Francis Cotes Art

Madonna and Child Workshop of Andrea del Sarto, pseudonym of Andrea d'Agnolo di Francesco (Florence 1486 - 1530) Attributable to Jacopo di Giovanni di Francesco, known as Jacone (...

This stunning, large portrait oil painting is attributed to Spanish Old Master Claudio Coello who is considered the last great Spanish painter of the 17th century. It has formerly been the property of Lady Beatrice...

French 18th century old master portrait of a majestic lady dressed "à la Turque" The sitter at the viewer with a kind and enigmatic smile and twinkling eyes. She looks elegant and kind, yet also has an intelligent and determined aura, reflecting the character of someone who is in charge of her own life and destiny. De Silvestre paid great attention to her spectacular outfit, which is striking in its portrayal of the sumptuous fabrics and their decorative richness. She is wearing a luxurious royal blue robe à la...

“A Lady in Black, 1894” by Paul-Marie Lapierre Renouard (1854-1940) This exceptional pastel portrait of an elegant woman in black is among the artist’s finest works. A close examina...

Allegorical Scene - Giovanni Faliero Italia 2009 - Oil on canvas cm. 90x110. This beautiful oil on canvas is the personal reinterpretation of the magnificent painting “Bacchant playing the Cymbals” by Jean-Simon Berthélemy, a French painter of the 18th century. Here we admire a mythological scene showing a naked bacchant playing cymbals next to a wooded stream, with a small sleeping faun...

A Rare Jacobean Portrait of Lady Elizabeth Wheeler (née Cole), 1623 Attributed to Cornelius Johnson (1593–1661) This remarkably rare early oil on panel, presented by Titan Fine Art, has emerged as far more than an anonymous “Portrait of a Lady.” Preserved in outstanding condition—its surface retaining exceptional clarity in the lace and textiles—it has only recently been reunited with the identity of its sitter: Elizabeth Cole (1607–1670), later Lady Elizabeth Wheeler, a Westminster gentlewoman whose later life brought her into intimate royal service as laundress for His Majesty’s person. That combination—high quality, uncommon survival, a newly identified sitter, and a life that intersects directly with the last acts of Charles I—places this portrait in a category of genuine rarity. It is not simply a beautiful Jacobean likeness; it is a rediscovered historical document - legible and compelling. The sitter is presented half-length against a dark ground, enclosed within a painted sculpted oval surround that functions like an architectural frame. This device, fashionable in the 1620s, concentrates the viewer’s attention and heightens the sense of social presentation: the sitter appears both physically and symbolically “set apart,” as if viewed through a refined aperture. The portrait’s immediate power, however, lies in the costume—an ensemble of striking modernity for c. 1623 and rendered with a precision that survives with remarkable crispness. She wears a deep green gown—a fitted overgown with open sleeves—over a finely embroidered linen jacket (a stiffened bodice/waistcoat garment). The sleeves form pronounced “wings” at the shoulder, a structurally assertive fashion detail of the early 1620s that enlarges the silhouette and signals sophistication. Beneath the green overlayer, the white linen jacket is richly ornamented in gilt embroidery. The goldwork is arranged as scrolling foliate forms—looping, curling tendrils punctuated by seed-like stippling—organised into balanced compartments across the bodice and sleeves. The motifs read as stylised botanical forms with rounded fruit-like terminals and leaf elements: not literal naturalism, but controlled abundance. The technique is described with extraordinary intelligence, mimicking couched metallic thread through patterned, “stitched” marks, while tiny dots and short dashes create a lively tactile shimmer. This embroidered jacket sits above a newly fashionable high-waisted, sheer apron or overskirt. The translucent fabric falls in soft vertical folds and is articulated with narrow lace-edged bands, giving the skirt a crisp rhythm of alternating sheer and patterned strips. At the neck, a fine ruff frames the face: a disciplined structure of pleated linen finished with delicate lace. Draped diagonally across the torso are long gold chains, painted to suggest weight and metallic gleam; they function both as ornament and as a further signifier of status. The cumulative effect is controlled luxury: she is not overloaded with jewels, but clothed in textiles whose cost and craftsmanship speak unmistakably. The recent sitter’s identification rests on heraldic and genealogical analysis: the arms shown on the painting correspond to those recorded for several families in armorial sources, but when the lines of descent are tested against survival and chronology, the viable bearer by 1623 resolves to Cole, and—crucially—to the London branch. That resolution matters because it anchors the portrait to a very specific social world: London/Westminster civic gentry and Crown administration, the milieu in which portraiture served as both self-fashioning and social instrument. The recent identification of the sitter (the London Cole branch of the family) is not merely genealogical; it has direct implications for authorship. A London-based mercantile or civic-gentry family would have ready access to leading immigrant artists, familiarity with heraldic display conventions, and the means to commission oil on panel, still standard among Netherlandish-trained painters. In that context, the portrait’s age inscription and date become especially revealing. The painting states the sitter to be nineteen years of age. Yet Elizabeth Cole’s birth in 1607 suggests she would be younger if the portrait is dated as early as 1623. The key insight is that the “incorrect” age is best understood not as a mistake but as a deliberate social adjustment, a performative statement rather than a documentary one. The most persuasive explanation is strategic. Portraits of high-status unmarried women were frequently made in connection with marriage negotiations. In the early 1620s, Elizabeth’s future husband, William Wheeler, was resident abroad at Middelburg in Zeeland in the Dutch Republic. If a portrait was intended to support or facilitate a match with an educated, ambitious man—“a man of learning and letters,” —then presenting a seventeen-year-old as nineteen would subtly reposition her as more mature and more nearly a peer in age, Wheeler being around twenty-two. The portrait thus becomes an instrument of alliance, not merely a likeness: an image designed to persuade, reassure, and elevate. This reading aligns perfectly with the period’s wider conditions. The early 1620s in England were charged with anxiety and expectation: James I’s later reign was marked by court faction, diplomatic tension, and the pressures of European conflict. The so-called “art market” was inseparable from these dynamics. Portraiture flourished because it served multiple functions: it fixed lineage, advertised alliance, signalled readiness for marriage, and projected the stability of elite households in an uncertain world. For Westminster families whose power came through office, portraiture was also a declaration of belonging—proof that administrative elites possessed the cultural polish traditionally associated with older aristocratic rank. Elizabeth’s later life vindicates the portrait’s impression of steadiness. Although no record survives of her marriage ceremony to William Wheeler, wills suggest she had married him by the mid-1630s, and there are strong grounds—consistent with the portrait’s implications—for a union already in place by the early 1630s, possibly earlier. Wheeler himself rose rapidly. By 1639 he held a manor at Westbury Leigh in Wiltshire and sought letters of denization due to overseas birth, enabling him to stand as Member of Parliament for Westbury. He leased the principal manor of Westbury the following year, coinciding with his election. In government service he became Remembrancer of the Exchequer and held office across regime change, a testament to administrative skill and political pragmatism. It is Elizabeth, however, who makes this portrait exceptional. She became laundress for His Majesty’s person, responsible for the washing and oversight of the King’s personal linen—an office that, despite its domestic description, required unusual trust, discretion, and access. Her role becomes visible in 1643 when she was granted a warrant signed by the Speaker of the House of Commons to follow the King to Oxford with her servant after the outbreak of the Civil War. She continued to serve during the King’s captivity after 1646, and at Carisbrooke Castle in 1647 she and her maid were implicated in smuggling secret correspondence to and from Charles I, in service of escape plans. After the King’s failed attempt to escape in March 1648, she was removed—yet the King’s trust persisted: he was permitted to send her remaining jewels in an ivory casket...

Shipping Procedure Ships in a well-protected tube from Nigeria This work is unique, not a print or other type of copy. Accompanied by a Certificate of Authenticity. About Artist Olu...

This exquisite portrait remained for nearly 300 years in the possession of the sitter’s descendants, preserved among the Bigg-Wither family portraits at their magnificent stately man...

“Hon. George King, 1788” by John Russell (1745-1806) Regarded as Britain’s foremost pastellist, John Russell is well known for his portraits of the wealthy middle class. In particul...

Fine 19th Century Oil on Canvas Portrait of a Young Woman in large gilt gesso frame .unsigned. Identity of the sitter as yet unknown. The artist has managed to capture her ethereal b...

Jacopo BASSANO (c. 1510-1592, Italian) Portrait of a Procuratore Oil on canvas 30 ¼ x 26 inches (including frame) Provenance: Lucien Bonaparte’s Collection (as Portrait of Doge Priuli, Tiziano); Rich-mond, Virginia Museum, Portrait of Doge Lorenzo Priuli. The painting is a portrait of a man half-length, on a black background. It is a three-quarter portrait, according to a custom very common in the genre of portraiture in sixteenth century. The man is wearing a decorated...

Aftrer Anthony VAN DYCK - maybe Studio (1599, Antwerp – 1641, London) Flemish Double Portrait of George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham (1628-1687) & Lord Francis Villiers (1629-1648) Oil on Canvas 170 x 147 cm Anthony Van Dyck (1599-1641) No painter has done more to define an era than Anthony van Dyck. He spent only seven and a half years of his short life (1599- 1641) in England. He grew up in Antwerp, where his precocious talent was recognised by Peter Paul Rubens, the greatest painter of his age. He worked in Rubens’s studio and imitated his style as a religious artist, painting biblical scenes redolent of the lush piety of the counter-reformation. But soon he was on the move. In 1620, he visited London for a few months, long enough to paint a history picture, The Continence of Scipio, for the royal favourite, George Villiers, Marquess of Buckingham, and a portrait of his other English patron, the great art collector, Thomas Howard, 2nd Earl of Arundel. After a stint in Italy, making imposing portraits of the wealthy aristocracy and sketching and copying works by Titian, he returned to the Spanish Netherlands in 1627, becoming court artist to Archduchess Isabella before departing for The Hague in 1631 to paint the Dutch ruler Frederick Henry, Prince of Orange. Charles I’s invitation in 1632 led Van Dyck back to London where he was knighted, paid an annual salary of £200 and installed in a house in Blackfriars with a special jetty at which the royal barge might tie up when the King was visiting his studio. By this time Van Dyck was recognised as the leading court painter in Europe, with Velazquez at the court of Philip IV of Spain his only rival. He also excelled as a superbly observant painter of children and dogs. Van Dyck’s notoriety in depicting children led to the introduction of groups of children without their parents as a new genre into English painting (amongst other new genres). For the next 300 years, Van Dyck was the major influence on English portraiture. Nearly all the great 18th Century portraitists, from Pompeo Batoni and Allan Ramsay to Thomas Gainsborough and Joshua Reynolds, copied Van Dyck’s costumes, poses and compositions. George Duke of Buckingham & his brother Francis Villiers Painted in 1635, this double portrait was originally commissioned by Charles I, who raised the two brothers after their father, George Villiers, was assassinated in 1628. Together with their sister, Lady Mary Villiers, they enjoyed the King’s favour absolutely. Francis whose absolute ‘inimitable handsomeness’ was noted by Marvell (who was killed in a skirmish near Kingston upon Thames). The young duke who commanded a regiment of horse at the Battle of Worcester, remained closely associated with Charles II, held a number of high offices after the Restoration and was one of the most cynical and brilliant members of the King’s entourage, immortalised as ‘Zimri’ in Dryden’s Absalom and Achitopbel. As a young man he had sold his father’s great collection of pictures in the Spanish Netherlands, many of them to the Archduke Leopold Willhelm. Painted for Charles I and placed near the portrait of their sister in the Gallery at St James’ Palace. The handling of both costumes is very rich, and the heads are very carefully and sensitively worked. That of the younger boy in particular is more solidly built up than the lower part of the figure. A preparatory drawing for the younger boy is in the British Museum. There are copies at, e.g., Highclere Castle...