More on the Duke of Wellington portrait! Exploring the true origins of the famous Duke of Wellington portrait.

A while ago, I asked about the origins of the iconic half-length portrait of the Duke of Wellington. When people hear his title or name, that is most likely the picture they have in mind. It was even featured on the British five-pound note between the 1970s and 1990s. And today, it sits at Apsley House, watching over tourists and history enthusiasts alike who come to visit Old Nosey. However, while doing my occasional digging into the Iron Duke and his life and legacy, I noticed an interesting contradiction.

Most sources date Sir Thomas Lawrence's famous portrait to 1815–1816, which I have always believed due to its heroic and aloof tone, suggesting confidence after defeating Europe's conqueror. However, other accounts say it was commissioned and completed in 1817–1818 as a gift for Mrs. Marianne Patterson, whom the Duke admired. He also commissioned a portrait of her, kept it with him, and gifted his to her. Unlike the heroic story, this one feels more personal.

So then I got curious, which is the truth!? Which is why I came to Reddit after more digging and finding myself inconclusive. I wanted to see if anyone else knew about it. And in both subs, I have posted this, which got a decent amount of upvotes, didn't get an answer yet. So I ended up doing more research, not just into the portrait but also into Wellington and Marriane Patterson, and I wanted to share what I have found out so far regarding this topic.

Disclaimer! I am not a historian, nor am I experienced in historical research. I do intend to learn as someone who loves history and wants to pursue it someday, but I am an amateur right now. I tried my best. And I made sure to present my findings as academic and objectively as I can.

c. 1817-1818

There are a lot of sources I have found that argue (convincingly in my opinion) that this famous painting of the Duke was part of a companion piece with Marianne Patterson, a woman he is said to have fallen “ill in love” with, and also his (alleged) mistress, that he had commissioned from Sir Thomas Lawrence. He kept her painting with him, while she kept his with her. After his death, Marianne gave it to Arthur’s son, the 2nd Duke of Wellington, and now sits in Apsley house. Marianne's piece remained in the Duke’s country home, Stratfield Saye.

I initially came across this argument from articles and blog posts about the “Wellington, Women, and Friendships” exhibition. It took place between April and October 2022 at Apsley House, the Duke’s London residence. All the posts declare this painting as c.1818. Due to this I assume this was mentioned during the exhibition itself. Considering this, it makes sense that the Wellington Collection website also attributes the date of the painting to c.1818

I found some pictures of the exhibition from Alarmy, which features the portrait of the Duke next to Marianne’s. When you do look at it, you can see how similar-looking they are.

(Image here)

There are more pictures in Alarmy from this exhibition too, if you are interested in exploring.

Furthermore, I got quite engrossed in reading the commentary of Rory Muir’s books on Wellington, which can be found at lifeofwellington.co.uk. There, the author seems to lean towards the explanation of this being a piece he commissioned for Marianne Patterson: 

“There was always some doubt over the date of the famous half length of Wellington: the Iconography puts it as 1814 while other authorities make it 1815-16, but it is clear from the correspondence quoted by Jehanne Wake that it was commissioned by the Duke in 1817 as a present for Marianne Patterson, and that she bequeathed it to the second Duke (Wake Sisters of Fortune p 140-1; Garlick Sir Thomas Lawrence p 279 no805b confirms that the provenance applies to this particular portrait).”

I did get my hands on a preview version of Jehanne Wake’s book that talks about the Caton sisters (one of whom is Marianne) on Google Books, with access to a few chapters. Here is what I found regarding the paintings, from Chapter X "Marianne and the Duke":

“The Duke had commissioned Lawrence to paint two portraits in oil that spring, one of Marianne for him and one of himself as a present for Marianne…It was common practise to have engravings made of existing portraits to give to family and friends, as Wellington would do for his somber portrait by George Hayter commissioned as a gift for a godson. For Marianne, no engraving would suffice. The large flattering portrait he gave her has become one of the most reproduced in the vast Wellington iconography.” (p.140) 

Below is Wake's description of the portraits.

“He is seen standing with folded arms, as he fixes the viewer with the assured level gaze of a commander, a man at the height of military fame wearing the field marshal’s uniform of red coat and gold braid, the blue garter sash and the orders of the Golden Fleece and the Grand Cross of the Bath. Marriane’s picture is slightly smaller. Her lovely oval face bears an expression of sympathetic interest and the merest suggestion of a smile. She is shown seated, wearing a simple gown of white muslin with golden sash and ribbons, and is raising her left arm as if to hold the long delicate chain of tiny seed pearls and diamonds falling around her long neck.” (p.140)

“She was on Bond Street for the sittings throughout April, and the Duke sat for his portrait after his arrival in London on April 21, when they no doubt passed time together at the studio.” (pp.140-1)

Below may be the correspondence Muir mentioned.

"On May 9, the duke made a note of his initial payment to Lawrence. "For my Picture for Mrs. Patterson £78-15 [$7,800]" and "Mrs. P's for me £52-10."...On July 4th the Duke recorded: "Paid £158-7 [$15,800] for the second half of my Picture for Mrs. Patterson and her Picture for me and the Frames." The Duke took Marriane's portrat to France when he returned there in July..." (p.141)

“When the Duke returns to England after the Occupation ended, he always kept Marriane’s picture hanging in his study at Stratfield Saye. Marriane, in turn, always kept his picture with her.” (p.141)

“The two paintings were reunited only upon her death when she bequeathed his portrait to his eldest son, the second duke, whom she had known from boyhood. In the present day, the portraits are again separated: the Duke’s hangs at Apsley House and Marianne’s at Stratfield Saye.” (p.141)

I also looked at Muir’s other citations, but I will mention them in the other section. 

c. 1815-1816

Some sources still maintain that this painting dates to c.1815 or 1816. I noticed that they tend to be official authorities or from books on Sir Thomas Lawrence. It seems Muir also made this observation.

I decided to look up whatever book I could get my hands on about Sir Thomas Lawrence's work. I found one on archive.org and in that book this portrait is attributed to being from c.1815. (Levvy, 2005, pp.26-27)

“It is significant that Lawrence’s most memorable and successful portrait of Wellington (pl.15) steers adroitly between extremes of grandeur and ordinariness, managing to convey - without any hint of swaggering - an air of supreme self-confidence.” (Levvy, 2005, p.26) 

“It is often claimed that Lawrence portrays too many of his sitters with smiling faces, but the accusation is not borne out by evidence, and Wellington’s impassive, aloof visage in itself provides an effective rebuttal.” (Levvy, 2005, p.26) 

“Although the picture can be dated only approximately, as not painted before January 1815 (when Wellington received the Grand Cross of the Bath), it seems consciously to present the image of him just a few months later, as the calm conqueror who in 18 June that year ultimately defeated Napoleon at the battle of Waterloo.” (Levvy, 2005, p.26) 

I found it interesting that Levvy says that when the painting was dated is "only approximately". He argues that the painting has to be from a few months after January 1815 because of the insignia presented on Wellington's uniform which was the Grand Cross of the Bath he had received around January, 1815. It seems that Levvy notes which version of the Duke was portrayed in the portrait itself to suggest the painting not before January 15 or maybe after he had defeated Napoleon at the battle of Waterloo.

. I am sensing that here Levvy is rather talking about which version of the Duke was portrayed in the portrait itself, and, based on that, the painting can't have been before January, 1815, when he had received the Grand Cross of the Bath, or after Waterloo. He seems to be making the case that because of this the painting is c.1815. But, a specific date isn't mentioned.

The above source is where Wikipedia page about this painting says this painting is from c.1815-1816. And cites the same source as above.

“It was begun in early 1815 following Wellington's success in the Peninsular War and shortly before his victory over Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo and the subsequent allied occupation of France under Wellington's command,”

As mentioned in the previous section, I searched for Muir’s other reference. What I came across was a book on Sir Thomas Lawrence’s work by Kenneth Garlick. I wasn’t able to find what Muir said specifically in regards to “Garlick Sir Thomas Lawrence p 279 no805b confirms that the provenance applies to this particular portrait” but I did find the same portrait of the Duke as being from c.1814. There is, however, a mention of a painting and Marianne Patterson on page 61.

I was watching a video by Christie’s on another Duke of Wellington piece, which is the most recent reference I have ever come across, because this video was posted 2 weeks ago. And the video does show the portrait (at 1:56) we are talking about here as being c. 1815.

On Wellington and Marianne Patterson

I do want to talk a bit more about Marianne and Wellington, as I fell down a rabbit hole after discovering the painting's contradictory origin. I wanted to understand the nature of their relationship and more, because all the sources I have read mention her as the someone the Duke, who has had relationships with many women and is known as a ladies’ man, actually fell in love with and seems to have had a lifelong passion for.

Marianne, two of her sisters, and her husband Robert Patterson arrived in Europe around 1814. Possibly something to do with Marianne's asthma. It was around this time that Marianne and Wellington would have met. Marianne would have been 26, and Wellington would have been 45. After Waterloo he even took her around to see the battlefield. (Delaforce, p.127-128) And he introduced her to the Prince Regent.

It seems that whatever was going on between Wellington and Marianne, it wasn't exactly unknown. His niece, Hyacinthe Littleton, wrote:

“...the Duke of Wellington fell violently in love with Mrs Patterson and it was the amusement of all of London. Mrs Patterson was evidently much pleased with the eclat of the thing but always behaved very correctly.” (Delaforce, p.127)

Mrs Calvert, who is a friend of Wellington's wife, Kitty, wrote in her journal that:

“...It is the fashion to make a fuss about her because the Duke of Wellington is in love with Mrs Patterson whos sister-in-law is married to Jerome Boneparte.” (Delaforce, p.129)

It is also interesting to note that the sister of Marriane’s husband is Elizabeth “Betsy” Patterson-Boneparte, who was married to Jerome Boneparte, Napoleon’s younger brother. Napoleon ended up forcing his brother to agree to an annulment. (Delaforce, p.129) Betsy wrote in a letter to Sydney Owenson on May 8th, 1817:

“Mr Tom Moore, the poet, called to show me the article of your letter which mentions the report of the Duke of Wellington’s loves. I am not the Mrs Patterson the Great Man gives as a successor to Mme Grassini. You would be surprised if you knew how great a fool she is at the power she exercises over the Duke but I believe he has not taste ‘pour les femmes d’esprit’, [translates to “ for women of wit”], which is however no reason for going into extremes as in this case. He gave her an introduction to the Prince Regent and to everyone of consequence in London and Paris. She had, however, no success in France where her not speaking the language of the country was a considerable advantage to her since it prevented her nonsense from being heard. Do not tell what I have written to you of this affair, since I should pass for malicious and unfriendly towards my compatriot and relation. She writes too, all the paragraphs you may have seen in the newspapers and might revenge herself by saying some spiteful things of me through the channel.” (Delaforce, p.129)

Additionally, according to Muir and Wake, Wellington's wife, Kitty, knew the Catons and Marianne. But it also seems that Kitty was painfully aware of Wellington's feelings for Marianne or about an alleged affair. From Muir's commentary, John Fremantle captured the domestic awkwardness in a November 1817 letter to his uncle:

"...the duchess went into the duke’s room the other day, in order to speak to him, she found Louisa seated on one chair, Mrs Patterson’s picture on another, and the duke. On seeing this she turned back, they called after her, but she would not go in.   The duke, sometime afterwards, went into her room, to know what was wanted."

Many of the sources I have read, including Wake's, have doubt about whether Wellington and Marriane had an affair or had sexual relations. Wake notes a lack of evidence that anything sexual or intimate ever happened between the two. Only Delaforce seems to suggest an affair. However, it is very well recognised by all sources I have read that Wellington was in love with Marriane, and as supported by Wake and Delaforce, Marriane may have reciprocated them too.

In 1821, seven years later, Marianne is set to return to America with her sisters and husband. Based on the following quote, Wake notes that the Duke seem to not take Marriane's departure well, as he has said to have looked "ill" because of it.

From Muir’s book, commentary of Chapter 6:

“The Duke of Wellington looks horrible ill, sidice that it is not the present combinazione but love; that he declares he never knew the meaning of the word until he saw Mrs Paterson, & her departure for America déchire son tender coeur in a terrible manner. He really looks mighty sick’. (Lady William Russell to Miss Berry, Paris, 22 March 1818 Blakiston Lord William Russell and His Wife p 41)”. 

Here, Delaforce also notes that in his long life, Wellington has rarely ever shown as much emotion as he had when Marianne was leaving, the only exception being after Waterloo when the names of casualties were being read to him. (p.130)

In... her husband passed away, leaving her widowed. After this she moved back to England.

...

Of course, despite Marianne now being widowed, the Duke was still married. And it was very unlikely he would divorce his wife. Delaforce points out the social attitudes around Divorce at this time, and that ""

Delaforce also asserts that... which suggests Marrianne wanted to marry and may have tried to convince him to leave his wife, but for the Duke divorcing Kitty was out of the question.

Marriage to Richard Wellesley

Marriane married Wellington's brother, Richard, and

Then, in... Marianne began sending Richard Wellesley, Wellginton's older brother, love letters.

The two would get engaged. The Duke was less than pleased about it.

The relationship between The Duke and his brother Lord Wellesley was already shaky, and this potentially played a part in it too. However, Marianne seems to have served as a channel of communication between the brothers, and eventually helped patch their relationship, not so long before Richard's death. (Delaforce, Wake) 

Marriane as Wellington's "true love of his life"?

While most sources (mostly blog posts about Wellington’s love life and relationship with women) I read do mention Mrs Patterson among other women like Charlotte Greville, Harriet Arbuthnot, and even Naploeon's ex-mistresses, I have only come across two books that delve more into Wellington and Marriane, and argue for a more romantic and long lasting bond or friendship between the duke and Marriane. Both Delaforce and Wake argue that Mrs Patterson was the “true” love of Wellington’s life.

Delaforce (p.127) argues that Marianne is the true love of Wellington's life because:

• She was the only woman "in his long life" he was known to have done any favours for, for example, mentioning how he wrote to many people, such as... begging them to introduce her to their friends.
• He risked his reputation to introduce her to the Prince Regent.
• And because the Duke was furious when she married his brother.

In Wake's argument about Marianne being the love of his life, she makes a few points.

• As Wake mentioned that "Marianne and the Duke were deeply attached" (p.185) and that Marianne "acted as a conduit between them [Wellington and his brother] as she still loved the Duke, as he did her." (p.220), which also shows that romantic feelings may have existed even when Marianne was married to Richard.
• Wake also points out that in a few surviving notes the Duke wrote to Marianne, he refers to her as "My dearest Lady Wellesley", which she notes is unusual for Wellington to write to women in this way, as with his other close women, such as another sister-in-law and Mrs Harriet Arbuthnot, he refers to them as "My dear Mrs Pole/Arbuthnot".
• The above quote continues mentioning how on January...
• Furthermore, Wake suggests that these feelings endured even after Richard's death and until their own deaths. During Wellington's state funeral procession, Wake notes:

“Marianne, joined by Louisa and Bess, watched from the window of Apsley House as the large procession started off from Grosvenor Place and passed before them en route to St. Paul’s. Marianne, usually so composed, wept openly for her dearest duke. He had loved her and been a devoted friend; there has been other loves, but, in the words of his biographer Elizabeth Longford, “she was the love of his life” and he always wore a miniature of her. When he died, it was found with him still.” (p.330) 

I read the works by Longford on Wellington that I could find, but I couldn’t locate the part where she calls Marianne Wellington’s “love of his life." However, in the quote from Wake’s book above, there was a reference linked to the detail about the miniature Wellington supposedly always wore and was found with after his death. I was eager to see the source of this claim. Unfortunately, my only access was a limited sample from Google Books, which included some chapters but not all pages. The bibliography isn’t fully available, and I was quite eager to examine the reference about the miniature and its discovery with Wellington. Sadly, I couldn’t find full access anywhere. If anyone can access this book, please let me know about it!

However, I did find something that may be what Wake mentions here as a miniature the Duke had. In the website Age of Revolution, features a watch that was owned by Wellington, which includes a miniature of Marianne’s portrait, belonging to a private collection (I wonder if this was in the Wellington, Women and Friendships exhibition). The miniature appears to be the same as the one the duke had commissioned from Sir Thomas Lawrence earlier. You can find it here: https://ageofrevolution.waterlooassociation.org.uk/200-object/bregeut-watch-wellington-post-waterloo/

Of course, we have our original topic to consider, the paintings. That Wellington commissioned such a thing is also important to include into Wake and Delaforce's argument.

Conclusion

I still found conflicting sources. But overall, based on what I have read so far, I do feel that this being a piece from c.1817 for Marianne Patterson seems more likely. Especially when you consider that Levvy makes a case for the painting being from 1815 because of the insignia present on Wellington, yet that also doesn't negate the possibility of the painting being from c.1817/1818 either.

But I am still left with the question of which is the definitive answer, and more questions:

• Why is there a contradiction or contestant on the date of the portrait at all?
• Why is it that, while there are pretty credible sources (since Wake's book had extensive research and access to private collections, including ones related to the Wellesley family) stating that this painting is a gift for Marianne, there are still questions and conflicting labelling of dates of origins about the painting's origin?

I am curious to see what everyone thinks about the paintings and their origins, or about Wellington and Marianne themselves, what you thought of them or if you raise your eyebrows at their story. Or if there is anyone else who knows more about this! I’ve been quite eager to witness some discussion on this. So I am looking forward to comments and reading what everyone thinks!

References