#unknown sitter

EEEEEEEE!!! Tell me about this miniature please.

It's none of Henry's wives so I would like it to be Mary Boleyn.

It's got a look of Catherine Carey in the chin and Lettice in the eyes.

Roland Hui said it was her, but he also said that bird with the abominable eye dress was Mary Howard, and you know how that turned out!

He owes me one!

This miniature is located in Royal Ontario Museum:

And tbh until I saw pictures of it upon their webpage, I was convinced it was a later copy. Now I am not so certain of it.

But I agree with their dating of c.1525-1527. (which doesn't exclude Mary Boleyn, because we are uncertain of the exact date of her birth. Imo c.1498-1503 is most likely when she was born.)

So we have to discuss the similiarities to another miniature by Horenbout where the lady has very similiar features and same posture.

So similiar I thought it was original and this one a copy.

But if that is not the case then we're looking at very similiar miniatures but not done at same time, fashion of gable hood is bit different. The one on right is c.1526, the one on left is more towards c.1527.

So in theory, it could be same person in two different miniatures.

You might think features bit different. However, we have two miniatures of Catherine of Aragon by Horenbout, and the differences are not just because she wears spanish outfit in one of them:

The face is also having some differenences.

So, how likely is it that Mary Boleyn had not one, but two miniatures of herself made? Using the most expensive natural ultramarine pigment, in c. 1525-1527.

Well, actually not that bad, given the strong love for art William Carrey (her 1st husband) had. He died in great debt due to his spending not just on art.

But if so, we'd expect two have matching miniatures of him.He'd be around thirty. But they might have not survived. Or got separated.

This is him from 1526:

So if we found matching miniatures of him, I might start believe it bit more. But I more expect we're going to find portrait matching this one.

But imo labelling it is either Mary or Anne Boleyn is just guessing.

You don't have single thing which would prove it.

But there is something which might point against it.

On museum's webpage I noted something about the outfit. We have wheels around the bodice:

Wheels also are part of the black necklace.

And under certain angle it seems that there could ahve also been wheel in middle of the necklace:

Lots of wheels.

The medal clearly shows female figure in period outfit(not so important).

And tbh I think whomever can recognize the flower must be expert in plants..but I am not one. Foliage is kind of typical for Tudor portraits of 1530s and part of 1520s.

Obviously whomever had this painted had money and lots of it. (or they spent as crazy). But I'd check english noble houses and see if any had wheel as coat of arms.

-Which neither Boleyns nor Carrey's do.

Or people named Catherine. Because wheel was asociated with St. Catherine. Obviously it cannot be Catherine of Aragon, because she was 25 in 1510.

The wheels are imo the main clue right now.

Please read first my post Unknown lady with St. Elizabeth of Hungary, if you haven't already, before continuing to read.

Do you think this could be a portrait of Mary I? I see a strong resemblance to other portraits of Mary and I believe the hood might be identical to the one in the Fitzwilliam portrait by Hans Eworth. The lady in the Fitzwilliam portrait has a much thinner face, but we need to keep in mind that Mary was frequently ill and her weight fluctuated (Venetian ambassador Giovanni Michieli once commented that "the Queen's face has lost flesh greatly since I was last with her [two months earlier]")

This painting is Minneapolis Institute of Art, as Unknown woman from c.1550(imo it's earlier than that, mid to late 1540s).

According to them it is by unknown artist, imo it's early workshop of Eworth. Workshops are harder to artribute to. It's the time when Eworth's work should be at its best. Far better quality than later in Mary I's reign. Possibly due to Holbein's pupils working as part of this workshop, or it is by one of Holbein's fallowers of pretty good skill(John Bettes the Elder comes to mind).

The jewelry and embroidery is consistant with nobility of the time, i see no jewel known to be part of royal collection or worn by Mary.

Billements on french hood included. Similiar shape of hood, is not same as identical hood. (FitzWilliam portrait has solid golden billements, this one doesn't. FitzWilliam shows more of coif? white around ear, consistent with later style.)

I have read somewhere in past that pattern of embroidery in this portrait could point to it being member of certain noble family-because it resembles their coat of arms, but i can't remember which. So I can say if it is correct.

In closeup more details can be observed:

Particularly interesting is that the shape of french hood and way hair are styled(down) is not consistent with any other known depiction. It is transitional style. Probably one of first few appearances of this shape of french hood(being this flat). Imo it could be as early as mid 1540s. But more likely it is 2nd half of 1540s, worn by somebody who didn't wish to let go of older styling of the hair. I'd still though lean towards 1546 rather than 1549, if you catch my drift.

Another things to note is the hair are dark strawberry blond and the brows are visible. Very common issue for woman with red or reddish hair, is that they have too light brows and they appear invisible.

Mary had nearly invisible brows in portraits during her reign and in FitzWilliam portrait(towards end of Edward's reign).

But since this is likely at end of Henry VIII's or early into Edward VI's reign, it is possible this detail doesn't prove it is Mary. Because this can change with age and due to artist. Catherine of Aragon in several depictions had visible brows, very similiar to this shade. In others she had no visible brows. A miniature earlier from Mary's life shows no visible brows, but you can't trust miniatures that much about this.

Mary for most of her life, tended to not be skinny, so at that age I'd expect this roundness of the face.(But as you said, during reign of Edward and later as Queen, her weight was bit of havoc due to illnesses.)

Eyes in the portrait are grey,(max grey-blue or hazel), which is consistant with Mary's portraiture. The nostrils are very alike Mary's, nosetip similiar to some depictions. Similiar shape of mouth.

There is indeed great deal of resemblence.

Yet somehow, it doesn't look like her to me. Something is off.

Could be different artist taking on the same features, workshops can have drastically different depictions of same person.

I cannot rule out it is Mary and that might be sometimes as far as you get when you try to identify portrait.

However the similiarities in face could be there also due to family resemblence.

More i look into historical portraits, more i am convinced Mary I took way more after Henry VIII's side of family than we're lead to believe So did Elizabeth, and presumably lots of their cousins.

Bear in mind Elizabeth of Woodville's sisters married into many prominent noble families, so we're not talking just Greys or children of York princesses. But way more many cousins, you don't think of as related to Mary.

Since Henry VII and Richard III looked very alike despite being only distant cousins, we cannot rule out descendants of Woodvilles and Tudors looked alike.

(+Parr's features were way more similiar to Mary's then we realise. But frankly, this is not sumptuous enough for Parr as Queen.)

(The resemblence can be also random. But that is worst case scenario for us.)

Another thing(and often overlooked detail in portraits) are the hands:

I mean they could be painted out, but have you ever seen Mary I without single ring? I haven't.(That black dot looks like abrasion to me, not a ring.)

I think it is the mouth which doesn't fit to me. Mary's mouth is not usually this narrow this late into her age(as child it was). Could be smiling vs no smile, but just as her mother in portraits Mary tended to smile. Always rather broad smile.

Here the face has different feel. Different set of emotions. Different personality I'd say.

You know sometimes it can be hard to tell these two apart:

Elizabeth had hazel eyes, not brown-hence hers can look grey in portraits. She had strawberry blond hair(at times more to light red.) Features very alike to Mary's.

(Although seeing Mary's nose here, you could argue the person has exact same nose(nostrils especially look same).)

Tbh I don't know who that woman is. Could be Mary, there is enough resemblence to say possibly it could be her. However I don't think it is prudent to focus on her solely. There are other posibilities and at this moment we won't figure this out. There is not enough to go with.