The New Murrey and Blue blog

As I write my failure to find anything online about a particular event, apart from someone’s FB page, leads me to hesitate. But let’s assume it IS what’s happening….

It ‘s said that art galleries are suddenly declining to display the above portrait of Henry VIII, Jane Seymour and the boy Edward VI (who died today, 6 July, in 1553). Why the painting’s sudden disgrace? What’s wrong? It’s just another falsified Tudor fantasy, which even our galleries must have known. Tudor-Photoshop is so named because they invented it, believe me. All modern rivals are copies! The Lancastrians had done the propaganda spadework, but the Tudors perfected the fibs and doctored paintings. They were always doing it and it hasn’t bothered anyone until now. But all of a sudden arty coyness has set in?

Surely it’s long been obvious, even in the hallowed world of art afficionados, that the Tudors couldn’t be honest if their backsides were on fire. The Houses of Lancaster and Tudor had usurped the crown of England, killing along the way, and had to justify their occupation of a throne to which they had no blood right. That meant annihilating the good names of their predecessors.

It’s my guess that at first it was down solely to the Spin Gene, which may have first appeared possibly in John of Gaunt but definitely in his son, Henry IV. Henry was the first Lancastrian king and he conveniently ignored the more senior claim of the Earl of March, brushing it aside because it descended through a female line. I suppose the earl should have been thankful not to suffer the same fate as Richard II (first cousin of Henry IV) whom Henry murdered, having first stolen his throne. Not content with that, the Lancastrian leech then set about sucking dry Richard’s character and memory too. How do you think Richard II’s image as a tyrannical loony has come about? Yes, the Lancastrian Spin Gene had gone into full-steam-ahead mode.

That same Spin Gene and, by then, Tudor-Photoshopping excelled after Bosworth, when Henry VII managed to emerge the victor (through treachery, of course, he certainly didn’t fight his way to triumph) and then set about destroying the good name of his vanquished foe. Richard III, the last monarch of the House of York, wasn’t the hunch-backed, hook-nosed, withered-armed monster that has come down to us through the ages, but I’m sure there are still some misguided twits around who still believe Shakespeare’s fiction (written to please the Tudors) even though Richard’s remains have been found in Greyfriars, Leicester and proved he only suffered from scoliosis, which wouldn;t have been evident to anyone once he was clothed or in armour.

Henry VII just couldn’t help himself. He not only loathed Richard III, he feared him too because Richard hadn’t been the loathed monarch Henry would have us all believe. Yorkist supporters might (and did) still rebel to return their house to the throne. There was nothing Henry VIII wouldn’t have done to obliterate Richard’s honour and reputation. He was utterly shameless about it, and was even the first monarch of England to execute a woman. Why? Simply because her father had been Richard III’s brother, the Duke of Clarence. As Henry was an undoubtedly intelligent man, it’s a shame he let down his own honour and reputation in this way! Some might say he had no honour, of course.

Then, oh Lord, Henry died and his son Henry VIII took the throne. Heavens above, if ever there was a monster, ’twas he. Six wives, heads lopped, Church upended, great buildings pulled down, chaos, fear, misery, you name it. That man would do anything to acquire a legitimate son….hence the boy in the above portrait. The painted threesome above are a complete farce, because Jane Seymour died in childbirth and so couldn’t possibly have been present to pose with her son and his father. But it’s what Henry fantasised about, so  he commissioned the portrait, which has been displayed all over the place for centuries. The unfortunate Holbein then downloaded the Tudor-Photoshop app and went to work. By then, courtesy of the Spin Gene, it was second nature for the Tudors to put out the “facts” as they wanted them, not as they were.

I wonder why the galleries are suddenly so holier-than-thou about it? Displaying “doctored” portraits hasn’t bothered them before. Think about Richard III. The well-known likeness in the National Portrait Gallery was for centuries unpleasantly distorted by Tudor brushes. The original was not like that at all. Fortunately, the original is there now, but not before time!

So the Spin Gene made the neat jump from House of Lancaster to House of Tudor. One has to wonder if said gene still circulates. Just who among us might be cunning, conniving and slippery enough to be a prime example of lingering Lancastrian/Tudor blood? Who among us has set about ruining the reputations of others? Hmm, quite a number, I fear. So before exulting when you ferret into your family history and find a possible link to someone Tudor, just beware. You too may have inherited the dreaded Spin Gene.

And in the meantime the Tudor-Photoshop programme updates continually….for a good few annual groats, of course. One mustn’t forget the coffers.