Completed London: Artists and Subjects, Portraits: British 19th C, Portraits: British 20th C 65 Could the artist be Ayerst Hooker Buttery? Who is the Chelsea Pensioner?

Ayerst Hooker Buttery’s 1895 portrait of Reverend D. William Buckland, Canon of Christchurch (Oxford University Museum of Natural History) is signed ‘Ayerst Hooker’. https://bit.ly/3YRhyQq

Ayerst added Buttery to his name in 1900, following the death of his employer Horace Buttery.

As the donor is Miss Baker 1969, I would start with an enquiry to Chelsea Hospital to see if they had any residents called Baker in 1894: https://www.chelsea-pensioners.co.uk/tracing-ancestors

Ayerst Henham Hooker died 6 May 1930 at 3, Courtfield Gardens, S Kensington, Middlesex. Probate to widow Anna Sophie Hooker of Nutfield, Surrey. effects £12952. Resworn £15097
Source: England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1858-1995

If Ayerst Hooker added the surname Buttery to his name in 1900 then this work, as initialed A. H. B. in 1894, is unlikely to be by him.

Can that "very minute signature at the bottom right" be posted, please?

https://artuk.org/discover/artists/hooker-buttery-ayerst-18681929

Here is another painting credited to Hooker Buttery. It's not great I'd suggest especially the hands. The picture of the Chelsea Pensioner is far better so he'd either improved a great deal or it's not by him.
The back looks a bit of a mess with that bent nail inserted.

Date of death from several sources is 6 May 1930.

That said, attached is a composite of the initials on the back of the canvas and the signature by Ayerst Hooker Buttery on his 1911 Census return. As Ayerst Hooker he was the person to whom the 8th March 1900 probate of the estate of Horace Buttery was granted. A conclusion could be reached that the A. H. B. initials and the date of 1894 were added to the canvas by the artist after 1900.

If the signature lower right on this portrait could be compared to that on lower right on the portrait of Reverend D. William Buckland it might allow for a definite attribution to Buttery.

With addresses at 'Launcells', Templewood Avenue, Hampstead and 177 Piccadilly, Ayerst Hooker Buttery died at 'Winswood', Turners Hill Road, Crawley Down, Sussex, on the 29th March 1929, leaving an estate valued at £104,972/7/10 (or c. £4,800,000 in 2023).

http://www.onthemarket.com/details/12721139/

Gregory, Marion drew our attention to that work by Hooker Buttery in the first post of the discussion; and though presumably a relation, Ayerst Henham Hooker, 1854-1930, is not the man under discussion, Ayerst Hooker (later Hooker Buttery) 1868-1929. As the intro tells us, there is much information on the latter to be found at https://bit.ly/3JENJ16.

I agree, though, that it's unlikely to be by him, both stylistically and for the reason given by Kieran. I suspect the attribution on the blue-edged label was a later guess based solely on the initials in the rear inscription - I'm not even sure it's 'AHB', it could easily be 'AMB'.

Well done Keiran. I must have been looking at the records of another Ayerst Hooker - possibly a relative.I used ancestry.com. Your evidence has a date of 1894 so did Hooker add Buttery earlier?

Sorry, much of that now superseded. Kieran, I agree the capital letter formation (also seen on his 1901 marriage certificate, attached) very much opens up the possibility again.

I have looked extensively on both the BNA and Ancestry, and can find no sign of him using the surname Buttery before Horace Buttery's death in 1900. There are Electoral Register listings for him in 1894 & 1895 (both probably deriving from information gathered in the previous year) as just 'Ayerst Hooker'.

Baker is a common name. My guess is that the donor was Miss Betty Baker of London. Betty was an artist and, according to an article about the art exhibition that she and her friend Ursula Bradley held in Chelsea in September 1963, she lived at 33 Warwick Square, Pimlico. Her photograph is in another article about the exhibition.

As you say, Baker is a common name - in 1968 there were around 1,600 people called Baker listed in the London Tel Directory alone. Without some substantive supporting evidence to link Betty Baker to the artist or the Royal Hospital, I think your guess is pretty wild.

There is something very odd about the portrait. The pensioner dress uniform is quite wrong in detail: the collar is far too tall, and not only are the elongated buttonholes (and single button) quite unlike any Chelsea uniform I can find, their proximity to the coat's fastening edge doesn't make sense for any working buttonhole. Moreover a pensioner of this period would almost certainly have been the recipient of campaign medals, and the ribbons of these (or the medals themselves) would be seen on the sitter's left breast (our right). See, for example, https://bit.ly/3VethbE.

The uniform (and background) in fact look to have been heavily and clumsily over-painted, and certainly not by a highly-skilled restorer like Hooker Buttery. My suspicion is that the sitter was originally wearing something quite different - quite possibly, but not necessarily a military uniform - and that the paint layer later deteriorated (or was damaged) so badly that one or more subsequent owners of no artistic ability whatever have tried to cover it all up. The Chelsea Pensioner's dress coat being the simplest uniform imaginable, that it is what they tried to represent with crudely-applied masses of red paint - and the over-painting looks to have been done on more than one occasion.

The head is pretty good, and on the evidence of the initials (a further comparison image attached) I'm prepared to believe that Buttery painted it. But I don't believe for a second he was responsible for the uniform we see (and much else), and I think we will look in vain for any connection between the sitter, the Hospital, the artist and the donor.

Another possible donor is the Chelsea artist Miss Adge Baker.

Yes-gloopy red paint. Can I see the faint image of a star showing through in the centre of the chest.?
To me the face looks a bit like The Earl Roberts. Such a confident expression- hardly the image of downtrodden world weary CP.

The Chelsea Pensioner depicted is in the correct form of Scarlet dress for the period. It has evolved over time and I have many examples of pictures/uniforms in our heritage collection with the 'rollstock' collar in this style. The example provided in the comments is art work entitled 'A Good Joke' and dates from 1911, so a different timescale where uniforms are concerned. Additionally, we cannot rely on a lack of medals as evidence because we have had many Chelsea Pensioners who never saw combat. Furthermore, most of the art work depicting Chelsea Pensioners does so showing them upright and proud. I do not understand the assumption that these old soldiers were all broken as this is simply not the case.

I ordered the will (dated 29 January 1901) of Ayerst Hooker Buttery (d. 1929) and that of his son Horace Ayerst Buttery (dated 6 December 1961)(d. 1962).

AHB bequeathed his estate to his wife Gertrude Emily Buttery (née Crump)(d. 1930).

HAB’s will does not mention this painting. Some of his friends and relatives were to receive paintings (mostly by his own hand or Old Masters but one work “Little Boy” was by “Buttery”). Six specific miniatures were bequeathed to the Fitzwilliam Museum. Other paintings were to be sold at auction (Christie’s) or, if “owned jointly”, to be sold by his trustees. His own works that were not bequeathed were to be destroyed.

Miss Teresa Baker was left a significant legacy of £1,000 (if she was in his employ at the time of HAB’s death) and a further three months’ salary, as well as a list of items. Please see the attachment.

I think Marcie has provided the evidence that we need. As a result, we can be reasonably confident that the donor of this painting to the Royal Hospital Chelsea was Miss Teresa Baker, who features in the 1961 will of Horace Buttery, the son of Ayerst Hooker Buttery.

I was not aware of Ayerst Hooker Buttery’s work as an artist when I wrote his entry for the National Portrait Gallery website. Nevertheless, I can see no reason to doubt the initialled signature and date on the front of the painting, and the initialled inscription on the back, probably added later.

This discussion asks two questions to which the following seem to be the answers:

Could the artist be Ayerst Hooker Buttery? Yes.

Who is the Chelsea Pensioner? We don’t know and his identity will be very difficult to rediscover.

Well done, Marcie. Can you post the reference in Ayerst Hooker Buttery's will to his own artworks?

Teresa Baker is just a strong possibility, Kieran, but thanks! Here’s the extract that you requested.

Here is the extract from AHB’s will that you requested, Kieran.

As to the painting itself- perhaps an x-ray might reveal something interesting-under all that red paint.

Hi Marcie,

can you post the page that you refer to above in the following line?:

"Some of his friends and relatives were to receive paintings (mostly by his own hand or Old Masters but one work “Little Boy” was by “Buttery”)"

It’s a long will, Kieran. Here’s the page that mentions the painting by “Buttery” and part of the page that shows the bequest of HAB’s Old Master paintings.

There’s always a possibility that the sitter was a member of the family of the picture restorer Horace Buttery (d. 1900). The owner of a Buttery family tree on Ancestry has given me permission to post this image of Albert Buttery (1859–1933) and his two sons. Albert was the nephew of the picture restorer Horace Buttery (d. 1900). While the sitter wouldn’t have been Albert, I do think there’s a family resemblance to the sitter. If anyone has access to Ancestry, the photo of Albert’s son Horace Harold Buttery (d. 1962)(not attached) also resembles the sitter.

I don't really understand all your redactions, Marcie. Bar a few specific exceptions (mainly senior Royals) where there is a Court ruling that revelation would be 'undesirable or inappropriate', Wills that have received probate in England & Wales (or its equivalent 'confirmation' in Scotland) are by law *public documents*, and anyone is free to access them and the information they contain at low cost. In any case, after more than 60 years, and the death of most or all of the persons concerned, I can see no good reason for hiding their names and legacies. Data Protection legislation does not in general apply to people after their death, and even the very cautious Christie's will reveal details of buyer and sellers at their auctions after 50 years.

Marcie, could you explain the family connection where Albert Buttery was the nephew of the picture restorer Horace Buttery (d. 1900)?

The information was from a family tree, Kieran, and I’ve been trying without success to prove it myself. I can only confirm that the picture dealer Horace Buttery (d. 1900) had a brother named Charles Robert Buttery (b. 1837). So, perhaps that information won’t hold up.

I’ve ordered two more wills: Gertrude Emily Buttery (née Crump)(d. 1930) and Horace Buttery (d. 1900). There’s always a chance that a portrait of a family member was mentioned in a will.

In that context, Marcie, I would respectfully caution you against do definitely stating that "Albert was the nephew of the picture restorer Horace Buttery (d. 1900)" until you actually have that proof. It otherwise leads us all on a wild goose chase.

And now for the correct version!

In that context, Marcie, I would respectfully caution you against so definitely stating that "Albert was the nephew of the picture restorer Horace Buttery (d. 1900)" until you actually have that proof. It otherwise leads us all on a wild goose chase.

Here are extracts from the wills of Gertrude Emily Buttery (née Crump)(d. 1930) and Horace Buttery (d. 1900).

Once again, can a hi-res image of the signature on this canvas be posted?

I’m assuming that there are no auction house markings on the back of this work. The Christie’s auction of 18 July 1963 seems to have included works that had been owned by Horace Ayerst Buttery (d. 1962).

There were actually five sales at Christie's in May-July 1963 that included HAB's property, though the one you've shown did not include paintings. Two of them did - the first in May was important old masters, the second in June a more general sale of 'English pictures and drawings c.1650-c.1850'. Quite apart from that date cut-off, I think it unlikely Christie's would have offered a painting in such poor condition by an unrecognised and fairly modern artist; and also a little unlikely that a probably retired housekeeper or nurse would have been found bidding at any Christie's auction in the early 1960s. And why would she want to when she'd already been left a choice of items (including pictures) to remember her late employer by?

From which you will gather that I, too, accept that the Miss Baker who donated the portrait in 1969 is most probably the Miss Teresa Baker found by you in HAB's Will - she's certainly far more likely than a couple of random artists who happened to live a mile or so from the Royal Hospital! A very good find.

Though it adds little (apart from confirming she was still alive in 1969), Teresa Baker was actually the Auchtermuchty-born Margaret Anne Teresa Baker (1901-1983). Electoral registers suggest she entered Horace's employ (as live-in housekeeper and/or nurse?) in late 1952 or 53, and was still there when he died in 1962. Afterwards she moved to Bedford Park, Chiswick; and thence at some point to Brook Green, Hammersmith, where she in turn died in Nov 1983. See attached.

Thanks for the great research, Osmund.

Ayerst Hooker Buttery’s wife Gertrude was the niece of Horace Buttery (d. 1900). Gertrude’s parents were Sir William John Crump (1850–1923) and his wife Dame Anna Maria Crump (née Buttery)(1849–1921). Anna Maria was the daughter of Charles Buttery (1812–1878) and the sister of Horace Buttery (d. 1900).

Thanks to Marcie's research I will be able to add to the NPG's online Buttery history (link at outset of this discussion) that Ayerst Buttery’s wife, Gertrude, was the niece of Horace Buttery. A nice link.

The next update to the history is due to go live in or soon after September.

I don’t think that the mystery sitter was Sir William John Crump (1850–1923) but could he have been a member of the Crump family? Please see my composite, which is based on an image on Ancestry that seems to be from a publication.

Isn't the hunt for the identity of the pensioner in our portrait as much about documentation as likeness? Do the possible names, e.g. Buttery, occur in the hospital registers? See Thomas Ardill's post (26/4/2023).

I changed the image settings and my composite shows that odd “star” that Louis mentioned (27/04/2023 15:28). I agree with Osmund (27/04/2023 05:53) – most of the original image has likely been over-painted. Some of the greenish paint used for the background might even be on the uniform. Looking at images of Chelsea pensioners online, I would have expected to see a hat (worn on the head or being held by the sitter) and I think the uniform would have included a full set of gold buttons not a couple of red buttons. For example, please take a look at this watercolour dated 1887.

https://www.art.salon/artwork/walter-langley-r-i_the-chelsea-pensioner_AID202728

I feel uncomfortable with two aspects of our discussion.

1. The Royal Hospital Chelsea has posted (27/04/2023):

“The Chelsea Pensioner depicted is in the correct form of Scarlet dress for the period.” I think we need to accept this.

2. While there is clearly some overpaint on the picture, I don’t think that we can claim that most of the original image has likely been over-painted, at least not without physical access to the picture or a professional opinion from a picture conservator.

Good points, Jacob.

Here’s an image of Horace Ayerst Buttery (d. 1962). There’s no family resemblance to the sitter, in my opinion.

Once again, can a hi-res image of the signature on this canvas be posted?

There are five other single portraits titled '[A] Chelsea Pensioner' on Art UK by other artists. The four dated ones are 1890, 1918, 1972 and 2009: none of the sitters names are given. The only difference with Buttery's is that it is - as his 1894 inscription on the back says - a 'Life study', rather than a finished work. Since he initialled it 'AHB', he perhaps also wrote that on after 1900, when he adopted the Buttery surname and may have forgotten the name of the man who sat for him. This might have been just for him or perhaps, a group study session for which the sitter had been supplied (from among willing volunteers and perhaps for a payment) by the Hospital. Both may have happened quite regularly, including if an artist requested a particular (willing) man.

Here is a similar case in which Greenwich Hospital sent a couple of men with Nelson connections into London to sit for Frederick Cruikshank in 1840:

https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-101050


The point, as regards the Chalse examples including Buttery's, is that they are primarily being painted not as individuals but as 'types' representative of the character of the Chelsea corps, whose history of long and honourable service shows in their features. It is a pity the names are missing, but the fact they are (unless the 1972 and 2009 ones are somewhere in a recent file) reinforces that reading.

The will of Margaret Anne Teresa Baker (see Osmund 05/05/2023 03:28) was drafted in 1973 and it does not mention any works of art or members of the Buttery family. Yes, I do realize that this work arrived at the Royal Hospital Chelsea in 1969.

Sorry for the delay in getting this signature up on line, however we have many competing priorities. It is extremely faint and can only be seen in very exacting conditions and near impossible to capture by camera - this is as good as it gets!

Signature-- it looks to me to be dry point incised on a thoroughly dry paint surface. I can see A and B clearly,and 1894-Just as Martin Hopkinson says above.
My guess-- ownership tag rather than authorship.

Thank you, Royal Hospital Chelsea, for uploading the signature. Alas, as you observe, it is very difficult to read. I do believe that, if the signature could be lit from a more rakish angle one might obtain a better result, though I am sure that your best efforts have already been tried. It leaves the possibility of photographing with an infrared or ultraviolet light source, but this might prove to be too expensive.

The important point, however, is that, be it a mark of authorship or ownership, the date, both here and on the back of the canvas, pretty well excludes the possibility that this was painted or owned by Ayerst Hooker Buttery. As observed by Marion at the start of this discussion, the 1895 portrait of the Reverend D. William Buckland is signed 'Ayerst Hooker'. There is no logical argument to be made as to why the artist would have added his employee's name to his own in one year and then drop it the next.

For my part I accept the collection’s reading of the indistinct initials as AH. In which case the difficulty conjured up by Kieran in the previous post falls away. Incidentally, it would seem that it was intended to refer to the artist adding his EMPLOYER’S name, rather than EMPLOYEE’S name.

Whatever the reading of the initials, Marcie’s research means that we can be reasonably confident that the donor of this painting to the Royal Hospital was Teresa Baker, who features in the 1961 will of Horace Buttery, Ayerst Hooker Buttery’s son. So I favour the idea that our portrait is likely to have been painted and owned by Ayerst Hooker Buttery. That said, in the cases like this where very little of an artist’s work is known, a degree of caution is necessary.

Just to clarify, Horace Buttery (1846-1900) was followed in business by his assistant, Ayerst Hooker (1868-1929), who took his master’s name in 1900 and thereafter features as Ayerst Hooker Buttery.

A slip of the mind, Jacob. EMPLOYER is correct. Also, I don't believe that your AH, if it is there at all, would have been placed so far away from the date of 1894 with the subsequent letters having no bearing on the identity of the artist. There is only one really conclusive way that this matter can be resolved and that is for a more thorough examination to be made of the signature area, with the proper lighting, be it coming from a better angle or it being sourced as infrared or ultraviolet, or even the use of x-ray. Everything else will just be speculation, which will only lead to some future request being made to close the unresolved discussion.

P.S. Perhaps Martin Hopkinson would explain his rationale for suggesting in the first place that this might be by Ayerst Hooker Buttery.

Concerning the two previous posts:

Not my 'AH' but the collections. In my experience of examining paintings as a curator for many years, UV, IR and x-ray are not helpful in a case like this.

So, if you like, ignore the indistinct initials on the front and focus on the inscription on the reverse -- and on the provenance helped by Marcie's research. As to Martin's rationale, I think this is evident from his introduction.

We are asked two questions. On the artist we are probably as near as we are going to get (my post, 28 April). On the sitter, if there is an answer, I suspect it lies in the hospital registers (Thomas Ardill's post, 26 April)

Thank you, Jacob. Of course, Martin's rationale is clearly evident from his introduction. I was the one not thinking clearly.

Without the possibility of any technical method being useful in the revealing of the signature, I would venture the following. As Ayerst Hooker added Buttery to his own name in 1900, when Miss Baker was either not yet born or a very young girl, she must only have ever heard of Horace Buttery's father being referred to as Ayerst Hooker Buttery. In donating the painting to the Royal Hospital, it would be logical, therefore, that she would refer to this artist in that way. This portrait, therefore, could simply be signed Ayerst Hooker, with the initials on the reverse of the canvas having been added at a date later than 1900.

In a final effort to resolve the matter, it would be helpful if Marion could post a hi-res image of AHB's signature as it appears on the portrait of the Reverend D. William Buckland.

Just an aside. In the old days- watchmakers/repairers used to inscribe their initials and date somewhere inside a watch they had worked on or serviced.Perhaps Buttery did the same with paintings he restored or was involved with.
If the signature is inscribed as I suspect- one cheap easy way is to rub fine chalk dust over the area,and it will settle in the depressions to facilitate.

The trouble with that hypothesis, Kieran, is that the original reason for accepting that the rear inscription read 'AHB' (as opposed to the equally likely 'AMB'), and stood for Ayerst Hooker Buttery, was that (as you first pointed out 26/04/2023 16:40) the formation of the letters is identical with the same capitals used by him on two contemporary documents - see also 26/04/2023 17:03. Without that evidence the whole case for Hooker Buttery would become weaker, and the Baker name perhaps just coincidence. Taken together, though, the case is very strong.

I cannot begin to understand why he or anyone else, a few years afterwards or much later, would attempt to incise a signature into the hardened paint - and that's certainly what it looks like - instead of just painting it. But as my worries about everything we see in the lower part of the picture remain, it's not something I'm going to dwell on.

Could someone at the RHC carefully try to take a very gentle graphite rubbing of that signature?

I think we need to be careful in what we ask a collection to do. As a curator knowing that paint surfaces can be fragile. I'd be very cautious about rubbing a picture even through paper. In fact I wouldn't countenance it, at least not without a professional opinion, all the more so since contributors to this discussion detect repaint.

An image of Ayerst Hooker Buttery's signature on the portrait of the Reverend D. William Buckland is attached. It was too dark to make out, so I have adjusted it.

Many thanks, Marion. That is most helpful.

Attached is a composite of the two signatures in roughly the same proportion to each. Note might be taken of the fist two letters of this discussion's one, where there is possibly a faint Y to be seen to the right of the A. More tellingly, perhaps, is the deeply incised line at the end of this discussions signature that could be a match for the same in the distinctive R in the clear signature above it.

Taking Jacob's wise advice seriously, if there can be no physical interaction with the paint and canvas, there is one last possibility that the RHC might try. As when one visits an old graveyard and attempts to read a worn headstone, shining a light across the various letters at a very sharp angle to the plane can cast useful shadows in any incised area, allowing for at least some better chance of making out the text. This effect can be seen very clearly when visiting such headstones in the early morning or in the late evening when the sun, if it is available, is at its lowest position in the sky.

Thus, shining a raking light across the signature with a pen torch (as many might have seen Bendor do on the TV!) or with the torch of a smart phone, for example, while using another device to take a straight-on photograph, might, and I emphasise might, produced a better result than any so far presented.

A common 'Discussions' issue is where to call a halt on what can reasonably be achieved given the 'virtual' nature of the medium and the varied ability/willingness of owning collections to get involved, which ranges from considerable to total non-response.

I think the Hospital's help here has been commendable and enough to satisfy the answerable question asked, rather than the one less likely to be answerable at all.

Though not very clear, the inscription on the front of the canvas does not suggest anyone other than A.H. Buttery was artist. His name is also written in pencil on the stretcher below the 'Miss Baker' stick-on label (see the very first attachment at the top). Whether by him or someone else is less significant than that it is perhaps partly why the label was put there - by Miss Baker or the Hospital on receipt- to make the reported artist identity clearer.

Comparsions made in the discussion have also now shown that the broadly painted blue inscription on the back is by Buttery, though probably added after 1900.

I do not think it reasonable to ask more of the Hospital.

At some point a proper conservation inspection may clarify detail of the inscription in the paint, which clearly enough starts 'AY...' however it continues.

It is not likely to be easy to identify the sitter but attempting it (or finding that of all five of the 'Chelsea Pensioner' portraits on Art UK, or others) through Hospital records, or such old photos as it may have back into the 19th century, might be a project for its friends or volunteers to do, if they wished, on a longer timescale.
As I've already said, I think they were all done primarily as 'interesting old-soldier face types' rather than 'personal commemorations' and I doubt this one would be found unless the Hospital has records of which Pensioners were 'let out' (in any sense) as artist models, which I rather doubt.

Be it a wild-goose chase or not, that can't be done in the timescale in which this discussion should end rather than add to the list of those still open without good reason, both with and without recommendations for closure.

Yes, Pieter, lack of collection response is a major drawback, not just for public discussions but for the much more numerous submissions that remain behind the scenes, which could significantly improve the database given suitable response from collections.

As you can appreciate, the Royal Hospital Collection is vast and we cannot devote much of our time to responding to this forum. It is monitored, and we respond when we have time.

I can confirm that we do not hold records relating to Chelsea Pensioners of this period, as these form part of the National Archives and are housed at Kew. We do have several named sitter portraits, however conversely we have many more that, sadly, we will just never know.

Thanks Chelsea. Glad to hear you have some examples with names attached, which is of course also the only way to find anything in the records held at Kew about any of them. This one doesn't so the sensible thing to do here is fill in the full name and dates of Buttery (1868-1929) as the artist, beyond all reasonable doubt, and call a halt, at least in my view. Its good to see that, working from life, he could do a good face: not what one would suspect from his mechanical copy of the 1846 portrait of the Revd Buckland at Oxford, but perhaps the original was that too.

Taking my cue from Pieter, I think the time has come to draw this discussion to a close as it seems to have reached a profitable conclusion:
In answer to the initial question posed - could the artist be Ayerst Hooker Buttery? - I think enough evidence has been provided to show that this is a strong possibility (despite the curiosities that remain over the signature on the front of the portrait, I found the clear likeness in the shape of the letters in the probate signature compelling, and it seems plausible that this was added to the back to retrospectively assist with identification). The suggestion that Miss Teresa Baker is likely to have been the donor of the work to Chelsea also seems credible. As for the identity of the sitter, this must remain a mystery for now - though I agree with Pieter that it may well have been intended to represent a 'type' rather than a portrait. As ever, thank you for all your collective efforts to discover more about this work and for all the useful information you brought to light in the process.

Thanks Ruth. I hope the record will also note the full identity of Miss Margaret Anne Teresa Baker (1901-1983), the donor, whose identity is filled out above by Osmund (05/05/2023 03:28). She did well to pass on sensibly what had been left to her or we'd just have the dull Buckland copy as evidence of AHB's ability. With luck a bit more may surface in future.

Perhaps Simon Gillespie might have some advice about using different light sources to reveal relevant information:

https://tinyurl.com/3h8ak9fw

Kieran--- good suggestion!