murreyandblue

A great WordPress.com site

ST MARY’S CHURCH, FAIRFORD: ROYAL PORTRAITS

600Fairford-0010.jpg

St Mary’s, Fairford, Gloucestershire.  ‘A complete and perfect Perpendicular church’  and famous for it fine collection of medieval glass.

Described in Betjeman’s Best British Churches as ‘a complete and perfect Perpendicular’ church(1) this beautiful wool church was rebuilt by John Tame, a wool merchant from Gloucester , in the late 15th Century to replace a much older church.  The tower had already been rebuilt by Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick and Lord of the manor around 1430.  St Mary’s possesses a complete set of medieval stained glass, amongst the finest in England and it is this glass that I want to focus on now.  The glass was made between 1500 and 1517 and, other than the west window, which was severely damaged in a storm in 1703 and later restored, the glass has somehow miraculously survived, although how this has happened remains a mystery.  It has been suggested it has survived because of the royal portraits contained in them. The windows are thought to have been a gift from Henry Vll himself.  It should be remembered that when Henry had the young Edward Earl of Warwick executed in 1499 he seized his estates which included Fairford.  It has also been suggested that Henry may have then given the manor to Prince Arthur whose badge of ostrich feathers and motto appear in some of the windows and one of the portraits is thought to have been modelled up his wife, Katherine of Aragon.  Thirty years after Arthur’s death Henry Vlll presented Fairford manor to Katherine of  Aragon after he had divested her of her title of queen.  The portraits are mostly members of the Tudor royal family and influential people in the Tudor court  although one of them is thought to be of a Plantagenet, that of Henry’s brother-in-law, the young Edward of Westminster, one of the ‘princes in the Tower’   Other portraits were modelled on Henry himself, obviously, his wife Elizabeth of York, Catherine of Aragon, Prince Arthur, Henry’s  daughters Mary and Margaret and a young Henry Vlll and last but not least Margaret Beaufort (2)   I also think its possible that one of them is based on Richard lll, but that is purely my own speculation.

IMG_0635.JPG

Nave, north aisle, north Window.  The figure of the Queen of Sheba is believed to be a likeness of Elizabeth of York

Jesus in the temple henry Vlll.png

Chancel, north chapel, Lady Chapel, North window.  Jesus as a small boy in the temple modelled on a young Henry Vlll possibly.

image037.jpg

Holbein’s sketch of Henry Vlll as a child to compare IMG_3802.JPG

Nave,north aisle, west window.  The figure of Solomon is thought to have been modelled on Edward of Westminster, one of the ‘princes in the Tower’ and brother to Elizabeth of York

 

FullSizeRender.jpg

Nave, north aisle, west window.  Could this figure be Morton? It has been described as Wolsey but I disagree.  

bere-morton.jpg

A wooden boss on the roof of Bere Regis church thought to represent Morton in comparison.

FullSizeRender copy.jpg

Chancel, south chapel, Corpus Christi Chapel, east window.  This version of the Virgin Mary is believed to have been modelled on Mary Tudor, Henry Vll’s daughter.   See picture below to compare likenesses.

 1496_Mary_Tudor.jpg

A portrait of Mary Tudor to compare to her likeness in the above portrait of her at Fairford.

 

henry.png

Nave, West Window.  The figure with the crown is thought to be that of Henry Vll entering Heaven.

FullSizeRender.jpg

Chancel, north chapel, Lady Chapel, north window.  The Magus is believed to have been modelled on Prince Arthur.

IMG_3790.JPG

Chancel, north chapel, Lady Chapel, north window.  Two royal likenesses here.  It it thought that the Virgin Mary was modelled after Catherine of Aragon while that of the attendant with the doves is modelled on Margaret Tudor, Henry Vll’s daughter.  Could the lady in red be modelled on Margaret Beaufort?

IMG_3770.JPG

Two kings here..Henry Vl on the left and Henry Vll on the right.

FullSizeRender 3.jpg

Purely my speculation here but could the warrior holding the severed head be a Tudor representation of King Richard lll?  For surely one shoulder has been depicted higher than the other one! 

I am  indepted to the excellent Corpus Vitrearum Medii Aevi  online for these images

(1) Sir John Betjeman, updated by Richard Surman, Betjeman’s Best British Churches p.270

(2) Sir Nickolaus Pevsner, The Buildings of England, Gloucestershire 1. The Cotswolds, p367 

Single Post Navigation

3 thoughts on “ST MARY’S CHURCH, FAIRFORD: ROYAL PORTRAITS

  1. viscountessw on said:

    I think you may be right about the nasty, snarling man holding the severed head. Has to be poor old Richard, maligned again. But Henry VII entering heaven….? Pure propaganda of the Tudor variety! He wouldn’t have got a foot on the threshold. If he did, it was an oversight on the part of St Peter. Seriously though, yes, it looks like Henry. Thank you again, sparkypus.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I am sure you are right about the Richard identification. Absolutely that is the face Josephine Tey mused could be “either a murderer or one who had seen great suffering”. I wish I had been told about these windows when I was writing on negative perceptions of deformity in this period! Richard was my M.A thesis subject and as such the early Tudors smear campaign always requires close study. My memory of portraits of Elizabeth of York suggests she isn’t the Queen of Sheba nor that a woman as central to early Tudor politics as My Lady The King’s Mother is the lady in rather plain red, wimple notwithstanding. Surviving portraits of Elizabeth of York show a long Plantagenet face and roundish chin much like her father Edward IV. That headdress seems one designed for an older woman as seen in other portraits of the far from imposing (allegedly she was around my own 4’11 or shorter) Margaret Beaufort. Surely the attributes of feminine wisdom were ones Henry VII was more likely to attach to his fiercely learned and pious mother seen here giving a gift which could be symbolically interpreted as the gift of English kingship itself from Margaret Beaufort rather than to his wife of a dynastic marriage.

    Like

  3. I am sure you are right about the Richard identification. Absolutely that is the face Josephine Tey mused could be “either a murderer or one who had seen great suffering”. I wish I had been told about these windows when I was studying archaeological representation. Oh fir the ability to have included this in the image section of my M.A thesis on negative perceptions of Richard and representations of deformity in the Tudor period. This really shows how the early Tudor smear campaign always requires close study and new ways of looking. It makes an odd hagiographic Solomon if that is indeed Edward of Westminster and yet as a piece of propaganda it might fit. If we could identify whose is the severed head. Clearly male, if you are correct it must be one of Richard IIIs alleged victims. Would be worth running that image through the list.

    A suggestion: My memory of portraits of Elizabeth of York suggests she may not be the the Queen of Sheba in that image. I feel that a woman as central to early Tudor politics as My Lady The King’s Mother isn’t the lady in the background, rather plain red gown and severe wimple notwithstanding. Surviving portraits of Elizabeth of York show a long Plantagenet face and roundish chin and the pale admired looks of the period much like her father Edward IV. The Queen of Sheba’s headdress also seems designed for an older woman as seen in other portraits of the far from imposing Margaret Beaufort.
    Surely the attributes of feminine wisdom were ones Henry VII was more likely to attach to his fiercely learned and pious mother seen here giving a gift which could be symbolically interpreted as the gift of English kingship itself from Margaret Beaufort rather than to his wife of a Plantagenet dynastic marriage. I do feel you are right about the other attributions, I hadn’t realised how stamped the royal Tudor portraits become on ones inner eye til I worked out the disputatious Christ was also the infant in Holbein and compared it with Holbein’s image of the infant Edward VI.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: