More about the “is it?” or “isn’t it?” portrait of Anne Boleyn….

from theanneboleynfiles article

From this Ancient Origins link (https://tinyurl.com/mvanbd5z):-

“….On Sunday 10th April 2016 Anne Boleyn hit the news with articles in the Sunday Times and Mail Online claiming that a copy of a lost portrait of Anne Boleyn had been found by Alison Weir….it was a listing for ‘Photo of a print: Anne Boleyn portrait from the Holbein Room at Strawberry Hill’….”. The portrait was said to have been incorrectly identified as being Joanna, Lady Bergavenny, who died before 1505. Anne Boleyn died in 1536, and a lot of the argument about the painting centres around minute matters of fashion and so on which seem to point to it more likely being the earlier Lady Bergavenny than the later Anne Boleyn.

Back in April 2016, the late Stephen Lark, alias our one and only Super Blue, wrote here https://tinyurl.com/bdfbu8v8 to disagree emphatically with Alison Weir’s identification of the “lost” portrait as being of Anne Boleyn. He was writing in response to this link: https://tinyurl.com/352ss78v. Alison Weir’s website refers to her as a popular historian and novelist, and among those who do agree with her concerning the portrait is Tracy Borman, who is “….joint-chief curator for the Historic Royal Palaces….”

Stephen most certainly did not agree! Nor does this link https://tudorfaces.blogspot.com/2016/04/a-new-anne-boleyn-unlikely.html

And now there is the above Ancient Origins post which delves into the mystery again, although you have to be a member to read the entire article and learn what they seem to have discovered. However, looking at the caption of the illustration below, they now have a third lady whose portrait it may or may not be. The lady is Eleanor Stafford. Now, Eleanor’s actual identity is not clearcut because all I have is the the above Ancient Origins post which doesn’t give much away and I’m not about to subscribe for a year in order to find out more. But the gauntlet has been picked up and I’m on the lady’s case!

Who is she? Well, I’m no expert on the reign of Henry VIII, or indeed about his Tudor successors (the first Tudor was more than enough for me to stomach) so I’m starting from scratch here.

She may be the wife of Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham (https://www.tudorsociety.com/edward-stafford-3rd-duke-buckingham/). On 17 May 1521 this Eleanor’s husband was executed by Henry VIII on cooked-up charges of treason. She was the eldest daughter of Henry Percy, 4th Earl of Northumberland but by marrying Edward Stafford she became Eleanor Stafford (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_Percy%2C_Duchess_of_Buckingham). On Buckingham’s death she then married one John Audley, who is simply named online but without any further details about him that I can find. Anyway, the duchess could be the Ancient Origins Eleanor Stafford, but I’m only hazarding a guess.

When I looked online I found the portrait below identified as Eleanor Percy (Stafford), Duchess of Buckingham, but have to doubt this. She died 15 February 1530, and the portrait is most definitely Elizabethan!

The same portrait is also identified at Powis Castle as “….Lady Eleanor Herbert (at Powis Castle) by an Unknown Artist, 1595. Lady Eleanor was the daughter of Henry Percy, 2nd Earl of Northumberland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Percy%2C_2nd_Earl_of_Northumberland) and Katherine Neville, daughter of the 4th Baron Latimer (stepson of Queen Katherine Parr). She married William Herbert, 1st Baron Powis, son of Sir Edward Herbert, before 1600 (nephew of Queen Katherine). She died in 1650….”

So this Elizabethan lady was the daughter of the 2nd Earl of Northumberland, not the 4th, and there’s no mention of Stafford. Hmm….there’s clearly some confusion with these earls, because the 2nd Earl died in 1455, far too early on to have a daughter in Elizabethan clothes. So let’s go quickly go through the Percy earls to see which likely ladies turn up:

  • The 2nd Earl. The portrait at Powis Castle is identified as Eleanor, the daughter of Henry Percy, 2nd Earl of Northumberland. She married William Herbert, 1st Baron Powis, and died in 1650. But there’s a slight obstacle. The 2nd Earl (1393-1455) had many children, but there doesn’t appear to have been a daughter Eleanor among them. And if there were to have been such a lady, as I’ve said before, she’d have been knocking on a bit to dress like Good Queen Bess!
  • The 3rd Earl (1421-1461) had a daughter Eleanor (1455-c. 1477), but she married Thomas West, 8th Baron De La Warr.
  • 4th Earl (Boo! Hiss!) The same wretch who failed Richard III down by not turning up at Bosworth. Yes, his eldest daughter was Eleanor (born 1474ish – died 1530) who became the wife of Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham!
  • The 5th Earl didn’t have a daughter called Eleanor.
  • The 7th Earl had daughters, but not an Eleanor.
  • The 8th Earl’s third daughter was Eleanor (1583–1650). She was married to William Herbert, 1st Baron Powis and fits the Elizabethan aspect of the portrait, so I believe she is the subject. Powis Castle have her father wrongly identified as the 2nd instead of the 8th Earl. And she had nothing whatsoever to do with the name Stafford.

So when push comes to shove, I have to say that if the Eleanor Stafford of the Ancient Origins article is close to the era of Anne Boleyn, she has to be the daughter of the treacherous 4th Earl. She married Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham, and thus became Eleanor Stafford. Have Ancient Origins found a reason to point to her concerning Alison Weir’s discovery?

There was another Eleanor Stafford too, according to https://ancestors.familysearch.org/en/LZKQ-RYB/lady-eleanor-stafford-1526-1608 (and other places): “….When Lady Eleanor Stafford was born in 1526, in Leicestershire, England, United Kingdom, her father, Humphrey Stafford V, was 29 and her mother, Margaret Tame, was 21. She married Anthony Cope about 1555, in Bedhampton, Hampshire, England. She died on 20 February 1608, in Leicester, Leicestershire, England, United Kingdom, at the age of 82….”

As her father wasn’t an earl or above, she wasn’t Lady Eleanor, but then what I can see of the Ancient Origins article doesn’t describe her as Lady Eleanor either. Nor does this Eleanor appear to have had any court connections or indeed to have left any portraits, so—being a creature of impulse—I’m inclined to dismiss her. Sorry, Eleanor.

All of which leaves me none the wiser about this mystery lady, except to lean toward to the Duchess of Buckingham, daughter of the 4th Earl of Northumberland.

But what do we know about the portrait discovered in 2016? The Daily Mail article indicated in Stephen’s post (https://tinyurl.com/yc7acz6h) tells us a lot, but to arm yourselves with all the details known at that time, there is this: https://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/lady-bergavenny-turns-anne-boleyn/. It really goes into the nitty-gritty of all the original thoughts and evidence and, in my opinion, is the link to go to if you want to know the whys, whats, wheres, whens, whys and wherefores being bandied at the time. But not, of course, about Eleanor Stafford! Ancient Origins is sitting on her! 🙄

from the October 2024 Ancient Origins article

So, ladies and gentlemen, I present you with an annoying quest: Find the Lady! Unless, of course, you’re content to wait in the hope that Ancient Origins chooses to let the oiks of the world have a free look-see.

PS: And if you really want to confuse yourself with portraits of Anne Boleyn, go here https://ladyjanegreyrevisited.com/2020/09/20/the-lyndhurst-portrait/.

PPS: No, the portrait below isn’t another of Anne Boleyn, Lady Bergavenny or even Eleanor Stafford, but of Elizabeth Stafford, Duchess of Norfolk, wife of Anne Boleyn’s odious and violent uncle Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk. Elizabeth supported Catherine of Aragon throughout the “divorce” furore and didn’t like Anne Boleyn in the least. I thought I’d add her to provide even more confusion! You can read about her here https://www.flickr.com/photos/60861613@N00/3720247951/in/photostream/.


Subscribe to my newsletter

  1. The Strawberry Hill painting called Lady Bergavenny was lost or was hibernating for one hundred years until last spring when a leading historian said she had been sent a photo by the owner. Hopefully it is being checked out, but progress seems slow. However it is now confirmed that the initials ‘engraved in diamonds around her neck’ do read A B and R and not the A B and B claimed by Claire Ridgway

    I still believe this looks like Boleyn, but probably a later copy of some kind. I am surprised that the Lewis Walpole Library and Strawberry Hill collections have not shown more interest in my more detailed copies of the Strawberry Hill painting.

    Howard Jones

    Liked by 1 person

    1. In addition… Barbara Soberton in ‘Ancient Origins’ claims she will be ‘…Decoding the Mystery’ but then she provides no new news about the rediscovery of the original Strawberry Hill painting.

      She provides plenty of extra information about changes of ownership after Walpole’s Great Sale and notes a London gallery exhibition but has nothing to say about where it has been for the last hundred years. If you join ‘Ancient Origins’ and hope to discover who the picture portrays you will probably be disappointed.

      The picture was given to Horace Walpole for his Holbein Gallery by Lady Diana Spencer, a relative of the family at Blenheim Palace but she might also have obtained the picture from her art collecting husband.

      The Web magazine ‘Ancient Origins’ appears to have plenty of interesting articles on a wide range of subjects so might be worth subscribing anyway. However, so far it has not resolved the mystery of the Strawberry Hill Lady Joanna Bergavenny painting.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Thank you for the information, Howard. I’m more relieved than ever that I didn’t bother with the subscription!

      Like

Leave a reply to snoweagles Cancel reply