Skip to main content
Attributed to John Greenhill (Salisbury circa 1644-1676 London) Portrait of Sir Roger Puleston of Emral (1663-1697), half-length, in a brown silk shawl and a white lace jabot image 1
Attributed to John Greenhill (Salisbury circa 1644-1676 London) Portrait of Sir Roger Puleston of Emral (1663-1697), half-length, in a brown silk shawl and a white lace jabot image 2
Attributed to John Greenhill (Salisbury circa 1644-1676 London) Portrait of Sir Roger Puleston of Emral (1663-1697), half-length, in a brown silk shawl and a white lace jabot image 3
Attributed to John Greenhill (Salisbury circa 1644-1676 London) Portrait of Sir Roger Puleston of Emral (1663-1697), half-length, in a brown silk shawl and a white lace jabot image 4
Lot 39

Attributed to John Greenhill
(Salisbury circa 1644-1676 London)
Portrait of Sir Roger Puleston of Emral (1663-1697), half-length, in a brown silk shawl and a white lace jabot

3 December 2025, 14:00 GMT
London, New Bond Street

£5,000 - £7,000

Ask about this lot

Attributed to John Greenhill (Salisbury circa 1644-1676 London)

Portrait of Sir Roger Puleston of Emral (1663-1697), half-length, in a brown silk shawl and a white lace jabot
bears identifying inscription 'SIR ROGER PULESTON OF EMAL. KNIGHT/ NAT. 1663. OB. 1697' (upper right)
oil on canvas
76.4 x 63.7cm (30 1/16 x 25 1/16in).

Footnotes

Provenance
With Miles Wynn Cato, London (according to a label on the reverse, as Willem Wissing)

Born and baptised in 1663, Roger Puleston was the first son of Roger Puleston and his wife Jane. His family background reveals various influences; his grandfather, John Puleston (c.1583–1659), was a justice of the peace during the period of the Commonwealth, his father, also Roger, was raised as a Presbyterian and later married into a Royalist family. His family had long been associated with the legal profession and had been first elected to Parliament in 1572. Puleston's opposition to the repeal of the Test Act and Penal Laws led to his being removed from office in 1688 but was returned again for the county the following year. He died of a fever in London in 1697 and on his death, his estate was valued at £3,000 per annum but he had accumulated debts of £15,000 which meant that his son, Thomas, had to sell a great deal of family property. He was the last member of the family to sit in Parliament.

Additional information