Henry VIII’s fresh matrimonial negotiations with Protestant Germany—Christopher Mont sent to the Court of the Duke of Saxony with reference to a political alliance and the King’s marriage—Anne of Cleves and her sister—Portraits of them by Lucas Cranach—Difficulties in obtaining portraits of the ladies—Richard Beard and Holbein go over to Düren for that purpose—The written descriptions of Anne—The legend woven round Holbein’s portrait of her—Henry’s disappointment on Anne’s arrival in England—Description of the portrait in the Louvre—Miniature in the Salting Collection—Drawing at Windsor—Portrait in St. John’s College, Oxford.

WITH the exception of works executed for his royal master, such as the “Duchess of Milan” and the lost French portraits, the likeness of the infant Prince Edward, and that of Anne of Cleves, there is nothing by Holbein which can be ascribed with absolute certainty to the years 1538 and 1539.[366] It is possible that the portraits of Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk, and his son, Henry, Earl of Surrey, were produced in the latter year, but no dated likeness by him is known of any member of the court circle, or, indeed, of any Englishman or German, painted during these two years. It is true that more than one of his undated works may be of this period, but there is no actual proof, beyond that of style, in favour of such a contention. This may be accounted for to some extent by his frequent absences from England on the King’s business, which would leave him less time than usual for private practice, while there is also the possibility that at least some of the works he produced during these two years have been lost.

By the beginning of 1539, when alarms of war were in the air, and the alliance between Francis and the Emperor was growing closer every week, Henry had abandoned all idea of a marriage in France or with the Duchess of Milan, and was turning his thoughts towards Protestant Germany. The project of this fresh matrimonial venture was not entirely a new one; it was under consideration during the previous summer in the midst of the more active negotiations elsewhere. There is a curious passage in one of Eustace Chapuys’ letters to the Emperor, dated London, 17th June 1538, in which he infers that Henry had grown less anxious for the Milan match because the Germans were making him offers. “Indeed it is a fact,” he says, “that about that time the King sent to Germany a painter (ung paintre) and one gentleman of his chamber for the express purpose of pourtraying the personages ‘au naturel’; for, although Cromwell at first denied this, or at least dissembled, he afterwards owned to me (Chapuys) that the report was true, that both from France and Germany several marriages had been proposed.” These marriages, he adds, according to report, were to be between the son of the Duke of Cleves and the Princess Mary, and Henry and one of the Duke’s kinswomen.[367]

This is the only reference in the State Papers to the despatch of one of the King’s painters to Germany in the earlier part of 1538, but it is interesting as containing a possible reference to Holbein and to some journey of his of which we have no further knowledge. It is much more likely, however, that Chapuys was misinformed, and that no such expedition actually took place, though it may have been suggested but afterwards abandoned.

About the middle of January 1539, Christopher Mont, or Mount, a German in Henry’s service, was sent abroad with letters of credence to the Duke of Saxony and the Landgrave. The ostensible purpose of his mission was to promote the attempted agreement between the English and German divines which had been the subject of numerous conferences in the previous year; but the real object was to find out to what extent Henry might rely upon the German Protestant princes in any trouble which might arise between England and the Pope or Emperor. At the same time, Mont, who was accompanied by Thomas Paynell, took with him private instructions from Cromwell, which included a secret message to Francis Burgartus,[368] the Duke of Saxony’s vice-chancellor, with respect to a marriage between the young Duke of Cleves and the Princess Mary, which he and Cromwell had discussed in London in the previous year. If, the instructions ran, Burgartus desire “the picture of her face,” Mont is to remind him that she is a King’s daughter, and that it was not the custom to send the picture of persons of such degree abroad. Burgartus, too, had seen her, and could testify of her proportion, countenance, and beauty. But there was a matter of still greater importance about which Mont was to sound the vice-chancellor, whose master, the Duke of Saxony, had married the eldest daughter of the Duke of Cleves, and was one of the most interested parties in any alliance proposed between England and Germany. Mont was to inquire diligently of the beauty and qualities of the elder of the two unmarried daughters of the Duke of Cleves, her shape, stature, and complexion, and, if he heard she was such “as might be likened unto his Majesty,” he was to throw out suggestions as to a marriage between her and the King. The proposal, however, must come from the side of Cleves, as the overtures made to his Grace in France and Flanders had not been finally refused. Mont, in short, was not to speak as if demanding her, “but rather to give them a prick to offer her;” but first of all, “it is expedient that they should send her picture hither.”[369] In this way the Princess Anne of Cleves first appears on the scene, and the Duchess of Milan, and the ladies of Guise and other royal French houses finally vanish from it.

Shortly afterwards other diplomatists were sent abroad for the same purpose. Dr. Barnes went over to Frankfurt to attend the diet of the Evangelic League, while Dr. Edward Carne and Dr. Nicholas Wootton, together with Richard Byrd, Bird, or Beard, one of the gentlemen of the King’s Chamber, were despatched to Düren, to the court of the young Duke of Cleves, whose father had recently died. Their instructions were very similar to those given to Mont. They were to offer an offensive and defensive league and an English bride to the Duke, but were merely to throw out hints with regard to Anne. Here again they were to demand a picture of the lady before the match could be considered, for Henry was always most anxious to see what his proposed bride was like before committing himself too far.[370] If she were ill-favoured he would have none of her, however useful for political reasons such an alliance might prove to be. A portrait was always asked for, but was by no means always considered sufficient. The King feared that such pictures might flatter the subject, and so it became his habit, in order to avoid such possibilities, to send over one of his own painters to procure an independent likeness. Holbein, in particular, he knew to be capable of bringing back a true portrait, more valuable in all ways than the efforts of some unknown foreign painter, or the written opinions of his ambassadors, whose taste might not always agree with his own.

Mont, after an interview with the Duke of Saxony, wrote to Cromwell to say that he seemed favourable to the proposed marriage, and that he promised to send a portrait as soon as possible, but said that “his painter Lucas was sick at home.” “Everyone,” he added, “praises the lady’s beauty, both of face and body. One said she excelled the Duchess (of Milan) as the golden sun did the silver moon.”[371] The Lucas referred to in this letter was Lucas Cranach the elder, and if it had not been for his illness Holbein might not have been sent over, for Cranach, no doubt, would have painted a portrait which would have satisfied the King. Towards the end of April, Cromwell wrote to Beard and Wootton, again urging them to get a portrait of the lady, which the former was to bring to London as quickly as possible.[372] In their reply, dated May 3—the letter, unfortunately, is badly mutilated—they describe a recent interview with Dr. Henry Olisleger, the vice-chancellor of Cleves, the young Duke being away at the Diet. “He said also he would cause the portraits of both the Duke’s younger sisters to be delivered to us in fourteen days. They were made, he said, half a year before. We said there was no occasion to declare the King’s goodwill to the Duke, which was manifest.... And as for the ij pictures, we wer verye w[ell] contentyd to receyve theym, and specyallye the imaige of my l[ady Anne] ... that yf eny of bothe shulde lyke his Grace ... yet wolde we gladdelye receyve and sende bothe. [And for a]s muche as we hadde not seene the ij ladyes, we shulde [not be] able to advertise his Majestye whether theyr imaiges were [l]yke to theyr persones, and so shulde his Majestye be never the nerre by the syht of the pictures.” Dr. Olisleger, however, assured them that the portraits were faithful likenesses, but the ambassadors were not satisfied. “We sayde, we hadde not seene theym, for to see but a parte of theyr faces, and that under such a monstruouse habyte and apparell, was no syght, neither of theyr faces nor of theyr persones. Why, quod he, wolde yow see theym nakydde?” What they said in answer to this last remark is lost through the mutilation of the letter, but they evidently did not approve of the court costume of Cleves. They concluded by saying: “A Moneday, God willing, we wylle departe to Duisseldorpe, and, excepte the Duke have enye bysynesse with us, we wyll thence to Coleyn, where we ar apoyntyd to receyve the said ij pictures, the which we wille send ynto England as soone as we canne convenyently.”[373]

In spite of these constant demands for portraits, the ambassadors do not appear to have received them at the time promised. Early in July Dr. William Petre, one of the Clerks of Chancery, was sent to Cleves with further messages and instructions to Dr. Wootton. The new ambassador and the old were to make a further demand to see the ladies, and if Beard had not already started with the portraits, they were to send them “if they may be possible gotten,” with their opinion of them as likenesses.[374]

Beard was back in London for a short time in July, but whether he came empty-handed or not there is no record to show. It is possible that he brought with him the two portraits promised by Olisleger, which were to be handed to him at Cologne. There is a portrait of Anne in England, described below, which may be one of the two in question, but in any case it cannot have satisfied Henry, for Beard was sent back almost immediately to Düren, taking Holbein with him, in order that he might paint the two sisters. They were allowed £40 for travelling expenses, while Holbein received a further sum of £13, 6s. 8d. for his own personal outlay in connection with his craft.

The following is the entry in the Treasurer’s accounts:

“July, Ao xxxi—Item, to Mr. Richard Bearde, one of the gromes of the Kingis privi-chambre, and Hans Holbyn, paynter, by like lettre sent into the parties of High Almayne upon certain his gracis affaires, for the costes and chardgis of them both, xl. li. And to Hans Holben, for the preparation of such thingis as he is appoynted to carie with him, xiij. li. vi.s. viiid.—in alle the some of liij li. vi.s. viiid.”[375]

According to Dr. Woltmann, the extra fee of £13, 6s. 8d. paid to Holbein for “the preparation of such things as he is appointed to carry with him,” was, “without doubt a portrait of the King, perhaps a miniature in a costly frame, which he had to paint and to present to the Princess as a gift from his monarch.”[376] This explanation, however, is not at all likely to be the correct one. As already pointed out, Henry never sent portraits of himself to the lady he was preparing to honour with his hand until he had first of all seen what she herself was like. He was too cautious a lover to commit himself so far. In all these transactions he was the one who was to be sought, and the first offer must come from the lady’s side. The simplest explanation is that the money was for the provision of the necessary painting materials, and the cost of their carriage. The sum was, no doubt, a large one if for such a purpose alone, but Holbein was then high in the King’s favour, and well paid for all that he did, while his absence from England on the royal business put an end for the time to his general practice, and this might have been considered in fixing the amount of his allowance.

The travellers reached the castle of Düren, where the ladies were living, early in August, and Holbein at once set to work. He had finished portraits of both Anne and her sister Amelia before the 11th of the month, as we learn from a letter of that date from Dr. Wootton to Henry VIII. In the course of it he says: “Your Grace’s servant Hanze Albein hathe taken th’effigies of my ladye Anne and the ladye Amelye and hath expressyd theyr imaiges verye lyvelye.”[377]

It seems probable that in this instance Holbein did more than make mere studies in crayons such as he had done in the case of the Duchess of Milan and the French ladies; and the fact that the portrait of Anne of Cleves, now in the Louvre, is on parchment fastened down on a wood panel affords some proof of this. The portrait would be painted on the parchment directly from the sitter, and afterwards mounted and the finishing touches given to it. Owing to the haste required, and the safer conveyance of the portrait, the latter process was probably not carried out until the artist was back in London.

No time appears to have been wasted. Henry not only demanded but obtained speed from his servants on their numerous journeys. Travelling post, the journey to and from Düren, which was usually made via Antwerp, took about eleven days. Holbein was in England again before the end of August, as we learn from Marillac, the new French ambassador, who, on September 1, writing from Grafton, where he had followed the King fifty miles from London, informed Francis I that he “has learnt that an excellent painter whom this King sent to Germany to bring the portrait of the sister of the Duke of Cleves, recently arrived in Court, and, immediately afterwards, a courier, bringing, among other news which is still kept secret, news that the said Duke’s ambassadors have started to come hither to treat and conclude the marriage of this King and the said lady.”[378]

The proposed marriage afforded opportunity for much speculation on the part of the King’s subjects, as more than one of his earlier matrimonial projects had done. An excellent idea of the kind of gossip which prevailed can be gathered from the evidence taken in the case of a certain George Constantyne, who talked so much that he got himself charged with treason. It occurs in the report of a conversation between Constantyne and the Dean of Westbury during a journey they made together to South Wales, and in the course of it Holbein’s visit to Cleves is mentioned. “The Dean asked also if Constantyne had any news of the King’s marriage. Replied, he could not tell; he was sorry to see the King so long without a queen, when he might yet have many fair children: his own father was ninety-two years old, and yet, last summer, rode thirty-two miles one day before two o’clock, and said he was not weary; the duchess of Milan and that of Cleif were both spoken of, as the Dean knew. Asked, ‘How call ye the little doctor that is gone to Cleif?’ The Dean said, it was Dr. Woten, and that he that was with him of the Privy Chamber, whom Woten sent home lately, was Berde; adding that this Berde was sent thither again with the King’s painter, and that there was good hope of the marriage, for the duke of Cleif favoured God’s word and was a mighty prince now, having possession of Gelderland against the Emperor’s will.... Said also that the matter of the duchess of Milan was really broken off, for she would have the King accept the bishop of Rome’s dispensation and give pledges. ‘Why pledges?’ asked the Dean. ‘Marry,’ said Constantyne, ‘she sayeth that the King’s Majesty was in so little space rid of the Queens, that she dare not trust his Council, though she durst trust his Majesty; for her Council suspecteth that her great aunt was poisoned, that the second was innocently put to death, and the third lost for lack of keeping her in childbed.’ Added, that he was not sure whether this was her answer or that of Cleif, but that he heard a muttering of it before Whitsuntide.”[379] It will be seen from this gossip that the legend respecting the Duchess of Milan’s refusal to accept Henry because she had fear for the safety of her head was commonly believed at the time.

The written descriptions of Anne which Henry received from his representatives and agents were all favourable, but not enthusiastic. Wootton in the letter referring to Holbein, already quoted, says of her: “She has been brought up with the lady Duchess her mother (as the lady Sybille also was till she was married and the lady Amelye has been and is) and in manner never from her elbow, the lady Duchess being a wise lady and one that very straitly looketh to her children. All report her to be of very lowly and gentle conditions, by the which she hath so much won her mother’s favour that she is very loth to suffer her to depart from her. ‘She occupieth her time most with the needle, wherewithall she.... She canne reede and wryte her ... Frenche, Latyn, or other langaige she [hathe no] ne, nor yet she canne not synge nor playe [upon] enye instrument, for they take it heere in Germanye for a rebuke and an occasion of lightenesse that great ladyes shold be lernyd or have enye knowledge of musike.’ Her wit is good and she will no doubt learn English soon when she puts her mind to it. ‘I could never hear that she is inclined to the good cheer of this country and marvel it were if she should, seeing that her brother, to whom yet it were somewhat more tolerable, doth so well abstain from it.’”[380]

Sir Michael Mercator, the German factor of musical instruments, knighted by Henry, wrote to Cromwell later in the year, giving praise to God “for this alliance with the most illustrious, beautiful, and noble lady Anna de Clefves, who has a great gift from God, both of sense and wit. It would be difficult to describe her good manners and grace, and how Gueldres, Cleves, and all the country of the Duke, rejoice at the alliance.”[381]

Around Holbein’s portrait of Anne there has been woven a legend which upon examination is found to have no foundation in fact. The story is to be traced back to Bishop Burnet, who, in his History of the Reformation, says:[382] “Hans Holbin having taken her picture, sent it over to the king. But in that he bestowed the common compliment of his art somewhat too liberally on a lady that was in a fair way to be queen the king liked the picture better than the original, when he had the occasion afterwards to compare them.” Instead of the promised beauty, continues the bishop, they brought him over a “Flanders mare.”

Walpole, following Burnet, elaborates this: “Holbein was next despatched by Cromwell to draw the lady Anne of Cleve, and by practising the common flattery of his profession, was the immediate cause of the destruction of that great subject, and of the disgrace that fell on the princess herself. He drew so favourable a likeness, that Henry was content to wed her; but when he found her so inferior to the miniature, the storm which really should have been directed at the painter, burst on the minister; and Cromwell lost his head, because Anne was a Flanders mare, not a Venus, as Holbein had represented her.”[383]

There is no truth at all in this story. The leading characteristic of Holbein’s portraiture is its complete truth; he was not in the habit of flattering his sitters, and the portrait of Anne affords one of the most striking testimonies of this. He certainly did not paint her as a Venus, nor was Cromwell’s fall owing to the picture. He was, indeed, made Earl of Essex after the lady’s marriage to the King. Letters in the State Papers show very clearly that Henry complained only of the spoken and written words of his ambassadors, and made no mention of portraits. Russell, the Lord High Admiral, in his deposition in connection with the divorce, quoted Henry as saying to him: “How like you this woman? do you think her so fair and of such beauty as report hath been made unto me of her? I pray you tell me the truth.” Whereupon the said Lord Admiral answered, that he took her not for fair, but to be of a brown complexion. And the king’s highness said, “Alas! whom should men trust? I promise you,” said he, “I see no such thing in her as hath been showed me of her, and am ashamed that men hath praised her as they have done, and I like her not.” Stow, in quoting this, adds without authority the words: “either by pictures or report,” after “I see no such thing in her as hath been showed me of her.”

Stow, apparently drawing upon his own imagination, makes exaggerated references to the part portraits played in the negotiations for the marriage. “Some went over by the king, some by the Lord Cromwell, and some went voluntary, to view the Lady Anne of Cleave, and to negotiate her marriage with the king. All which, either by letters, speech, or both, made very large and liberal reports in praise of her singular feature, matchless beauty, and princely perfections, and for proof thereof presented the king with sundry of her pictures, which the bringers ever affirmed to have been truly made, without flattery.”[384]

Henry, however, in his own declaration, never refers to a portrait. He entered into the marriage, he said, “because I heard so much both of her excellent beauty and virtuous conditions.” In addition, he told Sir Anthony Browne, “I see nothing in this woman as men report of her, and I mervail that wise men would make such report as they have done.” He also told Cromwell, in reply to his question as to how he liked the lady, “Nothing so well as she was spoken of; if I had known as much before as I know now, she should never have come into the realm. But what remedy?”

After all, however, the praises of her sent home by Henry’s ambassadors were not very hearty ones. In Hutton’s letter from Brussels, already quoted,[385] written shortly after Jane Seymour’s death, in answer to a request that he would search for a possible bride for the King at the Court of the Regent, he reported, among other princesses, that “the Dewke of Clevis hathe a daughter, but I here no great preas neyther of hir personage nor beawtie.” Wootton’s account, given above, is a remarkably cautious one, and lays most stress on Anne’s domestic virtues. He had also complained that he had found it impossible to judge of the personal appearance of the two ladies on account of the ugly head-dresses they wore.

Had the fault been Holbein’s, he would, no doubt, have fallen under the King’s displeasure. At the least his appointment would have been taken from him, even if he had not been forced to leave England; but the contrary was the case. In September, after his return from Cleves, he received, for a second time, a whole year’s salary in advance. This was, of course, before the King had seen the original of the portrait; but, strangely enough, if the accounts are to be believed, in addition to this year’s advance, Holbein continued to receive his salary every quarter day for the next year, so that he was paid twice over.[386] It is thus very evident that the painter suffered no disgrace or lack of employment or patronage, so that the legend must be abandoned.

The fine portrait of Anne of Cleves now in the Louvre (Pl. 24) is in all probability the picture which Holbein painted in Düren.[387] It is almost three-quarter length, less than life-size. She is shown standing, facing the spectator, her hands folded in front of her, and dressed in a very elaborate costume. Her sumptuous gown of red velvet with wide hanging sleeves has heavy bands of gold embroidered with pearls. The bodice is cut square, and is edged with a band of ornament decorated with jewels, and a similar one round the neck with a pendant jewelled cross. She also wears two gold chains, and several rings on her fingers. The open front of the dress is filled in with fine white linen with bands of embroidery. Her hair is covered with an almost transparent head-dress worked with an elaborate pattern and the motto “A bon fine,” over which is a cap wrought all over with gold, pearls, and other jewels. Her lace cuffs are also gold-embroidered. The background is blue-green, without inscription. Her brown eyes look straight at the spectator. More than one writer, influenced no doubt by these stories of her lack of beauty, has described this portrait as the likeness of a heavy, expressionless, ill-favoured woman; but this is far from being the case. Without any pretensions to extraordinary good looks, the face is a pleasant one, and by no means as plain as it has been described; indeed, in many ways it compares favourably with that of Queen Jane Seymour. That it is a truthful representation is certain, for Holbein never failed in this respect. Nothing is known of the history of the picture, or how it came to find a home in France, except that it was at one time in the Earl of Arundel’s possession,[388] and afterwards in the collection of Louis XIV.

Walpole speaks of the portrait done by Holbein in Düren as a miniature. He was inclined to believe that the beautiful miniature of Anne, now in the Salting Collection at South Kensington, which in his days belonged to the Barretts of Lee Priory, was the very miniature painted by Holbein on this occasion. “This very picture,” he says, “as is supposed, was in the possession of Mr. Barrett, of Kent.... The print among the illustrious heads is taken from it: and so far justifies the king, that he certainly was not nice, if from that picture he concluded her handsome enough. It has so little beauty, that I should doubt of its being the very portrait in question—it rather seems to have been drawn after Holbein saw a little with the king’s eyes. I have seen that picture in the cabinet of the present Mr. Barrett, of Lee, and think it the most exquisitely perfect of all Holbein’s works as well as in the highest preservation. The print gives a very inadequate idea of it, and none of her Flemish fairness. It is preserved in the ivory box in which it came over, and which represents a rose, so delicately carved as to be worthy of the jewel it contains.”[389]

It is not known in what way this miniature,[390] together with the companion portrait of Henry VIII,[391] in a similar ivory box, in the late Mr. Pierpont Morgan’s collection, came into the possession of the Barrett family. They were offered for sale by auction in 1757, but bought in; and subsequently sold by Mr. T. B. Barrett in 1826 to a dealer named Tuck, who resold them for fifty guineas to Francis Douce, by whom they were bequeathed, in 1834, to Sir Samuel Rush Meyrick, of Goodrich Court. At a later date the miniature of Anne of Cleves was bequeathed by General Meyrick to Miss Davies, from whom it was acquired by the late Mr. George Salting. This miniature follows very closely the portrait in the Louvre, though there are slight differences in the details and colour of the dress. The background is blue, without inscription. It is in water-colours, and is 1¾ in. in diameter. It was from this miniature, which is regarded as an undoubted work by Holbein, that Houbraken engraved, in 1739, the portrait of Anne for his “Illustrious Heads.”

When the Louvre picture was in the Arundel Collection it was etched by Hollar, but reversed. This print is 9¼ in. by 7 in., and is dated 1648 and inscribed—“Anna Clivensis, Henrici VIII Regis Angliæ Uxor IIIIta. H Holbein pinxit. Wenceslaus Hollar fecit aqua forti, ex Collectione Arundeliana, A. 1648.”[392]

There are several other portraits in existence which are said, with little authority, to represent Anne of Cleves; among them a drawing in the Windsor Collection,[393] which appears at one time to have become separated from the others. It came into the possession of Dr. Meade, and at his sale in 1755 was bought by Mr. Chetwynd. After the latter’s death it was restored by his executors to the royal collection. It bears little or no resemblance to the Louvre portrait, and is almost certainly a likeness of some English lady. She is shown full-face, with a close-fitting cap covering the ears, and a hat over it. The drawing has been damaged by having been cut out round the outline. The face is a refined one. There are notes in German as to the material and colours of the dress, and the pattern of the Spanish work on the collar is drawn in detail on the margin. It has no inscription. In the National Portrait Exhibition at South Kensington in 1865, a small head of “Anne of Cleves” was exhibited by the Earl of Derby. It was in oil on panel, oval, about 3 in. by 2½ in., and signed “H. H.” It had been injured, and was then in a somewhat dirty condition; the face had considerable likeness to the Louvre picture.[394]

There is, however, one other portrait in addition to the Louvre panel which is a contemporary likeness of Anne of Cleves, though not by Holbein. This is the small picture in St. John’s College, Oxford, a fine work by some unknown painter of the Flemish School. It is a half-length, standing three-quarters to the left, behind a parapet upon which lie an orange and a pair of jewelled gloves. The head-dress is of cloth of gold and white gauze, the latter worked with the motto, “A bon fine,” as in the Louvre picture. She is wearing a low-cut dress of striped gold and black, filled in with white with embroidered bands, gold and jewelled necklaces, and a pendant cross, and several rings on her fingers. Her left hand is placed against her waistbelt, and in her right she holds three carnations. The background is dark, with a small canopy or curtain over her head. It is on panel with arched top, 19¾ in. by 14¼ in. The costume is of the same style and period as the Louvre portrait, though it differs in numerous small details, more particularly in the colours of the materials, the shape of the sleeves, and the jewelled bands of the head-dress. The general tone of colour is golden, and there is excellent painting in all the details of the elaborate costume. It was included in the Oxford Exhibition of Historical Portraits in 1904 (No. 30), and was one of the most interesting pictures in the collection.[395] As a likeness it bears a strong resemblance to Holbein’s portrait, and if not of Anne may well be of her sister. The suggestion may be hazarded that it is one of the two portraits, painted six months before Holbein and Beard were in Düren, which Olisleger had promised to procure for Henry VIII’s ambassadors, portraits which Beard, apparently, took with him to London early in July 1539.

There is no need even to touch upon the concluding stages of this miserable story, with which Holbein had nothing to do. Henry married Anne at Greenwich on January 6, 1540, and finally divorced her on July 12 in the same year. She settled at Richmond in the enjoyment of the rank of a princess and a pension of £3000 a year, and survived the King by ten years, dying in 1557.