough, if you have Paintshop or similar, to download a copy and wipe out the offending wrinkles. I've done it myself, using the Antiquaries portrait as a guide to exactly what facial lines should be left.
> > > And I've also got to the age where even the NPG version of Richard looks young.
> > > Marie
> > >
> >
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
Hi Marc,
You are probably right that copies were made by apprentices and that accounts for the poor quality of most
of the existing portraits of Richard.
But to your second point I cannot agree as oil-painting was not unknown in the 15th century at least in
Flanders, were Van Eyck was famous for using it even then. If you look at portraits made by van Eyck, Rogier van der Weyden,Hugo van der Goes and Hans Memling you can see what15th century painters
could achieve.
So I don't think the original portraits of Richard, or of Edward IV at that, were of poor quality with akwardly drawn fingers.I just cannot see that the Yorkist brothers,who knew the wonders of the flemish court would
settle for a mediocre painter to do their portraits.
Eva
Re: Richard's Portrait
Thank you for this information it's very interesting.I will look up the painting techniques you have mentioned and never thought about the painter's apprentices.
I originally posted the thread and it was to find out more information regarding Richard's portraits.This included any alterations that may have been made to them to help create a Tudor propaganda portrait of Richard.
I also was making enquires about his clothing and jewellery and its possible symbolic meanings.ie the rings on his fingers ,what they symbolised on each particular finger/didgit.The posts relate to this but evolve depending on the author's information/view etc.
All are valid and help further an understanding of Richard and his times.There is a section dedicated to Richard's portraits on the Society's Home Page under Richard 111/His appearance which you might find interesting if you haven't read it previously.
Kathryn x
--- In , Marc Moris <macbrat88@...> wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â pardon my English, I'm not a native speaker. I thought this thread was about paintings as argument/proof of disformments of Richard III and only wanted to point out that none of surviving can be taken into account for this.
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â There are two good reasons (imho) : 1) none of the surviving paintings are contemporary originals; 2) the originals are 15th century paintings.
>
>   1) copies of painting were very rarely (almost never) made by masters, they are made by apprentices. This implies they're still lacking in quality.
>
>   2) 15th century paintings are tempera. A technique the Italians were masters in (hence my reference to the Italians). Any original has to be painted with this technique. This means nobody sat for a painting (like they did for oil paintings). Everything was drawn out at first and then combined into a painting. Usually many studies were used and that's why you'll see paintings of people in clothes they never wore, jewelry they never wore, hands that weren't really their hands etc. Tempera also means there's little room for corrections - often leading to disfigurements like the thumb in the copy they say is 15th century. The first English monarch to have a posed painting made was probably Henry the VIII - though there is a painting of Henry VII in oil.
>
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Hope this clears up the point I was trying to make,
>
>
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Marc
>
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, 3 February 2014, 13:04, "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...> wrote:
>
> Â
> Hi everyone,
>
> Been thinking about the NPG and SoA portraits again.Both are likenesses if the NPG is a portrait of Richard when first he became king,perhaps not with so many wrinkles etc but with some to show for grief and maturity and a possible reluctance and acceptance that his life would be different.He may have put on a little weight and that would account for his slightly fuller face.The SoA portrait was painted after Edward of Middleham's death and during the period proceeding Anne's death.If he was not eating and resting properly but still continuing his work as king he would definitely look leaner,paler perhaps and much more reflective whilst considering his past and making plans to ensure both the future of the country and, perhaps, a chance at second happiness.
>
> Kathryn x
>
> --- In , "kathryng56@" <kathryng56@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Kathryn again,
> > Sorry if some of my previous comments may have upset people and that I am taking a pro Lancastrian stand.I'm not even if it make come across like that.Richard and his family were remarkable and brave.They ruled England well to the very end.
> > Kathryn x
> >
> > --- In , "kathryng56@" <kathryng56@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi everyone,especially Marie,Eva and Marc,
> > > I think I may have misled you all and confused some of the portraits, so please accept my apologises.
> > >
> > > I think when rereading your reply Marie that I should have said/meant the Royal Collection Portrait that was purchased by Henry V111 had the deformed thumb that was pointing to the chain/collar.
> > > The portraits of Edward and Richard ,perhaps, could be showing them both in their cloth of gold gowns when King,if they were commissioned by Richard and he was showing both respect to Edward and tradition by placing himself in the more subservient position.
> > > Thank you for all the wonderful descriptions regarding Richard's clothes etc they are marvellous and I know may understand a little more what Philippa meant when she described Richard as a bonny lad.
> > > (In all the portraits I have seen of Edward he seems to have brown hair, like Richard, but he is described as tall and fair which seems strange.)
> > >
> > > Marie and Eva,
> > > You may both be right regarding the NPG portrait,unfortunately I haven't a sufficently detailed picture of it to pass an opinion.I agree that both the portraits help convey the man. Some of Richard's portraits in the black gown resemble portraits of Edward.There's also one in the Government Art Collection and it reminds me of another of the black gown with gold coloured sleeves, set of portraits in that the face appears to be slightly different on either side.It could be draughtsmanship or an attempt to portray that there are two sides to Richard and he is not what the portrait may seem.Or it's he and Henry, who in some respects had a lot in common later on in their lives.Or it may just be that Henry V111 had to make Richard appear as bad as possible to make everyone think Richard was the villain and not the rightful king.And perhaps to also make Henry V111 feel better about himself when he grew older.
> > >
> > > Hi Marc,
> > > I referred to the portrait of Richard as Italian as it was described that,Italian School,in The Bridgeman Art Library where it is held. But you may well be right.I don't know.
> > > There might be one or two lost originals that the portraits were based upon and that's why there are similarities.
> > >
> > > Kathryn x
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Marc Moris <macbrat88@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Actually, I beg to differ. This painting is early Renaissaince and probably not Italian. We all know from the hard evidence of his skeleton he had a perfectly good shaped thumb. The painting of the hands is rather crude. Incorrect anatomy (even on the other hand). If you look at all available paintings, you see that they are all very similar, making it very likely they were copied from an original no longer in existance.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, I could be wrong, only have basic knowledge of the history of European paintings.
> > > >
> > > > Marc
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wednesday, 29 January 2014, 18:36, "eva.pitter@" <eva.pitter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > > Hi Marie,
> > > >
> > > > Regarding the NPG portrait I must contradict you! Do you mean the cleaned version with the golden foliage in the background? There the thumb is clearly not hidden in the revere but completely in front of it. And it is very exactly painted crippled.. The first joint of the thumb is tapering and ends in tiny nail. Not even the painter of this picture could have painted it so out of incapability.
> > > > As for Richard suffering from terrible bereavements at the alleged time of getting his portrait painted, I agree
> > > > with you But I see sadness in the SoA painting too, as well as resoluteness. It is earnest and thoughtful
> > > > and quite corresponding to a man in his circumstances.
> > > > Besides I want to say, that the cloth of gold dress is also contemporary and the fact that it was chosen to match with Edwards does not mean that Richard did not have one like this. Cloth of gold was a high status
> > > > garment fitting for a King. It was fitting to depict the two royal brothers so.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Eva
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---In , <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Kathryn,
> > > > I really can't see that Richard could possibly have been feeling at his best if painted around the time of Anne's death, given the amount of bereavement he had endured in a very few years and how little family he had left. Also that people were simultaneously whispering that he was a monster who had murdered his nephews and his wife. I think he would have come through it, but if you've not been through serious bereavement yourself you won't yet understand the depths of what it does. Having said all that, I don't think Richard can have been as lined as he is shown in the RC and NPG portraits, and I've already referred to the fact that these lines aren't present in the Antiquaries portrait, and that the wrinkles are why I believe the NPG one to be based on the RC one, but this deformed thumb in the NPG portrait that is often mentioned isn't really present. The artist was simply trying to show the thumb partly concealed behind the revere of
> Richard's
> > > > furred gown but couldn't get the perspective right so the thumb actually appears closer to the viewer than the fur collar it is supposed to be tucked behind. It is the perspective that is deformed rather than the thumb!
> > > >
> > > > The pineapple-motif gown Richard is wearing in the Society of Antiquaries (not Antiquities) portrait is the same pattern as the gown Edward IV wears in the various copies of his portrait; this was done because it was painted as part of a set of two (EIV and RIII), with Edward facing one way and Richard facing the other - this is also why the image of Richard is reversed in the Antiquaries portrait.  We know that the Antiquaries portraits of Edward and Richard are not just similar but were painted as part of a single commission because they are actually cut from the same piece of wood. Edward's gown in the Antiquaries portrait is similar to the one he wears in all the other versions, so we can I think be fairly confident that it was what Edward was wearing when he sat for his portrait, and not what Richard was wearing.
> > > >
> > > > The outfit Richard has on in the RC portrait and others is actually a black velvet bonnet, a black velvet gown fully lined (not trimmed) with what I have read has been identified as spotted lynx fur (hence the thickness and stiffness), and underneath that a jacket (not shirt) of black-striped cloth of gold with gold sequinny things sewn along the stripes - I don't know if these would be the "nails" that are referred to in Richard III's wardrobe accounts. Underneath the jacket is a red doublet; the doublet was a strong close fitting garment constructed from two pieces of right-side cloth rather than a right side plus light lining (hence the name doublet); it had eyelet holes ('points') along the hem to which the hose would be tied to stop them falling down. Underneath that would be worn the shirt, which was always made of white linen (fully washable) and protected the other clothes from bodily secretions. This outfit is fully in
> line with the
> > > > fashions of Richard's day and so I see no reason to question its authenticity.
> > > > The Italian School portrait, if it's the one I think you mean, shows Richard in what is basically the same outfit, with slight alterations, such as the sleeves of the gown being slashed right up to the shoulder and the replacement of the lynx-fur lining with simple ermine trim round the edges of the hanging sleeves. Setting aside the differences of detail, therefore, this is surely the outfit in which Richard was painted.
> > > > I don't believe that lots of copies would have been made of the royal portrait at this early date. Hanging portraits of kings in your new mansion was a fashion that began in the Tudor period. That's surely why none of the surviving portraits of the Plantagenet kings are earlier than 16th century.
> > > > There's really no point in any of us trying to make other members of the forum like the version of Richard's portrait that we ourselves like. We can state our preferences but I think we must leave it at that. Personally I like the NPG portrait because it has so much personality - I find it haunting. It is easy enough, if you have Paintshop or similar, to download a copy and wipe out the offending wrinkles. I've done it myself, using the Antiquaries portrait as a guide to exactly what facial lines should be left.
> > > > And I've also got to the age where even the NPG version of Richard looks young.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
hi Kathryn,
If you want to see a good reproduction of the NPG portrait, just go to the NPG homepage. I will have to look up the picture in the Government Art Collection, but I think it rather shows Richard and Henry.I have somewhere seen a double portrait showing Richard and Henry.
Concerning the Italian school portrait: P. Tudor Craig dates it late 16th even possibly early 17th century.
Unfortunately there seems that no tree ring dating was made. If it is from the early 17th century that could be an explanation for the friendly face. For after 1603 Tudor regime was history and in 1619 Sir George Buck
wrote the first history in favour of Richard.
I would, however, not rely on the late portraits as telling how Richard really looked. They tell more of how
the orderer wanted him to look.
About Edward's hair colour there seems to be a myth that he was golden haired,while all the portraits show him with brown hair.I think the golden-haired giant sprung from the fantasy of novelists.In 1789 Edward's tomb was opened and Henry Emlyn made a water colour drawing of that. He also records: " some long brown hair lay near the skull...There is also a lookof hair in possession of the SOA which is reddish brown.
Eva
---In , <kathryng56@...> wrote:
Hi everyone,especially Marie,Eva and Marc,
I think I may have misled you all and confused some of the portraits, so please accept my apologises.
I think when rereading your reply Marie that I should have said/meant the Royal Collection Portrait that was purchased by Henry V111 had the deformed thumb that was pointing to the chain/collar.
The portraits of Edward and Richard ,perhaps, could be showing them both in their cloth of gold gowns when King,if they were commissioned by Richard and he was showing both respect to Edward and tradition by placing himself in the more subservient position.
Thank you for all the wonderful descriptions regarding Richard's clothes etc they are marvellous and I know may understand a little more what Philippa meant when she described Richard as a bonny lad.
(In all the portraits I have seen of Edward he seems to have brown hair, like Richard, but he is described as tall and fair which seems strange.)
Marie and Eva,
You may both be right regarding the NPG portrait,unfortunately I haven't a sufficently detailed picture of it to pass an opinion.I agree that both the portraits help convey the man. Some of Richard's portraits in the black gown resemble portraits of Edward.There's also one in the Government Art Collection and it reminds me of another of the black gown with gold coloured sleeves, set of portraits in that the face appears to be slightly different on either side.It could be draughtsmanship or an attempt to portray that there are two sides to Richard and he is not what the portrait may seem.Or it's he and Henry, who in some respects had a lot in common later on in their lives.Or it may just be that Henry V111 had to make Richard appear as bad as possible to make everyone think Richard was the villain and not the rightful king.And perhaps to also make Henry V111 feel better about himself when he grew older.
Hi Marc,
I referred to the portrait of Richard as Italian as it was described that,Italian School,in The Bridgeman Art Library where it is held. But you may well be right.I don't know.
There might be one or two lost originals that the portraits were based upon and that's why there are similarities.
Kathryn x
--- In , Marc Moris <macbrat88@...> wrote:
>
> Actually, I beg to differ. This painting is early Renaissaince and probably not Italian. We all know from the hard evidence of his skeleton he had a perfectly good shaped thumb. The painting of the hands is rather crude. Incorrect anatomy (even on the other hand). If you look at all available paintings, you see that they are all very similar, making it very likely they were copied from an original no longer in existance.
>
> Of course, I could be wrong, only have basic knowledge of the history of European paintings.
>
> Marc
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, 29 January 2014, 18:36, "eva.pitter@..." <eva.pitter@...> wrote:
>
> Â
> Hi Marie,
>
> Regarding the NPG portrait I must contradict you! Do you mean the cleaned version with the golden foliage in the background? There the thumb is clearly not hidden in the revere but completely in front of it. And it is very exactly painted crippled.. The first joint of the thumb is tapering and ends in tiny nail. Not even the painter of this picture could have painted it so out of incapability.
> As for Richard suffering from terrible bereavements at the alleged time of getting his portrait painted, I agree
> with you But I see sadness in the SoA painting too, as well as resoluteness. It is earnest and thoughtful
> and quite corresponding to a man in his circumstances.
> Besides I want to say, that the cloth of gold dress is also contemporary and the fact that it was chosen to match with Edwards does not mean that Richard did not have one like this. Cloth of gold was a high status
> garment fitting for a King. It was fitting to depict the two royal brothers so.
>
>
> Eva
>
>
>
> ---In , <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Kathryn,
> I really can't see that Richard could possibly have been feeling at his best if painted around the time of Anne's death, given the amount of bereavement he had endured in a very few years and how little family he had left. Also that people were simultaneously whispering that he was a monster who had murdered his nephews and his wife. I think he would have come through it, but if you've not been through serious bereavement yourself you won't yet understand the depths of what it does. Having said all that, I don't think Richard can have been as lined as he is shown in the RC and NPG portraits, and I've already referred to the fact that these lines aren't present in the Antiquaries portrait, and that the wrinkles are why I believe the NPG one to be based on the RC one, but this deformed thumb in the NPG portrait that is often mentioned isn't really present. The artist was simply trying to show the thumb partly concealed behind the revere of Richard's
> furred gown but couldn't get the perspective right so the thumb actually appears closer to the viewer than the fur collar it is supposed to be tucked behind. It is the perspective that is deformed rather than the thumb!
>
> The pineapple-motif gown Richard is wearing in the Society of Antiquaries (not Antiquities) portrait is the same pattern as the gown Edward IV wears in the various copies of his portrait; this was done because it was painted as part of a set of two (EIV and RIII), with Edward facing one way and Richard facing the other - this is also why the image of Richard is reversed in the Antiquaries portrait.  We know that the Antiquaries portraits of Edward and Richard are not just similar but were painted as part of a single commission because they are actually cut from the same piece of wood. Edward's gown in the Antiquaries portrait is similar to the one he wears in all the other versions, so we can I think be fairly confident that it was what Edward was wearing when he sat for his portrait, and not what Richard was wearing.
>
> The outfit Richard has on in the RC portrait and others is actually a black velvet bonnet, a black velvet gown fully lined (not trimmed) with what I have read has been identified as spotted lynx fur (hence the thickness and stiffness), and underneath that a jacket (not shirt) of black-striped cloth of gold with gold sequinny things sewn along the stripes - I don't know if these would be the "nails" that are referred to in Richard III's wardrobe accounts. Underneath the jacket is a red doublet; the doublet was a strong close fitting garment constructed from two pieces of right-side cloth rather than a right side plus light lining (hence the name doublet); it had eyelet holes ('points') along the hem to which the hose would be tied to stop them falling down. Underneath that would be worn the shirt, which was always made of white linen (fully washable) and protected the other clothes from bodily secretions. This outfit is fully in line with the
> fashions of Richard's day and so I see no reason to question its authenticity.
> The Italian School portrait, if it's the one I think you mean, shows Richard in what is basically the same outfit, with slight alterations, such as the sleeves of the gown being slashed right up to the shoulder and the replacement of the lynx-fur lining with simple ermine trim round the edges of the hanging sleeves. Setting aside the differences of detail, therefore, this is surely the outfit in which Richard was painted.
> I don't believe that lots of copies would have been made of the royal portrait at this early date. Hanging portraits of kings in your new mansion was a fashion that began in the Tudor period. That's surely why none of the surviving portraits of the Plantagenet kings are earlier than 16th century.
> There's really no point in any of us trying to make other members of the forum like the version of Richard's portrait that we ourselves like. We can state our preferences but I think we must leave it at that. Personally I like the NPG portrait because it has so much personality - I find it haunting. It is easy enough, if you have Paintshop or similar, to download a copy and wipe out the offending wrinkles. I've done it myself, using the Antiquaries portrait as a guide to exactly what facial lines should be left.
> And I've also got to the age where even the NPG version of Richard looks young.
> Marie
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
I'm happy you agree on the copies.
However, I'm very saddened to hear you talking about Flanders. I know that the school is sometimes called incorrectly "Flemish Primitives" (and the error lies in that a lot off them, including Van Eyck, Van Der Weyden, Bosch aren't Flemish). They resided in Burgundy, some of them did work in Bruges or Ghent (which are Flanders). Van Der Weyden worked in Brussels (Brabant). The Van Eyck brothers probably originated from Limburg. I am familiar with the chronology, I'm not that good in actual dating.
Hypothetically, Richard could have had his portrait painted by Memling while in exile in Bruges. It's very unlikely though. There aren't that many painted portraits of his sister Margaret even though she lived in Burgundy for most of her life. At least there's at least one contemporary surviving in the Louvre. Personally, I don't think that one is very good either (modern critics of course). I assume Kings and Duchesses didn't have their portrait painted that often (until Henry VIII of course) and when they did it was to pursue marriage (Remember the painting of Anna Von Kleve). If such a portrait had been made and was in possession of Margaret it would have survived (as most of her collection) as she was very well respected by her peers (although her tomb was pillaged in the XVIth century :( ).
Cheers,
Marc
PS And the picture of Anna von Kleve was partially painted tempera ;-)
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014, 14:48, "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...> wrote:
Hi Marc,
Thank you for this information it's very interesting.I will look up the painting techniques you have mentioned and never thought about the painter's apprentices.
I originally posted the thread and it was to find out more information regarding Richard's portraits.This included any alterations that may have been made to them to help create a Tudor propaganda portrait of Richard.
I also was making enquires about his clothing and jewellery and its possible symbolic meanings.ie the rings on his fingers ,what they symbolised on each particular finger/didgit.The posts relate to this but evolve depending on the author's information/view etc.
All are valid and help further an understanding of Richard and his times.There is a section dedicated to Richard's portraits on the Society's Home Page under Richard 111/His appearance which you might find interesting if you haven't read it previously.
Kathryn x
--- In , Marc Moris <macbrat88@...> wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â pardon my English, I'm not a native speaker. I thought this thread was about paintings as argument/proof of disformments of Richard III and only wanted to point out that none of surviving can be taken into account for this.
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â There are two good reasons (imho) : 1) none of the surviving paintings are contemporary originals; 2) the originals are 15th century paintings.
>
>   1) copies of painting were very rarely (almost never) made by masters, they are made by apprentices. This implies they're still lacking in quality.
>
>   2) 15th century paintings are tempera. A technique the Italians were masters in (hence my reference to the Italians). Any original has to be painted with this technique. This means nobody sat for a painting (like they did for oil paintings). Everything was drawn out at first and then combined into a painting. Usually many studies were used and that's why you'll see paintings of people in clothes they never wore, jewelry they never wore, hands that weren't really their hands etc. Tempera also means there's little room for corrections - often leading to disfigurements like the thumb in the copy they say is 15th century. The first English monarch to have a posed painting made was probably Henry the VIII - though there is a painting of Henry VII in oil.
>
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Hope this clears up the point I was trying to make,
>
>
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Marc
>
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, 3 February 2014, 13:04, "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...> wrote:
>
> Â
> Hi everyone,
>
> Been thinking about the NPG and SoA portraits again.Both are likenesses if the NPG is a portrait of Richard when first he became king,perhaps not with so many wrinkles etc but with some to show for grief and maturity and a possible reluctance and acceptance that his life would be different.He may have put on a little weight and that would account for his slightly fuller face.The SoA portrait was painted after Edward of Middleham's death and during the period proceeding Anne's death.If he was not eating and resting properly but still continuing his work as king he would definitely look leaner,paler perhaps and much more reflective whilst considering his past and making plans to ensure both the future of the country and, perhaps, a chance at second happiness.
>
> Kathryn x
>
> --- In , "kathryng56@" <kathryng56@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Kathryn again,
> > Sorry if some of my previous comments may have upset people and that I am taking a pro Lancastrian stand.I'm not even if it make come across like that.Richard and his family were remarkable and brave.They ruled England well to the very end.
> > Kathryn x
> >
> > --- In , "kathryng56@" <kathryng56@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi everyone,especially Marie,Eva and Marc,
> > > I think I may have misled you all and confused some of the portraits, so please accept my apologises.
> > >
> > > I think when rereading your reply Marie that I should have said/meant the Royal Collection Portrait that was purchased by Henry V111 had the deformed thumb that was pointing to the chain/collar.
> > > The portraits of Edward and Richard ,perhaps, could be showing them both in their cloth of gold gowns when King,if they were commissioned by Richard and he was showing both respect to Edward and tradition by placing himself in the more subservient position.
> > > Thank you for all the wonderful descriptions regarding Richard's clothes etc they are marvellous and I know may understand a little more what Philippa meant when she described Richard as a bonny lad.
> > > (In all the portraits I have seen of Edward he seems to have brown hair, like Richard, but he is described as tall and fair which seems strange.)
> > >
> > > Marie and Eva,
> > > You may both be right regarding the NPG portrait,unfortunately I haven't a sufficently detailed picture of it to pass an opinion.I agree that both the portraits help convey the man. Some of Richard's portraits in the black gown resemble portraits of Edward.There's also one in the Government Art Collection and it reminds me of another of the black gown with gold coloured sleeves, set of portraits in that the face appears to be slightly different on either side.It could be draughtsmanship or an attempt to portray that there are two sides to Richard and he is not what the portrait may seem.Or it's he and Henry, who in some respects had a lot in common later on in their lives.Or it may just be that Henry V111 had to make Richard appear as bad as possible to make everyone think Richard was the villain and not the rightful king.And perhaps to also make Henry V111 feel better about himself when he grew older.
> > >
> > > Hi Marc,
> > > I referred to the portrait of Richard as Italian as it was described that,Italian School,in The Bridgeman Art Library where it is held. But you may well be right.I don't know.
> > > There might be one or two lost originals that the portraits were based upon and that's why there are similarities.
> > >
> > > Kathryn x
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Marc Moris <macbrat88@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Actually, I beg to differ. This painting is early Renaissaince and probably not Italian. We all know from the hard evidence of his skeleton he had a perfectly good shaped thumb. The painting of the hands is rather crude. Incorrect anatomy (even on the other hand). If you look at all available paintings, you see that they are all very similar, making it very likely they were copied from an original no longer in existance.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, I could be wrong, only have basic knowledge of the history of European paintings.
> > > >
> > > > Marc
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wednesday, 29 January 2014, 18:36, "eva.pitter@" <eva.pitter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > > Hi Marie,
> > > >
> > > > Regarding the NPG portrait I must contradict you! Do you mean the cleaned version with the golden foliage in the background? There the thumb is clearly not hidden in the revere but completely in front of it. And it is very exactly painted crippled.. The first joint of the thumb is tapering and ends in tiny nail. Not even the painter of this picture could have painted it so out of incapability.
> > > > As for Richard suffering from terrible bereavements at the alleged time of getting his portrait painted, I agree
> > > > with you But I see sadnessÃÂ in the SoA painting too, as well as resoluteness. It is earnest and thoughtful
> > > > and quite corresponding to a man in his circumstances.
> > > > Besides I want to say, that the cloth of gold dress is also contemporary and the fact that it was chosen to match with Edwards does not mean that Richard did not have one like this. Cloth of gold was a high status
> > > > garment fitting for a King. It was fitting to depict the two royal brothers so.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Eva
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---In , <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Kathryn,
> > > > I really can't see that Richard could possibly have been feeling at his best if painted around the time of Anne's death, given the amount of bereavement he had endured in a very few years and how little family he had left. Also that people were simultaneously whispering that he was a monster who had murdered his nephews and his wife. I think he would have come through it, butÃÂ if you've not been through serious bereavement yourself you won't yet understand the depths of what it does. Having said all that, I don't thinkÃÂ Richard can have been as lined as he is shown in the RC and NPG portraits, and I've already referred to the fact that these lines aren't present in the Antiquaries portrait, and that the wrinkles areÃÂ why I believe the NPG one to be based on the RC one, but this deformed thumb in the NPG portrait that is often mentioned isn't really present. The artist was simply trying to show the thumb partly concealed behind the revere of
> Richard's
> > > > furred gown but couldn't get the perspective right so the thumb actually appears closer to the viewer than the fur collar it is supposed to be tucked behind. It is the perspective that is deformed rather than the thumb!
> > > >
> > > > The pineapple-motif gown Richard is wearing in the Society of Antiquaries (not Antiquities) portrait is the sameÃÂ pattern as the gown Edward IV wears in the various copies of his portrait; this was done because it was painted as part of a set of two (EIV and RIII), with Edward facing one way and Richard facing the other - this is also why the image of Richard is reversed in the Antiquaries portrait. ÃÂ We know that the Antiquaries portraits of Edward and Richard are not just similar but wereÃÂ painted as part of a single commission because they are actually cut from the same piece of wood. Edward's gown in the Antiquaries portrait is similar to the one he wears in all the other versions, so we can I think be fairly confident that it was what Edward was wearing when he sat for his portrait, and not what Richard was wearing.
> > > >
> > > > The outfit Richard has on in the RC portrait and others is actually a black velvet bonnet, a black velvet gown fullyÃÂ lined (not trimmed) with what I have read has been identified as spotted lynx fur (hence the thickness and stiffness), and underneath that a jacket (not shirt) of black-striped cloth of gold withÃÂ gold sequinny things sewn along the stripes -ÃÂ I don't know if these would be the "nails" that are referred to in Richard III's wardrobe accounts. Underneath the jacketÃÂ is a redÃÂ doublet; the doublet was a strongÃÂ close fitting garment constructed from two pieces of right-side cloth rather than a right side plus light lining (hence the name doublet); it had eyelet holes ('points') along the hem to which the hose would be tied to stop them falling down. Underneath that would be worn the shirt, which was always made of white linen (fully washable) and protected the otherÃÂ clothes from bodily secretions. This outfit is fully in
> line with the
> > > > fashions of Richard's day and so I see no reason to question its authenticity.
> > > > The Italian School portrait, if it's the one I think you mean, shows Richard in what is basically the same outfit, with slight alterations, such as the sleeves of the gownÃÂ being slashed right up to the shoulder and the replacement of the lynx-fur lining with simple ermine trim round the edges of the hanging sleeves. Setting aside the differences of detail, therefore, this is surely the outfit in which Richard was painted.
> > > > I don't believe that lots of copies would have been made of the royal portrait at this early date. Hanging portraits of kings in your new mansion was a fashion that began in the Tudor period. That's surely why none of the surviving portraits of the Plantagenet kings are earlier than 16th century.
> > > > There's really no point in any of us trying to make other members of the forum like the version of Richard's portrait that we ourselves like. We can state our preferences but I think we mustÃÂ leave it at that. Personally I like the NPG portrait because it has so much personality - I find it haunting. It is easy enough, if you have Paintshop or similar,ÃÂ to download a copy and wipe out theÃÂ offending wrinkles. I've done it myself, using the Antiquaries portrait as a guide to exactly what facial lines should be left.
> > > > AndÃÂ I've also got to the age where even the NPG version of Richard looks young.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
Thank you sharing this.
Maybe the idea Edward 1V was golden haired was started by the Tudors in order to discredit Edward by inferring he was not RDoY's son but that of an archer in Roeun.Or Henry V111 was golden haired and looked like his grandfather E1V. So E1V would be assumed to be golden haired by those who had never met him.
Have been given a link to P Tudor Craig in a previous post which I keep intending to see/use.I have been sent an e-mail from YahooGroups / ladyanneboleyn posting with a picture of the Italian painting and one of the NPG portrait which has been slightly modified showing a younger version of Richard returning glance which maybe of interest.
Kathryn x
--- In , <eva.pitter@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> hi Kathryn,
> If you want to see a good reproduction of the NPG portrait, just go to the NPG homepage. I will have to look up the picture in the Government Art Collection, but I think it rather shows Richard and Henry.I have somewhere seen a double portrait showing Richard and Henry.
> Concerning the Italian school portrait: P. Tudor Craig dates it late 16th even possibly early 17th century.
> Unfortunately there seems that no tree ring dating was made. If it is from the early 17th century that could be an explanation for the friendly face. For after 1603 Tudor regime was history and in 1619 Sir George Buck
> wrote the first history in favour of Richard.
> I would, however, not rely on the late portraits as telling how Richard really looked. They tell more of how
> the orderer wanted him to look.
>
> About Edward's hair colour there seems to be a myth that he was golden haired,while all the portraits show him with brown hair.I think the golden-haired giant sprung from the fantasy of novelists.In 1789 Edward's tomb was opened and Henry Emlyn made a water colour drawing of that. He also records: " some long brown hair lay near the skull...There is also a lookof hair in possession of the SOA which is reddish brown.
>
>
> Eva
>
>
>
> ---In , <kathryng56@> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,especially Marie,Eva and Marc,
> I think I may have misled you all and confused some of the portraits, so please accept my apologises.
>
> I think when rereading your reply Marie that I should have said/meant the Royal Collection Portrait that was purchased by Henry V111 had the deformed thumb that was pointing to the chain/collar.
> The portraits of Edward and Richard ,perhaps, could be showing them both in their cloth of gold gowns when King,if they were commissioned by Richard and he was showing both respect to Edward and tradition by placing himself in the more subservient position.
> Thank you for all the wonderful descriptions regarding Richard's clothes etc they are marvellous and I know may understand a little more what Philippa meant when she described Richard as a bonny lad.
> (In all the portraits I have seen of Edward he seems to have brown hair, like Richard, but he is described as tall and fair which seems strange.)
>
> Marie and Eva,
> You may both be right regarding the NPG portrait,unfortunately I haven't a sufficently detailed picture of it to pass an opinion.I agree that both the portraits help convey the man. Some of Richard's portraits in the black gown resemble portraits of Edward.There's also one in the Government Art Collection and it reminds me of another of the black gown with gold coloured sleeves, set of portraits in that the face appears to be slightly different on either side.It could be draughtsmanship or an attempt to portray that there are two sides to Richard and he is not what the portrait may seem.Or it's he and Henry, who in some respects had a lot in common later on in their lives.Or it may just be that Henry V111 had to make Richard appear as bad as possible to make everyone think Richard was the villain and not the rightful king.And perhaps to also make Henry V111 feel better about himself when he grew older.
>
> Hi Marc,
> I referred to the portrait of Richard as Italian as it was described that,Italian School,in The Bridgeman Art Library where it is held. But you may well be right.I don't know.
> There might be one or two lost originals that the portraits were based upon and that's why there are similarities.
>
> Kathryn x
>
>
> --- In mailto:, Marc Moris <macbrat88@> wrote:
> >
> > Actually, I beg to differ. This painting is early Renaissaince and probably not Italian. We all know from the hard evidence of his skeleton he had a perfectly good shaped thumb. The painting of the hands is rather crude. Incorrect anatomy (even on the other hand). If you look at all available paintings, you see that they are all very similar, making it very likely they were copied from an original no longer in existance.
> >
> > Of course, I could be wrong, only have basic knowledge of the history of European paintings.
> >
> > Marc
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, 29 January 2014, 18:36, "eva.pitter@" <eva.pitter@> wrote:
> >
> > Â
> > Hi Marie,
> >
> > Regarding the NPG portrait I must contradict you! Do you mean the cleaned version with the golden foliage in the background? There the thumb is clearly not hidden in the revere but completely in front of it. And it is very exactly painted crippled.. The first joint of the thumb is tapering and ends in tiny nail. Not even the painter of this picture could have painted it so out of incapability.
> > As for Richard suffering from terrible bereavements at the alleged time of getting his portrait painted, I agree
> > with you But I see sadness in the SoA painting too, as well as resoluteness. It is earnest and thoughtful
> > and quite corresponding to a man in his circumstances.
> > Besides I want to say, that the cloth of gold dress is also contemporary and the fact that it was chosen to match with Edwards does not mean that Richard did not have one like this. Cloth of gold was a high status
> > garment fitting for a King. It was fitting to depict the two royal brothers so.
> >
> >
> > Eva
> >
> >
> >
> > ---In mailto:, <[email protected] mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Kathryn,
> > I really can't see that Richard could possibly have been feeling at his best if painted around the time of Anne's death, given the amount of bereavement he had endured in a very few years and how little family he had left. Also that people were simultaneously whispering that he was a monster who had murdered his nephews and his wife. I think he would have come through it, but if you've not been through serious bereavement yourself you won't yet understand the depths of what it does. Having said all that, I don't think Richard can have been as lined as he is shown in the RC and NPG portraits, and I've already referred to the fact that these lines aren't present in the Antiquaries portrait, and that the wrinkles are why I believe the NPG one to be based on the RC one, but this deformed thumb in the NPG portrait that is often mentioned isn't really present. The artist was simply trying to show the thumb partly concealed behind the revere of Richard's
> > furred gown but couldn't get the perspective right so the thumb actually appears closer to the viewer than the fur collar it is supposed to be tucked behind. It is the perspective that is deformed rather than the thumb!
> >
> > The pineapple-motif gown Richard is wearing in the Society of Antiquaries (not Antiquities) portrait is the same pattern as the gown Edward IV wears in the various copies of his portrait; this was done because it was painted as part of a set of two (EIV and RIII), with Edward facing one way and Richard facing the other - this is also why the image of Richard is reversed in the Antiquaries portrait.  We know that the Antiquaries portraits of Edward and Richard are not just similar but were painted as part of a single commission because they are actually cut from the same piece of wood. Edward's gown in the Antiquaries portrait is similar to the one he wears in all the other versions, so we can I think be fairly confident that it was what Edward was wearing when he sat for his portrait, and not what Richard was wearing.
> >
> > The outfit Richard has on in the RC portrait and others is actually a black velvet bonnet, a black velvet gown fully lined (not trimmed) with what I have read has been identified as spotted lynx fur (hence the thickness and stiffness), and underneath that a jacket (not shirt) of black-striped cloth of gold with gold sequinny things sewn along the stripes - I don't know if these would be the "nails" that are referred to in Richard III's wardrobe accounts. Underneath the jacket is a red doublet; the doublet was a strong close fitting garment constructed from two pieces of right-side cloth rather than a right side plus light lining (hence the name doublet); it had eyelet holes ('points') along the hem to which the hose would be tied to stop them falling down. Underneath that would be worn the shirt, which was always made of white linen (fully washable) and protected the other clothes from bodily secretions. This outfit is fully in line with the
> > fashions of Richard's day and so I see no reason to question its authenticity.
> > The Italian School portrait, if it's the one I think you mean, shows Richard in what is basically the same outfit, with slight alterations, such as the sleeves of the gown being slashed right up to the shoulder and the replacement of the lynx-fur lining with simple ermine trim round the edges of the hanging sleeves. Setting aside the differences of detail, therefore, this is surely the outfit in which Richard was painted.
> > I don't believe that lots of copies would have been made of the royal portrait at this early date. Hanging portraits of kings in your new mansion was a fashion that began in the Tudor period. That's surely why none of the surviving portraits of the Plantagenet kings are earlier than 16th century.
> > There's really no point in any of us trying to make other members of the forum like the version of Richard's portrait that we ourselves like. We can state our preferences but I think we must leave it at that. Personally I like the NPG portrait because it has so much personality - I find it haunting. It is easy enough, if you have Paintshop or similar, to download a copy and wipe out the offending wrinkles. I've done it myself, using the Antiquaries portrait as a guide to exactly what facial lines should be left.
> > And I've also got to the age where even the NPG version of Richard looks young.
> > Marie
> >
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
Hi Eva,
Thank you sharing this.
Maybe the idea Edward 1V was golden
haired was started by the Tudors in order to discredit Edward by inferring he
was not RDoY's son but that of an archer in Roeun.Or Henry V111 was golden
haired and looked like his grandfather E1V. So E1V would be assumed to be golden
haired by those who had never met him.
Have been given a link to P Tudor
Craig in a previous post which I keep intending to see/use.I have been sent an
e-mail from YahooGroups / ladyanneboleyn posting with a picture of the Italian
painting and one of the NPG portrait which has been slightly modified showing a
younger version of Richard returning glance which maybe of
interest.
Kathryn x
--- In ,
<eva.pitter@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> hi
Kathryn,
> If you want to see a good reproduction of the NPG portrait,
just go to the NPG homepage. I will have to look up the picture in the
Government Art Collection, but I think it rather shows Richard and Henry.I have
somewhere seen a double portrait showing Richard and Henry.
> Concerning
the Italian school portrait: P. Tudor Craig dates it late 16th even possibly
early 17th century.
> Unfortunately there seems that no tree ring dating
was made. If it is from the early 17th century that could be an explanation for
the friendly face. For after 1603 Tudor regime was history and in 1619 Sir
George Buck
> wrote the first history in favour of Richard.
> I
would, however, not rely on the late portraits as telling how Richard really
looked. They tell more of how
> the orderer wanted him to look.
>
> About Edward's hair colour there seems to be a myth that he was golden
haired,while all the portraits show him with brown hair.I think the
golden-haired giant sprung from the fantasy of novelists.In 1789 Edward's tomb
was opened and Henry Emlyn made a water colour drawing of that. He also records:
" some long brown hair lay near the skull...There is also a lookof hair in
possession of the SOA which is reddish brown.
>
>
>
Eva
>
>
>
> ---In
, <kathryng56@> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,especially Marie,Eva and Marc,
> I think I may have
misled you all and confused some of the portraits, so please accept my
apologises.
>
> I think when rereading your reply Marie that I
should have said/meant the Royal Collection Portrait that was purchased by Henry
V111 had the deformed thumb that was pointing to the chain/collar.
> The
portraits of Edward and Richard ,perhaps, could be showing them both in their
cloth of gold gowns when King,if they were commissioned by Richard and he was
showing both respect to Edward and tradition by placing himself in the more
subservient position.
> Thank you for all the wonderful descriptions
regarding Richard's clothes etc they are marvellous and I know may understand a
little more what Philippa meant when she described Richard as a bonny
lad.
> (In all the portraits I have seen of Edward he seems to have brown
hair, like Richard, but he is described as tall and fair which seems
strange.)
>
> Marie and Eva,
> You may both be right
regarding the NPG portrait,unfortunately I haven't a sufficently detailed
picture of it to pass an opinion.I agree that both the portraits help convey the
man. Some of Richard's portraits in the black gown resemble portraits of
Edward.There's also one in the Government Art Collection and it reminds me of
another of the black gown with gold coloured sleeves, set of portraits in that
the face appears to be slightly different on either side.It could be
draughtsmanship or an attempt to portray that there are two sides to Richard and
he is not what the portrait may seem.Or it's he and Henry, who in some respects
had a lot in common later on in their lives.Or it may just be that Henry V111
had to make Richard appear as bad as possible to make everyone think Richard was
the villain and not the rightful king.And perhaps to also make Henry V111 feel
better about himself when he grew older.
>
> Hi Marc,
> I
referred to the portrait of Richard as Italian as it was described that,Italian
School,in The Bridgeman Art Library where it is held. But you may well be
right.I don't know.
> There might be one or two lost originals that the
portraits were based upon and that's why there are similarities.
>
> Kathryn x
>
>
> --- In
mailto:, Marc Moris <macbrat88@>
wrote:
> >
> > Actually, I beg to differ. This painting is
early Renaissaince and probably not Italian. We all know from the hard evidence
of his skeleton he had a perfectly good shaped thumb. The painting of the hands
is rather crude. Incorrect anatomy (even on the other hand). If you look at all
available paintings, you see that they are all very similar, making it very
likely they were copied from an original no longer in existance.
> >
> > Of course, I could be wrong, only have basic knowledge of the
history of European paintings.
> >
> > Marc
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On
Wednesday, 29 January 2014, 18:36, "eva.pitter@" <eva.pitter@>
wrote:
> >
> > Â
> > Hi Marie,
> >
> > Regarding the NPG portrait I must contradict you! Do you mean the
cleaned version with the golden foliage in the background? There the thumb is
clearly not hidden in the revere but completely in front of it. And it is very
exactly painted crippled.. The first joint of the thumb is tapering and ends in
tiny nail. Not even the painter of this picture could have painted it so out of
incapability.
> > As for Richard suffering from terrible bereavements
at the alleged time of getting his portrait painted, I agree
> > with
you But I see sadness in the SoA painting too, as well as resoluteness. It is
earnest and thoughtful
> > and quite corresponding to a man in his
circumstances.
> > Besides I want to say, that the cloth of gold dress
is also contemporary and the fact that it was chosen to match with Edwards does
not mean that Richard did not have one like this. Cloth of gold was a high
status
> > garment fitting for a King. It was fitting to depict the two
royal brothers so.
> >
> >
> > Eva
> >
> >
> >
> > ---In
mailto:, <[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
>
> Hi Kathryn,
> > I really can't see that Richard could possibly
have been feeling at his best if painted around the time of Anne's death, given
the amount of bereavement he had endured in a very few years and how little
family he had left. Also that people were simultaneously whispering that he was
a monster who had murdered his nephews and his wife. I think he would have come
through it, but if you've not been through serious bereavement yourself you
won't yet understand the depths of what it does. Having said all that, I don't
think Richard can have been as lined as he is shown in the RC and NPG
portraits, and I've already referred to the fact that these lines aren't present
in the Antiquaries portrait, and that the wrinkles are why I believe the NPG
one to be based on the RC one, but this deformed thumb in the NPG portrait that
is often mentioned isn't really present. The artist was simply trying to show
the thumb partly concealed behind the revere of Richard's
> > furred
gown but couldn't get the perspective right so the thumb actually appears closer
to the viewer than the fur collar it is supposed to be tucked behind. It is the
perspective that is deformed rather than the thumb!
> >
> >
The pineapple-motif gown Richard is wearing in the Society of Antiquaries (not
Antiquities) portrait is the same pattern as the gown Edward IV wears in the
various copies of his portrait; this was done because it was painted as part of
a set of two (EIV and RIII), with Edward facing one way and Richard facing the
other - this is also why the image of Richard is reversed in the Antiquaries
portrait. Â We know that the Antiquaries portraits of Edward and Richard are
not just similar but were painted as part of a single commission because they
are actually cut from the same piece of wood. Edward's gown in the Antiquaries
portrait is similar to the one he wears in all the other versions, so we can I
think be fairly confident that it was what Edward was wearing when he sat for
his portrait, and not what Richard was wearing.
> >
> > The
outfit Richard has on in the RC portrait and others is actually a black velvet
bonnet, a black velvet gown fully lined (not trimmed) with what I have read
has been identified as spotted lynx fur (hence the thickness and stiffness), and
underneath that a jacket (not shirt) of black-striped cloth of gold with gold
sequinny things sewn along the stripes -Â I don't know if these would be the
"nails" that are referred to in Richard III's wardrobe accounts. Underneath the
jacket is a red doublet; the doublet was a strong close fitting garment
constructed from two pieces of right-side cloth rather than a right side plus
light lining (hence the name doublet); it had eyelet holes ('points') along the
hem to which the hose would be tied to stop them falling down. Underneath that
would be worn the shirt, which was always made of white linen (fully washable)
and protected the other clothes from bodily secretions. This outfit is fully
in line with the
> > fashions of Richard's day and so I see no reason
to question its authenticity.
> > The Italian School portrait, if it's
the one I think you mean, shows Richard in what is basically the same outfit,
with slight alterations, such as the sleeves of the gown being slashed right
up to the shoulder and the replacement of the lynx-fur lining with simple ermine
trim round the edges of the hanging sleeves. Setting aside the differences of
detail, therefore, this is surely the outfit in which Richard was
painted.
> > I don't believe that lots of copies would have been made
of the royal portrait at this early date. Hanging portraits of kings in your new
mansion was a fashion that began in the Tudor period. That's surely why none of
the surviving portraits of the Plantagenet kings are earlier than 16th
century.
> > There's really no point in any of us trying to make other
members of the forum like the version of Richard's portrait that we ourselves
like. We can state our preferences but I think we must leave it at that.
Personally I like the NPG portrait because it has so much personality - I find
it haunting. It is easy enough, if you have Paintshop or similar, to download
a copy and wipe out the offending wrinkles. I've done it myself, using the
Antiquaries portrait as a guide to exactly what facial lines should be
left.
> > And I've also got to the age where even the NPG version of
Richard looks young.
> > Marie
> >
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> The ‘Richard returning glance’ was posted by me, Kathryn. There was a ‘morphed’ picture of Richard that I found and posted last year. It was halfway between the NPG portrait and the ‘head’ that was produced after the discovery of Richard’s remains. I was fiddling with Paint Shop Pro one day, and thought it would be nice if he was looking at ‘me’ or whoever was looking at him. I forgot his tear ducts! I think half the effect of Henry’s NPG portrait is that he is looking at ‘us’. Richard always seems to be looking away to one side or the other.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: kathryng56@...
> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 7:22 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Portrait
>
>
> Hi Eva,
> Thank you sharing this.
>
> Maybe the idea Edward 1V was golden haired was started by the Tudors in order to discredit Edward by inferring he was not RDoY's son but that of an archer in Roeun.Or Henry V111 was golden haired and looked like his grandfather E1V. So E1V would be assumed to be golden haired by those who had never met him.
>
> Have been given a link to P Tudor Craig in a previous post which I keep intending to see/use.I have been sent an e-mail from YahooGroups / ladyanneboleyn posting with a picture of the Italian painting and one of the NPG portrait which has been slightly modified showing a younger version of Richard returning glance which maybe of interest.
>
> Kathryn x
>
> --- In , <eva.pitter@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > hi Kathryn,
> > If you want to see a good reproduction of the NPG portrait, just go to the NPG homepage. I will have to look up the picture in the Government Art Collection, but I think it rather shows Richard and Henry.I have somewhere seen a double portrait showing Richard and Henry.
> > Concerning the Italian school portrait: P. Tudor Craig dates it late 16th even possibly early 17th century.
> > Unfortunately there seems that no tree ring dating was made. If it is from the early 17th century that could be an explanation for the friendly face. For after 1603 Tudor regime was history and in 1619 Sir George Buck
> > wrote the first history in favour of Richard.
> > I would, however, not rely on the late portraits as telling how Richard really looked. They tell more of how
> > the orderer wanted him to look.
> >
> > About Edward's hair colour there seems to be a myth that he was golden haired,while all the portraits show him with brown hair.I think the golden-haired giant sprung from the fantasy of novelists.In 1789 Edward's tomb was opened and Henry Emlyn made a water colour drawing of that. He also records: " some long brown hair lay near the skull...There is also a lookof hair in possession of the SOA which is reddish brown.
> >
> >
> > Eva
> >
> >
> >
> > ---In , <kathryng56@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,especially Marie,Eva and Marc,
> > I think I may have misled you all and confused some of the portraits, so please accept my apologises.
> >
> > I think when rereading your reply Marie that I should have said/meant the Royal Collection Portrait that was purchased by Henry V111 had the deformed thumb that was pointing to the chain/collar.
> > The portraits of Edward and Richard ,perhaps, could be showing them both in their cloth of gold gowns when King,if they were commissioned by Richard and he was showing both respect to Edward and tradition by placing himself in the more subservient position.
> > Thank you for all the wonderful descriptions regarding Richard's clothes etc they are marvellous and I know may understand a little more what Philippa meant when she described Richard as a bonny lad.
> > (In all the portraits I have seen of Edward he seems to have brown hair, like Richard, but he is described as tall and fair which seems strange.)
> >
> > Marie and Eva,
> > You may both be right regarding the NPG portrait,unfortunately I haven't a sufficently detailed picture of it to pass an opinion.I agree that both the portraits help convey the man. Some of Richard's portraits in the black gown resemble portraits of Edward.There's also one in the Government Art Collection and it reminds me of another of the black gown with gold coloured sleeves, set of portraits in that the face appears to be slightly different on either side.It could be draughtsmanship or an attempt to portray that there are two sides to Richard and he is not what the portrait may seem.Or it's he and Henry, who in some respects had a lot in common later on in their lives.Or it may just be that Henry V111 had to make Richard appear as bad as possible to make everyone think Richard was the villain and not the rightful king.And perhaps to also make Henry V111 feel better about himself when he grew older.
> >
> > Hi Marc,
> > I referred to the portrait of Richard as Italian as it was described that,Italian School,in The Bridgeman Art Library where it is held. But you may well be right.I don't know.
> > There might be one or two lost originals that the portraits were based upon and that's why there are similarities.
> >
> > Kathryn x
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:, Marc Moris <macbrat88@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually, I beg to differ. This painting is early Renaissaince and probably not Italian. We all know from the hard evidence of his skeleton he had a perfectly good shaped thumb. The painting of the hands is rather crude. Incorrect anatomy (even on the other hand). If you look at all available paintings, you see that they are all very similar, making it very likely they were copied from an original no longer in existance.
> > >
> > > Of course, I could be wrong, only have basic knowledge of the history of European paintings.
> > >
> > > Marc
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, 29 January 2014, 18:36, "eva.pitter@" <eva.pitter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Hi Marie,
> > >
> > > Regarding the NPG portrait I must contradict you! Do you mean the cleaned version with the golden foliage in the background? There the thumb is clearly not hidden in the revere but completely in front of it. And it is very exactly painted crippled.. The first joint of the thumb is tapering and ends in tiny nail. Not even the painter of this picture could have painted it so out of incapability.
> > > As for Richard suffering from terrible bereavements at the alleged time of getting his portrait painted, I agree
> > > with you But I see sadness in the SoA painting too, as well as resoluteness. It is earnest and thoughtful
> > > and quite corresponding to a man in his circumstances.
> > > Besides I want to say, that the cloth of gold dress is also contemporary and the fact that it was chosen to match with Edwards does not mean that Richard did not have one like this. Cloth of gold was a high status
> > > garment fitting for a King. It was fitting to depict the two royal brothers so.
> > >
> > >
> > > Eva
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---In mailto:, <[email protected] mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Kathryn,
> > > I really can't see that Richard could possibly have been feeling at his best if painted around the time of Anne's death, given the amount of bereavement he had endured in a very few years and how little family he had left. Also that people were simultaneously whispering that he was a monster who had murdered his nephews and his wife. I think he would have come through it, but if you've not been through serious bereavement yourself you won't yet understand the depths of what it does. Having said all that, I don't think Richard can have been as lined as he is shown in the RC and NPG portraits, and I've already referred to the fact that these lines aren't present in the Antiquaries portrait, and that the wrinkles are why I believe the NPG one to be based on the RC one, but this deformed thumb in the NPG portrait that is often mentioned isn't really present. The artist was simply trying to show the thumb partly concealed behind the revere of Richard's
> > > furred gown but couldn't get the perspective right so the thumb actually appears closer to the viewer than the fur collar it is supposed to be tucked behind. It is the perspective that is deformed rather than the thumb!
> > >
> > > The pineapple-motif gown Richard is wearing in the Society of Antiquaries (not Antiquities) portrait is the same pattern as the gown Edward IV wears in the various copies of his portrait; this was done because it was painted as part of a set of two (EIV and RIII), with Edward facing one way and Richard facing the other - this is also why the image of Richard is reversed in the Antiquaries portrait.  We know that the Antiquaries portraits of Edward and Richard are not just similar but were painted as part of a single commission because they are actually cut from the same piece of wood. Edward's gown in the Antiquaries portrait is similar to the one he wears in all the other versions, so we can I think be fairly confident that it was what Edward was wearing when he sat for his portrait, and not what Richard was wearing.
> > >
> > > The outfit Richard has on in the RC portrait and others is actually a black velvet bonnet, a black velvet gown fully lined (not trimmed) with what I have read has been identified as spotted lynx fur (hence the thickness and stiffness), and underneath that a jacket (not shirt) of black-striped cloth of gold with gold sequinny things sewn along the stripes - I don't know if these would be the "nails" that are referred to in Richard III's wardrobe accounts. Underneath the jacket is a red doublet; the doublet was a strong close fitting garment constructed from two pieces of right-side cloth rather than a right side plus light lining (hence the name doublet); it had eyelet holes ('points') along the hem to which the hose would be tied to stop them falling down. Underneath that would be worn the shirt, which was always made of white linen (fully washable) and protected the other clothes from bodily secretions. This outfit is fully in line with the
> > > fashions of Richard's day and so I see no reason to question its authenticity.
> > > The Italian School portrait, if it's the one I think you mean, shows Richard in what is basically the same outfit, with slight alterations, such as the sleeves of the gown being slashed right up to the shoulder and the replacement of the lynx-fur lining with simple ermine trim round the edges of the hanging sleeves. Setting aside the differences of detail, therefore, this is surely the outfit in which Richard was painted.
> > > I don't believe that lots of copies would have been made of the royal portrait at this early date. Hanging portraits of kings in your new mansion was a fashion that began in the Tudor period. That's surely why none of the surviving portraits of the Plantagenet kings are earlier than 16th century.
> > > There's really no point in any of us trying to make other members of the forum like the version of Richard's portrait that we ourselves like. We can state our preferences but I think we must leave it at that. Personally I like the NPG portrait because it has so much personality - I find it haunting. It is easy enough, if you have Paintshop or similar, to download a copy and wipe out the offending wrinkles. I've done it myself, using the Antiquaries portrait as a guide to exactly what facial lines should be left.
> > > And I've also got to the age where even the NPG version of Richard looks young.
> > > Marie
> > >
> >
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
"A friend looking at the Italian portrait pointed out that the ring he's fiddling with is covering up the end of his little finger that was missing in life."
Carol responds:
Just curious where you got that idea, Weds. It sounds like something from a post of Claire's some time ago. A finger bone could easily go missing in an archaeological dig. Also, the Italian portrait is late. The artist would not know of a missing fingertip if one existed in life. Not even the Tudor propaganda mentions it. Nor do contemporary descriptions. The hands appear to be copied from the NPG portrait--or a tracery like those found under NPG and RC.
http://www.npg.org.uk/assets/migrated_assets/images/research/programmes/making-art-in-tudor-britain/case-studies/TracedOverlay_NPG148.jpg
Putting a large ring on the tip of a finger momentarily hides the fingernail.
Carol
Carol
Re: Richard's Portrait
"Actually, I beg to differ. This painting is early Renaissaince and probably not Italian. We all know from the hard evidence of his skeleton he had a perfectly good shaped thumb. The painting of the hands is rather crude. Incorrect anatomy (even on the other hand). If you look at all available paintings, you see that they are all very similar, making it very likely they were copied from an original no longer in existance."
Carol responds:
Marc, I don't know whether you were here for the earlier discussion of the paintings, but if not, you should find this article interesting.
http://www.npg.org.uk/research/programmes/making-art-in-tudor-britain/tudor-and-jacobean-painting-production-influences-and-patronage-december-2010/extended-abstracts-and-videos/evidence-from-portrait-sets-and-multiple-copies-richard-iii-in-focus.php
If the long URL doesn't link, let me know and I'll make another TinyURL. The article includes the tracery or overlay I linked to in an earlier post.
Carol
On Wednesday, 29 January 2014, 18:36, "eva.pitter@..." <eva.pitter@...> wrote:
Hi Marie,
Regarding the NPG portrait I must contradict you! Do you mean the cleaned version with the golden foliage in the background? There the thumb is clearly not hidden in the revere but completely in front of it. And it is very exactly painted crippled.. The first joint of the thumb is tapering and ends in tiny nail. Not even the painter of this picture could have painted it so out of incapability.
As for Richard suffering from terrible bereavements at the alleged time of getting his portrait painted, I agree
with you But I see sadness in the SoA painting too, as well as resoluteness. It is earnest and thoughtful
and quite corresponding to a man in his circumstances.
Besides I want to say, that the cloth of gold dress is also contemporary and the fact that it was chosen to match with Edwards does not mean that Richard did not have one like this. Cloth of gold was a high statusgarment fitting for a King. It was fitting to depict the two royal brothers so.
Eva
---In , <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Kathryn,I really can't see that Richard could possibly have been feeling at his best if painted around the time of Anne's death, given the amount of bereavement he had endured in a very few years and how little family he had left. Also that people were simultaneously whispering that he was a monster who had murdered his nephews and his wife. I think he would have come through it, but if you've not been through serious bereavement yourself you won't yet understand the depths of what it does. Having said all that, I don't think Richard can have been as lined as he is shown in the RC and NPG portraits, and I've already referred to the fact that these lines aren't present in the Antiquaries portrait, and that the wrinkles are why I believe the NPG one to be based on the RC one, but this deformed thumb in the NPG portrait that is often mentioned isn't really present. The artist was simply trying to show the thumb partly concealed behind the revere of Richard's furred gown but couldn't get the perspective right so the thumb actually appears closer to the viewer than the fur collar it is supposed to be tucked behind. It is the perspective that is deformed rather than the thumb!
The pineapple-motif gown Richard is wearing in the Society of Antiquaries (not Antiquities) portrait is the same pattern as the gown Edward IV wears in the various copies of his portrait; this was done because it was painted as part of a set of two (EIV and RIII), with Edward facing one way and Richard facing the other - this is also why the image of Richard is reversed in the Antiquaries portrait. We know that the Antiquaries portraits of Edward and Richard are not just similar but were painted as part of a single commission because they are actually cut from the same piece of wood. Edward's gown in the Antiquaries portrait is similar to the one he wears in all the other versions, so we can I think be fairly confident that it was what Edward was wearing when he sat for his portrait, and not what Richard was wearing.
The outfit Richard has on in the RC portrait and others is actually a black velvet bonnet, a black velvet gown fully lined (not trimmed) with what I have read has been identified as spotted lynx fur (hence the thickness and stiffness), and underneath that a jacket (not shirt) of black-striped cloth of gold with gold sequinny things sewn along the stripes - I don't know if these would be the "nails" that are referred to in Richard III's wardrobe accounts. Underneath the jacket is a red doublet; the doublet was a strong close fitting garment constructed from two pieces of right-side cloth rather than a right side plus light lining (hence the name doublet); it had eyelet holes ('points') along the hem to which the hose would be tied to stop them falling down. Underneath that would be worn the shirt, which was always made of white linen (fully washable) and protected the other clothes from bodily secretions. This outfit is fully in line with the fashions of Richard's day and so I see no reason to question its authenticity.The Italian School portrait, if it's the one I think you mean, shows Richard in what is basically the same outfit, with slight alterations, such as the sleeves of the gown being slashed right up to the shoulder and the replacement of the lynx-fur lining with simple ermine trim round the edges of the hanging sleeves. Setting aside the differences of detail, therefore, this is surely the outfit in which Richard was painted.I don't believe that lots of copies would have been made of the royal portrait at this early date. Hanging portraits of kings in your new mansion was a fashion that began in the Tudor period. That's surely why none of the surviving portraits of the Plantagenet kings are earlier than 16th century.There's really no point in any of us trying to make other members of the forum like the version of Richard's portrait that we ourselves like. We can state our preferences but I think we must leave it at that. Personally I like the NPG portrait because it has so much personality - I find it haunting. It is easy enough, if you have Paintshop or similar, to download a copy and wipe out the offending wrinkles. I've done it myself, using the Antiquaries portrait as a guide to exactly what facial lines should be left.And I've also got to the age where even the NPG version of Richard looks young.Marie
Re: Richard's Portrait
I have got a catalog of an exhibition of Memling's portraits, but I have as jet not found a reference to the actual colours he used. I had always thought that the flemish painters used a mixture of tempera and oil. One layer lean with egg-tempera, the next fat with oil.But maybe I am wrong. I, like you don't think the orginal portrait of Richard was painted by Memling. But I am sure that flemisch painting had an influence on painters in England.
The portrait of Margret of York dates from the time after 1520 as well, and seems to be a rather poor copy of a lost original.. But some art historians think that she was depicted by Memling as St. Barbara in the " Mystic Marriage of St. Catherine".
What you said about the portrait of Anne of Cleve strengthens my notion about the painting techniques ,I realized just now. I will delve deeper into this when I find the time to do so.
Eva
Re: Richard's Portrait
I think the "returning glance" Richard is quite funny.
I sent you some pictures per e-mail on Monday. Did it not work?
Eva
Re: Richard's Portrait
I'don't know the other portraits that you have mentioned to Marc .Do you have any links etc so I can find them please.Many thanks.
Kathryn x
--- In , <eva.pitter@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Kathryn,
>
> I think the "returning glance" Richard is quite funny.
> I sent you some pictures per e-mail on Monday. Did it not work?
>
> Eva
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
Kathryn x
--- In , "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Eva, I don't seem to have received your e-mail,sorry.I have also read your reply to Marc and don't think I have seen the previous one to which you are replying(does this make sense?)I have put some images relating to Richard on the Society Facebook page if you can gain access to it.
> I'don't know the other portraits that you have mentioned to Marc .Do you have any links etc so I can find them please.Many thanks.
>
> Kathryn x
>
> --- In , <eva.pitter@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Kathryn,
> >
> > I think the "returning glance" Richard is quite funny.
> > I sent you some pictures per e-mail on Monday. Did it not work?
> >
> > Eva
> >
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
A quick query to Philippa yielded the simple fact that a few finger bones are missing, but she had no cause to think this due to a deficit by the living person.
Judy Loyaulte me lie
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:56 PM, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Wednesday wrote:
"A friend looking at the Italian portrait pointed out that the ring he's fiddling with is covering up the end of his little finger that was missing in life."
Carol responds:
Just curious where you got that idea, Weds. It sounds like something from a post of Claire's some time ago. A finger bone could easily go missing in an archaeological dig. Also, the Italian portrait is late. The artist would not know of a missing fingertip if one existed in life. Not even the Tudor propaganda mentions it. Nor do contemporary descriptions. The hands appear to be copied from the NPG portrait--or a tracery like those found under NPG and RC.
http://www.npg.org.uk/assets/migrated_assets/images/research/programmes/making-art-in-tudor-britain/case-studies/TracedOverlay_NPG148.jpg
Putting a large ring on the tip of a finger momentarily hides the fingernail.
Carol
Carol
Re: Richard's Portrait
"A quick query to Philippa yielded the simple fact that a few finger bones are missing, but she had no cause to think this due to a deficit by the living person."
Carol responds:
Thanks, Judy. That fits with what I read online in a scholarly article about Richard's osteology:
"The skeleton found at Greyfriars is almost complete but is missing both feet and one lower leg bone (left fibula) which were removed long after the burial, probably due to Victorian disturbance. Otherwise, apart from a few small hand bones and a few teeth, the remains are complete." The implication is that the bones are merely missing, along with some teeth that fell out in the grave (and a few others that were missing in life--you can tell where the jawbone has healed and where it hasn't, as with the missing front tooth which certainly wasn't missing in life), not that he lost a fingertip during his lifetime.
http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/science/osteology.html
If the hands were at all unusual, the defect or abnormality would certainly have been mentioned in the article in connection with the "withered arm" myth. The only reference to the hands relates to the question (unanswerable, according to the article) of whether they were tied.
Carol
Re: Richard's Portrait
I still have to get used to the new Yahoo and windows 8. Haven't been very active on Yahoo in ages....
1) Carol wrote : Thanks, Judy. That fits with what I read online in a scholarly article about Richard's osteology:
"The skeleton found at Greyfriars is almost complete but is missing both feet and one lower leg bone (left fibula) which were removed long after the burial, probably due to Victorian disturbance. Otherwise, apart from a few small hand bones and a few teeth, the remains are complete." The implication is that the bones are merely missing, along with some teeth that fell out in the grave (and a few others that were missing in life--you can tell where the jawbone has healed and where it hasn't, as with the missing front tooth which certainly wasn't missing in life), not that he lost a fingertip during his lifetime. (in answer to Judy's : A quick query to Philippa yielded the simple fact that a few finger bones are missing, but she had no cause to think this due to a deficit by the living person.) Marc writes : It needs to be stressed that it's a few HAND bones missing, not finger bones. I've seen both hands in the documentaries and the fingers where complete, one hand might by slightly bigger than the other, that's completely normal. No withered hand. 2) Eva wrote : I have got a catalog of an exhibition of Memling's portraits, but I have as yet not found a reference to the actual colours he used. I had always thought that the flemish painters used a mixture of tempera and oil. One layer lean with egg-tempera, the next fat with oil.But maybe I am wrong. I, like you don't think the orginal portrait of Richard was painted by Memling. But I am sure that flemish painting had an influence on painters in England.
The portrait of Margret of York dates from the time after 1520 as well, and seems to be a rather poor copy of a lost original.. But some art historians think that she was depicted by Memling as St. Barbara in the " Mystic Marriage of St. Catherine".
What you said about the portrait of Anne of Cleve strengthens my notion about the painting techniques ,I realized just now. I will delve deeper into this when I find the time to do so. Marc answers : First, I know I'm nitpicking, Hans Memling was German, not Flemish though he worked most of his career in Bruges which is Flanders (and where the court of the house of Burgundy was at that time). Yesterday I received my copy of the book Margaret of York by Christtine Weightman (haven't had time to read it yet) and it does contain most of the relevant works, unfortunately all in black and white so of little use. The portrait of Margaret of York I was referring to is this one : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Margaret_of_York.jpg It's in the Louvre and dated around 1468 (the year she married Charles the Bold). Could be one of those portraits they painted in order to persue engagement. I'm pretty sure that's 15th century (don't think the Louvre would do with a bad copy). To me it looks tempera (not that I should know). It is certainly not in the style of the Flemish Primitives . Margaret is probably featured in the part in Bruges (outer) and the part in New York (inner) Tryptic of the Mystic Marriage of Ste Catherine (of Alexandria) (how do I know it's Catherine of Alexandria? The Catherine's wheel at her feet of course) Part in St John's Hospital, Bruges, Belgium : Center piece : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hans_Memling_065.jpg (Margaret is supposed to be model for Ste Barbara, the one holding the book) Part in Metropolitaan, New York, USA : Center piece : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Memling_Mystic_Marriage_of_St_Catherine.jpg It's not likely though. 3) Carol wrote : Marc, I don't know whether you were here for the earlier discussion of the paintings, but if not, you should find this article interesting.
http://www.npg.org.uk/research/programmes/making-art-in-tudor-britain/tudor-and-jacobean-painting-production-influences-and-patronage-december-2010/extended-abstracts-and-videos/evidence-from-portrait-sets-and-multiple-copies-richard-iii-in-focus.php
Marc answers : I'm a newbie, so no, I haven't read that yet. I have now and it does completely agree with my views, like, portraits became important in England with the Tudors, primarily with Henry VIII the oil painting of Henry VII, the oldest painting in the NPG collection I believe is also very likely a copy of an earlier work. Personally, I think the copy in NPG is awful. It looks like a mirror image of the earliest surviving portrait : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Richard_III_earliest_surviving_portrait.jpg which I think is much better 4) Kathryn wrote : Maybe the idea Edward IV was golden haired was started by the Tudors in order to discredit Edward by inferring he was not RDoY's son but that of an archer in Roeun.Or Henry VIII was golden haired and looked like his grandfather EIV. So EIV would be assumed to be golden haired by those who had never met him. Marc thinks : There seems little mystery to this to me. I suspect Edward IV (bad latin, should be Edward IIII) had what is known to be English Hair : thin blonde hair that with ageing grows thicker and darker. Of course I cannot resist to refer to Margaret of York again : She was said to be blonde as well. (though I haven't found any portrait showing her hair if we except that the Memling painting does not picture her). 5) Marc's general thoughts after browsing through his newly acquired Margaret of York book. It seems to me it's easier to find pictures of the York dynasty in illuminations than portraits (though they are not surprisingly just as unclear). Apparently Margaret of York got on better with Richard III than Edward IIII
On Thursday, 6 February 2014, 1:44, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Judy wrote:
"A quick query to Philippa yielded the simple fact that a few finger bones are missing, but she had no cause to think this due to a deficit by the living person."
Carol responds:
Thanks, Judy. That fits with what I read online in a scholarly article about Richard's osteology:
"The skeleton found at Greyfriars is almost complete but is missing both feet and one lower leg bone (left fibula) which were removed long after the burial, probably due to Victorian disturbance. Otherwise, apart from a few small hand bones and a few teeth, the remains are complete." The implication is that the bones are merely missing, along with some teeth that fell out in the grave (and a few others that were missing in life--you can tell where the jawbone has healed and where it hasn't, as with the missing front tooth which certainly wasn't missing in life), not that he lost a fingertip during his lifetime.
http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/science/osteology.html
If the hands were at all unusual, the defect or abnormality would certainly have been mentioned in the article in connection with the "withered arm" myth. The only reference to the hands relates to the question (unanswerable, according to the article) of whether they were tied.
Carol
Re: Richard's Portrait
Just a quick reply to thank everyone for their information.
I haven't studied Richard's skeleton for my own reasons.I am glad that Richard's fingers and possibly hands remain intact.x
I think I have seen the portrait of Margaret of York /Duchess of Burgundy and will try to see the others that you have all mentioned.I have very little knowledge about the painting techniques that were employed and European Art in the Middle Ages.So I will just follow everyones links and learn.x
If Edward and some of his siblings did have blonde hair they possibly inherited it from their mother's side of the family.I'm sure I have read somewhere,a long time ago, that her brothers were tall and fair. Margaret was 6 foot tall but I always thought she had dark hair.Maybe Richard started out with dark hair and it lightened slightly as he grew older because in the SoA portrait his hair was more brown than black.The picture will have faded so I will have to look at the modern brightened version again.
Marc thank you for telling me about 1V and 1111 latin for Edward.I didn't know that.I have used it 1V because it appears to be the norm on here to show that the reference is to Edward 1V.It may be because it is easy to confuse Edward 111 and Edward 1111 when written like that, I don't know.x
Kathryn x
--- In , Marc Moris <macbrat88@...> wrote:
>
> Hello all, Carol, Eva, Kathryn,
>
> I still have to get used to the new Yahoo and windows 8. Haven't been very active on Yahoo in ages....
>
>
> 1)
> Carol wrote
> :
> Thanks, Judy. That
> fits with what I read online in a scholarly article about Richard's osteology:
> "The skeleton
> found at Greyfriars is almost complete but is missing both feet and one lower
> leg bone (left fibula) which were removed long after the burial, probably due
> to Victorian disturbance. Otherwise, apart from a few small hand bones and a
> few teeth, the remains are complete." The implication is that the bones
> are merely missing, along with some teeth that fell out in the grave (and a few
> others that were missing in life--you can tell where the jawbone has healed and
> where it hasn't, as with the missing front tooth which certainly wasn't missing
> in life), not that he lost a fingertip during his lifetime.
> (in answer to Judy’s : A quick query to Philippa yielded the simple
> fact that a few finger bones are missing, but she had no cause to think this
> due to a deficit by the living person.)
> Marc writes :
> Â
> It needs to be stressed that it’s a few HAND bones
> missing, not finger bones. I’ve seen both hands in the documentaries and the
> fingers where complete, one hand might by slightly bigger than the other, that’s
> completely normal. No withered hand.
> Â
> Â
> 2)
> Eva wrote :
> Â
> I have got
> a catalog of an exhibition of Memling's portraits, but I have as yet not found
> a reference to the actual colours he used. I had always thought that the
> flemish painters used a mixture of tempera and oil. One layer lean with
> egg-tempera, the next fat with oil.But maybe I am wrong. I, like you don't
> think the orginal portrait of Richard was painted by Memling. But I am sure
> that flemish painting had an influence on painters in England.
> The portrait of Margret of York dates from the time after 1520 as well, and
> seems to be a rather poor copy of a lost original.. But some art historians
> think that she was depicted by Memling as St. Barbara in the " Mystic
> Marriage of St. Catherine".
> What you said about the portrait of Anne of Cleve strengthens my notion about
> the painting techniques ,I realized just now. I will delve deeper into this
> when I find the time to do so.
> Â
> Marc answers :
> First, I know I’m
> nitpicking, Hans Memling was German, not Flemish â€" though he worked most of his
> career in Bruges which is Flanders (and where the court of the house of
> Burgundy was at that time).
> Â
> Yesterday I received
> my copy of the book “Margaret of York†by Christtine Weightman (haven’t had
> time to read it yet) and it does contain most of the relevant works,
> unfortunately all in black and white so of little use.
> The portrait of Margaret of York I was referring to is this
> one : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Margaret_of_York.jpg
> It’s in the Louvre
> and dated around 1468 (the year she married Charles the Bold). Could be one of
> those portraits they painted in order to persue engagement. I’m pretty sure that’s 15th century (don’t
> think the Louvre would do with a bad copy). To me it looks tempera (not that I
> should know). It is certainly not in the style of the “Flemish Primitivesâ€.
> Â
> Margaret is probably featured
> in the part in Bruges (outer) and the part in New York (inner) Tryptic of the Mystic
> Marriage of Ste Catherine (of Alexandria) (how do I know it’s Catherine of
> Alexandria? The Catherine’s wheel at her feet of course)
> Â
> Part in St John’s
> Hospital, Bruges, Belgium :
> Center piece : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hans_Memling_065.jpg (Margaret is supposed to be model for Ste Barbara, the one holding the book)
> Part in
> Metropolitaan, New York, USA :
> Center piece : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Memling_Mystic_Marriage_of_St_Catherine.jpg
> Â
> It’s not likely
> though.
> Â
> 3)
> Carol wrote :
> Â
> Marc, I
> don't know whether you were here for the earlier discussion of the paintings,
> but if not, you should find this article interesting.
>
> http://www.npg.org.uk/research/programmes/making-art-in-tudor-britain/tudor-and-jacobean-painting-production-influences-and-patronage-december-2010/extended-abstracts-and-videos/evidence-from-portrait-sets-and-multiple-copies-richard-iii-in-focus.php
>
> Marc answers :
> Â
> I’m a
> newbie, so no, I haven’t read that yet.
> I have now
> and it does completely agree with my views, like, portraits became important in
> England with the Tudors, primarily with Henry VIII â€" the oil painting of Henry
> VII, the oldest painting in the NPG collection I believe is also very likely a
> copy of an earlier work.
> Personally, I think the copy in NPG is awful.
> It looks
> like a mirror image of the earliest surviving portrait : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Richard_III_earliest_surviving_portrait.jpg which I think is much better
> Â
> Â
> 4)
> Â
> Kathryn
> wrote :
> Â
> Maybe the
> idea Edward IV was golden haired was started by the Tudors in order to
> discredit Edward by inferring he was not RDoY's son but that of an archer in
> Roeun.Or Henry VIII was golden haired and looked like his grandfather EIV. So EIV
> would be assumed to be golden haired by those who had never met him.
> Â
> Marc thinks :
> Â
> There seems little
> mystery to this to me. I suspect Edward IV (bad latin, should be Edward IIII)
> had what is known to be “English Hair†: thin blonde hair that with ageing
> grows thicker and darker. Of course I cannot resist to refer to Margaret of
> York again : She was said to be blonde as well. (though I haven’t found any
> portrait showing her hair â€" if we except that the Memling painting does not
> picture her).
> Â
> 5)
> Â
> Marc’s general
> thoughts after browsing through his newly acquired Margaret of York book.
> It seems to me it’s
> easier to find pictures of the York dynasty in illuminations than portraits
> (though they are not surprisingly just as unclear).
> Apparently Margaret
> of York got on better with Richard III than Edward IIII
> Â
> Â
> Â
> Â
> Â
> Â
> Â
> Â
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 6 February 2014, 1:44, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Â
> Judy wrote:
>
>
>
> "A quick query to Philippa yielded the simple fact that a few finger bones are missing, but she had no cause to think this due to a deficit by the living person."
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, Judy. That fits with what I read online in a scholarly article about Richard's osteology:
> "The skeleton found at Greyfriars is almost complete but is missing both
> feet and one lower leg bone (left fibula) which were removed long after
> the burial, probably due to Victorian disturbance. Otherwise, apart from a few small hand bones and a few teeth, the remains are complete." The implication is that the bones are merely missing, along with some teeth that fell out in the grave (and a few others that were missing in life--you can tell where the jawbone has healed and where it hasn't, as with the missing front tooth which certainly wasn't missing in life), not that he lost a fingertip during his lifetime.
> http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/science/osteology.html
> If the hands were at all unusual, the defect or abnormality would certainly have been mentioned in the article in connection with the "withered arm" myth. The only reference to the hands relates to the question (unanswerable, according to the article) of whether they were tied.
> Carol
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
Sent from my iPad
On 6 Feb 2014, at 23:53, "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...> wrote:
Hi everyone,
Just a quick reply to thank everyone for their information.
I haven't studied Richard's skeleton for my own reasons.I am glad that Richard's fingers and possibly hands remain intact.x
I think I have seen the portrait of Margaret of York /Duchess of Burgundy and will try to see the others that you have all mentioned.I have very little knowledge about the painting techniques that were employed and European Art in the Middle Ages.So I will just follow everyones links and learn.x
If Edward and some of his siblings did have blonde hair they possibly inherited it from their mother's side of the family.I'm sure I have read somewhere,a long time ago, that her brothers were tall and fair. Margaret was 6 foot tall but I always thought she had dark hair.Maybe Richard started out with dark hair and it lightened slightly as he grew older because in the SoA portrait his hair was more brown than black.The picture will have faded so I will have to look at the modern brightened version again.
Marc thank you for telling me about 1V and 1111 latin for Edward.I didn't know that.I have used it 1V because it appears to be the norm on here to show that the reference is to Edward 1V.It may be because it is easy to confuse Edward 111 and Edward 1111 when written like that, I don't know.x
Kathryn x
--- In , Marc Moris <macbrat88@...> wrote:
>
> Hello all, Carol, Eva, Kathryn,
>
> I still have to get used to the new Yahoo and windows 8. Haven't been very active on Yahoo in ages....
>
>
> 1)
> Carol wrote
> :
> Thanks, Judy. That
> fits with what I read online in a scholarly article about Richard's osteology:
> "The skeleton
> found at Greyfriars is almost complete but is missing both feet and one lower
> leg bone (left fibula) which were removed long after the burial, probably due
> to Victorian disturbance. Otherwise, apart from a few small hand bones and a
> few teeth, the remains are complete." The implication is that the bones
> are merely missing, along with some teeth that fell out in the grave (and a few
> others that were missing in life--you can tell where the jawbone has healed and
> where it hasn't, as with the missing front tooth which certainly wasn't missing
> in life), not that he lost a fingertip during his lifetime.
> (in answer to Judyâ¬"s : A quick query to Philippa yielded the simple
> fact that a few finger bones are missing, but she had no cause to think this
> due to a deficit by the living person.)
> Marc writes :
> Â
> It needs to be stressed that itâ¬"s a few HAND bones
> missing, not finger bones. Iâ¬"ve seen both hands in the documentaries and the
> fingers where complete, one hand might by slightly bigger than the other, thatâ¬"s
> completely normal. No withered hand.
> Â
> Â
> 2)
> Eva wrote :
> Â
> I have got
> a catalog of an exhibition of Memling's portraits, but I have as yet not found
> a reference to the actual colours he used. I had always thought that the
> flemish painters used a mixture of tempera and oil. One layer lean with
> egg-tempera, the next fat with oil.But maybe I am wrong. I, like you don't
> think the orginal portrait of Richard was painted by Memling. But I am sure
> that flemish painting had an influence on painters in England.
> The portrait of Margret of York dates from the time after 1520 as well, and
> seems to be a rather poor copy of a lost original.. But some art historians
> think that she was depicted by Memling as St. Barbara in the " Mystic
> Marriage of St. Catherine".
> What you said about the portrait of Anne of Cleve strengthens my notion about
> the painting techniques ,I realized just now. I will delve deeper into this
> when I find the time to do so.
> Â
> Marc answers :
> First, I know Iâ¬"m
> nitpicking, Hans Memling was German, not Flemish â¬" though he worked most of his
> career in Bruges which is Flanders (and where the court of the house of
> Burgundy was at that time).
> Â
> Yesterday I received
> my copy of the book â¬SMargaret of York⬠by Christtine Weightman (havenâ¬"t had
> time to read it yet) and it does contain most of the relevant works,
> unfortunately all in black and white so of little use.
> The portrait of Margaret of York I was referring to is this
> one : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Margaret_of_York.jpg
> Itâ¬"s in the Louvre
> and dated around 1468 (the year she married Charles the Bold). Could be one of
> those portraits they painted in order to persue engagement. Iâ¬"m pretty sure thatâ¬"s 15th century (donâ¬"t
> think the Louvre would do with a bad copy). To me it looks tempera (not that I
> should know). It is certainly not in the style of the â¬SFlemish Primitivesâ¬.
> Â
> Margaret is probably featured
> in the part in Bruges (outer) and the part in New York (inner) Tryptic of the Mystic
> Marriage of Ste Catherine (of Alexandria) (how do I know itâ¬"s Catherine of
> Alexandria? The Catherineâ¬"s wheel at her feet of course)
> Â
> Part in St Johnâ¬"s
> Hospital, Bruges, Belgium :
> Center piece : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hans_Memling_065.jpg (Margaret is supposed to be model for Ste Barbara, the one holding the book)
> Part in
> Metropolitaan, New York, USA :
> Center piece : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Memling_Mystic_Marriage_of_St_Catherine.jpg
> Â
> Itâ¬"s not likely
> though.
> Â
> 3)
> Carol wrote :
> Â
> Marc, I
> don't know whether you were here for the earlier discussion of the paintings,
> but if not, you should find this article interesting.
>
> http://www.npg.org.uk/research/programmes/making-art-in-tudor-britain/tudor-and-jacobean-painting-production-influences-and-patronage-december-2010/extended-abstracts-and-videos/evidence-from-portrait-sets-and-multiple-copies-richard-iii-in-focus.php
>
> Marc answers :
> Â
> Iâ¬"m a
> newbie, so no, I havenâ¬"t read that yet.
> I have now
> and it does completely agree with my views, like, portraits became important in
> England with the Tudors, primarily with Henry VIII â¬" the oil painting of Henry
> VII, the oldest painting in the NPG collection I believe is also very likely a
> copy of an earlier work.
> Personally, I think the copy in NPG is awful.
> It looks
> like a mirror image of the earliest surviving portrait : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Richard_III_earliest_surviving_portrait.jpg which I think is much better
> Â
> Â
> 4)
> Â
> Kathryn
> wrote :
> Â
> Maybe the
> idea Edward IV was golden haired was started by the Tudors in order to
> discredit Edward by inferring he was not RDoY's son but that of an archer in
> Roeun.Or Henry VIII was golden haired and looked like his grandfather EIV. So EIV
> would be assumed to be golden haired by those who had never met him.
> Â
> Marc thinks :
> Â
> There seems little
> mystery to this to me. I suspect Edward IV (bad latin, should be Edward IIII)
> had what is known to be â¬SEnglish Hair⬠: thin blonde hair that with ageing
> grows thicker and darker. Of course I cannot resist to refer to Margaret of
> York again : She was said to be blonde as well. (though I havenâ¬"t found any
> portrait showing her hair â¬" if we except that the Memling painting does not
> picture her).
> Â
> 5)
> Â
> Marcâ¬"s general
> thoughts after browsing through his newly acquired Margaret of York book.
> It seems to me itâ¬"s
> easier to find pictures of the York dynasty in illuminations than portraits
> (though they are not surprisingly just as unclear).
> Apparently Margaret
> of York got on better with Richard III than Edward IIII
> Â
> Â
> Â
> Â
> Â
> Â
> Â
> Â
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 6 February 2014, 1:44, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Â
> Judy wrote:
>
>
>
> "A quick query to Philippa yielded the simple fact that a few finger bones are missing, but she had no cause to think this due to a deficit by the living person."
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, Judy. That fits with what I read online in a scholarly article about Richard's osteology:
> "The skeleton found at Greyfriars is almost complete but is missing both
> feet and one lower leg bone (left fibula) which were removed long after
> the burial, probably due to Victorian disturbance. Otherwise, apart from a few small hand bones and a few teeth, the remains are complete." The implication is that the bones are merely missing, along with some teeth that fell out in the grave (and a few others that were missing in life--you can tell where the jawbone has healed and where it hasn't, as with the missing front tooth which certainly wasn't missing in life), not that he lost a fingertip during his lifetime.
> http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/science/osteology.html
> If the hands were at all unusual, the defect or abnormality would certainly have been mentioned in the article in connection with the "withered arm" myth. The only reference to the hands relates to the question (unanswerable, according to the article) of whether they were tied.
> Carol
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
Thank you for this information and making the links clickable.The pictures are wonderful.Carol,I was delighted to see the e-rayed version of the NPG portrait of Richard.This portrait and The National Trust Portrait helps to understand The White Queen's choice of casting Aneurin Barnard as Richard.
Kathryn x
--- In , Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
>
> Jan here.
> Try E4 & R3, or Eiiij or Riij. In mss you can see a j as the final numeral.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On 6 Feb 2014, at 23:53, "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> > Just a quick reply to thank everyone for their information.
> >
> > I haven't studied Richard's skeleton for my own reasons.I am glad that Richard's fingers and possibly hands remain intact.x
> >
> > I think I have seen the portrait of Margaret of York /Duchess of Burgundy and will try to see the others that you have all mentioned.I have very little knowledge about the painting techniques that were employed and European Art in the Middle Ages.So I will just follow everyones links and learn.x
> >
> > If Edward and some of his siblings did have blonde hair they possibly inherited it from their mother's side of the family.I'm sure I have read somewhere,a long time ago, that her brothers were tall and fair. Margaret was 6 foot tall but I always thought she had dark hair.Maybe Richard started out with dark hair and it lightened slightly as he grew older because in the SoA portrait his hair was more brown than black.The picture will have faded so I will have to look at the modern brightened version again.
> >
> > Marc thank you for telling me about 1V and 1111 latin for Edward.I didn't know that.I have used it 1V because it appears to be the norm on here to show that the reference is to Edward 1V.It may be because it is easy to confuse Edward 111 and Edward 1111 when written like that, I don't know.x
> >
> > Kathryn x
> >
> > --- In , Marc Moris <macbrat88@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello all, Carol, Eva, Kathryn,
> > >
> > > I still have to get used to the new Yahoo and windows 8. Haven't been very active on Yahoo in ages....
> > >
> > >
> > > 1)
> > > Carol wrote
> > > :
> > > Thanks, Judy. That
> > > fits with what I read online in a scholarly article about Richard's osteology:
> > > "The skeleton
> > > found at Greyfriars is almost complete but is missing both feet and one lower
> > > leg bone (left fibula) which were removed long after the burial, probably due
> > > to Victorian disturbance. Otherwise, apart from a few small hand bones and a
> > > few teeth, the remains are complete." The implication is that the bones
> > > are merely missing, along with some teeth that fell out in the grave (and a few
> > > others that were missing in life--you can tell where the jawbone has healed and
> > > where it hasn't, as with the missing front tooth which certainly wasn't missing
> > > in life), not that he lost a fingertip during his lifetime.
> > > (in answer to Judy’s : A quick query to Philippa yielded the simple
> > > fact that a few finger bones are missing, but she had no cause to think this
> > > due to a deficit by the living person.)
> > > Marc writes :
> > > Â
> > > It needs to be stressed that it’s a few HAND bones
> > > missing, not finger bones. I’ve seen both hands in the documentaries and the
> > > fingers where complete, one hand might by slightly bigger than the other, that’s
> > > completely normal. No withered hand.
> > > Â
> > > Â
> > > 2)
> > > Eva wrote :
> > > Â
> > > I have got
> > > a catalog of an exhibition of Memling's portraits, but I have as yet not found
> > > a reference to the actual colours he used. I had always thought that the
> > > flemish painters used a mixture of tempera and oil. One layer lean with
> > > egg-tempera, the next fat with oil.But maybe I am wrong. I, like you don't
> > > think the orginal portrait of Richard was painted by Memling. But I am sure
> > > that flemish painting had an influence on painters in England.
> > > The portrait of Margret of York dates from the time after 1520 as well, and
> > > seems to be a rather poor copy of a lost original.. But some art historians
> > > think that she was depicted by Memling as St. Barbara in the " Mystic
> > > Marriage of St. Catherine".
> > > What you said about the portrait of Anne of Cleve strengthens my notion about
> > > the painting techniques ,I realized just now. I will delve deeper into this
> > > when I find the time to do so.
> > > Â
> > > Marc answers :
> > > First, I know I’m
> > > nitpicking, Hans Memling was German, not Flemish â€" though he worked most of his
> > > career in Bruges which is Flanders (and where the court of the house of
> > > Burgundy was at that time).
> > > Â
> > > Yesterday I received
> > > my copy of the book â€Å"Margaret of York†by Christtine Weightman (haven’t had
> > > time to read it yet) and it does contain most of the relevant works,
> > > unfortunately all in black and white so of little use.
> > > The portrait of Margaret of York I was referring to is this
> > > one : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Margaret_of_York.jpg
> > > It’s in the Louvre
> > > and dated around 1468 (the year she married Charles the Bold). Could be one of
> > > those portraits they painted in order to persue engagement. I’m pretty sure that’s 15th century (don’t
> > > think the Louvre would do with a bad copy). To me it looks tempera (not that I
> > > should know). It is certainly not in the style of the â€Å"Flemish Primitivesâ€Â.
> > > Â
> > > Margaret is probably featured
> > > in the part in Bruges (outer) and the part in New York (inner) Tryptic of the Mystic
> > > Marriage of Ste Catherine (of Alexandria) (how do I know it’s Catherine of
> > > Alexandria? The Catherine’s wheel at her feet of course)
> > > Â
> > > Part in St John’s
> > > Hospital, Bruges, Belgium :
> > > Center piece : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hans_Memling_065.jpg (Margaret is supposed to be model for Ste Barbara, the one holding the book)
> > > Part in
> > > Metropolitaan, New York, USA :
> > > Center piece : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Memling_Mystic_Marriage_of_St_Catherine.jpg
> > > Â
> > > It’s not likely
> > > though.
> > > Â
> > > 3)
> > > Carol wrote :
> > > Â
> > > Marc, I
> > > don't know whether you were here for the earlier discussion of the paintings,
> > > but if not, you should find this article interesting.
> > >
> > > http://www.npg.org.uk/research/programmes/making-art-in-tudor-britain/tudor-and-jacobean-painting-production-influences-and-patronage-december-2010/extended-abstracts-and-videos/evidence-from-portrait-sets-and-multiple-copies-richard-iii-in-focus.php
> > >
> > > Marc answers :
> > > Â
> > > I’m a
> > > newbie, so no, I haven’t read that yet.
> > > I have now
> > > and it does completely agree with my views, like, portraits became important in
> > > England with the Tudors, primarily with Henry VIII â€" the oil painting of Henry
> > > VII, the oldest painting in the NPG collection I believe is also very likely a
> > > copy of an earlier work.
> > > Personally, I think the copy in NPG is awful.
> > > It looks
> > > like a mirror image of the earliest surviving portrait : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Richard_III_earliest_surviving_portrait.jpg which I think is much better
> > > Â
> > > Â
> > > 4)
> > > Â
> > > Kathryn
> > > wrote :
> > > Â
> > > Maybe the
> > > idea Edward IV was golden haired was started by the Tudors in order to
> > > discredit Edward by inferring he was not RDoY's son but that of an archer in
> > > Roeun.Or Henry VIII was golden haired and looked like his grandfather EIV. So EIV
> > > would be assumed to be golden haired by those who had never met him.
> > > Â
> > > Marc thinks :
> > > Â
> > > There seems little
> > > mystery to this to me. I suspect Edward IV (bad latin, should be Edward IIII)
> > > had what is known to be â€Å"English Hair†: thin blonde hair that with ageing
> > > grows thicker and darker. Of course I cannot resist to refer to Margaret of
> > > York again : She was said to be blonde as well. (though I haven’t found any
> > > portrait showing her hair â€" if we except that the Memling painting does not
> > > picture her).
> > > Â
> > > 5)
> > > Â
> > > Marc’s general
> > > thoughts after browsing through his newly acquired Margaret of York book.
> > > It seems to me it’s
> > > easier to find pictures of the York dynasty in illuminations than portraits
> > > (though they are not surprisingly just as unclear).
> > > Apparently Margaret
> > > of York got on better with Richard III than Edward IIII
> > > Â
> > > Â
> > > Â
> > > Â
> > > Â
> > > Â
> > > Â
> > > Â
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thursday, 6 February 2014, 1:44, "justcarol67@" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Judy wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "A quick query to Philippa yielded the simple fact that a few finger bones are missing, but she had no cause to think this due to a deficit by the living person."
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Thanks, Judy. That fits with what I read online in a scholarly article about Richard's osteology:
> > > "The skeleton found at Greyfriars is almost complete but is missing both
> > > feet and one lower leg bone (left fibula) which were removed long after
> > > the burial, probably due to Victorian disturbance. Otherwise, apart from a few small hand bones and a few teeth, the remains are complete." The implication is that the bones are merely missing, along with some teeth that fell out in the grave (and a few others that were missing in life--you can tell where the jawbone has healed and where it hasn't, as with the missing front tooth which certainly wasn't missing in life), not that he lost a fingertip during his lifetime.
> > > http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/science/osteology.html
> > > If the hands were at all unusual, the defect or abnormality would certainly have been mentioned in the article in connection with the "withered arm" myth. The only reference to the hands relates to the question (unanswerable, according to the article) of whether they were tied.
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
Carol
Re: Richard's Portrait
"Thank you for this information and making the links clickable.The pictures are wonderful.Carol,I was delighted to see the e-rayed version of the NPG portrait of Richard.This portrait and The National Trust Portrait helps to understand The White Queen's choice of casting Aneurin Barnard as Richard."
Carol responds:
You're welcome. By the way, the posts seem to be appearing out of order, and I can't find some of mine. I provided a detailed list with the dates for the portraits of Richard III, ranging from 1515 to late sixteenth century. (As Marc and others have pointed out, none was contemporary.) Did that post come through?
Side note: You mentioned 1V and 111 as the norm here for Edward IV and Richard III. Actually, we use capital I's, not the numeral 1 (which, of course, is an Arabic, not a Roman, numeral).
Carol
Re: Richard's Portrait
Sandra answers: It's peculiar, but at school (1950s grammar schools) I was taught that IIII was no longer considered correct, and it had to be written IV. I'm not saying IIII is actually incorrect, just that the emphasis in my education was always on the IV method of Roman numerals. Regardless of what appeared on old portraits, Ancient Rome or anywhere else. The British education system had its own rules!
Re: Richard's Portrait
Yes some of the posts do seem to be appearing out of order. Unfortunately,I haven't seen your post with the dates of when the replica portraits were painted.Sorry about the mistake with the numerals,thanks for telling me.
Kathryn x
Some of your posts I've not been able to reply to because the page goes missing when you click on reply.
--- In , <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Kathryn wrote:
>
> "Thank you for this information and making the links clickable.The pictures are wonderful.Carol,I was delighted to see the e-rayed version of the NPG portrait of Richard.This portrait and The National Trust Portrait helps to understand The White Queen's choice of casting Aneurin Barnard as Richard."
>
> Carol responds:
>
> You're welcome. By the way, the posts seem to be appearing out of order, and I can't find some of mine. I provided a detailed list with the dates for the portraits of Richard III, ranging from 1515 to late sixteenth century. (As Marc and others have pointed out, none was contemporary.) Did that post come through?
>
> Side note: You mentioned 1V and 111 as the norm here for Edward IV and Richard III. Actually, we use capital I's, not the numeral 1 (which, of course, is an Arabic, not a Roman, numeral).
>
> Carol
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
Hi Marc,
Sorry, that I could not answer earlier!
I know that Memling was German, but as he lived and worked in Bruges most of his life, he is part of the Flemish tradition. I personally don't like the term "Flemish Primitivies" for I don't see them as primitive at all.
And I think the term is not used any longer.
I have consulted two books on painting techniques and they both maintain that the Van Eyck brothers used a tempera primer and then oil layers. But in a booklet about "The Mystic Lamb", which I purchased in the Seventies, I read:" A close chemical analysis, which is more reliable than the connoisseur's glance,could not disclose a single trace of emulsion. It has been proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that Van Eyck used drying oil as a medium". And that was painted around 1430! The author also says that " already in the 10th century the use of oil for the painting of wooden pictures and sculptures was rather normal".
When looking at Margaret's picture from the Louvre, I can see no signs that is was pure tempera ,for in Tempera you could not achieve those subtle changes of colour without leaving paintbrush-marks. I don't know how to explain it in English, for I found no word for what I would call "Farbübergänge". You can do those either with your fingers or with a piece of cloth when you use oil-colours.
So what I want to make clear is that oil as a medium for paint was not unknown in the 15th century and
probably used together with tempera in a mixed technique or without tempera.
I hope I did not bore you with my explanations!
Eva
Re: Richard's Portrait
I think that Marc has already sent the links to the portraits concerned.
I have made another try with sending you the pictures I wanted to send.Seems I missed one letter in your e-mail address. I hoped it works now. I am not used to yahoo-mail so I hope I did it right this time. If not I'll try again.
Eva
Re: Richard's Portrait
Your e-mail has arrived but there doesn't seem to be any pictures.I will see if my son can find them.If not don't worry I will see if Marc has the links on his post.Thank you.
Kathryn x
--- In , <eva.pitter@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Kathryn,
>
> I think that Marc has already sent the links to the portraits concerned.
> I have made another try with sending you the pictures I wanted to send.Seems I missed one letter in your e-mail address. I hoped it works now. I am not used to yahoo-mail so I hope I did it right this time. If not I'll try again.
>
> Eva
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
If Edward and some of his siblings did have blonde hair they possibly inherited it from their mother's side of the family. I'm sure I have read somewhere, a long time ago, that her brothers were tall and fair. Margaret was 6 foot tall but I always thought she had dark hair. Maybe Richard started out with dark hair and it lightened slightly as he grew older because in the SoA portrait his hair was more brown than black. The picture will have faded so I will have to look at the modern brightened version again. Marc wonders : One thing that was bugging me about the Memling's painting : http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/hans-memling/mystic-marriage-of-st-catherine-1480 And : http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/hans-memling#supersized-the-donne-triptych-210802 is that my first thought was that the woman with red sleeves and white shirt was Margaret of York and the young lady in green was Mary of Burgundy. Though in the descriptions they tell it otherwise. I thought the one on the left looked more mature (and taller). I must admit that to me the faces look very similar (but I guess they did look alike, based on their individual portraits - though that might be due to having the same make-up artist ;-) ) Margaret : http://eu.art.com/products/p22112352441-sa-i7624164/posters.htm?ui=AD90ED2EF1824F2DA60B393A3F1600F2 Mary : http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/mary-14571482-duchess-of-burgundy-and-archduchess-of-aust220947 And then on Friday I watched a documentary on the War of Roses (which did confirm that at least Edward IV was very tall) and I saw this painting : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Edward_IV_Plantagenet.jpg And I thought to myself, hang on, doesn't that cloak look a very similar to the skirt of Ste Catherine of Alexandria. Making me more convinced it's Margareth. (and in that case, her hair seems to be a reddish brown, not a fiery as Elizabeth Regina Cheers, Marc PS. I cannot seem to find the links with the dated portraits either :( would love to see that ;-)
On Saturday, 8 February 2014, 20:58, "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...> wrote:
Hi Carol,
Yes some of the posts do seem to be appearing out of order. Unfortunately,I haven't seen your post with the dates of when the replica portraits were painted.Sorry about the mistake with the numerals,thanks for telling me.
Kathryn x
Some of your posts I've not been able to reply to because the page goes missing when you click on reply.
--- In , <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Kathryn wrote:
>
> "Thank you for this information and making the links clickable.The pictures are wonderful.Carol,I was delighted to see the e-rayed version of the NPG portrait of Richard.This portrait and The National Trust Portrait helps to understand The White Queen's choice of casting Aneurin Barnard as Richard."
>
> Carol responds:
>
> You're welcome. By the way, the posts seem to be appearing out of order, and I can't find some of mine. I provided a detailed list with the dates for the portraits of Richard III, ranging from 1515 to late sixteenth century. (As Marc and others have pointed out, none was contemporary.) Did that post come through?
>
> Side note: You mentioned 1V and 111 as the norm here for Edward IV and Richard III. Actually, we use capital I's, not the numeral 1 (which, of course, is an Arabic, not a Roman, numeral).
>
> Carol
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
Please don't worry about your English it's wonderful and yes you are right so long as we understand each other that's the main thing.Some of the forum will be doing research work etc which is why they try to keep to a certain format.
Thank you for the links.The pictures are lovely.Mary and Margaret do look very alike and you are probably right about Edward and Margaret wearing similar fabrics.If you take Edward's picture and cover the side of his jaw slightly there is a resemblence to Richard's NPG portrait.I wonder if they narrowed Richard's eyes slightly to make him look older,more like his brother perhaps?They certainly didn't do Richard any justice in some of the other portraits that's for sure.
The portrait of Elizabeth Woodville is lovely and very iconic.Her daughter Elizabeth of York was supposed to ressemble her.She was also similar in looks and colouring to Anne Neville I think.So that was certainly the ideal of beauty then.I think Elizabeth Woodville must have been able to hold her own with Edward.She was a couple of years older,had been married before and Edward would probably be used to strong women because of his mother and having lots of sisters.
I don't think David Starkey has a very high opinion of the Yorks.There is an article on the Western Australia Richard III Society Facebook Page that says there were probably medical reasons,and mentions them,as to why Henry VIII changed so dramatically later in life, plus his head and leg injuries etc.
Red/brown,red/golden hair obviously must have run in the family from somewhere(Plantagenets,Elizabeth Woodville),although Richard III and his father were supposed to have dark or black hair.
Hope you are enjoying the forum.It's lovely to share your thoughts.
Kathryn x
--- In , Marc Moris <macbrat88@...> wrote:
>
> Hello
> fellow friends of Richard….
> Â
> Sorry if I
> seem to be confusing people. As my mother tongue is single Dutch (meaning it’s
> not double Dutch ;-)) and my English is a bit rusty from little use, I may be
> putting out some awkward phrases. I mean no harm.
> Â
> + - - - - -
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
> Sandra
> wrote :
> Â
> It’s
> peculiar, but at school (1950s grammar schools) I was taught that IIII was no
> longer considered correct, and it had to be written IV. I’m not saying IIII is
> actually incorrect, just that the emphasis in my education was always on the IV
> method of Roman numerals. Regardless of what appeared on old portraits, Ancient
> Rome or anywhere else. The British education system had its own rules!
> Marc answers :
> Â
> I am quite
> aware of the modern fashion of writing Roman numerals (personally I think it’s
> silly to upgrade an inferior system and
> very confusing). In fact, that’s why I referred to them as latin (numerals are
> Roman, script it Latin), meaning in Ancient times and the Middle Ages IV would
> always be written IIII. Romans did this so not to offend their god Jupiter
> (which is abbreviated as IV â€" latin for JU), and in medieval times it was
> worshiping a Pagan god.
> When I made
> my off the cuff remark it was not to correct, it was merely in reference to
> paintings : if you see a painting with a IV, you just know at least the
> numbering is not contemporary. A good example of what I mean is the famous
> portrait of the white queen :
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-1078522/QUEENS-CONSORT-Lisa-Hilton-HENRY-David-Starkey.html
> which reads
> : Elizabeth wife (of) Edward IIII (and 4 is spelled IIII not IV)
> Â
> + - - - - -
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
> Carol wrote:
> Side note: You mentioned 1V and 111 as the norm here for Edward IV and
> Richard III. Actually, we use capital I's, not the numeral 1 (which, of course,
> is an Arabic, not a Roman, numeral).
> Â
> Marc
> comments :
> Actually,
> it doesn’t really matter if you use majuscule (Capitals) or minuscule. Both are
> correct. Of course capitals tend to look better (again, nowadays it’s probably
> only capitals though, but Roman numerals
> these days are only used for putting â€" obscure â€" dates on things or numbering
> Queens, Kings and Popes). Personally, I don’t mind people using 1 iso I or i.
> As long as we understand each other, where’s not writing a reference work are
> we ?
> + - - - - -
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
> Â
> Jan showed
> :
> Try E4
> & R3, or Eiiij or Riij. In mss you can see a j as the final numeral.
> Â
> Marc thanks
> :
> Thank you
> for this information. As I got my Roman numeral education from reading stone
> carving in churches, slabs on historic buildings and gravestones I wasn’t aware
> of that. It only proves they were pretty smart even in those days. Helps you
> sorting the Rij from the Riij’s ;-)
> + - - - - -
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
> Â
> Kathryn
> wrote :
> Â
> I think I
> have seen the portrait of Margaret of York /Duchess of Burgundy and will try to
> see the others that you have all mentioned.I have very little knowledge about
> the painting techniques that were employed and European Art in the Middle Ages.
> So I will just follow every ones links and learn. x
>
> If Edward and some of his siblings did have blonde hair they possibly inherited
> it from their mother's side of the family. I'm sure I have read somewhere, a
> long time ago, that her brothers were tall and fair. Margaret was 6 foot tall
> but I always thought she had dark hair. Maybe Richard started out with dark
> hair and it lightened slightly as he grew older because in the SoA portrait his
> hair was more brown than black. The picture will have faded so I will have to
> look at the modern brightened version again.
> Â
> Marc
> wonders :
> Â
> One thing
> that was bugging me about the Memling’s painting : http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/hans-memling/mystic-marriage-of-st-catherine-1480
> And :
> http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/hans-memling#supersized-the-donne-triptych-210802
> is that my
> first thought was that the woman with red sleeves and white shirt was Margaret
> of York and the young lady in green was Mary of Burgundy. Though in the
> descriptions they tell it otherwise. I thought the one on the left looked more mature
> (and taller). I must admit that to me the faces look very similar (but I guess
> they did look alike, based on their individual portraits - though that might be
> due to having the same make-up artist ;-) )
> Margaret : Â http://eu.art.com/products/p22112352441-sa-i7624164/posters.htm?ui=AD90ED2EF1824F2DA60B393A3F1600F2
> Mary : http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/mary-14571482-duchess-of-burgundy-and-archduchess-of-aust220947
> And then on
> Friday I watched a documentary on the War of Roses (which did confirm that at
> least Edward IV was very tall) and I saw this painting :Â http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Edward_IV_Plantagenet.jpg
> And I
> thought to myself, hang on, doesn’t that cloak look a very similar to the skirt
> of Ste Catherine of Alexandria. Making me more convinced it’s Margareth. (and
> in that case, her hair seems to be a reddish brown, not a fiery as Elizabeth
> Regina
> Â
> Cheers,
> Â
> Â
> Â Marc
> Â
> Â
> PS. I cannot seem to find the links with the dated portraits either :( would love to see that ;-)
>
> Â
> Â
> Â
> Â
> Â
> Â
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
> On Saturday, 8 February 2014, 20:58, "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...> wrote:
>
> Â
> Hi Carol,
>
> Yes some of the posts do seem to be appearing out of order. Unfortunately,I haven't seen your post with the dates of when the replica portraits were painted.Sorry about the mistake with the numerals,thanks for telling me.
> Kathryn x
> Some of your posts I've not been able to reply to because the page goes missing when you click on reply.
>
> --- In , <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Kathryn wrote:
> >
> > "Thank you for this information and making the links clickable.The pictures are wonderful.Carol,I was delighted to see the e-rayed version of the NPG portrait of Richard.This portrait and The National Trust Portrait helps to understand The White Queen's choice of casting Aneurin Barnard as Richard."
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > You're welcome. By the way, the posts seem to be appearing out of order, and I can't find some of mine. I provided a detailed list with the dates for the portraits of Richard III, ranging from 1515 to late sixteenth century. (As Marc and others have pointed out, none was contemporary.) Did that post come through?
> >
> > Side note: You mentioned 1V and 111 as the norm here for Edward IV and Richard III. Actually, we use capital I's, not the numeral 1 (which, of course, is an Arabic, not a Roman, numeral).
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
Re: Richard's Portrait
Hi Marc and others, who are interested,
Regarding the Altar pieces of Memling I want to share my ideas about them with you. I think that the cloth of gold the left figure is wearing shows that she is the more powerful person. Marie was direct descendant of Charles and after his death Duchess in her own right. Margaret was Duchess through marriage and later Dowager Duchess.So it is fitting that Marie wears cloth of gold and is depicted as Catherine, the main character of the scene. As for her being on the left: the left on a picture was the heraldic right. At least that is mentioned as the reason the SOA portrait of Richard was reversed so that he, the younger, was onther heraldic left.
About the maturity of the faces I have no opinion,only that they were 11 years apart and probably in their twenties and thirties.
By the way, I hope that neither of them looked like on the portraits you posted!
Eva
Re: Richard's Portrait
Hi Carol,
Yes some of the posts do seem to be appearing out of order. Unfortunately,I haven't seen your post with the dates of when the replica portraits were painted.Sorry about the mistake with the numerals,thanks for telling me.
Kathryn x
Some of your posts I've not been able to reply to because the page goes missing when you click on reply.
Carol responds:
I'll try to hunt up the dates again. Meanwhile, after you hit Reply, click on the three dots and my post should reappear. Or scroll back up the page, above the Reply box, to see the original post.
I've noticed that many people's posts are not being quoted in the responses and it's impossible to tell whom or what those posters are responding to.
Carol
Re: Richard's Portrait
Kathryn wrote:
Hi Carol,
Yes some of the posts do seem to
be appearing out of order. Unfortunately,I haven't seen your post with the dates
of when the replica portraits were painted.Sorry about the mistake with the
numerals,thanks for telling me.
Kathryn x
Some of your posts I've not been
able to reply to because the page goes missing when you click on
reply.
Carol responds:
I'll try to hunt up the dates again.
Meanwhile, after you hit Reply, click on the three dots and my post should
reappear. Or scroll back up the page, above the Reply box, to see the original
post.
I've noticed that many people's posts are not being quoted in the
responses and it's impossible to tell whom or what those posters are responding
to.
Carol
Re: Richard's Portrait
"Red/brown,red/golden hair obviously must have run in the family from somewhere(Plantagenets,Elizabeth Woodville),although Richard III and his father were supposed to have dark or black hair."
Carol responds:
Most of the novelists say that Richard had dark hair, but the portraits (not contemporary, I realize) show it to be brown, not much darker than Edward IV's (which may have been blond in youth and turned brown in adulthood). The idea that Richard resembled his father comes from Tudor chroniclers like Vergil who claim that Buckingham made that claim in a speech during the Protectorate as evidence that Richard, unlike Edward, was the Duke of York's true son. But, as far as I know, no contemporary source mentions his hair color. (I can't recall whether the claim about Richard's resemblance to his father occurs in Mancini, who is earlier than the Tudor sources but not reliable on such matters since he apparently didn't understand English.) Marie, if you're here, can you help us out? I don't have direct access to Mancini.
Anyway, I suspect that the novelists got their idea of Richard's hair color from the NPG portrait before it was cleaned, hence the "dark one in a fair family" idea, which, I think, is an exaggeration. He seems, for example, to have had fair skin--except on campaign, when it would have been tanned.
Carol
--- In , Marc Moris <macbrat88@...> wrote:
>
> Hello
> fellow friends of Richard….
> Â
> Sorry if I
> seem to be confusing people. As my mother tongue is single Dutch (meaning it’s
> not double Dutch ;-)) and my English is a bit rusty from little use, I may be
> putting out some awkward phrases. I mean no harm.
> Â
> + - - - - -
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
> Sandra
> wrote :
> Â
> It’s
> peculiar, but at school (1950s grammar schools) I was taught that IIII was no
> longer considered correct, and it had to be written IV. I’m not saying IIII is
> actually incorrect, just that the emphasis in my education was always on the IV
> method of Roman numerals. Regardless of what appeared on old portraits, Ancient
> Rome or anywhere else. The British education system had its own rules!
> Marc answers :
> Â
> I am quite
> aware of the modern fashion of writing Roman numerals (personally I think it’s
> silly to upgrade an inferior system and
> very confusing). In fact, that’s why I referred to them as latin (numerals are
> Roman, script it Latin), meaning in Ancient times and the Middle Ages IV would
> always be written IIII. Romans did this so not to offend their god Jupiter
> (which is abbreviated as IV â€" latin for JU), and in medieval times it was
> worshiping a Pagan god.
> When I made
> my off the cuff remark it was not to correct, it was merely in reference to
> paintings : if you see a painting with a IV, you just know at least the
> numbering is not contemporary. A good example of what I mean is the famous
> portrait of the white queen :
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-1078522/QUEENS-CONSORT-Lisa-Hilton-HENRY-David-Starkey.html
> which reads
> : Elizabeth wife (of) Edward IIII (and 4 is spelled IIII not IV)
> Â
> + - - - - -
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
> Carol wrote:
> Side note: You mentioned 1V and 111 as the norm here for Edward IV and
> Richard III. Actually, we use capital I's, not the numeral 1 (which, of course,
> is an Arabic, not a Roman, numeral).
> Â
> Marc
> comments :
> Actually,
> it doesn’t really matter if you use majuscule (Capitals) or minuscule. Both are
> correct. Of course capitals tend to look better (again, nowadays it’s probably
> only capitals though, but Roman numerals
> these days are only used for putting â€" obscure â€" dates on things or numbering
> Queens, Kings and Popes). Personally, I don’t mind people using 1 iso I or i.
> As long as we understand each other, where’s not writing a reference work are
> we ?
> + - - - - -
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
> Â
> Jan showed
> :
> Try E4
> & R3, or Eiiij or Riij. In mss you can see a j as the final numeral.
> Â
> Marc thanks
> :
> Thank you
> for this information. As I got my Roman numeral education from reading stone
> carving in churches, slabs on historic buildings and gravestones I wasn’t aware
> of that. It only proves they were pretty smart even in those days. Helps you
> sorting the Rij from the Riij’s ;-)
> + - - - - -
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
> Â
> Kathryn
> wrote :
> Â
> I think I
> have seen the portrait of Margaret of York /Duchess of Burgundy and will try to
> see the others that you have all mentioned.I have very little knowledge about
> the painting techniques that were employed and European Art in the Middle Ages.
> So I will just follow every ones links and learn. x
>
> If Edward and some of his siblings did have blonde hair they possibly inherited
> it from their mother's side of the family. I'm sure I have read somewhere, a
> long time ago, that her brothers were tall and fair. Margaret was 6 foot tall
> but I always thought she had dark hair. Maybe Richard started out with dark
> hair and it lightened slightly as he grew older because in the SoA portrait his
> hair was more brown than black. The picture will have faded so I will have to
> look at the modern brightened version again.
> Â
> Marc
> wonders :
> Â
> One thing
> that was bugging me about the Memling’s painting : http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/hans-memling/mystic-marriage-of-st-catherine-1480
> And :
> http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/hans-memling#supersized-the-donne-triptych-210802
> is that my
> first thought was that the woman with red sleeves and white shirt was Margaret
> of York and the young lady in green was Mary of Burgundy. Though in the
> descriptions they tell it otherwise. I thought the one on the left looked more mature
> (and taller). I must admit that to me the faces look very similar (but I guess
> they did look alike, based on their individual portraits - though that might be
> due to having the same make-up artist ;-) )
> Margaret : Â http://eu.art.com/products/p22112352441-sa-i7624164/posters.htm?ui=AD90ED2EF1824F2DA60B393A3F1600F2
> Mary : http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/mary-14571482-duchess-of-burgundy-and-archduchess-of-aust220947
> And then on
> Friday I watched a documentary on the War of Roses (which did confirm that at
> least Edward IV was very tall) and I saw this painting :Â http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Edward_IV_Plantagenet.jpg
> And I
> thought to myself, hang on, doesn’t that cloak look a very similar to the skirt
> of Ste Catherine of Alexandria. Making me more convinced it’s Margareth. (and
> in that case, her hair seems to be a reddish brown, not a fiery as Elizabeth
> Regina
> Â
> Cheers,
> Â
> Â
> Â Marc
> Â
> Â
> PS. I cannot seem to find the links with the dated portraits either :( would love to see that ;-)
>
> Â
> Â
> Â
> Â
> Â
> Â
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
> On Saturday, 8 February 2014, 20:58, "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...> wrote:
>
> Â
> Hi Carol,
>
> Yes some of the posts do seem to be appearing out of order. Unfortunately,I haven't seen your post with the dates of when the replica portraits were painted.Sorry about the mistake with the numerals,thanks for telling me.
> Kathryn x
> Some of your posts I've not been able to reply to because the page goes missing when you click on reply.
>
> --- In , <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Kathryn wrote:
> >
> > "Thank you for this information and making the links clickable.The pictures are wonderful.Carol,I was delighted to see the e-rayed version of the NPG portrait of Richard.This portrait and The National Trust Portrait helps to understand The White Queen's choice of casting Aneurin Barnard as Richard."
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > You're welcome. By the way, the posts seem to be appearing out of order, and I can't find some of mine. I provided a detailed list with the dates for the portraits of Richard III, ranging from 1515 to late sixteenth century. (As Marc and others have pointed out, none was contemporary.) Did that post come through?
> >
> > Side note: You mentioned 1V and 111 as the norm here for Edward IV and Richard III. Actually, we use capital I's, not the numeral 1 (which, of course, is an Arabic, not a Roman, numeral).
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
