#william carey

[awfullybigwardrobe44]

“A wretched, poor, and helpless worm, On Thy kind arms I fall.” —Epitaph of William Carey

[realcatalina]

William Carey and Mary Boleyn

Per your request this post is dedicated to portraits of Mary Boleyn and her husband William Carey. And first thing you must be aware is that neither this portrait of William nor any of many versions of portraits of Mary are originals.

Large ovals nor large round portraits werent around in Tudor times. (Round miniatures existed.)

And Mary even as sister to the Queen never had status of royalty and wasnt supposed to wear ermine(parliamentary robes were exception). That is definitely alteration, yet it is in every single version of her portrait i know of.

I couldn't track down her original, but i found photo of William's. In which he wears lynx fur, not ermine. Much more apropriate for his status, and very often confused by people for ermine.

And it clearly says 1526, not 1528 as the copy of his portrait on wikipedia. And states he was 30 at the time, thus he was born in either 1496, or 1495. His outfit is very interesting, and i bet most you werent aware how elaborate some Tudor male outfits might be.

If colours in copies are to be trusted, the part with lines is from cloth of gold(which in lesser amount nobles were allowed to wear), combined with cloth of silver or shiny grey silk. Personally i am inclined to say silk, because it doesnt give metalic wibe.

This is 100% not Holbein's work(copy is said to be after Holbein), but possibly by artist which also painted this portrait of Henry VIII.

I have speculated it might be late workshop of Meynnart Wewyck. If it turned out to be true, then William's portrait would be proof the workshop was still around after 1525, when Wewyck disappears from records.But you know, Holbein's workshop was around for short while after his death also.

Only other painter which we know worked in England at the time is elusive Master of Brandon portrait(portraits by him bellow) in his work we see similiar basic shape of male fashion, yet nothing as elaborate, nor consistent with style of artist which painted Wiliam Carey.

Mary's portrait has at least 7 versions, not discovered by me but found by katherinethequeen.com.

Hever Castle,Warwick Castle, Holyrood Palace-Royal Collection Trust, Private Collection, Rockingham Castle, The Lord Wharton+ two more round versions.

But i want to share my observations upon them.

I have seen many copies of different portraits, and i find it very disturbing how similiar to each other they are.

Naturally across centuries copies are created by different artists, and they all put their own mark upon it...and over time the some versions become unrecognizable from original.

Here most of them are carbon copies of each other. So much so, it wouldnt surprise me if majority were mass produced by same artist, or same workshop.

Royal Collection Trust has most information about their version. Stating Portrait of a Lady called Mary Boleyn, Lady Stafford (c.1499-1543) is from c. 1630-70, and it is atributed to Remigius van Leemput (d. 1675). He was both painter and art dealer.

You might for example know his copy of Whitehall Mural:

And observant person might notice some similiarities...between Jane Seymour in Whitehall Mural and alleged portrait of Mary.

I mean, if i just did few changes. It would become disturbing.

I am not sure of course, but I wanted to make you aware...it is possibility. Wouldnt even require that much effort on part of artist.

In 17th century the public interest in old art was big, especially for portraits of royalty or important figures from history. And sometimes art dealers created the 'new originals'(fakes), by getting inspired by existing art...and adjusting some details.

If it is a 17th century fake...then Jane Seymour is not the sole inspiration, another painting would account for rest of the details.

The artist had access to royal collection and other places, in 17th century most of Tudor portraits were still instact. It wouldnt be that hard for him to copy it. With only the size of medal being bit unsual, but not impossible. Ok, gable hood missing the paste ends-but it is missing from almost every copy.

Foliage pinned to medal is very accurate but often overlooked detail, found among Holbeins sketches, and some of his work. Maybe lynx was changed to ermine.

But overall this is historically accurate outfit, consistent with Mary's lifetime. So yes, it can still be her. I cannot rule it out.

But equally so it could be somebody else. Identification of Tudor portraits(or their coppies) originating in 17th century is totally unrealiable! By that point most misidentification already occured! By 1590s it was confusion all around, some even before.

(Of course we cannot rule out 17th century identification was based upon earlier identification, but that is hard to prove without the original.)

I also have to emphasize it is not match to her husband's portrait. Lynx vs ermine, could be minor alteration. But this is not gable hood consistent with 1526.

I don't know where they got idea the fashion within Mary's portrait fits c.1535 specifically, when this gable hood was around for more than ten years! (Since late 1520s to late 1530s/early 1540s. This shape of gown also, was around for very long time!)

So what shape of gable hood would be matching William?

These two or in between:

On left c.1525, on right c.1526.

Both veils still down and split, very long ends of paste.

Now, she doesnt necessarily have to had portrait done at same time as her first husband. But William Carey was noted as art-collector, who is said to even introduce Lucas Horenbout to court.

Thus we would expect this lover of art to have portrait of his wife made alongside his own. Carey's love of everything good was however also bad thing because when he died in 1528, he left behind great debt and Mary even pawned her own jewellry. Thus chances that portraits he owned stayed within the family are not so great. But perhaps the portraits simply went their separate way.

If we could find portraits of same artistic style, of woman, maybe we would find Mary. In England matching portraits of husband and wives were a thing. Plenty of portraits you know are actually pair, from royalty:

to much humbler pairs:

(Occasionally you find some which seem as pair at first and then you find out his wife was at least 20 years older than woman you see in the portrait...it is just inscription made by same person/artist within same year.)

But it would be greatly helpful, before we even start searching for Mary's matching portrait, to find William's original.

Isssue is, I lost it. I once found the photo of original on wikipedia and i am not sure if i saved it wrongly, or if it was time when my computer crashed and i lost all my saves. It has been several years, thus my memory of it is not great.

However, i was unable to find it again, search engine cant find him.

I vaguely recall i was going through some collection on wikipedia, lots of black and white photos. Maybe to do with art lost during WW1 and WW2? And i am not sure if back then that painting was labelled as him, nor if it was collection within UK or elsewhere. But it was recognizably this same original painting.

And it annoys me so much that i cant find it again. And we need to track down its location, and provenance, etc, to have clues as where Mary might went. And let us hope it also has coat of arms, date and age. That would be so amazing! To figure out who was the older sister.

Thus my question is: Does anybody know how to reverse search image on wikipedia?

Normal reseverse search engine come blank when it comes to any findings on wikipedia.

I hope this was of some interest to you, and let me know what you think.

[hobbitonreviews]

📽️ The Other Boleyn Girl (2008)

This really is a great period piece. Is it factually accurate? Who knows? 😅 But it’s so well acted and well written. I know for sure (because I’ve researched it a bit) that there are some parts that are historically accurate. But I also know that many parts are embellished for entertainment, which is not a bad thing! I just want to make sure no one treats this as a documentary. I very much enjoy this movie and would definitely watch it again.

Sex/nudity: 7/10 (for a movie about the multiple affairs of an English king, it’s milder than one would think, but there’s still more than I want to list)

Language: 2/10 (mostly God’s name, not much else)

Violence: 3/10 (brief sexual violence, some beheadings)

Overall rating: 8/10

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

I was once young and now I am old, but not once have I been witness to God’s failure to supply my need when first I had given for the furtherance of His work. He has never failed in His promise, so I cannot fail in my service to Him.

William Carey

[dk-thrive]

If he give me credit for being a plodder he will describe me justly. Anything beyond that will be too much. I can plod. I can persevere in any definite pursuit. To this I owe everything.

Wlliam Carey, “William Carey” by F. Deauville Walker (Chicago: Moody, 1980), 42, 232. (via The Hammock Papers)

[bforbetterthanyou]

I know this isn't exactly the focus of your blog, but do you believe that Mary Boleyn loved William Carey?

Well, I mean yeah this is technically an *Anne* blog but I’ll talk about the whole Boleyn family any time (I even get asks that have nothing to do with Anne or the Boleyns all the time).

Based on evidence? It’s simply impossible to say because there just...is none. So it comes down to personal opinion.

Honestly, I’m kind of ambivalent on their relationship. There’s nothing to suggest their marriage was loveless or anything and they did have 2 children together (who were born only like 2 years apart). I mean, they were married for about 3/3 1/2 years or so before Mary got pregnant but there are many reasons for that other than ‘they hated each other’.

At the very least, I think they got along.

[thefreelancehistorywriter]

William Carey, Tudor Courtier

William Carey, Tudor Courtier

William Carey and Mary Boleyn were married on February 4, 1520 in the newly built Royal Chapel at Greenwich Palace. It wasn’t a spectacular marriage but very solid and both families were satisfied with the arrangement. Thomas Boleyn was not present at the marriage, being away on a diplomatic mission. But the King certainly gave his blessing, attending the service in person. William Carey came…

View On WordPress

[craigtowens]

“Attempt great things for God. Expect great things from God.” —William Carey