Is this the same person?

Comparing Hans Holbein sketches linked to Anne Boleyn

In the past, I’ve seen comparisons being drawn between Hans Holbein’s sketches purportedly depicting Anne Boleyn. The Windsor sketch, now in the Royal Collection, has a label ‘Anna Bollein Queen’ based on Sir John Cheke’s identification. The other sketch is from the British Museum and has a Latin inscription added later and identifying the sitter as Anne Boleyn.

Hans Holbein: ‘Anna Bollein Queen’ (left), Royal Collection. ‘Portrait of a lady, formerly thought to be Anne Boleyn’, British Museum. Wikimedia Commons.

Ruth Stacy has argued that this is the same sitter at a different stages of life. However, I disagree with this idea. Holbein always faithfully preserved his sitters physiognomies, as is evident in many of his surviving portraits. For example, Holbein’s portrait of a German merchant Derich Born shows exactly the same face as his miniature of Derich, even if the pose is slightly different- It' is still the same person with the same distinctive facial features such as high cheekbones, nose and lips.

Derich Born , Royal Collection. Wikimedia Commons.

‘Anna Bollein Queen’

Current historical opinion favours the view that the Windsor sketch inscribed as ‘Anna Bollein Queen’ depicts Anne Boleyn and that she wears a nightgown. The sketch was identified by Sir John Cheke, who served as tutor to Edward VI. In their persuasively argued paper, David Starkey and John Rowlands pointed out that it is unthinkable that Cheke would have misidentified this sketch, particularly given that his career was ‘founded on a Boleyn connection’. I agree with their assessment.

Other arguments commonly cited against identifying the sitter as Anne are the apparent double chin and what seems to be blonde hair. The double chin may, however, have been the result of pregnancy, and Nicholas Sander famously remarked that Anne had a swelling beneath her chin. This was mistranslated in 1877 as ‘a large wen,’ although the word ‘large,’ in connection with the swelling described, does not appear in Sander’s Latin original.

Dr Kate Heard, senior curator of prints and drawings at the Royal Collection Trust, points out that abrasion ‘has removed some pigment from this area of the drawing and Anne’s hair may now appear lighter than it did when the drawing was made’. Heard believes that the sitter’s hair ‘was probably built up by Holbein with strokes of different coloured chalks, including yellow, reddish brown and black’.

And what about the informal attire? Current historical opinion favours the view that Holbein painted Anne in a nightgown. A miniature of Henry FitzRoy, Henry VIII’s illegitimate son, depicts him wearing what looks like a chemise and a nightcap, so it was not impossible to capture a royal sitter dressed informally.

However, it is also possible that Holbein did not depict his sitter in a nightgown. The attire worn by Margaret More Roper in a miniature preserved at the Metropolitan Museum of Art closely resembles that of the sitter in the Windsor sketch. Margaret’s chemise, adorned with intricate embroidery, is fastened high at the neck, and she wears a fur tippet draped over her shoulders. The striking similarities to the clothing in the Windsor sketch suggest that Holbein was not depicting the sitter in a nightgown but was rather portraying her in a style akin to Margaret Roper’s attire in the abovementioned miniature, which dates to c. 1535–1536.

Margaret Roper and Anne Boleyn, Wikimedia Commons.

I will discuss the other sketch purportedly depicting Anne, ‘Portrait of a Lady, formerly thought to be Anne Boleyn’ from the British Museum, in the next post.

---

I wrote a book entitled Secrets of the Tudor Portraits, where I delve into the Tudor portraiture.