Christina here. These days everyone seems to be obsessed with selfies and it’s understandable – we want a record of what we looked like at a certain time and a reminder of particular events. Formal photos for special occasions are also lovely to have, and most of us probably have photos of family and friends scattered around our homes, not to mention thousands of photos saved on our phones and laptops. I think people in the past would think us very lucky as they treasured any depictions they had of their loved ones. Before the invention of cameras, they obviously didn’t have the luxury of snapping pictures whenever they wanted like we do. Instead they had to rely on artists who may or may not have captured their likeness very well. And of course only the rich could afford any kind of portraits – everyone else was forced to trust their memory.
Old portraits have always fascinated me and the skill of some of the artists is remarkable. I recently revisited the National Portrait Gallery in London and today I want to share with you some of my favourite portraits from there, as well as the reason they intrigue me.
I’ll start with one of the earliest portraits in the collection, that of King Richard III (1452-85). It fascinates me because although it wasn’t painted during his lifetime, the unknown artist has clearly managed to produce a fairly good likeness judging by the facial reconstruction done by modern archaeologists after his remains were found buried in a Leicester car park. (See here). Apart from anything else it is a beautiful painting with that gorgeous red background.
Moving on to the Tudor era, I always stop to contemplate the portrait of Queen Anne Boleyn (ca 1500-36) by an unknown artist. So much has been written about this supposed femme fatale. I try to see what it was about her that could have captured the king to such an extent that he was willing to go against the Pope.
I guess it must have been her wit and charm because she doesn’t seem as beautiful to me as the king’s last queen, Katherine Parr (1512-48). (On the right here).
In contrast, this painting of Queen Elizabeth I (1533-1603) shows strength of character rather than charm. She looks imperious, intelligent and a little disdainful. She knows she has power and she’s not going to give it up for anything. Of all the portraits done of her, I wonder if this is the most lifelike?
Compare it to the one of Mary Queen of Scots (1542-87) which I don’t like at all. She was supposedly lovely, but in this painting she’s not shown to advantage.
My absolute favourite portrait, which happens to be a miniature, is that of Sir Walter Raleigh (1554-1618) by Nicholas Hilliard. The man is incredibly charismatic and if I’d been alive then, I’m sure I would have fallen for him!
There was another larger oil painting of him by an unknown artist which doesn’t show him to quite such advantage – I wonder which one was true? I prefer to think it’s the miniature.
Going forward in time, this portrait of Queen Henrietta Maria (1609-69) is gorgeous! The tiny queen is shown wearing a spectacular gown and it’s a very flattering depiction of her. The artist has captured the silk of the dress and the jewels particularly well – it looks so real, you almost want to reach out and touch it to see how soft and smooth the material is!
And this painting of the future King Charles II (1630-85) as a baby (unknown artist) made me smile. The caption said that he was supposedly four and a half months old when this was painted, but that his mother said he was ‘so fat and so tall that he is taken for a year old’.
Who could have predicted that this chubby little angel would turn into that hedonistic monarch? He seems to have developed a liking for spaniels early on, although this one looks like he’d rather escape his little master’s clutches as soon as possible!
Sir Anthony van Dyck is my all-time favourite artist so I’m pleased he managed to find the time to paint a portrait of himself – it’s very expressive. It’s such a shame he died so young (only 41!) as I’m sure he would have continued to even greater heights had he lived. His paintings are some of absolute best when it comes to portraiture.
I couldn’t pass by the portrait of Prince Rupert of the Rhine (1619-82) by Gerrit van Honthorst without stopping – another favourite of mine. Very dashing! He was the ultimate Cavalier and could have won the Civil War for his uncle had Charles I had the sense to listen to him instead of his other advisers.
In the 18th century gallery, I found this painting of “Bonnie Prince Charlie”, (Prince Charles Edward Stuart 1720-88) very poignant. He looks so young and hopeful here and it makes me very melancholy when I think of how he failed to regain the throne that should have been his.
And in a 19th century display, this painting of Princess Charlotte (1796-1817) made me stop – it’s so tragic as was her early death in childbirth. She was young and in love, and she should have become queen, but fate had other ideas. It makes you wonder if the Victorian era had instead been the Carolinian era, would England’s empire have developed the same way?
Another tragic figure, although he was perhaps at least partly to blame for that himself, was George, Lord Byron (1788-1824). This portrait is very dramatic, but seems fitting for someone who was the first real celebrity. He wanted fame and he got it, although in the end he became notorious instead.
Speaking of alluring women, this painting of Emma Hamilton (ca 1765-1815) by George Romney, shows why Admiral Nelson fell for her and took her as his mistress. She is looking very mischievous and flirtatious, don’t you think?
There were so many more, but these were the ones that really caught my attention.
How about you – do you like painted portraits and, if so, which one is your favourite?
Christina, what a wonderful collection of portraits–and the comments you made about them! Some I agree with, some not. I’ve never had much use for ‘Bonnie Prince Charlie,’ who destroyed Scotland for ego and the thirst for power, then went back to the Continent and frittered his life away. So his portrait here doesn’t make me grieve for what might have been because to me he looks spoiled and entitled. Our own opinions affect how we interpret paintings! But the Romney portrait of Lady Hamilton is delightful. As is the miniature of Sir Walter Raleigh–he looks like a good time!
That’s interesting Mary Jo – everyone sees something different in a painting. I agree about Sir Walter 🙂
Wonderful selection!
If I have to choose a favourite I would go for Katherine Parr. She was the survivor of Henry’s wives and is buried at Sudeley castle, not far from Tewkesbury. The castle is open to the public and is full of historical interest …. well worth a visit.
https://thetudortravelguide.com/sudeley-castle-and-the-remarkable-life-and-death-of-katherine-parr/
Thank you, glad you enjoyed it! It’s a lovely portrait and she looks beautiful – so lucky to have survived him! I must visit that castle sometime.
Love all these portraits. Yes, Sir Walter Raleigh is definitely a head turner. Since we visited Newport Rhode Island to see all the Gilded Age “cottages” in the Fall, I read books about the Vanderbilts & Astors etc. So interesting to look at the portraits they had done. It makes them more real somehow while you’re reading about them.
Yes I love seeing portraits of people and I think there was at least one Lady Astor in the collection here.
My favorite self portrait is in the Houston Museum of Fine Arts. It is by Frantisek Kupka, called The Yellow Scale. The man is lounging in a chair, smoking a cigarette, and looking completely like a dissolute roue. Love it!
Sounds fascinating Pat!
Love these “selfies” of the past, Christina. I always enjoy looking at portraits. We have a prestigious annual art prize in Australia, called the Archibald Prize, where as well as the critics’ award (where winners get serious money), there is also the People’s Choice award, voted on by the public. As many of the portraits are of public figures it always gets a lot of interest. It’s fascinating to see the variety of approaches and what they reveal about the subject’s personality.
Yes I think some artists are so clever at showing the sitter’s personality! And there are so many fascinating portrait techniques. Glad you enjoyed the post!
What an enjoyable post, Christina! Thanks for sharing the wonderful portraits and your thoughts on the people they represent.
So pleased you enjoyed it, Kareni, thank you!
I like the portrait of Empress Elizabeth of Austria with her beautiful hair with gorgeous hair ornaments to augment all she had.
I saw photographs of her, too, and she was a real beauty.
Oh yes, I’ve seen photos of that but I’m not sure where the original is kept – she was lovely and that hair! Wench Nicola will know as she wrote about Elizabeth I think.
Thanks for the fun and interesting post on portraits, Christina!
I have always loved portraits of people and whenever i read a book that mentions someone in history i always look to see if i can find a picture of them to see wht they looked like! That miniature portrait of Raleigh is certainly dashing with a bit of a twinkle in his eye! I also like miniature portraits a lot and have two books on them. Oh, the stories they could tell!
I have two favorites(small framed prints) hanging in my den, the Duke of Wellington by Thomas Lawrence and George Washington by Rembrandt Peale. I have had them since i was in High School in the same frames. There are many other portraits i like, but too many to list here. I have been amazed, though, at how well a good artists captures a person on canvas. Wellington lived long enough to have his photograph taken and one could tell how much the younger painted portait brought him to life! Likewise with Washington by R. Peale. The life mask/bust if Washington looks very much like the portait when one compares them! So it seems that painted portaits if done well and truly give one a good idea of what even the Tudors and others of the long ago periods really looked like(okay maybe touched up a bit here and there, but don’t we also touch up our photis to look our best?) and bring them to life.
Yes it’s always fun to put a face to a name, isn’t it! And it’s great when there is a photo to compare the portrait too (or as in the case of Richard III a facial reconstruction). Some artists were clearly very skilled at bringing their sitters to life – a very difficult thing to do. I’m in awe of them! I saw a portrait of the Duke of Wellington in the London collection and he looks very imperious – a striking man.
I have always been fascinated by the well-known Holbein portrait of Anne of Cleves. Henry the VIII found her to be homely in comparison. She arrived in England on December 27, 1539, and they were married on January 6, 1540, due to Henry’s wish to maintain an alliance with Anne’s German Protestant brother, and not because he rejoiced in his bride. Henry said that the marriage was never consummated, and so the marriage was annulled six months later. Anne was then referred to as the king’s “ Beloved Sister.” She had a comfortable existence and was content to be welcome at court, even after Henry’s death, living out her life in England.
Yes that’s fascinating isn’t it! Makes you wonder what she really looked like since the artist must have painted a flattering portrait not true to life. At least she seems to have lived well afterwards.
Emma Hamilton would have been on TMZ every night. What a beautiful woman and she radiates charm. Sir Walter Raleigh, I can see how taking chances would have been second nature to him. I believe he had faith in his ability to always succeed. I looked up the Yellow Scale. Now that man, looks as though he truly believed the rest of us should not live in his world.
I too will read about a figure from the past and need to see who they were and how they looked. Not certain why, but I believe seeing a face can tell me something about who they are.
Thank you so much for this post. What a joy. I believe that a portrait painter has a great deal of power to show what they really think. Elizabeth I was a much tougher person than her mother. She had to be. But, I think Ann had a strong inner core. Elizabeth did not get all her sense of self from her father. Of course, what do I know? They may all have been sweet and kind and touchy feely. Or Not.
I’m so glad you enjoyed it, Annette, thank you! Yes the artists did have a lot of power and they could add subtle clues to how the perceived their sitters. Fascinating!
I was visiting my daughter in London in October and I went to The Portrait Galley. It was wonderful. I particularly like the Richard III one as I’ve always been fascinated with his story. My daughter was quite happy once she had seen Anne Boleyn and Shakespeare! We could have spent the day there. It was enthralling!
So glad you got to see them too Teresa! They really are lovely aren’t they!
What a great selection of portraits, Christina! I enjoyed looking at them. Sir Walter definitely has a ‘come hither’ look in his eye in the miniature, but I love the pearl earring he’s rocking in the second portrait. Katherine Parr looks a bit stubborn. Definitely the portrait of a survivor.
One of my favorite portraits is at the Frick in New York, so I’ve seen it in person several times. It’s Sir Thomas More painted by Hans Holbein the Younger. There’s also a very forbidding portrait of Oliver Cromwell in their collection, by the same artist.
I am fond of Durer’s self portraits. When it comes to portraits, I really don’t think you can beat the Low County/Germanic artists.
Yes they were amazing artists weren’t they! I like the Sir Thomas More portrait too!