Mary Tudor, the first crowned queen of England, is now believed to be the subject of a 500-year-old miniature portrait. Previously attributed to Katherine Parr, Henry VIII’s sixth wife, experts have re-evaluated the evidence. Art historian Emma Rutherford highlights differences between the two women’s noses: Mary’s is bulbous and upturned, while Parr’s is straight and aquiline.
Rutherford’s findings relate to an exhibition she curated. Mary and Katherine were of similar age and had reddish hair and blue eyes, causing confusion in identification. However, their clothing styles differed, with Parr wearing dressier outfits.
Recent discoveries strengthen the case for the miniature’s attribution to Mary. Nicola Tallis, a jewelry expert, noted that the cross in the portrait matches one worn by Mary in another portrait. Additionally, historical records show that Mary received a similar jeweled cross as a gift from Henry VIII in 1546.
What are the key factors leading to the reattribution of historical portraits in art history?
Interview with Art Historian Emma Rutherford on the Reattribution of a 500-Year-Old Miniature Portrait
News Directory 3: Good day, Emma. Thank you for joining us to discuss your recent findings regarding the miniature portrait believed to depict Mary Tudor, the first crowned queen of England. Can you tell us about the significance of this reattribution?
Emma Rutherford: Thank you for having me. The reattribution of this miniature portrait to Mary Tudor is significant not just for art history but also for our understanding of Tudor lineage and identity. For years, it was misattributed to Katherine Parr, but several critical distinctions, particularly in facial features and attire, have led us to reconsider.
News Directory 3: You mentioned differences in the physical features of the two women. Can you elaborate on that?
Emma Rutherford: Certainly. One of the most striking differences is in their noses. Mary has a bulbous, upturned nose, while Katherine’s is straighter and more aquiline. These subtle yet critical features are essential for accurate identification. Moreover, their clothing also varied; Katherine tended to wear much more extravagant outfits compared to Mary.
News Directory 3: That’s fascinating. What other evidence has been uncovered to support the attribution to Mary?
Emma Rutherford: A considerable breakthrough came from jewelry expert Nicola Tallis, who pointed out that the cross depicted in the portrait matches one associated with Mary in another known portrait. Furthermore, historical records indicate that Mary received a similar jeweled cross from Henry VIII as a gift in 1546, which bolsters our case.
News Directory 3: It seems that the timeline plays a crucial role as well. Can you tell us about the artist and the dating of the portrait?
Emma Rutherford: Indeed, the portrait is dated around 1546 when Mary was 30 years old. The artist, Susanna Horenbout, is confirmed to be the creator, as both her father and brother had died before the mid-1540s. This timeframe coincides perfectly with Mary’s life, adding another layer of authenticity to the work.
News Directory 3: Given Katherine Parr’s supportive role towards her stepdaughters, including Mary, do you think she might have commissioned this portrait for Mary?
Emma Rutherford: It is a fascinating possibility. Katherine was a strong advocate for Mary and Elizabeth, pushing for their rights to inherit the throne. If she had commissioned the miniature, it would add an ironic twist to the narrative of the mix-up we’ve seen over centuries.
News Directory 3: Thank you, Emma, for your insights into this captivating piece of history. Your research sheds new light on Tudor identity and artistry.
Emma Rutherford: Thank you for the opportunity to share. This blend of history and art continues to uncover layers of our past that deserve recognition.
Rutherford confirms the artist of the miniature, Susanna Horenbout, painted Mary, as her father and brother had died before the mid-1540s. The portrait is dated around 1546 when Mary was 30 years old.
Interestingly, Katherine Parr was an advocate for her stepdaughters, Mary and Elizabeth, to inherit the throne. It is possible that she commissioned the miniature now associated with Mary, making the mix-up even more ironic.
