Talk:Streatham portrait

Query

" a reproduction of a contemporary painting of Lady Jane Grey" - does this mean contemporary with Lady Jane, or contemporary with this 1590s version? Johnbod (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• The latter. Will fix. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Name

In the text the painting is called the 'Streatham portrait', the 'Streatham Portrait' and the '"Streatham" portrait'. It would be nice if if were just called one thing rather than three. Ideas? Ericoides (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see one with a capital P. Where do you see it? The quotes are based on the article Chandos portrait, and here (and I suspect there) they are meant to indicate that this is not a formal name or title, but rather a nickname or name given afterwards. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Above the infobox. The Streatham Portrait of Lady Jane Grey. I see the Chandos portrait is also UC in that position. Perhaps I'm just being thick. Apologies if so. Nice article, btw. Ericoides (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. I think it's supposed to be title case there, which is why there is a capital P. Of course, if I'm messing it up I'll be glad to change things. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• There is a series of portraits from the 1700s (I believe) called Streatham portraits. Might be worth investigating whether this panel was an early addition to that collection? Victoria (tk) 01:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• The Streatham Worthies, do you mean? If so that would be a good 80 years before the others. On a separate note, good for "See also". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Probably even earlier - but, yeah, those are the ones I mean. Victoria (tk) 01:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Totally different, those are 180-odd years later. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Streatham portrait/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 22:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Happy to take a look through this one. J Milburn (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not clear on what is meant by "barbs".

• Probably an Americanism that snuck by. Tried "Challenged each other". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• The description of the Houghton portrait mentions that it's one of three- this one is the second, but what's the third? Also, is the Houghton portrait actually black and white, or is that just our photo of it?

• Three looks to be incorrect; the source gives two. As for black-and-white, Edwards appears to have taken the image from a previous publication, perhaps a catalogue, as he has not been allowed to look at it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• "The date of the engraving was also taken into consideration" Sorry, what engraving? Do you mean the damage?

• The age of the engraving (i.e. was it contemporaneous with the rest of the painting or not). Changed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Philip Mould Gallery worth a redlink/explanation?

• Have added a clause and link to Philip Mould. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Edwards likewise argues that the portrait was not of Jane" Awkward tense shift

• argues --> argued. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Can I ask what makes you sure J. Stephan Edwards's website is reliable?

• Edwards completed his dissertation on Jane, entitled "Jane the Queen: A New Consideration of Lady Jane Grey, England's Nine-Days Queen" in 2007 at the University of Colorado; it won the "Graduate Committee on the Arts and Humanities Dissertation Award" from the university (source). He has published in History Today (here; about another portrait of Jane), and provided a review for a children's book on the subject (here). Paula R. Backscheider cites Some Grey Matter in her book Elizabeth Singer Rowe and the Development of the English Novel (Johns Hopkins University Press; 2013), again about Grey. Eric Ives mentions his views in Lady Jane Grey: A Tudor Mystery, and Yale Alumni Magazine quotes him on the Yale miniature here. Some less reliable sites out there also cite him regarding Jane; this one gives a fairly in-depth interview. As such, I think (at least for matters related to Jane), he passes WP:SPS. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Generally seems very strong; seems I can't fault your articles. I was surprised to see the lack of peer-reviewed publications cited, but then a search revealed why! J Milburn (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• I know! Nothing but popular media. I think, before I go to the next level, I'm going to ask User:SchroCat or someone else to check and see if any other news sources are available on the pay services. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Will do – on Monday, if that's OK. - SchroCat (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• No worries. Certainly not a rush. Thank you very much! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Butting in, try and weave the two links in the "See also" section into the article body. And good luck; its shaping up as a fine article. Ceoil (talk) 09:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments, Ceoil. I can't think of a way to work the Streatham Worthies into the article without going off topic. The link to Jane's cultural impact would be placeable, as a piped link, and I might do that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm still struggling with "The age of the engraving was also taken into consideration, and found to be contemporaneous with the rest of the painting." What engraving? J Milburn (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Facepalm . Okay, I'm a dolt... inscription, above her shoulder. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'm happy that this meets the GA criteria. If this continues to improve, all the better, but I feel no guilt promoting it at this time! J Milburn (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Nobody could ever describe you as a dolt Crisco, but whatever. Ceoil (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, Ceoil. To be honest I'm having trouble thinking of a way to link Cultural depictions of Lady Jane Grey in a way that flows. Just tacking on "in their depictions" to the last sentence of #Subject feels a little forced. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Updates and editing suggestions

This article is, on the whole, extremely well written, and I am very flattered to have been cited as a source. Wikipedia has rules that prevent me from editing the article myself (plus I have learned from certain experiences in the distant past not to get involved in the editing process anyway), but since the article does repeatedly cite my own work, I thought it might be appropriate for me to suggest to others (Crisco, etc) that they might want to consider a few points.

First, while I did originally state that this portrait may have been based on some lost original, ongoing research since I made that statement has led me to change my mind. I now believe this portrait was based on a recently re-discovered portrait of Katherine Parr. See the addendum to my webpage on the Streatham Portrait for full details. The NPG disagrees with me, of course, but how would it look for them if it were revealed that they had "burned public funds on an appallingly bad picture" (as Starkey characterized it) only to discover that it was based on some other historical figure altogether? Though the painting was undoubtedly meant by the original artist to represent Jane Grey, it in fact depicts Katherine Parr.

The portrait will be included in the exhibition The Real Tudors: Kings and Queens Rediscovered set to open 12 September 2014 at the NPG. Check the exhibition catalogue to see what the NPG's own most recent view is on this portrait. I've heard that they have a revised opinion, but I have not yet been told what it is precisely.

Regarding the "third copy" referenced in the article, with footnote #4 citing Ives: Ives is very vague on that third copy, and his footnote refers extremely cryptically to a 75-year-old book by Herbert Norris. My own website identifies the third copy quite explicitly. I call it the Norris Portrait, and there is a separate page devoted to it on my website. Since writing that page, I have made a very concerted effort to locate the painting. I was successful in tracing its ownership down to the death of the last owner in about 2001. The executor of that last owner's estate thinks the painting may have been sold in the 1990s or donated to a local charity following the owner's death. It is still "lost" and apparently untraceable.

Reviewer JMilburn asked about the black and white image of the Houghton Portrait. No, the painting is not in black and white. I obtained the image of the Houghton Portrait directly from the NPG's own files on the Streatham. The NPG had acquired the photo during their pre-purchase assessment of the Streatham. Hand-written notes in that file indicate that the costume of the Houghton sitter has essentially the same coloration as the Streatham.

Thank you for the passing grade on matters related to Jane Grey! LOL You might consider adding to that list what may be the most convincing credential, the fact that the National Portrait Gallery itself recognizes my expertise on portraiture of Jane Grey. I am listed on the NPG's own Understanding British Portraits website (under the "Resources" tab, then "Expertise") as an expert on portraits of Jane. And I have a book on portraiture of Jane Grey forthcoming in 2015 that will enable you to cite a published print volume rather than a potentially unreliable website. Look for it in 2015: A Queen of a New Invention: Portraiture of Lady Jane Grey Dudley, England's Nine Days Queen.PhD Historian (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you, PhD Historian, for the comments. I'm sadly not based in the UK, so I don't think I'll be able to get a hold on the catalogue (or would they have an e-version?). Thanks for the heads up, though, on that and the the book; I'll try and get a copy of the latter, as it's quite possible to write more articles on portraiture of Jane (similar to our series on Shakespeare portraits). I'll add a bit about the Norris portrait (thanks for the ID!), and take a look at the addendum on the Streatham portrait. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I've reworked the article a bit to a) be less definitive in identifying the subject as Grey (though still focusing on her and the difficulties of finding portraiture that is actually of her) and b) include information on the Norris portrait and Dr. Edwards' most recent research. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi PhD Historian: Just to let you know that I, too, appreciate your comments and clarifications here. I'm glad to hear that you, as an expert in the field, consider this article a strong one! J Milburn (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

If anyone is still monitoring this article, my book on portraiture of Jane Grey was released on 12 February 2015. It is entitled A Queen of a New Invention: Portraits of Lady Jane Grey Dudley, England's Nine Days Queen. It would perhaps be better for citation purposes than webpages that are no longer active. Too, it does contain a full-page color image of the Houghton Portrait (provided to me by the current owner of the painting), as well as a smaller full-color image of the inscribed portrait of Parr upon which I believe the Streatham, Houghton, and Norris Portraits were based. PhD Historian (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you, PhD Historian. As I'm back in Indonesia, I doubt I'd be able to get a copy of the book except for a very expensive Amazon order (unless you've got an ebook in the works). I'll see if one of the UK- or US-based editors can borrow a copy and send me the pertinent snippets. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

One year on, and I am still hoping that someone will update this article by removing the citations to webpages that are no longer active and replacing them with citations to a published book (see above). I cannot do so myself, since Wikipedia prohibits contributors from citing their own scholarship. 2605:E000:FFC0:3B:5152:C0CE:3538:5A52 (talk) 04:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• As mentioned above, I am no longer in a situation where I have ready access to such books. No UK- or US-based editors have been able or willing to borrow the book. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh well... since I am not allowed to edit the article (and not really willing to enter into the maelstrom of criticism that follows edits), I guess the citations will have to remain woefully outdated.2605:E000:FFC0:3B:5152:C0CE:3538:5A52 (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Old citation

Archived version is out of date, updating in the main article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Edwards, J. Stephan (30 July 2013). "The Streatham Portrait". Some Grey Matter. Archived from the original on 12 February 2014. Retrieved 12 February 2014.

File:Streathamladyjayne.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Streathamladyjayne.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 7, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-02-07. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The "Streatham" portrait is an oil painting on panel from the 1590s believed to be a later copy of a portrait of the English noblewoman Lady Jane Grey dating to her lifetime (1536/1537–54). It is in poor condition and damaged, as if it has been attacked. Although of historical interest, it is generally considered to be of poor artistic quality. As of January 2015 the portrait is in Room 3 of the National Portrait Gallery in London.Painting: Unknown

???

In the second paragraph we have:

“In December 2005 the portrait was examined by the art dealer Christopher Foley. He saw it as an accurate, though poorly executed, reproduction of a contemporary painting of Jane, had it verified and on that basis negotiated its sale. “

But in the final paragraph of the Description section we have:

“The historian David Starkey described it as "an appallingly bad picture and there's absolutely no reason to suppose it's got anything to do with Lady Jane Grey",[13] a sentiment which the art dealer Christopher Foley echoed.”

I don’t really have time to go to the references but we could use some clarification here.Cross Reference (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

"echoed" changed to "rejected", per the ref. As this old diff shows originally he only "echoed" the poor quality of the painting, not Starkey's rejection of the ID. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)