Sometimes, no all the time, I think that I’m devoting too much time to social media, but occasionally you find yourself in the middle of some very interesting exchanges. The other day a really funny thread about the sheer dreadfulness of English delftware coronation plates from the late Stuart era unravelled on Twitter, and I couldn’t help but jump in, as I had just seen this William & Mary plate in a Sotheby’s auction and I needed some context and “conversation”!
Oh no, poor William, and even poorer Mary, with so much exposed. Neither looks very happy–or dignified. These crude plates started to appear with the Restoration, when people apparently sought them as symbols of a revived and “colorful” monarchy after years of dour Cromwellian rule. Many of the images of King Charles II in his coronation robes appear naive but charming, but by the time his niece and nephew were crowned, it looks like aesthetic standards have deteriorated quite a bit—or perhaps the potteries could not keep up with demand. When we look at these items now, they look comical, rather than reverential. The curatorial contributors to our Twitter exchange labeled these plates “Really Rubbish 17th-century Royal Memorabilia” so I am following suit, but I can’t help but also notice a distinct differentiation of display by gender in these plates: after Queen Mary’s untimely death (from smallpox, at the age of 32 in 1694), King William is depicted in a more stately fashion alone, and after he is succeeded by (poor) Queen Anne, we once again see the return of extensive decolletage. Why such excessive immodesty?
William and Mary Coronation plates, c. 1690-94 from (clockwise): Samuel Herrup Antiques; Sotheby’s; and the collections of the Victoria and Albert Museum; Queen Mary does come off a bit better (or at least more covered up) in SOME of the coronation plates in which she and William are standing, but it varies, as these two examples from the British Museum and Winterthur illustrate (and occasionally he is handing her the orb, which is good). It’s hard to make Queen Anne look good, but I don’t understand why she has to display such extravagant cleavage in these delftware plates from the Victoria and Albert collections and the Ashmolean Museum of Oxford University.
February 20th, 2019 at 8:19 am
Wow. Those are unfortunate
February 20th, 2019 at 9:27 am
Those are truly hideous, but my personal favorite is the cross-eyed William and Mary plate! It seems oddly appropriate.
February 20th, 2019 at 8:31 pm
Oh my! These are quite grotesque indeed. Did the queen really expose her nipples?
February 20th, 2019 at 8:41 pm
I do not think so! I really can’t explain them…..the Charles II ones really are quite charming, but then we get these!
February 21st, 2019 at 7:58 am
Hi Donna,
Wow, those William & Mary coronation plates are really hideous, almost a joke. But we know that the Royal Family has come a long way since then when it comes to merchandising.
A few times in recent years I have attended evening talks at the Queen’s Gallery attached to Buckingham Palace – a delightful “small” museum with changing exhibits from the Royal Collection. They have a great gift shop. Time is allowed before the doors open for the talk to “browse the collection.” I noticed that the year after darling Prince George was born, his memorabilia was “half off.”
https://www.royalcollectionshop.co.uk/?_ga=2.210518037.1088963566.1550753147-1416855260.1549145675
February 22nd, 2019 at 10:20 am
That is so funny. Yes, I love the Queen’s Gallery as well. I think looking at these odd pieces as representing the “dawn” of royal memorabilia is probably correct.
February 23rd, 2019 at 3:41 pm
Early American Presidential campaign posters also often use “portraits” of poor quality, typically because the “artist” responsible for rendering them had never seen the candidate(s) in question.