Attributed to William Scrots

First recorded by George Vertue in 1733 when at Sutton Place, Surrey, the seat of the Weston family as 'a Lady at len. in black. manner Holbein';
By descent at Sutton Place, Surrey until Denys Lawlor Huddleston of Sawston Hall, Cambridge who probably acquired the painting from the then owner Philip Witham, c. 1919;
By descent to William Herbert Huddleston (d. 1929), of Sawston Hall, Cambridge;
By descent to Reginald Eyre Huddleston of Sawston Hall, Cambridge;
By descent to the present owner

London, Royal Academy, British Portraits,  1956-57, no. 10 (as a Portrait of Queen Mary);
London, Tate Gallery, The Elizabethan Image, 1969-70, no. 26;
London, Tate Gallery, Dynasties: Painting in Tudor and Jacobean England 1530-1630, 12th October 1995 - 7th January 1996, no. 15

G. Vertue, "Note Books, Vol. IV," Walpole Society, Oxford 1936, vol. XXIV, p. 53;
F. Harrison, Annals of an Old Manor House: Sutton Place, Guildford, London 1893, p. 161 as "Queen Mary (on panel) full length, about 70 by 45 inches, standing in black robe, holding a miniature in frame, apparently after Antonio More";
L. Willoughby, "Sutton Place, Guildford: A Surrey Manor House Part II", The Connoisseur, vol. 26 (101), London January 1910, pp. 3-16;
A. Oswald, 'Sawston Hall, Cambridge,' Country Life, London 24 June 1954, p. 1998-99;
R. Strong, The English Icon: Elizabethan and Jacobean Portraits, London 1969, no. 9;
A. J. Carter, 'Mary Tudor's Wardrobe of Robes,' unpublished MA Thesis, Courtauld Institute, London 1982, pp. 45-6;
K. Hearn, eds., Dynasties: Painting in Tudor and Jacobean England 1530-1630, London 1995, p. 53, no. 15;
Dr. L. Porter, Mary Tudor: The First Queen, London 2007 (frontispiece);
S. Tait, "Could this mysterious woman in black be Mary Tudor?" The Times, 13 August 2009;
See also H. Walker, Hans Eworth: The Complete Catalogue Raisonne, unpublished MPhil/Phd, Courtauld Institute, London 2010

The following condition report has been provided by Sarah Walden, an independent restorer who is not an employee of Sotheby's. This full length painting is made up of four panels. It has been cradled, probably in the early to mid twentieth century and the joints all appear secure. A more recent crack runs up from the base at centre right for about forty centimetres (although tailing off rather higher up the back) with several recent small supporting blocks behind. Nearby towards the middle of the base edge an earlier support had used circular studs to hold the panel with neat circular retouchings. There has been quite widespread flaking from time to time, and some slightly raised paint exists today in various places. There are retouched fillings probably from several past generations, as with many Tudor panels, many well consolidated, firmly in place, and well integrated. The present varnish largely veils old retouching under ultra violet light. The head and hands are well retouched where necessary. Most widespread retouched old flaking seems to have occurred down the sides, especially at upper left, although this now appears generally secure. Some areas of deepest black seem still prone to raised paint for instance in the darkest part of the bodice, and in parts of the skirt, however the grey satin underskirt appears beautifully preserved and undisturbed generally. The fine detail has been carefully maintained over time, with discreet interventions where necessary. This report was not done under laboratory conditions. Additional professional reports prepared by Simon Bobak and Ian Tyers are available upon request to the department. To speak to a specialist about this lot please contact Julian Gascoigne on +44 (0)207 293 5482, or at julian.gascoigne@sothebys.com, or Emmeline Hallmark on 44 (0)207 293 5407, or at emmeline.hallmark@sothebys.com.
"This lot is offered for sale subject to Sotheby's Conditions of Business, which are available on request and printed in Sotheby's sale catalogues. The independent reports contained in this document are provided for prospective bidders' information only and without warranty by Sotheby's or the Seller."

This portrait dates to c. 1546, and although the identity of the sitter is not certain, full length portraits of this date are extremely rare and would signify that the sitter is of considerable importance. If, as seems likely, she is not a member of the Royal Family then she is almost certainly someone closely connected to the Court. This portrait was thought to represent Queen Mary and was exhibited as such at the Royal Academy in 1956 presumably an identification thought to have been supported by the very interesting provenance linked to two Catholic dynasties; the Westons of Sutton Place, Surrey and the Huddlestons of Sawston Hall Cambridge. 

First attributed to William Scrots in 1956 and dated c.1550 by Sir Roy Strong, the portrait does appear to relate in style and setting to the full length portraits of Edward VI by Scrots and his studio, in particular to the version with a Lumley cartellino (Royal Collection). William Scrots was active in England from c.1545 to 1553, when he lost his place as the favoured court portraitist to Hans Eworth. In the portrait by Scrots in the Royal Collection, Edward VI stands on a not dissimilar tiled floor, and the stonework of the pilaster or column behind the sitter has similar chips. Iconographic or allegorical symbolism was usually deliberately obvious at this period, and therefore anything in the setting intended to refer to religious faith would have been explicit. The pillar is often a common symbol of strength (often spiritual but not exclusively so); the chipped masonry often an expression and advertisement of an artist's command of realism and much of the architectural detail is simply a reflection of contemporary design. The ruins in the background of this painting are certainly interesting and comparable features are rare in other works. Dendrochronological analysis suggests that the earliest date that the painting could have been started is 1534 and the likely latest date is around 1566 (this report is available upon request).

However, the entries in Mary Tudor's accounts for her apparel in the years 1545 to 1547 make this period more plausible on grounds of style. The names of the highest-born women attendant 'in ordinary' at Court (i.e. those allocated lodgings and meals) were recorded in 1546. Extensive analysis of information relating to all likely sitters in this portrait suggests that the likeliest candidate is Lady Margaret Douglas (1515-78), always the most prominent of Henry VIII's nieces, the one who in the 1530s and 1540s, and most especially between 1542 and 1547, lived at Court and was accorded privileges on a par with the king's own daughters, and the one whom Henry always placed first in the order of precedence after his own children. Douglas would remain close to Mary Tudor throughout her life, both as princess and queen. With only four months in age between them, the two girls were lifelong friends, a bond confirmed by their shared, unwavering commitment to Catholicism.

Douglas was born on 8 October 1515 at Harbottle Castle in Northumberland the daughter of Archibald Douglas, 6th Earl of Angus, and Margaret Tudor, Queen dowager of Scotland and godchild of Cardinal Wolsey. On 10 July 1543 she was a bridesmaid at the wedding of King Henry VIII and Katherine Parr, and the following year Henry arranged her own marriage. On 6 July 1544, Douglas married Matthew Stewart, Earl of Lennox (1516-1571) in St James's Palace in the presence of King Henry VIII and Queen Katherine Parr, an alliance seen by Henry as fundamental to advancing his policy in Scotland. Lennox also became an English subject and was granted lands at Temple Newsam in Yorkshire, four miles from Leeds, and his new wife was treated favourably by Henry.

Following close analysis of the provenance of this painting one other possible candidate for the sitter emerges, namely Lady Margaret Arundell (c. 1514-1571). She was the daughter of Lord Edmund Howard and Joyce Culpepper and the sister of (Queen) Katherine Howard. She married Sir Thomas Arundell, by whom she had a daughter, Dorothy, who married Sir Henry Weston (c.1534-5 – 92) of Sutton Place, Surrey, in 1559.

However It is perhaps more likely that a portrait of Douglas was moved via the Arundells and Dorothy Weston to Sutton Place than the suggestion that the portrait represents Margaret Arundell, who by 1553 following her husband's trial and death, would not have been back in favour. Furthermore, while Margaret Arundell (b. c.1514?),  Mary Tudor (b. 1516) and Margaret Douglas (b. 1515) are all roughly the same age, but if Margaret Arundell is the sitter, then the painting can only have been done in c.1553 after she was rehabilitated and able once more to own and buy property. However, this is unlikely for two reasons. Firstly, the sitter's costume indicates an earlier date and secondly by 1553 Margaret Arundell was almost 40 years old which does not tally with her age in the portrait. However If the sitter is Margaret Douglas, we can look fairly confidently to c.1546 for the above reasons, when the sitter's age is around 31. Further research prepared by Dr John Guy, including the primary and secondary sources for all of the above information, is available from the department upon request.