Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
7:11 am
November 23, 2010
Offline
Very interesting … I have never see this portrait of Jane before, plus its totally different from anything else of her I have seen. Thanks for the post Nasim
Why not join my page on Facebook – Tudor Dynasty
http://www.facebook.com/pages/.....9213293551
9:50 am
February 24, 2010
Offline
12:51 pm
June 1, 2010
Offline
That looks more like Anne! 
10:09 pm
August 12, 2009
Offline
Agree, Wendy! Much too pretty to be Jane.
"Don't knock at death's door.
Ring the bell and run. He hates that."
11:52 pm
January 9, 2010
Offline
Wendy said:
That looks more like Anne!
Yeah, the facial features are definitely more the painting of Anne in the gable hood!
11:35 am
February 24, 2010
Offline
I saw it on the page with pictures of Jane, but I have to agree it is pretty enough to be Anne.
11:48 am
March 9, 2011
Offline
*shrugs* I think it's funny people think Jane Seymour was unattractive or, at least, less attractive than Anne Boleyn. It seems unlikely to me Henry would have selected an unattractive commoner as a wife/queen.
12:18 pm
January 9, 2010
Offline
Henry would never take an ugly woman as a wife, or if he did, then he would divorce her pretty quick smart, a la Anne of Cleves! It's funny though that I've always found the woman in Holbein's portrait of AOC prettier than the one in his portrait of Jane. But his preliminary drawings of Jane somehow make her look a lot less harsh. And Holbein painted AOC face-on, something he didn't often do, as apparently she had a rather large nose! So maybe the pose of the sitter and the light make all the difference. And the gable hood I find unflattering on anyone.
It's such a shame that if Holbein did do a portrait of AB, it's now lost 
3:31 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
La Belle Creole said:
*shrugs* I think it's funny people think Jane Seymour was unattractive or, at least, less attractive than Anne Boleyn. It seems unlikely to me Henry would have selected an unattractive commoner as a wife/queen.
Looking at the pictures, it seems to me that it's the Gable hood which detracts from Jane's looks. Even on portraits of other women, the Gable drains thier appearence.
It's a shame that all of Jane's portraits are based on the Holbien one. I suspect if she had lived longer , other portraits would have been painted and flattered Jane better.
It's always bunnies.
2:48 am
December 5, 2010
Offline
I suppose our ideas of beauty are different to the Tudor views… Maybe after Anne Henry prefered the more traditional beauty as a contrast.
I wish to confess to you and tell you my secret, which is that I am no angel. -Queen Elizabeth I
1:56 pm
June 7, 2010
Offline
I suppose if I were a woman of independent means, I would be interested in procuring that portrait, Jane Seymour or not. Alas, I am a poor graduate student, so I am subjected to dreaming about any Tudor portraits hanging on my wall, other than the two copies (Anne and Elizabeth) from the National Portrait Gallery!
"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn
9:56 am
February 3, 2011
Offline
The portrait went up for auction this morning and was purchased for….
…wait for it…..
£99,650 (hammer price with buyer’s premium)! 
The Savernake Estate must be over the moon; the estimate price was 'only' £6,000-8,000!
"Much as her form seduc'd the sight,
Her eyes could ev'n more surely woo;"
10:01 am
February 16, 2009
Offline
Woah! That's an incredible amount of money! Thanks for letting us know, Nasim.
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
2:04 am
November 23, 2010
Offline
Thanks for letting us know how much the portrait sold for Nasim. Considering it was only estimated to sell for £6-£8k then it did really well in the end, no wonder The Savernake Estateare over the moon. I wonder who was the winner was in the end and where the portrait is destined to hang next?
Why not join my page on Facebook – Tudor Dynasty
http://www.facebook.com/pages/.....9213293551
8:09 am
February 24, 2010
Offline
American money-
$162,400.06
9:13 am
October 31, 2010
Offline
Wow! That is a lot of money for a rather unflattering portrait of Jane. There are so many portraits of her that were much more attractive, though I agree the Gable hood did NOTHING to flatter women's faces–maybe that's why it was so popular with the more conservative set. I just don't think that Henry would have married the woman in that portrait…despite her overbite, I think Jane was probably MUCH more attractive than we imagine her to have been. Though didn't someone make mention that her looks were nothing special–just sort of average?
Well, anyway, props to the estate. They definitely raked in the cash this time.
"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"
11:55 am
February 3, 2011
Offline
Claire said:
Woah! That's an incredible amount of money! Thanks for letting us know, Nasim.
My pleasure! 
Had the portrait been purchased by a museum/art gallery, there would have been some confirmation of this by now. It is probable that it was bought by a private owner, destined to be locked away in a private collection somewhere *sigh*. Perhaps the new owner/s will seek to find out more about the portrait and bring it to the public’s attention in the process; maybe they will even loan it on occasion? Hopefully this will not be the last we see of it. There are quite a few portraits of Jane, and other Tudor figures, that are fascinating but rarely seen. If anyone is ever in London I recommend they make an appointment at the National Portrait Gallery’s Heinz Archive which keeps pictures of quite a few of these unusual portraits. The Anne Boleyn sitter box is very interesting!
"Much as her form seduc'd the sight,
Her eyes could ev'n more surely woo;"
