Real Catalina

Yes and no. The normal solid crown? No way you can place it on a French hood or gable hood. Stained glass windows often depict it that way(especially in England), but it wouldn't hold in place. It would slide out, not fit, look odd. It's simply a fictional depiction emphasising rank, not really how it was worn. For men and women.

(Sometimes other forms of art did it too. In stained glass it is basically a must in Henry VIII's reign and before. King and Queen always have a crown.)

However there also existed something which looks to us a bit like crown, but it doesn't seem to be as solid, and frequently this one seems to copy shape of headwear beneath it:

Here it sits on top of 15th headwear worn by Margaret of Denmark Queen of Scotland.

In late 15th century it showed a lot, in 16th in N-W Europe not so much, but I know of example when this was sitting on top of hat, in about 1540. Hat worn by a queen, which in this way was mimicking wearing a crown.

However, bejewelled coif/cap could absolutely be worn beneath a crown and my research would actually suggest it was part of ceremonious outfits for coronations, for not just royalty, but also the highest nobility-here it is upon Catherine of Aragon:

He and I wonder why historians have never considered this portrait to be of Henry Fitzroy's sister: Elizabeth Tailboys.

Well, besides the strange similarity between Fitzroy's miniature and the original painting (now attributed to Katherine Howard), Elizabeth Tailboys was most likely the daughter of Henry VIII (although Gilbert Tailboys claimed paternity).

We know for sure that she was born in 1520 because there is a historical record that mentions it. However, that birthdate would place her as Henry's daughter and not Gilbert's, who was not yet married to Elizabeth Blount at that time. Despite this, if her paternity were not to be questioned anyway (since the king never claimed), she would hypothetically have been 17 years old in 1539. The portrait would be alluding to the fact that she was born in 1522 and was Gilbert's daughter (although we know that it was in 1520 and that she was most likely Henry's daughter). And knowing that Elizabeth Tailboys married Thomas Wymbish in 1539 and that the king seems to have liked her and even visited her in 1541, I think it is quite possible that this young woman could be her. Also, the strongest evidence is the pendant on her clothes that has a connection with Henry Fitzroy.

https://www.academia.edu/105123070/The_Holbein_portrait_with_the_movie_star_pout_Queen_Katherine_Howard

+ The portraits were made by different artists (Hans Holbein and Lucas Horenbout).

Idk, but to me, this girl has features of Henry VIII as well. What do you think?

Well, i have recently figured out that the fashion chaos of 1538-1543 is actually Anne of Cleves' unique fashion style making ripples, and all portraits depicting elements of that unique fashion style should be dated to a very precise, narrow window: 1540-1. It realistically wouldn't have lingered for longer.

This painting has one of those elements-the sleeves. Hence, it is from that date.

Anne of Cleves arrived in England in late December 1539; in those few days, nobody could adopt it so fast. Hence, the earliest date for women adopting those sleeves is January 1540. Could your candidate still be 17 later in 1540? Possibly yes.

However, there is one thing you're not taking into account. Henry VIII had a type. Out of 5/6 of his wives, there isn't one woman not fitting his type. I doubt Howard or Bessie Blount would be an exception either.

And sometimes Henry's kids took after their mother. Or grandmother, Elizabeth of York, upon whom Henry's type was based.

So, resemblance alone is not enough to assume it must be FitzRoy's sister. It could be his stepmum, too. That being said, if you wish to continue the inquiry into your chosen candidate use the sketch too. It is clearly same woman/girl. And i know now it is from c.1540-1 too. Though in its case it detail telling us that is nearly impossible to spot, since it mostly rubbed off. even with filters and actively searching for it i nearly missed it. It's decor between billements. Usually, a typical aspect of the French examples of French hoods. But in early 1540s, it briefly appeared in England too.

Previously on Wikipedia, this image was labelled as Joanna of Castile by jan gossaer, i said in past that is impossible. Because the artist is clearly Bernard van Orley and he worked for the Habsburgs only from 1510s. I personally think it is Margaret of Austria, due to symbolism. Sotheby's agree with me upon Bernard van Orley but think it is Isabella of Austria, queen of Denmark. Margaret's niece. To be fair Habsburg women were really hard to tell apart sometimes. Hence even i often change my mind about which one is which. Anyway, here is link to Sotheby's, so you can see painting in HD(it won't let me download HD image), so go see its details:

Do you know where this portrait came from? I've never seen it before, but in my opinion, it looks like fan art or Photoshop.

No. Not a clue where it came from. It's certainly fan art., not sure by which program. Head, headwear and necklace (without pendant) are certainly inspired by her portrait by Sittow.

The condition Habsburg had, which you refer to is called mandibular prognathism. It basically means a person's lower jaw is located a bit in front of their upper jaw, instead of other way around as is normal. And the exact variant of it can look vastly different. Some people have only a mild chin forward, which gives the impression they are a bit angry. But it stays that way all their life. Doesn't really show almost at all, you can barely notice it. And that certainly wouldn't be mentioned by comtemporaries.

While with Habsburgs it seems to be the type, which often gets worse over time(chin pushes forward) as person ages. And thought person looks fairly nice as teenager or young person(and doesn't get mentioned), in some cases later on their jaws get so significantly forward that they can have trouble eating. The earliest person among Habsburgs(that I know of) who had such troubles later on in his life was if I recall correctly Charles V or his brother Ferdinand I. Though their parents weren't close cousins, they were related(distant cousins). And later inbreeding made this trait only worse, more pronounced etc. That's why it became known as Habsburg chin.

And if you look into portraits, the trait is proven in the Habsburg male line as far as Emperor Friedrich III(father of Emperor Maxmillian I/grandfather of Philip the Handsome). And it's quite likely that's through Philip that Catherine's nephews(and maybe nieces) by Joanna could have aquired such trait.

But what about Catherine's own side? Well, there is nothing suggesting any her grandparents or her parents or her daughter had it. However, the statue of her sister Maria of Aragon from side is sort of on edge of possibility.

Could be, but not necessarily. It's entirely possible she clenched her jaw while posing for the statue for long time. But if you look at portraits of Catherine herself. Some of her portraits have the chin slightly forward:

Could be magnibular progmatism(mild form), could be artist screwing up. Most portraits don't have this. And this is the maximum it ever shows in portraits. Even the latest portrait I can date from c.1527 shows her chin no more forward than her mother's-hence normal.

Nothing near what the gaming coins suggests. So yes, it is over exaggerated-no question about it. Though they seem to be accurate in English outfit and worked probably based upon real life portrait, they have greatly overexaggerated the chin, perhaps deliberately trying to make her look more Habsburg-like or uglier. (Possibly overexagerated it based upon already overexagerated portrait by same artist maybe as the portrait above?)

Even here it is already over-exaggerated:

2nd: did you hear about Amalia of Cleve's or Anne Boleyn dispute sketch?

The issue is not you. You were curious about what I thought, nothing wrong with that. It's just that I spent a long time worrying about those people I could not convince, and eventually came to the conclusion that I am wasting my time on somebody who doesn't want to find out the truth.

You just can't convince everybody. You'll always have people disagreeing with you, no matter how strong the evidence you gather.

About Amalia of Cleve and Anne Boleyn, yes I've seen it.

And I am not denying that there probably was some resemblence in the face of Anne and the sketch believed to be Amalia of Cleves. But without any evidence that such an outfit was worn in England, you cannot start claiming it is an English woman. (and even the crazy outfits from period of fashion chaos don't fit this exactly, and those are all from around early 1540s). Also, when does Holbein ever do portraits from front? Well, the exact date is debatable. If you were to see copies of Whitehall mural, you'd say Henry is fully facing you. But he is not that way in the original sketch. He is turning his head ever so slightly-so it's basically as in portrait I put on right:

That is not full en face, unlike in this portrait from 1540:

And first proven portrait of woman in full en face is Anne of Cleves' portrait from I believe 1539:

We have zero evidence that full en face was popular in Tudor England in portraits. (Though it was in some of Tudor art, especially illuminatuions of the king it existed. Tomb brasses also did it frequently.) But for portraits-it is highly unusual angle, until late 1530s, early 1540s, when it gains popularity around same time Anne of Cleves arrives to England(or prior when her portrait arrived).

So, that alone should make you pause. So either explain the inconsistent fashion and inconsistent angle-or stop catching straws.

Henry simply had a type. And reason why his people went to Cleves was to find woman fitting his type.

And as for claim this is Anne Boleyn's mum:

What do you expect me to reply? I explained in detail several things that the person complains about. About the issues with the portraiture of both women. If it went over their heads, that's not really a problem on my part. I did what I could to explain it.

And I use that nickname not because I like it, but because people are always mistaking Mary Tudor, Queen of France, for her niece Mary I(another Mary Tudor). If I didn't, I bet they'd complain why don't I differentiate between the two, or why do I use a full title.

And I see my point about the sepals of the pomegranate, and about this fashion not being from 1510, was also conveniently overlooked.

All I can do is present the evidence. But it's like leading a horse to water; you cannot force them to drink. If they stubbornly cling to another theory, arguing with them any further doesn't help. You're only going to drain yourself, and they'll still claim you're wrong, no matter how strong the evidence you present.

Don't get me wrong, I am human, and I make mistakes, sometimes even big ones. But I think I have defended this case enough. I have since moved my research to other contested portraits. Some are even more controversial than this.

In my opinion one of the proofs that I believe was not consummated is that unlike Arthur, Catherine quickly became pregnant by Henry.

Nice to know your opinion. But the inbox is supposed to be the place where you ask me questions and want to hear my opinion on a certain topic. But you already know my opinion!

Hence I am puzzled as to what you expect me to answer this.

I cannot read your thoughts, and I don't like guess the question before answering it. Please, a bit more communication from your end next time, so that my anxiety levels can stay low.

Yes, Catherine fell quickly pregnant with Henry. But since it can take even completely healthy couples up to 2 years to conceive, that alone cannot be taken as solid proof.

Especially considering Catherine had malaria when she was married to Arthur(she shows signs from her arrival to England). And only got rid of it years later. In about 1506 or 7, if I am not mistaken.

Malaria can impact fertility and make it harder to conceive.

Hence, the matter is more complex than you think.

I found this portrait.

Some people said it is Mary I, but it doesn't look like Mary

Do you know who she is?

Imo, it is an altered copy after Mary's portrait. Not really resembling her that much anymore. Hair is not supposed to fall out of a French hood, the pearl necklace hung over a parlet is a thing done in France, not in England. (As far as I know.)

Cuts in sleeves could be original, though. In England, after 1543, it was used only in cloaks. (At least up to Elizabeth's reign.)

However, Mary married a Spanish prince, and in Spanish fashion, it was common. Hence, during her marriage, she might have had some outfits combining English and Spanish styles.

Hence, if you remove all that is not original, it could still be used as inspiration for an outfit from her reign.

One thing I noticed in this painting I think (that just my opinion) that Sittow's painting of Catherine vs Mary is Catherine, since in this painting the young woman is the same as in the disputed painting, at the top of what appears to be a homily (?) ( I don't know the name of the cup sorry) it is shaped like a pomegranate.

While it could in theory be inspired by the shape of a pomegranate, it's not close enough to for us tell that it definitely is a pomegranate. However, seeing close up of that lid, I realise now that it seems to depict Tudor roses.

Which could be evidence for either of the two women.

Hello! I'm very sorry to disturb you! I have seen some rumors about this portrait. It is said that this hairstyle appeared in the 1520s. Is she really Mary?

I have my two post about this topic already, but since it was years ago, I am not surprised you missed it. (I truly should make video about it. It'd be much easier to keep track of those, than of posts.)

Part1:

Part 2:https://www.tumblr.com/realcatalina/674307372502646784/isabella-i-vs-mary-rose-tudorpart-2-could-it?source=share

To answer your question-depends on which Mary you mean. Mary Rose Tudor-in my opinion yes. But this is from about 1514. Not 1520s.

And sole reason Mary wears it is because it was intended for her bethrohed Charles V. From head to toe she is Spanish outfit!

It is Spanish headwear cofia de tranzado, and hair styled this way puts it in the 1510s. It does appear upon Catherine of Aragon in about 1525, but with hair more up.

It's certainly not English style per default.

If the Google translator is right, it means „GOOD LUCK” in latin. I think that’s a really amazing detail

I am currently working on my video about Anne of Cleves, so yes I have noticed it. But I believe I have been beaten to the explaining it.

a bon fine- not anne of cleves motto » The Frock Chick

explains that the phrase has been used by women in that region for a while. It's not her personal motto as some presume.

What it doesn't explain though is the meaning. It's not good luck.

But rather "to good end"-with strong religious conotation.

Possibly it is short of longer phrase: "mandare a bon fine" used commonly theological texts during reformation.

It means "To command to good end."

Good question, not sure if you'll like my answer.

There is no single source. There is no perfect photo archive, containing them all. I wish there were!

Though there are some large databases such as RKD, or Frick Libarary Photoarchive which have a huge amount of photographs, many of them in very good HD. Auction houses as Sotheby's or Christie's sometimes also have good photos.

But often my sources are Wikipedia Commons, , Pinterest, Flicker, Google and institutions which own the paintings(museums, galleries, libraries) etc.

Thing which helps me tremendously-if I find the HD picture for painting I normally see only in poor quality or which I didn't see before at all- I either download it or I make pin on pinterest.

Because I have horrible memory. If I don't save it now , the chances I will never find it again. And I love my pictures in HD.

Also, with some paintings(and I hope I make it obvious when I do it)

Sorry guys, that I haven't been posting in very long time. I had some personal issues to deal with. And also, I have been doing a lot of research and then discrediting my own research, because you know, I am that kind of nitpicker.

For the past few months, I have been conducting research for a video about Anna of Cleves, and in the process, I realised I had missed two things about the Toledo portrait.

You know how I say 'Never trust the label until proven otherwise'?

I forgot my own advice! I trusted the label and went down a rabbit hole of trying to prove Anna's birth year was wrong.

(There is some debate about her month of birth.)

But turns out that 1515 is absolutely correct. It is the label which is wrong! The label is Holbein's original( which is why I missed it), but one of the numbers has been altered.

And I only realised when there was no other option left.

The portrait fits 1540-1542, but at the time, there was no English royal alive who fits that date! Therefore, the label has to be wrong.

But how to prove that without physically examining the painting?

Luckily, there is a filter you can apply to photograph and as you move it around it helps to show changes to the surface.

You probably have trouble seeing it, but it says 24. The woman is 24 years old. Which is Anna's age upon arrival in England.

Therefore, it must be from 1540. Not c.1542 as I previously assumed.

I thought it showed the transitional stays, which prolongate torso. But I forgot that Anna was described as tall and slim by the French Ambassador. Hence, she naturally had a long and slim torso, even with old stays.

Or alternatively, she started the transitional stays, but because she got quickly replaced, they didn't catch up then.

Either way, the age of 24 is the final nail in theory Toledo portrait depicts Catherine Howard.

Anna was queen aged 24, while Howard was 17-19 years old. Records are clear on that.

Now about that 2nd thing I missed.

If you adjust the contrast upon white part between the billements-it reveals a decor! (Just as on miniatures of Anna in English outfit).

And it seems like triangles with one line at end of top section of triangle. So it seems like letter A. Or very close to it.

A year ago I started a YouTube channel called Veritas Tudor. And I would like to update you on the current menu of videos you can find there. From True looks series we have:

Henry VII

Elizabeth Of York

Prince Arthur

Mary Tudor, Queen of France

Mary I

Elizabeth I

Catherine of Aragon(in video Catherine of Aragon vs Mary Tudor, Queen of France)

Anne Boleyn

Anne of Cleves(in video Katherine Howard vs Anne of Cleves)

Catherine Parr

(+True looks of Queen Isabella of Castile)

Hence no Margaret Tudor, Henry VIII, Edward VI, Jane Seymour, Margaret Beaufort Katherine Howard and Lady Jane Grey.*

From Tudor fashion:

Dating English hood-using frontlets

Layers of gable hood in c.1500

Why do we struggle to date Tudor fashion?

Tudor maternity fashion

What would Tudor noblewoman wear at coronation-part 1, part 2

From Habsburgs:

Margaret vs Joanna(their portraits get confused all the time!)

Tudor sisters vs Habsburg sisters? (clearing up some misidentifications)

Three young Habsburg Princesses(my first video which I put there in the wrong format).

And others:

Possible origin of IHS brooch

Why is Parr left out of the family portrait?

Secrets of Receuil d'Arras-why it isn't Warbeck(I should make a better version of it-i am not satisfied with it)

If you didn't find what you'd like in the menu, then please write in comments, what you would like to see. I take commissions.

More about True looks series in future:

*Frankly, I do not know how much I can do with Seymour or Beaufort. Beside introducing you to more paintings or depictions of them, and giving you more inspiration for their outfits.

Margaret Tudor I think I can crack now that I have both of her parents, I might update Arthur due to this also, taking both of his parents into account.

Howard and Grey without any confirmed portraits, I need to do a different approach to their looks. So it won't be confirmation of their looks. But a hunt for portraits and depictions, and going over them, and showcasing which fashion you should be on the lookout for.

Labelled on Wikipedia as Costume Drawings of Tudor Nobility with Manuscript Additions LACMA M.85.81a, and as 1511(wrongly)

are actually 1480s coronation noblewoman outfits.

(I saw some pictures of the exhibition in NPG-was it there? If so, I hope you took a good look! This is gold!)

I discovered them a few months back and couldn't at first figure out what was going on. I had more questions than answers. So I held on to it, investigated and got some answers.

Part 1-discovery

Part 2-main rules

I am working on part 3 and part 4, but I ran out of steam.

Part 3 shall be More ranks, cloaks and liveries

and Part 4 Materials and colours (deep dive)

This woman reminds me of Katherine Parr so much. She has blond hair, is dressed extremaly wealthy + the blue-ish hue background. And most specifically, her face. Personally it just yells Katherine to me, but it is actually labeled as Mary Howard, the wife of Henry Fitzroy.

I couldn’t unfortunately find the year when this miniature was made, thus i’m not able to rule anyone out based on birth and death dates. I’m also not very good on judging the possible time based on fashion, and the fact that this painting is very rarely discussed doesn’t make much room for conversation. I believe this could be Katherine, but at the same time i can’t fully exclude Mary. What do you think?

Thank you very much for the praise. I have voiced it several times that I think it is Catherine Parr and not Mary Howard. Not just because of the looks, but because she wears jewels from the royal collection and in that miniature had the very lavish outfit, which might be the one which later appears in records of Mary's wardrobe.

I think I used the miniature in Parr's video(as her), but I am unsure.

It's also somewhere in a post on here, where I think I went in greater detail into it. But tbh even I have trouble going through my old posts-so good luck searching for it.