Henry Pickering Art

Painted in the 19th century, this exquisite miniature portrait wonderfully exemplifies realism in traditional oil painting. The small artwork is painted in the conventional portraiture style of the Old Masters, and achieves soft realism with fine brushwork and a subdued, neutral palette. The half length portrait depicts a fine Victorian woman dressed in all black with a delicate lace collar and bonnet. She wears a ruby broach...

Portrait of Frances, Lady Whitmore nee Brooke (c.1638-1690) Circle of Sir Peter Lely (1618-1680) Titan Fine Art presents this exquisite portrait that depicts Frances Brooke, Lady Wh...

Presented by Titan Fine Art, this painting formed part of a historic collection of an English aristocratic family, Lord and Lady Sandys at their magnificent baroque and Regency Grade-I listed family home, Ombersley Court. The house was among the most fascinating survivals of its kind in this country. The atmospheric interiors were distinguished above all for the works of art associated with two key moments in national history. The collection was acquired or commissioned over five centuries and remained at Ombersley Court until its recent sale, the first in 294 years. This portrait hung in the Grand Hall. This exquisite grand manner work is an evocative example of the type of portrait in vogue during a large part of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The artist has depicted an elegant lady, three quarter length and seated on porch with a luxurious crimson swag curtain by her side. The clothing – known as “undress” at the time, consists of red silk fastened at the front and sleeves by large gold and diamond jewels over a simple white chemise. In her lap she holds a blue wrap and in her other hand, at her chest, she clutches the end of a sheer gauzy scarf that has been draped around her body with the other end a type of headdress – this type of sheer scarf was often employed by Wissing in his portraits. The classical architecture signifies cultivation and sophistication and the luxurious swag curtain is a signifier of wealth. The portrait can be dated to circa 1680 based on the sitter’s attire, the “hurluberlu” hairstyle, and other portraits by Wissing using the same formula. This oil on canvas portrait has been well cared for over its life, which spans almost 350 years. Having recently been treated to remove an obscuring discoloured varnish, the finer details and proper colour can now be fully appreciated. Once owned by Evesham Abbey, the manor of Ombersley was acquired by the Sandys family in the early 1600s, when Sir Samuel Sandys, the eldest son of Edwin Sandys, Bishop of Worcester and later Archbishop of York, took a lease on the manor, before receiving an outright grant in 1614. The present house, Ombersley Court, dates from the time of Samuel, 1st Lord Sandys, between 1723 and 1730. The house itself is a fine example of an English Georgian country house set in rolling countryside and surrounded by Wellingtonias, planted to commemorate the Battle of Waterloo by Arthur Hill, 2nd Baron Sandys, who played a distinguished part in the battle and was one of the Duke of Wellington’s aides de camp. The Duke also stayed in the house and in the Great Hall, was the Waterloo banner which was brought to the house by Sir Arthur Hill, aide-de-camp to the Duke of Wellington, who succeeded his mother, the Marchioness of Downshire as 2nd Lord Sandys. Further Waterloo memorabilia are kettle drums from battle. The family had a strong tradition of military and political service, dating back to the 17th century, and this was also reflected in the fine collection of portraits and paintings in the house. In short, Ombersley represented a vital aspect of British history. The house and more especially the collection were of the greatest historical importance. Houses that have remained in the possession of the same family for as many as three centuries have become increasingly rare. Through this portrait, collectors have a chance to acquire a piece of British history and an evocative vestige of a glittering way of life, which is now gone. Much of the attractiveness of this portrait resides in its graceful manner and the utter beauty of the youthful sitter. Presented in a beautiful carved and gilded period frame, which is a work of art in itself. Willem Wissing was a Dutch artist who enjoyed a solid artistic training at The Hague under Arnold van Ravesteyn (c.1650-1690) and Willem Dougijns (1630-1697). He came to London in 1676 and most probably joined the studio or Sir Peter Lely as an assistant that same year. After Lely’s death in 1680 he effectively took over his business and he scaled the heights of patronage with extraordinary ease, creating an independent practise in 1687, and painted for very important aristocratic patrons. King Charles II was so impressed by a portrait Wissing painted of his son, the Duke of Monmouth, in 1683 that he commissioned his own portrait and that of his Queen Catherine...

Adriano Goby 19th century oil portrait of a beautiful young lady, circa 1890s Superb antique oil portrait, possibly, French. The painting is signed in the upper left corner (see pic...

During the Counter-Reformation, the traditional cult of saints was encouraged, and spiritual exercises were recommended to come closer to God. In the pai...

Portrait of Colonel William Helyar (1621-1698) and Rachel Helyar (c.1633-1678) c.1656 Circle of Robert Walker (act. 1637-1656) These fascinating portraits, presented by Titan Fine Art, depict Colonel William Helyar, High Sheriff of Somersetshire, and his wife Rachel Helyar nee Wyndham, a daughter and co-heiress of Sir Hugh Wyndham, 1st Baronet (died 1663) of Pilsden Court, Dorset. They are exquisite examples of portraiture during the Interregnum when England was under various forms of republican government. The history of the seventeenth century is in part the story of the Stewarts and their approach to government and the church; their ebbing and flowing popularity and the disastrous decisions that led to Civil War. But another fascinating dynasty also ruled Britain: the Cromwell’s. Between 1653 and 1659, following the Civil Wars and experimental Commonwealth, Oliver Cromwell governed as Lord Protector followed by his son Richard. Cromwell’s Protectorate is usually imagined as a grey, joyless, military regime. But the reality was rather different. Cromwell presided over a colourful and fashionable court where music and the arts flourished, masques were revived and the first English operas performed. Too often the London of the 1650s is painted as puritanical and repressive in contrast to the vivid, fun-loving capital of the Restoration. Yet, under Cromwell, this was the city where the first coffee houses were opening, where a young Samuel Pepys was embarking on his career as a civil servant with the patronage of one of Cromwell’s councillors and where Christopher Wren was enjoying his new Chair of astronomy at Gresham College, appointed after the personal intervention of Cromwell. When Cromwell was invested as Lord Protector for the second time in 1657, the lavish ceremony in Westminster Hall and procession through London matched any previous coronation for pageantry with thousands lining the streets, bells ringing, bonfires blazing and free French wine flowing through the city. The gentleman in our portrait is Colonel William Helyar (1621-1698), Sheriff of Somerset and as a Royalist during the English Civil War. As one of the most prominent old families of the South-West, the Helyar’s family roots in Somerset can be traced back to 1616 when the Reverend William Helyar (1559-1645), chaplain to Elizabeth I, who was also a cousin by marriage, purchased the family residence Coker Court in East Coker, Somerset. He married a Devonshire heiress and several estates were bestowed on him as a result. He was a warm supporter of Charles I in the Civil War and was in residence at Exeter in 1643 when the Parliamentarians pillaged the cathedral. Elderly as he was, he boldly resisted them, but was beaten, pelted with mud, and locked up in a ship in the port and only let out on payment of £800. He retired to Coker where he died in 1645. His eldest son Henry died in 1634 and he was succeeded by his grandson, Colonel William Helyar, the sitter in our portrait. Colonel Helyar raised a troop of horse for King Charles I and was a colonel in the king's army. He was at Exeter when it was captured by the Parliamentary forces in 1646 and thus deemed ‘Traitor to the Parliament’. His estates were sequestered, but they were returned and he was discharged and pardoned on payment of £1,522. During the Restoration he was a Sheriff and he also helped James II repel the Monmouth Rebellion. The companion portrait represents the Colonel’s wife, Rachel Helyar (baptised 24th June 1633 at St Mary Aldermanbury, London – died 1678). She was the youngest daughter and co-heir of Sir Hugh Wyndham, 1st Baronet of Pilsdon Court and Mary Wyndham nee Alanson (Sir Hugh should not be confused with his first cousin once removed from Somerset, also Sir Hugh Wyndham (bef. 1604 - 1684). Rachel is a thirteenth generation descendant of King Henry III. The couple resided at the family seat of Coker Court (interestingly, within the churchyard, lie the remains of the poet T.S. Eliot who once wrote a poem about East Coker). A marriage settlement in extant shows that the couple were married in 1656; the portraits were most likely painted to mark this important event in the sitter’s lives. Rachel holds roses, the flower of love, and the putto pouring water is representative of her purity, and possibly, the plighting of troth. Colonel Helyar wears a gold wedding band. The couple had four sons: George, William (MP) (1662-1742), John, and Richard. Colonel Helyar died in December 1697 and was buried at Whitechurch, Dorset 2 Jan 1698. This period in which this portrait was painted was known as the Protectorate (1653-1659). This period offered relative peace, as the English Civil War ended in 1651. It was an interesting time for portraiture in England and Scotland – in between the great artistic geniuses and dominance of Van Dyke and Peter Lely. Much of the foreign-born artistic talent had fled England and Scotland during the Civil War and the artists that had remained were in great demand, in part due to the newly exposed strata of society wishing to be painted. Sitters on both sides were depicted in portraits in very similar ways. They are not, on the whole, shown as the Roundheads and Cavaliers of popular history. In fact, it is usually impossible to guess their political allegiances from the style of their portrait and their Parliamentarian and royalist iconographies, as portraits on both sides followed the same conventions and looked identical. Colonel Helyar has been depicted in armour and holding a Marshal’s baton of command, confirming his status. There is a great sense of realism and a particular delicacy, note the finely rendered hand resting on the rapier. Rachel is wearing a satin dress with expansive sleeves and a crimson drapery over her shoulder and held up by her left hand. She wears large pearl...

The portrait genre was valued particularly highly in English society. Neither landscapes nor allegorical pictures were ever priced so highly at exhibitions and in the trade as depictions of people, from the highest aristocracy to scholars, writers, poets and statesmen. This charming portrait, presented by Titan Fine Art, of a fashionable young gentleman and his faithful pet is an excellent example of 17th century child portraiture in England. There is a remarkable beauty and sensitivity to the portrait. The face, particularly well rendered, has captured the character of this young man – both charming and at the same time mischievous. Only the playful attention of a small dog suggests anything less than patrician dignity. Symbolism was important in portraiture and it provided a pointed and aspirational narrative that would not have been lost on contemporary viewers. For example, the presence of the dog, which was likely the boy’s pet, is at once a charming pictorial device and also a clear allusion to fidelity, trust and loyalty. The hairstyle and the attire, notably the type of cravat with the blue ribbon, help to date this portrait to between 1670 to 1685. Until the late eighteenth century children were dressed as adults - boys were dressed like men in breeches, vests, and coats between four and seven years of age. The expensive lace is an indication to his family’s wealth. Held in a good quality and condition antique gilded frame. Born in Suffolk, Mary Beale, nee Cradock (1633-1699) was employed by many of the most distinguished persons of her time including nobility, landed gentry, and clergymen. Technically accomplished, her paintings are noteworthy for their honest and sympathetic portrayal. In 1651 she married Charles Beale...

This magnificent oil on panel portrait, presented by Titan Fine Art, is a splendid example of the sumptuous female portraits that were painted for members of the upper echelons of society during the early part of the 1600’s. The artist has rendered this portrait with meticulous attention to detail and the surface effects of the fine materials. The elaborate lace coif and cuffs are painstakingly delineated, as is the bold black damask, and sumptuous gold decoration of her skirt and stomacher, which is wonderfully preserved and quite remarkable considering the age of the work and the fact that darker pigments are particularly vulnerable to fading and wear. This work with its spectacular depiction of costume is of absolute quality, it can be rated as one of the best works in the artist’s oeuvre and as such it is an important and splendid example of Dutch portraiture. The Dutch Golden Age of painting was a period in Dutch history, roughly spanning the 17th century, in which Dutch trade, science, military, and art were among the most acclaimed in the world. Dutch explorers charted new territory and settled abroad. Trade by the Dutch East-India Company thrived, and war heroes from the naval battles were decorated and became national heroes. During this time, The Dutch Old Masters began to prevail in the art world, creating a depth of realistic portraits of people and life in the area that has hardly been surpassed. The Golden Age painters depicted the scenes that their discerning new middleclass patrons wanted to see. This new wealth from merchant activities and exploration combined with a lack of church patronage, shifted art subjects away from biblical genres. Dress was a key component in portraits, and the exuberant attire reiterates the incredible wealth of this woman. The sitter will have visited the artist’s workshop and inspected examples on display. They would have chosen the size and the sort of composition and on that basis negotiated the price – which would have also been determined by the complexity of the clothing and the jewels that were to be depicted, and by the materials to be used. When all was considered, this portrait would have cost the sitter (or her husband) a substantial sum. The colour black was regarded as humble and devout yet at the same time refined and sophisticated and the most expensive colour of fabric to dye and to maintain. Citizens spent fortunes on beautiful black robes. Such uniformity must also have had a psychological side-effect and contributed to a sense of middle-class cohesion; the collective black of the well-to-do burgess class will have given its members a sense of solidarity. The colour was always an exciting one for artists and when this portrait was painted there were at least fifty shades of it, and as many different fabrics and accoutrements. Artists went to great lengths to depict the subtle nuances of the colour and the fabrics and textures and how they reflected light and it was an ideal background against which gold and crisp white lace could be juxtaposed to dramatic effect. The sitter is either a married women or a widower as is evident by the clothing that she wears and the position, toward her right, it is highly likely that this portrait was once a pendant that hung on the right-hand side of her husband’s portrait as was convention at the time. She wears a vlieger which was a type of sleeveless over-gown or cape worn by well-to-do married women in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. Variations with short sleeves or high shoulder rolls are known. Sometimes sleeves were attached with aiglets, and often slits were made to allow belts or the hands to pass through. Three-piece vlieger costumes of this kind were standard items of clothing in portraits of the women of the civic elite in the period 1600-40 and was a variant of the Spanish ‘ropa’ and served as a trademark of well-to-do married burgher women. Girls and unmarried woman, including beguines, wore a bouwen (a dress with a fitted bodice and a skirt that was closed all round) instead. This clear distinction between apparel for married and unmarried women is clear not only from inventories and trousseau lists, but also from contemporary sources such as the Dutch Spanish dictionary published by Juan Rodrigues in 1634. In it, a bouwen is described as a ‘ropa de donzella’ (over-gown worn by a virgin) and a vlieger as a ‘ropa de casada’ (overgown worn by a married woman). It is striking how few women are depicted wearing a bouwen, unless they are part of a group, family or children’s portrait and it can therefore be assumed that independent portraits of unmarried women were seldom commissioned. It is also believed that the clothing worn in these portraits existed and were faithfully reproduced when cross-referenced with the few exact documents. These sources also demonstrate that clients wanted their clothing to be depicted accurately and with this in mind precious garments and jewels were often left in the painter’s studio. The prominent white lawn molensteenkraag (or millstone ruff) is held up by a wire supportasse and was reserved only for the citizens that could afford this luxurious item that often required 15 meters of linen batiste. The fabulous wealth of this sitter is also evident by the elaborate lace coif and cuffs which have been exquisitely depicted; lace was often literally copied by artists in thin white lines over the completed clothing. The gold bracelet with jewels is a type that was evidently fashionable as it is seen in a number of portraits during the 1610s and 1620. Clothing and jewellery were prized possessions and were often listed in inventories of estates and passed down from generation to generation. There were a great number of jewellers of Flemish origin working at all the courts and cities of Europe, competing with the Italians, and then the French, adapting themselves to the tastes and positions of their patrons and the raw materials available in the country where they worked. The fashion for jewels “in the Flemish style” succeeded that of the Italian style. Cornelis van der Voort, who was probably born in Antwerp around 1576, came to Amsterdam with his parents as a child. His father, a cloth weaver by trade, received his citizenship in 1592. It is not known who taught the young Van der Voort to paint, but it has been suggested that it was either Aert Pietersz or Cornelis Ketel. On 24 October 1598 Van der Voort became betrothed to Truytgen Willemsdr. After his first wife’s death he became betrothed to Cornelia Brouwer of Dordrecht in 1613. In addition to being an artist, Van der Voort was an art collector or dealer, or both. In 1607 he bought paintings from the estate of Gillis van Coninxloo, and after an earlier sale in 1610 a large number of works he owned were auctioned on 7 April 1614. Van der Voort is documented as appraising paintings in 1612, 1620 and 1624. In 1615 and 1619 he was warden of the Guild of St Luke. He was buried in Amsterdam’s Zuiderkerk on 2 November 1624, and on 13 May 1625 paintings in his estate were sold at auction. Van der Voort was one of Amsterdam’s leading portrait painters in the first quarter of the 17th century. Several of his group portraits are known. It is believed that he trained Thomas de Keyser (1596/97-1667) and Nicolaes Eliasz Pickenoy (1588-1650/56). His documented pupils were David Bailly (c. 1584/86-1657), Louis du Pré...

This exquisite work is an accomplished example of the type of portrait in vogue in England during the third quarter of the 17th century. There was a large demand for paintings in England and the demand for portraits was greatest. Many artists worked in this lucrative field, even artists who initially trained in the more respected field of history painting, such as Peter Lely, turned their attention to portraiture to meet this demand. Moreover, it was not uncommon for the British, even for men, to present a gift of one’s portrait to a friend - portraits were first and foremost a memento. Woman at court often vied with one another in displays of rich and fashionable clothing. The drapery was either painted from the customer’s own clothes or was perhaps a creation using fabrics loosely tacked together in the studio. This was a common practice of Lely and his studio props included swathes of fabric and pieces of cloth. The sitter’s sumptuous attire and gauze scarf, fastened by a large diamond brooch, is of the finest material and is representative of wealth. Pearls were an obligatory accompaniment since at least the 1630s and they are worn in abundance – in her hair, on her attire, as a necklace, and as pear-shaped earrings called unions d’excellence, reflecting the difficulty of finding perfectly matched pearls of such large size. They could range up to 20 millimetres in diameter. Her hairstyle help date the painting to the early 1660’s. Peter Lely, the son of a Dutch...

Portraits of a Lady, Dorothy and Jane Wood c.1750, Fine Carved Frames By John Theodore Heins (1697-1756) Titan Fine Art present these works, which formed part of a collection of family heirlooms of the Wood family who were from Bracon Ash, Norfolk, since the medieval period. Jane’s daughter Ann, was famously married on board the Foudroyant, off Naples, in a lavish ceremony in 1799, with Lord Nelson himself giving away the bride. The paintings descended within the family for around 275 years until recent and are exquisite examples of Georgian portraiture in England and are some of the best works by the artist. The original hand carved and gilded pierced frames are magnificent works of art in their own right. The sitters were two children, out of several, of Thomas Wood (1682-176) and Dorothy Huby (1700-1759). The family is from Norwich, which in 1720 was a city second in importance only to London. Their aunt, Jane Wood (1677-1756), was a Franciscan nun in Bruges. Dorothy Wood (in the blue dress) was baptised 2nd June 1726 and she died unmarried around 1759. Jane (in the pink dress) gave birth to at least six children during her thirty two-year marriage. She was baptised 14 Oct 1727 at Bracon Ash. Jane married Knipe Gobbet (1730/5-1791) who was Sheriff in 1768 (and Mayor in 1771) of the City of Norwich, and later Lieutenant-Colonel of the West Norfolk Regiment, in which corps he had served in for many years. According to Payne’s Universal Chronicle or Weekly Gazette the marriage took place on 7th July 1758. Knipe was born at his family seat, Tacolneston Hall, to parents George Gobbet, who was Sheriff in 1710, and Ann. The couple bought and lived in a house in Norwich (later known as Gurney’s Bank House) until 1778 before moving to another one at 10 St Stephen’s Street, Norwich. Later, they inherited the family seat of Tacolnestan Hall and lived there for the remainder of their lives. Knipe Gobbet was a prominent individual and in 1779 he gave the corporation of Norwich 100 pounds, to be disposed of as they might think proper, and soon after that he was presented with a handsome field tent, marquee, and camp equipage, in testimony of their esteem for his dedication to the defence and service of this country at a time when threatened by an invasion. Although Jane was baptised a Roman Catholic Knipe was a prominent local wine merchant, JP, Alderman, sheriff, mayor and Lieutenant. Roman Catholics may have paid lip service to religious conformity as they were excluded from certain areas of public life before the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829. Such discrimination probably lies behind the why their children are included in the registers of both the Anglican church in Tacolneston and the Norwich Catholic church in the 1760s. Jane and Knipe had one son, Thomas, who died at the age of four of a small-pox inoculation in 1762 (memorial stones in the Church of All Saints, Tacolneston) and many daughters who were schooled at the Order of the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady, in Paris. Their oldest daughter, Anne (1760-1817) was born at Tacolneston Hall. She came to the convent 30 Sept 1774 and ten days later she went to Dames St Sacrament, Rue St Louis in Paris. Their second daughter, Dorothy (died suddenly of apoplexy 21st Nov 1813), came to the convent 19th July 1777 when she was 16 years old and returned to England 23 March 1779. Frances (baptised 22 Feb 1763) came to the convent 16th April 1772 when she was 9 years old and returned 29th May 1777 – however she returned again to the convent 16th May 1778 and left 15th Oct 1778 to return home again. She later married and her surname became Negri. Another daughter, Jane, is thought to have married Juan Manuel Martinez in 1784. There was also another daughter, Mary. The eldest daughter, Ann, first married Peter Bottalini of London 27 Oct 1783 at Tacolneston Hall. They had one son together. She then married on 9th July 1799, Dr William Compton (1733- Clifton 1824), the Chancellor of Ely and the next collateral male relation to the Earl of Northampton (he had earlier marriages to Caroline and Catherine). William Compton later retired from the Commons and spent many years on the continent acting as Chancellor of Ely by proxy from 1777 for the remainder of his life. The couple were British residents of Posilipo Naples and the marriage was hosted on board the Foudroyant, off Naples, where the bride was given away by the Right Hon. Lord Nelson himself. The marriage document, signed by Lord Nelson, Lady Emma Hamilton, Captain Thomas Hardy, and others descended within the family, until sold in a sale that raised worldwide interest in 2023, for £20,160. The document is accompanied by a contemporary manuscript account of the wedding, headed 'Paragraph for the papers, sent to Messrs Coutts & Co with request to have it inserted'. Lord Nelson was a household name in Britain due to his many victories, including the Battle of the Nile against the French Navy in August 1798 – which came before the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805. The document states: 'This is to certify that, on board the Foudroyant lying in Naples Bay, on the ninth of July 1799 the marriage between William Compton & Mrs Anne Bottalin, widow, was solemnized by me S. G. Comyn HM. Chaplain to the Right Honble Lord Nelson, H.M.S. Foudroyant, in the presence of'. With the following autograph signatures: Sir William Hamilton (1731-1803), Lady Emma Hamilton (1765-1815), Horatio Nelson, Viscount Nelson (1758-1805); Sir John Thomas Duckworth (1747-1817), Sir Thomas Masterman Hardy (1769-1839), John Rushout, 2nd Baron Northwick (1769-1859), Josiah Nisbet (1780-1830), John Tyson, William Compton and Anne Bottalin, and 2 others” The document sheds light on Nelson's lesser-known side of his character. William Compton ... received "a great many favours and kindnesses" from Nelson, and most especially "the kind interest" taken in sealing his union with a wife who made him "the happiest of mortals". Anne, the aforesaid spouse, said that the admiral's "good heart" had made her "as happy as I can possibly be on this earth" ... Midshipman Parsons remembered those days nostalgically, noting Emma's "graceful form" bending over her harp to bestow "heavenly music" upon the diners on the quarterdeck and the large-decked galley, flush with opera singers, that glided alongside to serenade the sunset of each day'. Tacolneston has an ancient history of which according to the Domesday Book, Edward I granted a weekly market to be held on a Wednesday at the manor of Tacolneston and two annual fairs. The church was rebuilt in 1503 and is dedicated to All Saints. The earliest view of Tacolneston is a print of 1781 when it belonged to Knipe Gobbet Esq. John Theodore Heins (1697-1756) was a painter whose work, at his best, shows detail of an exceptionally high quality. His portraits of Anna Maria Kett nee Phillips and her husband Henry Kett, painted in 1741, are exceptional and evidence that he had the ability to portray a likeness on par with some of the best portraitists in England at the time. Heins appears to have originated in Germany but moved to the UK and settled in Norwich around 1720. From 1720 to his death in 1756, Heins built up a fine reputation as a portrait painter and painted many members of prominent Norfolk families right up to his last year. He was commissioned in 1732 to paint a portrait of the Mayor of Norwich, Francis Arnam and also the previous year's Mayor Robert Marsh...

This exquisite portrait of a gentleman depicted in a sumptuous black coat edged with silver and slashed sleeves is an excellent example of the type of portrait fashionable in England and the Low Countries during the 17th century. The confident pose, striking orange sash - the colour of the house of Orange Nassau - and the leather gorget imbue the sitter with a sense of masculinity and power. The profusely decorated costume is of the highest quality and de rigueur of an elite class - the artist has carefully cultivated this portrait to emphasise the sitter’s wealth and standing in the society that he belonged to. The casual pose, with one arm resting on a hip, is much less formal than earlier decades, and it speaks of ‘sprezzatura’ – one’s appearance should not appear laborious, but instead, effortless. The oil on cradled panel portrait can be dated to circa 1650 based on the hairstyle and the attire - small falling collar, short doublet (doublets reduced in size to just below the ribcage in the late 1650’s), and the type of slashed sleeves with the sleeve seams left open to reveal the white fabric. The demand for portraits in the Netherlands was great in the 17th century. Bartholemeus van der Helst was considered to be one of the leading portrait painters of the Dutch Golden Age surpassing even Rembrandt as the most sought-after portraitist in Harlaam. The Dutch Golden Age, roughly spanning the 17th century, was a period when Dutch trade, science, military, and art were among the most acclaimed in the world. Dutch explorers charted new territory and settled abroad. Trade by the Dutch East-India Company thrived, and war heroes from the naval battles were decorated and became national heroes. During this time, The Dutch Old Masters began to prevail in the art world, creating a depth of realistic portraits of people and life in the area that has hardly been surpassed. The Golden Age painters depicted the scenes that their discerning new middle-class patrons wanted to see. This new wealth from merchant activities and exploration combined with a lack of church patronage, shifted art subjects away from biblical genres. Still life’s of items of everyday objects, landscapes, and seascapes reflecting the naval and trade power that the Republic enjoyed were popular. The new wealthy class were keen to have their portraits commissioned and many artists worked in this lucrative field. Such was the popularity of art that everyone had a painting, even the humble butcher, and hundreds of thousands of paintings were produced. By tradition the sitter is Maarten Tromp (1598-1653) who was an Admiral in the Dutch Navy (the reverse of the portrait contains an old handwritten inscription “van Tromp”). Certainly, the distinctive orange sash is similar to those worn by officers of the Dutch army in the Netherlands who served under the Princes of Orange and the House of Nassau. However, it should be noted that the physiognomy differs from other images of Tromp. Tromp was the oldest son of Harpert Maertensz, a naval officer and captain. He joined the Dutch navy as a lieutenant in July 1622 and was later promoted from captain to Lieutenant-Admiral of Holland and West Frisia in 1637. In 1639, during the Dutch struggle for independence from Spain, Tromp defeated a large Spanish fleet bound for Flanders at the Battle of the Downs, which marked an enormous change - the end of Spanish naval power. He was killed in action during the First Anglo-Dutch War in 1653 where he commanded the Dutch fleet in the battle of Scheveningen. Gloves were an absolutely vital accessory and the elaborate pair in this portrait are embellished with threads of silk and precious metals and salmon-coloured lining. He wears only one glove and holds the other, providing an opportunity to better display the cuffs and detail on his right wrist and forearm. The gloves are probably made from the most prized leather which came from Spain, in particular from Cordova. Cordovan leather was tanned with a special vegetal process that left it both highly impermeable and divinely soft. King Charles I, posed in a rather relaxed manner for Daniel Mytens’s portrait in 1631, is wearing gloves and boots in matching Cordovan leather. The hide is thick, but you can see just how supple it is from the way the gauntlet dimples and the long boot legs fold over themselves, rippling and wrinkling at the ankles. Apart from keeping hands warm the use of gloves during the 15th through the 19th centuries were full of symbolism and they were worn regardless of the season. They kept the skin unblemished - soft, smooth hands were considered highly attractive. This combination of necessity and proximity to bare skin made gloves a deeply personal gift and they took on a strong symbolic significance and were regarded as emblematic of fidelity and loyalty for hundreds of years. Such was the importance of their symbolism was that some gloves were never intended to be worn at all. Their luxury made them ideal gifts at court, and so in the 15th and 16th centuries, ambassadors often presented them as symbols of loyalty. Until the mid-19th century, it was customary to give gloves as tokens to guests at weddings and to mourners at funerals. Gentleman often gifted their bride-to-be with a pair of gloves (the obligatory gift) and were handed over at the betrothal and put on display before the wedding took place. It was probably their direct contact with the skin that led to the eroticism of gloves. Not only were pairs often exchanged between lovers, but from the 16th to the 18th centuries, it was common practice to remove one glove and give it as a gift to a favourite. The idea of the item being presented still warm from the wearer’s hand is certainly suggestive. Following the death of King George IV, his executors purportedly found over a thousand mismatched ladies’ gloves among his possessions. The sentiment of a 17th-century poem reveals the popularity of the practice: “Come to our wedding to requite your loves / Shew us your hands and we’ll fit you with gloves.” Such generosity might be pricey for the hosts, but gloves of varying quality could be offered depending on the status of the recipient. Pairs made with the finest Spanish leather might be reserved for immediate family, while coarse sheep’s leather could be distributed among the servants and tradesmen. The apportioning of quality according to class provided a very clear message of the gloves’ intended use. For refined guests, they were decoration; for the lower classes, they were functional. Bartholomeus van der Helst...

This work, offered by Titan Fine Art, formed part of the collection of paintings and family heirlooms of Baron Hugues Alfred Frèdéric de Cabrol de Moute (1909-1997) and his wife, Baroness Marguerite (née d’Harcourt) de Cabrol de Moute (1915-2011). The couple had unimpeachable and enviable family backgrounds, and were descendants of ancient princelings; together they were one of the most prominent high-society couples of the twentieth century and counted the Duke of Duchess of Windsor amongst their closest friends. This portrait is that of Marie-Madeleine de Chamillart (died 28 May 1751) nee Nicolas de Lusse. She had a daughter, Anne, in 1692. In 1700 she married Clément Chamillart (1663-1708), President of the Accounts of the King's Chamber. The couple had a daughter, Madeleine (born 1701), who married Louis, the only son of Guillaume de Guitaut and Antoinette de Vertamont in 1719. Guillaume de Guitaut resided at Château d'Époisses in Burgundy France and his descendants still live today. A portrait of our sitter is still held at the Château. Clément Chamillart died in 1708 and our sitter remarried Jean-Baptiste de Johanne de la Carre (1678-1726), marquis de Saumery, maréchal de camp, in 1713. This marriage produced two daughters, Marguerite (died 1729) and Marie Madeleine (born 1720). Much of the beauty of this elegant portrait resides in its graceful composition – it is a fine example of French portraiture. Beautifully and meticulously rendered throughout, the sitter has been depicted three quarter length in an outdoor setting beside a potted orange tree. The lady is shown in a blue dress with silver detailed décolletage and large voluminous sleeves turned over to reveal elaborately detailed lining. The sumptuous fabrics convey a sense of wealth and prestige. The portrait is striking in its portrayal of the sumptuous fabrics and their decorative richness. The prominent sprig of orange blossom that she is holding is a traditional representation of marriage and eternal love in art, but it also alludes to youth and freshness, and by virtue of the great expense and difficulty with which it was often grown, to great wealth. In accordance with the sitter's age and the style of clothing and hair with the curls on the forehead, this portrait can be dated to the 1720s. Baron Hugues Alfred Frèdéric de Cabrol de Moute (1909-1997) was the son of Roger de Cabrol de Moute and Helen Mary de Lassence. He was one of the more engaging personages in that delightful social constellation of social figures who animated what has become known as "Cafe Society" which was international but inevitably most at home in Paris from the 1920's until the 1960's. He married Marguerite d'Harcourt (1915-2011), known as Daisy, in Paris in 1937, the only daughter of Étienne, Marquis d'Harcourt, and his wife, Marie de Curel. The Harcourt family belongs to the circle of the oldest families in France; the founder of the family, Bernard le Danois, received the seigniory of Harcourt in the tenth century, following the conquest of Normandy. In the 11th century, his descendants took part in the conquest of England alongside William the Conqueror. Later, the Harcourt family was divided into a French branch and an English branch, which successively received the titles of barons, viscounts, and counts. Marguerite "Daisy" Marie Brigitte Emmanuelle Ghislaine d'Harcourt, Baronne de Cabrol was one of the last survivors of twentieth century French high society. Through her mother, Daisy was a descendant of the great industrial family of Wendel, with iron and steel enterprises in Lorraine; she also descended from Nicolas Soult, one of Napoleon's Marshals and three times Prime Minister of France. The couple became friends of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor in 1947, and were invited to the Chateau de la Croë, their rented house on Cap d'Antibes. There they found the exiled Windsors living in unusual post-war luxury, serving delicious food and providing fresh sheets every day. Daisy suspected that the Windsors were bored, but, having nothing else to do, were condemned to an endless round of social engagements. She and Fred were among the few allowed to see the Duchess laid out after her death in 1986. Daisy was a considerable hostess, giving a ball every year for her charity, L'Essor, to which le tout Paris would come. One of these, in 1954, was at the Palais des Glaces, in Paris (later used in the film Gigi), at which she entertained Charlie Chaplin, the Begum Aga Khan and the Windsors. According to Nancy Mitford...