Rare portrait of Mary, Queen of Scots, discovered by x-ray, paint and wood analysis
lyra
wrongly labelled, etc.
- reminds me of the "boring picture of old Lady Norton", etc. ...
A great story!
(quote, excerpts)
.......................................................................................................
England's National Gallery discovers rare portrait of Mary, Queen of
Scots
By Sue Leeman
Associated Press
LONDON -- Studies of a dab of yellow pigment and the ancient wooden
background of a painting once attributed to an 18th-century artist have
revealed the work is a rare contemporary portrait of the fiery,
redheaded Mary Queen of Scots.
"It's very rare and very valuable, and the gallery is delighted,"
Bromley said.
The painting shows Mary in an embroidered black coat with white ruffled
Tudor collar and a flat black cap with pearls and a feather. The artist
is unknown.
Covered in unsightly yellow varnish, the piece had been written off for
years as an 18th-century fake and was not displayed.
Tarnya Cooper, curator of 16th-century collections at the gallery,
decided to have the work X-rayed; this revealed an oval device around
the face painted to look like marble with the words Maria Scotiae (Mary
of Scotland).
An analysis of the wooden panel on which the portrait was painted found
that it came from a tree cut down between 1560 and 1592.
Paint analysis found that the inscription was painted in lead-tin
yellow, a pigment that fell out of use in the 16th century.
The newly discovered painting once belonged to the Earl of Cowley, who
died in 1919, but nothing is known of its story before then. In the
1960s, art historian Sir Roy Strong, then working at the gallery,
labeled the piece as 18th century.
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/living/15300885.htm
lyra
lyra wrote:
> - reminds me of the
incident of the "boring picture of old Lady Norton", etc. ...
>
> A great story!
> .......................................................................................................
>
> England's National Gallery discovers rare portrait of Mary, Queen of
> Scots
............................................................................................................
In fact, the two pictures (Mary and Wriothesley) do bear
quite a resemblance...one may imagine them
brother and sister, for example.
Is there a family reason for this I wonder...
(for the two looking alike)
lyra
A note on another interesting Mary Queen of Scots
item ...
the Stricklands had Sizergh Castle,
near Kendal.
(quote)
A ring featuring a portrait of Mary, Queen of Scots, believed
to have been given away on the eve of her execution, is up for
auction.
The 16th century oval gold ring features a crystal-glazed miniature
portrait
of the queen aged four, inside a border of seed pearls and rubies.
It is being sold by a descendent of the Strickland family, who now
lives
on Dartmoor in Devon.
According to family legend, the ring was given by Mary, Queen of Scots
to her goddaughter Mary Strickland as she distributed gifts to her
household
the night before she was beheaded in 1587.
The ring has been handed down
from generation to generation ever since, and is now being sold by
Robin Fenner Auctioneers of Tavistock in Devon on March 11.
It is expected to fetch up to £6,000. (February 27th)
.................................................................................................................................
The Strickland family has lived at Sizergh Castle for more than 750
years, and it remains their home today.
Set in large, beautifully landscaped gardens and based on an impressive
14th Century pele tower, Sizergh was extended in Tudor times.
The romantic fortified mansion contains some of the finest Elizabethan
carved overmantels in the country, as well as a collection of good
English and French furniture and family portraits.
http://www.visitcumbria.com/sl/sizergh.htm
..................................................................................................................................
bookburn
"lyra" <mountai...@RockAthens.com> wrote in message
news:1155994780.2...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I find a store of portraits with commentary at
http://www.marileecody.com/maryqosimages.html
>
lyra
bookburn wrote:
> I find a store of portraits with commentary at
> http://www.marileecody.com/maryqosimages.html
.................................................................................
what a nice and useful page, thanks
..................................................................................
Spam...@yahoo.com
lyra wrote:
> There's no telling what is out there!
> wrongly labelled, etc.
Was the painting mislabeled as Mary Tudor instead of Mary Queen of
Scots?
lyra
Spamsc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Was the painting mislabeled as Mary Tudor instead of Mary Queen of
> Scots?
I was referring to the different ways of not getting the facts right,
e.g. the "old Lady Norton" that was really Wriothesley,
not saying that the Mary Q. picture itself came into this category.
Of course it WAS wrongly categorised or described as "18th century
fake".
lyra
The newly conserved portrait - which goes on display at the Gallery
tomorrow - may have been painted as an image for one of Mary's
supporters either as a symbol of loyalty during her incarceration or as
an icon of Catholic martyrdom after death.
But why the portrait was overpainted is something of a mystery. There
does not seem to be any damage to the surface below and the repaint
would have obscured Mary's name,
but it is possible it may have been repainted, in the late 18th century
or early 19th century, to fit in with a set of other images of European
kings and queens.
http://www.artdaily.com/section/news/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=17071
Spam...@yahoo.com
In your seriousness, you missed the joke. One of the highlights of
antistratfordian 'scholarship' mixes Mary Tudor and Mary Queen of Scots.
bookburn
"lyra" <mountai...@RockAthens.com> wrote in message
In looking at the National Gallery site I notice that all the images
from there are copyright protected, which makes me wonder if
paintings now are especially protected as proprietary property not
to be copied? Then, too, one wonders about what is being protected,
the original underlying portrait or the second painting on top?
Because most of these old paintings have been photographed and
copied in other ways, and with modern capability to capture images
with your cell phone, it seems the legalities are getting really
complicated. bookburn
Tom Reedy
news:12ei0ne...@corp.supernews.com...
A government-held copyright is simply another tax.
TR
>
lyra
bookburn wrote:
> In looking at the National Gallery site I notice that all the images
> from there are copyright protected, which makes me wonder if
> paintings now are especially protected as proprietary property not
> to be copied? Then, too, one wonders about what is being protected,
> the original underlying portrait or the second painting on top?
> Because most of these old paintings have been photographed and
> copied in other ways, and with modern capability to capture images
> with your cell phone, it seems the legalities are getting really
> complicated. bookburn
I wondered about that once,
and I suspect that the copyright applies only
to the photograph, which is usually of a recent date..
this would give the photos a copyright protection
which maybe an old painting doesn't have.
Of course, one could take one's own photo,
and hold the copyright to it,
but the gallery may not allow photographing
of their paintings by anyone not authorised.
Alan Jones
[...]
> In looking at the National Gallery site I notice that all the images
> from there are copyright protected, which makes me wonder if
> paintings now are especially protected as proprietary property not
> to be copied? Then, too, one wonders about what is being protected,
> the original underlying portrait or the second painting on top?
> Because most of these old paintings have been photographed and
> copied in other ways, and with modern capability to capture images
> with your cell phone, it seems the legalities are getting really
> complicated. bookburn
I guess that what is protected by copyright law is the photographic image,
not the painting. I suppose, but don't know, that visitors are forbidden to
photograph paintings - not for copyright reasons but because flash (or at
least frequent exposure to flash) might damage the originals. So the only
photographs available are those taken in the Gallery's labs under controlled
conditions. A cell phone photograph would have been illicitly taken but
wouldn't (again as I suppose) be in breach of copyright.
Probably copyright laws vary from country to country. In England there are
separate copyrights in the substance and the presentation: so an old piece
of music re-published in fresh typography but with no changes at all in the
notes or words may be in itself out of copyright (in the "public domain") -
but the typography has its own copyright protection. Just so with the NG's
photographs.
Alan Jones
lyra
lyra wrote:
> In fact, the two pictures (Mary and Wriothesley) do bear
> quite a resemblance...one may imagine them
> brother and sister, for example.
>
> Is there a family reason for this I wonder...
> (for the two looking alike)
..............................................................................................
Mary, Queen of Scots
(anagrams)
.....................................
my son - o queer facts
no quest for my case?
on quest for my case
may quest for Scone
lyra
lyra wrote:
..............................................................................................
>
> Mary, Queen of Scots
>
> (anagrams)
>
> .....................................
>
> my son - o queer facts
>
> no quest for my case?
>
> on quest for my case
>
> may quest for Scone
................................................
Scone
..............
(quote)
Fifteen hundred years ago, it was the capital of the Pictish kingdom
and the centre of the ancient Celtic church. In the intervening
centuries, it has been the seat of parliaments and the crowning place
of Kings. It has housed the Stone of Destiny and been immortalised in
Shakespeare's Macbeth.
Poised above the River Tay, the Palace overlooks the routes north to
the Highlands and east through Strathmore to the coast. The Grampian
mountains form a distant backdrop, and across the river stands the city
of Perth. Two thousand years ago, the Romans camped here, at the very
limit of their empire. They never defeated the warlike Picts, who later
came to rule Scone, but the followers of St Columba had more success.