lhoward0921

Hi:
Our May trip to Scotland was postponed to September for work reasons. This time tickets are booked (non-refundable and reservations are committed. I have my itinerary from May, and I think (hope) the clothing idea's I got for May will work for September as well...all thanks to this great forum. I know I will have more than I can do in Edinburgh, but I am hoping to squeeze in a couple of hours looking at portraits of the Stewart Kings and Queens that I have read about...pre Mary, Queen of Scots. Are these portraits in the National Portrait Gallery or elsewhere? We are spending 3 days in London at the end of our trip, and I am headed to their National Galleries, but I know pre-James VI the Scots Royals were not part of England. Any help about where I would find the best collection of Stewarts portraits?

Thanks!

dulciusexasperis

In the Great Gallery of Holyrood Palace.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-_...ng+gallery.jpg

Charles 2, commissioned 111 portraits by Jacob de Wet.

Just where he got the models for the pictures given that the originals were all long dead is a question I wonder about.

From Michelin Green Guide: "the Gallery walls are lined with fascinating (imaginary and real)portraits of every Scottish king from Fergus, in the 6C, to James Vll. Jacob de Wet completed them in two years."

So that's the answer as to where to find the 'best collection' but just what point there is in seeing them is another question.

flanneruk

There seem to be a few confusions here:

- the convention is to regard the Stewarts (1371 to the deposition of Mary 1 of Scotland) as a different dynasty from the Stuarts (James VI of Scotland to Anne)
- The National Portrait Gallery (in London) routinely contains portraits only of monarchs of England - so the first monarch of Scotland routinely shown is James VI/I
- The Scottish National Portrait Gallery (in Edinburgh) contains, routinely, only portraits from James III.
- The Grand Gallery in Holyrood is mostly made up portraits. Practically none before Mary appear to be derived from any kind of depiction of a real human being

Apart from busts on coins, before 1600-ish, portraiture was rare in Scotland. It was a bit less rare of monarchs, but only a couple before Mary got painted or drawn while alive (even in England, none got painted or drawn while alive before 1397). There simply aren't any portraits taken from life of most Scottish monarchs.

As far as I can tell, this isn't just a question of pictures disappearing. Romans produced statues from life of prominent Republican politicians and most Emperors from at least the first century BC: the British just didn't get round to similar flattery of their political bosses till centuries after the first Scottish or English kings

dulciusexasperis

There was no different dynasty flanneruk, only a spelling difference in the name. Mary Queen of Scots changed her name from Stewart to Stuart while living in France (easier for the French). Lord Darnley's father changed his name to Stuart before Lord Darnley was born and James VI/I (sixth of Scotland and first of England) as Mary and Darnley's son was of course James Stuart.

Perhaps the introduction of portraiture could be considered an indicator of a point in the history of any nation.

bilboburgler

There is a lovely courtyard in Goa with paintings of all the Portuguese ambassadors who got that far, of course roughly half died on voyage so many of the paintings are "life" like if a little unpleasant. Maybe....

lauren_s_kahn

If you are interested in Scottish history, you will absolutely love the Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh. I spent about 4 hours in the museum when I was there and easily could have spent 4 more, but the museum was closing and they threw me out. It would be the first place I would return to if I ever get back there.

You would also probably enjoy a visit to the royal yacht Britannia docked permanently in Leith just outside Edinburgh.