The British country house as an institution conjures ideas of grandeur, wealth, beautiful objects, fancy portraits and opulent rooms with towering ceilings. Temple Newsam is such a house. In the last few years, there have been important calls for decolonising country houses, to highlight hidden narratives and bring figures from obscurity into the light.

View of Temple Newsam House, Leeds

View of Temple Newsam House, Leeds c.1752

Thomas Chapman (d.1768) and John Bouttats (1712–after 1768) (attributed to)

Leeds Museums and Galleries

Within Temple Newsam, there are several objects which contain imagery of Black people who have, until recently, been overshadowed by the dominantly white narrative of the house. Who were these people? Walking along the corridors and through the grand rooms of Temple Newsam, it is very easy to miss them, often positioned in a corner or literally 'part of the furniture'. The 'Troubling Tales' project aimed to bring these figures to light through an object-based study: beginning with the object and researching outwards to consider the portrayal of the Black figure and the wider context in which the objects were made, used and displayed.

The first object is a portrait of an attendant with Princess Henrietta Anne Stuart, painted in the studio of Jean Charles Nocret. Princess Henrietta was the daughter of Charles I and Queen Henrietta Maria. She grew up at the French court and married her cousin Philip, Duke of Orleans, the brother of Louis XIV of France in 1661. Philip features in the smaller portrait being held by Henrietta and her attendant.

Henrietta Anne (1644–1670), Duchess of Orleans

Henrietta Anne (1644–1670), Duchess of Orleans c.1665–1670

Jean Charles Nocret (1615–1672) (studio of)

Leeds Museums and Galleries

The person we want to highlight, however, is the attendant: the young Black boy who sits in the painting's lower-left corner. He sits facing Henrietta, supports the smaller portrait and holds a small spaniel. Against the dark background, the child fades into obscurity – echoing how his story has been obscured within the historical narrative of the house.

The second object is a highly detailed beadwork mirror frame and case made between 1662 and 1670. During the seventeenth century, the possession of a mirror was only for the wealthy. Glass was expensive to produce and could only be made in small pieces. Elaborate frames, like this one, were created to further emphasise this luxuriousness through expensive materials, leisured cultivated hands and symbolic embroidery. The mirror frame was likely made by a young woman from a wealthy family, potentially a member of the Horton-Fawkes family of Farnley Hall.

The motifs on the mirror are exceptionally detailed and feature beading, stitches and raised work. The figure on the left panel represents Charles II and a young Black boy. The right panel represents Queen Catherine of Braganza with a young white girl.

Beadwork mirror

Beadwork mirror

1662–1670, embroidery by an unknown maker

There are several other mirrors like this from similar periods in various collections. Many have a man and woman on either side of the frame, surrounded by a mix of flowers, country houses, fountains and animals. What is significant about this frame, however, is the figure of the Black child next to Charles II. Many frames came as kits or were inspired by prints, yet none of the other frames with the royals also contain these children. It could mean that the embroiderer chose to add them, and therefore poses questions about the maker.

Beadwork mirror (detail)

Beadwork mirror (detail)

1662–1670, embroidery by an unknown maker

Who were the Black children in these objects? Their inclusion was likely to function as a decorative and symbolic device, rather than being based on a specific person. The use of Black servants as a decorative device was a common practice within portraiture and image-making during this period.

These Black servants served to elevate the sitter's status, highlighting their wealth and emphasising the sitter's whiteness through the contrast of skin tones. Pale complexions were considered the most beautiful and a mark of higher class status. Artists of the time may have painted people in this way to show off their skill or as an attempt to portray the subordination of the attendant.

Supposed Portrait of Florence Smyth (b.1634), and an Unnamed Black Attendant

Supposed Portrait of Florence Smyth (b.1634), and an Unnamed Black Attendant c.1640

Gilbert Jackson (active 1615–1645) (circle of)

Bristol Museums, Galleries & Archives

If the Black figures on the mirror frame were real people, who were they based on? Our knowledge of the sitters and makers gives contrasting evidence for this case. We know that Charles II paid £50 (approximately £9,000 today) for a Black slave in 1682 and was known to have Black people within his court. However, given how little we know about the frame's maker, beyond the potential of them being a young wealthy woman from Yorkshire, it is difficult to say where her inspiration for the addition of the Black child came from.

By contrast, the portrait of Henrietta Anne was painted by a French artist who'd had various royal court appointments. Whilst Henrietta herself had no enslaved attendants, there is evidence of the presence of Black people at Louis XIV's court, highlighted through court portraits at the time, such as that of Louise de Kéroualle by Pierre Mignard.

Louise de Kéroualle, Duchess of Portsmouth

Louise de Kéroualle, Duchess of Portsmouth 1682

Pierre Mignard I (1612–1695)

National Portrait Gallery, London

In the mirror beadwork, the children's attire is fine and expensive, perhaps at odds with modern understandings of enslaved people. The boy is wearing a smaller version of the King's outfit, while the girl is wearing a version of the Queen's. The bright clothing is highly decorated. We might question why the children's clothing is similar to the royals' when they occupied such different positions in society. During this period, the presence of a Black person within the household became a trend for the aristocracy. The wealthy would display their riches and taste by having young Black people in visible positions – such as page boys or footmen – and wearing extravagant costumes or liveries, as the white servants would have done. However, due to the sheer intricacy and size of the figures created using glass beads, no other details are present, such as jewellery.

Beadwork mirror (detail)

Beadwork mirror (detail)

1662–1670, embroidery by an unknown maker

The boy in the portrait of Henrietta Anne is wearing a fine silk shirt with an earring, potentially a pearl, and a silver collar around his neck. For audiences today, this collar is a particularly stark symbol of enslaved status, however, the pearl earring is perhaps something we might not consider to be an item worn by a person who was a servant or slave. Black Africans, despite occupying lower social positions, are often portrayed wearing expensive jewellery, often earrings, made of pearls or gold, as in these portraits. In aristocratic court contexts, the Black figures would have been dressed in fine clothing to highlight the status of their masters, as in the mirror frame.

Henrietta Anne (1644–1670), Duchess of Orleans (detail)

Henrietta Anne (1644–1670), Duchess of Orleans (detail)

c.1665–1670, oil on canvas by studio of Jean Charles Nocret (1615–1672)

There was also a long-standing European association of Africans and gold jewellery. Early modern travel texts commented upon the adornment practices of African cultures which were conceived as exotic. However, with the move of Black people into the households of the wealthy, this jewellery could now be seen as a sign of enslaved status. The sumptuous clothing and jewellery of the Black attendant serve to highlight their role as a symbol of ornamentation, prestige and wealth. In this way, it serves a similar function to the sitter's clothing, jewellery and other luxury possessions shown in the portrait.

Princess Henrietta of Lorraine (1611–1660), Attended by a Page

Princess Henrietta of Lorraine (1611–1660), Attended by a Page 1634

Anthony van Dyck (1599–1641)

English Heritage, Kenwood

Whatever their societal position, the inclusion of the children in these objects highlights the realities of colonial slavery during this period. Most of the Black people enslaved were young, mostly between the ages of 10 and 29, as they were seen as more physically able and compliant. Often, these children were sent back to work on Caribbean plantations when they became older. Furthermore, having a young Black boy within the household or a painting was a real marker of wealth and status, effectively objectifying the child as a commodity or possession, highlighting the increasing imperialist attitudes of the seventeenth century and the growth of the slave trade.

The final two objects were most likely created during the nineteenth century. The third object is the funeral hatchment of Isabella Anne, Marchioness of Hertford, daughter and co-heir of Charles and Frances, 9th Viscount and Viscountess Irvine. In 1776, Isabella married Francis, 2nd Marquess of Hertford and was notable as the penultimate mistress of George IV. She died in 1834 after catching a cold when travelling to London from Temple Newsam.

Funeral hatchment of Isabella Anne, Marchioness of Hertford

Funeral hatchment of Isabella Anne, Marchioness of Hertford

1834, oil on canvas by unknown artist

A funeral hatchment was a diamond or square-shaped canvas in a black frame which proclaimed the recent death of a member of a titled or noble family. They were displayed in front of the deceased person's London residence for the mourning period – for Isabella, as Marchioness of Hertford, this would have been Hertford House, where The Wallace Collection now resides – then taken to a parish church or their country seat. This hatchment resides at Temple Newsam which Isabella inherited after her mother's death in 1807.

The points of interest in this hatchment are two figures on either side of the shield. In heraldic terminology, these are supporters. Less commonly portrayed in heraldic displays than other elements, supporters could be a variety of figures, including humans, animals or mythical beasts. They are mainly associated with the higher ranks of nobility or royalty. On Isabella's hatchment, the supporters are two Black men wearing gold breastplates, tunic and headbands. The Hertford title had various incarnations, with the Marquess title held by Isabella's husband created in 1793. It is not known how or when these supporters were chosen.

Wall bracket

Wall bracket

probably 19th C, wood & paint probably by Venetian maker

The final object is a set of wall brackets consisting of a shaped, decorated platform supported by Black figures dressed in bright, festive costumes. Currently sat on top of the platforms are a pair of cat sculptures.

Whilst these are two very different objects, the Black figures in both have been described as 'Blackamoors'. The term 'Blackamoor' derives from a historical European aesthetic tradition which merges the Black African and the Muslin 'Moor'. It is used to describe a racist stereotype of unnamed non-European peoples, but mostly Black African people wearing exotic costumes and often occupying submissive positions. As a motif, it has existed in European decorative art since the medieval period but was mostly established as a recognisable stereotype in the seventeenth century. The 'Blackamoor' can be seen across a variety of decorative arts, including furniture and ceramics, in many country house collections.

African Male

African Male 1850–1899

Italian (Venetian) School

Pilkington Glass Collection

One of the overwhelming similarities between these objects is that the figures perform servile functions, holding heraldry, plinths or other objects. Through being amalgamated into a piece of furniture with a functional purpose, the 'Blackamoor' is objectified twice. Firstly, being used as ornamentation to emphasise wealth and status and secondly, by performing a servile function of holding something. During the nineteenth century, the term 'Blackamoor' was used to label both Black people and functional objects like these.

The clothing differs from the earlier objects. In the beadwork frame and portrait, the Black figures are wearing expensive and fine clothing. By contrast, the Black figures in the hatchment and brackets are wearing what could be more described as costumes. The hatchment figures' clothing is closely associated with allegorical figures of Africans and is reminiscent of that worn by classical athletes, similar to the Black figure in William Marshall's frontispiece to The Smoaking Age or the Life and Death of Tobacco. This advert particularly highlights the extensiveness of 'Blackamoor' imagery within society and its widespread association with commerce and wealth through trade, often based on enslaved labour on plantations.

c.1617, engraving by William Marshall (d.1649)

Title page of 'The smoaking age or the life and death of tobacco'

c.1617, engraving by William Marshall (d.1649)

As decorative art pieces, used to highlight wealth, the 'Blackamoor' figure reflects the European association of Black bodies with wealth, both as a visual sign of opulence and as an expensive commodity themselves. The shiny finish of the Black paint used on the face and arms of the bracket figures, imitating East Asian lacquer, was long synonymous with precious materials. The figures' costumes on both items are examples of the sense of 'otherness' Black people were subjected to during this period and the upsurge in the popular display of 'exotic' others as public entertainment.

During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, large quantities of objects such as these came to England from across the world, fuelling and fuelled by this taste for the elaborate and exotic. In their domestic settings, they would often complement other luxury goods created, imported and purchased under Empire.

Figure of a Black Servant in Livery

Figure of a Black Servant in Livery 18th C

unknown artist

Wilberforce House Museum

Using an object-led approach highlights exoticising attitudes towards race within society, particularly by the wealthy. All four objects are very different yet are markers of wealth in their purpose, design and materials. The further addition of the Black figure serves to heighten this.

The items reinforced harmful racial hierarchies through the normalisation of Black servitude. Slavery was not something completely removed from polite society. Instead, a sanitised version was very much in view, highlighting prestige, wealth and power through owning people and their markers. In all, the Black figure is in a position of servitude, ornamentation and racial subjugation. They all present a sanitised version of colonialism, erasing the difficult narratives of violence, racism and oppression. As a result, the uncomfortable truths and contexts in which these items were created and displayed were often hidden, making it important to uncover these histories today.

Eleanor Leeson, collections researcher