From museum exhibitions, academic literature and even West End musicals, the six wives of Henry VIII have remained strong figures in the public imagination.
Yet how much about them do we really know? Do we even know what they looked like? For Catherine Howard, the fifth and youngest of Henry VIII’s wives, the answer may be that actually we do not know what she looked like, as the portraits previously thought to depict her are now increasingly coming into question.
The first of these portraits is a miniature held today in the Royal Collection Trust. Dated to 1540, the year Catherine Howard married Henry VIII, this miniature was created by the famed artist Hans Holbein. It’s identification as Catherine Howard is usually made on the basis of the necklace worn by the sitter, which belonged to one of Henry’s previous queens, Jane Seymour, and was then presumably later given to Catherine by Henry after their marriage.
However it is not known for certain whether Jane’s necklace was ever given to Catherine. One possibility is that the necklace was gifted by Jane Seymour to one of her ladies-in-waiting and that this miniature is their likeness. The necklace could have also been given Henry VIII’s niece Margaret Douglas, either by Jane herself or by Henry after Jane’s death in 1537, making her the sitter.
A newer theory put forward argues instead that miniature is actually the image of Anne of Cleves, Henry VIII’s fourth wife. This was on the basis of facial similarity with Holbein’s confirmed portrait of Anne and of the material on which the miniature was made, the four of diamonds card, which may have been a hidden reference to Anne being Henry’s fourth marriage.
Additionally, Anne of Cleves was also Henry’s queen during 1540 and although it was only for six months, it is still possible that a miniature could have been completed in that time. At the very least, Anne’s co-operation during her and Henry’s divorce would have left her on good enough terms with the king to be able to employ the use of his painter after their marriage.
The next portrait that may depict Catherine Howard is the Portrait of a Young Woman made in the workshop of Hans Holbein in around 1540-45. The connection to Catherine here is in the exquisite French-style dress worn by the sitter. Only a person of high status would have been able to wear such clothing and Catherine, as queen, would have obviously been the highest ranking woman of the court.
The age of the sitter also further points towards Catherine. The face is visibly quite young and the inscription on the portrait tells us that the sitter was seventeen at the time this painting was made. This aligns perfectly with recent theories that place Catherine Howard’s birth in 1523.
Whilst there were other royal and high ranking women at court during this period, for example Catherine’s successor Queen Katherine Parr, Henry VIII’s daughter Mary Tudor or his other two nieces Frances and Eleanor Brandon, they were all much older with the youngest of them, Eleanor Brandon, born in 1519 and already twenty-one by 1540.
The portrayal of the sitter here as the epitome of Tudor court fashion during the 1540’s might also lead back to Catherine as such an image would have created a strong contrast between her as an English bride and her predecessor Anne of Cleves whose extravagant German dress would have been very out of place to those only familiar with her through Holbein’s portrait.
Unfortunately though, later restoration work, particularly on the sitter’s face, means that a definitive identification of this portrait as Catherine cannot be made. Despite this, this portrait is still thought of as being the most likely candidate to actually represent Catherine.
The final potential portrait of Catherine is another Holbein painting, the Unknown Woman, formally known as Katherine Howard, and thought to have been produced between 1535-40. As mentioned before, new evidence suggests that Catherine Howard was born in or around 1523 which would have made Catherine twelve in 1535 and seventeen in 1540. This prevents this portrait depicting her, as the inscription on the image informs us that the sitter was twenty-one when this image was made.
Facial similarity between this portrait and the miniature in the Royal Collection Trust could indicate that the sitter in both images was the same person. In that case, Margaret Douglas could be a possible match as she was both at the Tudor court, twenty-one between 1535-40, and of high enough status to have had her portrait done twice by Holbein.
That being said, the ownership of this painting by the Cromwell family presents a different candidate for the name of the sitter.
It is unlikely that that the Cromwells would have chosen to acquire a portrait of Catherine, as her marriage to Henry VIII was heavily connected to the downfall of Thomas Cromwell, Henry’s chief minister between 1533-40. Instead it makes more sense that the portrait would have been of one their own.
The most likely Cromwell then to have been the sitter for this image would have been Elizabeth Cromwell who, before marrying Thomas Cromwell’s son Gregory Cromwell in 1537, was Elizabeth Seymour, the sister of Jane Seymour.
As her marriage to Gregory occurred during the time of her sister’s queenship, it is possible that this portrait would have been commissioned by Thomas Cromwell to celebrate the integration of his family with the queen. Furthermore, Elizabeth would have also been twenty-one between 1535-40, making her the correct age to be the sitter.
Overall, whilst the Portrait of a Young Lady remains the most compelling of the three images, there remains significant doubt that any of these portraits are of Catherine Howard. This only leaves us with more questions.
Were these portraits identified as Catherine based on genuine belief that they represented her, based on the connections to Catherine we have seen here, or was it a strategic marketing ploy by collectors who knew that a portrait of a queen would drum up more interest than that of an unknown noble woman?
And if none of these images are of Catherine, then what happened to her actual portraits? Was one never made? The shortness of her queenship may suggest this, yet Jane Seymour, queen for little over a year, had a portrait made of her. Perhaps Catherine did have portraits made but they were lost or destroyed after her downfall in 1542.
Charlotte McDonnell is a BA History graduate from the University of Leeds with a keen interest in England during the medieval and early modern period.
Published: 28th October 2024.
