Paula Byrne has just revealed that the church tower shown in the “new” portrait is not Westminster Abbey, as previously speculated, but is that of St Margaret’s Church, Westminster.
St Margaret’s was built as a church where the ordinarily people who lived near to Westminster Abbey could worship. The present building was begun in 1245 during the reign of Henry III but was rebuilt between 1486 and 1523. Since 1614 it has been the parish church of the Palace of Westminster, which is of course where the House of Commons and the House of Lords are situated.It is famous, among other things, for its grand society weddings.
This picture, above, courtesy of Wikipedia Commons, shows the tower very clearly. It was rebuilt by the Hampshire born architect, John James, who was an assistant of Sir Christopher Wren, between the years 17343 to 1738. His most famous commission was St. George’s Church, Hanover Square, in smart, rich and elegant Mayfair, shown below. This image is from my collection of prints from the early nineteenth century part work, The Beauties of England and Wales:
This was, of course, where poor Mary Crawford dreamt of marrying Edmund Bertram in Chapter 43 of Mansfield Park.
Back to St Margaret’s, and I think this, visually, makes more sense. The two towers look very similar. What do you think?
10 comments
December 7, 2011 at 11:02 am
Sarah Waldock
Nice piece of detective work, I’d say that was a spot on call.
December 7, 2011 at 11:03 am
jfwakefield
Oh! No! Not my detective work,but Dr Byrnes!
December 7, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Jenny Allworthy
I wonder if they could figure out where the room was where she was posing for the drawing. An artist’s studio? I think her brother Henry lived in Sloane St., Henrietta St., and Hans Place at about this time, none of which would give this view. Interesting article! Thanks!
December 7, 2011 at 1:28 pm
jfwakefield
I hope that will be revealed in the documentary, Jenny. I wonder why she is depicted in Westminster? I can’t think of a link thus far…Sadly, some of the evidence regarding the jewellery the figure portrayed is wearing has been left on teh cutting room floor. Pity.
December 7, 2011 at 6:39 pm
Cathy Allen
That is too bad about the jewelry evidence… I am glad that Dr. Byrne found the church tower, however tenuous the link may be to Jane Austen. I had kind of wondered if it might have been an artist’s imaginary tower, as the portrait may be from an artist’s imagination. I grow more and more interested to know what’s in the documentary; maybe we’ll get lucky and they’ll show it in the U.S. someday — I can dream :-) !
On another note, 1245 … 1486 … 1523 … 1614 … 1738 … I get such a kick out of the way you toss off those dates. It’s one of the MAJOR reasons I’m an Anglophile! Thanks, Julie.
December 7, 2011 at 6:50 pm
jfwakefield
I must admit I’m still very doubtful about the authenticity of the whole thing. And though I can see the resemblance with the tower,what I really want to know is why it was included in a picture featuring :”Jane Austen”. What is its association with her? And, I respectfully submit, this is the correct way to approach it, to my lawyer’s mind: from a position of complete scepticism.
December 8, 2011 at 11:31 am
Alison
I have to say, it’s a great portrait – Jane or no. I agree with her about St Margaret’s though – you can definitely see it.
All very intriguing.
December 10, 2011 at 6:20 pm
jfwakefield
It is, let’s hope the documentary clears up every point upon which I am currently very doubtful!
December 9, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Lizzy
I confess I am not so excited about a new portrait, genuine or not. Now, if there had been a new letter, or a new manuscript (oh, I don’t know, maybe a complete draft of First Impressions, before it was lop’t and crop’d), that would send me to the moon in raptures of joy!
December 10, 2011 at 6:17 pm
jfwakefield
Or a diary?