(Paris 1656–1746)
Portrait of Prince James Francis Edward Stuart, Prince of Wales, wearing the Order of the Garter, with a courtier, 1692,
indistinctly signed centre left: N. de ... argilliere,
oil on canvas, 180 x 137.5 cm, framed

Provenance:
Placido de Sangro, Duca di Martina (1829-1891), Naples;
Monsignor Augusto Mancini Caracciolo di Martina, after 1870, Rome;
and thence by descent to the present owner

We are grateful to Dominique Brême for confirming the attribution after examination of the present painting in the original and for his help in cataloguing this lot.

We are also grateful to Edward Corp for his extensive research on the exiled Stuarts and the Jacobite cause, much of which is contained in this text (see: E. Corp, The King over the Water, Portraits of the Stuarts in Exile after 1689, Scottish National Portrait Gallery, 2001; E. Corp, A Court in Exile, The Stuarts in France, 1689-1718, Cambridge 2009).

The present painting is linked to a major episode in the history of Britain and Ireland. After the death of King Charles II in 1685, his younger brother James Stuart (1633-1701) succeeded to the throne, ruling as James II of England and James VII of Scotland. A convinced Catholic, he looked favourably towards France and when he unexpectedly produced a male heir, James Francis Edward Stuart (1688-1766), portrayed here, the English aristocracy had religious and political concerns, and appealed to William III of Orange, the Stadtholder of the Netherlands, and son-in-law of King James II. As a result, William of Orange landed in England on 5th November 1688 and James II was obliged to flee to France. On 9th December, the Queen Mary of Modena, disguised as a laundress, smuggled the infant heir to the throne James Francis Edward, Prince of Wales, to France. They all settled in the Château of Saint-Germain-en-Laye, near Versailles, made available to them by their cousin King Louis XIV.

The exiled English court began to live in the French manner: the English sovereigns were often received at Versailles, Marly and Fontainebleau, hunted with the King of France and his son, the Grand Dauphin, and attended festivities at the French court. A succession of artists arrived at Saint-Germain to paint the portraits of James II, Mary of Modena, the young James Francis Edward Stuart, Prince of Wales and, soon after, the young Princess Louise Mary, born in 1692. These works, widely copied for the families loyal to the cause of the exiled king (the so-called Jacobites), were painted by the best portraitists of the royal court of France: Pierre Mignard (1612-1695) François de Troy (1645-1730), Nicolas de Largillière (1656-1746) and Hyacinthe Rigaud (1659-1743). A student of François de Troy, Alexis-Simon Belle (1674-1734), became practically the official painter of the Jacobites (see : La Cour des Stuarts à Saint-Germain-en-Laye au temps de Louis XIV, exhibition catalogue, Musée des Antiquités nationales de Saint-Germain-en-Laye, 1992).

Of these artists, Largillièrre was known to James II long before the events of 1688. Born in Paris and trained in Antwerp, the French painter had made several trips to England between 1675 and 1686, during which he had worked for the deceased King Charles II and then for James II himself. In London, Largillièrre came into contact with the circle of Sir Peter Lely, and Dezallier d’Argenville relates that the young Largillièrre was also introduced to Charles II after restoring a painting by Giovanni Battista Caracciolo.

Two principle portraits are known today of the young Prince of Wales, both painted by Largillièrre at Saint-Germain-en-Laye. The first, signed and dated 1690 or 1691, is conserved at the National Gallery of Scotland, Edinburgh (oil on canvas, 101.2 x 81.30 cm, no. PG 2191). It shows the nude child sitting on a cushion, aged two or three. The second, signed and dated 1695, depicts the Prince and his sister, respectively aged seven and three (National Portrait Gallery, London, oil on canvas, 196 x 146.8 cm, RCIN 409,147).

The present painting was almost certainly painted in 1692 and it relates to a print by Gérard Edelinck, signed and dated that same year, in which we see the young prince in a head-and-shoulders portrait wearing the same clothes and in the same position (see fig 1). Quite evidently, Edelinck drew inspiration for this small head-and-shoulders portrait this picture, painted in Saint-Germain-en-Laye, between the Edinburgh portrait (1690-1691) and the London one (1695).
br>This painting shows the young prince standing, wearing a red dress (as was the custom at the time for all children, including boys, during early childhood) and wearing a cap with a white plume and the Royal Order of the Garter. In one hand the child holds a double poppy, alluding to his latent power in exile, while with the other hand he indicates a small stream, which probably symbolises the Channel that he will one day cross to enforce his claim to the kingdom of Britain and Ireland.

The young boy who stands to the right of the table facing the Prince of Wales, is very likely the son of a Jacobite very close to James II, who perhaps commissioned the work. Many of those faithful to the deposed king settled in Saint-Germain and participated in the exaltation of the royal status by commissioning numerous portraits, and Edward Corp has suggested that the boy may be a member of the Strickland family. But, given the importance of the picture, it may have been James II himself commissioned it and that the king wished to see the son of one of his gentlemen included in the work, to evoke the unwavering support of some of the English aristocracy who were also in exile. This interpretation justifies the inclusion of the bindweed shown growing at the bottom right, next to the water and symbolising friendship (a climbing plant or vine clinging to a firmer support). The parrot that appears on the left side of the composition for its part symbolises the babbling of childhood, as yet carefree. Also of note are the two small figures in the background on the left, coming to join the main sitters as if to support the young Prince.

According to Brême, this painting is one of the most important works by Largillièrre to have been rediscovered for many years and it will be included in his forthcoming catalogue raisonné of the artist.

History of the Stuart Family

The Stuart Royal family (known before the 17th Century as the Stewarts) had already ruled Scotland for over two hundred years when James VI succeeded Queen Elizabeth I as James I of England in 1603. Subsequently the kingdoms of Scotland, England and Ireland were ruled by the same monarchs. James I was succeeded by his ill-fated son Charles I, who was executed and Britain and Ireland briefly became republics, but the family were restored to the three monarchies under Charles II in 1660 and he was followed by his brother James II.

During James´ three and a half year reign he became involved in the political battles between Catholics and Protestants and a severe crisis developed after the birth of his son Prince James Francis Edward. The prince’s birth was controversial, and coming five years after his father James II´s marriage, it was largely unanticipated on the part of a number of British Protestants, who had expected his daughter Mary, from his first marriage to Anne Hyde, to succeed to the throne. Mary and her younger sister Princess Anne, had been raised as Protestants. As long as there was a possibility of one of them succeeding him, the king’s opponents saw his rule as a temporary inconvenience. The birth of a son to James II displaced the protestant heir presumptive and the creation of a Catholic dynasty now seemed inevitable. Influential English Protestants now aligned themselves with the Protestant Dutch Stadtholder William of Orange, who was married to James II´s eldest daughter Mary. William arrived in England with a large invasion fleet in November 1688 and after limited resistance and his victory at the battle of Reading James II was forced to flee his kingdoms.
In effect, the revolution that replaced James II on the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland with William and Mary, who were proclaimed joint King and Queen in February 1689, ended the chance of Catholicism being re-established as the state religion in Britain and Ireland and for the Catholic population the effects were disastrous both socially and politically. Catholics were denied the right to vote or sit in the Westminster parliament for over a century; they were also denied commissions in the army and the monarch was forbidden to be a Catholic (as it remains today) or marry a Catholic (as was only revoked in 2013).

The Stuart struggle to regain the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland

After the revolution of 1688-9 the Stuarts attempted to regain their thrones and the story of this struggle, known as Jacobitism, concerns the various attempts of James II, his son James III and eventual his grandson Prince Charles to regain the thrones which they had lost in the winter of 1688-9. The struggle involved a series of invasions and rebellions, plots and negotiations that lasted from 1689 until the 1750s. The restoration attempts were complicated by the fact that the Stuarts were trying to recover three thrones at the same time while the interests of the English, Scottish and Irish often differed and fundamentally the Stuarts refused to convert to Protestantism.

Following his father’s death in 1701, James Francis Edward was recognised as the rightful heir to the English and Scottish and Irish thrones by King Louis XIV, Spain and the Papal States as King James III of England and VIII of Scotland all of whom refused to recognise William III, Mary II or Anne as legitimate sovereigns.

Had his father James II not been deposed, Britain and Ireland would have had only two monarchs during his lifetime, his father and himself, who were both Roman Catholic. Instead there were seven: his father, William III, Mary II, Anne, George I, George II and George III. After the ruling Protestant Stuarts died out with his half-sister, Queen Anne, the last remaining Stuarts were James and his sons, and their endeavours to reclaim the throne while remaining devoted to their Catholic faith made the political situation in England precarious. After James´ death in 1766, his son Charles Edward Stuart, popularly known as Bonnie Prince Charlie, succeeded him.

The use of art as propaganda

The Stuart Jacobite court in exile commissioned a steady flow of portraits and Edward Corp argues that their purpose was essentially political and an important part of a long propaganda campaign, which the exiled court maintained from 1689 until the late 1740s. Portrait painters had always been employed to project an image and reinforce the recognition of monarchs and their importance for a royal family in exile, anxious not to be forgotten, was even more crucial (see: E. Corp, The King over the Water, Portraits of the Stuarts in Exile after 1689, Scottish National Portrait Gallery, 2001). The Stuart court in exile commissioned paintings and engravings of their portraits to remind, or persuade, people that they were still the legitimate kings of England, Scotland and Ireland. 17th century rulers were well aware that dynastic loyalty required visual stimulation and portraits were used as weapons in this specific war fought on several fronts.
Location had an important impact on the portraiture of the Stuart dynasty. Forced into exile at Saint-Germain-en-Laye in France the king and his family were no longer present in Whitehall and therefore they could not be seen in London or the other places they had traditionally visited. Portraits, which had previously been displayed, were removed or hidden and replaced by those of the monarchs who had usurped them. It was essential therefore that a series of portraits be produced at regular intervals, and diffused by prints, to introduce the Stuarts, and especially the de jure heir the Prince of Wales to the people of Britain and Ireland and to make him familiar to them as he grew into manhood. The aim was that everyone should recognise him. The present early, recently rediscovered portrait of the prince depicted in a position of confidence with insignia of royal status is an important example. It suggests that the royal family had lost none of their prestige even though they were no longer in England. The family were in temporary exile, pending an inevitable restoration. Portraits were designed to inspire loyalty and hope for the Jacobites, those who sought to restore a Catholic monarchy, and to inspire admiration and fear into those who did not.
The long series of Jacobite invasions, rebellions and plots were partly made possible because people knew who they were acting for and could visualise the princes they risked their lives for. Fortunately, the Stuarts were able to employ some of the finest portraitists of the age who worked at the court of France. These artists were arguably more talented than those who were based in England at the time and Paris was also the centre of the international print trade and contained some of the best engravers of the time.

The present painting is an important rediscovery and it was previously only known in detail from an engraving by Gérard Edelinck. It is an example of the rich artistic output of the exiled Stuart court in France. Regal in every sense, it frequently outshone its counterpart in England. It is fascinating to conjecture how life and culture in Britain and Ireland might have differed had James ever reigned in the country of his birth. James Francis Edward might have had one of the longest reigns in British and Irish history from 1701-1766.

Additional picture:
Fig. 1 Gérard Edelinck, after Nicolas de Largillièrre, Portrait of James Francis Edward Stuart, Prince of Wales, 1692, engraving, London, National Portrait Gallery, NPG D32655
© National Portrait Gallery, London

The engraving is an example of mass reproduction of portraits of the exiled Stuart Royal family associated with the Jacobite cause. At the time when most of the prints were published Jacobite sympathy was officially regarded as treasonable and possession of such images could result in prosecution in Britain and Ireland. Consequently, many of the images were published abroad, often without identification or trimmed of such incriminating detail by their British and Irish owners. In such circumstances, it is remarkable that some prints continued to be engraved, as well as distributed, for several generations after the overthrow of James II and VII in 1688. The long publishing history of these engravings are examples of the enduring loyalties evoked by the Jacobite cause (see R. Sharp, The engraved record of the Jacobite Movement, 1996).

Additional image:
Fig. 2: Israel Silvestre, View of the Château Neuf de Saint-Germain-en-Laye, 1666

© israel.silvestre.fr

Provenance:
Placido de Sangro, Duca di Martina (1829-1891), Naples;
Monsignor Augusto Mancini Caracciolo di Martina, after 1870, Rome;
and thence by descent to the present owner

We are grateful to Dominique Brême for confirming the attribution after examination of the present painting in the original and for his help in cataloguing this lot.

We are also grateful to Edward Corp for his extensive research on the exiled Stuarts and the Jacobite cause, much of which is contained in this text (see: E. Corp, The King over the Water, Portraits of the Stuarts in Exile after 1689, Scottish National Portrait Gallery, 2001; E. Corp, A Court in Exile, The Stuarts in France, 1689-1718, Cambridge 2009).

The present painting is linked to a major episode in the history of Britain and Ireland. After the death of King Charles II in 1685, his younger brother James Stuart (1633-1701) succeeded to the throne, ruling as James II of England and James VII of Scotland. A convinced Catholic, he looked favourably towards France and when he unexpectedly produced a male heir, James Francis Edward Stuart (1688-1766), portrayed here, the English aristocracy had religious and political concerns, and appealed to William III of Orange, the Stadtholder of the Netherlands, and son-in-law of King James II. As a result, William of Orange landed in England on 5th November 1688 and James II was obliged to flee to France. On 9th December, the Queen Mary of Modena, disguised as a laundress, smuggled the infant heir to the throne James Francis Edward, Prince of Wales, to France. They all settled in the Château of Saint-Germain-en-Laye, near Versailles, made available to them by their cousin King Louis XIV.

The exiled English court began to live in the French manner: the English sovereigns were often received at Versailles, Marly and Fontainebleau, hunted with the King of France and his son, the Grand Dauphin, and attended festivities at the French court. A succession of artists arrived at Saint-Germain to paint the portraits of James II, Mary of Modena, the young James Francis Edward Stuart, Prince of Wales and, soon after, the young Princess Louise Mary, born in 1692. These works, widely copied for the families loyal to the cause of the exiled king (the so-called Jacobites), were painted by the best portraitists of the royal court of France: Pierre Mignard (1612-1695) François de Troy (1645-1730), Nicolas de Largillière (1656-1746) and Hyacinthe Rigaud (1659-1743). A student of François de Troy, Alexis-Simon Belle (1674-1734), became practically the official painter of the Jacobites (see : La Cour des Stuarts à Saint-Germain-en-Laye au temps de Louis XIV, exhibition catalogue, Musée des Antiquités nationales de Saint-Germain-en-Laye, 1992).

Of these artists, Largillièrre was known to James II long before the events of 1688. Born in Paris and trained in Antwerp, the French painter had made several trips to England between 1675 and 1686, during which he had worked for the deceased King Charles II and then for James II himself. In London, Largillièrre came into contact with the circle of Sir Peter Lely, and Dezallier d’Argenville relates that the young Largillièrre was also introduced to Charles II after restoring a painting by Giovanni Battista Caracciolo.

Two principle portraits are known today of the young Prince of Wales, both painted by Largillièrre at Saint-Germain-en-Laye. The first, signed and dated 1690 or 1691, is conserved at the National Gallery of Scotland, Edinburgh (oil on canvas, 101.2 x 81.30 cm, no. PG 2191). It shows the nude child sitting on a cushion, aged two or three. The second, signed and dated 1695, depicts the Prince and his sister, respectively aged seven and three (National Portrait Gallery, London, oil on canvas, 196 x 146.8 cm, RCIN 409,147).

The present painting was almost certainly painted in 1692 and it relates to a print by Gérard Edelinck, signed and dated that same year, in which we see the young prince in a head-and-shoulders portrait wearing the same clothes and in the same position (see fig 1). Quite evidently, Edelinck drew inspiration for this small head-and-shoulders portrait this picture, painted in Saint-Germain-en-Laye, between the Edinburgh portrait (1690-1691) and the London one (1695).
br>This painting shows the young prince standing, wearing a red dress (as was the custom at the time for all children, including boys, during early childhood) and wearing a cap with a white plume and the Royal Order of the Garter. In one hand the child holds a double poppy, alluding to his latent power in exile, while with the other hand he indicates a small stream, which probably symbolises the Channel that he will one day cross to enforce his claim to the kingdom of Britain and Ireland.

The young boy who stands to the right of the table facing the Prince of Wales, is very likely the son of a Jacobite very close to James II, who perhaps commissioned the work. Many of those faithful to the deposed king settled in Saint-Germain and participated in the exaltation of the royal status by commissioning numerous portraits, and Edward Corp has suggested that the boy may be a member of the Strickland family. But, given the importance of the picture, it may have been James II himself commissioned it and that the king wished to see the son of one of his gentlemen included in the work, to evoke the unwavering support of some of the English aristocracy who were also in exile. This interpretation justifies the inclusion of the bindweed shown growing at the bottom right, next to the water and symbolising friendship (a climbing plant or vine clinging to a firmer support). The parrot that appears on the left side of the composition for its part symbolises the babbling of childhood, as yet carefree. Also of note are the two small figures in the background on the left, coming to join the main sitters as if to support the young Prince.

According to Brême, this painting is one of the most important works by Largillièrre to have been rediscovered for many years and it will be included in his forthcoming catalogue raisonné of the artist.

History of the Stuart Family

The Stuart Royal family (known before the 17th Century as the Stewarts) had already ruled Scotland for over two hundred years when James VI succeeded Queen Elizabeth I as James I of England in 1603. Subsequently the kingdoms of Scotland, England and Ireland were ruled by the same monarchs. James I was succeeded by his ill-fated son Charles I, who was executed and Britain and Ireland briefly became republics, but the family were restored to the three monarchies under Charles II in 1660 and he was followed by his brother James II.

During James´ three and a half year reign he became involved in the political battles between Catholics and Protestants and a severe crisis developed after the birth of his son Prince James Francis Edward. The prince’s birth was controversial, and coming five years after his father James II´s marriage, it was largely unanticipated on the part of a number of British Protestants, who had expected his daughter Mary, from his first marriage to Anne Hyde, to succeed to the throne. Mary and her younger sister Princess Anne, had been raised as Protestants. As long as there was a possibility of one of them succeeding him, the king’s opponents saw his rule as a temporary inconvenience. The birth of a son to James II displaced the protestant heir presumptive and the creation of a Catholic dynasty now seemed inevitable. Influential English Protestants now aligned themselves with the Protestant Dutch Stadtholder William of Orange, who was married to James II´s eldest daughter Mary. William arrived in England with a large invasion fleet in November 1688 and after limited resistance and his victory at the battle of Reading James II was forced to flee his kingdoms.
In effect, the revolution that replaced James II on the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland with William and Mary, who were proclaimed joint King and Queen in February 1689, ended the chance of Catholicism being re-established as the state religion in Britain and Ireland and for the Catholic population the effects were disastrous both socially and politically. Catholics were denied the right to vote or sit in the Westminster parliament for over a century; they were also denied commissions in the army and the monarch was forbidden to be a Catholic (as it remains today) or marry a Catholic (as was only revoked in 2013).

The Stuart struggle to regain the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland

After the revolution of 1688-9 the Stuarts attempted to regain their thrones and the story of this struggle, known as Jacobitism, concerns the various attempts of James II, his son James III and eventual his grandson Prince Charles to regain the thrones which they had lost in the winter of 1688-9. The struggle involved a series of invasions and rebellions, plots and negotiations that lasted from 1689 until the 1750s. The restoration attempts were complicated by the fact that the Stuarts were trying to recover three thrones at the same time while the interests of the English, Scottish and Irish often differed and fundamentally the Stuarts refused to convert to Protestantism.

Following his father’s death in 1701, James Francis Edward was recognised as the rightful heir to the English and Scottish and Irish thrones by King Louis XIV, Spain and the Papal States as King James III of England and VIII of Scotland all of whom refused to recognise William III, Mary II or Anne as legitimate sovereigns.

Had his father James II not been deposed, Britain and Ireland would have had only two monarchs during his lifetime, his father and himself, who were both Roman Catholic. Instead there were seven: his father, William III, Mary II, Anne, George I, George II and George III. After the ruling Protestant Stuarts died out with his half-sister, Queen Anne, the last remaining Stuarts were James and his sons, and their endeavours to reclaim the throne while remaining devoted to their Catholic faith made the political situation in England precarious. After James´ death in 1766, his son Charles Edward Stuart, popularly known as Bonnie Prince Charlie, succeeded him.

The use of art as propaganda

The Stuart Jacobite court in exile commissioned a steady flow of portraits and Edward Corp argues that their purpose was essentially political and an important part of a long propaganda campaign, which the exiled court maintained from 1689 until the late 1740s. Portrait painters had always been employed to project an image and reinforce the recognition of monarchs and their importance for a royal family in exile, anxious not to be forgotten, was even more crucial (see: E. Corp, The King over the Water, Portraits of the Stuarts in Exile after 1689, Scottish National Portrait Gallery, 2001). The Stuart court in exile commissioned paintings and engravings of their portraits to remind, or persuade, people that they were still the legitimate kings of England, Scotland and Ireland. 17th century rulers were well aware that dynastic loyalty required visual stimulation and portraits were used as weapons in this specific war fought on several fronts.
Location had an important impact on the portraiture of the Stuart dynasty. Forced into exile at Saint-Germain-en-Laye in France the king and his family were no longer present in Whitehall and therefore they could not be seen in London or the other places they had traditionally visited. Portraits, which had previously been displayed, were removed or hidden and replaced by those of the monarchs who had usurped them. It was essential therefore that a series of portraits be produced at regular intervals, and diffused by prints, to introduce the Stuarts, and especially the de jure heir the Prince of Wales to the people of Britain and Ireland and to make him familiar to them as he grew into manhood. The aim was that everyone should recognise him. The present early, recently rediscovered portrait of the prince depicted in a position of confidence with insignia of royal status is an important example. It suggests that the royal family had lost none of their prestige even though they were no longer in England. The family were in temporary exile, pending an inevitable restoration. Portraits were designed to inspire loyalty and hope for the Jacobites, those who sought to restore a Catholic monarchy, and to inspire admiration and fear into those who did not.
The long series of Jacobite invasions, rebellions and plots were partly made possible because people knew who they were acting for and could visualise the princes they risked their lives for. Fortunately, the Stuarts were able to employ some of the finest portraitists of the age who worked at the court of France. These artists were arguably more talented than those who were based in England at the time and Paris was also the centre of the international print trade and contained some of the best engravers of the time.

The present painting is an important rediscovery and it was previously only known in detail from an engraving by Gérard Edelinck. It is an example of the rich artistic output of the exiled Stuart court in France. Regal in every sense, it frequently outshone its counterpart in England. It is fascinating to conjecture how life and culture in Britain and Ireland might have differed had James ever reigned in the country of his birth. James Francis Edward might have had one of the longest reigns in British and Irish history from 1701-1766.

Additional picture:
Fig. 1 Gérard Edelinck, after Nicolas de Largillièrre, Portrait of James Francis Edward Stuart, Prince of Wales, 1692, engraving,
London, National Portrait Gallery, NPG D32655

The engraving is an example of mass reproduction of portraits of the exiled Stuart Royal family associated with the Jacobite cause. At the time when most of the prints were published Jacobite sympathy was officially regarded as treasonable and possession of such images could result in prosecution in Britain and Ireland. Consequently, many of the images were published abroad, often without identification or trimmed of such incriminating detail by their British and Irish owners. In such circumstances, it is remarkable that some prints continued to be engraved, as well as distributed, for several generations after the overthrow of James II and VII in 1688. The long publishing history of these engravings are examples of the enduring loyalties evoked by the Jacobite cause (see R. Sharp, The engraved record of the Jacobite Movement, 1996).