Around 1600 in the Low Countries, there is a remarkable disparity between the art critical discourse on Titian and the actual practice of painters following his model. Flemish painters remained quite indifferent to the stylistic characteristics traditionally constituting the “idea of Titian” in art-historical discourse. To account for this disparity, I argue we need to study which artworks of Titian’s had been assembled in the Court of Brussels, by the Emperor, by his Governor and by important political figures, such as Nicolas and Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle. The origin of the collection can be traced to 1548, when Charles V commissioned from Titian a considerable number of portraits. In order to ingratiate himself with the Court, Titian brought with him an Ecce **** on slate and a Venus, now lost. The paintings became part of the imperial collection and were transported to the Palace of Coudenberg in Brussels. In the following years, Charles V showed his appreciation to the Venetian master not only by commissioning more portraits and paintings but also by commissioning copies after the works of the Venetian master. Mary of Hungary, sister of the Emperor and Governor of the Habsburg Netherlands from 1531 to 1555, also became a patron of Titian. She is known for her commission of the series of the Condemned for the Great Room in the Palace of Binche, and for some narrative religious paintings. When Charles V abdicated and Mary of Hungary left the Netherlands for Spain, in 1556, they decided to take Titian’s paintings with them. Although most of the original artworks thus stayed in Brussels for a relatively short time, they did leave a mark on many Flemish artists, who worked in dialogue with the models and the authority of the Venetian master. But which aspects were they borrowing and for what purpose? And how did the initial selection of the Habsburgs influence the construction of the “idea of Titian” in the Low Countries at the end of the century?