Elisabeth was born in Marburg in May 1466[1][2] as the eldest daughter of Landgrave Henry III the Rich of Hesse-Marburg and Countess Anne of Katzenelnbogen.

[5] Elisabeth married in Marburg on 11 February 1482[1][2] to Count John V of Nassau-Siegen (Breda, 9 November 1455[1][2][3][6][7] – Dillenburg or Siegen,[note 1] 30 July 1516[1][2][7][8][9]), the youngest brother of her step-grandmother.

[5] The county was situated between the Taunus and the Lahn and was very rich due to the possession of a large number of Rhine tolls between Mainz and the border of the Netherlands.

[4] The county consisted of Rheinfels, Sankt Goar, Braubach, Hohenstein, Darmstadt, Zwingenberg, Rüsselsheim and Umstadt, as well as Eppstein, the district of Driedorf and parts of Diez, Hadamar, Ems, Löhnberg, Camberg, Altweilnau [de] and Wehrheim.

[12][13][14][15][16][17] On 24 May 1501,[note 2] Emperor Maximilian I forbade William II the Middle to violate the County of Katzenelnbogen or to take violent steps against the House of Nassau.

[9] Tensions between Hesse and Nassau increased when William II the Middle took possession of Katzenelnbogen, disregarding the rights of Elisabeth.

Henry's high position and close personal relationship with Roman King Charles V as an educator, general and advisor gave the Nassaus powerful support in this protracted legal battle.

He had an advantage because Hesse had gained control of the entire disputed territory, which gave him a strong position over the small County of Nassau-Siegen; in addition, powerful imperial princes, such as Elector Frederick III the Wise of Saxony, were on his side as allies.

A commission consisting of the Prince bishops Christoph of Augsburg, George of Bamberg and William III [de] of Strasbourg was given the task of re-examining the case, which had been handled by the most important legal scholars of the time.

[2][7][note 3] In Cologne the Counts of Nassau owned a house ("das achte Haus von der Goltgassenecken nach St. Cunibert hin"), which made the connection between their possessions in the Netherlands and their counties in Germany easier for them.

This genealogy was given extra splendour by the fact that, in addition to the direct descent from Count Otto I of Nassau, Roman King Adolf was also included in the series.

van der Klooster, curator of the topography department of the Netherlands Institute for Art History, argued that the design drawing for the last tapestry contains a clear mistake.

In this drawing he stated, it is clear that the inscription in the cartouche, as well as the filling in of the shields, were added early, but somewhat later in the sixteenth century, because the colour of the paint indicates this.

[34] Van der Klooster further stated that the portrait of Mencía in the drawing has acquired a permanent place in Spanish costume history.

One could say that it followed the fashion of the international courtiers around Emperor Charles V. His sister Archduchess Eleanor is depicted in entirely similar attire in her portraits by Joos van Cleve.

[34] The so-called German hat and the wide cloak, often with a broad collar, determined the fashion image in the Northern European countries.

When in September 1517 Emperor Charles V made his first journey to Spain in the company of a large retinue, among them Dutch chroniclers and artists, the party came into contact with the mule for the transport of the ladies.

The fact that, unlike the other countesses, the Spanish Mencía de Mendoza is the only one riding on a mule is therefore a factor in the identification according to Van der Klooster.

Van der Klooster admitted that against his view the fact speaks that the inscription in the cartouche explicitly states only as depicted: John V and his wife Elisabeth.

[36] His view of the proposed depicted persons led Van der Klooster to the hypothesis that around 1530 the idea of making a tapestry of the commissioner was considered.

Moreover, all historical sources indicate that the last, eighth tapestry depicted John V and his wife Elisabeth and not the commissioner Henry III.

[32] A resemblance of the front woman to the portrait of Mencía de Mendoza is demonstrable, especially in the hairstyle; the facial features themselves are in fact not very individual.

Already on the woodcut of 1518 by Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen with the counts and countesses of Holland, several women ride mules instead of horses.

This motif, originally Arabic and Moorish, appeared almost simultaneously at the beginning of the 16th century in Italy, at the French court and in Germany, where artists such as Albrecht Dürer and Hans Holbein frequently used it.

Van Orley, who was greatly impressed by Dürer, whom he also met during his journey through the Netherlands in 1521, may therefore have used this then very fashionable motif as a progressive artist for entirely different reasons.

[40] Fock did point out that the fact that John V, unlike his son, had no right to wear the collar of the Golden Fleece and to carry it with his coat of arms is a valid argument.

In Fock's opinion, this also holds the key to the identification of the two unknown women, which is related to the inheritance of the County of Katzenelnbogen, which was so important for Nassau at the time.

This identification also explains – something that in Fock's opinion would otherwise be inexplicable with all the attention paid to the coats of arms – that the two shields of the women in the background were left blank.

[42] On the website of the Netherlands Institute for Art History (the former employer of Van der Klooster) it is stated that the picture depicts Henry III with his wife Mencía de Mendoza and two deceased wives.

Finally it states that the identification as Henry III is on the basis of the portrait of Mencía de Mendoza, her Spanish mule, the Order of the Golden Fleece and the 'three wives'.