Henrietta the VIII

 

Scientists do thought experiments and reveal the wonders of the universe. I was wondering if the same could be applied to history. England glories in the colourful character of Henry VIII. His portrait standing astride hands on hips is synonymous for many with the image of manly power, wealth and authority. So here is my historical thought experiment. What would we have thought of this monarch in this painting if he had not been Henry but Henrietta?

We would of course be seeing Henrietta first not as a human being but as a woman, with all the negative and critical baggage that that brings with it.

I guess the portrait would be reviled for starters. Imagine people standing before a portrait of Henrietta. Gone would be any allusions to a colossus striding the world proclaiming his power and authority in its place would be simple, bloated, ugly Henrietta.

What would we see?

We’d see a fat, bloated, obese woman. We’d see her tiny, mean-looking eyes. We’d see the fat, blubbery cheeks that spoke of self-indulgence and gluttony. We’d see the mean closed mouth. (We’ll assume that she wouldn’t have had the moustache and beard.) We’d judge her by our terrible scales that weigh up her feminine beauty and we’d find her scoring a big fat zero. I doubt that many would choose to look upon her portrait for long. We would mock the woman who covered her bloated body with outlandish gowns, rich furs and jewels. We would laugh at her ra ra skirt and snigger over her wearing a mini skirt at her age! Her sagging Nora Batty tights would give us delightful hoots… we’ll spare her the indignities of commenting upon her cod piece .

The point is: take away our expectations of Kingship in this portrait and substitute simple Henrietta and you get the truth about the person that once stood there. You’ll see a self-indulgent, unkind person with dark small eyes and trumped up self-importance, a creature that looks like a bloated maggot.

Perhaps this is the message that the painter was trying to achieve. The artist shows us what was once behind this monarch and perhaps what he turned his back on in the elaborately painted background. We have the beauty of the Celtic knot work… the rich historical heritage of the land. He has shown us the splendours of the architecture in the carvings behind him which have echoes of broken monasteries and of looted wealth. He depicts a verdant land with the full greenery behind Henry, showing the once over-abundant richness of the country. The artist then gives us all the trappings of kingship in the clothing of the monarch topped off with the flamboyant Tudor hat. Perhaps it is in the carpet that the artist tries to show us what this king has really achieved, and what lies under the shadow of his legacy; we are given the carpet’s patterned leaves which are brown and faded. Perhaps the artist was suggesting that England has been worn thin under his dominating rule.

We can set Henrietta aside now and truly see Henry for what he was.

All the painter’s skill goes into the painting exquisite detail showing us an abundance of wealth and riches…and then the artist turns his attention to the king’s face and what do we get? We get the bland, contourless features of Henry. An empty, pale face devoid of all that makes us human; a face devoid of animation. There is no twinkle in the eye, no smile that says I’ve achieved all this for my people. No deeply etched lines that speak of worried and well considered thought. Instead there is blankness and emptiness: a face upon which nothing is written. Why? Why is there this emptiness, this blandness? Why has the artist painted the king this way? Is it because what the artist knew of his model was too horrific to depict in paint?

Was it easier to depict a maggot than a monster? A maggot that grew fat on the riches of his Kingdom? Was the painter depicting all men of power and their corruption in this painting as a warning for our times too?