Reges Anglia 

Editor: So, this engraving, “Reges Angliae,” seems to be a visual representation of the Kings of England, created by an anonymous artist, sometime before or during the reign of James the VI of Scotland, who became James I of England in 1603. It looks like a family tree… I am interested in the way it shows the history of a Royal House. What do you see in this piece? Curator: What strikes me is the use of a lineage chart – almost like a biological diagram – to establish political legitimacy. Think about what this says about the perceived natural order of power. Who gets to claim descent? Whose stories get centered, and how does that imagery shape public perception of royalty and, therefore, the justification of its reign? Editor: That’s interesting, it’s not just a family tree, it's political messaging. How does placing these people into something everyone understands like a ‘tree’ shape this image? Curator: Exactly! The imagery naturalizes the idea of inherited power, suggesting the monarchs' authority grows organically, divinely, rather than being something constructed through law, negotiation, or, frankly, violence. The act of commissioning or circulating prints like this was part of consolidating power and manufacturing consent. Consider the role these portraits played in shaping collective memory. Were there similar types of images used for other Monarchies in Europe at this time? Editor: So it's not just showing who's related to who; it's showing who *should* be in power and where their authority comes from... I had never considered artwork in relation to shaping politics at this time. Thanks. Curator: Precisely, and understanding that dynamic can open up how we think about art's function beyond the aesthetic. The way political ideologies are reinforced through imagery. What this means for marginalized groups whose imagery might not be as widespread or as favorable. I'll certainly be thinking of art in a different light.