Mary Curson Archives - PHILIP ALAN FARMER

February 24, 2023February 24, 2023

The Portrait of Sir George Fermor

The new book “Thomas Fermor and the Sons of Witney” includes portraits of Sir George Fermor and wife Dame Mary Curzon auctioned by Sotheby’s from the Easton Neston estate sale. Or are they a £78,000 fraud?

(Edited from the ArtDaily and The Guardian articles with additional sources.)

In May 2005, Sotheby’s announced the auction sale of collected works from Easton Neston on behalf of the Lord and Lady Hesketh and the Trustees of Frederick Fermor-Hesketh, 2nd Baron Hesketh. The sale was held at Easton Neston, near Towcester, over three days, from Tuesday, 17 May to Thursday, 19 May, with viewing at the house days prior from Thursday, 12 May to Monday, 16 May.

Additionally, the 3,319-acre estate, its private racecourse, and the entire estate village of Hulcote – was for sale.

House and Estate Village

Easton Neston has been the seat of the Fermor-Hesketh family since 1535 with its purchase by Richard Fermor (d. 1552), grocer and merchant who made a large fortune trading with Flanders and Italy. He lived there in great style until his estates were forfeited in 1540. However, King Henry VIII relented at the end of his life, and the Fermors once again occupied Easton Neston.

The estate passed to Richard’s eldest son, Sir John Fermor, and then to his eldest son, George Fermor. In September 1585, Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, set off to the Low Countries with a substantial army to fight the Spaniards. Fermor was part of this expedition and was knighted by Leicester in 1586. On 27 June 1603, Sir George and his wife Mary Curzon entertained James I and Anne of Denmark on their way south from Scotland to assume the Crown of England. There was an enormous gathering and it was reported that the countryside could “scarse lodge the infinit companie of lords and ladies and other people.” Ben Jonson composed a special poetical entertainment for the occasions. The new King knighted a number of those gathered at Easton Neston, including Sir George’s eldest son Hatton.

The present house is widely considered to be one of the most beautiful country houses in England. Described in William Camden’s Britannia (1586) as a “beautiful seat,” the original house there was an amalgam of Tudor pitched roofs, gables, arched doorways and mullioned windows. This same house was home to six generations until, in the 1690s, Sir William Fermor (1648-1711) decided to consult Sir Christopher Wren (his cousin by marriage) for advice on building a new house. Wren’s office designed two wings for a new house (one of which no longer exists) and directed Sir William to his highly talented colleague Nicholas Hawksmoor around 1700.

Large 500-Year Fine Art Collection

The large collection up for auction consisted of over 1500 items to include fine English and French furniture, old master and British paintings, tapestries, silver, books, chinese cloisonné, Japanese lacquer work, and European porcelain and glass representing centuries of patronage and collecting at the highest level.

“The collection of works of art at Easton Neston is one of the most significant to have been put together by a British family over the last five hundred years. The house is full of rare and beautiful objects that reflect the changing tastes and fortunes of nearly 20 generations of the Fermor-Hesketh family, and Sotheby’s is extremely honoured to have been chosen to conduct such an historic sale.”
Henry Wyndham, Chairman of Sotheby’s Europe

The collection also contains an impressive collection of Old Master Paintings. Largely amassed during the 18th and 19th centuries, these include works by Jan van Goyen, Joseph van Bredael, Joost Cornelisz Droochsloot, and Pieter de Bloot, as well as an interesting group of 17th-century Dutch and Flemish still-life paintings. Alongside is a splendid array of English portraits and a large group of family portraits by Sir Peter Lely and Sir Godfrey Kneller.

Lely, Sir Peter. *Portrait of King Charles III*. Sotheby’s, Easton Neston Sale, Lot #162. Oil on canvas.
Click here for more information.

Later works include the full-length portrait of the Countess of Pomfret (est: £60,000-£80,000) by Sir Joshua Reynolds and an unpublished portrait of King George III attributed to John Shackleton, possibly presented to the 2nd Earl of Pomfret by the King himself. Further to the portraits, the sale will include a number of particularly good bird paintings by artists such as Peter Casteels.

Reynolds, Sir Joshua. *Portrait of King George III.* Sotheby’s, Sale at Easton Neston, Lot #163. Oil on canvas.
Click here for more information.

Among the paintings for sale are fine portraits of Sir George Fermor (d. 1612) and his wife Mary Curzon (d. 1628), both oil on panel measuring 264 by 140cm. (104 by 55in.) painted by (or attributed to) Robert Peake the Elder and extensively inscribed.

Unknown. *Portrait of Sir George Fermor (and wife).* Sotheby’s Sale at Easton Nest, Lot #164.
Click here for more information.

S^r: Geo: Farmor of Easton Neston in y^eCounty of Northampton K:^t/ son & Heir of S:^rIohn Farmor K:^tof y^eBath by Matilda his Wife, One of y^e/ Daughters of Nich: Vaux Bar:^tof Harowden by Anne his 2^dwife Daugh / Heirefs of The: Greene of Greenes = Norton in y^eCounty of Northamptoⁿ Efq / And Grandfon of Rich: Farmor Efq who purchace’d y^eMannors of Eafton = Nef: / = ton and: by Ann his Wife Daughter & Heirefs of S:^rWill:^mBrowne Knight / This S:^rGeorge spent his Youth in y^eNeitherlands Fighting under y^eGreat / Captain William Prince of Orange ~ then Marrying lived w:^thgreat Splen=/=der ~ Hofpitality at his Seat of Eafton where he had y^eHonour to enter=/=tain King Iames y^e1:^tand his Queen y^e1:^ttime they ever met in England. / Aet:^sAd:^ri1597

Controversy with Portrait of Sir George Fermor

The staggering array of treasures sold for a total of £8.7m. But a year later, there arose some additional controversy with the portrait of Sir George Fermor.

First, the head of British paintings at Sotheby’s, David Moore Gwyn, misdated the works when they were put into the auction, even though other experts claim to have seen “at first glance” that they were pastiches.

Art dealer Christopher Foley, one of many interested buyers and a specialist in 16th and 17th-century English paintings, visited before the sale.

“I viewed the pictures at Easton Neston carefully on behalf of the National Trust. I bought back on their behalf a number of pictures there which had formerly been in a Hesketh house in Lancashire and which is now National Trust. Both I and the trust’s art specialist dismissed the two [Fermor] portraits as wildly out of period at first glance. The painting technique was not remotely correct, the panels were of the wrong type of wood, the compositions of a style at odds with a dating to the late 16th century. They were obviously fanciful. I remember remarking to two other dealers at the time when standing in front of them that the cataloguing seemed absurdly optimistic.”

In the words of one respected dealer, “complete tat and worth a few grand at best as decoration.”

The general view is that the paintings were produced at some time in the 18th century, probably at the behest of a later Fermor who wished to have some grand-looking family portraits to give his pedigree a bit of class. “About as valid, chronologically, as getting Damien Hirst to paint the Duke of Wellington,” according to one dealer.

The works’ estimate at the time of the sale was £100,000-£150,000. But such were the doubts among specialist dealers that the buyer, fashion designer Jasper Conran, paid £78,000, thought to be the reserve price.

The paintings needed conservation work and the restorer began to doubt the pictures’ authenticity. The paintings were sent to Ian Tyers, a leading practitioner in the field of dendrochronology, a technique which can date with precision when a tree was felled by analyzing rings in a piece of wood.

“We were asked to look at the wooden panels on which these works were painted, which is something we are asked to do not uncommonly to verify what they are. In this case, however, our research unverified what they were. Our findings demonstrated clearly that they were not what they were sold as. The panels are in fact early 18th century – not, in other words, what they were thought to be. They were sold as being by followers of Peake, dated to around 1580 or 1590. The trees from which the panel were made were still growing then. My sense is that many people in the trade knew what they were all along.”

Return to Sale

Conran returned to Sotheby’s and after his money was reimbursed, the paintings quietly reappeared in another Sotheby’s sale. There is no reference in the illustrated catalog that these are known to be 18th century, with an arguably, misleading description of “manner of Robert Peake the Elder c1551-1619″ arranged among earlier Elizabethan and Jacobean works… rather than chronologically with the 18th century paintings.

The portraits were to come under the hammer again on November 23, with an estimate of £40,000-£60,000. Mr. Foley believes that an estimate of £10,000 gives a more reasonable indication of their value.

“to call them ‘magnificent’, as they do in the new catalogue is, well, completely over the top – and the new estimate of £40-£60,000 seems, shall we say, rather enthusiastic for a pair of 18th century pastiches in very fragile condition.”

Challenged on the description of the works, Gwyn said that “in the manner of” gave a clear indication of the works’ date: “If you look it up in the glossary you will see that it is our way of saying ‘painted at a later date’.”

Asked about the apparent failure of the catalog to make clear that the works are now the property of Sotheby’s, Gwyn pointed out that a triangle-shaped symbol in the paintings’ catalogue entry signified “property of Sotheby’s” – again, a definition available by reference to a glossary.

Asked about the omission of the real date of the works, he said:

“This is our normal format. It has been like this for 30 years. To anyone who asks me, I say they are 18th century. We are not intending to deceive in any way. I am happy to put up a note next to the painting [in the auction house] saying they are 18th century. I agree that maybe some people won’t know what ‘in the manner of’ means.”

As for the estimate, he said: “Well, I don’t know: we’ll have to see. Estimates are only estimates, and they come from one’s experience.”

“We’re not perfect,” Gwyn told the Guardian. “We do our best. I thought they were of the period.”

Philip Farmer is the author and publisher of “Thomas Fermor and the Sons of Witney” a 790-page biographical history of the Fermors from 1420 to 1685. Another book “Edward Farmar and the Sons of Whitemarsh,” follows the family immigration from Ireland into Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and Harlan County, Kentucky.

January 23, 2022January 23, 2022

Jane Fermor, Pirate? Arrgh.

History has been unkind to Jane Fermor Killigrew (1583-1648), daughter of Sir George Fermor and Mary Curson. Pirate? Prostitute? Affair? Divorce?

Jane Fermor, the daughter of Sir George Fermor and Mary Curson, was baptized on 28 October 1583, and married at the age of twelve on 08 October 1596 to Sir John Killigrew V of Arwenack, Cornwall, son of John Killigrew IV and Dorothy Monck.[1]

History has not been kind to Jane. According to a heavily embellished story reprinted here,

LADY JANE, the widow of Sir John Killigrew, sat in one of the windows of Arwenick house, looking out upon the troubled waters of Falmouth Harbour. A severe storm had prevailed for some days, and the Cornish coast was strewn with wrecks. The tempest had abated; the waves were subsiding, though they still beat heavily against the rocks. A light scud was driving over the sky, and a wild and gloomy aspect suffused all things. There was a sudden outcry amongst a group of men, retainers of the Killigrew family, which excited the attention of Lady Jane Killigrew. She was not left long in suspense as to the cause. In a few minutes two Dutch ships were seen coming into the harbour. They had evidently endured the beat of the storm, for they were both considerably disabled; and with the fragments of sail which they carried, they laboured heavily. At length, however, these vessels were brought round within the shelter of Pendennis; their anchors were cast in good anchoring-ground; and they were safe, or at least the crew thought so, in comparatively smooth water.

As was the custom in those days, the boat belonging to the Killigrew family, manned by the group of whom we have already spoken, went off as soon as the ships were anchored and boarded them. They then learnt that they were of the Hanse Towns, laden with valuable merchandise for Spain, and that this was in the charge of two Spanish factors. On the return of the boat’s crew, this was reported to Lady Killigrew; and she, being a very wicked and most resolute woman, at once proposed that they should return to the ships, and either rob them of their treasure, or exact from the merchants a large sum of money in compensation. The rude men, to whom wrecking and plundering was but too familiar, were delighted with the prospect of a rare prize; and above all, when Lady Killigrew declared that she would herself accompany them, they were wild with joy.

With great shouting, they gathered together as many men as the largest boat in the harbour would carry, and armed themselves with pikes, swords, and daggers. Lady Jane Killigrew, also armed, placed herself in the stem of the boat after the men had crowded into their places, and with a wild huzzah they left the shore, and were soon alongside of the vessel nearest to the shore. A number of the men immediately crowded up the side and on to the deck of this vessel, and at once seized upon the captain and the factor, threatening them with instant death if they dared to make any outcry. Lady Jane Killigrew was now lifted on to the deck of the vessel, and the boat immediately pushed off, and the remainder of the crew boarded the other ship.

The Dutch crew were overpowered by the numbers of Cornishmen, who were armed far more perfectly than they. Taken unawares as they were, at a moment when they thought their troubles were for a season at an end, the Dutchmen were almost powerless.

The Spaniards were brave men, and resisted the demands made to deliver up their treasure. This resistance was, however, fatal to them. At a signal, it is said by some, given by their leader, Lady Jane Killigrew, – although this was denied afterwards, – they were both murdered by the ruffians into whose hands they had fallen, and their bodies cast overboard into the sea.

These wretches ransacked the ships, and appropriated whatsoever they pleased, while Lady Jane took from them “two hogsheads of Spanish pieces of eight, and converted them to her own use.”

As one of the Spanish factors was dying, he lifted his hands to heaven, prayed to the Lord to receive his soul, and turning to the vile woman to whose villainy he owed his death, he said, “My blood will linger with you until my death is avenged upon your own sons.”

This dreadful deed was not allowed to pass without notice even in those lawless times. The Spaniards were then friendly with England, and upon the representation made by the Spanish minister to the existing government, the sheriff of Cornwall was ordered to seize and bring to trial Lady Jane Killigrew and her crew of murderers. A considerable number were arrested with her; and that lady and several of her men were tried at Launceston.

Since the Spaniards were proved to be at the time of the murder “foreigners under the Queen’s protection,” they were all found guilty, and condemned to death.

All the men were executed on the walls of Launceston Castle; but by the interest of Sir John Arundell and Sir Nicholas Hals, Queen Elizabeth was induced to grant a pardon for Lady Jane.[2]

In every instance of the various versions of this story, neither the date, the names of the ships, the names of those involved, nor other details are mentioned. These missing details are early indications that it is probably more myth than truth, and upon further investigation, the story is completely false and essentially based on Mary (Wolverston) Killigrew’s act of piracy in January 1583 before the death of Sir John Killigrew III in 1584.[3]

While the history books have maligned Jane for her “atrocious” piracy, nothing compares to the disparaging remarks from Martin Lister-Killigrew, heir of Sir John Killigrew’s estate.

But this worthy gentleman, ye last Sir John Killigrew, was hardly got over this difficulty, when he fell under a much greater Affliction, as aforementioned, the Prostitution of his Wife; who caused herself to be called, or unaccountably was known by ye name of, Lady Jane. Arrived to that shameful degree, Sir John, in point of honor and for quietness of mind, found himself under a necessity to prosecute a divorce from her in ye Archbishop’s Court, which lasted so many years and so very expensive, as quite Ruined his Estate, to ye degree of his being often put to very hard Shifts to get home from London upon ye frequent recesses of ye process, but at length obtained ye Divorce in all its formal Extent…[4]

But was there an affair, and was there a divorce? For the town of Penryn, the story continues for almost 400 years.

Excerpted from the upcoming book “Thomas Fermor and the Sons of Witney,” a 767-page historical account of the Fermor / Farmar / Farmer family from 1420 to 1685.

[1] Vivian, The Visitations of Cornwall, Comprising the Heralds’ Visitations of 1530, 1573, & 1620 (1887), pp.268-269. Sir John Killigrew V, son of Dorothy Monck and John Killigrew IV (d. 1605), son of Mary Wolverston and Sir John Killigrew III (d. 1584), son of Elizabeth Trewynard and John Killigrew II (d. 1567), son of Jane Petit and John Killigrew (d. 1536).

[2] Timbs et al, Abbeys, Castles, and Ancient Halls of England and Wales; South (1872), pp.529-531. For other variations, reference in addition to many other publications: 1) Davies, The Parochial History of Cornwall, vol.2 (1838), p.6; 2) Redding, An Illustrated Itinerary of the County of Cornwall (1842), p.134; 3) Salmon, Cornwall, ed.2 (1905); 4) Hitchins et al, The History of Cornwall, vol.2 (1824), p.291; & 4) Lysons et al, Magna Britannia, vol.3 (1814), p.120.

[3] Gay, Old Falmouth (1903), p.15. The attribution to Lady Jane may have begun with William Hals’ unpublished Compleat History of Cornwall, first started in 1685 and continued until 1736, until Hals died in 1737. The second part of his work was published in 1750 as Complete History of Cornwall, Part II being the Parochial History whereas the first part contained so many scandalous details that prevented its publication. However, Hals’ work did form the basis of Davies’ Parochial History of Cornwall together with additional efforts from Thomas Tonkins (Pearce, “Hals, William,” Dictionary of National Biography, vol.24 (1890), pp.123-124.) “There appears to be but little doubt that Hals was rather a scandalmonger, and also seems to have had some private grudge against the Killigrews, and in fact almost every other Cornish family, and the story has therefore been discredited by subsequent historians…” (Whitley, “Dame Killigrew and the Spanish Ship,” Journal of the Royal Institution of Cornwall, vol.7 no.27 (1883), p.283.) For a reprint of Hals’ account, reference: 1) Whitley, “Dame Killigrew and the Spanish Ship,” Journal of the Royal Institution of Cornwall, vol.7 no.27 (1883), pp.282-283; & 2) Baring-Gould, Cornish Characters and Strange Events (1909), pp.135-137.

[4] Worth, “The Family of Killigrew,” Journal of the Royal Institution of Cornwall, vol.3 no.12 (April 1871), pp.272-273. Martin Lister (1666-1745) married Anne Killigrew, daughter of Frances Twysden and Sir Peter Killigrew (ca.1634-1705), the son of Mary Lucas and Sir Peter Killigrew (ca.1593-1668), the brother and heir of Sir John Killigrew (1583-1633), Jane’s ex-husband. Mary Lucas was the daughter of Elizabeth Leighton and Sir Thomas Lucas II, the son of Sir Thomas Lucas and Mary Fermor, the daughter of Maud Vaux and Sir John Fermor who were the parents of Sir George Fermor, father to Jane Fermor. As part of his wife’s inheritance, Martin adopted the Killigrew surname. His family memoir was written in 1737 by Edward Snoxell, acting secretary for Killigrew, with Killigrew’s contributions. (“Lecture on ‘Extinct Cornish Families,’” The Royal Cornwall Gazette, no.4510 (13 March 1890), p.6.