This is the painting you might recognise as missing from my post on the portraits of Katherine of Aragon. When I was collecting together the portraits for Katherine, I was very surprised to find that the identification of this one is disputed.
Though still strongly associated popularly and academically with Katherine of Aragon, the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna where it is house now lists it as a portrait of Henry VIII’S sister, Mary Tudor.
In 2008 art historian Paul G. Matthews published an article entitled “Henry VIII’s Favourite Sister? Michel Sittow’s Portrait of a Lady in Vienna.” In it, he argues against the sitter being Katherine of Aragon, and in favour of an identification of Mary Tudor.
As Matthews states, the portrait only became associated with Katherine in the early 20th century; it is not a portrait that has been clearly as Katherine identified across the centuries. This identity was mainly based on a resemblance to other portraits of an older Katherine. Matthews and pre-eminent Tudor art historian Roy Strong both disagree on this point, and it is an observation many have made. It is difficult to argue for or against a resemblance to other portraits of Mary, as no originals are extant.
Part of the reason the portrait was identified as Katherine is the ‘K’s on the sitter’s gold collar, and the ‘C’ on her bodice. However, at the time the portrait was painted, Mary was engaged to the future Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V of Spain. Upon the betrothal, Mary was gifted “a large piece of jewellery from Charles: a ‘K’ for ‘Karolus,’ the Latin form of Charles. Matthews believes that the letters of the portrait stand for Charles rather than Katherine.
Furthermore, it is known that at the time the portrait was painted, 1514, a portrait was painted of Mary and sent to the Habsburg court. This, Matthews argues, is that portrait.
Whilst clearly this position has not found widespread appeal, the Viennese art gallery housing the portrait was persuaded and adjusted their records to reflect Mary Tudor as the woman in this portrait.
Whilst I’m not certain which identification I agree with at this stage, I chose not to include it in my main post due to the Kunsthistorisches Museum’s decision to label it as Mary. What do you think? I’d love to know your thoughts.
