People forget how far dental science has come in the last 500 years. Back then only way to fix a diastema was to behead the patient and bring the head to the local black smith. After some heating and pounding the diastema would be fix and the head reattached. While it was effective at fixing the gap between the teeth, the survival rate was low. In fact the only two known survivors were Saint Cecilia and Mike the chicken.
The “someone” must be Roy Lichtenstein. This needs another framed piece of a thought balloon reading “Did my dentist really tell me to floss with manila rope?”
Oh, Henry – I said I wouldn’t mind a pearl necklace, but I do not find this pearl headband amusing. Now I must ask one of my ladies in waiting to find the Royal Prell.
lovinglymadewithspite
November 19, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Or they threatened her life, or that of her sickly father… and in exchange for her life or his… she gave the ugly someone her smile. Then she was left to her own devices, or that of a crab, a bird or an elf, to replace her teeth. The elves carved these out of wood.
I love her philosophy about realizing all the queens of Henry had to have been strong and ambitious and wanting to paint them differently than they were painted in the 16th century. They all look very different (including the teeth…)
Oh, yeah, nothing says, “I’m a strong woman!” better than cartoony images with botox lips. HOW exactly do these have more personality than the 16th-century portraits?
Never mind the “…dough faced images…” of the originals – I do believe she’s painted a cartoon image of the wrong Jane Seymour! And surely, if she’d read any history, she’d know about Anne of Cleves’ complexion?
Technically, all those accounts are from the British. It’s entirely possible she may have looked the way Holbein painted her initially, and Henry was overwhelmed by all her German-ness, lol.
I won’t comment on the – well, artworks, for want of a better word. But child brides? Katherine Howard was about 20 when she married Henry but his other wives were all mid 20s or early 30s. Clearly research is not this person’s greatest strength.
Yeah, her sentence structure makes it sound like all of Henry’s wives were children. Kitty Howard, depending on what birth date you use, was somewhere between 15 and 22. (Birth year is given as sometime between 1518-1524). If the artist is basing the portraits on Philippia Gregory’s books, then Howard would be somewhere around 16 or so if I remember right.
too funny… I showed this to my sister who is a HUGE Tudor fanatic (why? I don’t know… she’s odd that way) and to make sure the woman had the right number of wives, she started rattling off that “divorced, beheaded, died…” bit. I now can make her laugh hysterically just by saying “Teeth” or “Katherine Howard”
Not sure as to how this is a representation of the ‘personality’ of Catherine Howard. Howard was naive and foolish, and hey, made a few decisions that led to her death. Sure. But why should she suffer the fate of a Derpy for it?
And I noticed that each one of the series are drawn in the same way with the same modern ideals of beauty. Kinda ‘naive’, I should think. Don’t know how that thats gonna translate in five centuries or so. I’d say that the portraits make them all look like one another and like no women I’d ever seen.
Also, ‘child brides’ is a misnomer, when you consider the average life-span during that period (due to the disease, general poor hygiene and childbirth, tended to top out at 50 max). Most girls were married off by the time they were 13, whether they married a royal or not. Royals actually tended to marry LATER than the common folk.
lovinglymadewithspite
November 20, 2012 at 7:21 am
As a really creepy ex-boyfriend once told me…. “if yer old e-nuff to bleed, yer old ‘e-nuff to breed.”
God, that was a low point in my dating life. It was bad enough he thought he was a chef, but when he started dedicating way too much time to creating a gingerbread Gothic cathedral in October, I saw the light.
This is not true. People could, and did, live into their 70s and 80s. Life expectancy at birth was low, but if you managed to get past adolescence, then you had a good chance of living a pretty long life. (If you were a man, that is. Women had the added danger of childbirth, and let me just say that doctors really needed to start washing their hands.)
And girls were not legally allowed to marry until they were 12. (I think it was 14 for boys.) So no, most people were not married by 13, and nobles actually tended to marry younger than anyone else, since their marriages tended to be for dynastic and political reasons. Peasants, lacking those motivations, usually married much later.
It’s not exactly a misnomer. “Child brides” existed because women were basically considered property, and “childhood” didn’t really exist in the form it’s in now – there was no such thing as “child labor laws” – children could (and did) work from a very young age.
ISTR a biography of a noblewoman from that era (I think Jane Dudley, Queen Jane – for 9 days) that discussed the mother being married off very young (at 13 thereabouts) which made her object strenuously to her daughter being betrothed to some old coot or other for political reasons.
I listened to a lecture series that said the opposite – if you were a peasant, you couldn’t marry until you had obtained land. Which usually meant that you either a) had to wait til it was bequeathed or gifted to you by your family (this created a lot of crappy family politics when you had a few siblings) or b) had to work your seven years apprenticeship in a skilled trade(blacksmith, tailor, cooper, butcher, you name it), then work for God knows how long until you could afford to grab some land off the local landowner (whether you decided to lease or buy). During this time, the ladies would be spending their time working as well – if they weren’t useful to their families, and the family suffered for it their dowries could be lower. When you consider that the average courtship couldn’t happen until that point that it was financially viable it was usual for a couple to marry until their twenties.
As if the “portrait” (and the five other masterpieces in the series) weren’t enough, the artist’s comment is what kills me:
I felt compelled after reading the Phillipa Gregory series ( author of The other Boleyn Girl) On the Tudor court to paint these six women a personality.
…of a blow-up doll?
I was very intrigued about Henry’s six queens because of the naive portraits of the time made them all look like one an other and like no women I’d ever seen.
Someone who clearly has an eye for Tudor portraiture. *rolls eyes*
These women were bound to have been beautiful and strong and ambitious…
And someone who clearly knows Tudor history.
Oh, wait, she read the Gregory-novels, so she knows all about it. I clearly just read the wrong books, silly historian that I am!
So she’s not an art historian, or historian. Not everybody has to be a scholar. I think it’s great when popular fiction inspires a person to be really interested in a certain field.
True, not everybody needs to be a scholar.
And popular fiction is a great way to get interested in a topic.
Hells, if I remember correctly, reading a story set in ancient Rome as a kid contributed to make me want to study history later.
However, it’s not so great when it makes the person think history happened the way a novel describes it and everybody else is just wrong.
And to claim Holbein and all the other 16th century painters depicted these women all wrong and they had a totally awesome personality (because a novel writer says so), AND then go on and create works of art to represent these historical women better than the contemporary artists did, that’s just odd.
She didn’t say wrong or that hers is better, she just said she was inspired to paint them in a different style. Why shouldn’t she be creative? It’s way more than most people do after reading a book.
Well, she did say the contemporary portaits were “naive” and made them all look alike, and that she wanted to give them personality, which for me indicates she thinks the old masters didn’t give them any. I could be reading too much into it, but that’s just how she comes across for me.
The perspective on this is what really makes/ruins it for me. Even if her ideas about the king’s wives are a bit ridiculous and her ideas about beauty are a little Barbie-doll-tastic, it could have at least been a passable painting on its own if not for the perspective, particularly on the eyes. It’s like she painted the lashes/whites as though she was facing forward, then did the pupils and irises as though she was doing a 3/4 portrait. The mouth suffered a similar fate.
I think that her ideas about personality come from the fact that the queens aren’t showing off their giant gap-toothed, gummy smiles.
November 19, 2012 at 10:03 am
Katherine Howard before she became queen. When she was a scary face streetwalker.
November 19, 2012 at 10:04 am
Wall-E had EVA. This is the girl for Wall-Eye.
November 19, 2012 at 10:05 am
Those are definitely Royal British Teeth.
November 19, 2012 at 10:06 am
I disagree. These are Steve Buscemi teeth all the way.
November 19, 2012 at 10:06 am
Flossing is for commoners.
November 19, 2012 at 10:45 am
Katherine Howard: the forgotten Stooge
(n’yuck n’yuck n’yuck)
November 19, 2012 at 7:48 pm
I floss religiously, Christmas and Easter.
November 19, 2012 at 10:11 am
That is indeed what you get with generations of inbreeding. Well, besides the insanity of course.
November 19, 2012 at 11:04 am
Not my line, but hard to beat The Thick of It’s “born-to-rule, six toed, pony fuckers” as a description of the British upper classholes.
November 19, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Well at least they don’t sugar coat it!
November 20, 2012 at 2:18 am
Except that Catherine wasn’t royal, so that doesn’t really apply here.
November 19, 2012 at 10:12 am
People forget how far dental science has come in the last 500 years. Back then only way to fix a diastema was to behead the patient and bring the head to the local black smith. After some heating and pounding the diastema would be fix and the head reattached. While it was effective at fixing the gap between the teeth, the survival rate was low. In fact the only two known survivors were Saint Cecilia and Mike the chicken.
November 19, 2012 at 4:28 pm
Props to you for the Mike the Headless Chicken reference!
November 19, 2012 at 10:15 am
Damn, and from the thumbnail on Facebook I thought someone had done a portrait of Geena Davis
November 19, 2012 at 10:21 am
I thought Geena Davis too!!!
November 20, 2012 at 1:31 am
The “someone” must be Roy Lichtenstein. This needs another framed piece of a thought balloon reading “Did my dentist really tell me to floss with manila rope?”
November 20, 2012 at 6:00 am
needs some glitter tears. Just because.
November 19, 2012 at 10:20 am
Howard the Yuck
November 19, 2012 at 10:20 am
Eerie. It’s like her eyes follow me and someone else all around the room.
November 19, 2012 at 10:25 am
Her teeth followed me home in a box marked “Chiklets”.
November 19, 2012 at 10:25 am
Only someone else? Are the others able to see their reflections and do they sparkle in the sunlight?
November 19, 2012 at 10:21 am
Draping her in pearls only invites unfavorable comparisons to her “pearly whites” princess wranglers.
November 19, 2012 at 10:24 am
Oh, Henry – I said I wouldn’t mind a pearl necklace, but I do not find this pearl headband amusing. Now I must ask one of my ladies in waiting to find the Royal Prell.
November 19, 2012 at 10:21 am
In the art world, that’s what you would call a “Royal Flush”.
November 19, 2012 at 10:34 am
In the world of Scrabble that would called “cheating”. Turn your tiles over, we know there are only supposed to be 2 blank ones.
November 19, 2012 at 10:38 am
“Check out this painting of royalty.”
“I saw that. Please flush it immediately.”
November 19, 2012 at 11:01 am
I’d like to keep that painting in my “privy” collection.
November 19, 2012 at 10:24 am
She kind of looks like a Disney princess. One who wants to lose her head over some Prince.
November 19, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Or they threatened her life, or that of her sickly father… and in exchange for her life or his… she gave the ugly someone her smile. Then she was left to her own devices, or that of a crab, a bird or an elf, to replace her teeth. The elves carved these out of wood.
November 19, 2012 at 4:38 pm
Barn wood. Upcycled. Holistic.
November 19, 2012 at 10:26 am
This would look great in an up-and-coming Dentist’s office waiting room.
November 19, 2012 at 10:34 am
The teeth look like dentures, if Orville Redenbacher made dentures.
November 19, 2012 at 10:56 am
Was Buscemi photographed on the set Match Game?
November 19, 2012 at 11:01 am
No one else sees Karen Black?
November 19, 2012 at 11:02 am
No one has seen Karen Black in 32 years.
November 19, 2012 at 11:52 am
How dare you speak of Mother Firefly like that.
November 19, 2012 at 11:52 am
The product description says this art is painted on guilt trace paper and in guilt frames.
I’d feel guilty, too, if these were mine.
November 19, 2012 at 3:32 pm
She’s guilty as sin! I love it when spelling goes haywire!
November 19, 2012 at 11:59 am
I love her philosophy about realizing all the queens of Henry had to have been strong and ambitious and wanting to paint them differently than they were painted in the 16th century. They all look very different (including the teeth…)
November 19, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Oh, yeah, nothing says, “I’m a strong woman!” better than cartoony images with botox lips. HOW exactly do these have more personality than the 16th-century portraits?
November 19, 2012 at 2:47 pm
And duck face. Half of ‘em have duck face. Regal, no?
November 19, 2012 at 4:48 pm
Never mind the “…dough faced images…” of the originals – I do believe she’s painted a cartoon image of the wrong Jane Seymour! And surely, if she’d read any history, she’d know about Anne of Cleves’ complexion?
November 19, 2012 at 8:54 pm
Technically, all those accounts are from the British. It’s entirely possible she may have looked the way Holbein painted her initially, and Henry was overwhelmed by all her German-ness, lol.
November 19, 2012 at 12:47 pm
Wow, slow day here at regretsy. Are Mondays always this slow?
November 19, 2012 at 1:08 pm
I’ll take the lightning-fast response as a “yes”.
November 19, 2012 at 1:14 pm
I’m in airports and airplanes today with crappy service. OH GOD! WHY ARE WE CRASHING??? My bad everyone. Had phone on.
November 19, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Are you taking your annual pilgrimage to Mecca?
November 19, 2012 at 3:33 pm
I had to get back to work. Staple-gunning the cat in the basement won’t do it it’s self…. or something like that.
November 19, 2012 at 1:18 pm
Posting from wreckage outside Beavertaint MN. Getting some awesome crafting ideas from charred luggage and corpses.
November 19, 2012 at 1:20 pm
Should give you some awesome tragicrafting inspiration.
November 19, 2012 at 1:23 pm
How about an “Oh, The Humanity!” cake-topper?
November 19, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Amelia Earhart-Shaped Box. Too soon?
November 19, 2012 at 1:48 pm
Amelia Earhart Heart-Shaped Ear-Slices? In resin?
November 19, 2012 at 3:34 pm
Resin really does make any craft better, or at least shinier.
November 19, 2012 at 2:03 pm
Lana Del Ray, turning in her blue flower hat for a pearl strand hat.
November 19, 2012 at 2:53 pm
Fran Drescher with an LED rope on NYE?
November 19, 2012 at 4:39 pm
Thank you, I see Fran Drescher too.
November 21, 2012 at 7:35 pm
Well the next time you see her tell her she still owes me $38 and a new cordless drill.
November 19, 2012 at 3:46 pm
I won’t comment on the – well, artworks, for want of a better word. But child brides? Katherine Howard was about 20 when she married Henry but his other wives were all mid 20s or early 30s. Clearly research is not this person’s greatest strength.
November 19, 2012 at 4:29 pm
Yeah, her sentence structure makes it sound like all of Henry’s wives were children. Kitty Howard, depending on what birth date you use, was somewhere between 15 and 22. (Birth year is given as sometime between 1518-1524). If the artist is basing the portraits on Philippia Gregory’s books, then Howard would be somewhere around 16 or so if I remember right.
November 19, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded…framed.
November 20, 2012 at 1:21 am
I spy with my little eye 8 frames. The 8 wives of Henry the VI?
November 20, 2012 at 10:32 am
too funny… I showed this to my sister who is a HUGE Tudor fanatic (why? I don’t know… she’s odd that way) and to make sure the woman had the right number of wives, she started rattling off that “divorced, beheaded, died…” bit. I now can make her laugh hysterically just by saying “Teeth” or “Katherine Howard”
November 19, 2012 at 6:50 pm
Not sure as to how this is a representation of the ‘personality’ of Catherine Howard. Howard was naive and foolish, and hey, made a few decisions that led to her death. Sure. But why should she suffer the fate of a Derpy for it?
And I noticed that each one of the series are drawn in the same way with the same modern ideals of beauty. Kinda ‘naive’, I should think. Don’t know how that thats gonna translate in five centuries or so. I’d say that the portraits make them all look like one another and like no women I’d ever seen.
November 19, 2012 at 7:24 pm
Also, ‘child brides’ is a misnomer, when you consider the average life-span during that period (due to the disease, general poor hygiene and childbirth, tended to top out at 50 max). Most girls were married off by the time they were 13, whether they married a royal or not. Royals actually tended to marry LATER than the common folk.
November 20, 2012 at 7:21 am
As a really creepy ex-boyfriend once told me…. “if yer old e-nuff to bleed, yer old ‘e-nuff to breed.”
God, that was a low point in my dating life. It was bad enough he thought he was a chef, but when he started dedicating way too much time to creating a gingerbread Gothic cathedral in October, I saw the light.
November 20, 2012 at 7:24 am
This is not true. People could, and did, live into their 70s and 80s. Life expectancy at birth was low, but if you managed to get past adolescence, then you had a good chance of living a pretty long life. (If you were a man, that is. Women had the added danger of childbirth, and let me just say that doctors really needed to start washing their hands.)
And girls were not legally allowed to marry until they were 12. (I think it was 14 for boys.) So no, most people were not married by 13, and nobles actually tended to marry younger than anyone else, since their marriages tended to be for dynastic and political reasons. Peasants, lacking those motivations, usually married much later.
November 20, 2012 at 7:57 am
It’s not exactly a misnomer. “Child brides” existed because women were basically considered property, and “childhood” didn’t really exist in the form it’s in now – there was no such thing as “child labor laws” – children could (and did) work from a very young age.
ISTR a biography of a noblewoman from that era (I think Jane Dudley, Queen Jane – for 9 days) that discussed the mother being married off very young (at 13 thereabouts) which made her object strenuously to her daughter being betrothed to some old coot or other for political reasons.
November 21, 2012 at 4:39 pm
It’s also a misnomer considering none of Henry’s wives were under 20 when they married him.
November 21, 2012 at 8:12 pm
I listened to a lecture series that said the opposite – if you were a peasant, you couldn’t marry until you had obtained land. Which usually meant that you either a) had to wait til it was bequeathed or gifted to you by your family (this created a lot of crappy family politics when you had a few siblings) or b) had to work your seven years apprenticeship in a skilled trade(blacksmith, tailor, cooper, butcher, you name it), then work for God knows how long until you could afford to grab some land off the local landowner (whether you decided to lease or buy). During this time, the ladies would be spending their time working as well – if they weren’t useful to their families, and the family suffered for it their dowries could be lower. When you consider that the average courtship couldn’t happen until that point that it was financially viable it was usual for a couple to marry until their twenties.
November 19, 2012 at 8:19 pm
Painted on “trace paper”? That’s a sure sign of originality.
November 19, 2012 at 9:19 pm
An astonishing likeness.
November 19, 2012 at 9:20 pm
no…really…I’m astonished.
November 19, 2012 at 10:02 pm
The poor woman is cross eyed!!! Lmao
November 20, 2012 at 7:02 am
I’m quite bothered by the fact that they turned her nose in the opposite direction.
November 20, 2012 at 8:13 am
As if the “portrait” (and the five other masterpieces in the series) weren’t enough, the artist’s comment is what kills me:
I felt compelled after reading the Phillipa Gregory series ( author of The other Boleyn Girl) On the Tudor court to paint these six women a personality.
…of a blow-up doll?
I was very intrigued about Henry’s six queens because of the naive portraits of the time made them all look like one an other and like no women I’d ever seen.
Someone who clearly has an eye for Tudor portraiture. *rolls eyes*
These women were bound to have been beautiful and strong and ambitious…
And someone who clearly knows Tudor history.
Oh, wait, she read the Gregory-novels, so she knows all about it. I clearly just read the wrong books, silly historian that I am!
November 20, 2012 at 8:33 am
But they were just book characters right?
Like Twilight…they sparkle in the sun.
November 20, 2012 at 9:32 am
So she’s not an art historian, or historian. Not everybody has to be a scholar. I think it’s great when popular fiction inspires a person to be really interested in a certain field.
November 20, 2012 at 10:09 am
True, not everybody needs to be a scholar.
And popular fiction is a great way to get interested in a topic.
Hells, if I remember correctly, reading a story set in ancient Rome as a kid contributed to make me want to study history later.
However, it’s not so great when it makes the person think history happened the way a novel describes it and everybody else is just wrong.
And to claim Holbein and all the other 16th century painters depicted these women all wrong and they had a totally awesome personality (because a novel writer says so), AND then go on and create works of art to represent these historical women better than the contemporary artists did, that’s just odd.
And I don’t like her art either.
November 20, 2012 at 11:05 am
She didn’t say wrong or that hers is better, she just said she was inspired to paint them in a different style. Why shouldn’t she be creative? It’s way more than most people do after reading a book.
November 20, 2012 at 2:21 pm
Well, she did say the contemporary portaits were “naive” and made them all look alike, and that she wanted to give them personality, which for me indicates she thinks the old masters didn’t give them any. I could be reading too much into it, but that’s just how she comes across for me.
And I never said she shouldn’t be creative!
November 20, 2012 at 9:18 am
actually, no math needed…she “painted” Karen Black
November 20, 2012 at 10:36 am
And gave her Halloween teeth.
November 21, 2012 at 7:06 am
No-one else seeing Angelina Jolie??
November 21, 2012 at 7:41 pm
Huh. Bottom of the page and all these dental references, yet no one’s mentioned Miley Cyrus yet. So here goes…
“Hey Miley! Mr. Ed called and he wants his teeth back!”
November 22, 2012 at 3:10 pm
The perspective on this is what really makes/ruins it for me. Even if her ideas about the king’s wives are a bit ridiculous and her ideas about beauty are a little Barbie-doll-tastic, it could have at least been a passable painting on its own if not for the perspective, particularly on the eyes. It’s like she painted the lashes/whites as though she was facing forward, then did the pupils and irises as though she was doing a 3/4 portrait. The mouth suffered a similar fate.
I think that her ideas about personality come from the fact that the queens aren’t showing off their giant gap-toothed, gummy smiles.
November 23, 2012 at 10:07 pm
If her profile picture is accurate, and she is a chimpanzee, then these paintings are pretty damned good.