Comments on: ‘Henry’s Women’ exhibit

By: afik1945

afik1945 — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:29:49 +0000

this is good looking of presented picture

By: afik1945

afik1945 — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:28:04 +0000

Thema was very popular by edition set mark postage “King Henry VIII and their wifes ” painting of Holbein

By: ladydeath40

ladydeath40 — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:11:34 +0000

I think that the Katherine Parre painting looks a lot like Elizabeth??? I wish I was able to go.

By: gboleyn

gboleyn — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:03:04 +0000

It’s definitely not Catherine Howard. She’s wearing widow’s weeds, which Catherine never had cause to wear. It’s shockingly poor research on the part of the exhibition. The painting of Anne is also problematic – it may supposed to be her, but one recent essay persuasively argues it bears no resemblance to the original Anne. Moreover, as a response to cupidxxrawr, I should say that alas Jane was never described as being beautiful by anyone. Anne was actually – not universally, but occasionally.

By: gboleyn

gboleyn — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 23:55:42 +0000

Also cupidxxrawr is right on the subject of Catherine’s painting – she’s far too old. The date given on the original is 21. Even if we accept the earliest probable date for Catherine’s birth (1521) it’s extremely unlikely that she would have reached that age by the time she died (1542), since she died in February and had been in disgrace since November 2nd of the previous year. Personally, I tend to agree that Catherine’s date of birth was actually between 1524 and 1527, probably 1525.

By: littlemisssunnydale

littlemisssunnydale — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 23:15:58 +0000

I agree – the date c. 1525 seems notable considering she was not mentioned in a family will in c. 1524 although over siblings (presumably older ones) were not overlooked.

Ultimately I suspect that they wanted a portrait they could claim to be of Katherine and used this one, even though the identity of the sitter is not determined.

By: littlemisssunnydale

littlemisssunnydale — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 22:53:31 +0000

*’other’ siblings. Evidently I can’t spell. . .

By: Azaria19

Azaria19 — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 22:05:38 +0000

I agree, the painting is very unlikely to be of Catherine Howard. But that is how Starkey identifies it, and I believe the exhibition is his baby. I agree with Antonia Fraser’s arguments (the ones you cited).

In defence of Jane though, she was described as a beauty. I quote: “the fairest of all Henry’s wives”. I realise that could mean that she was fair, not dark, and that it was common practise to flatter Henry’s choice of woman, whoever she was, I just thought I’d mention it in her defence.

By: YeOldeTune

YeOldeTune — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:50:26 +0000

Awesome video. I love the music, is this an elizabethan tune?

By: littlemisssunnydale

littlemisssunnydale — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:34:07 +0000

The track is called “Kyng Henry VIII Pavyn”. I am unaware of the exact date of the piece although I think it is early sixteenth-century.