Living Like a Tudor: Woodsmoke and Sage: A Sensory Journey Through Tudor England

INTRODUCTION

Woodsmoke and sage, peacocks and cinnamon, falcons and linen.

These were the textures of the Tudor world, woven through gowns, served up at feasts, lingering in the air. Life is always a tactile experience and no matter what ‘higher’ ideologies of politics, religion or science were occupying the minds of our ancestors, daily life was sustained by the physical fabric of environment, both immediate and distant. The Tudors reached towards abstract concepts standing on the solid foundations of empiricism, and the world they created both reflected and informed their understanding of self.

As a 12-year-old girl devouring an illustrated history of the past, I had something of an epiphany. Here was a book that gave serious attention to cooking in the Tudor kitchen, the games children played, what herbs were used to make perfume, what underwear they wore: all the things I assumed were unworthy of being a proper subject of study. It was a revelation. History was suddenly a tactile experience, relatable to mine. I could see my own morning – breakfast, dressing, my walk to school, friends in the playground, queuing at the KitKat machine – in a new light. These were points on a graph that might have shifted slightly, but they were consistent with the journey of human experience, just as a 12-year-old girl in 1485, or 1585, would have woken, eaten, dressed, interacted, sought a treat.

Only in recent years has the history of material culture been taken seriously. What people ate, or wore, or how they decorated their houses, was too often dismissed as a frippery, mere window dressing or, even worse, vulgar, while the ‘proper’ academic study continued elsewhere. Domestic, daily and ‘trivial’ aspects of life were frequently the sphere of marginalised figures such as women, children, servants and minorities. It was almost inconceivable that kings might eat and use the toilet, too. Then, a number of factors created a shift in the popular imagination: interest in archaeology and regular local digs; the rise of re-enactment and reconstruction, with the resulting hands-on experience which has created a new body of knowledge; the publication of books dealing with everyday life and the proliferation of accessible TV programmes bringing dead people’s secrets into our homes.

Thankfully, a considerable reassessment of what constitutes history has resulted in a shift in perspective to encompass all aspects of life in the past. No details are off the table, from sexuality and intimate health, to dirty linen and toilet habits. The human experience cannot be understood in its entirety while the daily and mundane are excluded: the shoe that pinches on our walk, the rumbling tummy that prevents us from concentrating, the accidental downpour that soaks us on the way home. This is life. If we understand this, we understand that, like us, the Tudors were also continually experiencing their own physicality, as the basal rate from which every other aspect of life stemmed.

If nothing else, the study of the material world was a study of the human condition, but, more than this, it was literally and metaphorically the building bricks the Tudors used to decode the meaning of existence. It was by cutting up fruit, or human organs, or peering at flasks of urine that doctors formulated theories about the workings of the body. Through the style of a gown or the ornamentation upon a cap a man’s social standing was identified, and he might be rejected, or advanced, accordingly. As many Tudor thinkers admitted, there was much in their world that lay beyond the scope of their understanding and the five senses were essential to deconstructing meaning and self-fashioning.

This book is not just a study in material culture, it is a celebration of the experience of being alive in Tudor times. Although significantly more evidence survives for the lives of the upper classes, I have sought out material relating to the lower and middle classes as much as possible, and the lives of ‘ordinary’ Tudors to contrast with the elite. The Tudors were a very visually oriented culture, so this book’s section on Sight is, of necessity, the largest, although it is nowhere near as large as it could have been, while the delicate traces of lost smells and sounds have been more elusive to track down. Above all, this book hopes to capture a different aspect of the enduring appeal of the Tudors and explore the physicality of life in the past. It is a time-travel experience on the page, a celebration of what material culture can offer and a box of delights for lovers of the Tudor years.

Amy Licence

Canterbury

PART I

SIGHT

PEN AND BRUSH

THE AMBASSADORS

In 1533, the German artist Hans Holbein completed a new work, painted in oil and tempera, upon oak boards cut from English woods. In rich tones of green and red, black and gold, he portrayed two young men, both foreigners in London like himself. They were the 29-year-old Jean de Dinteville, ambassador of Francis I of France, and the 25-year-old Georges de Selve, soon to be Bishop of Lavaur, whose ages are inscribed upon the ambassador’s dagger and on the page end of the bishop’s book respectively. They gaze directly back at the viewer with a mixture of pride and patience, meeting our eyes at a time when the sitters of most court portraits, even members of the royal family, including the king and queen, are portrayed in demure semi-profile. These men are bold. They are cultured and fashionable. They have money. They want you to know it.

Dinteville, who commissioned the work, stands on the left, dressed in the most elegant outfit for an ambassador: a black velvet doublet and pink silk shirt, slashed with white at the chest and wrists. Over it, he wears a heavy coat with puffed sleeves, lined with lynx fur, and the fashionable round-toed shoes of the Tudor court. De Selve’s colouring is more modest, his long brown gown with fur lining covering a plain black garment and white collar beneath, more suitable to his religious calling. He wields his gloves in his right hand and wears the trademark soft, black Canterbury cap of Catholicism, with its square corners.

Together, these two young men have come to be known to history as The Ambassadors. For years, they hung in Dinteville’s chateau in the village of Polisy, about 125 miles south of Paris, but now they are seen daily by thousands of visitors to London’s National Gallery. And they offer the modern viewer a glimpse into the crucial theme of sight and perception in the Tudor world.

Dinteville and de Selve are the main dishes in a Tudor visual feast. As part of a carefully composed still life, they lean upon a two-shelved unit, over which is draped an expensive oriental tapestry, a status symbol more commonly found over tables than underfoot. Although the centres of the European tapestry market were in the Netherlands and Arras, this piece appears to have come from a more exotic Turkish location. Items on the top shelf represent man’s study of the heavens: a celestial globe painted with the constellations; a sundial and other astrological instruments used to measure time and space; a quadrant, a shepherd’s dial and a torquetum, which was a sort of prototype analogue computer.

The shelf below displays a collection of earthly pleasures: a terrestrial globe, a pair of flutes, lute, compass, a book of arithmetic and a Lutheran psalm book, representing the new religious influences that the Catholic de Selve continued to resist. Further subtle references are made to the Reformation through the prominence of the Latin word dividirt, or ‘let division be made’, and the broken lute string of ecclesiastical disharmony.

The top left-hand corner contains a crucifix, partially concealed behind the heavy green backdrop, and scholarly analysis of the various instruments indicates a date of 11 April, or Good Friday, 1533.¹

The ensemble stands upon a polished marble floor, taken from the Cosmati design in the sanctuary at Westminster Abbey, of inlaid coloured stones in geometric shapes. One of the floor’s original inscriptions, created in the year 1268, stated that the ‘spherical globe here shows the archetypal macrocosm’ with the four elements of the world represented in the design, which were believed to also govern the human body, or world, in microcosm. The ambassadors want us to know they are standing at the cutting edge of technology, in a rapidly changing world.

But the picture’s ‘trick’ is hidden. To the casual observer, even one standing in awe before the work, the most famous detail of The Ambassadors might pass completely unnoticed. Nestled in the centre at the bottom, between the two men’s feet, sits an anamorphic skull, distorted in paint so that it leaps into perspective only when the viewer looks at the canvas from a certain angle. Visitors to the National Gallery are directed to a vantage spot marked on the floor, where the image suddenly jumps into life. This morbid shock was quite deliberate, and continues to surprise twenty-first-century observers, but it was somewhat unusual for Holbein, who is likely to have been acting on the instructions of the sitters.

Dinteville chose the term ‘memento mori’ as his personal motto, a reminder of human mortality, which was a frequent motif in medieval and Tudor culture. This theme is also represented in the brooch he wears upon his cap, featuring a grey skull on a gold surround. The skull on the floor symbolises the inevitability of death and the spiritual life, in contrast with the material and temporal luxuries on display. Its deceptive perspective reminds us that death is always present, waiting to claim us, even when we cannot see it, but the element of surprise is paradoxically playful and macabre.

More sinister, perhaps, is the implied limitation of human perception, a sobering and humbling observation despite all the science and learning displayed in the picture. Not even the sophisticated instruments of measurement, of which the ambassadors appear so proud, can predict the approach of death. Seen and unseen, the memento mori is, both of the picture and external to it, a trompe l’oeil whose very skill exposes the complex message of mortal strength and weakness. And yet, perhaps, it is the act of painting, art itself, or artifice, which has the final word. For while the two young men are dead and buried, claimed by the Grim Reaper almost five centuries ago, they still stand staring out at us today – colourful, larger than life, in the pink of health.

The Ambassadors also contains a number of contrasts: macrocosm and microcosm, heaven and earth, world and man. And thus, it helps establish a sense of scale in the Tudor aesthetic – the individual as a cog in the wheel of God’s plan. By surrounding Dinteville and de Selve with the accoutrements of Humanist and Reformation learning, the artist identifies them, by association, as being contextual with global exploration, science and the arts, social hierarchies and the unfolding crisis in the English Church. In commissioning the details of this work, the ambassadors have selected favoured objects as a cultural shorthand, a cherry-picked collage of their specific, Humanist world. Posing amid these symbols, they offer their carefully crafted identities, in microcosm, to the transformative process of paint. Their chosen moment is given a permanence by the artist’s brush, which had the ability to outlive old age, changing fortunes and death, so long as the work survived. The act of painting, and the physical existence of the work itself, gives them an empirical position within an aspirational social framework.

Holbein’s masterpiece was an intellectual exercise as well as an aesthetic one. The image is crammed full of visual clues for his cultured contemporaries to decode, a complex and detailed message that requires sufficient learning to unpack. It was designed to appeal to an elite, but its majestic impact would not have been lost on any strata of society, should they have had access to view it.

A parallel experience for those lower down the social scale, the majority of whom were illiterate, could have been the walls and windows of colourful pre-Reformation ecclesiastical art. Depicting saints and sinners, the performance of miracles and damnation in hell, these were plastered above their heads on an immense scale whenever they went to pray, reinforced by the deliberate contrast made of light and darkness, of flickering candles in the gloom.

The Tudors were a highly visual culture and the ‘look’ of things mattered to them. This was true right through the social spectrum, from the poor woman’s pleasure in receiving the bequest of a new gown in a friend’s will, to Elizabeth I’s cloak embroidered all over with eyes and ears, implying that she saw and heard everything. That large percentage of society who could not read were far from being visually illiterate.

The Tudor elite used heraldic devices, badges and liveries as indicative of their lands and lineage: animals and flowers, symbols that were instantly recognisable. However, a rise in mercantilism and an increased social mobility by meritocracy allowed the middle classes to adopt their own series of visual codes. Everything that could be seen, from the rings upon a finger to the shape of a shoe, were coded references to social hierarchy.

In such an aspirational culture, clothing increasingly replaced birth as the first indicator of personal identity, allowing for acts of sartorial stealth and deception like never before. The Tudor man or woman would attempt to wear and display the accoutrements of a higher social stratum, as a means to achieving it. Size and quantity mattered. Location mattered. Subject to strict hierarchies, you would judge, and be judged, by the material self you projected.

The Ambassadors offers a useful entry point to the complicated material culture of the sixteenth-century world. The deliberate way in which it was planned, composed and executed reveals the centrality of personal status to the Tudors. Holbein demonstrates this through his presentation of the complex identities of Dinteville and de Selve, in terms of clothing and appearance, posture and positioning, and the careful, deliberate arrangement of symbolic items in location. Perhaps the portrait itself is the only answer to the memento mori it contains. It was Holbein’s artistic vision which conferred immortality upon its subjects, whose names and faces could otherwise have been footnotes in history.

STRUTTING KINGS

In 1537, Henry VIII commissioned the first full-length portrait of an English ruler. Himself. Yet the Whitehall mural, probably painted onto the wall of the king’s privy chamber, shows not just one but four monarchs, summoned to reflect Henry’s new purpose and validate his dynasty. Henry’s parents, Henry VII and Elizabeth of York, are resurrected to stand on a step at the back, while Henry and his third wife, Jane Seymour, pose in front of them, either side of a plinth draped with carpets, inside an ornately decorated room in the Renaissance style.

The two women stand demurely with clasped hands, looking off into the distance, but the contrasting men’s positions echo the plinth’s inscription that while Henry VII was a great king, Henry VIII was an even greater one. Nowhere is this clearer than in Holbein’s depiction of his employer. The stance he chose has become iconic, reproduced worldwide, and is instantly recognisable. Feet wide apart, Henry VIII faces the viewer squarely, one fist on his hip, with padded shoulders and puffed sleeves, prominent calves and codpiece, dagger pointing towards the Latin text. The image presents the exaggerated masculinity of a king anticipating fatherhood and has become the most enduring and recognisable visual shorthand for Tudor majesty, just as it was intended to. In contrast, a tired-looking Henry VII rests upon the plinth, swathed in loose clothing, with sloping shoulders, although his direct gaze speaks of his quiet authority.

The Whitehall mural is the most recognisable piece of propaganda surviving from the Tudor era. It conveys the aspirations of a man who was only the dynasty’s second king and had yet to sire a legitimate son. Depicting himself as the apogee of Renaissance masculinity, Henry created a larger-than-life idealised doppelgänger, whose virility was so demonstrable that it obviated any doubt. In the wake of the Anne Boleyn scandal of 1536, in which the king’s sexual performance was questioned, and following the miscarriages and stillbirths of his former wives Catherine and Anne, the painted Henry shook off any responsibility for the reproductive shortcomings of his real-life counterpart.

In 1546, Henry commissioned two portraits to commemorate the investiture of his only surviving son and heir, Edward, as Prince of Wales. The first was finished that same year by the newly employed Flemish artist, William Scrots. It depicts the 9-year-old boy as a royal icon, his outline instantly recognisable, as is the work’s debt to Holbein’s Whitehall mural.

Edward echoes his father’s stance but in reverse, a mirror image, facing the left where Henry faced the right, with all the connotations of succession this suggests. The boy stands with feet wide apart, his right hand clasping a dagger, his left tucked into his belt. His clothing exaggerates his silhouette, literally taking up more space than he needs, as a show of importance. The puffed doublet has gold embroidery, with a high collar, and the red coat is lined with lynx or ermine, richly decorated with gold, through which his slashed sleeves show. He wears white hose, displaying his calves, garters, white square-toed shoes and the gold chain of the Great George, as a Knight of the Order of the Garter. Upon his head sits a jaunty black cap with gold ties and a white feather, the type of cap likely to have inspired the 1565 Pleasant Dialogue. The effect is that of a mini Henry.

Where Henry used an exaggerated body shape to emphasise his virility, the same technique serves a dual purpose for a boy making the transition to kingship. By echoing the 1537 mural, the pose reminds its viewers of his father’s reputation, reinforcing Edward as the true heir of the Tudor legacy.

In addition, though, the distorted shoulders, padding and stance send a message of health and strength in a child who had frequently suffered periods of illness. The Italian physician Girolamo Cardano mentioned Edward’s small stature and pale face, while the Imperial ambassador commented on his posture, remarking that his right shoulder was higher than his left.¹

With Henry in rapid decline, and Edward’s succession imminent, the boy-king needed to inspire confidence in his ability to rule. For the Tudors, this was correlative with physical well-being. Dressing Edward up and painting him in rude health was one way of demonstrating his fitness to rule, but it was also an act of enshrining an idealised version, a simulacrum, of the frail boy.

First identified in the sixteenth century, the concept of simulacra sprang from perfected artistic representations of individuals, particularly classical gods, concurrent with the developing cult of semi-deifying monarchs in portraiture. The portraits were designed to compel awe and allegiance to the son of the all-powerful Henry VIII and convince Edward’s subjects to obedience.

The contrasting settings of the two portraits capture a crucial moment of transition. The Scrots painting places Edward in, or near, Hunsdon House, in Hertfordshire, where he was resident between May and July 1546. The entire house is visible at a distance outside the window, viewed from the interior in which Edward stands. Perhaps he is in a related property on the Hunsdon estate or a hunting lodge. Or else the portrait contains a conceit, simultaneously depicting both the interior and exterior of the house. His room is decorated with carved Renaissance figures and a marble pillar which bears an inscription alluding to the Roman emperor, Mark Antony.

It is unclear where the second portrait of Edward is set. Deriving from the workshop of Master John, and probably intended as a copy of Scrots, it was not completed at the time of Henry’s death in January 1547. Its subject started out as a prince, then became a king, and these changes are visible in the work. The new Edward VI stands inside an even more lavish room – a room fit for a king. It contains a large chair of estate with gold claw feet clasping gold balls, dressed in blue velvet, with fringe and tassels. Behind it, the bright golden cloth of estate rises up, framing the young king.

Modern X-ray analysis of the panel indicates that originally two windows were planned to feature on either side of the chair, but only one appears in the finished work. There is no view, though, no vista of a distant palace: kingship has come to Edward, rather than him looking upon it from afar. Instead, the window is a simple blue-grey lattice panel, which brings to mind the outside world but is devoid of detail. It is a blank canvas upon which Edward might paint his life and reign, the tabula rasa known to the Tudors from Avicenna, Aquinas and the late-fifteenth-century Sir John Fortescue. Over the place originally intended for the left-hand window, a classical pillar has been inserted, decorated with the royal coat of arms. Edward’s inheritance has been realised.

Who, exactly, were these paintings intended to impress? If, as it is believed, the Whitehall mural was painted on the wall of Henry’s privy chamber, its audience was a favoured elite of rich and powerful courtiers. Servants, chamberers and grooms would have passed before it, but the majority of Henry’s subjects would never have seen it, nor were they intended to. The people outside the palace weren’t the kingmakers. Power rested in the hands of a small percentage of leading nobles, whose support could make or break a monarch, particularly at moments of transition.

Such was the importance of loyalty and respect in the privy chamber that it had been reformed by the Eltham Ordinances of 1526, which insisted upon the discretion of those granted access. It was precisely in such close proximity to the king that the most dangerous plots could be hatched, and Henry, in dressing, sleeping and washing, was at his most vulnerable. His privileged circle saw these works because they were its target audience; they served as both memorial and warning, glorification and instruction. The painted eyes of Henry VIII and his son would watch over their court, as rulers of the earthly realm, and from the afterlife.

There was something superstitious, almost magical, about the king’s portrait. It was intended to stand in for his presence, and be revered, just as the king would be. Thus, it became a secular icon. The Ordinances stated that ‘the King being absent… they shall… give their continual and diligent attendance in the said chamber’,²

as if the image was of near equivalent worth to the actual flesh and blood of the king himself.

By dictating this response, Henry added a symbolic value to his portrait, by equating reality with the depiction of reality. Through a mimetic process, the painting was charged with royal power, just as pre-Reformation saints’ icons were venerated as a conduit to the Divine.

It was no coincidence either that this royal deification in paint was developing concurrently with the closure of the monasteries and destruction of saints’ shrines. The religious sanctum centred upon the holy statue or relic was being replaced by that in the king’s inner rooms. In addition, this careful placement of royal imagery served to reinforce the hierarchy, by defining who was considered worthy of access to the image, whose rank allowed them to see the king in paint. The general public, who flocked to pre-Reformation pilgrimage sites, were excluded from viewing these new icons. The manipulation of sight, through the placement of royal images and the control of their audience, was another means by which the Tudor dynasty promoted their power.

Ultimately, though, such images were too powerful to not be utilised elsewhere. Copies were made and displayed by those seeking royal favour, as if they might absorb some of their iconic power. This was made possible due to new templates of the king’s image being circulated among members of the Worshipful Company of Painters and Stainers, who regulated artists’ workshops and apprenticeships.

John Bettes, an English-born disciple of Holbein, was a member of this guild and was first recorded working at Henry’s court in 1531, so it is likely that he was the ‘Master John’ traditionally ascribed to the second portrait of Edward. Yet Bettes was a rarity, as in the same year, Sir Thomas Elyot commented upon the paucity of good artists England produced, as ‘if we will have anything painted, carved or embroidered’, we must ‘abandon our own countrymen and resort unto strangers’.

Many of the most famous artists working in England during the Tudor dynasty were Flemish: Hans Holbein, William Scrots, Marcus Gheeraerts, Lucas and Susannah Horenbout, Levina Teerlinc, Hans Eworth, Anthonis Mor and Steven van der Meulen. As early as 1491, the ‘wardens and other good men of the Art or occupation of payntours’ came before the Mayor of London ‘complaining of the members of the crafts becoming impoverished by the influx of foreyns’ and asked that no freeman ‘henceforth employ a foreigner when he can get a freeman equally capable and as good cheap’.³

The monarch was above the rules, though. It is an irony that the archetypal images of Tudor monarchy, of the ruling English elite, were fashioned by foreigners.

PORTRAITS IN COURTSHIP

Shakespeare’s Sonnet 24 claims that love enters through the eyes. In this case, they record an internal image of the beloved, for which the lover’s body acts as the frame:

Mine eye hath played the painter and hath steeled,

Thy beauty’s form in table of my heart;

My body is the frame wherein ’tis held,

And perspective that is best painter’s art.

For through the painter must you see his skill,

To find where your true image pictured lies.

For those hoping to marry in the sixteenth century, first appearances mattered.

Love and courtship were undertaken in the Tudor world for a host of reasons, from the mercenary to the romantic. Advantageous marriage was the ultimate goal, but romance could derail even the most lucrative negotiations, as the precedent set by Edward IV established. When it came to the wooing of kings and queens, who frequently sought spouses outside their realms, the exchange of portraits might be the only opportunity to see one’s bride or groom before the ceremony. For all the value they placed on breeding, diplomacy and fortunes, the Tudors still valued a pretty face. The appearance of good health and regular features also suggested the ability to bear healthy sons.

In 1505, when he was seeking a new wife, Henry VII set out a list of twenty-four intimate questions for his ambassadors visiting Joanna of Aragon, dowager Queen of Naples, enquiring about her complexion, the colour of her hair, the size and shape of her features, whether hair grew on her top lip, the sweetness of her breath, her stature and bodily features and her bodily smell.¹

This was no mere match of diplomatic advantage to Henry. What Joanna looked like really mattered to him. He wanted a woman he would find physically attractive and whose appearance would complement his dignity and position. To be certain, he also requested that a painting be made of her, surreptitiously, so as to be as accurate as possible and avoid the need for diplomatic flattery, but if this portrait was created, it no longer survives:

I humbly entreat you, if it be possible, and if it should not be considered an improper thing, that you would please to send me, as quickly as may be, a picture of the said Queen, portraying her figure and the features of her face, painted on canvas, and put in a case. Let this, moreover, be done very secretly, and the picture sent to me by your Highnesses, without the Queen of Naples, or her Serene Highness, the Queen her mother, knowing or suspecting anything about it. I say and ask this because the King greatly desires it, if I may judge by the very particular questions he asked respecting the Queen.²

By the late 1530s, Henry VIII was seeking a fourth wife after the death of Jane Seymour in childbirth. First, he dispatched Jean Mewtas to France to paint Mary of Guise, but upon being told she was unavailable, sought permission instead to paint Louise and Renée of Guise and Anne of Lorraine. Unwilling to trust the evidence of paint, Henry suggested meeting the women in Calais, but this was ridiculed by Francis I, who joked that Henry wanted them to trot before him in display, like horses.

Early in 1538, Hans Holbein was sent to Brussels to obtain a likeness of Christina, the young, widowed Duchess of Milan, reputed to be one of the most beautiful women in the world. Holbein produced a sketch of Christina in her mourning clothes in the space of three hours, between one and four on the afternoon of 12 March. He then turned this into one of the most stunning of all sixteenth-century portraits. Wearing a long black robe with puffed sleeves, lined with brown fur, a black dress with hints of white at collar and sleeves, and a black cap, not even the simplicity of her clothing or the plain blue background can detract from the duchess’s charms.

Henry was so impressed that he was ‘in better humour than ever… making musicians play on their instruments all day long’.³

However, Christina was not keen to be the English king’s next bride, commenting sharply that if she had two heads, she would not mind putting one of them at Henry’s disposal.

In the summer of 1539, undaunted by these rejections, Henry was considering a match with a German princess. Holbein travelled with the English ambassadors to Duren in June for an audience with the Duke and Duchess of Cleves, to create a likeness of their two unmarried daughters, Anna and Amalia. A sketch of Amalia shows a young woman with dark hair and eyes, regular facial features, strong cheekbones and firm chin, but it was the elder, Anne, whose image was worked into a full painting, begun on parchment and later mounted on canvas.

Henry’s negative reaction to Anne’s appearance on meeting her is so well documented that analysing the portrait out of context is difficult. Yet the notion that Holbein deliberately flattered Anne, so often used to explain Henry’s disappointment, is belied by the universal praise of her person by other contemporaries. Henry never blamed Holbein’s representation, nor questioned the truthfulness of his ambassadors who described her as attractive, or the painting itself, which was considered a ‘very lively’, or realistic, depiction.

Seen in three-quarter length, Anne wears the Germanic fashions of the 1530s, a red and gold dress decorated with pearls, with a nipped-in waist and long, trailing sleeves. Her features are even, her eyes hooded and her hair scraped back under a gold headdress. She wears two gold chains, several rings and a cross in black and gold. No doubt she chose her clothes carefully to represent the latest fashions at her parents’ court and to demonstrate their good taste and wealth. It just wasn’t English taste.

The portrait arrived in England in August 1540, followed by the Duke of Cleves’ ambassadors in September, with the marriage contract concluded early in October. Soon afterwards, she began the journey to Henry’s side.

Henry’s dislike of Anne was a visceral, personal reaction, but it was as much a cultural construct as a response to her face and body. Unfortunately for Anne, beauty resided in the eye of a king with a very specific Anglo-French aesthetic. French ambassador Marillac commented that the German entourage’s clothing was sufficient for them to be labelled as ugly, but this was not an unsurmountable object and the new queen’s clothing was quickly exchanged for something considered more attractive in a tent at Greenwich. When she appeared in English clothes with a French hood, contemporary chronicler Hall commented that it ‘so set forth her beauty and good visage that every creature rejoiced to behold her’.⁴

But not Henry.

Fashionable presentation had influence, and could be transformative, but Anne’s anglicising makeover came a few days too late. She was already doomed, because she had failed to recognise Henry when he surprised her unannounced, and in disguise, at Rochester Castle. Anne had pulled away when the king broke etiquette by trying to take her in his arms and kiss her, without knowing who he was. Hoping she would understand the sophisticated rules of the game of disguise, Henry’s plan had been scuppered by Anne’s surface reading of his costume. She had taken his external appearance literally. Clothes made the man, and the bride’s rejection of a man in a hooded gown as beneath her in status dealt an irrevocable blow to Henry’s masculine pride.

When Mary I sat for her portrait by Antonis Mor in 1554, she was putting her best side forward in a last-ditch attempt at marriage. Mor was sent to England to capture her likeness on the orders of Emperor Charles V, the father of her intended husband, Philip of Spain. At 37 to Philip’s 26, Mary had waited a long time for queenship and marriage and was past the age at which some of her contemporaries had reached the menopause or even become grandparents. By sixteenth-century terms she was not attractive, but what she had to offer, and what she needed to represent, was England. And England was attractive.

Sitting for her portrait, Mary strove to represent the best embodiment of her country that she could manage, and it was on those terms that she succeeded. Seated in an embroidered, red velvet chair within a shadowy interior in which only a classical pillar is discernible, Mary presents a muted, understated contrast to the vision of royalty offered by her brother and father. The message conveyed is one of refinement and quality, rather than the gaudy display and colours of the men’s attire. Mary’s plain, dark purple gown reveals just enough of her embroidered silver kirtle and sleeves to be suggestive of riches within and, apart from the central pendant, a gift from Philip, her jewellery is understated.

The portrait conforms to betrothal conventions with the inclusion of a single flower, held by Mary between finger and thumb of her right hand, while gloves rest in her left. Traditionally, this was a red carnation, but the detail suggests it may have been substituted, in this case, for a rose, her national symbol.

Philip agreed to marry Mary, meeting her in person a few days before their Winchester-based ceremony in July 1554, but it was not for her personal charms. As a Spanish aide confessed, ‘The marriage was concluded for no fleshly consideration, but in order to remedy the disorders of this kingdom and preserve the Low Countries.’⁵

Philip had accepted England’s queen rather than Mary for her own merits.

Tudors from the middle ranks of society also commissioned courtship portraits. In the later 1530s, Simon George, a young nobleman from Quocoute in Cornwall, posed for Holbein with explicitly romantic iconography. Dressed in extravagant fabrics with his shirt collar open, he holds up a red carnation and a badge upon his beret features Leda and the swan, a seduction scene that points to his motivation.

As a fashionable youth and a minor official at court, George chose to be depicted in the Italian-style Tondo, a round portrait 30cm in diameter, too large for jewellery and too small to make an impact when hung upon a wall. It was just the right size, though, for a woman to carry about with her like a personal icon and constant reminder of her betrothed’s ardour. George married Thomasine, daughter of Richard Lanyon, from another old Cornish family.

The stunning 1540 miniature of Jane Small, née Pemberton, the wife of a London merchant, represents a rare face from outside the world of the court. Born to a Northamptonshire gentleman, Jane married into the cloth trade in her early twenties, an event which the painting may have been commissioned to celebrate. Her simplicity of dress reflects her status, being barred by the sumptuary laws from wearing certain fabrics and colours, even though her future husband may have traded in them. The black and white dress boasts a fashionable blackwork collar and the obligatory red carnation is tucked into her bosom. Her eyes are cast down and her expression sits midway between demureness and concern. Yet she also has a few flourishes of luxury, a fine linen hood, frilled cuffs and gold rings. In all, it is a human, touching image of a young woman outside royal circles on the verge of a new life in London.

THE PORTRAIT ELITE

Every Tudor Tom, Dick and Harry wanted their portrait painted, but not many of them could afford it. Holbein, Scrots and Gheeraerts were well out of most people’s price range but the middle classes might pay an apprentice artist from one of the London workshops to recreate their likeness. Hung in hallways and parlours or over the dining table, they would impress friends, relatives and visitors, but also conferred a fleeting permanence upon their subjects in a world where fortune, success, health, even life, were changeable factors. A portrait was a way of saying, ‘I have arrived, if only for today’.

Few of these portraits have survived. Fire, flood, damp, carelessness and changing fortune made them only as durable as the paper, wood or canvas upon which they were painted. Holbein’s sketchbook shows many more images than the total number of completed works known today. The features of men and women from the Tudor court gaze back from his pages, part formed, their eyes and headwear picked out in sharp detail, concealing a smile or a knowing expression, while their limbs and extremities fade into sketchy nothing.

There was also a direct correlation between the fickleness of power, and the survival of portraits. Perhaps the most obvious case is that of Anne Boleyn, who was sketched by Holbein and must have been the subject of many paintings during her decade at Henry’s side. However, the lack of any completed works in existence today, and the hurried erasure of the initials H and A, carved into the stone of royal architecture with an intended permanence in the late 1520s, suggests a wide-scale process of destruction of her image in the wake of her fall. As Henry snuffed out Anne’s life, so he removed any reminders of her.

Painting in Henry VIII’s reign was dominated by Hans Holbein the Younger, a German who came to England on the recommendation of the Humanist scholar, Erasmus. During his first visit in 1526–27, a number of Henry VIII’s courtiers sat for him against vivid blue-green backgrounds, often framed by a green curtain, pillar or natural elements like leafy branches. This highly stylised, Mannerist form of posing, blends elements from the indoor and outdoor, with bright, almost jewel-like colours, producing works that place a realistic portrait over an almost stained-glass or iconic backdrop.

Sir Henry Guildford, one of the king’s closest friends, looks off to the right-hand side in a patterned gold doublet under a brown furred coat and wearing the Great George of the Order of the Garter. Facing to the left, in anticipation of her image being hung beside that of her husband, is Henry’s wife, the voluptuous Lady Mary Guildford, who stares directly at the viewer while holding a book beside an ornate Renaissance pillar. Her finished portrait gives her the air of being somewhat formidable, but another of Holbein’s preparatory sketches captures her laughing, showing a different side to her entirely.

Assuming the same position as Henry Guildford, with the green leaves behind, Anne Lovell was painted in a work known as The Lady with a Squirrel and Starling. Her black and white dress is simple and modest, without adornment, and her white headdress and shawl speak of modesty. These early works combine a formal, stylised approach with the sense of humanity that set Holbein above his peers.

On his second visit to England from 1532, Holbein was still using the dark turquoise background with vines and leaves. The king’s usher and gentleman, Thomas Reskimmer, appears in simple black, with a trail of white from his collar and brown fur lining. His long beard touches the tips of his upturned fingers as his hands rest together before him in a pose of contemplation.

The artist also made sketches of husband and wife, Sir Thomas and Lady Margaret Elyot, whose completed portraits have since been lost. These half-finished images were executed with a delicate, intimate touch in pen and coloured chalks. Like the Guildfords, the couple look towards each other in two separate works designed to hang together, dressed in dark clothes that have some elements of decoration and status, like Margaret’s gold headdress and Thomas’s fur collar and gold chain. Thomas, in particular, represents a man resistant to a changing world, wearing his hair in a long, old-fashioned style and his chain suggestive of a crucifix and adherence to the old faith. Holbein may have been aware that diplomat Thomas had recently returned to England after a fruitless visit to Emperor Charles V in an attempt to resolve Henry’s divorce.

During this period, Holbein produced many more court portraits, including the elegant but stern-looking Margaret Lee, sister of the poet Thomas Wyatt, in a dark red gown with gold ties, pearl headdress, gold chain, rings, gold pendant and red rose. Formerly Mistress of the Wardrobe to Anne Boleyn, and once her close friend, Margaret looks askance at the artist with an air of worldly cynicism. Thought to have sat for her portrait in around 1540, just four years after having accompanied Anne on her final journey to the Tower (and possibly even standing beside her on the scaffold), Margaret bore nine children and died in 1543, but in her portrait, her social standing and survival are recorded in colour by the master artist, speaking a powerful mimetic truth that outlasts the fluctuations of her fortunes.

Another engaging pair of Holbein’s are those of Sir Thomas Godsalve and his son John, lawyers from Norwich. Thomas was a friend of Thomas Cromwell and used his influence at court to establish a career for John. In their joint portrait, executed in 1528, John was aged 23 and newly admitted to Gray’s Inn. He is standing immediately behind his father, paper in hand as if assisting him