File talk:ChristinavonDaenemarkCoxcie.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Wrong name[edit]
I am restoring my category change on this photo because I am wholly convinced that this is Christina's sister Dorothy. As you can see here the resemblance tells the whole story. Unfortunately I do not have access right now to my files to give additional proof of this. Please explain what reliable source you have that would identify this as Christina! thx EmilEikS (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Also see here for more resemblance and proof. EmilEikS (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hi EmilEikS! As long as the reasons for your changes are only based on your conviction and are not comprehensible in printed sources, they are not liable (in the sense of Wikimedia Commons guidelines). Please refer to official and/or printed sources (e.g. work catalogues) to emphasize your opion. But as long as you cannot fullfil this Commons guideline please refrain from changing the image information without liable source. Thanks. -- Greetz Sir Gawain (talk) 08:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- The Oberlin claims are speculative and not convincing compared to the many other sources identifying the portraiot as that of Dorothy, who also was widowed for almost 30 years after the death of the Count Palatine. EmilEikS (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- The page http://www.oberlin.edu/amam/Coxcie.htm by M.E. Wieseman is rather thorough. One cannot brush that away by appealing to "many other sources". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- The Oberlin claims are speculative and not convincing compared to the many other sources identifying the portraiot as that of Dorothy, who also was widowed for almost 30 years after the death of the Count Palatine. EmilEikS (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyone really interested in this issue (not just in arguing) - please show enough interest in using the two reference links I have provided above before continuing to ignore them while discussing this issue. Thank you! EmilEikS (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC) PS The link on the image page (sorry about having to stress the matter) might also be useful to have a look at. EmilEikS (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, Sir Gawain had the file from http://www.kleio.org/images/large/habsburger/DorotheaPfalz1.jpg . But that is just a personal web site. The description by Wieseman at the owner's academic web site carries much greater weight. The reference to "Patricia Rose, "Christina of Denmark by Michael Coxie," Allen Memorial Art Museum Bulletin 21, no. 1 (Fall 1963)" seems difficult to argue against; compare Holbein's painting of Christina. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- I would like to get to know these "many other sources" that EmilEikS stressed to justify his reverts (no, I'm not willing to accept online resources, that might confirm EmilEikS' speculations). Please cite these printed references' here. -- Greetz Sir Gawain (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Do you people serionsly find the Oberlin text convincing? An expert on European art located in Ohio? I have asked 5 people to read it objectively, without knowing about our debate, and all 5 found it speculative and highly questionable. None of them find any facial resemblance with Christina. All of them with Dorothy on the b&w portrait I linked to. Only the mourning dress is similar - but they all look the same. Isn't it obvious that Christina's life story is much more exciting and thus it is more fun to have a picture of her over in Ohio? Since I consider the matter important enough, and your opinions dead wrong, I will try to contact the art museum in Ohio and the museum mentioned in Budapest. Will then get back to you. EmilEikS (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- That is a strange old-world prejudice against Marjorie Wieseman... If one wanted to inflate interest in this painting, one would label it as Mary of Hungary - as at the 1947 auction. But already in 1938 the Budapest museum had exhibited it as a portrait of Christina of Denmark. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- M. E. Wieseman is not called "Marjorie" but Betsy Wieseman - just a note. 217.209.96.157 15:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- That is a strange old-world prejudice against Marjorie Wieseman... If one wanted to inflate interest in this painting, one would label it as Mary of Hungary - as at the 1947 auction. But already in 1938 the Budapest museum had exhibited it as a portrait of Christina of Denmark. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Do you people serionsly find the Oberlin text convincing? An expert on European art located in Ohio? I have asked 5 people to read it objectively, without knowing about our debate, and all 5 found it speculative and highly questionable. None of them find any facial resemblance with Christina. All of them with Dorothy on the b&w portrait I linked to. Only the mourning dress is similar - but they all look the same. Isn't it obvious that Christina's life story is much more exciting and thus it is more fun to have a picture of her over in Ohio? Since I consider the matter important enough, and your opinions dead wrong, I will try to contact the art museum in Ohio and the museum mentioned in Budapest. Will then get back to you. EmilEikS (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- I would like to get to know these "many other sources" that EmilEikS stressed to justify his reverts (no, I'm not willing to accept online resources, that might confirm EmilEikS' speculations). Please cite these printed references' here. -- Greetz Sir Gawain (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Definite ID provided today by expert historian. This is Dorothy/Dorotea not her sister Christina. Suggest that the name of the file be changed accordingly. 217.209.96.24 20:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- EmilEiks? Does Maike Vogt actually discuss the painting and give reasons why the identification as Dorotea is incorrect, or is it just a picture in her essay about Christina? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Quote her emails: "... in my book "Frauen in der Renaissance - 30 Einzelschicksale". Please have a look at: > http://www.kleio.org/de/buecher/frauen.html Here you find the portrait of Dorothea of Denmark mentioned and depicted on the page 265. It is the figure "Abb. 190" with the subtitle: "Christinas Schwester Dorothea als Witwe", um 1556/57. " (= Christina's sister Dorothea as widow, around 1556/57). I discovered in 2003 that the high dynasties of the Renaissance were still using their specific symbols and colours like they did in the whole Middle Ages, to tell us, who was depicted on the beautiful portrait paintings of the Renaissance. I was just in Forlì (Italy) to show everybody how easy it is to identify the persons on these paintings when they are members of the high dynasties. We have for example still hundreds of portraits of Caterina Sforza, the former Regent of Forlì. In my book "Die Sforza I: Bianca Maria Visconti": have a look at: http://www.kleio.org/de/buecher/bianca.html In the second part of this book I explained all the symbols of the mighty Milanese dynasty of the Visconti and Sforza, who were the Masters in using their symbols so that even today we can identify each of their members. Everybody can learn these symbols. So if somebody tells you he or she does not believe you, tell them: learn first the symbols and then we can speak again! In this email I attach a part of the portrait of Christina of Denmark, the Duchess of Milan, when she was a widow. Because she married into the Milanese dynasty of the Visconti-Sforza (see above: the Masters in using their symbols) she was decorated with one of their most important symbols: the loose knot around the waist. When you have a look at the portrait painting of Dorothea of Denmark, Sweden and Norway, you don't find this symbol, because she did not marry into the House of the Visconti and Sforza. When I have finished my book about "Die Sforza III", I will write about "Mona Lisa and other mistakes - The Art History of the Renaissance in a Crisis" and in this book I will definitely write about these portraits of Dorothea and of her sister Christina. Only because the depicted woman is dressed like her sister Christina of Denmark, when she was a widow like her elder sister Dorothea, they see in her Christina of Denmark. You are absolutely right with your attribution of this portrait painting to Dorothea of Denmark, Sweden and Norway." EmilEikS (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think one should wait until that Mona-Lisa book, and its reviews. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Dear EmilEikS, it's difficult for me to judge who is right. Vogt-Lüerssen mentions a "portrait of Christina of Denmark, the Duchess of Milan, when she was a widow". Which portrait does she mean? Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Dear Mr Steenberg: Thank you for taking an interest in this matter and for updating the file info! EmilEikS is an acquaintance of mine and I am authorised to answer your questions. We have never seen anything else from Ms Vogt-Lüerssen (the only reputable expert on historical, personal identification we have had an opinion of so far) than her definite id of this painting as being of Dorothy, not Christina. The portrait of Christina she means is that by Holbein here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. What puzzles me, though, is why the opinion of Vogt-Lüerssen is taken more seriously than that of the AMAM. If the person on the Oberlin-panel is Christina, she is depicted here as in mourning over her second husband Francis of Lorraine (1517-1545) and not her first husband Francesco II Sforza (1495-1535). That might explain the fact she is not wearing the Sforza-knot. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I find Ms Vogt-Lüerssen's very professional and educated expertise thoroughly convincing in this case. Historians ought to know better that art experts in such matters. I spoke to the woman who identified this as Christina for the Ohio museum (now works in London) and she did not sound convincing. Princess Dorothy was also a widow when this was painted. If you have another view, I am by far not expert enough to challenge it. My advice is that we allow ourselves to feel confident that this, in fact, is Dorothy. When I saw a later portrait of her I only thought that that confirmed that the two similar faces belonged to the same person. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Better to go by the Curator of Dutch painting of the National Gallery in London than by a freelance historian in Adelaide. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I am still not quite convinced. If this was Dorothea she would have been at least 35 years old; if this was Christine she would have been around 24 years old. That is quite a difference. How old is the woman depicted here. 24 or 35? I would personally say 24. However, I realize these arguments are vague. After all, in painting anything is possible. Fact is that it was probably painted by Michiel Coxie. So we might rename this file to File:Michiel Coxie 001.jpg for the time being? Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Better to go by the Curator of Dutch painting of the National Gallery in London than by a freelance historian in Adelaide. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I find Ms Vogt-Lüerssen's very professional and educated expertise thoroughly convincing in this case. Historians ought to know better that art experts in such matters. I spoke to the woman who identified this as Christina for the Ohio museum (now works in London) and she did not sound convincing. Princess Dorothy was also a widow when this was painted. If you have another view, I am by far not expert enough to challenge it. My advice is that we allow ourselves to feel confident that this, in fact, is Dorothy. When I saw a later portrait of her I only thought that that confirmed that the two similar faces belonged to the same person. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. What puzzles me, though, is why the opinion of Vogt-Lüerssen is taken more seriously than that of the AMAM. If the person on the Oberlin-panel is Christina, she is depicted here as in mourning over her second husband Francis of Lorraine (1517-1545) and not her first husband Francesco II Sforza (1495-1535). That might explain the fact she is not wearing the Sforza-knot. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Dear Mr Steenberg: Thank you for taking an interest in this matter and for updating the file info! EmilEikS is an acquaintance of mine and I am authorised to answer your questions. We have never seen anything else from Ms Vogt-Lüerssen (the only reputable expert on historical, personal identification we have had an opinion of so far) than her definite id of this painting as being of Dorothy, not Christina. The portrait of Christina she means is that by Holbein here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Dear EmilEikS, it's difficult for me to judge who is right. Vogt-Lüerssen mentions a "portrait of Christina of Denmark, the Duchess of Milan, when she was a widow". Which portrait does she mean? Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think one should wait until that Mona-Lisa book, and its reviews. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Quote her emails: "... in my book "Frauen in der Renaissance - 30 Einzelschicksale". Please have a look at: > http://www.kleio.org/de/buecher/frauen.html Here you find the portrait of Dorothea of Denmark mentioned and depicted on the page 265. It is the figure "Abb. 190" with the subtitle: "Christinas Schwester Dorothea als Witwe", um 1556/57. " (= Christina's sister Dorothea as widow, around 1556/57). I discovered in 2003 that the high dynasties of the Renaissance were still using their specific symbols and colours like they did in the whole Middle Ages, to tell us, who was depicted on the beautiful portrait paintings of the Renaissance. I was just in Forlì (Italy) to show everybody how easy it is to identify the persons on these paintings when they are members of the high dynasties. We have for example still hundreds of portraits of Caterina Sforza, the former Regent of Forlì. In my book "Die Sforza I: Bianca Maria Visconti": have a look at: http://www.kleio.org/de/buecher/bianca.html In the second part of this book I explained all the symbols of the mighty Milanese dynasty of the Visconti and Sforza, who were the Masters in using their symbols so that even today we can identify each of their members. Everybody can learn these symbols. So if somebody tells you he or she does not believe you, tell them: learn first the symbols and then we can speak again! In this email I attach a part of the portrait of Christina of Denmark, the Duchess of Milan, when she was a widow. Because she married into the Milanese dynasty of the Visconti-Sforza (see above: the Masters in using their symbols) she was decorated with one of their most important symbols: the loose knot around the waist. When you have a look at the portrait painting of Dorothea of Denmark, Sweden and Norway, you don't find this symbol, because she did not marry into the House of the Visconti and Sforza. When I have finished my book about "Die Sforza III", I will write about "Mona Lisa and other mistakes - The Art History of the Renaissance in a Crisis" and in this book I will definitely write about these portraits of Dorothea and of her sister Christina. Only because the depicted woman is dressed like her sister Christina of Denmark, when she was a widow like her elder sister Dorothea, they see in her Christina of Denmark. You are absolutely right with your attribution of this portrait painting to Dorothea of Denmark, Sweden and Norway." EmilEikS (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Arbitrary change[edit]
I am rather dismayed to see that 3 years after a thorough discussion of the identity of the woman in this portrait, a user who argued that she is Christina, argued that with scant success in my opinion, now went back and changed everything the way h/s wants it, not the way the discussion ended. There is no new reliable evidence to support an assumption that this is Christina. Please change it back again, so that the primary identification, the only one it is safe to assume, is her sister Dorothy! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
