I tried the main history forum with this query but no bites yet - so I wondered if this forum was a bit busier ?

I recently indulged in a new book on AB by Ives. Just skimming it at bedtime for an overview at the moment so I can't say this query comes from in depth reading and thinking.

Has anybody else noticed that Mary Tudor (SISTER of Henry VIII and not his daughter) - in that portrait of her together with Charles Brandon - looks remarkably like some of the pictures that are generally agreed to be Anne Boleyn ? Why didn't any contemporaries comment on the likeness ?

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the subject of AB's possible likeness to Mary (Suffolk ?).

Do you mean this one? She is obviously a redhead. Was not AB darker?

Mary Tudor

Maybe not:

Anne Boleyn

I must agree though, that a lot of what I read did indicate she was quite dark-haired.

If you look at this lot:

16th century women

there is a distinct similarity between many of the portraits (note the older Anne and Jane Seymour in particular).

I think the similarites probably owe a great deal to the style of painting and what was considered fashionable and beautiful at the time. After all, these are not photographs and we all know about the Anne of Cleves miniature's "variations" from the truth!

I did post a sensible reply to this but it's been sidetracked by the moderators as it contained a "trigger word".

I'm baffled...

Still, perhaps the post will appear sometime later!

Many thanks Hopski - I've only seen black and white reproductions of pictures (which make her look dark) as (of course) if Anne Boleyn.

Jenni - the mind boggles what Anne subject could cause a trigger word.

Having been inspired by the posting, I've found copies of what I was thinking of:

Mary Tudor and her husband

AB piccie 1

AB piccie 2

I think the picture that shows Ann with 'red' hair is misleading as all accounts talk of her long dark hair, "great" dark eyes (which Elizabath appeared to inherit) and Wyatt dubbed her "Brunett".

NO COMMENT. OCCASionally in history you get some of the most preposterous suggestions!

Are there any female beauty consultants reading this who also have a Doctorate in 16th Century Painting and / or the TUdor COurt LOL

quote:

OCCASionally in history you get some of the most preposterous suggestions!

What's so ludicrous about my question about the portraits ? There is a distinct superficial similarity in the portraits as they currently exist and I was aware that no contemporary account had mentioned they were any similarity between the women.

See below my correspondence on the general history forum - as I received no answer on here initially:

quote:

I think you may have only seen black & white reproductions

Quite right - a very good guess

I especially appreciate the historical quotes on her colouring and stature which explain why noone commented on any similarity. "Maybe the similarity of all court dress at the time leads to a certain uniformity of appearance to modern eyes" - and possibly the 16th painterly equivalent of today's photographic airbrushing: emphasising those features which were considered attractive and ignoring those which weren't ?

My suggestion may make more sense to you if you see the pictures I have posted on the Time Team forum (didn't get any reply initially) though I now suspect the suffolk portrait must be misleading. there are plenty of primary sources for this period so I'd rather take the written accounts over a 500 year old portrait.

BTW my history forum reply to an answer dates from 5th Aug.

sorry if i seemed a bit dismissive of your query etc. i overstepped the mark. if they were painted around the same time they may have been painted by the same artist, or in the same style. certainly in Italy painting was a craft where you were apprenticed to the studio of a major painter. what i have noticed through reading about the 15th and 16th centuries regards paintings there are a fair few that are copies not originals. also paintings deteriorate physically including the disintegration of the original pigments (this is archaeologoy surely) and change in the colour often a darkening of lighter elements due to exposure to sunlight etc. Museum curators may hav ehad the paintings xrayed and scanned to see if there are traces of alterations hidden by subsequent layers pf paint etc. Funnily, enough if i wasnt so keen on archaeology i might spend a bit more time looking at the paintings. i have not been to the national portrait gallery for a while nor am i likely to and not just due to being broke? i thought the portrait of anne of cleves was very flattering because by all accounts she wasnt physically attractive though who am i to judge - you dont get any idea from the paintings of anne boleyn how attractive she was they are kind of sanitised or idealised depictions of reality,

quote:

i thought the portrait of anne of cleves was very flattering because by all accounts she wasnt physically attractive though who am i to judge

I believe there's at least a more, shall we say, "enlightening" portrait done from the side which shows an unflatteringly long nose.

Holbein may have been accurate but he could 'spin' with the best of them if he wanted

I have always found the Tudors and excellent subject to study, I am sure you will find the answers you are looking for