HIDDEN MESSAGES within famous painting of Henry VIII and his children | The Family of Henry VIII

Hi history lovers and welcome or welcome back to the channel where I bring you new videos every week on all aspects of the past. Today on History Calling we're going to look at this famous painting of Henry VIII and his children plus one of his wives. Known by the title The Family of Henry VIII, it was painted in around 1545 and is full of hidden messages, meanings and information which would once have been clear to its viewers but which are largely lost on modern audiences. Stay with me to hear what we can glean from the subjects chosen to be in the image and how they are positioned, the statements they made with their clothes and jewellery and why controversy has raged for centuries over which Tudor queen Henry is sitting next to and who the woman on the far left is. If you enjoy learning about history, especially royal history, please remember to give this video a thumbs up and subscribe to my channel with notifications switched on so that YouTube lets you know every time I upload. You can also find links to my Instagram account and Patreon page in the description box below. Let's start our analysis of this oil-on-canvas painting which measures a whopping 144.5 centimetres by 355.9 by looking at who's depicted in it. In the centre we have Henry VIII with his sole surviving male heir, the future Edward VI on his right or left, and his queen on his left. Which queen is it though? This has produced quite some controversy over the years, with some historians insisting it must be Catherine Parr, who was married to Henry at the time the painting was commissioned, and others pointing out that this woman bears a striking resemblance to Jane Seymour, as shown in this portrait Hans Holbein created of her before her untimely death in October 1537, less than two weeks after delivering Edward. She is even wearing the same pendant, which was part of a necklace several of Henry's wives wore, in both images. Catherine, who we see here and who does not look like the woman in the painting, was credited with being the queen present throughout the 19th century, despite the fact that as Ralph Warnham noted in 1867 the frame of the painting labelled the woman as Seymour. The consensus today however is that this is indeed Jane and that she has been added due to her status as the mother of the heir. Other factors also tip the balance in favour of it being her. One is the hood she is wearing, which is an English gable style hood still popular during the 1530s when Jane was queen. Catherine on the other hand, who was queen from 1543 until Henry's death in January 1547, favoured the French hood you see here, which sat further back on the head exposing the hair, and which was more popular than the gable hood in the 1540s. Indeed as we'll see in a moment, Henry's daughters, who are also in this painting, wore French hoods too. Then there is the fact that there was already a history of the Tudors appearing posthumously in portraits. The original of this image was created in 1537 by Hans Holbein and shows Henry and Jane alongside his parents, Elizabeth of York and Henry VII, who had died in 1503 and 1509 respectively, and even Jane may have been dead by the time this work was complete. We might find it odd nowadays to put a dead person into a new painting, but it was a useful, accepted and important way to show the dynasty's continuity and whose bloodline would carry on into future generations. This is also another example of figures being presented wearing clothing popular during their lifetimes, rather than modernising them. We see Elizabeth of York wearing an English hood with long lapets coming down on either side of her face and body, and Henry VII in a hat and robes which evoke the fashions of the early years of the 16th century. Coming back to our main portrait, the position of these three in the centre, where the eye naturally goes first in a painting like this, denotes their greater importance compared to the other figures present. Only the King and Queen have sufficient status to sit, though Edward's rank is emphasised not just by his proximity to his father, but by the protective and paternal hand Henry rests on his shoulder. The elaborate canopy of state over their heads is another status symbol, and when we zoom out slightly to see the King's daughters, Mary and Elizabeth, we see that they are not under it, showing their lower status. This lower status didn't just come from being girls though, it was also thanks to the fact that Henry had delegitimised them both and removed their titles of princess when he abandoned their mothers, Catherine of Still, Mary, as the elder of the two, is accorded greater importance than Elizabeth by being placed on their father's right. This is traditionally a place of honour, just think of the saying someone's right-hand man for instance, and put her next to the heir apparent, Prince Edward. The inclusion of both daughters and Mary's placement are all the more important as they If you've seen my video on Tudor fertility problems, which I'll also link below for you, you'll know that by the time of this painting's creation, these three were the only living, acknowledged children that Henry had, and it must have been clear to him that he would have no more. Despite the large coat piece he wears over his groin in this image, the size of which was meant to denote his virility, he had in fact not impregnated anyone that we know of since the Jane Seymour conceived Edward. This was despite the fact that he had married three more times since her death, and we know for sure that his current Queen, Catherine Parr, was able to conceive because she did so after Henry died and she remarried. Rather than leaving the future of the Tudor dynasty hanging on Edward's life alone, he had therefore reinstated his daughters into the succession in 1543. Mary was now due to succeed Edward if he died childless, then Elizabeth would succeed Mary if she too failed to produce any legitimate offspring. Of course, this being the Tudors, things didn't run that smoothly, and if you see the video on Mary I's life that I'll list in the description box for you, you can hear all about how her little brother tried to will the thrown away to their cousin, Lady Jane Grey, instead of his sisters. For now though, just be aware that these former princesses' appearance in this family group signalled that after years of uncertainty about their position, by the mid-1540s they were well and truly back in the fold. It is Mary's position, along with her slightly greater height, which allows us to differentiate her from her sister, as the two look very similar otherwise, despite their vastly different ages. Mary was about 29, Elizabeth only 11 or 12. Indeed, the lack of care taken to make them truly unique, even though we can see from other portraits of them that they didn't really look alike at all, might be seen as another sign of their relative insignificance next to Henry and Edward. They were important enough to put into the painting, but not important enough to bother spending a lot of time recording their differing features. Just like their dresses, their faces seem to have been painted to a template. On the subject of clothes, the outfits the family are wearing are yet another nod to their superior status, as we see them bedecked in super-expensive gold and crimson cloth, with equally luxurious furs on the lining of Henry's coat and trimming the sleeves and skirt of the Queen's dress. Sanctuary laws in force at the time meant that certain fabrics, including furs and velvets, could only be worn by the highest-ranking people in the land, and it was undoubtedly a conscious choice to show the royals in such fabrics to further enhance their position, something which contemporary viewers would have immediately understood. Something which has also attracted scholars' attention is the jewellery Elizabeth is wearing. The necklace the future Gloriana sports bears an A pendant, and this has also been taken by some as an indication of her identity, because that was the initial of her mother, and Anne was known to wear pearl necklaces with her initials on them, seen most famously in the bee necklace portraits of her. However, as I discussed in my videos on that necklace, and on a portrait of Elizabeth completed in about 1546, both linked below for you, while Elizabeth might have inherited some of her mother's jewels, the A we see here may also be a religious symbol, standing for Auspice Maria, meaning under the protection of Mary. It's actually impossible to know how to interpret this for sure. The Virgin Mary would be an odd figure for a girl being raised as a Protestant to reference, yet it would also have been politically foolish to reference the disgraced and executed Anne, especially considering Elizabeth had only just had her position in the line of succession restored to her. It's one of the questions this painting raises which has never been satisfactorily answered. Zooming out further, we can see the peripheral figures in the painting. To our right, we have Will Sommer, or Somers, King Henry's jester, standing in profile with a monkey on his shoulders, perhaps in reference to his job. This is not the only picture Will appears in with the King, and the monarch seems to have been genuinely fond of him. Will would go on to serve in Edward and Mary's households, and attended Elizabeth's coronation in 1559 before dying the following year. To learn more about him, see my video on his life. On the left of the image, we see a female figure. Those who attended the Tudor court no doubt knew who she was as soon as they saw her, but for us things are more complicated. There are two popular identities assigned to her. One is Mother Jack, who was one of Prince Edward's nursemaids, and whose surname was apparently Jackson, thus her title. We know fairly little about her life, but we have this Holbein drawing, which was later labelled as being her, and which shows a woman in the same style of hood as in the family of Henry VIII portrait. The other potential candidate is Jane the Fool. This woman was Queen Catherine Power's fool at this point in time, though she had also worked in the households of Anne Boleyn and Princess Mary. She actually seems the more likely of the two to be the woman in this portrait, partly because it makes sense for symmetry purposes to have the King's fool on one side of the image, and the Queen's on the other, and partly because of her clothing. As Jane's entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography states, the listings, meaning the listings for the clothing bought for Jane, suggest that her fool's uniform was a Dutch gown consisting of a kirtle with an upstanding collar worn over a pleated forepart, the pleats stiffened with buckram or linen. Such an outfit almost certainly identifies her as the left-hand figure in the portrait of the family of Henry VIII. Whoever she was, like Will, her presence here suggests that she was an important and even loved member of the royal household. Like Master Summer, she is well-dressed for a servant, even if her outfit isn't a patch on what the King, Queen and his children are attired in. So now that we've looked at all the figures in the painting, let's consider the backdrop they are placed in, for it is heavy with royal and specifically Tudor symbolism. I've already mentioned the canopy over the King, Queen and Prince, but look at it more closely and you'll see the royal coat of arms above Henry's head, as if we weren't already sure who we were looking at. Observe the carpet they are standing on too. This heavily worked piece of material would have cost a small fortune and serves to emphasise the royal status of the central subjects. Note that the girls don't get to stand on it. Henry is so important his feet even rest on a cushion. The canopy of state is held up by elaborate pillars worked in gold and we can see that the entire wall which forms the back of the painting is composed of similarly elaborate and expensive carved woodwork. Above the family is the most famous Tudor symbol of them all, rose and rose of red and white Tudor roses. Everything about this picture screams royalty, wealth, power and Tudors. If we look through the archways where our peripheral figures are standing, we can see parts of the gardens at the Royal Palace of Whitehall and the London skyline. Like the female figure, these gardens and the skyline would have been well known to those who originally saw the painting, but are likely lost on many viewers today. The website of the Royal Collection Trust, which cares for this artwork, gives a good succinct summary of its backdrop. It says, the heraldic king's beasts carved in wood with gilt horns and set on columns are prominently displayed amidst the floor beds, which are demarked by wooden fencing and painted in the Tudor colours of white and green. Through the archway on the left can be seen part of Whitehall Palace and the Westminster clock house, balanced by a view through the archway on the right of the north transept of Westminster Abbey and a single turret of Henry VIII's great close tennis court. Tragically, Whitehall Palace burnt down in 1698 so we have to treasure these little insights into its appearance and that of its gardens. So much for what the painting shows, who created it? For centuries it was credited to the aforementioned Hans Holbein the Younger, however it is most definitely not by him. For one thing, Holbein was too good a painter to provide us with two virtually identical princesses with little in For another, he died in 1543, two years before this painting was created. In actual fact, we don't know who the artist was, but he evidently took great inspiration from Holbein. The images of Henry and Jane Seymour follow that painter's Portraits of the Pair very closely, and as the Royal Collection Trust website adds, echoes of Holbein can also be detected in For the final section of this video, I'm going to talk about the picture's provenance. In other words, how has it made it from Henry VIII's possession in 1545 to us today? For a start, I have to issue a small disclaimer here. We aren't 100% sure it was painted during Henry's reign rather than Edward's, but everything points to that. The age Edward is represented as, the fact that he isn't presented as the king, and the inclusion of both of his sisters, though he had a very troubled relationship with the Catholic Mary during his reign, all suggest that this painting was done for the father, not the son. The earliest reference we have to its existence in the Royal Records, though, actually comes from nearly a century later. In 1639, the King of England was Charles I, and he was an avid collector of art. His curator was a Dutchman named Abraham van der Dort, and in that year he completed a catalogue of the royal pictures, including those held at Whitehall Palace. It contains the following description of the family of Henry VIII portrait. Item. A long piece painted with gold, where King Henry VIII sits with his queen and his son Prince Edward on the right side, and his two daughters, Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth, standing at each side, and a fool at the left side in the door, with a jack-o'-napes on his shoulder. Jack-o'-napes is an old word for a tame monkey. And on the other side, a waiting woman, little entire figures. Note that van der Dort does not give any painter's name, nor does he identify which queen is with Henry, and he either doesn't know the names of the two figures on the extreme left and right, or doesn't feel they are worth mentioning, which I find is a classic problem with servants. If they're in pictures at all, they're often overlooked. If you know anything about Charles I, you probably know that he ended up losing his throne and his head to the forces of Oliver Cromwell in the late 1640s. He was executed in January 1649, and his goods were all seized and sold off, including this painting. For this reason, it appears in an inventory and valuation of Charles's belongings just 10 years after van der Dort's description, and we find out from this inventory that it was sold to a Colonel Webb on the 27th of October 1649 for the sum of £15. The description of it there wasn't as good as that provided by van der Dort, however it is still evidently referring to this picture, as it calls it, quote, King Henry VIII, Prince Edward, Princess Mary and Princess Elizabeth, together in one piece, end quote. Again, no painter is given, and whoever inventoried the work was presumably not sure which queen consort they were looking at, and didn't care about the servant figures. Webb evidently didn't own it for terribly long, as once Charles I's son, Charles II, was restored to the throne in 1660, the painting quickly made its way back into royal possession, and was listed in 1666 as hanging in the King's Privy Gallery back at Whitehall Palace. Like the solo portrait of Elizabeth I, which I discussed in an earlier video, the fact that it still exists tells us that it escaped the Whitehall fire at the end of that century, and we get an intriguing little clue as to where it went from a book written by George Birchew and published in 1757. This book actually just repeats van der Dort's description, but look at the little handwritten comment added onto this copy. It says of the painting that at the time the writer made this comment, and we don't know how long after the book's publication this happened, quote, it is now in the private apartment at Windsor, end quote. This is a reference to Windsor where, by the way, the picture of Elizabeth I had also ended up after the blaze. If this is indeed where the painting went, and I see no reason to doubt this commenter, even though they also misidentified Jane Seymour as Catherine Parr, Windsor wasn't its home for long. In 1842 Anna Jamieson wrote a book about art galleries in and near London, in which she commented that although the portrait was then in the Queen's Gallery at Hampton Court Palace, it had, quote, for some years hung in the meeting room of the Society of Antiquaries in Somerset House, having been lent to them by George III. George reigned between 1760 and 1820, though the loan was surely made before he famously became incapacitated in 1811 and his eldest son became the Prince Regent. When the move to Hampton Court Palace occurred is unclear, but as we've seen, Jamieson says that it was there by 1842 and it is still there today. A few black and white photographs of it were taken in the late 19th century, which show that it is still in the same condition as it was then, but according to an article in the Times newspaper on the 2nd of April 1986, it did apparently suffer some water damage after a fire at the palace that year. It has evidently been expertly restored, however, and is back on the walls where it belongs. That's it for today, but before I leave you I'd like to thank my wonderful patrons for their generous support of this channel, which helps me to keep creating videos for you. If you'd like to become a patron and get some history calling perks, see the Patreon link in the description box below. I also know from comments under earlier videos that some of you prefer to make a one-off donation, and for that, YouTube have created a thanks button below videos with preset amounts which will enable you to do so. This allows you to post a customisable and brightly coloured comment and get a one-time animation over the top of the video. Should you choose to do this, then again, thank you so much for your support, but please do bear in mind that there is no pressure to join Patreon or donate in any way. Let me know in the comments below whether you think the painting shows Jane Seymour or Catherine Parr, and Mother Jack or Jane the Fool, and if you'd like more art or Tudor history, check out one of these videos next. Whatever you select, please enjoy, and until next time, keep learning!