Picture of Richard or not?

I can't find who posted about a possible picture of Richard a little
while ago but the picture you are referring to, is, I think, supposed
to be Jean Waurin presenting his history to Edward IV in his Burgundian
exile. The figure with curly brown hair and a large chin was
identified with Richard. I thought this figure looked a bit round
shouldered too.

However, I'm sure I read an article in a Ricardian by Livia Visser-
Fuchs and Anne Sutton that said the people in this picture were stock
figures. IIRC they said the Richard figure was the prototype used for
the Jack on playing cards and was not a likeness.

Joanne

It's a great pity that no Italian painters visited the English court.
If you look at the standard of portraiture in Italy at the time it
was almost photographic in reality terms. Odd it took so long for
such work to cross the Channel with Holbein.
Paul

On Jun 13, 2005, at 23:14, jotwo2003 wrote:

> I can't find who posted about a possible picture of Richard a little
> while ago but the picture you are referring to, is, I think, supposed
> to be Jean Waurin presenting his history to Edward IV in his
> Burgundian
> exile. The figure with curly brown hair and a large chin was
> identified with Richard. I thought this figure looked a bit round
> shouldered too.
>
> However, I'm sure I read an article in a Ricardian by Livia Visser-
> Fuchs and Anne Sutton that said the people in this picture were stock
> figures. IIRC they said the Richard figure was the prototype used for
> the Jack on playing cards and was not a likeness.
>
> Joanne
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
> ~-->
> In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
> At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/S.QlOD/3MnJAA/Zx0JAA/1WMplB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I don't remember where I saw the reference to the possible portrait
of Richard, but I am pretty sure it was whilst I was trawling
through a Ricardian web site of some sortlast year.

I wonder whether the theory arose just because the man with his back
to the viewer appears to have something not quite right about his
right shoulder. He is wearing a pleated tunic of some sort, and as
most women know pleats need a free fall to look good, which is not
happening here. It would not be unusual for Richard to be included
in the picture, since he was with his brother at the time.

As regards the playing cards, is it known who were the models for
the court cards? Elizabeth of York is said to be one of the queens,
but do we know any of the others?

I don't understand why English portraits were so poor at this time.
There were accomplished artists just across the channel, but it's as
if all we had were a few third rate jobbing artists turning out more
or less stock portraits. I can't imagine Edward IV being happy with
some of his portraits that I've seen.

I quite agree. Especially if we compare English paintings of that time to Italian Renaissance...
eh eh I'm a little bit chauvinist about Italian art.
Cecilia

dixonian2004 <sally-turfrey@...> ha scritto:
I don't understand why English portraits were so poor at this time.
There were accomplished artists just across the channel, but it's as
if all we had were a few third rate jobbing artists turning out more
or less stock portraits. I can't imagine Edward IV being happy with
some of his portraits that I've seen.


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi, antispam, antivirus, POP3

I quite agree. Especially if we compare English paintings of that time to Italian Renaissance...
eh eh I'm a little bit chauvinist about Italian art.

Cecilia

=================

The Flemings were quite wonderful too. Take a look at Charles the Bold by van der Weyden, for example:

http://gallery.euroweb.hu/html/w/weyden/rogier/16portra/08c_bold.html

and Philip the Good:

http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/w/weyden/rogier/16portra/04philip.html

Isabel and Fernando imported a heap of Italians and Flemings (including Memling) for their court and as tutors for their five children, and one of the results is a small collection of warts-and-all portraits of the Catholic Kings.

It is odd that, especially with the Burgundian ties, England didn't profit from this.

Maria
elena@...

Plenty of agreement then that English portraiture of that period was a bit on the ropey side
- to see what we are missing take a look at the Donne trptych painted by Hans Memling.
It was commissioned by Sir John Donne whilst on a diplomatic mission to Flanders for
Edward IV in about 1475 and depicts Sir John, his wife and little daughter. It is beautiful.
bes wishes Eileen




--- In , Maria <ejbronte@o...> wrote:
> I quite agree. Especially if we compare English paintings of that time to Italian
Renaissance...
> eh eh I'm a little bit chauvinist about Italian art.
>
> Cecilia
>
> =================
>
> The Flemings were quite wonderful too. Take a look at Charles the Bold by van der
Weyden, for example:
>
> http://gallery.euroweb.hu/html/w/weyden/rogier/16portra/08c_bold.html
>
> and Philip the Good:
>
> http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/w/weyden/rogier/16portra/04philip.html
>
> Isabel and Fernando imported a heap of Italians and Flemings (including Memling) for
their court and as tutors for their five children, and one of the results is a small collection
of warts-and-all portraits of the Catholic Kings.
>
> It is odd that, especially with the Burgundian ties, England didn't profit from this.
>
> Maria
> elena@p...

I think of the portrait of Richard II (I think in Westminster Abbey
but I may be wrong). This was the first instance of a king having
a "proper" portrait, and it shows that techniques must have
deteriorated by the latter part of the 15th century. It is an
attractive item in its own right. There were some good religious works
of art, but for real people it's woefully bad. I can understand the
lack of portraits of Richard III, as his reign was so short, and
Elizabeth Woodville's portrait certainly seems to show a real person,
but the matching portrait of Edward IV is distinctly unflattering. I
don't know whether having your portrait done was a popular thing, but
not all the subjects would have been dead and therefore unable to
complain about the poor techniques etc. These people were used to
seeing good works of art in their illuminated manuscripts, so they
knew what could be done, I wonder why they accepted and presumably
paid for, these unppealing pictures.

I'd forgotten about the Richard ll portrait - it is really beautiful but what went wrong after
that. Regarding the other possible picture of Richard that has been spoken about here - I
have taken another look at this and I just cannot see how the man in it could possibly be
meant to depict Richard in how he actually looked - also the figure of Edward lV bears no
resemblance at all to his other portraits.
I think some of the figures in the beautiful but faded Rous Rolls are probably more
accurate - for example if you compare the figure of Clarences daughter Margaret to the
portrait depicting her as an older woman (shortly before they axed her to death) you can
definitely see that it is the same person. It may well be that the figures of her mother
Isobel and aunt Anne are equally as accurate.
Eileen


--- In , "dixonian2004" <sally-turfrey@h...>
wrote:
> I think of the portrait of Richard II (I think in Westminster Abbey
> but I may be wrong). This was the first instance of a king having
> a "proper" portrait, and it shows that techniques must have
> deteriorated by the latter part of the 15th century. It is an
> attractive item in its own right. There were some good religious works
> of art, but for real people it's woefully bad. I can understand the
> lack of portraits of Richard III, as his reign was so short, and
> Elizabeth Woodville's portrait certainly seems to show a real person,
> but the matching portrait of Edward IV is distinctly unflattering. I
> don't know whether having your portrait done was a popular thing, but
> not all the subjects would have been dead and therefore unable to
> complain about the poor techniques etc. These people were used to
> seeing good works of art in their illuminated manuscripts, so they
> knew what could be done, I wonder why they accepted and presumably
> paid for, these unppealing pictures.

You mentioned the portraits of Margaret of Salisbury. Last year, I borrowed the Clarence volume of Ruvigny's "Plantagenet Roll of the Blood Royal" and there are some superb portraits in it - Clarence, Lady Margaret, Montagu, Winifred Pole etc.
Just by studying this single branch of the House of York, the evolution of portraiture would be apparent. Get thee to a library!
----- Original Message -----
From: eileen
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 10:53 PM
Subject: Re: Picture of Richard or not?


I'd forgotten about the Richard ll portrait - it is really beautiful but what went wrong after
that. Regarding the other possible picture of Richard that has been spoken about here - I
have taken another look at this and I just cannot see how the man in it could possibly be
meant to depict Richard in how he actually looked - also the figure of Edward lV bears no
resemblance at all to his other portraits.
I think some of the figures in the beautiful but faded Rous Rolls are probably more
accurate - for example if you compare the figure of Clarences daughter Margaret to the
portrait depicting her as an older woman (shortly before they axed her to death) you can
definitely see that it is the same person. It may well be that the figures of her mother
Isobel and aunt Anne are equally as accurate.
Eileen


--- In , "dixonian2004" <sally-turfrey@h...>
wrote:
> I think of the portrait of Richard II (I think in Westminster Abbey
> but I may be wrong). This was the first instance of a king having
> a "proper" portrait, and it shows that techniques must have
> deteriorated by the latter part of the 15th century. It is an
> attractive item in its own right. There were some good religious works
> of art, but for real people it's woefully bad. I can understand the
> lack of portraits of Richard III, as his reign was so short, and
> Elizabeth Woodville's portrait certainly seems to show a real person,
> but the matching portrait of Edward IV is distinctly unflattering. I
> don't know whether having your portrait done was a popular thing, but
> not all the subjects would have been dead and therefore unable to
> complain about the poor techniques etc. These people were used to
> seeing good works of art in their illuminated manuscripts, so they
> knew what could be done, I wonder why they accepted and presumably
> paid for, these unppealing pictures.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.