Elliemarianna said:

Boleyn said:

Elliemarianna said:

One thing I do find strange however there are actually no excepted portraits of her, yes there are plenty of portraits that are assumed to be her, but no actual blatentely obvisous one.. Why? I would have thought that Henry would have got Holbien (although I think the older Holbien who painted A.O.C was dead by now) Henry had employed Holbien’s son as court painter, so surely Henry would have wanted a lasting reminder of his Rose for the whole world to see? Henry did keep a number of portaits within his private gallery, including one of the Duchess of Milan, who had actually insulted him, when he put forward the suggestion to her of marriage, (If I had 2 heads the King could have 1), and even Marie of Guise swiftly made her mind up and married James 5th.

There is one identified portrait of Katherine – She is wearing the same jewels from the Queen’s inventory. If you look carefully they are definitely the Queen’s jewels, as both Jane Seymour and Katherine Parr wear them in their portraits too…

Hmm you could be right, this one has been circulated as being very likely to be  Katherine,and there does seem to be a slight resemblance to Anne B especially around the eyes. However I think that some scholars have said, that this is in fact Elizabeth Seymour, Jane Seymour’s sister, and again there is a slight rememblance to Jane around the chin.  Other’s have said it is Lady Margaret Douglas.. The Jewels may have been painted on afterwards, by the artist, to hammer the point home of their Royal status.. I’m not saying this picture is or isn’t Katherine, but of all the pictures from the period of Katherine’s tenure this one is the most likely candidate.

If the jewels were painted on afterwards, I’m sure this would have been noticed. Paintings go though a rigorous cataloguing these days. To assume someone may have painted the jewellery of a queen onto a miniature of someone else seems a little pointless to me.

The portrait by Hans Holbein the Younger of Catherine Howard isn’t the one scholars identified as Elizabeth Seymour, this one is –

Ok point taken.. but I've just found a picture of Mary Tudor (Henry's sister) with her 2nd husband Charles Brandon and the necklace she is wearing is very similar to the necklace that the first portrait. I can accept that the necklace is probably one of the Queen's jewels and was given to Katherine Parr when she became Queen, as it was to Henry's other Queens.

However if the necklace in Mary Tudor's portrait is one and the same, how did she get it? She was Queen of France not England.

It is possible that she bequethed the necklace to Henry when she died in 1533 and originally it was given to Mary as a wedding gift from Louis? Catherine of Aragon was still Queen, when Mary died. Although it is entirely possible that Henry or Catherine perhaps might have lent Mary the necklace to give the Portrait of her and her husband a bit of glamour (It's not the word I'm looking for but I think you know what I mean) I can also see no trace of this necklace in either Catherine of Aragon's portraits or of Elizabeth of York (Henry's mother) portraits.

I also agree that adding to the painting is a possible long shot, but Holbien and most likely his son having learned his skill from his father, was known to be a little poetic shall we say with his brush, and that in these later years I can only presume they X-rayed it or something? tests have proved that the picture of Anne of Cleves is not her true likeness, she's supposed to have a longer and more bulbus nose, and a squarer Jaw line. This of course just be Holbien's marker points and the picture is as Anne was, but equally so Cromwell who would have gained a great deal from this marriage may have whispered in Holbien's ear to make sure he painted something Henry would like.

Anyway the picture to which is generally excepted as Katherine Howard, is also know as the Toledo portrait, and yes it was generally believed it was painted by the younger Holbien.

 

Elliemarianna said:

I don’t think the necklace is the same. Do you mean the portrait of Mary Tudor and Brandon seated together? This is a close up of the necklace – the pendant is different.

The Queen’s jewels passed between Queen’s –

 

It appears the jewels were reset, which was quite common, but the pendant itself remained the same. It was then given to Mary Tudor who wore it as a broach. It seems she kept the same jewels set for Katherine Parr. The necklace itself was either re-set with different stones or swapped altogether.

(Sorry I couldn’t find a better quality image of the broach online.)

Whatever the truth is behind these portraits, etc, there is always going to be a mystery. History and not just Tudor history is a very complex and confusing issue. We think we've solved one mystery only for another to rear it's head and throw our theories out the window. (Although where the dinosaurs are concerned that mystery was solved years ago.. My husband ate them)

.Maybe in a thousand years time you and I will be the subject of an historical debate LOL.

I think it's likely that the first picture you that you put up is a very likely candidate to K.H, but the picture seems to have a look of maturity. Not someone who is who has just come out of the school room, I actually place the girl in the photo to be about 20-25ish maybe a little older perhaps. Maybe that was impression that Holbien was either told to do or did because that was the way he saw her in his artistic mind. 

By the way, the picture of K.H opens up yet another mystery does it not?

We can all agree that K.H was young, but as I suggested the sitter in the picture does look older.

No one really knows K.H D.O.B, as I've said before.. but my personal opinion is that she was born in 1525.

The sitter in the picture however seems to tally that her D.O.B is what most historians believe as 1519/20.

Elliemarianna said:

I think it’s likely that the first picture you that you put up is a very likely candidate to K.H, but the picture seems to have a look of maturity. Not someone who is who has just come out of the school room, I actually place the girl in the photo to be about 20-25ish maybe a little older perhaps. Maybe that was impression that Holbien was either told to do or did because that was the way he saw her in his artistic mind. 

 

I’d say she has the look of a teenager. The nutrition at the time, plus the shorter life expectancy are factors not to be ignored. People were expected to grow up a lot earlier, the health care for that period was horrendous (Mary Tudor lost ALL of her teeth by the time she was 20, which no doubt aged her a few decades…), plus other things such as stress etc can easily age a face. I agree that they may have wanted her to appear older, but a 15 – 17 year old was not a young age to marry by Tudor standards, no matter what the age of the groom might be.

Elizabeth's teeth were supposed to have been pretty shocking too, for the most part people have said they were black.When they did brush their teeth which was rare, they used things like brick dust and soot to clean them. Rumour has it they used urine to whiten them too, that is possible as the Romans used urine for many things, such as washing their Toga's, and washing their hair etc..(doesn't bear thinking about does it?)

As far as Hygeine went forget it, although to give Elizabeth credit she did used to have a bath once or maybe twice a year. I don't know so much about Mary but I think washing their hands, as we knew they did before, during and after mealtimes maybe was about as far as hygeine went.

Yep I agree about the exceptable age for marriage, 15 actually was quite old by Tudor standards, when girls especially those of the Nobility were genrally married or at least betrothed by about 5 or 6, and were brought up in their husbands household so that they would be able to learn the ways of how the house was run. Although sometimes it wasn't always the groom who was older.. Henry Stafford (2nd Duke of Buckingham) was 12 when he was forced to marry Catherine Woodville she was 24, and there is one marriage which to me is completely mad, that a boy of 10 I think was married to a Duchess who was 63.

And of course Henry and C.O.A although 5 years isn't that much of a gap.

I suppose we can be thankful that we now have the freedom of choice to chose who we wish to marry.

Lots of people back then, may not have married where their hearts lay.. and I think we can say that K.H was one of them. I think that she was given the choice today to marry either Culpepper or Henry, she would chose Culpepper, even if he was a bit of a rogue, they were of the same age and probably had a lot in common with each other, and I don't think she was really in a hurry to grow up she wanted some fun before she settled down to married life and motherhood, and given that Culpepper who I think is as complex and mysterious as Katherine seems to have appeared, she would have had a wild old time too 

 

Ellie.. (I hope you don't mind me calling you Ellie?)

I just remembered I forgot to say something else about Elizabeth's teeth in my last post.. She had as you probably know trouble with her teeth (as I think Mary did too) from a very early age, and I can remember reading in one of the many books about Elizabeth, that when she was about 40 she had to have one of her teeth extracted, but was mortally afraid of having it done, so one of her lackeys offered to have one of his teeth pulled out just to show her how easy it was. Thing is the lackey hadn't got anything wrong with his teeth so it was a healthy tooth the Dentist/Barber pulled out.. Anyway it worked and Elizabeth had the tooth pulled, but I don't think it was something she submitted to that often. At least we now have Anasectic although it's only in the last 20 or so years we've had it, when I was a kid, it was a case of grimace and bear it LOL..

Marilyn_24 said:

I would ask her were you ever the most happy and if yes when

To that question, in my personal opinion I think Anne was truly happy when she finally let herself love Henry and in the beginning of their marriage. They were blissfully happy in the months before marrying then when they were and then while awaiting the birth of their first child which was hugely thought to be the son Henry always wanted. And I think if Anne had given birth to that son then they would of been happier for a long time and then in the natural Henry way he'd find a mistress but would of kept Anne as a wife.

Henry Stafford (2nd Duke of Buckingham) was 12 when he was forced to marry Catherine Woodville she was 24, and there is one marriage which to me is completely mad, that a boy of 10 I think was married to a Duchess who was 63.

I’m so sorry for replying so late but i just wanted to say that Henry Stafford was 10 and Catherine Woodville was 7 when they married. This is another misconception that Catherine was twice as old as Henry. Also i think the boy you are refering to is John Woodville (brother of Catherine Woodville) who was 20 and Katherine Neville who was 65 when they married. Shoking age difference really.

I’ve been trying to ‘decipher’ elements of the portrait Elliemarianna posted. Not much luck so far – there’s frustratingly little online about Cornelius Hayes’ jewellery – so I’m guessing that the young man featured in the brooch might be one of Katherine’s brothers.

EDIT: A question about the Catherine Howard portrait pictured below – the Latin writing states that the sitter is aged 21…yet Catherine is said to have been only 19 when she died(?)

EDIT 2: Apparently that portrait is no longer considered to be of Catherine. Doh.

EDIT 3: I’m guessing, but I reckon the picture Elliemarianna posted is a stylised creation painted after the fact (or rather a glossy, later version of the Holbein original).

I should’ve read the whole thread before posting, Sharon.

Possibly the portrait is of Dorothy Seymour, Sharon. maybe even Elizabeth Seymour Jane’s elder sister.