What do you think? | Tudor Personalities | Forum

Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
What do you think?
June 26, 2011
12:46 pm
Avatar
flickitywitch
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 11
Member Since:
May 15, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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.

June 26, 2011
1:05 pm
Avatar
Sophie1536
Lincolnshire UK
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 305
Member Since:
January 17, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Isn't that the classic Katherine Howard pic?????
I'm well confused as I always understood that to be Katherine Howard Confused

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh144/nicksbabe28/Backstreet%20n%20Graffix/Image4-1.jpg

June 26, 2011
1:16 pm
Avatar
Bella44
New Zealand
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 934
Member Since:
January 9, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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!  Laugh 

June 26, 2011
4:41 pm
Avatar
DuchessofBrittany
Canada
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 847
Member Since:
June 7, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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

June 27, 2011
2:09 am
Avatar
flickitywitch
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 11
Member Since:
May 15, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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??

June 27, 2011
3:47 am
Avatar
DuchessofBrittany
Canada
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 847
Member Since:
June 7, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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

June 27, 2011
6:04 am
Avatar
flickitywitch
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 11
Member Since:
May 15, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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.

August 26, 2011
12:07 pm
Avatar
WilesWales
Winter Haven, Florida
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 98
Member Since:
August 22, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Sophie1536 is absolutely correct! WilesWales

"This is the Lord's doing; it is marvellous in our eyes." Psalms 118:23

August 26, 2011
12:17 pm
Avatar
WilesWales
Winter Haven, Florida
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 98
Member Since:
August 22, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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! Smile

"This is the Lord's doing; it is marvellous in our eyes." Psalms 118:23

August 26, 2011
12:24 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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.

August 26, 2011
12:25 pm
Avatar
WilesWales
Winter Haven, Florida
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 98
Member Since:
August 22, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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

August 26, 2011
2:57 pm
Avatar
Mya Elise
Ohio,US
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 782
Member Since:
May 16, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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.

August 26, 2011
4:50 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2345
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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! Smile


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.

August 27, 2011
12:33 pm
Avatar
WilesWales
Winter Haven, Florida
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 98
Member Since:
August 22, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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! Laugh

"This is the Lord's doing; it is marvellous in our eyes." Psalms 118:23

April 11, 2015
8:39 pm
Avatar
Alexandria
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 38
Member Since:
March 26, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Sophie1536 said

Isn’t that the classic Katherine Howard pic?????
I’m well confused as I always understood that to be Katherine Howard Confused

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.

April 12, 2015
8:47 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
April 13, 2015
10:38 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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

Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 70

Currently Online:
19 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Anyanka: 2345

Boleyn: 2285

Sharon: 2115

Bella44: 934

DuchessofBrittany: 847

Mya Elise: 782

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 426041

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 13

Topics: 1679

Posts: 23600

Newest Members:

franklingo18, HorinadR, estherqw4, enriquebo2, Delaquand, esperanzamt3

Administrators: Claire: 998