Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
9:34 pm
October 31, 2010
Offline
Sort of…
I'll tell you what has always thrown me off about H8's marriage to Jane Seymour: Jane simply is not that attractive–at least, not in the Holbein portrait that we all know. It's like the painting accentuates all the worst aspects of her face: a big nose, a pretty severe overbite, and pursed lips that make her appear SOOOO much older than she really was. And absolutely no chest whatsoever. Not to mention that the gabled hood does absolutely nothing to soften the severity of her face.
This has bothered me because if you look at portraits of KoA and AB, both women were fairly attractive, but, judging from the Holbein painting, JS is sort of homely. And I couldn't wrap my head around this, especially since H8 basically uses the grounds of not being attracted to AoC and not consummating the marriage as grounds for divorce (just sayin', H8 seems to have been pretty picky in what his womens looked like).
Then I found this: http://tudorhistory.org/seymou…..llery.html
It has all kinds of portraits of all kinds of people from Tudor history–including some of the lesser-known individuals (Sybille of Cleves anyone? Who, btw, was a looker or had a very generous artist). Anyway, included are some sketches of JS that are MUCH more flattering and I can kind of see that maybe JS wasn't quite so homely after all. The sketches are clearly her–they all still have the overbite and the distinct nose, but the lips are softer and it makes her appear more attractive and her eyes have more personality both of which detract from the negative aspects of her face.
Anyway, I am not an art officianado by any means, but if you have a little time go take a look at some of the portraits. It's interesting to see how different artists portrayed some of the most famous (and infamous) people in history.
ETA: http://tudorhistory.org/files/….. Easier to get to the portrait gallery through this link.
"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"
9:17 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
Certainly the sketches give her a softer image and I agree about the gable hood.I don't think it flatters any woman.
Thanks for the link. I'm going to be spending some time being able to put names to faces now..
It's always bunnies.
12:40 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
In the first Holbein sketch on that Tudor page, she actually looks better. The wax figure does show her long nose and yet, she doesn't look ugly. Although it wasn't done in her time, I think it comes close. He picked her because she was quiet and demure. After Anne, with her not-so-calm demeanor, Henry wanted a more sublime personality in his life. I think he wanted less drama and he knew he could have peace with Jane. She really couldn't have been that bad looking or he would not have been drawn to her. I really can't see Henry picking an ugly woman to share his life with. Much of what we hear about Jane comes from people like Chapuys, and I don't put much store in his views of English women.
To be honest, I don't find too many portraits from those years where, “Wow…what a knockout!” would apply. For instance, I find nothing attractive about Henry's portraits. None of them. I know they said he was the handsomest man in all Christendom but I really don't see it! Honest, I've tried. I love the fashions. That is the best part of the paintings. Except, maybe for the codpieces sticking out of the men's clothing. How did the women back then look at these men and not burst out laughing? I know I would. Dancing would be out of the question…but I digress. My point is I just don't think the portraits do these people justice.
1:29 pm
December 5, 2010
Offline
Sybille of Cleves looks gorgeous in most of her portraits! I had to post this- sorry!
I wish to confess to you and tell you my secret, which is that I am no angel. -Queen Elizabeth I
2:18 pm
October 31, 2010
Offline
Sharon–I agree, I don't find many people who I'm like Wow! either. I don't find Henry in the least bit attractive, either despite what the reports might have been. While I agree that the primary thing that H8 was looking for was a demure, obedient woman who was the complete antithesis of AB when he chose JS, I don't think that it can be denied that Henry found looks VERY important. It makes sense, really, since he was so focused on having a male heir–clearly he had to be attracted enough to someone to be able to have sex with her.
I don't know…I think by 16th century standards, all of his wives were beautiful. Our definition of beauty is certainly different now than it was then. For example, given that Jane came from a somewhat well-to-do family, if she were alive today I'm sure her overbite would have been repaired as a teenager or young woman. Clearly these women didn't wear make-up. I think people were willing to overlook more because there was nothing that could be done about them (big noses, overbites, acne scars, etc.). It just seems to me that compared to her predecessors (KoA and AB) and her successor (AoC), Jane looks a little homely in the Holbein painting. KoA was, by most accounts, one of the most beautiful princesses in Europe in her youth, though clearly the years were not kind to her after so many failed pregnancies, and AB, though perhaps not as pretty as some ladies at court, made up for it with her personality and her eyes. AoC, while not “pretty” in the English or French sense of the word, was somewhat exotic looking and most people (other than Henry) seem to have responded positively to that. I'm glad that those other sketches and engravings of JS exist, because, comparatively, I don't think the Holbein does her justice and succeeds in making her appear more matronly and much older than she really was.
Bethany–I agree, Sybille was a FOX!
"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"
2:44 pm
June 7, 2010
Offline
I must agree with all you. Standards of beauty are very different today than they were in the past. These women did not the resources of dentists, plastic surgeons and other methods women use to accentuate (or completely) alter their faces. Mind you, I am not a fan of plastic surgeon and many women look worst afterwards.
But, I digress! Back to the issue at hand. Hans Holbein's sketch of Jane Seymour is much nicer with softer features and very pretty eyes. I am sure Jane had many redeeming qualities that attracted Henry VIII to her. Jane had the unfortunate luck of being born before overbites could be fixed. I really get tired of people disparaging Jane because of her looks. That was something she could not help, and frankly all people are beautiful in some way.
Catherine of Aragon was a beautiful young women. It's a shame that years of childbearing took such a devestating toll on her physically. However, as a big girl myself, I still see COA's beauty when weight and age became her problem.
Anne Boleyn had a face of character, not beauty. Her personality and sexuality compensated for her lack of beauty. She was simply a sexy girl and I love her for it.
Anne of Cleves for me is the most contemporary attractive. She is no Flander's Mare.
Katherine Howard had youth going for her and beautiful hair. The Royal Collection portrait identified as Katherine shows off her bedroom eyes and sex appeal.
The National Portrait Gallery portrait (previously identified as Jane Grey) of Katherine Parr is very beautiful. Having seen it in person, I knew why both Thomas Seymour and Henry VIII fell for her: pure class.
As an aside, Sybille of Cleves is beautiful in any century.
"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn
6:04 pm
October 31, 2010
Offline
Besides Sybille, the other woman I look at and think “Wow” is H8's sister, Mary. If you click on the portrait of her and Charles Brandon–she looks just stunning.
And this is the best portrait of Anne ever…IMO…
[Image Can Not Be Found]
"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"
3:23 am
November 23, 2010
Offline
Great website, thanks for the post MegC. Its great to be able to put faces to names! Did anyone see the portrait of Elizabeth Woodville? The hair/scalp line was very far back on her head !!??
Why not join my page on Facebook – Tudor Dynasty
http://www.facebook.com/pages/.....9213293551
5:30 am
October 31, 2010
Offline
Holy cow, Clare! You're right! I wonder if her hair was just so fair that it gives the illusion of a hairline that was much farther back than it really was? When I was younger, my hair was so light that it didn't look like I had any eyebrows. Perhaps poor Elizabeth had a similar problem.
Why are all the men so dang unattractive? Is it the facial hair? Edward VI seemed to be somewhat attractive if you look at later portraits of him. And does anyone else find themselves comparing the portrait of Henry Carey and H8 to see if you can see any resemblance?
"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"
5:51 am
June 7, 2010
Offline
Clarebear said:
Great website, thanks for the post MegC. Its great to be able to put faces to names! Did anyone see the portrait of Elizabeth Woodville? The hair/scalp line was very far back on her head !!??
During the 1300's and 1400's, women would pluck their hairline back. A high forhead was considered attractive. If you look at portraits such as Elizabeth of York the same practice can be noticed. I am not sure when this practice fell out of usage, but it did happen for a considerable amount of time.
In some European monarchies in the same period, women would pluck their hairline and shave their eyebrows, then colour them in higher up the forhead.
Women do some crazy stuff in the name of beauty.
Frankly, I can barley handle plucking those pesky little eyebrow hairs.
"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn
9:46 am
February 24, 2010
Offline
MegC said:
Besides Sybille, the other woman I look at and think “Wow” is H8's sister, Mary. If you click on the portrait of her and Charles Brandon–she looks just stunning.
And this is the best portrait of Anne ever…IMO…
[Image Can Not Be Found]
Not only do I think Mary was beautiful, but Charles looks quite handsome himself. I have read, but not sure where, that Charles and Henry looked very similar. I don't see it. The portrait of Mary and Charles is one of my favorites. So is this portrait of Anne. Another portrait I love is of Isabella of Spain. She was gorgeous. The portrait of Elizabeth Woodville is lovely. She must have been quite sure of her beauty to be able to pull that style off. (ie plucking eyebrows and hair) I had read that the women of her time plucked their eyebrows and forhead hair, but Ihad never seen this portrait before. So there are a few portaits I like. I think though that the ones I like were exceptional lookers and their portraits couldn't help but show that. Oh and young KOA. Don't want to forget the portrait of her as a young girl.
Isabella & Katherine:
4:22 pm
November 23, 2010
Offline
DuchessofBrittany said:
Clarebear said:
Great website, thanks for the post MegC. Its great to be able to put faces to names! Did anyone see the portrait of Elizabeth Woodville? The hair/scalp line was very far back on her head !!??
During the 1300's and 1400's, women would pluck their hairline back. A high forhead was considered attractive. If you look at portraits such as Elizabeth of York the same practice can be noticed. I am not sure when this practice fell out of usage, but it did happen for a considerable amount of time.
In some European monarchies in the same period, women would pluck their hairline and shave their eyebrows, then colour them in higher up the forhead.Women do some crazy stuff in the name of beauty.
Frankly, I can barley handle plucking those pesky little eyebrow hairs.
Thanks for that snippet of information DuchessofBrittany very interesting, i have never heard of this “fashion” before, seems like a strange one to me, but then again look how times have changed with regards to what we and what the tudors found attractive
Why not join my page on Facebook – Tudor Dynasty
http://www.facebook.com/pages/.....9213293551
7:34 pm
October 31, 2010
Offline
This is true, Duchess, now that I think about it, The Mona Lisa has no eyebrows–never noticed her hairline, though.
"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"
1:49 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
DuchessofBrittany said:
Clarebear said:
Great website, thanks for the post MegC. Its great to be able to put faces to names! Did anyone see the portrait of Elizabeth Woodville? The hair/scalp line was very far back on her head !!??
During the 1300's and 1400's, women would pluck their hairline back. A high forhead was considered attractive. If you look at portraits such as Elizabeth of York the same practice can be noticed. I am not sure when this practice fell out of usage, but it did happen for a considerable amount of time.
In some European monarchies in the same period, women would pluck their hairline and shave their eyebrows, then colour them in higher up the forhead.
Women do some crazy stuff in the name of beauty.
Frankly, I can barley handle plucking those pesky little eyebrow hairs.
In my younger days having very thin eye-brows was popular. I know several people who over-plucked and ended up with permanently thin eye-brows.
It's always bunnies.
