Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
12:46 pm
May 15, 2011
Offline
I was wondering what everyone thought of this portrait: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…..J._027.jpg
It is in Wikipedia as Elizabeth Seymour, Jane's sister, but I have seen it being used for Kathryn Howard.
In my opinion, there is no way it is Kathryn, and I can see a family resemblance to Jane.
1:05 pm
January 17, 2011
Offline
Isn't that the classic Katherine Howard pic?????
I'm well confused as I always understood that to be Katherine Howard 
1:16 pm
January 9, 2010
Offline
When I first started learning about the Tudors, that was usually the portrait that accompanied bios of Katherine and for a long time I generally accepted that it was of her. I think it was in Antonia Frasers' book on the six wives that I read that it was a possibility that it was more likely to be Elizabeth Seymour and Fraser pointed out the facial similarity between the Seymour sisters. Then I started thinking of the Hobein miniature as Katherine but it seems some scholars are now reconsidering that the larger portrait may actually be Katherine.
I don't know what to think – I can see similarities both between the sitter in the portrait and Jane Seymour and Katherine Howard!
It's interesting to think that if the portrait IS Elizabeth Seymour, how much more attractive Jane would've looked if she'd stuck to wearing French hoods! 
4:41 pm
June 7, 2010
Offline
I've always understood the sitter to be Katherine Howard. But, I do recall Antonia Fraser arguing against it. The National Portrait Gallery are still undecided. According to their website, they cite the portrait as “Unknown woman, formerly known as Catherine Howard.”
Wikipedia notes something about Widow's apparel. Does anyone know about this? I am not educated on 16th century clothing, so I am unsure of what I should be looking for.
"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn
2:09 am
May 15, 2011
Offline
Given that Kathryn was 18 when she was killed, I dont think it can be her, as the woman in the portrait looks much older.
She is dressed in mourning clothes (black and fully covered – high collar rather than square neckline) and Elizabeth Seymour was widowed twice.
I agree with Antonia Fraser on this one – how can it be Henry's pretty, young fifth wife??
3:47 am
June 7, 2010
Offline
flickitywitch said:
Given that Kathryn was 18 when she was killed, I dont think it can be her, as the woman in the portrait looks much older.
She is dressed in mourning clothes (black and fully covered – high collar rather than square neckline) and Elizabeth Seymour was widowed twice.
Thanks, flickitywitch for clearing up what mourning clothes were for this period. I suspected some aspects of it. The clothing is rather drab and not in line with what I've read about Catherine.
According to Wikipedia, the link below shows a miniature by Holbien, which is apparently Catherine. She was identified by her jewelry, as they are similar to ones listed on the inventory of her household.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…..ine02.jpeg
I must admit that this miniature is of a younger women, plump and pretty.After comparing the two portraits, I can see Fraser's argument more clearly. I do hope someday that the portrait flickitywitch postes is properly identified.
"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn
6:04 am
May 15, 2011
Offline
I do think the miniture is Kathryn – if you take a look at the pendant on her necklace, it is the same one that Jane wears in her portrait and Catherine Parr in hers (I know a lot about the necklace as I have a replica myself) so if Jane had it before and Catherine afterwards, then it's very likely that Kathryn Howard had it inbetween.
12:07 pm
August 22, 2011
Offline
Sophie1536 is absolutely correct! WilesWales
"This is the Lord's doing; it is marvellous in our eyes." Psalms 118:23
12:17 pm
August 22, 2011
Offline
Please do not trust “Wikipedia!” The announcer on Headline News even said there were things in his biography on Wikipedia (and I've noticed quite a few myself) that were absolutely not true. He said that he has tried repeatedly to have some things removed and others edited. “Wikipedia” has done nothing to it at all, and it's been on there a few years. “Wikipedia” is great for a free Internet encyclopedia, but cannot take the place of one like “Britannica” that is one that is paid for by an organization of personally. With an MA in Library and Information Science, anything that is free like something a vast on the Internet is subject to questioning.
I think it's great that people do their research, though, on this site. It's refreshing! 
"This is the Lord's doing; it is marvellous in our eyes." Psalms 118:23
12:24 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
flickitywitch said:
Given that Kathryn was 18 when she was killed, I dont think it can be her, as the woman in the portrait looks much older.
She is dressed in mourning clothes (black and fully covered – high collar rather than square neckline) and Elizabeth Seymour was widowed twice.
I agree with Antonia Fraser on this one – how can it be Henry's pretty, young fifth wife??
I agree.
However, I really don't think the miniature shows us how pretty Katherine really was either.
12:25 pm
August 22, 2011
Offline
WilesWales said:
Sophie1536 is absolutely correct! WilesWales
The one by Han Holbein the Younger miniature, is “believed” to be a portrait of Catherine, but I can still see why Henry referred to her as, “…rose without a thorn.”
"This is the Lord's doing; it is marvellous in our eyes." Psalms 118:23
2:57 pm
May 16, 2011
Offline
Yeah in one of the books about Henry's wives the portrait is identified as Jane's sister and if you look then it looks like Jane. The chins and the nose etc etc. I don't think the portrait we're discussing is Kathryn…i believe it's Jane's sister, whatever her name was.
• Grumble all you like, this is how it’s going to be.
4:50 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
WilesWales said:
Please do not trust “Wikipedia!” The announcer on Headline News even said there were things in his biography on Wikipedia (and I've noticed quite a few myself) that were absolutely not true. He said that he has tried repeatedly to have some things removed and others edited. “Wikipedia” has done nothing to it at all, and it's been on there a few years. “Wikipedia” is great for a free Internet encyclopedia, but cannot take the place of one like “Britannica” that is one that is paid for by an organization of personally. With an MA in Library and Information Science, anything that is free like something a vast on the Internet is subject to questioning.
I think it's great that people do their research, though, on this site. It's refreshing!
ITA. I like Wiki as somewhere to get quick info on subjects I knew very little about. But for indepth I look at thier sources…mind you it's a heck of a lot better than Conservapedia.
Since any-one with a web-connection can edit Wiki, you get situations where the “Editors” change info to reflect thier personal/political/religious bias. The fact that the board had to lock Revere's ride following Mrs Palin flub is a significant demonstration of how some people are prepared to use Wiki to further thier agendas.
It's always bunnies.
12:33 pm
August 22, 2011
Offline
Thank you, ITA as well. I didn't even know what conservapedia is and looked it up and found its definition. ITA on that one as well. I also agree with Wiki for fast answers, and often search for “the best answer” and move along. As a matter of fact, you even taught me two other things, I didn't know what ITA meant at first, and found an Internet slang dictionary which I added to “Favorites.” Thank you! As I said, I'm learning a lot of things on this site, and find theanneboleynfiles.com such a wonderful thing of which to be a part!
"This is the Lord's doing; it is marvellous in our eyes." Psalms 118:23
8:39 pm
Sophie1536 said
Isn’t that the classic Katherine Howard pic?????
I’m well confused as I always understood that to be Katherine Howard
It’s certainly not KH. It says she is in the 21st year of her age, i.e. aged 20, and poor KH never got there. Also the clothes, although quite rich, are not royal. Wikipedia may not be the most reliable source in the world (although some of us who are wikipedia editors are doing our best to improve it) but here it is right not to label it as KH.
8:47 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
This is the latest portrait thought to be Katherine Howard.
10:38 am
January 3, 2012
Offline
This is actually another one of my favourite pictures. I’ve had or rather tried to have a look at the pendant on the sitters dress, and it does look very similar to a picture of the Duchess. However there was another Katherine Howard who was the daughter of the Duchess and the sitter may be her Daughter, not her grandaughter.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
