A different portrait of Edward IV

I was looking for a portrait of George of Clarence (other than the ugly, unhistorical sketch that we usually see) and instead found a portrait of a young, slim Edward IV that I've never seen before:

http://flickriver.com/photos/60861613@N00/3809993796/

Does anyone know anything about this portrait, which gives Edward reddish hair (a la his grandson, Henry VIII) rather than the brown hair that we know he had later.

Carol

Looks like a portrait of Christopher Columbus I remember seeing years ago.

Johanne

-----Original Message-----

From: justcarol67
Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:16:34 GMT
To:
Subject: A different portrait of Edward IV

I was looking for a portrait of George of Clarence (other than the ugly, unhistorical sketch that we usually see) and instead found a portrait of a young, slim Edward IV that I've never seen before:

http://flickriver.com/photos/60861613@N00/3809993796/

Does anyone know anything about this portrait, which gives Edward reddish hair (a la his grandson, Henry VIII) rather than the brown hair that we know he had later.

Carol

http://flickriver.com/search/George+Plantagenet+/
Also this has the pic of the skeleton remains in a glass box that we talked about( thanks to Vermeer 2 who has been thankfully absent from the forum!)
If the portrait is of Ed, it has remarkable likeness to R. Poor Richard has been made to look about 50 years old!!!

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 3, 2013, at 6:15 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> I was looking for a portrait of George of Clarence (other than the ugly, unhistorical sketch that we usually see) and instead found a portrait of a young, slim Edward IV that I've never seen before:
>
> http://flickriver.com/photos/60861613@N00/3809993796/
>
> Does anyone know anything about this portrait, which gives Edward reddish hair (a la his grandson, Henry VIII) rather than the brown hair that we know he had later.
>
> Carol
>
>

Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> http://flickriver.com/search/George+Plantagenet+/
> Also this has the pic of the skeleton remains in a glass box that we talked about( thanks to Vermeer 2 who has been thankfully absent from the forum!)
> If the portrait is of Ed, it has remarkable likeness to R. Poor Richard has been made to look about 50 years old!!!

Carol responds:

If you click on the link, you can find the provenance of this particular portrait, which dates to about 1580 or later. http://flickriver.com/photos/60861613@N00/3473317431/
My theory is that the aging of Richard in his portraits is part of the process of making him appear more sinister in each successive copy and derives at least in part from Sir Thomas More's misstatement of Edward IV's age at death as fifty-two rather than not quite forty-one. The reader who doesn't know better might assume that Richard was only two years or so younger than Edward, with George in between. Whatever the case, if you look at the extant "portraits" in the order they were painted, you can see that Richard is about seventy by the time the artists have finished their distortions. Take a look at these portraits from the National Portrait Gallery, by no means the only extant portraits of Richard, but they give you some idea what More and Shakespeare did to Richard in the popular imagination:

http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person.php?sort=dateAsc&LinkID=mp03765&search=sas&sText=Richard+III

If nothing else, the facial reconstruction should clear away any misconceptions about his age!

Carol

Carol

Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> http://flickriver.com/search/George+Plantagenet+/
> Also this has the pic of the skeleton remains in a glass box that we talked about( thanks to Vermeer 2 who has been thankfully absent from the forum!)
> If the portrait is of Ed, it has remarkable likeness to R. Poor Richard has been made to look about 50 years old!!!
>
Carol responds:

I forgot to add that the stained glass "portrait" of George of Clarence is modern and completely imaginary. Someone else (Marie?) may know who made it and when.

Carol

And remember, 600 years ago, people died young. They lived hard lives, and probably 50 was considered elderly.

On Feb 3, 2013, at 6:31 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:



Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> http://flickriver.com/search/George+Plantagenet+/
> Also this has the pic of the skeleton remains in a glass box that we talked about( thanks to Vermeer 2 who has been thankfully absent from the forum!)
> If the portrait is of Ed, it has remarkable likeness to R. Poor Richard has been made to look about 50 years old!!!

Carol responds:

If you click on the link, you can find the provenance of this particular portrait, which dates to about 1580 or later. http://flickriver.com/photos/60861613@N00/3473317431/
My theory is that the aging of Richard in his portraits is part of the process of making him appear more sinister in each successive copy and derives at least in part from Sir Thomas More's misstatement of Edward IV's age at death as fifty-two rather than not quite forty-one. The reader who doesn't know better might assume that Richard was only two years or so younger than Edward, with George in between. Whatever the case, if you look at the extant "portraits" in the order they were painted, you can see that Richard is about seventy by the time the artists have finished their distortions. Take a look at these portraits from the National Portrait Gallery, by no means the only extant portraits of Richard, but they give you some idea what More and Shakespeare did to Richard in the popular imagination:

http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person.php?sort=dateAsc&LinkID=mp03765&search=sas&sText=Richard+III

If nothing else, the facial reconstruction should clear away any misconceptions about his age!

Carol

Carol

The Duke of York was in his fifties, and Salisbury 60, when they fought
their final battle, and there were other 'old' soldiers. I think this is a
myth. People died younger than we do now from diseases and infections we
can cure. They didn't die younger of 'old age', if you know what I mean.
Commissions of Array called up men 'between 16 and 60', and plenty of
people (though not nearly as many as today) lived to their 70s. Huge
responsibility and the stress of running a country often makes leaders and
rulers look older than their years and Richard had great stress during his
reign. That may be why his portraits make him look a little older than his
early 30s.

Karen


On 4/02/13 1:28 PM, "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...> wrote:

>And remember, 600 years ago, people died young. They lived hard lives,
>and probably 50 was considered elderly.
>
>On Feb 3, 2013, at 6:31 PM, "justcarol67"
><justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
>Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>>
>> http://flickriver.com/search/George+Plantagenet+/
>> Also this has the pic of the skeleton remains in a glass box that we
>>talked about( thanks to Vermeer 2 who has been thankfully absent from
>>the forum!)
>> If the portrait is of Ed, it has remarkable likeness to R. Poor Richard
>>has been made to look about 50 years old!!!
>
>Carol responds:
>
>If you click on the link, you can find the provenance of this particular
>portrait, which dates to about 1580 or later.
>http://flickriver.com/photos/60861613@N00/3473317431/
>My theory is that the aging of Richard in his portraits is part of the
>process of making him appear more sinister in each successive copy and
>derives at least in part from Sir Thomas More's misstatement of Edward
>IV's age at death as fifty-two rather than not quite forty-one. The
>reader who doesn't know better might assume that Richard was only two
>years or so younger than Edward, with George in between. Whatever the
>case, if you look at the extant "portraits" in the order they were
>painted, you can see that Richard is about seventy by the time the
>artists have finished their distortions. Take a look at these portraits
>from the National Portrait Gallery, by no means the only extant portraits
>of Richard, but they give you some idea what More and Shakespeare did to
>Richard in the popular imagination:
>
>http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person.php?sort=dateAsc&LinkID=mp
>03765&search=sas&sText=Richard+III
>
>If nothing else, the facial reconstruction should clear away any
>misconceptions about his age!
>
>Carol
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Ah, at least 20 years older! The antiquarian portrait looks about mid thirties. I can make peace with that one!

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 3, 2013, at 9:55 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:

> The Duke of York was in his fifties, and Salisbury 60, when they fought
> their final battle, and there were other 'old' soldiers. I think this is a
> myth. People died younger than we do now from diseases and infections we
> can cure. They didn't die younger of 'old age', if you know what I mean.
> Commissions of Array called up men 'between 16 and 60', and plenty of
> people (though not nearly as many as today) lived to their 70s. Huge
> responsibility and the stress of running a country often makes leaders and
> rulers look older than their years and Richard had great stress during his
> reign. That may be why his portraits make him look a little older than his
> early 30s.
>
> Karen
>
> On 4/02/13 1:28 PM, "Pamela Bain" pbain@...> wrote:
>
> >And remember, 600 years ago, people died young. They lived hard lives,
> >and probably 50 was considered elderly.
> >
> >On Feb 3, 2013, at 6:31 PM, "justcarol67"
> >[email protected]@...>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >>
> >> http://flickriver.com/search/George+Plantagenet+/
> >> Also this has the pic of the skeleton remains in a glass box that we
> >>talked about( thanks to Vermeer 2 who has been thankfully absent from
> >>the forum!)
> >> If the portrait is of Ed, it has remarkable likeness to R. Poor Richard
> >>has been made to look about 50 years old!!!
> >
> >Carol responds:
> >
> >If you click on the link, you can find the provenance of this particular
> >portrait, which dates to about 1580 or later.
> >http://flickriver.com/photos/60861613@N00/3473317431/
> >My theory is that the aging of Richard in his portraits is part of the
> >process of making him appear more sinister in each successive copy and
> >derives at least in part from Sir Thomas More's misstatement of Edward
> >IV's age at death as fifty-two rather than not quite forty-one. The
> >reader who doesn't know better might assume that Richard was only two
> >years or so younger than Edward, with George in between. Whatever the
> >case, if you look at the extant "portraits" in the order they were
> >painted, you can see that Richard is about seventy by the time the
> >artists have finished their distortions. Take a look at these portraits
> >from the National Portrait Gallery, by no means the only extant portraits
> >of Richard, but they give you some idea what More and Shakespeare did to
> >Richard in the popular imagination:
> >
> >http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person.php?sort=dateAsc&LinkID=mp
> >03765&search=sas&sText=Richard+III
> >
> >If nothing else, the facial reconstruction should clear away any
> >misconceptions about his age!
> >
> >Carol
> >
> >Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Jesus, with all the in-fighting and intrigue, t is a wonder any of them lived past 40. But wasn't Elinore of Aquitane in her 70's????

On Feb 3, 2013, at 8:55 PM, "Karen Clark" <Ragged_staff@...<mailto:Ragged_staff@...>> wrote:



The Duke of York was in his fifties, and Salisbury 60, when they fought
their final battle, and there were other 'old' soldiers. I think this is a
myth. People died younger than we do now from diseases and infections we
can cure. They didn't die younger of 'old age', if you know what I mean.
Commissions of Array called up men 'between 16 and 60', and plenty of
people (though not nearly as many as today) lived to their 70s. Huge
responsibility and the stress of running a country often makes leaders and
rulers look older than their years and Richard had great stress during his
reign. That may be why his portraits make him look a little older than his
early 30s.

Karen

On 4/02/13 1:28 PM, "Pamela Bain" pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:

>And remember, 600 years ago, people died young. They lived hard lives,
>and probably 50 was considered elderly.
>
>On Feb 3, 2013, at 6:31 PM, "justcarol67"
>justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>
>Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>>
>> http://flickriver.com/search/George+Plantagenet+/
>> Also this has the pic of the skeleton remains in a glass box that we
>>talked about( thanks to Vermeer 2 who has been thankfully absent from
>>the forum!)
>> If the portrait is of Ed, it has remarkable likeness to R. Poor Richard
>>has been made to look about 50 years old!!!
>
>Carol responds:
>
>If you click on the link, you can find the provenance of this particular
>portrait, which dates to about 1580 or later.
>http://flickriver.com/photos/60861613@N00/3473317431/
>My theory is that the aging of Richard in his portraits is part of the
>process of making him appear more sinister in each successive copy and
>derives at least in part from Sir Thomas More's misstatement of Edward
>IV's age at death as fifty-two rather than not quite forty-one. The
>reader who doesn't know better might assume that Richard was only two
>years or so younger than Edward, with George in between. Whatever the
>case, if you look at the extant "portraits" in the order they were
>painted, you can see that Richard is about seventy by the time the
>artists have finished their distortions. Take a look at these portraits
>from the National Portrait Gallery, by no means the only extant portraits
>of Richard, but they give you some idea what More and Shakespeare did to
>Richard in the popular imagination:
>
>http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person.php?sort=dateAsc&LinkID=mp
>03765&search=sas&sText=Richard+III
>
>If nothing else, the facial reconstruction should clear away any
>misconceptions about his age!
>
>Carol
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

justcarol67 wrote:
//snip//
"Does anyone know anything about this portrait, which gives Edward reddish
hair (a la his grandson, Henry VIII) rather than the brown hair that we know
he had later."

For what it's worth, I had red hair when I was young which turned to a
brownish-red during my teens, then brown and finally, light brown (any that
isn't gray/white, that is).
It may very well have been the same with E4, only in his case he started
with reddish-brown and ended with plain brown.
And just what is the color "gilt" when used in reference to hair - brown
with blonde or reddish-brown?
Doug

Karen you are so right.  I have about 20000 genealogical records that prove that what we have been taught about life expectancy was totally wrong.  We'll discuss further at some point when the excitement is over. Hilary



________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 4 February 2013, 2:55
Subject: Re: A different portrait of Edward IV

 

The Duke of York was in his fifties, and Salisbury 60, when they fought
their final battle, and there were other 'old' soldiers. I think this is a
myth. People died younger than we do now from diseases and infections we
can cure. They didn't die younger of 'old age', if you know what I mean.
Commissions of Array called up men 'between 16 and 60', and plenty of
people (though not nearly as many as today) lived to their 70s. Huge
responsibility and the stress of running a country often makes leaders and
rulers look older than their years and Richard had great stress during his
reign. That may be why his portraits make him look a little older than his
early 30s.

Karen

On 4/02/13 1:28 PM, "Pamela Bain" pbain@...> wrote:

>And remember, 600 years ago, people died young. They lived hard lives,
>and probably 50 was considered elderly.
>
>On Feb 3, 2013, at 6:31 PM, "justcarol67"
>[email protected]@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
>Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>>
>> http://flickriver.com/search/George+Plantagenet+/
>> Also this has the pic of the skeleton remains in a glass box that we
>>talked about( thanks to Vermeer 2 who has been thankfully absent from
>>the forum!)
>> If the portrait is of Ed, it has remarkable likeness to R. Poor Richard
>>has been made to look about 50 years old!!!
>
>Carol responds:
>
>If you click on the link, you can find the provenance of this particular
>portrait, which dates to about 1580 or later.
>http://flickriver.com/photos/60861613@N00/3473317431/
>My theory is that the aging of Richard in his portraits is part of the
>process of making him appear more sinister in each successive copy and
>derives at least in part from Sir Thomas More's misstatement of Edward
>IV's age at death as fifty-two rather than not quite forty-one. The
>reader who doesn't know better might assume that Richard was only two
>years or so younger than Edward, with George in between. Whatever the
>case, if you look at the extant "portraits" in the order they were
>painted, you can see that Richard is about seventy by the time the
>artists have finished their distortions. Take a look at these portraits
>from the National Portrait Gallery, by no means the only extant portraits
>of Richard, but they give you some idea what More and Shakespeare did to
>Richard in the popular imagination:
>
>http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person.php?sort=dateAsc&LinkID=mp
>03765&search=sas&sText=Richard+III
>
>If nothing else, the facial reconstruction should clear away any
>misconceptions about his age!
>
>Carol
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Karen Clark wrote:
>
> The Duke of York was in his fifties, and Salisbury 60, when they fought their final battle, and there were other 'old' soldiers. I think this is a myth. People died younger than we do now from diseases and infections we can cure. They didn't die younger of 'old age', if you know what I mean. Commissions of Array called up men 'between 16 and 60', and plenty of people (though not nearly as many as today) lived to their 70s. Huge responsibility and the stress of running a country often makes leaders and rulers look older than their years and Richard had great stress during his reign. That may be why his portraits make him look a little older than his early 30s.

Carol responds:

I agree with all of this post except the last sentence. Even the National Portrait Gallery version makes Richard look at least forty, and the portraits age the farther they get in time from the original. Look at this one, from 1611, for example:

http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw112286/King-Richard-III?LinkID=mp03765&search=sas&sText=Richard+III&role=sit&rNo=5

So I would say that, yes, stress may have aged him a little, as reflected in the earliest portrait, but the Black Legend myth turned him into an old man. It's the same idea as with wicked witches, who are always depicted as old and ugly. (Remember the "Wizard of Oz"?)

Carol

Douglas Eugene Stamate wrote:
[snip]
> And just what is the color "gilt" when used in reference to hair - brown with blonde or reddish-brown?

Carol responds:

It means the color of gold. However, I've seen Elizabeth Woodville's hair referred to as "silver gilt" (suggesting platinum blonde), but I think that's only in fiction, e.g., "The Sunne in Splendour."

Carol

Carol

Yes, I hadn't taken into account all the various versions. I don't see a 40
year old when I look at the NPG portrait, though.

Karen

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 16:26:08 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: A different portrait of Edward IV






Karen Clark wrote:
>
> The Duke of York was in his fifties, and Salisbury 60, when they fought their
final battle, and there were other 'old' soldiers. I think this is a myth.
People died younger than we do now from diseases and infections we can cure.
They didn't die younger of 'old age', if you know what I mean. Commissions of
Array called up men 'between 16 and 60', and plenty of people (though not nearly
as many as today) lived to their 70s. Huge responsibility and the stress of
running a country often makes leaders and rulers look older than their years and
Richard had great stress during his reign. That may be why his portraits make
him look a little older than his early 30s.

Carol responds:

I agree with all of this post except the last sentence. Even the National
Portrait Gallery version makes Richard look at least forty, and the
portraits age the farther they get in time from the original. Look at this
one, from 1611, for example:

http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw112286/King-Richard-III?
LinkID=mp03765&search=sas&sText=Richard+III&role=sit&rNo=5

So I would say that, yes, stress may have aged him a little, as reflected in
the earliest portrait, but the Black Legend myth turned him into an old man.
It's the same idea as with wicked witches, who are always depicted as old
and ugly. (Remember the "Wizard of Oz"?)

Carol

That's why I am dreading the reconstruction as the lady who did it can't help but be influenced by the Windsor portrait, copy of a copy as it is.
Paul

Richard Liveth Yet!




On 4 Feb 2013, at 16:26, justcarol67 wrote:

> Karen Clark wrote:
>>
>> The Duke of York was in his fifties, and Salisbury 60, when they fought their final battle, and there were other 'old' soldiers. I think this is a myth. People died younger than we do now from diseases and infections we can cure. They didn't die younger of 'old age', if you know what I mean. Commissions of Array called up men 'between 16 and 60', and plenty of people (though not nearly as many as today) lived to their 70s. Huge responsibility and the stress of running a country often makes leaders and rulers look older than their years and Richard had great stress during his reign. That may be why his portraits make him look a little older than his early 30s.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I agree with all of this post except the last sentence. Even the National Portrait Gallery version makes Richard look at least forty, and the portraits age the farther they get in time from the original. Look at this one, from 1611, for example:
>
> http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw112286/King-Richard-III?LinkID=mp03765&search=sas&sText=Richard+III&role=sit&rNo=5
>
> So I would say that, yes, stress may have aged him a little, as reflected in the earliest portrait, but the Black Legend myth turned him into an old man. It's the same idea as with wicked witches, who are always depicted as old and ugly. (Remember the "Wizard of Oz"?)
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>