Talk:Richard Williams (alias Cromwell)

Death
@Pete Hobbs you made the following change from
 * The will was proved 28 November 1546.

to
 * Sir Richard then died in 1545 and the will was proved on 28 November 1546.

The page number we cite is wrong it is page 18 that it is stated when the will is proven. However on the page before 17 Noble covers when it was written "Sir Rich. made his will so early as june 25, 1545" ... "which will was proved nov. 28, 1546".

What is the source you are using for his death in 1545? -- PBS (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * @PBS - Strange query. The opening sentence of the article already stated "1502 – 1545", it's been that way for months or years. I "sourced" nothing, nor did I alter any refs. I merely inserted into the "Later Life" narrative the fact that he had died, repeating the Lede year to save readers scrolling back to the top. It was to aid easier/clearer reading, otherwise some might not understand that "the will was proved" indicated he must have died - some might think it just meant the lawyers had finished legalising it and sent back to him.


 * But since you asked, and have done good admin on the article several times recently, let me ask you in turn: Isn't the "Later Life" subtitle misleading? Surely better to title it "Final years" (as the period it covers is just two years, the final two years of his life). I recall when I first read the article, the unexpected will-making and estate passed on made me think "Eh? What? Has he died or something? That's hardly any later life at all!"


 * Lastly, since you raised the subject, let me also ask this (and this one's difficult) - did he die in 1545 or 1544? Almost all of the articles refs seem to be "Noble 1787" which I've no reason to doubt as reliable, and your query seems to suggest Noble gave no death date (ie. just a will made 1545, proved 1546). But www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1509-1558/member/cromwell-richard-1512-44 [] carries the subject's entry published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1509-1558, ed. S.T. Bindoff, 1982, available from Boydell and Brewer. Allow me to quote: "... in the summer of 1544 he accompanied the King’s expedition to France. He was in ‘most health’ when before his departure he made his will on 20 June, and his death on the following 20 Oct. was probably the result of the campaign which had ended a month earlier.". The authoritative Parliamentary source appears to say he made his will on 20 June 1544 (not 25 June 1545) and died on 20 October 1544. So which one is correct? Noble or the Parliamentary record? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete Hobbs (talk • contribs) 06:14, 28 February 2015‎
 * I don't mind which header is used and I am happy to go along with your suggestion. The DOD was added to the lead without a citation to a source (Revision 12:03, 22 April 2013). Good, you have found a modern authoritative source. Obviously we use that (See: Criticism of Noble) -- PBS (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Plagiarism
This article needs to be entirely rewritten. It seems to be merely a plagiarism of the 1787 work on which it admits to being based. The antique language is obviously from 1787 and is not suited to a modern encyclopedia. Wbkelley (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2015‎ (UTC)


 * See the WP:plagiarism guideline:
 * The University of Cambridge defines plagiarism as: "submitting as one's own work, irrespective of intent to deceive, that which derives in part or in its entirety from the work of others without due acknowledgement."
 * This article clearly states that "This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: ...". So whatever else it is it is not plagiarism. As Wikipedia 5 Pillars states "any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited...", so if you do not like style of the wording then copy-edit it, to a style you do like, but if you inadvertently change the meaning so that some of the text is not supported by inline citations, then those edits may be reverted. -- PBS (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Archaic Style of Writing
Could someone please make changes to the text so that the language is more easily understood? I appreciate we are all volunteers here, but it would help readers (and Wikpedia's reputation) enormously if the text was updated. ixo (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Frances Murfyn / Portraits
Portraits are identified by art historians after meticulous research which is then published in scholarly journals and subject to peer review. Self-published sources such as online blogs may contain subjective opinion and should be treated with a degree of scepticism.

There is no known portrait of Frances Murfyn, who was 21 years of age from around 1541 to 1542. Her parents were married sometime after 15 October 1519, therefore her birth probably occurred in or after autumn 1520.

Portrait of a Man in Black, c. 1600 by a Follower of Hans Holbein is probably a copy of a lost original. The portrait depicts a man, perhaps Sir Richard Williams (alias Cromwell), at the age of 30 in 1539 (or early 1540), up to two years before Frances Murfyn's 21st birthday. A pendant portrait seems unlikely. Portrait of a Lady, probably a Member of the Cromwell Family, c. 1535–40 by Hans Holbein the Younger was identified by art historian, Roy Strong as perhaps Elizabeth Seymour at the age of 21. His theory has not been overturned: see here Toledo Museum of Art: "This woman’s identity has not been determined, though her age, 21, is inscribed in gold on the painting. The painting belonged to the Cromwells for centuries, so she was probably a member of that prominent family. It has been suggested that she may be Elizabeth Seymour, daughter-in-law of Henry’s powerful government minister Thomas Cromwell and sister of Henry’s third wife, Jane Seymour." National Portrait Gallery, London: "This portrait was previously identified as Catherine Howard, fifth wife of Henry VIII. The sitter is now thought to be a member of the Cromwell family, perhaps Elizabeth Seymour (c.1518–1568), sister of Henry VIII's third wife, Jane Seymour, and wife of Thomas Cromwell's son Gregory." Ammelida (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * That was over 50 years ago. WP:AGEMATTERS. And if you read what Strong writes, he only eliminates Frances Murfyn as the sitter because he errouneously believe she and Sir Richard were married in 1518, going by a wrong source (Noble). In fact, it was Frances's parents that were married that year, putting her in precisely the right age range to be the lady in the portrait. The Portrait is called Portrait of a Lady, probably a Member of the Cromwell Family. Frances Murfyn was a lady and a member of the Cromwell family of exactly the right age of the sitter in the portrait. There is every chance that Frances Murfyn was born in 1520 and therefore was in her 21st year in 1540. Her mother could easily even have been pregnant at the time of marriage. See for instance: https://queryblog.tudorhistory.org/2008/10/question-from-elizabethan-elizabeth-of.html for Tudor views on sex between betrothed couples:


 * ''Something to consider in relation to this question is the difference in marriage law in the late 15th century versus today. It was much more complex in the 1400s, with far more "grey area" and qualifying conditions.


 * ''Under church or canon law, which governed marriage in England in the pre-modern period, persons were able to engage in sexual relations without incurring the taint of sin once a marriage contract had been agreed to and initial promises had been sworn to marry at some future date. In other words, couples were not religiously required to wait until after the ritual wedding ceremony itself before having sexual relations. For purposes of sexual relations, being "betrothed" or "engaged" was enough to ammeliorate any potential sin of fornication. And once a "betrothed" or "engaged" couple actually had sexual relations, the "marriage" was considered fully valid and could not be annulled or divorced, even if the sexual relations occurred before the ritual wedding ceremony. [...]


 * ''So it is entirely possible that Henry VII "bedded" Elizabeth of York after the marriage contract had been agreed to but before the actual ritual wedding ceremony. And if he did so, very few would have commented on it since it was not considered a sinful or illegal act. There would have been no shame in Elizabeth's giving birth to a child less than 9 months after the wedding ceremony, as long as it was not also less than 9 months after the contractual betrothal.


 * ''And canon law actually required a time-gap between the betrothal and the actual ritual wedding ceremony anyway. That gap was usually about one month, during which "banns," or public announcements of the intended marriage, were "posted" or called out in church over at least three successive weeks. This gave the community time to "speak now or forever hold their peace" and to reveal any previously unknown reasons why the couple should not wed.


 * The betrothal-to-wedding gap could sometimes be longer than a month, especially if certain religious observances fell in the interim. Weddings were not usually held during Lent, for example.


 * Sir Richard's possible portrait is inscribed "1539", but this could actually have been 1540, as it was not the New Year until Lady Day (25 March) at that time in England. ByTheDarkBlueSea (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @ByTheDarkBlueSea, You are right, dates do matter!
 * Some clarification is needed.
 * Thomas Murfyn, who was Lord Mayor of London from 1518-1519, married Elizabeth Donne in 1519. (According to his will they married sometime after 15 October 1519.) Even if her mother was expecting at the time of the wedding, Frances's birth probably occurred in the second half of 1520. Frances was therefore 21 years of age in 1541-1542.
 * The lady depicted in the Toledo portrait was 21 years of age. On the Toledo Museum of Art website: "her age, 21, is inscribed in gold on the painting ": ETATIS // SVÆ 21 [at his/her age of 21]'''
 * '"ETATIS SVÆ", calculated according to the the annual anniversary of birth most recently achieved is therefore the same as the modern Western European reckoning of age.' see Edwards (2015), A Queen of New Invention, p. 106, n. 13.


 * See also, Moyle, Franny (2021). The King's Painter: The Life and Times of Hans Holbein, p. 484: "One of the most striking portraits of a woman Holbein ever delivered was of Cromwell's daughter-in-law, painted probably in 1539 as she turned twenty-one." Ammelida (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Ammelida Thank you for this most interesting discussion.


 * Do we have any evidence that Elizabeth Seymour was actually born in 1518? Because that made her a very young bride even for Tudor times as she was married for the first time before July 1530. I know that "c.1518" is the date cited by everyone, but is there actually any evidence for this, or is it tweaking to make her fit the age of the lady in the Toledo Portrait?


 * Conor Byrne, historian of late medieval and early modern English queenship and the author of a biography of Queen Katherine Howard and a study of late medieval English queenship, always doubts that she is Elizabeth Seymour: I http://conorbyrnex.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-reidentification-of-portrait.html


 * I do agree that a birth date of second half of 1520 for Frances does seem more likely. However, were pendants always painted at the same time? It is curious, because the spelling on the portraits is identical, practically unique in Holbein's oeuvre, and the blue backgrounds do match.


 * "ETATIS SVÆ", calculated according to the the annual anniversary of birth most recently achieved is therefore the same as the modern Western European reckoning of age.' see Edwards (2015), A Queen of New Invention, p. 106, n. 13."
 * J.Stephan Edwards has since amended this. We must wait for his next book to see it in printing, but his view now is:
 * According to J. Stephan Edwards, the answer lies in the extent to which both the person commissioning the portrait and the artist understood correct Latin usage. "Anno Aetatis Suae" translates from classical Latin as "in the year of his/her age." Obviously that begs the question of what is meant by "age" (see "anno suae" and "aetatis suae"). But the usage "anno aetatis suae" is syntactically incorrect, at least in the context of classical Latin. Latin usage of the 16th century seldom met the standards of classical Latin, however.


 * "Those who wanted to impress but who had limited knowledge of Latin simply copied those around them, often doing so incorrectly. Errors compounded errors. It is also important to remember the levels of literacy in England in the 16th century. Most scholars agree that literacy rates were extremely low, perhaps as low as 5% in English, lower in Latin. True, persons able to commission portraits were generally of a socio-economic status that meant they were functionally literate, certainly in English and perhaps in Latin as well. But the extent to which they understood the correct usage of classical Latin would have been limited for any but the most highly educated. In other words, the local city alderman in Norwich who commissioned a portrait of himself would have been quite unlikely to know (or care) which form was used, whether Anno Suae, Aetatis Suae, or Anno Aetatis Suae, as long as one of them was indeed used. The goal lay in the appearance of being educated or sophisticated, not in providing absolute proof of education or sophistication.


 * “Lastly ... and this may be the most important point of all ... language usage was not yet fully standardized in the 16th century. See, for example, the many variations in the spellings of common words. The precise way in which a word was spelled was less important to persons of the 16th century than was the extent to which both the writer and the reader were able to interpret the spelling correctly and thus arrive at the same meaning. Queen/Quene/Queene .. three spellings, but only one meaning. I suspect the same was true of expressions of age, at least among the less well educated. Only the very well educated would have been entirely precise in their usages, including people like Jane Grey, John Aylmer, William Cecil, etc.”


 * If you look at the portraits by Holbein, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paintings_by_Hans_Holbein_the_Younger, you will see that many of the denotations for age are actually gibberish Latin phrases, not proper Latin at all.


 * However, even if Frances was 21 years of age in 1541-1542, that still puts her smack dab in the right age for this portrait. ByTheDarkBlueSea (talk) 09:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @ByTheDarkBlueSea, You're welcome, Great questions!
 * There are numerous examples of young girls being married at an early age in the sixteenth-century. For example, Sir Anthony Ughtred’s nephew, Robert Ughtred (b. 1498) son of Sir Henry Ughtred (1477-1510) married Elizabeth Fairfax aged 12 in 1510 DDKP/19/1 (Cheshire Archives): Inquisition post mortem for Sir Henry Ughtred; Joyce Acton (1532-1596) married (c. 1546) Sir Thomas Lucy (b. in or before 1532-1600) when she was 13. Their marriage settlement is dated 1 August 1546. See The National Archives PROB 11/46/222; See ODNB online: ‘Lucy, Sir Thomas (b. in or before 1532, d. 1600)’; HoP online: ‘Lucy, Thomas (bef.1532-1600), of Charlecote, Warws.’; Anne Fitton (1574-1618) married John Newdigate (1571-1610) in 1587 at the age of 13. See ODNB online: ‘Newdigate [née Fitton], Anne, Lady Newdigate (1574-1618)’.
 * For Elizabeth Seymour's year of birth (c. 1518), see:
 * MacCulloch, Diarmaid (2018). Thomas Cromwell: A Life, p. 422: "Probably in 1530 she became the second wife of a rather older Yorkshire gentleman, Sir Anthony Ughtred ... In 1533 or early 1534 they had a son, Henry, and then came a girl, Margery, not yet born when Ughtred died in 1534."
 * MacCulloch, Diarmaid (2018). Thomas Cromwell: A Life, p. 425: "Elizabeth Seymour was at the time of her second marriage a year or two older than her husband." Plate 27: "There can be little doubt that this Holbein masterpiece, the original in Toledo, depicts Elizabeth Seymour (c.1518–1568 ..."
 * Fitzgerald, Teri (18 August 2019). "All that Glitters: Hans Holbein's Lady of the Cromwell Family"
 * Some Context:
 * Thomas Cromwell, who would have commissioned this painting, was Hans Holbein's patron. He was highly-educated, spoke several languages and was well-versed in Latin.
 * Cromwell's execution in 1540 meant that Holbein had lost both his patron and commissions for his paintings from the court of Henry VIII. After the fall of Catherine Howard in late 1541 there was no queen consort or queen's household until 1543.
 * Except in the case of royal persons, portraits were usually commissioned to commemorate an important occasion: a marriage, the birth of an heir or an appointment to a post at court.
 * Frances Murfyn:
 * Married Richard Williams (alias Cromwell) in 1534.
 * Son and heir, Henry Williams (alias Cromwell), born in 1537.
 * She was twenty-one in late 1541 to 1542. (After the fall of Catherine Howard in late 1541 there was no queen consort or queen's household until 1543.)
 * Frances and her husband had died by 1544.
 * Elizabeth Seymour:
 * Married 1. Anthony Ughtred in 1530.
 * Son and heir, Henry Ughtred c. 1533/4.
 * Married 2. Gregory Cromwell in 1537. 3. Sir John Paulet in 1554.
 * Son and heir, Henry Cromwell, born in 1538.,
 * She was twenty-one in 1539 to early 1540.
 * From 1539 to early 1540 Thomas Cromwell's career was on an upward trajectory and Henry VIII's new queen, Anne of Cleves was on her way to England ...
 * Following the death of Jane Seymour Hans Holbein had been busy painting prospective brides for the king until early 1538. He was in England from 19 March until June when he travelled to France (to paint more brides) where he remained until August then took a leave of absence from August 1538 until 1539. Gregory Cromwell and his wife, arrived in Lewes in Sussex in March 1538 shortly after the birth of a son and heir, Henry. The couple remained in Lewes until 1539, when they relocated to Leeds Castle in Kent. A second son, Edward was born to the couple by autumn 1539.
 * By late 1539 (early 1540) Elizabeth Seymour had given birth to an heir and a spare and was appointed to serve in the household of Queen Anne of Cleves. She was also aunt to the future Edward VI.


 * The sumptuous clothing and expensive jewellery of the sitter suggest great wealth and exceptional status. Her sleeves might date to 1535-1540 but the French hood dates to 1538 to 1540. see Rowlands, John (1985) Holbein: The Paintings of Hans Holbein the Younger, p. 146. Richard had emerged from his uncle's shadow by late 1539 (early 1540) but he wasn't in Cromwell's league. He was an MP and a gentleman of the privy chamber, but not yet knighted and his wife was was not yet 21.


 * Copies of the Toledo portrait were held by descendants of Thomas Cromwell. see Fitzgerald, Teri (18 August 2019). "All that Glitters: Hans Holbein's Lady of the Cromwell Family" Ammelida (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ammelida, Thank you! Such a fascinating period in time, the Tudor era!
 * On reflection, I of course agree with you that girls were of course married that young. I was thinking about a fascinating phenomenon that girls at court do not appear to have married that young. This is only speculation and something I have observed, so it cannot make its way into any articles here, I just thought I would share :) The marrying age (or at least the consummation age of said marriage) of girls at court seems to have went up during the reign of Henry VIII. This might have been because the King overall in his personal tastes had a preferance for mature women. Hence all the remarks about the youth of Katherine Howard, etc. If it had been a common sight in those circles, I don't think it would have been remarked so much upon. Again, this is just speculation, I only include it here to you to explain what I thought about when I wrote that :)
 * Because you are of course entirely right. Girls were married that young, Frances Murfyn was! So it is a bad argument overall.
 * However, Frances Murfyn was not at court, but there is also the possibility that Elizabeth Seymour wasn't until after her marriage(s).
 * I absolutely do not question that the accepted birth date for Elizabeth Seymour in academic circles is c. 1518. My question is: What are they basing this on? A will, a marriage contract, a letter, a grant, her funeral monument, documents concerning her death, anything? Do we even know for certain if she were Jane's older or younger sister? Primary sources refer to Jane in terms of "the young lady, Mrs. Semel" and "one Mrs. Jane Semar, Sir John Semar’s daughter" (see https://tudorsdynasty.com/the-other-lady-jane-seymour/). I just think it is slightly strange that when academics are still arguing about the birth years of Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard, that we should have such exact information about Elizabeth Seymour. Not that it is impossible, mind you, it could be mentioned (or hinted at) in any of the type of documents mentioned above or in some other. In fact, her death seems to be extraordinary well-documented, we that know Elizabeth died 19 March 1568, and was buried 5 April, so there could be something there. But, absenting any proof, birth years in Tudor times are notoriously dicey. In fact, we only know approximately Jane's birth year because the procession of 29 mourners who followed Mary, the chief mourner, one for every year of Jane's life. As late as the early 1980's, this was unknown. Roy Strong then referenced a miniature by Hilliard as the only clue one had to Jane's age. (This miniature, to be precise: https://www.rct.uk/collection/420014/jane-seymour-1509-1537)
 * So do we know anything concrete about Elizabeth's birth year? She could have been born c. 1518, but could she also have been born c. 1515, c. 1510 or even c. 1505?
 * I think that research is slightly outdated. The woman's costume resembles none so much as those of Margaret Wyatt, Lady Lee, which is dated to the early 1540's, (Margaret Wyatt, https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/110001108?ft=*&pos=19&gallerynos=628&pg=1&rpp=60), and the lady in the painting which has been suggested to be Katherine Howard, which dates from ca. 1540–45 (Portrait of a Young Woman, ca. 1540–45, https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/436667).
 * The sumptuous clothing and expensive jewellery of the sitter suggest great wealth and exceptional status. I do not disagree. I would suggest that Frances Murfyn also had great wealth and exceptional status, if not as much Elizabeth Seymour. At the same time it is a common misconception that fewer ladies had access to this kind of finery and jewels than they actually had.
 * From 1539 to early 1540 Thomas Cromwell's career was on an upward trajectory and Henry VIII's new queen, Anne of Cleves was on her way to England ... The portrait of Sir Richard (The Man in Black of the Cromwell family) was certainly painted then. Could Frances's mother already have been pregnant on 15 October 1519, when the marriage contract was signed?
 * Or could a pendant have been painted later? Thomas Cromwell's fall did not hurt Sir Richard, except emotionally. And the Cromwells had been patrons of Holbein for a long time. Like you say, Cromwell's execution in 1540 meant that Holbein had lost both his patron and commissions for his paintings from the court of Henry VIII. Sir Richard may have wanted to help him out with at least one commission.
 * You are completely right in that the two copies were found among the descendants of Elizabeth Seymour. The original, however, was found among the descendants of Frances Murfyn. As to the Cholmondeley/Overleigh copy now in the NPG (https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw01146/Unknown-woman-formerly-known-as-Catherine-Howard), Overleigh Hall had an entire collection of portraits connected to the Protector. (Sir Oliver Cromwell, uncle and godfather to the Protector, aet. 84, 1646, Lady Elizabeth Cromwell, first wife of Sir Oliver, and daughter of Sir Thomas Bromley, Sir Thomas Bromley, Lord Chancellor to Elizabeth I, Colonel Henry Cromwell, aet. 60, 1646, eldest son of Sir Oliver, Colonel John Cromwell, second son of Sir Oliver, William Cromwell, fourth son of Sir Oliver, Sir Thomas and Lady Hettley (whose son, William, married Sir Oliver’s granddaughter, Carina Cromwell). See: https://queenanneboleyn.com/2019/08/18/all-that-glitters-hans-holbeins-lady-of-the-cromwell-family-by-teri-fitzgerald/) The Protector, Oliver Cromwell, was a descendant of Sir Richard and Frances Murfyn, not of Elizabeth Seymour. ByTheDarkBlueSea (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @ByTheDarkBlueSea. For the birth order of Sir John Seymour's children see his memorial in Great Bedwyn church. It was commisioned by his grandson, Edward Seymour, 1st Earl of Hertford (and Elizabeth Seymour's nephew). Full description in Aubrey (see references in Sir John Seymour's article).
 * Elizabeth Seymour's year of birth has been estimated from the year of her marriage: 1530 and the birth of her first child in late 1533/early 1534. Henry Ughtred was one year old when his father died on 6 October 1534. Given the pattern of childbearing during her second marriage, a gap of 4 years between her first marriage and the birth of her first child, it would be reasonable to assume she was very young.
 * Frances Murfyn married by early 1534 and her first child was not born until 1537 in her mid-teens.
 * The early history of the Toledo portrait and the copies is unknown. Portraits could move from one branch of the family to another for any number of reasons. Ammelida (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ammelida Thank you so much for directing me to Sir John Seymour's memorial in Great Bedwyn church. This was previously unknown to me. I should have visited Sir John's page more recently, because that was a treasure trove of information :)
 * In between the Hilliard miniature and the 29 lady mourners after the chief mourner at her funeral, I think we can be fairly sure that Queen Jane Seymour's birth year was 1508/9. Since Elizabeth Seymour was the daughter born after her, and there is nothing to suggest that they were twins and a great deal to suggest they weren't, her earliest possible birth year seems to have been 1509/1510. If she was born then, that would age her out of the age bracket for the lady in the Toledo Portrait. At the same time, I think the reasoning you have mentioned is sound. To play devil's advocate, I must point out that Anne Boleyn had a similar pattern with her pregnancies. She gave birth to Elizabeth when she was between 26-33, so not a teenager, and then no live births for the next three years. If she had been allowed to live it is entirely possible that she would have given birth to more live children, especially under less stress than she was under with Henry breathing down her neck for an heir. Also, and again I stress that this is just my own observation at present, the age of marriage and consummation in Tudor times went markedly up if the bride had both of her parents alive. Elizabeth Seymour had both of her parents alive.
 * I am not saying that the Toledo Portrait absolutely can't be Elizabeth Seymour, only that there is an equal if not even higher chance of it being Frances Murfyn.
 * A bit more about the history of the Cholmondeley/Overleigh copy now in the NPG here: http://chester.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Cowper ByTheDarkBlueSea (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @ByTheDarkBlueSea, Three children may have been born between Jane and Elizabeth: John, Anthony and Margery, who all died young.
 * It is doubtful that Thomas Cromwell, with his dynastic abitions, would have married his 17-year-old son to a woman of 27/28 in 1537.
 * Frances Murfyn was not yet 21 in the late 1530s when the Toledo portrait was painted.
 * It might be of interest to trace Thomas Cholmondeley (1726–1779)'s ancestry back to Thomas Cholmondeley (1627–1702), whose first wife, Jane Tollemache, was a descendant of Elizabeth Seymour and Gregory Cromwell. Ammelida (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * For the birth order of Sir John Seymour's children see his memorial in Great Bedwyn church. Elizabeth came after Jane of the daughters. Margery was his third daughter, Elizabeth was his second. We do not know the birth years of the John Seymour and Anthony Seymour who died young, they may therefore as easily have been younger than Elizabeth as they were older.
 * It is doubtful that Thomas Cromwell, with his dynastic abitions, would have married his 17-year-old son to a woman of 27/28 in 1537. Perhaps not, but he could have easily married him to a 23-24-year-old. Of proven fertility.
 * Frances Murfyn was 20-21 in the early 1540's when this fashion hails from. The woman's costume resembles none so much as those of Margaret Wyatt, Lady Lee, which is dated to the early 1540's, (Margaret Wyatt, https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/110001108?ft=*&pos=19&gallerynos=628&pg=1&rpp=60), and the lady in the painting which has been suggested to be Katherine Howard, which dates from ca. 1540–45 (Portrait of a Young Woman, ca. 1540–45, https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/436667).
 * The Cholmondeleys of Overleigh Hall had an entire collection of portraits connected to the Protector. (Sir Oliver Cromwell, uncle and godfather to the Protector, aet. 84, 1646, Lady Elizabeth Cromwell, first wife of Sir Oliver, and daughter of Sir Thomas Bromley, Sir Thomas Bromley, Lord Chancellor to Elizabeth I, Colonel Henry Cromwell, aet. 60, 1646, eldest son of Sir Oliver, Colonel John Cromwell, second son of Sir Oliver, William Cromwell, fourth son of Sir Oliver, Sir Thomas and Lady Hettley (whose son, William, married Sir Oliver’s granddaughter, Carina Cromwell). See: https://queenanneboleyn.com/2019/08/18/all-that-glitters-hans-holbeins-lady-of-the-cromwell-family-by-teri-fitzgerald/) The Protector, Oliver Cromwell, was a descendant of Sir Richard and Frances Murfyn, not of Elizabeth Seymour. ByTheDarkBlueSea (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Richard Williams (alias Cromwell) / Portrait
@ByTheDarkBlueSea,, c. 1600 by a follower of Hans Holbein may (or may not) depict Sir Richard Williams (alias Cromwell) at the age of 30 in 1539 (or early 1540). The portrait is probably a copy of a lost Holbein original.

The gentleman does bear a slight resemblance to a portrait of Sir Richard's descendant and namesake, Richard Cromwell (1626 – 1712) by John Hayls at the Cromwell Museum. see here

Could the original have been a pendant to Holbein's , c. 1535-1540?

Frances Murfyn was not yet 21 in 1539 (or early 1540).

Pendant portraits (painted at the same time):

and, painted in 1516.

and, painted in 1527.

and, painted c. 1543.

The 30-year-old gentleman is warmly dressed; expensively but plainly while the 21-year-old lady's sumptuous gown and glittering finery suggest someone of great wealth and exceptional status. Frances Murfyn was not yet 21 in 1539 (or 1540). Ammelida (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing me to the portrait of Sir Richard's descendant and namesake. I was not familiar with it. I, too, can see the resemblance. Frances could have been 20 in 1539 early 1540 if her mother was pregnant at the time of writing of the marriage contract on 15 October 1519. Otherwise the pendant may have been painted slightly later. A lot was going on both for the Cromwells and Holbein in the early 1540's.
 * I would suggest that Frances Murfyn had this great wealth and exceptional status.
 * At the same time it is a common misconception that this kind of finery and jewels indicate an absolutely exceptional status.
 * I once believed that, too, but J. Stephan Edwards was kind enough to disabuse me of this notion:
 * "And you might be surprised how many women had access to jewelry of that kind, especially if one is considering a timespan of several decades. Thousands of women, easily. We (research historians) can easily demonstrate this using inventories attached to wills. The wills of all wealthy persons, often together with their inventories, were probated through the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, and many thousands of them remain on file. You can access them yourself through the National Archives’ website, http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/wills-1384-1858/" ByTheDarkBlueSea (talk) 08:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)