Dr Kat Reacts to "The Pregnancy Portrait of Elizabeth I" 

At the risk of sounding silly, this portrait could be a work of fiction/“fan fiction”. After all, Henry VIII commissioned a portrait of himself with preteen Edward and Jane Seymour - who died giving birth to E. Even if this portrait is supposed to be a pregnant Elizabeth doesn’t mean it’s based on fact (especially since it was painted near the end of her life)

As a sewist, the "bump" seems to me the pulled-over a sash to hold the wrap to the far side. I see a real distinction between how that fabric folds and what it covers. A bathrobe will do the same thing if it has a fat belt/sash. The fabric appears heavy, of a brocade or taffeta texture, and embroidered as it is, it will hold itself away from the body.

Dr. Kat just casually dropping she's seen this painting many times in real life.

I'm surprised to see it hasn't been mentioned that Persian and Ottoman beauty standards really went for a 'abdomen shaped like a ripe fig' and that was seen as fertile and beautiful, and the undergarments worn were meant to emphasise this.

This portrait is dated 1600, therefore Elizabeth was 67 years old at the time. I would have thought that was a pretty important fact to weigh up the likelihood of it being a portrait of the Queen, pregnant.

For me, the most compelling argument is that Elizabeth was very, very careful to surround herself with women of 'good character' so that she was never without witnesses at any time. I think her early experiences in regard to Thomas Seymour were terrifying and, even if she had been of a mind to do some sexual exploring, the fear of the consequences probably extinguished any thought she had of pursuing anything but the most public of flirtations. Additionally, so far as I know, the only lengthy period she was not seen in public on a regular basis was during her bout with smallpox; she undoubtedly did have smallpox and even then, she was not out of public for the 5 or so months it would have taken to conceal a pregnancy. And, obviously, she was definitely postmenopausal when that portrait was painted. If that was indeed a portrait of Elizabeth, then it was probably meant to be a flattering possession/gift; the possibility that it was intended to be one half of a diptych seems plausible.

Interesting topic. this might get long, I apologize. I can't imagine Elizabeth being able to hide a pregnancy at ANY point in her life. Even when she was a "nobody" neglected kid without clothes that fit, someone was ALWAYS watching, care -taking, cleaning, maintaining her body AND her wardrobe. And I would presume that 1. she wouldn't not be able to have a 100% loyal (to her) staff without a single "spy" embedded and 2. even those loyal TO her, would not support a VERY immoral pregnancy, regardless of the love and loyalty to Elizabeth. Would she really have been able to turn down Thomas Seymour twice, if he had made her pregnant? Would she not have done HER duty and married the man? Especially since she at that point were not expecting to be ANYWHERE near the throne, with being "only" 3rd in line. Would her brother, King Edward, not have "made" her marry if she was found pregnant? I don't think SHE would have had a say in it, not if she was pregnant. Could the King have accepted a PREGNANT unmarried older sister staying single? Would Thomas Seymour have kept quiet? I highly doubt it. He was pretty ambitious and tried REALLY hard to become as close to the Throne as possible, as he proposed (I believe) to BOTH Lady Mary and Lady Elizabeth before "settling" on their stepmother, Kathrine Parr. My second point is the woman in the portrait. Would there be any pictures of Elizabeth I, that was NOT identified as the sitter being HER? I get that there are many paintings of highborn/noble men and women where the sitters are now "unknown" but pictures of Elizabeth? The Queen? Seems unlikely. However, the fact that it was in the Royal family's possession speak to the lady not being a total "random" lady either, does it not? Maybe the reason it was moved was because it would FIT better with the rest of the Tudor period artwork? Maybe the Queen Victoria didn't particularly like it.... Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger painted a portrait of Elizabeth I in 1593 and there was NO doubt as to whom the sitter was. So why is this painting known as "unknown woman" with no date? Why a chain with two rings and not her pearls? (around her neck too, not just in her hands) Are there any other portraits of her with that? (the rings) I would presume that even in a "dress up fancy Ottoman style" costume she would be decked out in ROYAL shinies? The Tudor rose? Painting of people were not a "true representation" of how the person look, but how they wanted to be perceived. They were flattering and often stylized. A certain face shape, eye shape, etc. were fashionable. So it's not like you can take a painted portrait and say this is how that person looked in reality. However, Elizabeth I would have been at least 57-67 (painting is supposedly from 1590-1600) this woman does not look "that" old. Queen Elizabeth looks more her age in the 1593 painting so he knew what the Queen looked like. Painters of that time did NOT have their subjects sit for the entire duration. The known picture he painted of Elizabeth I ( The Ditchley Portrait) he spend more time with her outfit than her. If this painting is of a noble woman (or Elizabeth I) he probably would have spend more time with the garment hanging, and not the person. Since it was not common fashion of Europe, it looking very different (in regards to style) is not in itself the "proof" that the sitter MUST be pregnant. Maybe it looks quite "shapeless" because the painter isn't AS familiar with the clothing style either? Personally, I don't think the woman looks pregnant at all. She looks like she is wearing a "wrap style dress" (to use a modern term) she is draped in a LOT of fabric. Which again, was a way to show wealth but it makes you look "bulky". Like the Jan Van Eyck Anolfini Wedding painting. Lastly... Also.... If this is a painting of Elizabeth and this is painted in 1590-1600 she would have been FAR to old to BE pregnant. It's not logical at all. Interesting story, but in a "Bisley Boy" kind of way.

The most important question that should ever be asked is this. Why would the Virgin Queen commission a portrait of herself pregnant?

All these lines comparing pictures can be quite useful, however, I think it dangerous to use it as scientific data on portraits. Portraits are not photographs, they are very rarely accurate pictures for many reasons, such as obviously the skill of the artist, but also other factors such as the style of the painting, the canvas/materials used, the age of the portraits etc, which could have slightly changed dimensions in the portrait over the years. In addition, portraits, especially commissioned by rich, powerful ppl, would be more likely to be idealized versions rather than reality, an artist wanting to continue having a career as a portrait artist would naturally paint as flattering a portrait as possible. Hence, forensic analysis of portraits should always be taken with a grain of salt. For this particular portrait, if this really is Elizabeth as presumed, and if it really was painted between 1590 and 1600, when Elizabeth was between 54 and 64 years old, we can A. be pretty sure, it was physically impossible for her to be pregnant at the time, and B. already see, that it is painted as a younger woman than 64 and as such is not an accurate portrait. If, as others estimate, the portrait was instead painted in the 1570s, that would better fit a portrait of a woman in her 30s or early 40s. There are, however, still several problems with the proposition of a pregnant Elizabeth, at least to an amateur like me. 1. As mentioned in the video, the portrait does not conform to the style of depicting a pregnant woman, not for the time in general, nor for the artist in question. 2. There are numerous reasons for a slight swelling of the stomach area other than pregnancy, so comparing 2 portraits forensically and concluding a slight swelling on this 1 and further extrapolating, that pregnancy is the only possible explanation, is pretty far fetched to me. First of all, I return to my first line in this comment, portraits are very rarely accurate. Any person can also change due to various reasons as likely or more than pregnancy, such as illness or weight gain (Elizabeth was notorious for enjoying her sweets). 3. Some websites on the subject of this painting claims as fact, that the woman presumed to be Elizabeth is wearing maturnity clothes. However, as mentioned in other comments the clothes is in the persian/ottoman style, not maturnity clothes, and it would not be a stretch to think, Elizabeth (who loved costume parties) would like to be painted in costume. Surely, much more likely than her being painted in maturnity clothes. 4. As Dr. Kat says, Elizabeth was always very careful to never be alone, always surrounded by servants and ladies-in-waiting, and was never out of public sight long enough to hide a pregnancy. 5. Again as Dr. Kat says, Elizabeth was constantly watched by enemies, rivals, any1 who could see an advantage in finding a weakness in her. 6. Elizabeth chose not to marry, so as not lose her power. She was a very clever woman and a very successful regent. I dont believe for a moment, that she would ever risk that with something as scandalous as a pregnancy out of wedlock or even a whiff of behavior, that could lead to it. Im sure, there can be listed many more reasons, these are just, what came immidiately to mind. In short, I dont believe, Elizabeth was ever pregnant, and she most certainly would never have been foolish enough to have herself painting in a pregnant state.

I agree with the allegorical hypothesis as referring to her reign if it is Elizabeth Doesn’t Elizabeth herself refer to being married to England - or words to that effect. BTW I love that portrait with the cat !

Fascinating. I don't see pregnancy at all... but I do think that being painted wearing the gifts from the Sultana and being painted as Diana are both plausible and not mutually exclusive. I also think that if Elizabeth were wearing stays and a wheel farthingale under the robe it would create that silhouette. The robe was worn as "gifted" and not remade into an Elizabethan dress... which to me again makes the gift idea more plausible.

Brilliant presentation, as always. As you pointed out, there is no way Elizabeth could have hidden a pregnancy.

My first thought is that the body of the portrait is of a woman in an early pregnancy but the face was of a young Elizabeth. It was very common for a painters model to be used for the garments and pose the painter wanted to use and sketches provided for the face of royal portraits. Especially at this point in her reign Elizabeth would not have the time or stamina required to pose for a full body portrait. She also would not allow herself to be seen as anything less than young and vital.

I have a video request. Could you please do a video on Queen Anne Neville? Other than the king maker's daughter, I've never found a full bio of Anne, and i find her fascinating!

Great analysis. I agree with you and your arguments with an additional viewpoint coming from a background of sewing and painting. The last portrait you discussed I felt showed a pregnant female because of the way her hands rested on top of the baby bump and because of the fabric of the gown and how it would drape and be depicted in a painting. In this case, fabrics of the period with this amount of design and in these colors tended to be very heavyweight, not lending themselves well to fine detail and shirring, hence, a coat-like robe and wide lapels. The “body” of this fabric dictates the design of the garment and it is well rendered in the painting, exaggerating slightly the lady’s curves which are in the normal size range because of the thickness of the tapestry fabric used in the garment. Had the woman been pregnant, the hemline would have showed the figure to be greater volume and the hands and forearms would be likely to reveal the protrusion. Painting fabrics with lots of pattern is a major technical challenge to a painter and in the renaissance, realism was important. The portrait of Elizabeth in gold is a good contrast in treatment. That portrait has a dress fabric tha is a beautiful pattern using lots of metallic fibers, resulting in a finer, lighter fabric that can be gathered nicely at the waist as we see in the portrait. The artist in that portrait reverts to the earlier, flatter rendering to enable detail in the dress design and in the fabric....not a breakthrough renaissance painting technique which would have used shadow to increase realism. The portrait we are looking at is a similar flatter treatment to convey to the viewer the nature of the fabrics used. The robe is a Turkish pattern and fabric (thick, tapestry weight and with an edge fringe), a reference to the Middle East, not a pregnancy garment.

As a curator, I'm so excited to hear your take on this subject.

I watched Mr. Shakespeare's video once, and really don't feel like watching it again so I will have to go by memory. My reaction to the information presented in the video, particularly the words written on the portrait, is that the portrait is probably not meant to be of Queen Elizabeth, but may be a memorial portrait to a young woman, perhaps one who died in childbirth or pregnancy. As for the idea that it looks like the queen, remember all those portraits done during the reign of Charles II that all have that heavy-eyed look? Then and now, everyone wants to look like a celebrity! (BTW, is Shakespeare really his name?)

I saw this video a while back. It was utterly fascinating. There are so many details I would have missed.

I thought it might be the story of Diana, just as she was judging Actaeon. He had spied on her while bathing and she is now wearing her bathrobe, and slippers and her hair is wet, and she has that smile that says Actaeon is going to die. Thank you, this was fascinating.

Whoops, time to stop working, and tune in to Dr. Kat!

That’s just middle eastern fashion of the time, and doesn’t look like Elizabeth to me. Pregnant women didn’t wear loose maternity clothes, so these claims are ridiculous.

Doctor Kat: I am so happy to see this video about this painting because it’s on display at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in their Tudor exhibit. A woman I was standing next to told me there was speculation that Elizabeth was pregnant and that this was a painting of her as such. It’s by far the most attractive painting of her at least in this exhibit. She’s wearing a dress and gown which seems a little informal for a queen to be posing in for a portrait. The casual nature of the dress does invite speculation. It does seem very challenging to think she could’ve had a baby and that wouldn’t have gone down in history. Thanks again for the great talk.

I think this is a lost portrait of Lady Penelope Rich who was having children in the 1590's and was Elizabeth I cousin or second cousin, once removed. She looks a bit like Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex. Who was Lady Penelope's brother.

Thank you for this video! I was hoping you would do this video ever since I saw Shakespeare's video. Really enjoyed your video. Super informative and researched as always. I agree with you that if the intent was to pain a pregnant woman, the hand will be on the belly in one position or another. I also agree that were Elizabeth I pregnant, it wouldn't have remained a secret.

I’d be interested in hearing more about the poems written in this painting. Sure enjoy your videos.

When I was in art school we used a similar method with the grid lines to draw a portrait with a good likeness to the model. I am betting David Shakespeare got the idea from artists.

My first thought is that the clothes are very atypical for tudor England. Even when pregnant women would have worn stays, this looks lumpen and loose/unflattering (but not loose enough to have a full dress underneath) by comparison. I would suggest consulting a dress historian though as they can narrow things down.

David Shakespeare's videos are excellent. Also see Alexander Waugh's superb work on De Vere...who was the real 'Shakespeare'. De Vere had the background, education and travel.

I am now going to be referring to the era pre-corona virus as The Before-Times as well.

A male historian making vague statements without evidence about female historical figures, Dr Kat: 🙄🤦‍♀

She's literally just in a fantastical robe and hat. Modern people just love to see baby bumps everywhere when someone isn't totally flat.

I had two babies, and in neither pregnancy did the bump stick out asymmetrically over my right hip.

Although I agree Elizabeth was never pregnant, she had no time and was very busy. It would’ve certainly been noticed because she would often have dry baths, and would always be in close contact with a physician to check her health. It would’ve certainly been reported on. I could see it more as a loss. A loss of womanhood she may have felt when having to take up the role as Queen. She has shown time and time again she wants to love with her many favorites. And it would’ve have afforded her the chance to have her own family, her father was absent and her mother dead. The only family she could’ve had her own was one she made herself. The stag can be the mourning of this life style of little responsibility and familial love she lost so, so early on in her youth

Charles Beauclerk supports the idea of this portrait as a sign that Elizabeth was pregnant (not once but several times) in order to support his theory that his ancestor, Edward de Vere, wrote the works credited to William Shakespeare. It's in his book, Shakespeare's Lost Kingdom. I read Beauclerk's book in which he also suggests that his ancestor wrote the works of several other playwrights of the period. My sarcastic thought was did Edward de Vere ever eat or sleep or was he too busy writing plays under pseudonyms? The Ditchley portrait, also by Marcus Gheerhaerts the Younger on a commission from Sir Henry Lee, commemorated the Queen's visit to Lee's home. In the portrait, Elizabeth is shown standing on what Beauclerk calls a map and proposes that the positioning of her feet was meant to draw attention to Oxford because de Vere was the Earl of Oxford. Another analysis suggests she stands on a map because of advances made in cartography during her reign. The second analysis makes more sense. Perhaps, the "map" is England itself and Elizabeth is simply being shown as ruler of that scepter'd isle. Besides, who knows whether the placement of Elizabeth on the map was Gheeraerts' idea or Henry Lee's idea?

I think it’s just so amusing that anyone would even THINK that Elizabeth would have a portrait painted of her pregnant. 🤦‍♀️. That would kind of blow her whole “virgin queen” reputation, not to say just no WAY. Ever.

Love Dr Kat's videos very informative and interesting, But I have to agree with most people I'm not convinced that the portrait is Elizabeth 1st I'm not convinced that she is pregnant either. It sounds more like a case of The 'Da Vinci Code conspiracy. But as for Dr David Shakespear's mapping technique I'm not convinced. The maps (charts) used to assess faces in portraits. I've seen this before (I have been to art college myself) I have myself done life drawing over many years. I've seen charts used to assess The Mona Lisa (is she a man) I've seen the fuss made over other Leonardo Da Vinci paintings. What comes to mind back to the discovery of the Romanov skeletons and again using computer mapping to the skulls to work out which Romanov princess does this skull belong to? etc etc. I suspect that as evidence needs more supporting data Just don't reliable evidence (Artists) can be in the habit of depicting a pretty face upon all of their female sitters (even unintentionally) I sympathise I've done it myself. Art teachers sometimes can impose certain techniques upon their students as well and can be habit forming. I've notice this myself.

Thank you Dr. Kat...

Elizabeth I also suffered greatly from Bloating when stressed.

My mother is a Vermeer expert. I'm going to show her this and the David Shakespeare video. Also, could the 'pregnant' woman be Catherine Carey (Knollys), Elizabeth's cousin? I've heard they may have had similar looks, but could the portrait have been misnamed as Elizabeth? After all, Catherine did have about 14 children. It may have been her.

While I want you to talk about stuff you're passionate about, and share it with us, I also love that you're listening to your audience. It think it's really validating, in addition to probably being a good idea pragmatically.

I am here four years later, but intrigued nonetheless! Have not yet completed the video, so I will erase my comment if this has already been discussed, but has anyone considered this painting might have been a subtle jab taken against her sister, Mary, Queen of Scots? Mary had been convinced she was pregnant, and had the masses eagerly awaiting the birth of an heir/royal by Mary (she was not imprisoned or in such bad terms at this point in her life). Up to her anticipated due date, and beyond, she was able to convince people she was carrying a child. This, of course, could have only gone on for so long. Eventually people and Mary herself had to accept the fact it had been a mistaken. A phantom pregnancy? One reason I bring this up is because it's assumed Elizabeth would not have been able to hide a pregnancy from her subjects and her staff. Perhaps that was so, but if Mary was able to manage convincing thousands she was pregnant when she was not, I can imagine that the reverse could occur as well . Mary was ridiculed for what some believe was an episode which exposed her delusional, often religious beliefs. Being named Mary, I can certainly imagine she might have considered herself to be the Virgin Mary reincarnated. Perhaps her name really got to her head, and one day, ordinary premenstrual cramps and a much lighter menstrual cycle than the norm was enough to set her down a road she couldn't come back from: that she was indeed pregnant, and that the birth was an immaculate conception. Any malaise and other symptoms throughout the nine plus months would be attributed to her anticipated birth. I think I remember hearing speculation of Mary having some sort of illness which caused bloating or some sort of enlargement in her torso, which again, would be attributed to pregnancy symptoms. I can only imagine the massive amounts of rumors that would birth (hehe) out of being able to successfully convince people of a full term pregnancy but winding up not even miscarrying at the end of the day. In other words, this would be a topic that would have gotten people talking for years. Perhaps perceived as the wannabe queen who tried to pull of a pregnancy hoax, I can definitely see artists using their artwork to inject their, or society's thoughts and feelings toward certain topics, such as the phantom pregnancy. Is she pregnant? Is she not? I would bet anything Mary would have tasked seamstresses (or whoever made dresses) with creating a very royal maternity line to keep her looking fabulous throughout her pregnancy. At that I can imagine must have both confused and later outraged people even more once they learned she was never pregnant. So, I do understand it's Elizabeth in the painting instead of Mary, but perhaps it communicates a more lighthearted, satirical message by having Elizabeth dressed in possible maternity wear for a non-pregnancy instead of the phantom pregnant royal, herself (Mary).

Well I really enjoyed Mr Shakespeare's video and thought it had a lot of merit. You make a real good point with regard to her menstrual cycles. Someone would know and say something if she had even missed one.

Very enjoyable analysis of the portrait and historical bits of the era, Kings and men of Royal Families historically produced bastard children for centuries. Why could not Elizabeth also deliver a child out of wedlock without risking her throne? But, in that case, I very much doubt she would allow a portrait depicting her pregnant. If this is a portrait of Elizabeth, I believe the most plausible explanation is that both the dress and the headdress are part of a costume.

First and foremost... if the portrait was indeed painted around 1600, it is most certainly NOT Elizabeth I. By that time, the Queen aged in her late 60’s would be well past the child bearing age.

I was one of the people asking because it’s soooo interesting

that does appear to be a pregnant woman. the left hand resting on the wide waist might indicate a swollen or very thick middle and the way the clothing drapes across her front. she seems happy in her state. glowing! is it Elizabeth l? dunno, but I love the fabric and the shoes are fabulous!

I agree with you, Dr. Kat, that privacy was not a luxury Elizabeth would have enjoyed and a pregnancy would have been obvious to her ladies.

DJH If the portrait is of a woman represented as Diana (the Huntress), and everything in the portrait has meaning, then a question about something missing arises. Diana was usually represented with either a quiver of arrows or holding a bow. Why are neither there? Or is she consoling the stag because she has wounded it and has abandoned her weapons?

If any of my confinement’s are anything to go by .... the sitters dainty ankles would be an obvious non pregnancy sign, as mine were on par with jam jars in size.

I personally think this portrait resembles Elizabeth knollys more than Elizabeth herself or tht of her daughter lady Rich which would also align the dates a little more to her children.

The idea that Elizabeth I, who spent so much time carefully crafting her public image as "The Virgin Queen" and "Glorianna" would allow a portrait of herself as being pregnant is ridiculous on it's face. She died an old woman in 1603. Any portrait of her around that time would either show her as the wise elder, or would be complete fantasy showing her as a young woman. The sitter's clothing is consistent with 16th century bedclothes. Robe (dressing gown for some), bedroom slippers and night cap. She's dressed for bed.

or is it Mary Rogers, Lady Harrington, who married Sir John IV Harrington, thought to be HM'S biological child, given to Sir John Harrington III and Isabella Marham to raise as their own, while she, Elizabeth, could dote on him as her "favourite godchild" out of 120?

That gown reminds me of a padded Turkish style dressing gown of the likes like the male banyan. The collar seems padded hence the rings not dangling down straight.

I’ve been hoping you’d do a video on this. Thank you!

I think there are two possibilities 1. This IS a pregnancy portrait. SO unlikely. SO impossible. Perhaps Elizabeth managed to have a child and this was the only way to commemorate the event. Hidden in plain sight. OR 2. This is portrait of Elizabeth as a type of Demeter, plentiful, fecund, perhaps a way of Elizabeth to see herself as a pregnant woman. Like other women. But mother of England. I think Dr Kat is very insightful. I love her explanation. You always have to remember how conscious Lizzie was of her public image ( read= vain) , no one else would be able to have two portraits of herself, one as Virgin, one Pregnant and not see the problem. My first thoughts on seeing the portrait? “ That’s an odd dress or costume for an Elizabethan woman, what’s with the headdress? Oh, she’s pregnant...”

Roxalana died before her husband, Sultan Suleman, and was never Sultan Valideh because her son became Sultan after her death.

If these are meant to be pregnant , I argue it speaks symbolically of the Queen “pregnant” with the future of her nation. Just one person’s view. It could also just be the way the garment fit.

That Ulta Sultana sounds likely

"No literary background" ..its those kind of comments that.DESTROY your cred...TOTALLY..

To me the face on the painting in question does not match the face in the regal one with crown scepter and globe. She had a prominent and broad forehead, which we see in the regal portrait and not so much in the one in question. Therefore I think the portrait to which Victoria objected was not of Elizabeth the Queen.

Honestly, it looks like a a woman in a very fancy bathrobe to me! (I understand that I am WAY over simplifying the whole topic. That being said, I saw a video on the "pregnant Elizabeth" portrait some time ago. and those were my thoughts at the time.

I'm not sure if the portrait is of Elizabeth 1, but I do feel the subject was not pregnant.

Can you please do a video on the Sultanate of women and Roxalana.

Elizabeth 1st had ladies in waiting they would have noticed a pregnancy at least they would have noticed the queen's courses had stopped and morning sickness also that she was putting in wIt they could add 2+2.

Given the broad expanse of the waistline and the breadth of the area above the waistline, I believe that there is no doubt that the subject of the painting is pregnant.

Am I right in thinking that David Shakespeare (whose surname is Shakespeare) is an advocate of the theory that Edward de Vere was the 'real' Shakespeare and possibly the father of some secret offspring of QE1? Crikey. Its a funny old world.

I also doubt the portrait indicating pregnancy. If she ever WAS pregnant, she certainly wouldn't have allowed anyone to see that she was for hours in a portrait sitting. I'm a long time re-enactor and that just looks like a fancily tied sash or a buried pouch to me. Hell, it could be a hip bustle, they were popular. The rainbow portrait shows a really nice example of a hip bustle that could make that happen.

1600?! Elizabeth died in 1601, also she’s already in her menopausing days. That means she’s not pregnant

What an interesting subject. To me, as a mother of five, the woman depicted does not look pregnant at all. More likely, she is posing as one would modelling a new outfit, showing off the design, because it is unusual, and the fabric is very beautiful. I read once where the men who were Elizabeth's lovers were unable to complete the act, because she had a "membrane upon her." Although it seems they had a lot of fun trying. Maybe she also wasn't able to menstruate, are there any records? There is a medical condition where the hymen is so thick, it can't be penetrated except surgically. Maybe this aspect could be investigated. If Queen Victoria owned the painting or it was in a Royal Collection, wouldn't that be enough to suspect the subject is a person of royal blood?

All dresses were made that way. Most women couldn't afford a lot of clothes. Even royalty had some of their dresses made with motherhood in mind even if they could afford clothes for flat stomachs & baby budge.

Several things David Shakespeare said remind me of the method of argument used by the De Vere Society, which claims that De Vere wrote Shakespeare. David Shakespeare refers to some overpainting, that 'might' have been done to cover up something more significant, perhaps roses, for instance. Then quite close to the end of his presentation, he refers to the 'roses' that were removed by overpainting. His argument is personal, subjective, and does not follow good rules of evidence. I won't say that it was a waste of time to watch the video because it was amusing, in the same way as much of the writing on the 'Authorship Question' is amusing.

I may sound dumb but I always thought Elizabeth the 1st didn't have children isn't she called the virgin queen?

Elizabeth's robe looks very Turkish/Ottoman and those robe were lightly padded. I think it's a case of "does my tum look big in this"?

You never fail to entertain, educate and amaze me. Job well done. Cheers, Dick From Vancouver.

I would also point out that Elizabeth was born In 1533 so in 1600 she would be 67. Bit old for pregnancy

I don't see any pregnancy, and I certainly don't think if she were pregnant she would let herself be painted as such. I definitely see this, if this is a portrait of Elizabeth, as allegorical. I wonder if she is taking advantage of the new knowledge of middle Eastern styles gained through contact with the Ottoman Empire to portray either a biblical figure or Semiramis, a great Assyrian queen known for beauty and wisdom. Later, Catherine the Great and Christina of Sweden would both be called 'Semiramis of the North.'

One Is this portrait Elizabeth. The only time I know in history that she could have had a child. Was when she was a teenager. A very young woman. Otherwise she never had the chance.

I kinda think it looks more like Lettice or Arbella than Good Queen Bess.......just me?

Let's pretend this is Elizabeth. She was known to suffer from dropsy. Swelling up all over her body. It's documented that she had this more then once. Especially in her youth.

Could have been a scandalous thing to show Elizabeth I pregnant, but the artist was commissioned to do so and maybe he decided to hedge his bets by completing the portrait but thinly disguising the pregnancy.

In my opinion, Elizabeth I would never have allowed herself to be painted in an obviously pregnant state. Even if she could have concealed a pregnancy from her maids she was too shrewd to have been that obvious.

As a costume historian, I've always looked on this portrait for its representation of the style of embroidery that would become so popular in the early 1600s, and never thought of it as Turkish or Persian at all. Indeed, in the mid- to late 16th century, Englishwomen and -men were wearing "nightgowns" ("loosegowns") that were of this style and shape. But I find the idea of this being a masque costume very intriguing. As we know, masque costumes weren't exact replicas of clothing from another time or place but rather English interpretations of such. Being that my area of study is the countries who communicated with England in the late 16th century, I can attest that the clothing worn in this portrait is clearly a English interpretation (thus the Jacobean embroidery) of Turkish dress. To my eye, it is very clearly not Persian as Persian women wore a completely different style of headdress at the time, nothing like the conical tarpus of the Turks. But later commentators often confuse Turkish and Persian styles.

I really don't see a pregnancy, the garment is red herring. It's been well documented by fashion historians that pregnant woman in the 16th century wore their regular clothes and just let out the stays, as shown in the two portraits early in the video. I think this is just 16th century woman wearing an unusual garment. This is the same mistake people make when they assume the woman in the Arnolfini Portrait is pregnant. In that example she isn't - her gown is just so voluminous it looks like she is...the same thing is happening here.

I've just about "had it up to here" with that Thomas Seymour . What a cad!

It must be so gratifying to know that this venue of RU-vid has allowed you the opportunity to educate so many. I can't tell you how fascinating I find your videos and I appreciate all the time and effort you put into them.

As a hyper realistic portrait artist, I would like to point out the differences in our features that mark us as individuals are literal millimeters. Without those millimeters, we wont look like someone wildly different ie, a different gender or much younger or older, but we could be anyone similar. I would also like to point out that most of the portraits we have to work with from the time period are very stylistic, and moreover very stylistically similar. I think it is an interesting take on facial recognition in portraiture, however, I believe that in order for it to be accurate, it would have to be much more detailed, and would have to some how account for the style of the time. To sum it up, im not convinced its Elizabeth, nor am I convinced the sitter is indeed pregnant.

Thanks Dr Kat:) I don’t believe that Elizabeth was ever pregnant and I agree with your reasoning. She’d simply never have been able to hide it! I’m catching up on your videos - recently found you thank goodness. You did a piece on the Spanish Armada and I’ve heard elsewhere that Elizabeth treated her returning sailors appallingly. Is it possible please for you to do a video about this - either confirming or denying it? I’d really love to know and hopefully others would enjoy it too.

Wow, women can't escape scrutiny of their appearance even hundreds of years after their death. Fascinating video & a beautiful painting.

This whole theory reminds me of those celebrity magazines where every time there's a picture of a starlet in a loose-fitting top, there's all this 'OMG IS SHE PREGNANT' speculation, which mostly just comes down to 'said celebrity woman does not look like a stick insect therefore she is a beached whale'. This just seems like well-reasoned historical version of that.

I agree with the statement that in these types of portraits, every detail is there for a reason and represents something. The scholars who study them have compelling proof. These portraits were painstakingly done, it is unlikely anything was "accidental". What this portrait represents to me, as a complete novice with no education regarding such matters, is not a pregnant woman. It seems to me more of a painting style of what was considered feminine and attractive at the time. It appears to be Elizabeth I in some ways, but I am not convinced it is actually her. The hair color does not match any of the other portraits we have seen of Elizabeth, and it seems a rather casual setting for a Queen. At least to my eyes. As far as Elizabeth being able to hide a pregnancy and birth, I agree with Dr. Kat, it would have been next to impossible for the Queen of England to pull that off. Too many eyes and ears. It would have been nothing short of a miracle for not one solitary whisper from the dozens of castle attendants to let it slip the "Virgin Queen" was pregnant.

I don't understand how he can claim that the gown in the "pregnant Elizabeth" (for lack of a better title) portrait hangs differently than the gown in the Rainbow Portrait because the subject is pregnant. How about the fact that these are two entirely different garments that are constructed very, very differently? The former seems to be an unstructured, robe-like garment, while the latter is a gown with a tight, form-fitting bodice, which would almost certainly have been worn over stays, in order to create a smooth, flat silhouette. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

Interesting! I agree with Dr. Kat, that this is NOT a pregnant woman.1) The folds of the robe/coat move in the wrong direction to cover a baby belly, especially the fold from waist to upper thigh. 2) Through most of history, a full-bellied silhouette was preferred (Arnolfini Wedding portrait, anyone?). 3) If it is Elizabeth I, there is no way to my mind that she would either have allowed herself to become pregnant, nor would she have flaunted it if she had become so. Here are some ideas. A) The garment is clearly an exotic, Eastern-inspired robe, and does resemble Ottoman dress.B) The idea that the stance of women in the fashion plates indicates pregnancy can be refuted by the fact that heavy, ornate garments distort one's stance. (Amber Butchart, in her historic costumes series, put on a replica Arnolfini wedding gown, and immediately leaned back as if pregnant, because the gown weighed so much.) C) The faces of the ladies in the Persian Dress portrait and the Rainbow/Astraea portrait are indeed very much alike, especially around the eye orbits and chin, but why would Marcus Gheeraerts not claim the former portrait as Elizabeth? D) If the Persian Dress and Rainbow Portraits were intended to be a pair, would not the former portrait have been far more loaded with allegorical symbols? For instance, the robe would have been covered with real flowers, full of meaning, rather than fashionable stylized blooms.

Great video, as usual! I've watched David's video and, while interesting, I didn't find it convincing. I'm certainly not an expert but my career was in the legal field. My biggest issue was the use of what is basically face recognition software being applied to paintings. Artists of the time were well aware of facial proportions that were most pleasing to the eye. I have no doubt that many portraits would have the same or similar facial proportions as the "pregnancy portrait." It doesn't prove the portrait is Elizabeth. If Elizabeth were pregnant, it wouldn't have been difficult for her to marry and legitimize the child, thereby providing a Tudor heir. I also question whether Elizabeth would commission a portrait depicting herself as a pagan goddess when she spent her life trying to eliminate paganism and idolatry throughout her realm. I just don't see a Diana-like, pregnant Elizabeth when I look at the painting. That's just my two cents as a non-expert😊

After being traumatized in her childhood by a grown man and having observed what women lost to husbands, Elizabeth I was far too clever to allow any male come near her female parts.

The lady in the painting just looks a bit stout to me. But that could just be the way it hangs. As for E, i truely doubt she was ever pregnant. How could she keep a secret like that? She was seen by far too many people on a daily basis for her to keep a lock on such a scandel. The few who suggested it back then tended to be hostile foriegners writing to their own kings

Since Elizabeth I was very smart and declared herself to be a “virgin,” she would never have allowed a portrait of herself as pregnant to exist. I think that she would have burned anything of that narrative. She was very good at creating her own story.

Gossip and tabloid culture has always been with us hasnt it? I believe the painting is of someone other than Elizabeth because I cant imagine a proven portrait of her could be forgotten or lost to the extent it would be termed an unknown woman. But the speculation reminds me of the scandalous stories of today's celebrities and probably led to the subject of the portrait losing her identity over the years to gossip

Although it could be an expression of Elizabeth being a mother of her people, I wonder if this could be a portrait of Lettice Knollys. Just a thought. BTW, I’m a new subscriber and am blown away by the quality of your videos!

Lady isn't pregnant. David Shakespeare is a medical doctor, think he should be able to recognize a pregnant woman! He only gives special pleading.

Thankyou so very much finding out she had a friendly correspondents with the sultans mother is new to me and it definitely lends to the fact that this could be a portrait of Elizabeth in one of the gifts she received. What I did find fascinating about the original video was the great detail he went into about the symbolism in nearly every part of the painting. I know you say your. It an expert in this, but if it is say a portrait of say a dress the queen received or maybe of a mask that was held then I’d live to know what other explanations for all the other symbols could be.