Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
9:59 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cul…..othes.html
The picture, painted by an unknown artist in the 1520s, shows a woman in red and gold dress, and pearl necklace.
It had been left on display at Lambeth Palace, where scholars assumed it was Henry VIII’s sixth wife Catherine Parr.
Now, following a research visits by experts from the National Portrait Gallery, she has now been correctly identified as Catherine of Aragon, the monarch’s first Spanish wife he discarded in favour of Anne Boleyn.
It's always bunnies.
6:23 am
January 3, 2012
Offline
Thank you for that Anyanka. Strangely enough I always thought this portrait was of Elizabeth of York. Bluff Hal’s Mum.
But looking at it now you can see a steely eyed determination that we all came to realise that COA had. Mary has that look too
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
10:59 am
January 18, 2013
Offline
The title makes me laugh. Experts noticed that the clothes were wrong haha. If it is Catherine of Aragon, she looks a lot prettier in this picture. Youcan see what Henry saw in her during their early years
Woohoo I'm normal...gotta go tell the cat!
6:01 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
KellyMarie said
The title makes me laugh. Experts noticed that the clothes were wrong haha. If it is Catherine of Aragon, she looks a lot prettier in this picture. Youcan see what Henry saw in her during their early years
COA was quite pretty in her youth, it was the stress of 7 years of uncertainity of marriage to Henry, her many pregnancies and the stress and strain of not fulfilling her duty of giving England an heir, that ruined her looks and her body. Mary was the same, although in her case it was just stress and living in a complete state of sheer terror, that ruined her looks.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
6:03 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
I laughed at that too, Kelly. I’m terrible when it comes to determining who the people are in the portraits from this era. But this one seems obvious to me: It is not Katherine Parr. It looks like Katherine of Aragon, but it also looks a bit like Elizabeth of York. (except the clothes are wrong 
)
9:44 pm
January 18, 2013
Offline
I’m terrible at telling who is who in portraits too but even I can tell that it looks nothing like Katherine Parr, unless i’ve not seen portraits that are a likeness to this one that made the professionals believe it was her once upon a time.
Woohoo I'm normal...gotta go tell the cat!
2:40 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
KellyMarie said
I’m terrible at telling who is who in portraits too but even I can tell that it looks nothing like Katherine Parr, unless i’ve not seen portraits that are a likeness to this one that made the professionals believe it was her once upon a time.
lauyghs..I was re-organiseing some photos from a few years ago and found it hard to tell apart my 2 daughters when they were in seperate photos. If they were together, then it’s easier..
It's always bunnies.
12:05 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Much the same here Anyanka, where pictures are concerned if you put a picture of me and my daughter together when I was younger you would swear they are the same person. What’s even stranger is if you get a picture of my son and my nephew together, they look like twins. That’s really wierd with a capital WE.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
3:56 pm
January 18, 2013
Offline
I know the feeling, its the same when looking at pictures of two of my brothers. It just goes to show how easy mitakes are made. We all know our family members so well and have trouble telling them apart in old pictures. I wonder how professionals manage to tell apart people they never knew who lived hundreds of years ago
Woohoo I'm normal...gotta go tell the cat!
1:24 pm
January 4, 2013
Offline
To be perfectly honest, this whole new ‘discovery’ made me laugh. In May last year, I actually wrote an article arguing that it was actually Katherine of Aragon and not Catherine Parr: http://mizliot.hubpages.com/hu…..ngidentity
Gotta love these discoveries!
Time is a big ball of wibbly wobbly, timey-wimey...stuff.
5:39 pm
March 26, 2011
Offline
MizLiot said
To be perfectly honest, this whole new ‘discovery’ made me laugh. In May last year, I actually wrote an article arguing that it was actually Katherine of Aragon and not Catherine Parr: http://mizliot.hubpages.com/hu…..ngidentity
Gotta love these discoveries!
MizLiot, that must be quite frustrating for you! Must be thinking ‘I Told You So’
12:52 pm
January 4, 2013
Offline
Claire-Louise said
MizLiot, that must be quite frustrating for you! Must be thinking ‘I Told You So’
It is VERY frustrating! I feel that maybe the experts who ‘discovered’ this thing might not be the sharpest tools in the box. The very first time I saw that portrait I thought it was KofA, and not CP….
Time is a big ball of wibbly wobbly, timey-wimey...stuff.
