Author Topic: Katherine Parr?  (Read 51013 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

helenazar

  • Guest
Katherine Parr?
« on: September 12, 2005, 11:43:43 AM »
I ran across this portrait on the internet, identified as a "miniature portrait of Katharine Parr by Lucas Horenbout". To me it doesn't quite look like her, and I have never seen this particular portrait. Is this really Kate Parr? Thanks,

H



Offline Prince_Lieven

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6570
  • To Be Useful In All That I Do
    • View Profile
    • Edward III's Descendants
Re: Katherine Parr?
« Reply #1 on: September 12, 2005, 01:38:20 PM »
I've never seen this before, Helen . . . I don't think it looks like KP.
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
-Sherlock Holmes

"Men forget, but never forgive; women forgive, but never forget."

Offline Kimberly

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Re: Katherine Parr?
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2005, 03:37:03 PM »
Yes, I have this picture somewhere but I can't find it at the moment. It definately states that it is KP though. I will see if I can find it.
Member of the Richard III Society

Offline Kimberly

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Re: Katherine Parr?
« Reply #3 on: September 13, 2005, 04:34:57 AM »
As usual, the Art Historians are divided on the issue. Some state that it is KP but according to the National Portrait Gallery, it is Queen Mary Ist.Lucas Horenbout was a wonderful "miniaturist" and did portraits of several of Henry's wives but I am not convinced this is one of them.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Kimberly »
Member of the Richard III Society

Arianwen

  • Guest
Re: Katherine Parr?
« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2005, 11:39:05 AM »
Quote
As usual, the Art Historians are divided on the issue. Some state that it is KP but according to the National Portrait Gallery, it is Queen Mary Ist.Lucas Horenbout was a wonderful "miniaturist" and did portraits of several of Henry's wives but I am not convinced this is one of them.


My tuppence: it's far more likely to be Mary than Katherine. Just look at the features. It looks nothing like Katherine, but at least somewhat like Mary.

Regards,
Arianwen

helenazar

  • Guest
Re: Katherine Parr?
« Reply #5 on: September 18, 2005, 07:52:51 PM »
To me, it even sort of looks  more like Margaret Tudor, Henry VIII's older sister, although I don't think it's her... But it does not look like Katherine Parr. I wonder who id'ed this portrait and how.... It is not unknown for portraits like this to be misundentified, look at the one they thought for the longest time was Jane Grey, which turned out to be Katherine Parr!

umigon

  • Guest
Re: Katherine Parr?
« Reply #6 on: September 19, 2005, 03:22:34 AM »
I also think she is Mary Tudor, maybe late teens or early twenties?


About the Jane Grey-Catherine Parr portrait, I still have my doubts... I mean, the face of the sitter doesn't look the same to me than that of the most famous portrait of Catherine Parr and, on the other hand, at least for me, I see a similarity between the sitter and the engraving of Jane Grey that must be somewhere. The fact that the lady uses jewels belonging to Catherine Parr could both mean that she was indeed Catherine Parr, but could also mean it was the Lady Jane, using jewels that Catherine could have given to her when she Jane lived with Catherine and Seymour...

bell_the_cat

  • Guest
Re: Katherine Parr?
« Reply #7 on: September 19, 2005, 03:10:59 PM »
I don't think it's Mary.

The style of the costume is surely early 1540s (though I'm no expert). Anyone know when those triangular collars came in? Mary would have been late twenties. I can't believe she changed so much in the ten years before she ascended the throne.

Horenbout is a very "vague" portrait painter though!

Here's Catharine of Aragon for comparison. Horenbout has thoughtfully written her name in the background, so we know who it is.



Interestingly the jewel Catharine is wearing is not dissimilar to that of the lady we are trying to identify. Maybe it is Mary after all!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by bell_the_cat »

Offline Kimberly

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Re: Katherine Parr?
« Reply #8 on: September 22, 2005, 05:30:38 AM »
Its quite often pieces of jewellery that enable historians to identify sitters in these portraits.
Member of the Richard III Society

helenazar

  • Guest
Re: Katherine Parr?
« Reply #9 on: September 22, 2005, 07:56:05 AM »
I am wondering, did they have a tendency to lend out their jewerly to friends or relatives for special occasions or portrait sittings? Or was this definitely not ever the case, and this is why historians feel that they can positively id portraits based on jewerly? After all, why would that be used as positive id otherwise? This is how they decided that the portrait they always thought was Jane Grey was Katherine Parr after all, but as someone mentioned, what if KP lent her pieces of jewerly to Jane for the portrait? How can they be so sure with something like that...It seems like an odd way to identify portraits, which opens up a lot of room for error.

bell_the_cat

  • Guest
Re: Katherine Parr?
« Reply #10 on: September 22, 2005, 08:08:50 AM »
Well, I suppose it's a bit like the DNA testing (see FS/AA threads!). It establishes that it is probably that person, but of course you can't rule out that someone borrowed the jewellery, in the same way that it can't be ruled out that someone swapped the samples.

I think Katherine Parr must have been a wonderful person if she did indeed allow Jane Grey to wear her jewellery. :D
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by bell_the_cat »

helenazar

  • Guest
Re: Katherine Parr?
« Reply #11 on: September 22, 2005, 08:27:29 AM »
Quote
Well, I suppose it's a bit like the DNA testing (see FS/AA threads!). It establishes that it is probably that person, but of course you can't rule out that someone borrowed the jewellery, in the same way that it can't be ruled out that someone swapped the samples.  


You can't really compare it to DNA testing, because DNA tells you that it's "probably" the person using science and statistical probability - not being able to say it 100% is just semantics when DNA is used because nothing is 100% in science. And of course in science you can rule out things like swapping otherwise the results will not be accepted, this is why it's scientific. But with something like jewerly, it's not scientific at all, it really could have gone either way because it's just a matter of handing a piece of jewerly over to someone else, there is no protocol or chain of custody.  That's why it's so funny that historians say it with such conviction (and a straight face) that they can id someone by a piece of jewerly!  ;)

Offline Kimberly

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Re: Katherine Parr?
« Reply #12 on: September 22, 2005, 08:38:23 AM »
Do you think that if the piece of jewellery wasn't "owned" but part of the Crown Jewels, this would make a difference. Catherine of Aragon had to "return" the jewels that "belonged " to the Crown and these were passed on to Anne?
Member of the Richard III Society

RussMan

  • Guest
Re: Katherine Parr?
« Reply #13 on: October 05, 2005, 05:01:53 PM »
That pic looks like Catherine Paur to me. It's just not as high of qaulity as others. I've been to the National Portrait Gallery in London, and all the portraits i saw of Catherine looked similar to that one.

The only difference is that she seems to be looking at the artist, instead of to the side, like most other style of protraits done in this time.

Offline stacey

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 158
  • I wanna be a princess when I grow up!!
    • View Profile
    • Knowitall
Re: Katherine Parr?
« Reply #14 on: October 23, 2005, 11:27:03 PM »
I'll have to go hunt down all my Tudor books and search for portraits before I can give even a half-informed opinion here  :-/ . Only thing that caught my eye is that I thought Kate Parr had a thinner face than that (?) BUT the sitter does have sort of auburn hair it seems, and supposedly so did Katherine Parr--but then again for some odd reason an unusually high number of Tudor women apparently had reddish hair so that doesn't help much does it!!  ;)
Sola Nobilitas Virtus