Talk:Catherine Howard

message: Why the hell does Henry Manox redirect here?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????//  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.8.216 (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry Manox redirect?????? 

message: Katherine's nickname was Kitty. She was known as Kitty Howard. And her name was spelt Katharine or Katherine, not Catherine.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.149.17 (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nickname 

message: If Katherine Howard was "definitely dead" before she was 21, then how could she possibly have been born between 1520 and 1525 and died in 1548? Either the portrait comment is incorrect, or Catherine's date of birth is later.
Katherine was definitely dead before she was 21 because she died in the early months of 1542, not 1548. The general consensus favours a date of birth either in 1521 or 1525.Gboleyn 15:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates

message: Why are there two identicle portraits of Catherine? The second one is only smaller, and a bit brighter. I honestly see no real difference between them, and wonder why we can't just combine the captions onto the large one (which, to me, doesn't look so pixel-y)?
"Fraser has persuasively argued that the above portrait is one of Jane Seymour's sister, Elizabeth Seymour-Cromwell. "
I think someone changed the top image81.158.255.21 18:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, there's something wrong here. Both images are of the same portrait. The top image is unanimously attributed to Holbein in a Google search. There isn't enough information about the second watercolor (artist, date, etc.) to easily find another copy. I'll keep looking, but recommend we delete the 2nd Holbein image and change the article to indicate that, although the picture exists, we don't have a copy of it.--Marysunshine 22:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did some looking around, and I think the Holbein image is actually this. (Larger image available here.) That image appears to be under copyright by the National Portrait Gallery of London, so perhaps that's why it was removed (?). Google search is distorted because most sites feed off Wikipedia's (incorrect?) article here.--Marysunshine 22:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  I went ahead and edited the redundant image out of the page. Both images are of uncertain origin, so I also removed the POV statements about which one was more likely a legitimate portrait of Catherine. Also, I corrected a few typos and altered the text to discuss both pictures (linking to the National Gallery image as per copyright). --Marysunshine 22:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Edited biography to remove unsourced POV/update writing style, added references, flagged two statements for citation, and added subheads to the biography. Hopefully this has improved the article a bit. I'm still vaguely stumped on the portrait issue -- both of them seem to be attributed to Holbein as "unknown, previously thought to be Catherine Howard." Oh well.--Marysunshine 01:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eh? 

message: A knowleadgable editor should look at the article Henry Mannox and do something with it (merge it here probally, or prod for deletion).  The fact that he is not mentioned in this article conserns me.  Jon513 16:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry Mannox 

message: I am sure I read somewhere that the portrait of Catherine Howard, given on this page, had in fact been identified to be of Anne Parr, and that as such no authentic portrait of Catherine Howard existed. Has anyone else heard this? Frickeg 05:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not Catherine - her sister Anne. I have a feeling that it was in one of David Starkey's books. Frickeg (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portrait 

message: I changed the wording in the Marriage section, about Henry's weight, slightly. It read as too definite before. Scholars are only estimating Henry's girth at the time based on portraits and suits of armor he is known to have worn from the time period. --Hiraeth 01:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight 

message: What is the primary source supporting this statement? If memory serves me this alleged quote came from a pamphlet written by a Spanish diplomat or agent who was very critical of Henry VIII and who was not himself present at the execution. The pamphlet was written and circulated as part of a smear-campaign against the king and attempted to romanticise Catherine's relationship with Culpepper with Henry playing the part of the ogre ruining the life and love of two young people. 
If I remeber correctly none of the true eyewitness-accounts of the people present at the execution mention Catherine saying anything like that. Unfortunately I don't rememeber the name of the Spanish diplomat but I shall endeavour to find it and the text of the pamphlet and something on the discussion about its veracity. Perhaps someone else who knows what I'm talking about can corroborate if, indeed, I am right. 
If I am, I feel that the quote should be removed or that it should state clearly that it is uncertain whether she said it or not. Nothingbutmeat 12:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though this is an old posting and I notice that a source has been added, the article is still structured to imply that the quote is actually true, whereas even the source cited says it was an invention. I have added the rest of the information from the cited source.24.190.34.219 (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Her last words were, "I die a Queen, but I would rather have died the wife of Culpepper."  

message: Has Katherine / Katherine. I'll amend to Catherine / Katherine, per our article name. --Dweller 12:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake in name 

message: It not relevant to the article whom is a distant relation to Catharine.  Every monarch page would be full of people's names if this mattered.  Trivia sections are also, in general, not necessary.  If the information is useful it can go on that person's page.  24.159.242.254 (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia removed 

message: Why the hell is there a period at the end of the article? Shouldn't the article be at Catherine Howard, rather than a redirect to Catherine Howard.?  — AnnaKucsma  Speak! 18:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another name error

message: It says she became the least educated of Henry VIII's wives, yet she could read and write.  Contrast this to Anne of Cleves who received no formal education and could only read and write in German.  Also contrast this to Jane Seymour who could only read and write her name.  I found this info on their respective Wikipedia pages.  Maybe an expert can find a citation for this, because right now it appears Anne of Cleves or Jane Seymour deserves the title least educated. Imogenne (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded the sentence to make it more neutral and consequently added a source24.190.34.219 (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Least educated wife? 

message: It says she grew up in Lambeth Palace - but that was the archbishop's home ? What was she doing there ? -- Beardo (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lambeth Palace 

message: The article needs more in-line citations.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lacks citations

message: There have been recurrent attempts by anonymous IP editors, apparently working together, to insert a rather dubious claim by a Peter Clarke regarding Catherine Howard, the latest sample found here. There is no source in this version and the Wikilink on Clarke's name leads to a disambiguation page.  A previous version quoted a book with the ISBN 0-04-054363-6, which is invalid.  Furthermore, intermediate edits like this and this lead me to doubt the constructive intentions of the editor(s).  This has lead me revert the changes and semi-protect the article for a week.  Renewed attempts will lead to a longer protection period.  Favonian (talk) 11:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Peter Clarke who is a professor at Newcastle is a geologist. Something fishy is going on. john k (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: their is no official portrait of Catherine but historians believe that the one shown first (at the top of the page) is her. but the second portrait has recently been disassociated with her and historians believe it is more likely to be Katherine Parr  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.171.136 (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Portrait 

message: I have been unable to find any credible historical connection with Catherine Howard and Wingate, County Durham.
In most biographies, when her place of birth is specifically mentioned, it is usually Lambeth or London. It is believed her mother, Jocasta "Joyce" Culpeper , who was born in Oxon Hoath in Kent (c1480-1531), already had 9 other children to look after before Catherine was born. This indicates that she was constantly pregnant or nursing throughout her adult life and unlikely to have traveled far.
Wingate in County Durham is 270 miles away from London; unlike today a journey from London to Durham would have taken many days by land or sea and would have been very uncomfortable and tiring for anyone.
I cannot find evidence that Catherine Howard ever left South-East England before the Royal Progress of 1541 where she accompanied Henry and his entourage as far north as York which is 209 miles from London? Wingate is over 60 miles further north.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlwynJPie (talk • contribs) 11:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place of birth 

message: There is a wide range of date given for her date of birth between 1518 and 1527. I would like to know what the most likely date is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlwynJPie (talk • contribs) 11:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of birth 

message: Lambeth or London seems the most likelyAlwynJPie (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place of birth 

message: This: ^The portrait, believed to be Catherine Howard, has been persuasively identified through the jewels on her dress, which match those in her inventory. <- was put in by an anon IP from what I have been able to see. People, hatnotes require RS citations like anything else. I am removing it for now - if you have a reference, add it again. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  hatnotes without citations! 

message: "On the 29th [August 1540] the Duke of Grafton arrived for a Council meeting."
Really? According to Duke of Grafton there was no such title before 1675. Or is that article seriously mistaken? Harfarhs (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duke of Grafton, in Tudor times? 

message: On this edit, I'm not sure Margaret Douglas couldn't have had her portrait painted while in the Tower or Syon; she was allowed correspondence and gifts from the king at about the same time, and Syon complained about her rather worldly train of people and activities. The portrait also looks pretty penitent, even without what is probably a Holbein portrait miniature frame whose back depicts Lot's wife turning to a pillar of salt. I've tentatively clarified, given a more precise reference, and restored it. If there is something I don't know which makes this potential identification really unlikely or impossible, please let me know, and of course I'll remove it. HLHJ (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: God bless you for this comment. 216.154.5.238 (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Margaret Douglas 

message: A lot of dubious claims have been surfacing about the miniature of Katherine being Anne of Cleves with poor evidence other than resemblance and an contemporary testimony. I’ve already sent in a request to get this page protected because of them. Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleves/Howard miniature debate 

message: I think at some point there was a false pregnancy. Oric22 (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pregnancy? 

message: Catherine of Aragon should be Catherine, because her name was Catalina. Catherine Parr was most likely named after Catherine of Aragon. Catherine Howard should be referred to as Katherine, seeing as we're not sure if she was named after Catherine of Aragon. Joyce Howard didn't have the close relationship with Catherine of Aragon that Maud Parr enjoyed- there's no reason that Katherine should be called Catherine, seeing as Joyce probably never even worked for Catherine of Aragon. 
True, many women were called Catherine in 1520s England, but none so prominent as the queen. There are no close relatives that I know of called Catherine in their family. Yes, there are no relatives called Katherine either, but the Howards were most likely Roman Catholics. Katherine was a name brought from the Crusades, therefore the "Holy Land". Joyce and Edmund Howard would have named their daughter after a saint. 
Hence, she's Katherine. If not for all usage, then at least to differentiate from Catherine Parr and Catherine of Aragon. If they're in the same sentence- Catalina of Aragon, Katherine Howard, and Catherine Parr.  Oric22 (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name