THE WADLOW SHAKESPEARE PORTRAIT BLOG

POST 2: THE MOST ASKED QUESTION (May 2025)

Who can “sign off” The Wadlow portrait as Shakespeare?

I have lost count of the times I have been asked this and it is a fair and relevant

question.

I hate it when people avoid answering a question by asking a different question but I hope you will understand why I need to do that and it's because I also often get asked: “Are you [Steve Wadlow], a Shakespeare scholar?”

I can hear you laughing; I imagine your eyes rolling while you think.

That window cleaner from Aylesbury now thinks he`s a Scholar!

Rest assured, my answer has to be no, I am not a Scholar of Shakespeare or anything else,

I have no academic qualifications, no doctorate in Elizabethan studies, I am not attached to

any university, except that of life and I am not published in academic journals, so clearly, I

am not a Shakespeare (or the period) scholar. But this question and its relevance help to

answer the first question.

Before answering who can “sign off” the Wadlow portrait as Shakespeare, we must first

consider the definition of a Shakespeare scholar. Not in general, not a scholar of

Shakespeare`s works, a completely different thing (in my opinion), but a scholar of

Shakespeare, the man himself and what a painting of him would or perhaps should look like.

In the case of Shakespeare himself, we are navigating a puzzle, with many missing pieces. It

is curious and amazing how little is known about him. Much more is known about many of

his peers. It is almost as if there had been an attempt to erase much from history, or was he

just a very private person away from the stage?

This leads to much speculation, informed hypothesis, guess work and in some cases pure

assumption. Over the centuries, Shakespeare scholars have written much about his life and

the man himself, but only a fraction of this is historical record.

There is no doubt that a scholar of the period or the theatre will have a far better grasp of

such hypotheses and speculation than the rest of us, but the fact that there are differing

opinions amongst them demonstrates that very little can be seen as definitive.

Therefore, if an individual, me in this case, has read and researched everything that has

been written about the man, taking on board all of the different arguments, does that make

me (or anyone else in the same position) as knowledgeable as a Scholar, even if not a

scholar?

To be clear, the above is an example, as I have not read every book or paper on

Shakespeare, but I have read a few!

Back to who can sign our Portrait off as a genuine portrait of Shakespeare, alas, there is no one, not an istitution or a single individual.

Our problem is that we are dealing with two separate groups of experts and scholars. These are the art experts and the Shakespeare experts and both are notoriously difficult to convince.

It is difficult enough for an individual to prove they have a masterpiece by a famous artist

such as Monet or Turner, but at least some institutions or individuals are recognised to sign

off the painting and give an opinion that is treated as definitibe.

But a portrait of Shakespeare is a whole different ball game. The art world may voice

an opinion but the Shakespeare scholars reply with, but what do they know about art and vice versa. All they can do is confirm or debunk if it is genuine to the period and perhaps who the artist may be.

The Shakespeare world has no benchmark to say if a portrait is Shakespeare or not, without

100% provenance, and it is unlikely such a provenance would ever exist for a painting that is over 400 yeras old. This becomes very difficult iof like in our case the portrait was lost then later rediscovered.

Even the Chandos portrait which hangs in the National Portrait Gallery and is claimed to have the best claim of any "portrait of Shakespeare" does not have a complete provenance. Mush of it before 1719 is hearsay and the National Portrait Gallery can not be sure that it is even a portrait of Shakespeare.

The Chandos portrait

The world of Shakespeare portraits is wary of new claiments after decades, even

centuries, of false and fraudulent claims. Without 100% provenance, all that can be relied on are bits of evidence, sensible assumptions, and comparisons with known images like the Droeshout and Funerary bust which I will deal with in future posts.

This does not mean our quest is futile, but it has pitfalls, which are best seen in the example of the Cobbe Portrait which was supported by the eminent Shakespeare scholar Sir Stanley Wells of the Birthplace Trust.

Like The Wadlow, The Cobbe portrait had been hanging anonymously on a wall for decades.

The difference being that, unlike The Wadlow, The Cobbe was part of an impressive art

collection in an impressive house, not a small end terrace in the Home Counties.

In 2006, Alec Cobbe, the owner of the collection that had been passed down through the

generations, saw a portrait once thought to have been of Shakespeare. This portrait

was known as the Jansen portrait. It seems that Mr Cobbe could see the similarities with his portrait and The Jansen portrait, and I believe he sought advice from The Birthplace Trust.

This is where Sir Stanley Wells comes in. At some point during the investigations, Sir

Stanley decided to “Nail his colours to the mast”, and back the Cobbe as a portrait of

Shakespeare.

The Cobbe portrait

There is no doubt that a revered scholar such as Sir Stanley backing the Cobbe portrait as

Shakespeare was massive, and others then stuck their heads over the parapet supporting it.

This immediately propelled The Cobbe to serious Shakespeare Portrait status, second only

to Chandos in The National Portrait Gallery.

I am amazed that Sir Stanley stuck his neck out. This was a few years before I had an

interest in the subject, but looking back, it is surprising that he did. But brave of him to do so, and credit him for voicing an opinion. Shakespeare portraits are an area generally avoided at all costs by Shakespeare Scholars, and I suspect Sir Stanley soon wondered if he should have kept his counsel.

It was not long before the debate regarding the Cobbe portrait started raging. It was pointed out that the Jansen collection (there are a few versions and copies), previously, for decades thought to be Shakespeare, had been reidentified as Thomas Overbury. Even more

damming was that the renowned Folger library in Washington had purchased one many

years ago, and had declared it was not Shakespeare. Much criticism was directed at Sir Stanley, even the former director of the National Portrait Gallery, Sir Roy Strong, publicly announced his view of the Cobbe being Shakespeare. His words were “Codswallop”.

So there you have it, when a true Shakespeare scholar does take the risk of voicing an

opinion, they leave themselves open to such things. The fact that these events happened

relatively recently probably means that it is unlikely that any, apart from the very brave,

scholars are likely to comment on any other claims.

So, to answer the original question "who can “sign off” The Wadlow portrait as Shakespeare?" The answer is no one! But scholarly backing, if anyone is brave enough to

voice an opinion, can help. The real shame is that fear of reputation being damaged, although understandable, could jeopardise new discoveries.

As a footnote, I genuinely believe though, that had The Wadlow been in Cobbe`s collection

and the Cobbe been in the corner of my parents sitting room in a small terrace house in

Tring that it would have been the Wadlow that Sir Stanley Wells would have backed and that would be the face used by the media and adorning merchandise sold at Stratford-upon-Avon.

Please feel free to post a comment below.

Steve