What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minutePick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
ThatPainter is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn More
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The photograph widely shared as Rani Lakshmibai is not authenticated as her: its best-documented provenance identifies the woman as a princess of Tanjore, in a print probably made after Lakshmibai’s death.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
How the disputed photograph was identified
In 2003, a reproduction of a postcard captioned “Lakshmi Bai – The Rani of Jhansi and leader in the Indian War of Independence of 1857” was found in an edition of V.D. Savarkar’s The Indian War of Independence of 1857. The image also appeared in a 2010 exhibition in Bhopal and in an album that collector Amit Ambalal had bought in Jaipur in the 1960s. Devanagari and Urdu identifications on the photograph’s mount helped prompt closer investigation.
#1 Best Overall
After a seven-year investigation, photographer and researcher Ram Rahman asked Sophie Gordon, then curator of photography at the Royal Collections at Windsor Castle, to examine the image. Gordon matched it to a Royal Collection portrait captioned “HH The Princess of Tanjore,” made by the Bourne and Shepherd studio. She described it as an albumen print, “not a daguerreotype,” and dated it to “sometime in the 1870s.”
Gordon noted that the album page also included portraits of the woman’s two daughters and official consort, and that the album was presented to Queen Victoria in the mid-1880s. Her conclusion was: “The portrait of the woman identified as the Rani of Lakshmi is, as Pramod suspected, a princess of Tanjore.” Rahman’s summary was simpler: “Sadly, it was not the Rani.”
Rank #2
Why the date rules out Lakshmibai
Rani Lakshmibai died in battle on 18 June 1858. The disputed print is dated probably to the 1870s, so it cannot be a photograph of her taken during her lifetime. That dating, together with the Royal Collection identification, is why the image’s familiar caption is not reliable evidence of who it depicts.
Photograph, painting, or print? Three images often confused
Collections preserve artworks identified as Lakshmibai, but their medium and documentation matter. A portrait can depict her without being a photograph, and an inscription naming her does not by itself establish that the identification is authentic.
| Object | Medium and date | Caption or provenance | What it establishes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Image circulated as Lakshmibai’s “real photo” | Albumen print, probably from the 1870s | Matched by Sophie Gordon to a Royal Collection portrait captioned “HH The Princess of Tanjore,” from the Bourne and Shepherd studio | The print is identified as a princess of Tanjore, not Lakshmibai; its probable date is after Lakshmibai’s death. |
| British Library, Add Or 2607 | Conventionalised head-and-shoulders watercolour on ivory, probably made around 1860–1870 by an artist from Lahore or Amritsar | The mount says “The Rani of Jhansi”; the British Library catalogue cautions, “No authentic portrait is known of her.” | It is an artistic portrait with a historical attribution, not a verified likeness or photograph. |
| Becheram Das Datta, Rani Lakshmibai of Jhansi | Hand-coloured lithograph with selectively applied glaze, ca. 1860 | Recorded by The Metropolitan Museum of Art; made in Kalighat, Calcutta, and depicts Lakshmibai in male attire during the rebellion | It is an artistic print, not a photograph. |
What about the viral “Hoffman” photograph?
In a fact-check published on 6 November 2024, Vishvas News examined a post claiming that an image of a woman was Lakshmibai’s “real photo,” supposedly taken 159 years earlier by a British photographer named Hoffman. The fact-check found no supporting provenance through reverse-image research; historian Mukund Mehrotra also said the woman was not Lakshmibai. The “Hoffman” attribution therefore does not authenticate the image.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What did Rani Lakshmibai really look like?
The available evidence does not establish a verified photograph or an authenticated likeness that can tell us precisely what Lakshmibai looked like. The British Library’s catalogue states, “No authentic portrait is known of her.” The watercolour and lithograph are valuable historical representations, but neither should be treated as a confirmed record of her appearance.
Rank #4
When encountering a purported image, distinguish what the object is from what its caption claims. Check its medium, date, provenance or chain of custody, inscription, and whether it could have been made during Lakshmibai’s lifetime. A later photograph with a persuasive label is not enough; a painting or print can document how she was represented without proving a photographic likeness.
Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchWindows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallQuick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
