Who do you think the miniature might be of and why? Let me know below and check out my PATREON site for extra perks at www.patreon.com/historycalling Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to my channel too.

@tudortalks

2 жыл бұрын

I think it’s Anna of Kleve, I think the two sitters share a lot features but a different angle

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

I can't deny the eyes are somewhat similar.

@signymab8965

2 жыл бұрын

There is a limited number of genes for somatic traits but the paintings are really very similar Unless Katherine was Anne's doppelganger

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

It would be ironic if Henry dumped Anne for someone who looked like her.

@signymab8965

2 жыл бұрын

@@HistoryCalling Very fair and true. And Katherine was very young, the picture looks like a more adult woman

I've seen drawing when somebody draw French hood upon Holbein's painting of Anne of Cleves, and then the resemblence is unmistakeable.

I read Franny Moyle's book and I'll admit, I was sold! I can see a strong resemblance between Anne and the Buccleuch miniature. Especially the heavily-lidded eyes, which are very distinctive. I can't explain the dark hair except that sometimes older paintings darken with age. Or, that when Anne wore her hair smoothed back it looked darker than when she wore it loose at her wedding.

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Although I didn't come to that conclusion myself, I can certainly see the similarity in the eyes. Older paintings can darken I agree, but the engravings done in the 17th and 18th centuries (as far as such B&W images will allow) also suggest dark hair.

@mkuti-childress3625

2 жыл бұрын

I agree, and the shape, sizes, and proportions of all the other features are the same between the two, as well. I think the different angles might be a little confusing, but the hooded eyes, eyebrow shapes, mouth sizes, shapes, and distances from the nose and chin, shape of the chin and entire face-they really look like the same person from different angles to me. It is obvious that the original Holbein is painted from the most flattering angle, for sure, but it all fits. If the two faces were exactly the same size, you could superimpose them and see that the proportions look exactly the same, in my opinion.

@becademarques

2 жыл бұрын

Some blonde people have darker roots compared to the rest of their hair. I also saw some strong similarities in their noses.

@daniellekoski418

2 жыл бұрын

I have hair that is darker on top and significantly lighter on bottom, to the point that people ask if I dye the bottom. I don't. It's just like that. It used to look gold when I was younger. Now it is silvery white, but the top of my head is mostly chestnut (for now at almost 40...it'll probably eventually go white too). So I could see the hair color being both. The facial structure, to me, is similar.

@mkuti-childress3625

2 жыл бұрын

I’ve read that certain paint pigments depicting light hair colors can darken over time, too, and that’s what people believe happened in this case.

I have been obsessed with the 6 wives since I was a young teen since the early 1990s - so before the recent uptick in Tudor interest. As well as Holbein being my favorite painter. I remember always thinking these portraits look like the same woman but putting the thought aside because maybe it was simply the same artist. However, if you look at all Holbein’s paintings none of them have similar faces and all extremely unique likenesses. So it’s highly likely these are both Anne of Cleves (although admittedly this slightly blows my mind).

@miladydewinter7770

2 жыл бұрын

I have a book of all Holbein's paintings -- am going to look through it later and check

I was not ready for that portrait of Anne to start moving! 😳

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Haha, just keeping you on your toes! :-)

@SakuraAsranArt

2 жыл бұрын

@@HistoryCalling You did a good job, that's the first jumpscare that's worked on my horror-movie loving self in like a decade XD

In Medici Villa in Rome, there is a huge statue of Louis XVIII of France. The statue has the particularity of having both royal symbols and imperial ones for a good reason: this sculpture started in 1789 just before the French Revolution. When Louis XVI of France, the guy for whom it was made for, was beheaded and the republic was proclaimed, the project was cancelled. Then, Napoleon I came and they tried to keep on by making a statue of him, then he was removed from power, Louis XVIII, Louis XVI's brother, came, was briefly chased out of the throne by Napoleon then came back and therefore, the statue ended up looking like him after all the historical twists. My point with this story is: would it be possible that that portrait was started during Anne of Cleves' brief marriage and then, because of how quick the events changed, Holbien kept on by painting the rest of the portrait to look like Catherine Howard ? After all, the women had the same jewels, probably thanks to fashion, a lot of very similar (but still very different) french hoods and other dresses and it wouldn't be incorrect to make a slightly less ressembling portrait of the new queen with being called an idiot by the king... It would explain a lot, starting with why she's wearing a clearly established as a Queen Consort's necklace or why the Howards had it without needing to name the portrait...

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Ah, now there's an interesting idea which I haven't seen elsewhere. Nothing is impossible of course, but you would think that Henry could afford to have a fresh portrait done of Katherine. Then again, perhaps it was in its very early stages.

100% without question Anne of Cleaves. Exact same face. Never thought that portrait was Catherine Howard. Henry was crazed by Howard. Excited to show his new, extra young wife off. Henry most likely wouldn't do that with a more mature woman, who isn't as prized by the superficial man, as the Queen pictured here - Just a guess? I took many art classes thru school. Try this: Draw a graph over Anne's face in the large Holbein. Now draw a graph on your paper enlarged to the same size as the large Holbein. After that, copy the image in each square from the large portrait onto the blank squares of the second graph. Now, do the same with the small portrait. Blow it up to the same size as the large. By drawing each part of her face, square by square, you will realize that each feature is exactly the same (only turned slightly to the right). It's a trick used in investigating faces if, 2 or more photos, are of the same person. I just heard you say Anne's hair was "Yellow." Could be a description of strawberry blonde hair? Auburn hair turns golden in the sun. I have Auburn hair. In the summer I work in the garden. I can personally attest to this. One witness statement may not be 100% true. I wonder if there is more than one out there? I am sure you have found in your research 2 diametrically opposed witness statements of the same object, description or event? Personally, I can't tell you how many times men have described colors or features completely wrong? People (many men I find) are colorblind. I am surprised I didn't see the striking resemblance to Anne of Cleaves before? However, that miniature always bothered me as I found it impossible to believe that was Howard.

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

That's a good trick regarding the grid drawings. There is no other statement that I'm aware of regarding Anne's hair, but also no reason to doubt Edward Hall. Looking at Anne's traditional Germanic headdress, I doubt her hair got much sun at home in Cleves and Hall saw her in the depths of winter (start of January). Personally, I therefore believe she was most likely a natural blonde. All opinions are certainly valid though. Many thanks for watching and commenting.

@ffotograffydd

2 жыл бұрын

As a fellow artist I agree, the facial similarity tells me this is either the same person or a close relative. The miniature resembles both Anne and to a lesser degree her sister Sybille.

@primrosett

2 жыл бұрын

That was my thought about the hair; I'm a natural blonde but it darkened with age. The woman in the miniature has a colour similar to my own when not exposed to sunlight. And Henry was disappointed with Anne's appearance, maybe that she wasn't the yellow blonde he expected was part of the reason why?

@julzs7493

22 күн бұрын

​@@HistoryCallingsince this video the Ann of Cleves portrait has been restored and the so called dark background is actually bright blue. Could it be possible that a similar thing has happened to the hair in the supposed Katherine portrait?

I'd never heard of this theory before. Honestly, I'm with you. There isn't enough evidence for it being anyone other than Katherine. Also, why ask for a second portrait so soon after having one done by Holbein when Henry evidently didn't like Anne and was going to get rid of her as soon as he could anyways?

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly. It makes no sense to me either. Henry didn't need a fresh portrait of Anne to see her in Anglicised clothes. He had the real woman in front of him by that point.

@dancingcolorsVdeRegil

2 жыл бұрын

@@HistoryCalling Why wouldn't Anne have asked for a miniature for herself, or perhaps thinking she could send it home to her family to see her as queen? We know Henry wouldn't have asked for it, but as queen, Anne could certainly have done so.

@NC-ij9rb

2 жыл бұрын

@samantha ssmith Anne Boleyn wasn't that beautiful tho.

@punchingdragon3666

2 жыл бұрын

@samantha ssmith Anne of Cleves wasn't ugly according to contemporary accounts independent from Henry Viii tho.

@dancingcolorsVdeRegil

2 жыл бұрын

@samantha ssmith ooph! That's alot of shade to Anne of Cleves! If you really believe that Hans Holbein made her look better in her first portrait, and also, that H8 really hated her for her looks/smell, well then, ooph. He was the one who put her off by pretending to be someone else hoping she'd magically know, in a setting where he wasn't meant to be, so she didn't kiss him passionately, not knowing he'd be presented at the time. This soured him to her, because she didn't psychically sense who he was and treat "Him properly". He didn't forgive her (!)this apparently. But they did become good friends after the divorce... She was lucky, had money, and lived well. That said, I agree that the portrait shows someone more mature than a teen ager would have been, so it's not likely Catherine Howard, and yes, I'm sure she was lovely. Until she wasn't(a joke!).

I've been checking out portraits of Catherine Howards family members, notably her 1st cousin Charles Howard, 2nd Baron Effingham, 1st Earl Nottingham. Her uncle Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk & what could possibly be a portrait of her father Lord Edmund Howard. All three have lidded eyes, so it could possibly also be a facial feature of Catherines through the Howard Genes.

I have definitely watched other documentaries about Tudor England and seen that Katherine Howard portrait attributed to several other women other than Katherine Howard. But it is true that I've always thought that portrait associated with Katherine Howard had a high resemblance in the eyes especially to the undisputed Holbein portrait of Anne Von Kleve.

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, I think it's gone through a few identifications. KH is the current favourite and our best guess, but her identity isn't known for sure.

@onagaali2024

2 жыл бұрын

@@HistoryCalling It is said that there were no definitive portraits of KH prior to her marriage in 1540 nor during H VIII's marriage with her.

I do portraits for a living and I believe this to be Anne, this is why. We all have these identifying features that mark a portrait as us even if it is as simple as a cartoon, Anne has what we would call "bedroom eyes", very round distinctive eyebrows, a nose on the larger size, and a subtle "Habsburg jaw" those features are all distinctive alone, but together its seems very coincidental that Henry would have two queens (one who's looks he didn't like) with such similar identifying features. As far as the sitters jewels and clothing, the royal jewels were as you know passed down from queen to queen, and Henry taking something from one wife to give to another would not be surprising. Anne being described as blonde and the sitter having darker hair means little as well, there is 500 yeas of grime and the oxidation of the paint to consider. We all expected Richard III to have dark hair due to his portrait but he was a blonde as well. That it was owned by a Howard means nothing as the portrait of Anne was owned by the same man. Since the portrait would have had to be done while Anne was still queen, shortly after the famous portrait of her was completed is rather interesting, but since Henry found her German clothing unattractive, could it be possible that he wanted a painting of her dressed as an Englishwoman? I of course could be way off base and all of this is speculation, but I had to contribute my opinion on the matter. Your videos are fantastic btw, and I absolutely love them! (edit spelling)

@Eensquatch

9 ай бұрын

I think it’s Anne of Cleves. I agree with your point that Henry didn’t like her Germanic presence, likely commissioned another of her in “English fashion” and I think rather than have her do a full sit the artist just copied Jane’s to make Anne more sympathetic and attractive to Henry.

@brittany3559

7 ай бұрын

I’m an illustrator and I completely agree with you. Also, her hair could have been depicted as brown as an effort to make her appear more English and on trend.

@edithengel2284

Ай бұрын

I don't know if you are familiar with portraits of Catherine of Braganza, Charles II's queen, but the difference in her appearance in her Portuguese court dress and her appearance in the English clothes after her marriage is light night and day. It's hard to believe they are portraits of the same woman. So I have to say that Anne's appearance in German clothes might make her look quite different than she might appear in English clothes. Before you brought up the issue of Henry's reaction to Anne's clothes I hadn't really applied what I knew about Catherine of Braganza's appearance to the supposed Katherine Howard painting. The questions of the jewels and the emergence of a new portrait so soon after Holbein's do raise doubts, as Anne was queen such a short time, and Henry was not comfortable with her, but it's not impossible that it's Anne.

I believe that the portrait is of Anne of Cleves after she came to England and dressed in the court fashion with a French headdress. There are too many similarities for me to not say it was Anne of Cleves, but we will never know for sure!

@joshuaowensjr8694

Жыл бұрын

It’s not anne

There are some similarities in the Anne of Cleves portrait and the miniature, but like you, I don't think its enough to say that they are the same person. The argument regarding the necklace is to my mind the strongest point, that such an item was already identified as being in the possession of for Queen Consorts as well as being in an inventory of items given to Katherine Howard. The fact that the miniature comes from a member of the Howard family is also very convincing. The playing card is of little importance in comparison.

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, I didn't put much store by that card either. Holbein probably didn't even give it a second thought.

I agree with you. Interesting how Ann's portrait is A LOT more attractive than Catherine's! I've always believed Henry's disrespectful distaste for Ann was more of a body size issue than prettiness. Maybe he simply preferred a tiny waif of a woman to full figured and pretty. A pretty face never first attracting him though size did.

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

It's certainly interesting that Henry's wives weren't usually known for their outstanding looks. Catherine of Aragon was reportedly pretty, but she was more of a strategic marriage so I don't know how much we can read into that. Anne Boleyn and Jane Seymour were never described as beauties and Anne of Cleves was miffed when he married Catherine Parr because she said she was better looking than Parr (something which the man who reported her comment didn't dispute). No one was saying KH was anything special either in the looks department.

@susannawolfe8743

2 жыл бұрын

@@HistoryCalling then too, it's a time old tradition! Societies as a whole and what was precieved as actual beauty. The only reason I believe Henry for instance, with that nose and beatie little eyes of his, was considered "the finest a prince as any prince to look upon, was sheer brown nosing! 3 out of 4 grand parents were georgious in portiture and modern interpretation, but that one well just let's say least attractive grandmother Margaret is where he takes a huge amount of appearance from. Henry's taste in women, by any standard in time really, is just simply not mainstream. Maybe his first wife was attractive but likely more of a boyhood fantasy too given her initial reception into the country.

@MazMedazzaland

2 жыл бұрын

​@@HistoryCalling Henry didn't have to marry Catherine at that point, so I don't think he married her for strategy and she was called beautiful in her youth. I do recall he was supposed to have seen two beautiful maidens in his court and bemoaning having married Jane so quickly, which is rather rude if you ask me!

@ffotograffydd

2 жыл бұрын

It would be ironic if Henry was judging women by their body type given his ever increasing girth. But then we all know middle aged men who think they are far more attractive than they are. 😂

@primrosett

2 жыл бұрын

Well, remember that the portrait is what convinced Henry to marry Anne before even meeting her. It's not surprising to me that it's pretty; it was at the time too. Whether that's due to it being at a very flattering angle or that Anne truly was that pretty is kinda something we can't really know. Katherine for her part, was described as very bubbly and vivacious, and that's not something that can really be captured in a portrait. I've seen conflicting reports on whether she was particularly pretty or not, but I think it's possible to be attractive without being that good-looking. Charisma is very effective in making people attractive, and that very well may have been what Henry saw in Katherine.

The Windsor Castle miniature matches Anne of Cleves very exactly, especially the eyes. The Buccleuch version is more nondescript, like an identikit, although the jewels and sumptuous clothing indicate royalty. As Katherine died disgraced, whereas Anne post-divorce was awarded sisterly status by Henry, it’s more likely a dignified, semi-official portrait like this would have been commissioned of Anne rather than Katherine. On the other hand, as Anne’s marriage lasted a shorter time than Katherine’s, there was a longer grace period for Katherine, in which Henry might have commissioned a cute miniature of his sweet patootie to carry round with him! 😍🥺

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Yup, it's one of those things we can certainly argue both sides of.

You always make such great points with clarity enough that even I can follow along. I really wish we'd watched your videos in History back in school, you do a way better job at capturing the audience's interest. Thank you for your hardwork ~

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Aww, thank you so much. I suffered from some dull history lessons in school too, so I understand the feeling (really, only my genuine passion for the subject carried me through sometimes).

@Sassenach4life

2 жыл бұрын

I concur!

@lfgifu296

Жыл бұрын

@@HistoryCallingOh Lord same! Had I not a complete obsession with History I would not have survived highschool 😭

Hello History Calling, I can actually see the resemblance between the two portraits. Not only around the eyes, but the mouth as well. The nose is harder to tell since the portrait of Anne is full front face and the reputed Katherine is slightly turned showing a longer nose. You make a great point about early aging in Tudor times. I hadn't thought about that. I would think though that being Queen, you would have had access to many creams and oils for face and body, not unlike today, but of course much more common now. I have always thought that the reputed portrait of Katherine was so much older looking than what she would have been. I don't see Henry falling for the woman in the portrait. Of course Anne's blonde hair, very prized then, is another tip off as far as the Katherine portrait is concerned, but I'm inclined to think that both portraits of of Anne or the one reputed to be Katherine is another woman. Thanks for another educational video for us Tudor fans!

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Hi SnapDragon. Thanks for watching and commenting. You would indeed have access to all the top beauty products if you were the Queen, but I don't know that that would always be an advantage. Think of Elizabeth's lead makeup for instance. Probably the best thing you'd have going for you would be that you wouldn't have to work out in the sun all day.

@vintagegal541

2 жыл бұрын

@@HistoryCalling Agreed on that! Thanks for replying and have a marvelous weekend!

@TheCelticSelkie.

2 жыл бұрын

If you have ever seen anything highlighting the sketch lines beneath the portrait of Anne of Cleves, it is easy to see the resemblance between the two portraits. I wish I knew which book I had seen it in now...

@vintagegal541

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheCelticSelkie. Hi Selkie Paget, First, I like your name. Thinking about the sketch lines underneath Anne's portrait that you saw a picture of, do you think that both portraits are of Anne? I had never thought of the resemblance until History Calling's video. :)

It is notable that your portrait of the Earl of Arundel shows him with very visible eyelids which many of us don't display when our eyes are open. Maybe hooded or sleeply-loooking eyes were a Howard family physical trait.

Most portraiture was terrible, and stylistic choices rendered most subjects virtually unrecognizable. Holbein was one of a handful who truly painted in realism. If it was meant to be Anne, you'd know.

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

I think so too. The other portrait of Anne (not a Holbein) looks very much like the one he did in 1539 for instance, so I don't think her appearance changed much.

@FrenkTheJoy

2 жыл бұрын

I love looking through Holbein's sketches. They all look like *people.* He was a fantastic artist. I think he would've been great to do the "warts and all" portrait that whichever king wanted. A lot of his sketches, the people look a little tired - like they've been sitting too long for a portrait. I love that about his work. I can definitely see similarities between the mystery portrait and the confirmed Anne of Cleves one, but you raise a good point - Holbein was a great artist, if they were portraying the same person it would be more obvious.

Henry Tudor leaves lots of mysteries and I'm sure many will still arrive at their tuppence worth. Love the way the portraits are animated. Thank you.

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you. I thought it made portraits which I know I use a lot, a little bit different.

Personally I think it's Anne of Cleves, the facial features look too similar for them to be different people, it looks like the same person from a different angle. Is it possible Henry gifted Anne Katherine's jewels after her execution? Maybe the hair is a different shade due to different lighting, I know a lot of people with blonde hair which looks brown in a certain light and vice versa. Anyway I love your videos and it was fun to read everyone's theories. Can't wait to see what you cover next.

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks Gracie. We'll agree to disagree on the identification. :-) I don't think Henry would have given Anne the Queen's jewels (wouldn't want her getting any ideas that he might take her back) and I just can't see Holbein painting hair so clearly brown if he knew the sitter was blonde. Lighting feels more like a modern photography issue. It's something else jewellery related next week, but I'll say no more :-)

@graciejones2644

2 жыл бұрын

@@HistoryCalling You make some good points :) thanks for the reply

“It’s looks to old to be her.” Yeah, I keep getting carded when I buy alcohol and I turned 37 yesterday. You really can’t determine someone’s age just by looking at them, even in real life.

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

So true (and you're so lucky - those are some great genes you've got).

@itsjustme7487

2 жыл бұрын

I passed for 21 when I was 18, now I look younger than my 73 yrs.

@agatha6999

2 жыл бұрын

Its really such a terrible argument as Elizabeth I’s portrait when she was 13 makes her look 18 and another portrait Mary I had during her engagement to the emperor makes her look like an adult

@FrenkTheJoy

2 жыл бұрын

And to be honest, artists TODAY have a horrible time portraying youth correctly. The number of comics I've read that featured a one month old baby who easily looked like a typical 7 year old is too many. Then you get ones where there's someone who's supposed to be 25 but looks 15, or is 15 but looked 30. Aside from people aging harder in those times, and aside from some people just not looking their age, I wonder if it was just a general issue in the olden days like it is now that artists have a hard time making people look the approximate age they're supposed to be. Also idk where you got carded, but in some establishments the person legally needs to see an ID regardless of how old the person looks. In some grocery stores the ID has to actually be scanned, no matter if you're 21 or 91.

I have never believed this was Katherine Howard before, but I'm a believer now!! As always, your attention to details I never even thought of is remarkable. Well researched, well spoken, and wonderful. Thank you so much for all the ideas you have opened up for me. I think you're the best.

I am in agreement with Franny Moyle. I've studied portraiture, and am also a painter. I also love the painters working in that era, of Holbein, and have seen many of the miniatures and how the painters all had their own style. Some of the paintings of the Henry's Queens are fabulous, some not, based on who and when they were painted, or if any of one or another exist or had time to be produced. Now, the situation of lost identities is huge, especially over decades/centuries of upheaval and people that fell from grace. Henry had capacity to wipe out all imagery available of them, as we know he did with Anne Boleyn. Probably did also with Catherine Howard.. But also, this miniature is so much like Anne of Cleves to me, when it was attributed to Catherine Howard, I just couldn't believe that a girl so young and in her position, wouldn't have looked or be painted to look older.. The portrait is a less "pretty" image than Anne of Cleve's first portraits. For me, the only issue with it, is that the eyes aren't in the same position, looking wider set than in the first acknowledged one of A of C. But it does resemble the miniature shown that is a frontal view seen in this video, and the eyes, eyebrows, nose and face shape are consistent with the miniature. If the disputed portrait was painted later in 1540, she wouldn't have needed to be shown in a romantic way, as she had gained the status of Sister of the King. Also she may have retained jewels of the Queen for longer, or maybe she had Holbein paint her the miniature wearing them before they were passed along to Catherine Howard. About the hair, someone recording a description of color, which as we know can be very subjective, yellow would certainly sound like blond hair, but perhaps it shone in the light and had light highlights, but the hair at the top of her head was darker being newer and most likely covered. She didn't come from a very sunny place, and in winter it would have looked darker at the scalp. Painted within a few months, that hair would still look a little bit darker. Truly though, to compare any works done even decades after someone has died, especially in following centuries by people who cannot have any way of knowing anything about a person, especially in another format. The engravings that "copy" 16thc. paintings were made to be reproduced, weren't they? They are, in my eyes representations, often done with the current day's beauty ethic at play, heavily stylized by the artist. When you show the two versions, the painted miniature and the drawing, there isn't a provenance, just the locations of them. Who did the drawing and when? It looks like a reproduction in sketch of the painting, not a separate work of art made by another artist in 1540/41. It doesn't look at all like Holbein's drawings. We may never know, but I do appreciate and enjoy these new views of the contested portraits of the women of the time..The furious Henry did so many crazy things. Too bad he destroyed so many things!!

I never really put that much stock in the theory that the miniature was Anne instead of Katherine, but honestly, staring at the portraits for so long, I'm starting to think it might be just based purely on their looks. The heavy lidded eye shape, the mouth, the sparse eyebrows, the high and soft cheekbones... even her expression is very similar. There's another confirmed portrait of Anne in a similar stance (by a different artist, to be fair) to that of the miniature and yes, the nose shape is pretty much the same; larger at the base and slightly downturned at the tip. And yeah, I do agree with what a lot of people are saying. The portrait doesn't really line up with Katherine's youth. But gosh, if the miniature isn't her, I dearly hope one of the other ones are so that this poor girl's image wasn't completely erased by her horrible husband.

I’m never disappointed by the quality of these videos. I love how these discussions delve into the types of historical nuances that are glossed over in favour of the usual standard regurgitation of known facts that all history buffs already know. That’s why I find this content so engaging and fascinating! As an aside, I’m soooo happy that she correctly pronounces ‘ye’ as ‘the’ instead of ‘yee’. That has been such a pet peeve of mine, and this is the first time I’ve heard it pronounced correctly. Fun fact: the ‘y’ was the old way of typing the letter known as ‘thorn’ which has a ‘th’ sound. But I digress. Point is, keep up the awesome work!! Look forward to each and every one of your videos!!!

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you so much. On the point of the y being a replacement for the 'th' sound, I actually discovered that many years ago at the start of my PhD. I went to the archives for the first time and was transcribing from old 17th and 18th century documents and couldn't understand why so many words had this y with a little superscript letter after it, like yt, ym, yn, meaning that, them and then (bear in mind that my previous experience with transcription during my Master's degree had been from mid-19th century documents). Flash forward a few days and I was having a meeting with my supervisor who just causally dropped into conversation that the y was standing in for th. My jaw nearly hit the floor as this explained all the difficulties I'd been having in the archive and I almost said 'I wish you'd told me that BEFORE I started looking through all those old microfilmed letters!' Anyway, I always think that that's just one example of why it's important to have a PhD, not just in history, but in many other subjects too, if you want to really be an expert in it. I had no idea how much I still didn't know until I was researching a big project myself for 3 years. I think sometimes people are under the impression that history is a 'soft' subject that you can do and do well with just an undergraduate degree, a degree in another humanities subject, or a background as a private investigator or something. There's actually so much more to it and the 'glossing' effect you mention is always a tell-tale sign that the person doesn't have sufficient training in the subject. Anyway, I'm sorry - that was a really long response to your comment! :-)

@lexfacitregem

2 жыл бұрын

@@HistoryCalling How dare you apologise for the length of your comment! I’m gobsmacked that you even responded to me! You have no idea how rare this is. You get creators trying desperately to encourage engagement, but you are lucky if they even take the time to like your comment, much less respond in a cogent and in-depth manner. But now it all makes sense. You are highly educated. That’s the difference between a content creator making this type of high-quality and thought-provoking content and those who just read off a script written for them by their underpaid assistant. I just have a major pet pet peeve when creators don’t even know how to properly speak, as it shows they don’t really understand what they are trying to convey. I nearly had an aneurysm the other day when this KZreadr was pronouncing ‘gaol’ as ‘gale’!!!! The one observation I wanted to make regarding this silly Anne of Cleves theory is that I find it a bit ironic how people are now trying to claim Katherine’s portrait could have been Anne’s, especially considering that Ann was historically supposed to have been notoriously unattractive, and Katherine quite the opposite. Yes, I agree with your previous video in that it was all bunk, and that there was only one ugly and smelly person in that short-lived relationship….which wasn’t Anne of Cleves. But I agree with you: the only similarity between them are the hooded eyes. Methinks that some historians as of late are trying to make a name for themselves by trying to think up of some quasi-probable provocatively outlandish theories that have, at best, tenuous evidence…and at worst, egregious conspiracy-theory style ‘proof’, such as the playing card.

Another excellent video, HC. I was enmeshed in an online seminar so I dropped a "like" and just watched now. I have a friend who's an artist and I'm always embarrassed by my lack of visual acuity when she picks out details in portraits. It would never have occurred to me that the two portraits were of the same person. Katherine's life and death seems so tragic; I'd like to believe at least one image of her has survived. You brought up a very good point; I don't think there's much doubt that people aged more quickly in those faraway days. Thanks for sharing your investigative skills again. Until next week, be well, HC.

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks Stephen. Yes, we're so lucky to have sunscreen and just a better understanding of how to care for ourselves now. Even good dental care probably makes us look younger than we would have done hundreds of years ago when teeth would have had to be pulled out, with no dentures to replace them, causing the face to sag a bit.

Congrats on 100 K it’s nice to see historical channels succeed in a place where drama thrives

Thank you so much for your videos I look forward to every Friday ☺️☺️ I was at the tower last weekend and though of you 🙌🏻

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

I was just there at the start of March! :-) You'll start to see photos and footage I took there appearing in videos in the next few weeks in fact.

Your videos are so interesting; the detail of your research into topics is fascinating!

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks Adam :-)

Katherine Howard and Anne Boleyn had similar eyes and chins... They had the Howard eyes and chins... You could tell that they were cousins...

Great history lesson of the Tudors I enjoyed it. Your history videos are always enjoyable. Hope to see more of your history videos soon 😀

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks Michelle. More to come :-)

I do agree with you about the playing card though, irrelevent. When I was teaching second grade you would find carboard and paper from old calendars and breakfast cereal in thier artwork. It didn't mean that they ever worked at Kellogs.

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Haha, excellent point/comparison! :-)

I have never, in the decades that I've been studying the Tudors, believed that the miniature is Katherine Howard. I vote for it being Anne of Cleves. The face is of a woman years older than the teenage Katherine Howard -- just look at that double chin! The face is plain and rather dour, devoid of Katherine's animated charm. Has there ever in history been a portraitist who captured the personalities of his sitters better than Holbein? And yet, the painter shows us here not a giddy, flirtatious adolescent but a prim, settled woman approaching middle age. As for the portrait's hair being darker than Anne's blonde locks, yellow paint dims and darkens with time (cf Van Gogh's sunflowers.) I see a distinct resemblance to Anne's face in the courtship portrait in the eyes and the long nose. For what may be a genuine portrait of Katherine, refer to Antonia's Fraser's well-researched book from the early 1990's, The Wives of Henry VIII. Fraser provides a photo of a stained glass window showing profiles of Henry VIII with a young, pretty girl and makes a case that this girl may be the only contemporary likeness of wife number five. Even in faded stained glass, the girl shows more dash and vitality than the the stolid matron in the miniature.

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

We can agree to disagree on the portraits, as everyone is certainly entitled to their opinions. The paint on the rest of the miniature is in good condition though and both copies of it show brown hair. Would both really have degraded in exactly the same manner, with no obvious tarnish to the rest of the colours? The engravings of them also suggest brown hair (as much as a B&W engraving is able to). As for her expression, it would be expected for the Queen of England to appear reserved and respectable, so I don't personally read too much into that. Holbein would have been in trouble for making her seem giddy or flirtatious. You never see portraits of women of this era grinning. The window you mention is a fictional representation of the Queen of Sheba in Cambridge University and may be Katherine, yes.

@reniplayzandsays2261

2 жыл бұрын

Anne of Cleves was only 5 years older than Katherine Howard by the way.

@corrietapp3178

2 жыл бұрын

@@reniplayzandsays2261 We don't know how old Katherine was.

@punchingdragon3666

2 жыл бұрын

I don't mean any hate by this but I'm a relatively slim 16 year old and from certain angles it looks like I have a double chin if I don't angle my face right in photos. also do u know how hard it is to get fine details or show personality on small canvases? He was probably working with a couple inches squared at most whilst also trying to respectfully depict the queen of England. Holbein was good at depicting people as icons, just look at his portraits of Henry VIII who, according to contemporary accounts, was very ill with leg ulcers and *way* past his prime; however in Holbein's paintings he looks like a divine being who radiates power and authority.

@kelrogers8480

2 жыл бұрын

But the double chin can just be because she was plump, surely? It was not fashionable, or considered beautiful, to be skinny, or even slender. "Good breeders" were fair and plump. I don't think age is necessarily the cause of a double chin? Also remember that it was the done thing for a wife and queen to be submissive, pious and dutiful. Perhaps that's why the painter painted this sitter in such a pose?

I am saving this to watch later, but it is a fascinating topic, glad that you tackled it.

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you. I hope you like it. It's an interesting idea.

I remember watching your video on Catherine Howard’s portrait. It’s one of my favorites. Maybe this is just me, but if you line up the rest of the portraits of Henry’s wives plus the one you were discussing, they all look kind of similar. To me, I feel like they all have similar eyes. If anything, I’d say that Jane Seymour’s portrait looks most similar to Catherine’s. But again, that’s just me. Another thing, I don’t know how long it took for these portraits to be painted, even the miniature ones, but considering that Henry was trying to get rid of Anne before he married her, I don’t think Hans Holbein would’ve had time to make another portrait of Anne of Cleves in the six months she was married to Henry. And I’m not even sure she would’ve received the queen’s jewelry considering Henry didn’t even want her as his Queen. All in all, I don’t think they’re the same person. And I really don’t see the miniature being anyone other than Catherine Howard.

Such an interesting analysis of the images and their providence! I'd love to hear more videos on painting analysis and mysteries...not necessarily Tudor though

Fitting that you posted this on April 1(at least in my country) if these two portraits are indeed of the same person, Anne of Cleves really said "April fools, Catherine was me all along!" She's had us fooled for hundreds of years. As always, thank you for making such informative videos. You have sparked my love for history again and I look forward to them every Friday!

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks Sophia. Yes, in hindsight I should have done an April Fool's Day themed video, but it never even occurred to me :-(

What happened to this necklace? Was it lost, destroyed or is it a private collection/museum somewhere in the world? I'd love to see that necklace in reality and not just paintings P. S. Love from history fan from Ukraine! Your your videos help me to cope with all the stress caused by war in my country. Thank you :)

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

I don't know sadly. My best guess is that it was passed on to Mary, then Elizabeth and was likely broken up and the jewels and gold used in other jewellery pieces (especially as there was no Queen consort for such a long time). I'm so sorry about everything that's happening in your country at the moment. I've been following it on the news here every day and was just talking earlier about the evident war crimes being committed. It really breaks my heart to see what's happening. As far as you can, please stay safe and stay strong. I know that's easier said than done, but something I like to remember when times are tough is the phrase 'This too shall pass' and I firmly believe that the war in Ukraine will pass too and that the Ukrainians will prevail. I would give you two hearts if I could, but I hope the one I'm allowed to offer by KZread is enough.

@itsjustme7487

2 жыл бұрын

Praying for your country. Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦 🌻 .

@FandersonUfo

2 жыл бұрын

💙🍁💛

@luciezak3671

2 жыл бұрын

Prayers for you and the undeserved devastation to your country, people and animals. 😥 🙏

@beth7935

2 жыл бұрын

Thinking of you in Ukraine What's happening is awful & unbelievable & so wrong, but the bravery of your people is just incredible, as is your love of your country. I'm glad you're able to watch these great videos in such hard times. I just watched one on Olga of Kyiv, & thought her fighting spirit is still alive 1000yrs later. Best wishes from Australia.

The jewel-studded neckline of the miniature is incredibly blinged out, even by Tudor standards, which falls in line with Katherine IMO. Iirc, it was stated no other wife had Henry spend as much on jewels, and the miniature definitely reflects someone with a penchant for them, even by Tudor standards. I don’t think I’ve seen another Tudor era portrait with that intricate of a neckline. Most are just a single or maybe double edge of alternating pearls and gemstones. Just a thought I had.

@wednesdayschild3627

2 жыл бұрын

Catherine of Aragon is wearing those jewels, and Elizabeth of york.

@primrosett

2 жыл бұрын

They're hand-me downs. Catherine of Aragon and Jane Seymour are also depicted wearing them, suggesting they're jewels for the Queen--which is why the theory tends to be that it's either Katherine or Anne of Cleves. It was almost certainly a queen of Henry's.

I love what you said about women dining at a much earlier age at that time ‘even when they weren’t being beheaded’. Your tome of voice… perfect! Though I got a little confused for a few minutes that is in no way a reflection of your abilities to offer great information! Thanks for another thoroughly enjoyable video!

If that"s Catherine, then I'd say she looks a lot like Anne. Henry divorced Anne because he said she was ugly but later marries a girl who looks a lot like Anne? Only goes to show that Anne wasn't ugly and that Henry was completely lying because of his bruised ego.

Love your channel❤ Over 99K🖼 pretty soon 100K⚘ "Congratulations" Yes, I gave a like too. Have a great weekend. 🗽💙

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks Nancy. Yes, I was just saying to someone else here in the comments that the 100k mark will hopefully happen soon and I'll do one or two special videos for it. I'm looking forward to getting my silver play button award too :-)

I don't have strong thoughts about this, but immediately when you mentioned it being on a 4 card I was like "oh so the painter is risking the wrath of Henry by regarding his first two marriages as legitimate? Suuuurrreee." Maybe he did that on purpose, but I think it's far more likely he just grabbed whatever material was closest and it happened to be that playing card.

The pigment used for blond hair would darken in time, making it look brown. In all her portraits, Isabella of Castile looks almost brunette, even though it is known she was very fair, and her hair was strawberry blond. So, it is very possible that the lady in the supposed Katherine Howard portrait was originally painted with blond hair. I think she looks very much like Anne. But most portraits of the era look almost the same, so... it's hard to say.

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

I've seen other people suggest this, but (just to play devil's advocate) I would counter that it seems unlikely that both versions of the portrait would darken in the same way and so uniformly and on just the hair portion.

Oooohhh I've been waiting for your opinion on this!

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you. Enjoy :-) I had a good time researching it.

Henry ordered all portraits and/or mementoes of Anne Boleyn destroyed after her execution, so there are no contemporary images of her including heraldic badges and monograms. In fact, all images of her were painted based on the miniature Elizabeth I kept in her signet ring, which may or may not have been historically accurate. If Henry VIII ordered this for Anne Boleyn, who was far more significant than Katherine Howard, he most certainly (logically) would have ordered the same/similar destruction of images and portraits. With suspect labeling of these portraits at the time, and the queen’s wardrobe and jewels being shared amongst all queens, anything could be possible.

It is 100% Anne of Cleves. I wish I could show you the edit I did to the famous Holbein portrait - I simply drew on middle parted hair and a french hood - side by side with the image people often say is Katherine Howard and there is no doubt, this is the same woman. The eyes and eyebrows are particularly distinctive and identical in both images and the mouth is also the same. The nose is from a different angle and I can tell you as a portrait artist myself that a prominent nose seen from the front is a more flattering choice and disguises the length to some extent. I mean, it just makes sense, it is the same time period, it is definitely one of Henry's queens as the jewellery is the same worn by Jane Seymour and this woman is too matronly and plain to be the very young and gorgeous Katherine. Dark blonde hair fits with the hair colour in the painting.

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Hmm, with respect we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. If that's dark blonde hair I would have to ask how dark do we need to go before we can call it brown? The hooded eyes are similar I'll grant you, but the French hood, the description of the jewels, the Howard family's ownership of the portrait and the fact that it was only ever called Katherine Howard all combine to convince me that KH is the most likely candidate here. If we only had one of these pieces of evidence I'd be more easily swayed, but when I step back and look at the whole lot of it, I think it comes together to point at Katherine. KH was also never described as particularly beautiful. She was young, energetic and pleasant, but her looks never attracted any great comment.

@wednesdayschild3627

2 жыл бұрын

@@HistoryCalling the painting colors darken over time.

@Mark-Smeaton

2 жыл бұрын

@@HistoryCalling I 100% agree with you. Lest we forget that reference to KH's "delightful countenance", indicating that it was not her looks that attracted Henry but rather, her lovely and charming personality.

@mcbrineart

2 жыл бұрын

@@wednesdayschild3627 they do!

@lfgifu296

Жыл бұрын

I too have a prominent nose (much like that of our supposed Katherine) and I guarantee it does not look like that of Anne of Cleves

Great video. Loved the My Heritage moving images. Alison

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks Alison. Some people love them, some not so much. I think they give a little something new to images which I know I use a lot.

I agree with you. lol .. My sister's lament that people don't write on the back of a photo identifying who is who is so true. Of course it's because the owner knows who it is .. but not the image's inheritors . Still , I can't help wondering why someone like Holbein, a professional artist, wouldn't identify all his subjects on the back of his drawings or paintings. ? Clearly he didn't feel the need. Trying to identify a person from an artist's portrait is a tricky business... that is pretty questionable in my view. The additional information like jewel , clothing , eye , hair and complexion are very useful with an artist images. Recognition software is great for photos but I think is not so useful to drawings or paintings. I remember the " Scientific" proof that Anna Anderson's ear was absolute to many, but later genetic testing proved she was not Anastasia. Thanks for another fun diversion.

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

That's such a good point about Anna Anderson. She had so many people convinced she was Anastasia and of course, it was all a lie.

Some interesting information that may be useful, is that the playing card was of the French style. So if it was painted in the lifetime of the queen, then it is likely to be of Katherine Parr or Catherine Howard. Anne of Cleves would have been more accustomed to the Germanic style card, which whilst far less standardised, often used nature-based symbols like acorns, leaves, hearts and bells; and not the diamonds, clubs, hearts and spades in the red/black simple standardised French style popular In England (Also queens were not in Germanic or Italian decks at the time). Due to the printing press, the more standardised French style cards were the most popular in England, but if the card was taken from amongst the Queen or her households possessions during the sitting to use as a quick backing, it was unlikely to belong to Anne of Cleve’s household....lol I also realise I don’t know what card games were popular at the time of the portrait, or the preferences of the queens or the court so any info about this might be really useful

Anne of Cleeves was yellowed haired( blonde) ,Katherine Howard was a brunette .The artist probably only knew how to paint the heavy lidded eyes in his paintings and this could make them look similar in style .Anne of Cleeves possibly kept some of her way of dressing as she aged as it was what she grew up wearing .

I was very happy to see today's topic. I had mentioned this theory in my comments on "What did Katherine Howard look like?", but since I was commenting some months after the fact, I don't know if anyone took that in:) "Once you start to think about and look at the Anne of Cleves portrait and imagine those features if turned to the side, the features seem to match up. What is needed is some computer imaging to bolster this idea. The more I think about it, the more likely it seems to be true. Along with many other people, I can't believe that it is a teenager who is portrayed in the necklace picture." This time around, I was interested to see some comments that appeared to validate my opinion, particularly from people who had an art background. So it wasn't just wishful thinking or an overactive imagination on my part:) Since it was mentioned that Anne took up the English fashions to please Henry, I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to imagine her wanting a "better", possibly more pleasing portrait to give Henry. She would of course have received the consort's jewels and wore them for this portrait, in a way establishing herself as a "genuine" consort. i think the very late attribution of the pictures to Katherine Howard is suspect. It may have been attributed to Katherine if it was known that it originally came from a Howard family member. But the original Howard may have gotten the portrait because it was in Katherine's possessions, not necessarily because it was a picture of her. So here I go with my latest flight of fancy. Supposing the picture was of Anne, she could have commissioned it to show herself in more flattering English dress and therefore more pleasing to Henry than the original portrait which caused all of the trouble. After the divorce, Henry would not want the picture and would have given it back to her. Anne may then have given it to Katherine as a memento of the latter's time as a lady in waiting to Anne (and also a slight dig) when they were playing "nice" for Henry shortly after the marriage. It could then have shown up in Katherine's possessions after her death, which were collected by her family members. I'm a little confused by the reference in the video to Henry taking back Anne's clothing. At most, this would be retrieving the jewels that were set in the French hood. They were originally set in Elizabeth of York's headpiece and were removed from it at her death to pass on to the next consort. There would be nothing "vindictive" about that. Jewels could be refashioned, put in different settings to fit a more "modern" fashion or personal taste, etc.

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Ah, but what about the blonde hair (just to play devil's advocate). I know some people have been saying in the comments that the paint could have darkened, but there are two versions of the miniature and it seems unlikely that paint could darken (just on the hair as well) so uniformly and on two different items, stored in different locations. To answer your query about the jewels on Elizabeth of York's hood, those were the clusters of four pearls alternating with rubies which you also see around Jane Seymour's hood and neckline in her Holbein. They appear in the necklace in the miniature (also seen on JS), but the sitter's hood jewels are different (and match with a hood known to belong to KH). It's certainly a good little historical head scratcher. I'm enjoying reading all the different theories.

@katjack2780

2 жыл бұрын

@@HistoryCalling Oh, the blonde business -- seems to be something of a tie-breaker. This hinges solely on one person's description of Anne's hair as "yellow." I don't think that the common man back then had a vocabulary to describe shadings of hair color. They didn't have the advantage of boxes of crayons of multiple shades:) If the sun were shining on her hair, the overall impression could be a golden color, or "yellow." As someone with light brown hair, I know that the shade is made up of blond and red hairs in the mix. With light shining through it, it can appear more blonde. (However, my sister is the "real" blonde.) I went back to check a portrait of Anne's sister that I recalled. In the picture by Lucas Cranach, she has her hair loose and it looks to be a very lovely mix of gold, red and brown. Now, that's not to say that Anne had the same color. But allowing for the quality of the color reproduction as well as different monitors, the color of Sybille's hair seems very close to that of the two miniatures.

@katjack2780

2 жыл бұрын

Oops, forgot to mention that though the hood is described in the inventory for Katherine Howard, it doesn't mean that it therefore couldn't have first belonged to Anne. It may have been easier to pass on the whole hood rather than try to unpick the jewels on it.

Interesting video! I read about this new theory not too long ago and I was curious about your perspective. However, I'm still leaning towards the sitter being Anne of Cleves. The resemblance between the sitter's eyes and mouth to AOC is uncanny. I also wonder if the paint on the Buccleuch miniature may not have dulled or changed over time. That might explain the discrepancy between the claim that Anne was blonde and the medium brown hue of the sitter's hair. I don't know much about paint and how it changes over time, but I thought it could be a possibility.

It is difficult to judge, the hair could be blond because it is a miniature and the fine lines from the drawing could be making the hair appear darker then intended. It may be possible it is both considering how short the marriage was with Anne of Cleves and how fast Henry married Catherine. Holbein may have started painting one but had to switch to other, kind of like the coronation portrait of King George VI started out as a portrait of his brother Edward VIII

I think that a major factor that ages Katherine(?) in her portrait is the fair eyebrows. They look almost grey, like an older woman might have. I imagine that in real life, she either had very sparse eyebrows that were difficult to depict in miniature format (because a solid brown line would make them look too intense) or else perhaps she used a white face powder/cream that also gave her brows the appearance of being lighter.

This is a great video. I really enjoy your channel. Will you or have you ever done a video on the Battle of Bosworth Field? I have always been fascinated by the Tudor Dynasty 1485-1603.

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

If you see my 2 videos on the life of Henry VII, Bosworth is covered there (I think it's how the first video ends, but I admit I can't remember now off the top of my head if it's how I finished the first one, or started the second). There are some maps in there though to help explain the movements of the two sides.

@English_Dawn

2 жыл бұрын

Ethan. Despite it's fame, there's a lot written about this particular penultimate battle of the WOTR but conjecture on who was where remains. The best definite guide is the book by Glenn Foard on Bosworth. He is an archaeologist. First there were three armies. This is crucial in understanding the battle. First the Royal Army belonging to Richard III which was the largest, Henry Tudor's army and that of the Stanley brothers, ancestors of Lord Stanley of "Stanley Cup" fame. Richard's army was in three sections which was normal. The advance led by John Howard Duke of Norfolk, the centre led by Richard himself and the rearguard led by the Duke of Northumberland. Henry's advance was led by John de Vere the Earl of Oxford who was a remarkable man and ultra loyal to the Red Rose, who had fought at Barnet 14 years earlier and would fight in the final battle at Stoke Field 2 years later. On either side of Oxford were two wings of cavalry one led by Lord Talbot of Shrewsbury and one led by Lord Savage. The Stanley family was some way off to one side. Richard held Lord Thomas Stanley's son, Lord Strange, hostage. Richard was not sure about Lord Thomas Stanley's loyalty. People changing sides was not rare during a battle. It had altered the course at Northampton in 1460 and the threat of it altered the course of Barnet in 1471. Richard had come from Nottingham originally and Lord Strange had attempted to escape but was caught. Thomas Stanley's 3rd wife was Lady Margaret Beaufort and mother to Henry Tudor yet Lord Stanley held office under Richard. People were not sure if the Stanley brothers were to the West or to the East. Richard was said to be on Ambion Hill. He led a cavalry charge towards the end yet Ambion Hill does not seem wide enough for such a cavalry charge? Metal detetctorists have scoured the battlefield yet it was not conclusive. Cavalry charges were very rare during the WotR. English armies usually fought on foot. Indeed English armour was different than that on the Continent. Because the knights and men-at-arms were on foot the leg and foot armour were more articulated. The English first used artillery in 1346. By 1485 artillery was more mobile but still peripheral. More cannon-balls have been found at Bosworth than any other site in Europe. The French king donated some troops under Oxford. There was a marsh set back towards possibly the East which was instrumental. Oxford made the first move towards Norfolk's advance guard. An arrow storm and cannonade ensued. Oxford and his advance guard came in from the side. Norfolk came down the slope and attacked Oxford. Before he could do so, in a pre-planned move, Oxford ordered his men into a wedge-formation. This halted Norfolk who fell fatally. Henry seemed to ride over to the Stanleys probably near the village called Dadlington. Richard saw this and made his move with the cavalry aiming straight for Henry. In fact he killed Sir Henry Brandon, Henry's standard-bearer and unhorsed Sir John Cheney. It is said for a few moments Richard and Henry came to blows. It was at this juncture that William Stanley charged and forced Richard into the marsh and the battle was decided. The Duke of Northumberland left the field without striking a blow. Recently a tiny find was unearthed. Some distance from the earlier expected site. It was an ornamental badge, silver gilt, in the shape of a boar. This was the personal badge of Richard. So either he was wearing it or one of his close associates. The Earl of Surrey, the Duke of Norfolk's son, was injured and captured. He made his peace with the Tudors and eventually led the army that defeated the Scots at Flodden against Henry Tudor's son-in-law at Flodden in 1513.

@ethanrogers4610

2 жыл бұрын

@@English_Dawn I know a lot about history but you know more than I do on this. They found King Richard III's badge.wow that's amazing to find. Are you a professor? I will check out this Glenn Foard. I thought it was amazing when they found Richard's body in 2012. What would you say is your area of expertise? I knew Margaret Beaufort was Henry VII's mother. She was young when Henry Tudor was born on January 28, 1457. I knew his father the First Earl of Richmond Edmund Tudor died about 2 months before he was born. Owen Tudor has always intrigued me too.

@ethanrogers4610

2 жыл бұрын

@@HistoryCalling I always enjoy your videos. You are very professional. I would say of all your videos my favorite one would be the one about examining Anne Boleyn's remains. I will check out the video you said about Bosworth Field. Oh I hope sometime you will do one on Owen Tudor. One on the Battle of Towton would be cool too. Oh I've been watching the Showtime series The Tudors with Jonathan Rhys-Meyers. I know shows like this or movies about history mix fact and fiction. Thank you. Titus Oates who responded to me knows a lot about the Battle of Bosworth Field.

@English_Dawn

2 жыл бұрын

Ethan hi. A special note regards Bosworth. Have you heard of Sir Robert Brackenbury? He was the Constable of the Tower of London. He was in charge when the two princes disappeared. :-( Being the Constable he was in charge of the Royal artillery stored there and when Richard called muster at Nottingham Castle before Bosworth took the Royal artillery with him. You do realise? There is a famous painting of nobles choosing roses in the Temple Gardens. White or Red? Sitting on the fence isn't an option ha, ha. I hope you choose the right rose. If you like Owen Tudor it seems you have chosen the right rose. 🌹 I like the detail HC provides. There are a couple of mysteries I have asked her to portray. They will stay mysteries. One is the death of Amy Robsart who "fell" down some stairs. She was The wife of Robert Dudley a favourite of Elizabeth I. The other is a Plantagenet mystery. Both Richard I and John were born in Oxford. Also in Oxford lived Rosamund Clifford. Evidence suggests Rosamund was poisoned. The allegation had been it was Eleanor of Aquitaine Henry's Mrs who poisoned her. Titus.

Watched this a couple times, to review your support of Katherine Howard. I agree with you that I don’t see the comparison with Anne of Cleves. It seems to me that if it was in the Howards’ possession, that would most likely be because of kinship. Katherine and Anne Boleyn were cousins. Were the Queen’s jewels not handed down and added to as each new queen was gifted new jewels by Henry? Could it be that his keen disappointment and betrayal caused him to wipe out all that was connected to her. Perhaps this family member was able to retrieve this portrait from destruction. Thank you again for your wonderful work, study and observations. I do look forward to Fridays!

But she’s beautiful. Anne’s picture and the young picture of Elizabeth are the most realistic painting from the time. No weird proportions, or strange looks. And they were so beautiful

@melissaharris3389

3 ай бұрын

Holbein was a master portrait known for his realism. His paintings are likely very accurate representations of the sitters. Anna of Cleves was noted to be responsibly attractive by several sources, and Herry thought her attractive enough from Hilbein's likely accurate portrait. It was her personality and the fact she inadvertently slighted his ego on their first meeting that made him dislike her. I actually think Henry's wives likely all looked similar. None of his wives were ever noted for being great beauties, but they all had what could be considered vivacious personalities when he first met them. He had a type, and Anne of Cleves wasn't it.

One question that has popped into my head is did people at court copy the royal family in terms of style including jewellery? Could the reliance on the necklace as part of the identification be a dead end? In the same way could the painter be persuaded to make the features a little more like the incumbent consort as another kind of flattery towards the royal family; sort of an aristocratic look-a-like?

i heard this mentioned in a podcast recent!! cant wait to hear your thoughts on this 🤔

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

It's an interesting idea. I won't give away the ending to the video though.

@ns-wz1mx

2 жыл бұрын

@@HistoryCalling 🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻

Your powers of deduction & reasoning are astounding HC, so I fully concur with your theory on the two miniatures they are not the same person. 😊

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you. I try (though I'm always worried in case I've missed something)!

@robertdudley4017

2 жыл бұрын

@@HistoryCalling you never miss anything HC your to though for that. 😊

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

I hope so (though occasionally after I've finished the video and uploaded it to KZread. but before it goes live, I realise there's some issue and have to fix it, re-render the whole video and upload it again. Those are always bad days).

@robertdudley4017

2 жыл бұрын

@@HistoryCalling hope you don't have to many bad days HC 😊

I've always thought that Queen Anne along with Catherine Parr's portraits are the best looking ladies.

She looks the most youthful of any portraits of the King’s wives. Off-topic, every time I see that portrait of Jane, I think, jeez. Did he really find her irresistible? Holbein was a brilliant artist who not only perfectly captured the features of his subjects but also managed to convey their character. Jane’s expression, her dead eyes, and the way she is holding her head with her chin pulled inward gives me the overall impression she had the personality of wallpaper. But maybe this was just the misery of marriage to Henry.

Very well reasoned.

This just shows how related they all actually were. They all looked so similar genetics are amazing in that way.

@FrenkTheJoy

2 жыл бұрын

Henry and all six wives were all descended from Edward I (or III?), so I think it IS possible that Anne and Katherine just happened to look similar because genetics is weird like that. Like, this is obviously a shorter timespan, but I'm the spitting image of my eastern European great-grandmother (gg-grandmother? I can't remember) but look nothing like my sister. So who's to say that these two portraits aren't just of Anne and Katherine, and the similarities aren't because they're of the same woman, but just that genetics worked funny and happened to make them look similar. That would be such a fun bit of irony, if Katherine Howard looked really similar to Anne of Cleves, so Henry's "I don't like Anne! She look like a horse! Grr!" comments he makes right before falling for a woman who looks just like her would be great.

Enjoy all your video's on history

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

Glad you like them :-)

I must admit I scoffed when you mentioned Franny Moyle suggested the playing card was a 4 for the fourth queen. That's the same sort of "evidence" that conspiracy theorists love to present. If Ms Moyle really thinks this portrait is Anne of Cleves, she ought to stick to the arguments about facial resemblance, jewels, and dates. She's not helping her credibility by including an obvious piece of nonsense.

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

It seemed a little weak to me too, but I think people are always so anxious to find something new to say about the Tudors that it can lead them down a rabbit hole sometimes.

I'm only half way through the video, so excuse me if you do cover this issue! You haven't in previous episodes talking about the famous Holbein portrait of AoC. The issue being, that when that painting was x-rayed, it showed that it had been modified, by Holbein. Apparently her nose was considerably longer or bigger (not sure which, I can't actually remember where I can across this information!) than is seen in the final version. I think it was hinted that Cromwell asked for the change, as he didn't think the original would appeal to Henry at all. Now I type all this out, I'm wondering is this is all something I read in a fictionalised account of the Tudors! Anyone?

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Hmm, I've never heard that story, though the x-ray detail sounds like a real detail rather than fiction. Her nose looks the same here as in the other contemporary portrait of her though. Maybe someone else can weigh in with extra details on this?

Maybe the portrait was done after divorce ordered by the King who wanted one of his new sister. It certainly sounds like something Henry would do, since Anne agreed to free him without a fight.

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Hmm, not impossible, but I think Henry was very much 'love the one you're with'. He already had two portraits of Anne by Holbein and possibly whatever preparatory drawings Holbein did for them (now lost). Would he not want an image of his new wife?

I do agree that the miniature is Katharyn Howard, however in the engraving you showed of Mary Tudor she seems to be wearing the same or at least a very very similar necklace

OK, when the painting blinked. then moved, I jumped clear out of my chair.

When I read the title, I was very skeptical, but after examining both portraits for a solid minute, I see such a strong resemblance that I’m nearly sold on this theory!

I see the indications for it being a portrait of Anne, but I don’t believe it is. I believe it more likely to be of Katherine. I loved your video!

Great video of course! I never knew there was any doubt of Katherine Howard’s portrait or Anne of cleves portraits! Or that Katherine Howard was “in fact” Anne of Cleves. To me the ladies do not look alike although they do have heavy lids but to me that’s not enough for any similarity. What sticks out plain as day to me is the fact that Katherine’s portrait was within the Howard family and it was said for centuries it was her! This is honestly the strongest evidence! It’s unfortunate there is no contemporary portrait of her just like her cousin Anne Boleyn!

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks Kimberley. Yes, I'm always sad we don't have a contemporary picture of Anne Boleyn too. :-(

When I was little, i *ALWAYS* thought they were the same person. It's taken quite a bit to separate the two for me!

I'd never thought to look at the two being of the same person, and while i can see it now if i look at the two, i can't help but think that there are artistic tendencies and periods and fashions that, however true to the person, do give subjects a similar vibe. I'd believe it entirely likely that it's two different women, and the overlap is a stylistic flourish muddling easy recognition...

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, that's a good point. The same painter will have a similar style and although Holbein was excellent at capturing true likenesses, as I mentioned in the video, being limited to a miniature will likely have caused some restraints for him.

@joykoski7111

2 жыл бұрын

I was just about to add a comment on the same topic. I believe artists have a "style"

Another fabulously researched video-- thanks so much for your dedication and sharing your sleuthing skills w/ us. No idea who the lady is, but the jewelry would suggest that she's definitely got a royal connection (however brief) to that poo-headed ninny Henry VIII. The thing that really bothers me about Katherine Howard is that her bones were never found or identified in St. Vincula, and I don't know why it bothers me so, but as is the case in nearly all of the afore-mentioned piece of dung's marriages, women were obviously disposable, so it's not a surprise, I suppose. I feel like he was especially cruel to her, and what seems like an erasure worthy of Egyptian royalty, just did his best to scrub her memory out of England as soon as he could. He seems vindictive enough. Either way, thanks again, and please take this suggestion w/ a bag of salt, but I would love a video of the history of certain infamous pieces of English royal jewelry-- I seem to remember reading about a crown that had come to one of the Windsors by way of the Romanovs, but that could just be a fever dream. Loved the Darnley/Lennox video as well.

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you. The lack of KH's bones is sad and strange to me too. I wonder if she was moved somewhere else under the floor and the Victorians just didn't happen across her in the 1870s? No need for the bag of salt. I actually have a video idea in mind that would fit into that category. I won't share it here however as unfortunately I've noticed my video ideas are being stolen by other channels (sometimes before I even get to do a video on the topic, if I've just said in an earlier video, poll, or comment that I'm going to), so I've decided to stop sharing any potential ideas publicly.

@flizz39

2 жыл бұрын

@@HistoryCalling Well, I can say for certain that your fans will happily devour whatever you've got planned! Those good ol' slightly squeamish and dare I say, Puritanical Victorians probably just wanted to avoid more scandals, is my guess. Ah well, lost in time, but not in memory, so there's that.

I had never thought that painting was Katharine Howard - her description being so different than the painting portrays. Seeing the two paintings together, there is no doubt they are the same lady, Anne of Cleves

Love your channel! Would you consider a piece on Elizabeth Bathory, Hungarian Countess and possible murderer? Thanks!

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you. Maybe at some point down the line, but Dr Kat on Reading the Past actually did a video on her for Halloween, so in the interests of not stepping on her (Dr Kat's) toes, I'd like to wait a while.

The miniature looks very similar to Anne’s younger sister Amalia! More so than K.Howard. Her hair could have possibly gotten darker during the winter months There’s also a belief that it was Cromwell and Anne herself who asked for the portrait to be made to make her look more favourably in a more fashionable light to Henry. Also as we know from Anne Boleyn Henry literally had everything of Anne destroyed no image existed of her so to think any of Katherine Howard survived is highly unlikely. Also we can’t forget that Holbein himself was a designer and helped curate many of the royal jewellery pieces and would have had drawings and references at hand to add and adapt onto portraits at later dates

Anne of Cleves was an incredibly smart woman. She did not want to end up like Anne Boleyn or Catherine of Aragon so cooperated fully with King Henry to end the marriage. Henry granted her an allowance and provided a place for her to live far away from the court. She was therefore able to live quite well and independently in England instead of having to return in disgrace to her home. Apparently she was quite generous and much beloved by those who knew her.

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

All very true, yes.

Many years ago when first seeing the Katherine/Anne portrait, I recall thinking that the sitter doesn't look like a teenager at all. Then last year when I read about the assertion that it could be Anne, it made a lot of sense. It looks like a woman in her late 20's or early 30's. The original Anne Portrait is painted straight on; many say to hide her large-ish nose. The later portrait does show an undainty nose; and the eyes are very similar to Anne's. Anne was around and wealthy, for many years. It always seemed strange that she didn't have more portraits painted of her, as the King's Sister. IMO, it's Anne. But we'll probably never really know for sure.

I never thought that little miniature was of a teenage girl. The identity of Anne of Cleves seems a better fit. They aren't too dissimilar.

First impression after RALLY, looking at both paintings: they actually seem strikingly similar, with the eyes and mouth, and nose seems plausible as well as both pictures shows different angles, plus for how beautiful Katherine supposedly was, the picture never seemed accurate with the description, and girl on the painting that was suspected to be Katherine always seemed much older than the age Katherine would have been in when it was made (I would estimate that the woman on the miniature was at least in her 30', not late teenager/ in early 20', and that's why I could never accept that this miniature depicted Katherine). And about the hair, many people, me included believe that Anne Boleyn had dark auburn hair, not dark brown to black as people suggest because to me this has much more sense genetically speaking looking at Elizabeth, and Anne's fiery temper, whether she had brown or red hair isn't my point here, but supporters of the theory, bring a very great point: castles were dark, and not well lit at all, therefore, sometimes the hair on the portraits can look darker than they were, and when you put the blond person in the dark room and try to take a picture they depending on lighting might look like a light brunette, so to me this checks out. So I definitely see why people think it is Anne, and actually, I start to think that myself. This is an amazing discovery, but if it's true, it is also really sad as we would be left without any confirmed pictures of Katherine, and given that Henry screwed her over even worse than Anne Boleyn it is very sad that he actually succeeded in whipping her image out of history.

This was such an interesting video. I can see the resemblance but I also don't. I love watching history.

One of the main reasons why I think this miniature is Katherine is because out of all the could be Katherine portraitures out there, this is the only one that is kind of untouched hence a bit more authentic and there is a strong possibility that is the only surviving image of one of the most tragic figures in Tudor times and my brain cannot accept the fact that it could be Anne as that would mean that Katherine has no surviving image of hers left and that she is forever lost to history. No no no this is Katherine.

That was very interesting and looking at the 2 pictures I don't really see any resembles of them. I agree with you that, it is two different women.

After looking closely, I feel that the picture is a painting of Katherine Howard and not Anne, considering that Katherine would have appeared very likely "older than her years" which the painter would have picked up on. I think by what I have learned, that Katherine could be at best described as quite "worldly" by the time she married Henry. They also did not have the cosmetics that we have today, they had much harder lives than we can ever envisage, no sunscreen or moisturiser etc! The painting of Anne of Cleve's portrays a lady with a paler complexion, it is not surprising that she was reported as having "yellow hair." It is very clear that the other miniatures are of a woman with brown hair with a slightly different complexion. I also think that the painting in Toledo may be of Anne Boleyn? I really appreciate your in-depth research and videos, they are an absolute delight to watch and get people thinking!😁👍

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks Gilly. Glad you enjoyed it. I think the Toledo portrait is most likely Elizabeth Seymour Cromwell based on the style of clothing, the fact that she's in mourning and the provenance of the picture, but we can agree to disagree. :-)

I don’t think these two paintings are the same person. I’m a portrait artist so I’m use to looking at the face as parts not the whole. I can see they both have the hooded eyes but Anne’s eyes are more almond shaped while the other has more round shaped eyes. Anne has a round tip to her nose the other lady has a downward facing point to her nose. Anne’s face is elongated with a sharp chin and jawline, while the other has a round face. The eyebrows are different too although I don’t know anything about Tudor manicuring practices ahah! I think the lesson I’m taking from this is to not only sign my work but put the name of the subject on the back as well.

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, if only Holbein had properly labelled it, we'd all be spared a lot of stress right now :-)

Thank you.

"People aged faster and died younger, even if they weren't being executed". That is a great comment and darkly humorous even if that wasn't your intention.

I agree with you. The eyes in the portraits are indeed similar, but the noses are not. Anne's nose has a little bulb on the end; Katherine's is pointed. I appreciate the detail in your research!

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks Lisa :-)

I think the jewels and headress in the inventory are the key clues that suggest this is a portrait of Katherine Howard. As is said 'Why would Holbein paint Anne of Cleves again?' Remember too that Anne of Cleves was queen for such a brief period even less than Katherine so the odds have to be against. The other thing that needs to be considered is that Henry was completely besotted with Katherine for 18 months or so. It would be strange if no portrait was commissioned in that period. Perhaps the only surprise would be that Henry didn't destroy the portrait when the revelations about poor Katherine came about?

@HistoryCalling

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, I think the combination of evidence strongly supports it being Katherine. You could argue away one of the points, but not all of them together. I'm sure Henry did want a picture of her, as did her Howard relations (which is I suspect, why this survived, with both versions tucked away in a drawer somewhere in some Howard mansion).

Even back in the day, Portraits were expensive to produce. When you've had six wives, new portrait costs can start to look a little excessive. Face it, How many Photos ofe ones EX does one want to keep? Recycling portraits was not unknown. Have a painter add a few details, change the frame, re-title, and Hey-Presto, Anne becomes Catherine, and much money was saved. Start by X-Raying the portraits to see if there has been any alteration.

My husband has absolutely no interest in English history but lots of interest in photography, (stay with me) he has no idea who either of these people are and has never seen these portraits. He analyzed them as he would a photograph and he feels that they are the same person! As do I actually I am also a photographer and painter and if you break the faces down to shapes they are extremely similar!

Okay hi so I watched half of the video so maybe my questions would be stupid. but I thought that Anna was his second wife, like the rhyme they made about his wives (divorced beheaded died divorced beheaded survive) and the difference between 2nd to 5th seems like a bit of a time jump, so I think if we were to look at the popular items in painting of their respected times as queens them maybe looking for who's portrait could be who's (again I didn't finish the video so correct me if I'm wrong)

Even the portrait of Anne Boleyn, is disputed, it is very similar to his younger sister Princess Mary, The B necklace could refer to her second husband Charles Brandon.

Those portraits of Katherine Howard and Anne of Cleves are two different people different shape to face, nose and eyes tell you so .

The girl in the miniature resembles Anne, but I agree with the point in the video. Their eyes are similiar, but they are also similar to Howard eyes, like those of duke of Norfolk. As well as prominent nose, it was their typical trait. I think even the descendants of Howards have similar facial features. So I think it's Catherine Howard after all.