HART 1204

Edward Town
10 November 2008

Question 3: Differences in the Patronage of Henry VII and

Henry VIII

The Royal Tapestries of Henry VII and VIII

Artistic patronage in the era of Henry VII and Henry VIII had
many purposes. A king’s household must look important compared
to his subjects’ households, but motivation also often lied in a desire
to impress foreign ambassadors and rivals (Wilson 142). Through
the arts, a king could influence society with religious messages and
undertones. Both Henry VII and Henry VIII were famous for their art
patronage, each with his own tastes and degree of boldness. In
addition, each was innovative when it came to patronage – Henry VII
in his commissioning of an Italian artist for a tomb, and his son in his
grandeur and breadth of taste. Whether through churches, portraits,
palaces, or other art forms, both of them sent messages of the
importance of the arts to society. However, their interest in tapestry
is one fine example of their patronage differences.
As Joseph Campbell says in his extensive book on the royal
tapestries, Henry VII used tapestry as an “innovative approach” to
celebrate the Tudor dynasty (Campbell 82). Henry VIII’s motivations
were more to assert a “greater role in the Continental arena”
(Campbell 117). Simon Thurley argues that both Henrys enjoyed
heraldry in their artwork, but that Henry VIII took everything to a
higher level (Thurley 98, 222). Tapestries took a new role in Henry
VIII’s court, present at any important event. Because Henry VIII
ascended to a throne secured by his father, inheriting a fortune of
art and wealth, his reign marked “a turning-point in the history of art
in Britain” (Lloyd 57). Of course, not all of the works and artists that
each Henry patronized prove this to be true. However, there are a
few strong examples that illustrate these differences quite well.
To better understand the significance of these examples in
their courts, it is necessary to look at the role of tapestries in
general in Tudor England. In a typical house, walls would be covered
with painted plaster or timber, or adorned with textiles, the most
common treatment in the King’s chambers (Thurley 220). A
gentleman’s house would have a good supply of these textiles in the
bedrooms, parlor, and kitchen. As described in a gentleman’s
inventory of 1493, only hangings in the “great chamber” would be
decorated with figures and religious subjects. Elsewhere, the
hangings were assumed to be much plainer, and perhaps just for
decreasing draughts. (Kennedy 20).
The general term “textile” includes both cloths of gold and
tapestries. The former refers to silks, velvets, or damasks, mostly
imported from Italy, and featuring fruits and leaves. The richest,
most prestigious, and most valuable cloths of gold were generally
restricted to the King’s and Queen’s bedchambers. However, “great
occasions of state” called for the cloths to be hung on the outer
rooms. (Thurley 220) Tapestries, the other form of wall hangings,
were a more important decorative element in the Tudor royal house.
There was a “strict hierarchy of both occasion and hang” when it
came to tapestries; as with the cloths of gold, the innermost rooms
in the house had the finest tapestries. The best hangings were
brought out for important occasions, but otherwise, the outer rooms
and guest rooms were hung with lower-quality wool hangings. The
http://www.hrp.org.uk/Hireavenue/venuesandsuppliers/HamptonCourtPalace/venues/thegreat
watchingchamber.aspx
The Great Watching Chamber at Hampton Court Palace, United Kingdom
tapestries were generally hung below the “cleretory windows,” as in
the great watching chamber at Hampton Court, pictured below.
(Thurley 222) The tapestries were hung by either nailing the
fabric to a long strip of wood,
or batten, fastened to the
wall, or by hooks and eyes
which were less damaging and
more frequently adopted.
When the tapestries were not
being displayed, they would
be stored in large cupboards, or presses, in the wardrobes of the
house. (Thurley 224) Clearly, the use of tapestry as an internal
decorative art was prevalent in the Tudor house, and the quality of
these special pieces of fabric was as important as any other medium
of art.
Unfortunately, little evidence from the 1420s to the 1530s
survives regarding the tapestries at the royal palace, therefore
much of the story of Henry VII’s patronage must be taken from
letters, bills, and documents other than a precise inventory.
However, a clear pattern of his patronage does emerge, especially
from the palaces at Richmond and Greenwich, and thus we can
learn much of the “sort of buildings Henry VII wished to live in”
(Thurley 27). Some of Henry’s first commissions were for tapestries,
beginning with the famed Trojan War Series by the Grenier family
(Campbell 68). The themes of most of Henry’s tapestries were
generally “armorial and heraldic,” and this series is the first
example of such themes. He not only applied his coat of arms to the
tapestries, but to “architectural moldings, painted decorations, and
stained glass” as well. (Campbell 79) He also developed a taste for
the classical subject matter, which was prevalent in French courts,
as this series exemplifies. (Campbell 68)
The Trojan War series was immensely complex, and had a
design grander than any other tapestry production in the Low
Countries during this time. It was created by one of the “most
expensive and prestigious kinds of tapestry manufacture, the woven
‘one-off’” (Wilson 144). Henryhttp://danielmitsui.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/tap-troy.jpg
Trojanpurchased a set
th
War tapestry, 15 century, Victoria inMuseum
and Albert 1488 (perhaps
after first seeing the
series at the French
court during his exile)
(Campbell 69). The
military scenes were
violent, but familiar to
Henry and his nobles
from their time served in the War of the Roses, and appealed to him
for that reason. Henry found classical heroes and their “loyalty,
bravery, and sacrifice” very relevant to his own rule. (Campbell 73)
For Henry VII, his patronage was very important as an “ultimate
measure of quality” in comparison with other European rulers
(Wilson). Thus, it was important to him to purchase such prestigious
works of art as this series.
The set of tapestries measured 642 ½ square yards in total,
and although it does not exist in its full form today, its presence in
Henry VII’s household can be traced in royal inventories for two
centuries after the purchase. (Campbell 69) The origin of the series
is not certain, but it was likely woven as either a venture by Pasquier
Grenier or a commission from the member of the French court.
There were an estimated nine weavers of the series, who wove the
tapestries based on a cartoon produced throughout the 1470s and
1480s. Because the tapestries were so large, woven so quickly, and
fabricated so consistently in regards to material and patterns, it is
likely that they were produced near the Grenier family’s home in
Tournai. (Campbell 72) Following this order, Henry continued to
make tapestry purchases from the Grenier family. (Campbell 69)
Further purchases of Henry VII were similarly expensive and
magnificent, often celebrating the Tudor dynasty and commissioned
for special events. Prince Arthur and Katherine of Aragon’s
impending marriage called for some of Henry’s finest tapestry
purchases. Although Campbell asserts that Henry’s patronage is not
extremely different from his contemporaries and predecessors, he
also acknowledges that Henry’s commissions incorporated “a more
overt celebration of the Tudor accession” (Campbell 81). One large
tapestry depicts Henry VI, his wife, his children, and courtiers.
Although Henry VII did not commission this one in particular,
dynastic tapestries like this provided him with another way to
celebrate the Tudor dynasty (Campbell 82).
The armorial and heraldic imagery combined with extremely
high-quality tapestry gave off the illusion of wealth, power, and
status, something that Henry VII understood as very important to
his court’s appearance. His abiding principle was magnificence,
which he demonstrated through hierarchy and harmony of textiles
and furniture. (Thurley 207) One of his main goals throughout was
to bring the English household in line with the French one, and
tapestry purchases helped him do this (Thurley 85). His son, on the
other hand, had a much earlier exposure to arts patronage, and
ended up decorating his court with even more extravagant and
magnificent artwork and tapestries, accelerating the process of
surpassing the French that his father began. These themes and
motivations are illustrated in a few examples below.
Henry VIII was surrounded by the arts, including many
tapestries, from birth, and inherited several hundred pieces of his
father’s and grandfather’s collections. He was the most active
tapestry patron of his time, seeing them as a “means of
iconographic suggestion and self-aggrandizement” on a grand scale.
(Campbell 103) He shared a passion for the finest tapestries with
other kings, and his own collection over the next 40 years would
trump his inheritance (Thurley 222). Many tapestries were
purchased on Henry’s behalf, but in his later years he began to
make selections himself. Much of the motivation for his further
personal involvement lay in his efforts to claim a greater role in the
European dynamic. (Campbell 117) Cardinal Wolsey also contributed
to Henry’s vast collection, “setting new standards of grandeur and
magnificence at the English court” (Campbell 143). Two works of
note are the David and John tapestries, both depicting Biblical
heroes from the Old Testament, whom Henry often identified with
(Campbell 118, 144).
In Henry VIII’s court, tapestry was an art form in its own right,
and a “central component of the court’s splendor.” Tapestries would
be purchased and hung for all special events that took place at the
court, and certain events may have even inspired designs of future
 tapestries (Campbell 103-105). The inspiration for tapestry’s role in
his court life lies in its presence in his marriage and double
coronation. His wedding to Katherine of Aragon was decorated with
many precious tapestries, and two weeks later, similar decorations
adorned the procession after their double coronation. (Campbell
104)
Another event adorned with tapestries was the Field of Cloth
of Gold. The two-week meeting took place near the French village of
Guines in 1520,
between Henry VIII and
Francis I of France. The
event was so-called
because of the
dominant cloth of gold
http://www.marileecody.com/henry8images.html
The Field of Cloth of Gold by an unidentified artist, c. 1545, The Royal Collection in all costume and tent
decorations. (Russell 1) Henry hoped to establish himself as an
arbiter in the European balance of power, so the courts undertook
the “greatest displays of magnificence as they were capable.” There
was even a temporary castle built, in which cloths of gold were
hung. It is controversial as to which sets were hung, but two
possibilities are The Redemption of Man set and the David set. The
former would have been selected for its richness, as well as the
“moral and religious framework” it provided; the latter may have
been a personal choice of Henry’s, as he identified with David.
(Campbell 143-9)
Other various tapestries were hung in the suites, arranged in a
hierarchy of textiles to emphasize the hierarchy of the chambers.
The King’s tapestries were gold and silver, interlaced with white and
green silk, his colors; the Queen’s tapestries were made of silk and
gold. Cardinal Wolsey’s apartments at Guines were perhaps even
richer than his master’s. Tapestries were hung in all eight rooms
leading up to his “audience chamber,” and they were changed once
a week. (Russell 43-44) The tapestries also formed staging for
outdoor events and meetings, such as a meeting between Henry
and Francis, or Wolsey’s mass. Some of the tapestries would have
been part of Henry’s and others’ collections already, but many were
ordered specifically for the event. (Campbell 148) There was a
classical influence present as well, as the tapestries were mounted
by a frieze in which mythological figures held Henry VIII’s armorial
bearings (Thurley 98). As a whole, the presence of the tapestries in
the Field of Cloth of Gold raised the bar for European court splendor.
It would play a key role in fueling a growing interest in tapestry
patronage by Henry, Francis I, and Charles V for the next 20 years.
(Campbell 148-9)
Henry’s style would change throughout the remainder of his
reign, as the design of tapestry began to reflect a change from “late
Gothic to modish antique.” His inheritance contained traditional
designs, but his later purchases of Acts of the Apostles and Triumph
of the Gods reflected a “complete acceptance of Italian Mannerist
design.” As he had hoped, by the 1540s, the tapestries combined
with other interior decorative items to make his houses as
sophisticated as any others on the Continent. (Thurley 224) He
carried out his father’s initial goals, taking interior decoration to a
new level of magnificence.
Thus, Henry’s patronage during his reign held an
unprecedented level of magnificence. He took many of his father’s
interests and themes even further, displaying a respect for art and
artists, as well as raising the level of Royal England on the world’s
arena. The presence of tapestry in the courts of Henry VII and VIII
display each King’s emphasis on patronage and artistic themes.

Word Count: 2,112

 Bibliography

Campbell, Thomas P. Henry VIII and the Art of Majesty: Tapestries at

the Tudor Court. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007.

Kennedy, P.A. “A Gentleman’s Home in the Reign of Henry VII.”

Northamptonshire Past and Present. 1954-1959: 17-28.

Lloyd, Christopher and Thomas Thurley. Henry VIII: Images of a

Tudor King. Oxford: Phaidon Press Limited, 1990.

Russell, Joycelyne G. The Field of Cloth of Gold: Men and manners in

1520. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969.

Thurley, Simon. The Royal Palaces of Tudor England: Architecture

and Court Life 1460-1547. New Haven: Yale University Press,
1993

Wilson, Christopher. “Royal Patronage of the Visual Arts,” in Gothic:

Art for England 1400-1547. Eds Richard Marks and Paul
Williamson. London: V & A Publications, 2003. 142-186.