Talk:Catherine Parr

message: The caption to the first picture in the article reads, "The dignified Catherine Parr, the last of King Henry VIII's wives, was married more than any other queen, four times. Her marriage to Henry was her third. She died as a result of giving birth to her first child in her mid-30s."  (I've put the picture and caption here, too, at left.) Does all of that information really belong there, or can it go elsewhere in favor of a short-and-sweet caption? At the very least, it could be rewritten for clarity.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 15:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Caption rewrite?

message: "Her only child, a daughter, Mary Seymour, born 30 August, appears not to have long survived her mother. Her father, Thomas Seymour, was executed before she was a year old, and she was taken to live with Catherine Willoughby, dowager Duchess of Suffolk, a close friend of Catherine Parr. While little is known of her life thereafter, it is believed that she went on to have several children who eventually settled in the United States (then the colonies)."
Not long survived ?  Or grew up to have several children ?  -- Beardo 05:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that everything you quoted is accurate until "While little in known of her life thereafter" — but the rest of that section is kinda suspicious. Yes, this is around the time people started going to the Colonies. But this is the first time I've come across the suggestion that Mary Seymour was among those who did.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 20:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with the possibility of her daughter reaching adulthood and marrying (it's been said by a biographer of Katherine Parr that she married into the Bushey family who lived in the North of England) but as to her children emigrating to The Colonies?!No,I don't believe that story.Maybe one child,but all her children?!It's just another case of wishful thinking on the part of people who desparately seek "royal" ancestors.Sorry.jeanne (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Daughter

message: Sorry, as a 50 year old Englishman, I have never heard of "Catherine Parr". Henry VIII married Katherine Parr.  The portrait, and all the external pages cited all call her Katherine, with a K. Where does this incorrect spelling come from?? When I get an hour or so!! I will correct this, and "'enery's" pages.--Bilbo B 15:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now reverted all your changes. If the spelling with K is the correct one then this article here must move first. And youe will need to get consensus for it. FWIW the Times just last week in a listing of Kings & Queens of Britain used "Catherine" and from a google search it seems the more common variant. Agathoclea 11:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But since there obviouly are different spellings used even in the sources for the article some more input is required. Agathoclea 12:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The alternative spelling was removed by an IP some time ago Agathoclea 12:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there were no 'official' spellings of names in the 16th century, normal variants are all as correct as one another. It really doesn't make much difference if we spell Catherine with a 'C' or a 'K' here. She sometimes signed as 'Kateryn.' David Starkey has her as 'Catherine.' Pvc.mermaid 22:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I noticed it’s not even in her opening paragraph. She clearly called herself “Kateryn the quene, KP”. Lady Meg (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Well, yes, as the editor before you stated, she spelt her name 'Kateryn'. But a) there is no longer such a spelling, and b) spellings were not standardised in that time either. It is simpler to go with the most commonly used spelling for her name - which, as was also pointed out above, is Catherine, not Katherine. Michaelsanders 17:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear!Hear! I agree that the name should be spelled Katherine not Catherine.jeanne (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed -- it's easy enough to have redirects, I think we should spell it like she did. Switching just the C to the K would not solve this. Gold Broth (talk) 04:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is Catherine Parr? 

message: I changed Westmoreland County to remove the word 'county' and instead place Westmoreland in NW England. Only Americans would call it Westmoreland, or Essex, or Kent, County. Not in Britain. 
--Cardicam (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where? 

message: I changed "Queen Consort" to "Royal Consort" in the succession box. Although Guildford Dudley did succeed her as Royal Consort (if you hold that Jane was a legitimate queen - I don't know enough about it to have an opinion), he didn't succeed her as Queen Consort. Also, most succession boxes do say "Royal Consort" and not "Queen Consort". It seemed more accurate vis a vis Guildford Dudley and it follows precedent. --Charlene 05:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe most consort boxes do say royal consort. Nor is it a title which was ever used - has anyone ever described Catherine Parr as 'royal consort'? Michael  Sanders 12:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Three out of the four I checked did. And the point is, nobody ever called Guildford Queen consort, so he didn't succeed her as queen consort. --Charlene 03:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one ever called Mary I King of England. Would you list Henry VIII as 'monarch of England'? Michael  Sanders 05:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Queen Consort

message: In the section discussing Katherine's life following the death of Henry the article refers to a dispute over royal jewellery causing a rift between the Seymour brothers before it mentions that Katherine went on to marry Thomas. As this makes no narrative sense I have attempted to recorder this section in a more sensible manner. Happy enough for someone to revert these changes if they feel they can do better, but note the narrative issue in doing so. 94.193.220.27 (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narrative Problem 

message: I thought it was Katheryn no it's CAtherine
:I haven't seen that for Catherine Parr. The only two versions I've seen are Catherine and Katherine.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 15:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catherine? 

message: I think we can, by now, safely change this to simply "Katherine Parr" - but I would like some agreement before I just go do it.FlaviaR 17:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The full-length picture 

message: I have seen on a well-researched Polish site that Catherine Parr was born 11 November 1512. What do the other editors think? Can it be added to the article?jeanne (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not necessarily. Many tombs list birthdates, also documents pertaining to inheritance. A child's birthdate had to have been recorded somewhere so it would be known exactly when he or she reached majority. I personally believe (and this is just my POV after a careful analysis) that Catherine could not have been born in November 1512 but instead November 1511. Seeing as her brother William was born 14 August 1513, a November 1512 date for Catherine seems impossible. Fraser thinks that Catherine was born between late 1511 and early 1512, based on letters that her mother wrote stating Catherine's age, which would fit in nicely with the 11 November 1511 DOB. I have discovered the DOB for a 12th century heiress Isabel Bolebec. It comes from a document translated from the original Latin by a scholar which says that Isabel had reached her ninth year the previous Michaelmas. So I do believe that DOB 's can sometimes (alas, not always) be ascertained by a careful study of old documents especially when the person in question was an heir or heiress. I shall continue to track down the source for the 11 November date but as I stressed before it couldn't have been 1512.jeanne (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible birthdate

message: I notice that the section on titles and styles lists her last title as HM Queen Catherine for 1547, with no mention of her title for 1548.
How did it work when a Queen Dowager remarried? Was she still entitled to her status as Queen Dowager, and to the style of HM Queen Firstname or did she take her title from her new husband, in which case Catherine would have been Baroness Seymour or Lady Seymour from her marriage to Thomas Seymour to her death? 86.47.42.32 (talk) 10:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Title after her marriage to Thomas Seymour

message: "An arrest warrant was drawn up for her and rumours abounded across Europe that he was attracted to her close friend, the Duchess of Suffolk."  Can I assume that the "he" in this sentence refers to the King?  I think the antecedent is unclear. Peter Delmonte (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just requested a citation for the claim about "sex during preganancy was frowned upon".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs Clarification? 

message: The factors that are said to have endeared her to many historians make her sound like a rather priggish bluestocking. This appears to have been far from the case. She was a passionate person, in the physical sense, and evidently quite sexy well into her thirties (which was not young in Tudor times). She was also not above the use of obscenities when it suited her: see, for example, Porter (2010), p299. These facets only add to her appeal. (Incidentally, why is this subject ranked as "low" importance?) IXIA (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal qualities

message: Why are there so many red links in the ancestry section? I honestly don't think all of these people (such as N. Septvans, Elizabeth Houby, and Lady Marina Bellers), will end up with their own articles, so some of the red links should be removed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This was done I believe, I agree -- looks strange.. I think it was done when I didn't know any better and I had just copied the template from another page; back then I didn't realize what the  did, now I do. -- Lady Meg (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Why all the Wikilinks?

message: It would seem that there are two pages about the same person on here -- Thomas Burgh, 1st Baron Burgh and Thomas Borough, 3rd Baron Borough of Gainsborough (why am I bringing this up? well..) -- this person is the son of Edward Borough/Burgh which people are linking Catherine to as her first husband, which should probably be left with no link because we are not sure which Edward Borough/Burgh she married. If recent research and peerage books are correct, Catherine married this Thomas' son, Sir Edward. The Peerage says it's Sir Edward, son of Thomas along with other books about Catherine. The title of the barony, Burgh, is pronounced "Borough" and the Tudor Place, which people were using I'm assuming when they made these pages, uses the name 'Borough', not 'Burgh' -- therefore there are two pages of the same person. Does anyone want to help fix this? Thanks -- Lady Meg (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed this by merging the info as best I could (some of the detail is a bit contradictory and uncertain) and making Thomas Borough, 3rd Baron Borough of Gainsborough a redirect to Thomas Burgh, 1st Baron Burgh. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Borough or Burgh?

message: The lead is very poor and does not adequately summarise her life. Is the fact that Catherine's ancestors were from Kendal Castle the most notable feature of Catherine Parr? Her strong support of the Reformation should be up there in lieu of her ancestry and birthplace!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have since removed the genealogical information and replaced it with pertinent facts regarding Catherine's life.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I put that in and was going to continue adding more to build up the lead -- but got tired and went to sleep. I know that that is not the most notable feature of Catherine Parr. Geez. The lead has been poor even before I attempted to do something with it -- but on wiki the pages are constantly changing and you can't keep up -- I started.. and was going to lead up, but didn't get the chance. I keep forgetting that this wiki is not like the Tudors Wiki. I've been researching Catherine for months now. The lead still needs some help as it just gives specifics about her during her reign as Queen and then after. Could someone look at the leads the other queens and perhaps take that as an example? Also, why are people still trying to change her birth date? -- Lady Meg (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

text: The lead has to be a summary of the main points already in the article. Most scholars believe she was born in about 1512. The ODNB says possibly in August of that year.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha. Yes, James, Porter, and the Oxford Dictionary say c.1512. -- Lady Meg (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: The fact that she was the fourth of Henry's consorts to have been a commoner should be in the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it say that on Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour, and Katherine Howard's pages? Probably not. It isn't exactly a huge fact that people need to know. If you put it on one person's page -- you need to do it with the others. -- Lady Meg (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted in the others' respective articles, and it is an important fact that people need to know. If a student happened to be doing  a project on Henry VIII's wives, he or she would find it helpful if the article mentioned that Catherine was the fourth commoner Henry took as his consort. It was an established practice for monarchs to marry royalty. This was what turned the Earl of Warwick against Edward IV when he wed the commoner Elizabeth Woodville. I believe it's on the latter's page that she was the first English queen consort to have been born a commoner.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have since added commoner to the other's articles, in the lead. As you rightly said, we need to be consistent.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Perhaps it should be 'not a daughter of a monarch or duchy'. Because if you want to be politically correct -- I believe by English law all of his wives were commoners as they held no title and were not hereditary nobles. Katherine was the daughter of Isabella and Ferdinand and Anne was the daughter of a Duke. Of course most people wouldn't think of them as 'commoners', but they are, at least by today's standards. Correct me if I'm wrong. Most teachers and scholars do not allow Wikipedia as a source for a paper anyway since it can be edited by anyone at any time. -- Lady Meg (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not intersted in political-correctness, but veracity. Four of Henry's wives were commoners as they were not the offspring of royalty or thmselves titled nobility. Henry created Anne Boleyn to the peerage to raise her status from that of an untitled commoner. Catherine de Medici was also a commoner. My daughter, who attends high school is encouraged by her teachers to use Wikipedia; and the English Wikipedia is preferred over the Italian as it's generally believed here in Italy to be more complete.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So we should note that wikipedia is not interested in political correctness then. We know all this.. you talk as if I don't know anything about the Tudor era. I'm not being nasty about it -- in fact I was laughing when I wrote the last entry.. as most people would argue that and have with me about it, so I was just saying. Henry created Anne to the peerage, but she was still born a commoner -- kind of a desperate attempt as he didn't do anything like that again, even for Jane Seymour, the love of his life. Well here is the US and in London -- they discourage wikipedia as a primary source.. very surprised that Italy encourages it.. I've never read the Italian Wikipedia, but noticed that the German one has quite a deal more information when it comes to people like Anne of Cleves and her family. Her family and her entry needed desperate help a few months back.. they look better now. Poor Anne, she was dismissed so quickly in her marriage and in history. -- Lady Meg (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Curiously, the ambassador of Mary, Queen of Scots, John Lesley, diplomatically mentioned that Catherine de Medici was a direct descendant of Malcolm III of Scotland and St Margaret of Scotland, according to Nestor's genealogy of the Medici (Lesley, Historia, Bk. 6, Cap 86.) More to the point, in Britain there was much notice of Fergie, Duchess of York, as a commoner - 'She's One of Us'; in contrast to the daughter of Earl Spencer, not so long ago.Unoquha (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fergie had her links as well, like Catherine de Medici.. but was not born Lady Sarah Ferguson, no. She was the second great-granddaughter of William Montagu Douglas Scott, 6th Duke of Buccleuch and a great-granddaughter of Mervyn Wingfield, 8th Viscount Powerscourt. -- Lady Meg (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just thinking about this. If she was Dowager Lady (Baroness) Latimer does that mean she was a commoner if she was the widow of a peer? At the time of her marriage to Henry she had already been a peeress by right of her husband. She did receive quite a bit of money and estates from him and was to take care of his daughter, Margaret, until her coming of age. So was she really a "commoner"? By birth, yes, but when she married Henry? She still held the title of Dowager Lady Latimer. Perhaps we could clear that up. -- Lady Meg (talk) 08:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Commoner generally means not royal. Being the widow of a baron would not have made Catherine royal.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I get that she was not royal -- and commoner does not mean "not royal". Commoner is someone who is not in the peerage or the monarch themselves. Was the definition different back in the Tudor times? I doubt it. Also, what's with this constant activity with IP addresses changing everything? It should be noted that for 17 years information online and here on Wikipedia was incorrect about her early life. -- Lady Meg (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Commoner

message: Does anyone want to add more information on her time with Lord Latimer? -- Lady Meg (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, her marriage to him should be elaborated.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Neville, 3rd Lord Latimer 

message: Does anyone think we should add a section on her short lived marriage to Sir Edward Burgh? I have something written up if anyone thinks it's worth writing about. In her biographies by Linda Porter and Susan James there are more than a few pages describing her marriage -- so anyone who is interested, let me know. -- Lady Meg (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please observe: Her mother went by Lady Parr because her husband was Sir Thomas Parr, Knt., so technically Catherine was Lady Burgh as her husband was Sir Edward Burgh, Knt., so the titles have been changed. -- Lady Meg (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lady Borough "Burgh" 

message: It would seem that the deposition of Kat Ashley is not copied word for word and the sentences written imply that the Dowager Queen joined in with the tickling and what not. Catherine is not accused of any sexual matter and did not "molest" [which is what the paragraph implies] Elizabeth. This source Stores from the State Papers which uses Kat Ashley's deposition.. does not state that the Dowager Queen was in the room when Seymour came in, in the morning. Rather she was still sleeping. Rather in most books Kat Ashley is not even seen as a reputable source either; Elizabeth ended up under the care of Lady Trywhitt while Kat was told by the council that she was unfit to look after Elizabeth. The wording and the credibility of the source, Kat Ashley, is regarded as somewhat unreliable. Kat Ashley waffled with her statements about Seymour. She even went as far as encouraging Elizabeth to consider marrying Seymour after the dowager queen died; saying that Elizabeth would be so lucky to have a man like him. It's rather tiring seeing people recently online accusing Catherine of being a "molester" when the full story is not presented on Wikipedia! People seem to rely on Wikipedia for history now and stop after reading these pages. They do not fully investigate the history of the situation and the credibility of the woman, the only person who gave this information under intense investigation and threat of torture after being arrested and put in the Tower. Another link and please note the separate letters sent by Elizabeth to the Queen AND Seymour AFTER she had been sent away: Katherine the Queen, Linda Porter -- Lady Meg (talk) 07:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seymour and Elizabeth 

message: Hi everyone, there have been several edits of people vandalizing this page. The portrait is now missing! Is there anything we can do about this? Perhaps put a lock on it? -- Lady Meg (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Again with the vandalism. Her death date was changed to the 7th. She died on the 5th! It was changed even in her article with someone putting in that she died 8 days after her baby daughter. I also noticed that a lot of other changes have been made, making this a shorter article. -- Lady Meg (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Catherine Parr's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "porter":
From Thomas Parr (d.1461): Linda Porter. Katherine, the Queen: The Remarkable Life of Katherine Parr, the Last Wife of Henry VIII, Macmillan, Nov 23, 2010.
From Sir Edward Burgh: Linda Porter. Katherine, the Queen. Macmillan. 2010.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Catherine Parr]] 

message: Did Catherine Parr live in Horton Northamptonshire?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.144.238 (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horton Northamptonshire 

message: There are two sections where it says she was in trouble for being a protestant.   Wasn't Henry VIII the number one protestant ?  So how was she in trouble for that ?   Some clarification of that would be helpful.Lathamibird (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protestant 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Catherine Parr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020073419/https://www.sudeleycastle.co.uk/history/timeline to http://www.sudeleycastle.co.uk/history/timeline
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Catherine Parr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003071959/http://www.dukesofbuckingham.org.uk/places/other/sudeley.htm to http://www.dukesofbuckingham.org.uk/places/other/sudeley.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This page has been erased and vandalized several times in the summer and fall of 2017. Should it be locked? Meemsworldwide (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! It's vandalized quite frequently. - Lady Meg (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Catherine Parr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090722234203/http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/07/tudors-exclusive-joely-richardson-crowned-queen.html to http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/07/tudors-exclusive-joely-richardson-crowned-queen.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Catherine was considered 'Queen' after the death of King Henry and that was to hold until Edward married and then she would have been Queen Dowager. That was part of Henry's will. She was titled 'Queen Catherine' after he died. She was technically Queen Dowager but was allowed to be called 'Queen'. That is my explanation that should be included in her bio somewhere. Also, her jewels and that of the Queen's jewels were locked in the Tower for safe keeping and she never saw them again due to The Lord Protector and his wife. True that Henry said she could keep and wear the Queen's jewels, but she never saw them again after they were locked away. -- Lady Meg (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title After Marriage 

message: We need to further discuss the death date, please feel free to chime in above. -- Lady Meg (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not worked out what you want to discuss.   Sorry if I'm missing something obvious.    Presumably there was a burial record (which may still be accessible) giving the date of her burial and it seems vanishingly unlikely - especially given the known circumstances of her death - that she'd have been buried on the day she died.  And you seem to have plenty of respectable sources for the agreed death date if you want to pack the entry with sources giving her date of death as 5 September.   But there's no harm in adding half a line stating that some sources give her death date not as 5 September but as 7 September because they conflate the date of burial and the date of death.   And no doubt sources can be found to support that too.   It's a very very common error.  Where sources differ, readers may very well have noticed, and you are doing your wiki-readers a service if you stop off to explain why sources differ.   But I still haven't worked out why it needs to generate a wiki-p**sing contest.   But I apologise - again - if I'm completely missing the point of your request.   Success Charles01 (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, I think the discussion probably isn’t needed anymore as we have that her coffin says that she died on 5 September 1548. You can’t get a more primary source than that. I just needed someone to intervene because it had turned into a conversation that was becoming hostile. — Lady Meg (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have every book written on Katheryn Parr and can find no death date of 7th. We definitely want to reflect different historians' views, but we don't want to perpetuate an error, and errors are easily made, especially in old articles like Britannica and the old DNB. Unless there is a substantial amount of other reliable sources citing the 7th, with some evidence, it should just stay as it is, with just the 5th. Boleyn (talk) 07:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

text: The date of her death being recorded as the 5th on her coffin really should be enough for any reasonable person and it's incredible that users are trying to claim that some random source using the date of 7 is on parr (heh) with the coffin as a reliable source. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

text: You chose to turn things hostile. You were the one who started telling other editors they were uneducated and vandals, and then ran to your friends to spread lies about them. You can hardly be surprised if people treat you with contempt when you started it. I think you'll also find that canvassing is frowned upon at wikipedia. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , I'm sorry to see two editors, both trying hard, ending up upset and angry. I hope we can all draw a line under it and move it. It is difficult when a source gives a different piece of information and definitely worth discussing, but I think it's right that it was removed (unless other sources are found, of course.) Thank you both for you rhard work trying to improve Wikipedia - now let's move on and continue making the encyclopaedia better. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC on death date 

message: Was just wondering what’s going on with the ancestry trees? They seem to have been taken out not just for Catherine, but the other queens. Is wiki just not doing them anymore? A lot of us worked hard on it. Just disappointing. — Lady Meg (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancestry 

message: Is there a reason “Kateryn” isn’t featured as the alternative spelling? That’s how she signed her name. Is that not a good enough source? When and why did we settle on “Catherine” again? Lady Meg (talk) 11:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote this in March and the alternate spelling put in her opening isn’t “Kateryn” yet? Ok. Guess I’ll just do it then. No response. Lady Meg (talk) 07:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a lot of earlier discussion on this Talk page about the issue, but it seems that those concerned are no longer wish to say anything. I think your addition is justified, and indeed believe that the modern spelling 'Katherine' should be used in the article title - but it seems that is somewhat unfashionable for children nowadays and this page is collateral damage.Sbishop (talk) 07:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kateryn 

message: The first paragraph states Henry died on January 28, 1547.The info under her picture says she died January 28, 1547. The first paragraph says she lived over a year after his death. 2603:6010:BE00:498C:ED29:6893:312A:8450 (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The info under her picture does not say she died January 28, 1547. You've misread it. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date(s) of death 

message: I noticed this must have happened a few years ago now. I had uploaded my own photo of the tomb. Then it was taken out for this small photo from the back of the tomb? Surely people want to see the whole tomb. How is this photo now in the article better than the photo I took? Kind of astonished by the constant editing and deletions and whenever I edit I’m like stalked and people undo my edits. Even here on Cat Parr of whom I’ve been studying since 2007. Lady Meg (talk) 06:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put the old one back, for WP:BRD. It's more personal to the subject and may even be a likeness. There may well be room for both. AntientNestor (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just nominated the current picture as a featured picture candidate on Commons. Not relevant to inclusion here, of course—just an aside.--AntientNestor (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Alison Weir tells us that it's from 1862, so little chance that it's a likeness—apologies.--AntientNestor (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of Tomb