Talk:Catherine of Aragon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Royalty and Nobility (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Spain (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Anglicanism (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Catherine of Aragon is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject English Royalty (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Royalty. For more information, visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Women's History (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
This article has an assessment summary page.

Biography assessment rating comment[edit]

WikiProject Biography Assessment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 19:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Family Tree[edit]

I'm putting this here for the convenience of anyone trying to sort out the genealogy:

Edward III of England
|

John of Gaunt
____________________________|____________________________

| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
John Beaufort (~1373-1410)
|

John Beaufort (1401-1440)
|
Margaret Beaufort
|

Henry VII of England
|
Joan Beaufort
|

Cecily Neville
|
Edward IV of England
|

Elizabeth of York
|
Catalina (wife of Henry III of Castile)
|

John II of Castile
|
Isabella I of Castile
|
Catherine of Aragon

- married -


/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Henry VIII of England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . /

|____________________________|____________________________|


Wives of Henry VIII box[edit]

There is a small box to the right side of this page which lists the wives of Henry VIII in (presumably) chronological order with links to each of them. I noticed that on the Anne Boleyn page this box wasn't there, making the series inconsistent. If anyone can copy the box to that page it would be useful, unfortunately, I don't know how to. It might be worth checking the pages of his other wives too, so that the box appears on all six pages. 81.78.72.35 17:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)



Which pope was it who wouldn't divorce them?

Clement VII. Deb 15:52 26 May 2003 (UTC)
wow. that was fast! thanks :-) -- Tarquin 16:08 26 May 2003 (UTC)

The second portrait also illustrates Elizabeth of York!--Wetman 22:53, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whoever wrote: "It is also interesting to note that, after Catherine, there was not a princess of Wales until the 18th century." Doesn't seem to have looked very deeply into these facts, as Mary I (her own daughter) was Princess of Wales, and Elizabeth I was long after and before Catherine had died.

Mary I and Elizabeth were never officially created "Princess of Wales". They may have been treated as the Princess of Wales, but no woman has ever held the title in their own right. Prsgoddess187 00:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"Princess of Wales is a courtesy title held by the wife of the Prince of Wales since the first "English" Prince of Wales in 1282. The title is held through matrimony alone; it arrives with marriage and departs with divorce". Ah, I see ;) Thanks.

Wrong. Princess Charlotte, daughter and only child of George IV was Princess of Wales in her own right. It is not held through matrimony alone.Paul75 00:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong, I am afraid, Paul. The woman in question was Princess Charlotte of Wales (Princess Charlotte Augusta of Wales). Because her father was Prince of Wales, she held the courtesy title 'Of Wales' (the Queen was 'Princess Elizabeth of York' before her father succeeded). Just as Catherine of Aragon was so called because her father was King of Aragon, rather than because she was herself Queen of Aragon. Charlotte died before her father ceased to be Prince of Wales, and thus couldn't have been Princess of Wales anyway. Michaelsanders 00:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Mary I did have the title of Princess of Wales in her own right when it was evident that Henry VIII would not have any sons. She lost the title though when she was declared illegitimate.

No, Henry installed her in Ludlow as de facto Prince of Wales - i.e. all the rights and ceremony of the Prince of Wales - but she was never granted the title - that would have required a change in the law, and such was not made. Michael Sanders 15:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


Chronology of Catherine's testimony that marriage with Arthur had not been consummated[edit]

On this page, and others, it is stated/implied that Catherine testified that the marriage with Arther had not been consummated, and that she did this soon after the death of Arthur and before being betrothed to Henry. This is at odds with other material which says that Catherine produced this testimony not until many years later, when Henry was seeking to have their marriage annulled. The Pope's dispensation that allowed Catherine to become betrothed to Henry was not based on the alleged non-consummation. Indeed, if the non-consummation was "known" at the time, then a dispensation would not have been required! --Anthony Duff 22:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Her duenna, Dona Elvira told everyone that the marriage had not been consummated after Arthur's death, and the Pope did grant a dispensation.

It was insisted - I think by the Catholic Kings, though I don't remember for sure, and don't know why - that the weasel word forsitan be inserted into the declaration regarding Catherine's marriage - so that it read 'probably unconsummated' (possibly so that Catherine could keep her dowry). Michael Sanders 15:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Why?[edit]

Why is the article called "catherine of aragon", while throughout it she is refered to as "Katherine" Sotakeit 16:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Because 70.109.16.241 changed all C's to K's, including in the Spanish material, which is definitely incorrect - and it was the only edit by this user. I think this qualifies for obvious vandalism, so I'm restoring the "C" version. Valentinian (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely saying Henry 'chose to believe' that Catherine was lying about the lack of consummation is rather POV: it claims to see that he was somehow fooling himself. Perhaps 'apparently believing'?

82.3.241.230 19:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted all but 2 mentions of Katherine to Catherine, which also fixing the issue with images due to a earlier user's search-replace from Catherine to Katherine, I know her grave is marked Katherine, but I don't know about her final letter, how did she sign it? TacoJim 19:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Before coming to England, her name was Catalina; spelled with a C, but in her letters, she signed it with a K.

I think someone should make a section in the beginning of the article discussing her name. It's actually spelled with a C and a K.

? Michael Sanders 15:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Mistake in Chronology[edit]

Why was the trouble caused Catherine's father Ferdinand about the dowry and his betrayal of the English cause mentioned after the events of 1520 and directly before Henry wanted an annullment in 1527? Ferdinand died in 1516 and the mentioned events logically happened before this. It might confuse people not familiar with the correct chronology. Tom 11:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Another mistake, she had a still born daughter on New Year's Eve of 1510 and then a son born on New Year's Day of 1511? That is not possible. These dates are incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.254.113 (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that is possible, though it does not apply to this particular article. A woman CAN be pregnant with twins (boy and girl) and have a stillborn girl at 11:59 on New Year's Eve and a surviving son on New Years Day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.16.67 (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There is an easier reason for the confusion in dates. On the calendar in Tudor times the actual year did not roll over until 25 March. Thus the day following 31 December 1510 would be 1 January 1510. This is the reason why you see so many years during this time written as "4 February 1510/11" because Tudor England would say that was in 1510 while we would say it was 1511. So in Tudor England the dates 31 Dec 1510 and 1 Jan 1511 are separated by a year and a day, but today it can cause much confusion as some historians record the year as the Tudors would have and others record it in the modern usage. History Lunatic (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC) History Lunatic

Father/Brother?[edit]

this edit was unsourced. Is it correct? AndyJones 12:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not correct. Arthur had been dead for 7 years when Henry married Katherine. He later claimed he had done so in accordance with his father's dying wish. Pvc.mermaid 22:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

image missing???[edit]

What happened to the image ? --Filll 23:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Should be back now, they went missing when someone replaced all 'Catherine's with 'Katherine' - there were no images with that name... TacoJim 19:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


Chelmsford?[edit]

Did she really live in Windsor House, Chelmsford? Citations? TacoJim 19:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Catherine / Katharine[edit]

I always believed her name was spelt Katharine, and that was how she signed her name. Opinions anyone? Most works on her life seem to use the "K" form, her tomb uses the "K", and the council in Peterborough (where she is buried) use the "K"Paul75 20:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Google search, and go with the most common form. Michaelsanders 20:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I've just been doing some research, and I There is an image of Katharine's signature at http://www.geocities.com/tudorhist/tudor.htm and it is undoubtedly a "K" (despite the actual website using a "C"!!!). The potrait in the National Portrait Gallery is signed "Regina Katharine", and I think most convincingly is that Henry's famous "loveknot" carvings where Henry's initial's are intertwined with his wife's are all "H & K", not "H & C". I don't really accept that the name "Catherine" is the most common form, as both seem to be used widely, and I believe that the evidence indicates that Katherine / Katharine is the correct spelling. "Catherine" just seems to be a lazy mistake.Paul75 20:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Nonetheless, we use the most commonly used form. What she called herself is not particularly relevant - this is English wikipedia, so we use the most common English form of her name. If that is Katharine, use that. If that is Catherine, use that. But this issue needs proper discussion. Michaelsanders 21:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Google results: "Catherine of Aragon"=213,000;"Katherine of Aragon"=42,500;"Katharine of Aragon"=15,800;"Catharine of Aragon"=9,440. Michaelsanders 21:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I think what Katharine of Aragon called herself is extremely relevant! We are talking about a human being here, if she called herself Katahrine/Katherine then that is her name, not what someone else decides hundreds of years down the line. I can see no justification for calling someone by another name to what they called themselves. As she was known as Katharine/Katherine in her lifetime, and her tomb is inscribed with Katherine, I see absolutely no reason to spell her name Catherine. Katherine/Katharine is not even a foreign name or spelling, it is widely used, Katharine Hepburn springs to mind. This is an encyclopedia after all which has to be academic, not popularist. In this case, it is sheer misconception and laziness that has transferred her name over the years to Catherine. I also believe there is no historical proof of the spelling Catherine spelling, so we should we ignore historical fact? Paul75 22:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Then why aren't we calling her Catalina? Or the Latin form of Catherine? Why don't we name foreign nobles of history by their native forms, instead of anglicised forms? Why don't we name mediaeval monarchs with the mediaeval forms of their names? Catherine is the most commonly used form. It is not for us to set our faces against established ideas based upon our own beliefs. Moreover, your assertions that Catherine is a mistaken form is unsourced and speculative. Spellings were not standardised at that time (Anne Boleyn's surname is also spelt Bullen), so one spelling does not trump another. Moreover, you claim that the tomb spells the name Katherine, which already goes against your assertion that her name is Katharine. Which it isn't. Her 'true name', as I said, would presumably be Catalina, or whatever it was in mediaeval Castilian. The simple truth of the matter is that if most academics, and most search results, use Catherine, then that is what has to be used, unless you can produce an accepted historical refutation of that spelling, and an accepted English spelling as Katharine/Katherine. Michaelsanders 23:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

And as for the signature, it is illegible, and the words are indistinguishable, to the point where it needs to be explained as that of Catherine in order for one to see any resemblance. And in any case, it appears to say Katharina the Queen. Michaelsanders 23:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The "K" in her signature is clearly discernible. Henry VIII, an Englishman, most clearly thought her name started with a "K" as there are no "H&C" loveknots carved across the country, only "H & K". Yes, her name was anglicised to "Katharine / Katherine", unless you can find proof that her contemporaries referred to her as "Catherine" I strongly believe that the historical proof is on Katharine / Katherine as being her correct name. The results of a Google search are not exactly academic, and I'm sure you will find that a majority of academics refer to her as Katherine / Katharine. I am not disputing that the spelling "Catherine" has been attached to this queen for many years, but the historical proof is overwhelmingly in favour of Katharine / Katherine. I do not have any prejuidice either way, but I believe Wikipedia entries should be as academic as possible. As regards to Boleyn/Bullen, I understand Bullen to have been a former spelling of the family name which the family corrupted to the less common "Boleyn" as they rose to power. Anne herself used the "Boleyn" spelling as is evidenced by her signature on documents, including her andn Henry's petition to the Pope. Paul75 00:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Look, I'm sorry, but wikipedia does not traffic in what you 'think' or 'believe'. It requires verifiable sources, and reputable historical evidence and support. Your belief that she was called Katherine/Katharine is irrelevant; what is relevant is historical views. If the form 'Catherine is more commonly used, then that is what we must use. If you can find a reliable and accepted historical argument that she should be called Katherine, use it. If you can't, then the fact that 'Catherine' is more commonly used by the English (as evidenced by google) trumps your beliefs. If you want to find a lexigraphical crusade, choose Anne/Anna of Cleve(s). Or Kateryn Parr (as she signed herself). Or why not Guillaume le Batard? Michaelsanders 01:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not dealing in my personal thoughts or beliefs. You are ignoring the fact that I HAVE come up with "verifiable sources and reputable historical evidence". I'm dealing in hard historical fact, not my irrelevant beliefs - her tomb, her signature, her husband, her portrait are all rather watertight. Despite your protests, most encyclopedias are not written on what comes up on Google. They are written on historical facts. I've provided the historical facts that prove the most legimate spelling is with a K. If you can provide a compelling historical fact (apart from Google) that her name should be spelt with a "C", I will bow to your superior knowledge. Paul75 01:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The portrait is irrelevant. One portrait of Anne Boleyn refers to her as Anna Bolina. Portraits cannot be taken as solid evidence of name spelling, because names were spelt inconsistently at that time. The same goes for the tomb (if it is even of her time; and it spells the name Katherine, not Katharine, as you asserted). The signature is illegible, appears to spell the name as Katharina, and is irrelevant today (as I pointed out, Catherine Parr signed her name 'Kateryn'). You need to understand that spellings at that time were not consistent - so there was NO one way, no official way of spelling a name - especially when the multi-language factor is considered. What we must do is go with either the accepted modern view, or the accepted assertions of a historian that one spelling is pre-eminant. You have produced neither; you are merely engaging in OR, and basing it on 'seems', 'think', 'believe' - none of which are acceptable. You need proper historical evidence that it should be spelt Katharine/Katherine (and which of those should it be?). Otherwise, your unsourced assertions that the spelling as Catherine 'is just lazy' and that "it is sometimes spelled as Katherine or Catherine, but wrongly" fail to trump the acceptable wikipeia criteria provided by google - which shows that 'Catherine of Aragon' is the most commonly used form of her name, and therefore required by wikipedia standards (just we have an article on 'Lady Jane Grey', rather than 'Jane of England', or 'Queen Jane of England'). Michaelsanders 01:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
You may also be interested to know that your 'uncontroversial' request to have Catherine of Aragon moved to Katharine of Aragon has been removed from the list by User:GTBacchus: "rm Catherine of Aragon request - the current name is based on the most common spelling in English language sources, per WP:COMMONNAME"
You should also read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). And I have no idea what you mean. Please stick to the subject at hand. Michaelsanders 01:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the name be spelt how it was when she was alive? Aren't most Katherine's of that era spelt with a "K"? I agree that just because it is common doesn't make it right. There was a common consensus about the way Tutkhamen was pronounced, (toot-em-car-moon, not tootemcarmen)but that was discovered to be wrong only in the past few years, same kinda thing isn;t it? Furtive 01:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well...no. It is monumentally unlikely that we at wikipedia have just made the discovery of the age - that 'Catherine of Aragon' is in fact called 'Katharine of Aragon'. Or 'Katherine of Aragon'. If that is indeed the case, there will be reliable and attested assertions by known historians that her name should be spelt 'Katharine/Katherine', and that 'Catherine' is wrong. If not, then what is most likely is that, once again, it is an example of the results of inconsistent spelling at that time, which produced inconsistent results, and which left no 'offical' spelling. In which case, we have to go with the most commonly used form of name. Which, I repeat, is evidenced as being 'Catherine' (no-one has produced any evidence that it is 'Katherine/Katharine'). Michaelsanders 01:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
And stop being so partisan, Paul. This is an issue for academia, not for personality or beliefs. Produce proper sourcing to the effect that we should spell her name Katharine, in line with policy. Don't base it on what you think, base it upon what historians think. Michaelsanders 02:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what you are saying. What i meant was that sometimes something that is commonly used is not correct and should not be used in a academic context. like houses of parliament/palace of westminster etc. maybe it's the same with "K" and "C", i think there's a cause for both, maybe we could intorduce a section in the article about the different spellings? it is interesting what you write about jane grey, I think that is a different matter , Lady jane Grey is the most commonly used name, but she can legimately lay claim to all the varieties you mentioned, where as catherine / katherine of aragon can only have one legimate form of her name. i think it's an interesting debate though! it would be great if more people could contribute, because you guys obviously feel passionate about your respective sides!!! I'm a traditionalist, so i'm going to go for the "K" ....no offence to anyone :) Furtive 02:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the case of Catherine, you can't say she only has one legitimate form of her name - there is her Spanish name, her Latin name, and the various spellings of her English name. And if academic historians can't decide what to call her, then we are obliged to run with the most commonly used English form she is named by - Catherine. Yes, it is arguable that she spelled her name Katherine/Katharine/Katharina (in which case, produce a reliable argument of that), but that isn't a fait accompli here - as I have pointed out, Katherine Parr signed herself as Kateryn. No-one calls her that, however.
As for Jane Grey, that was a long ago result of the 'common name rule' being invoked - she could legitimately be titled as 'Queen Jane' or 'Jane of England' (and is listed as such in the succession box) - but few call her by the former, none by the latter, and everyone calls her Lady Jane Grey. It's just a wikirule we have to accept. Michaelsanders 02:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


My two cents - nothing can be said for the usage at the time as current and popular usage dictates the use of "Catherine" rather than any other form. We needn't be restricted by usage of the time when there were things that were olde, countries were ruled by kynges or what have you. Just as differences in language exist (we refer to Francis I of France and not François) there are also differences in time. Present day usage is Catherine. Charles 02:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
yay more contributions! Furtive 02:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, putting in my opinion as a professional academic historian (not to brag, but just to maybe add some research backed authority), I can tell you a few things about this. To quote to you from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, her name should be Katherine in a professional publication, but acknowledge the alternate spellings (Catherine, Catalina, Katherine of Aragon). The listing for Katherine reads at the heading " Katherine [Catalina, Catherine, Katherine of Aragon] (1485–1536), queen of England, first consort of Henry VIII." Later, the article states "There was some discussion of whether Catalina, or Katherine, as her name was invariably spelt in England in accordance with contemporary usage, should accompany her husband on his return to his duties as prince of Wales at Ludlow." I have personally always seen it spelled with a K, and most scholars use the K spelling in their writings (not all do). I'd stick with the K as it seems to be the most widely accepted spelling amongst scholars and laymen as well. Brakbudy 03:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)brakbudy

Just another useful tidbit, she was named after Isabella's grandmother, Katherine of Lancaster, daughter of John of Gaunt. Her Castilian name was also Catalina, but spelled Katherine with a K in England. Just adds another point in the "Katherine with a K" column. Brakbudy 03:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)brakbudy

Hmm, this is a tricky question. Obviously her name was an anglicisation of the Spanish Catalina; I checked out the corresponding article on es.wikipedia and it doesn't offer any further clues as to how her name was spelt in English. From a quick Google search, "Catherine of Aragon" brings up 211,000 hits, while the alternate spellings "Katharine" and "Katherine" bring up 51,000 and 40,000 respectively - but I'd also say that just because Catherine is the most common form in modern usage, that isn't necessarily how it was spelt in Tudor English. I'd have to suggest a compromise: keep the existing name of the article (the other names redirect to it in any case) but add the words "Also spelt as Katharine or Katherine" in the opening sentence. We have to remember that making our own decision based on historical evidence would violate WP:NOR - it's probably best to go with the spelling that's most commonly used in contemporary use, regardless of whether it's right or not. Walton monarchist89 10:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Go with that by all means (try to give a source for the use of the alternates, then it can't be meddled with). Even footnote some of the evidence that she spelt it as Katharine/Katherine - provided it is sourced. Just don't violate the rules. Michaelsanders 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel I must point something out. The Tudor English spelling seems undoubtedly to have been Katherine. That would be because almost anyone who knew how to spell also wrote Latin, and Latin has almost no K's, instead using a hard C, so Catherine would have also been used. And so it seems that, to refer to this woman, Catherine has emerged as clearly the most common name in Modern usage. Katherine may be the "correct" form, or at least was at one point, but it is not the most common. Therefore, no move. But yes, do include one note, possibly a footnote, in the opening to note spelling options. – DBD 12:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the biggest problem here is that no-one appears clear on whether the 'correct' form was 'Katherine' (which, according The Oxford Minidictionary of First Names is the correct form of the name in English) or 'Katharine' (an early variant, affected by katharos). That being the case, we'd be more justified in going with Catherine (most commonly used name) than in choosing Katharine over Katherine, or vice versa (since, unless there was a proper historical source indicating one way or the other, or a clear historical judgement, it would be our own - unacceptable - decision). Michaelsanders 13:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
K.--Couter-revolutionary 14:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
A or E? Michaelsanders 14:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
E, I think.--Couter-revolutionary 14:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
And the basis for that thought? Michaelsanders 15:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

So what I think we can gather from the debate is that Katherine/Katharine is the correct spelling of her name, but Catherine is the most common. As brakbudy pointed out, it it the "K" form that should be used for professional articles, so where does that leave Wikipedia? Should the more common "C" spelling of her name be used for Wikipedia when the acceptable academic usage is for the "K"? I don't think that reverting to using the "C" just because agreement can't be reached on the "A" or "E" in Katherine/Katharine is the solution. I definetely agree that there needs to be a line in the introduction stating the various spellingsPaul75 21:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

brakbudy beat me to the punch, so I won't reiterate everything said already, except to add that as a historian myself, with a short professional background in Tudor history (and a longer one in another field, so I don't profess to be an expert by any means), academically, the "K" is generally used for Katherine of Aragon, with acknowledgment and acceptance of alternate spellings. (More Google hits does not necessarily mean a correct answer, but rather a more common answer...) This is one of those times that goes back to the question of what Wikipedia's intentions are... For what it's worth, my own personal inclination is to fall on the side of "correct" rather than "popular", and use the "K", with, of course, redirects from the "C" spelling and a brief bit at the beginning explaining the different spellings.Hiraeth --71.243.162.157 23:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Throughtout this article, her name is spelt differently Catherine & Katherine. I don't know wich is right, but they should be consistant. It gives the impression of 2 different women. GoodDay 20:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, since I was kindly invited to give my input, I put my stock in the "K" team. That is the way I have always seen it. --Ashley Rovira 12:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, some unregistered wit earlier today swapped all the Catherines with Katherines, presumably using a text editor, but failed to notice that that switched off the images, which are named with a C. So I reverted the lot. --I'm an American, and I've always seen it with a "C", but upon examination the contemporary evidence is plain and compelling. I've put my hand to a number of opening line edits when the name, dates and places get cluttered: I'm going to see if I can incorporate the K into the opener in such a way that clarifies and explains concisely. -- Yamara 18:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've tried a fix, and reordered a lot. I might reorder some more (that Trastámara box is huge and unsightly), so if consensus goes against my solution for the opening line, please reedit, not just revert. Thenk yew. -- Yamara 19:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Please see #A Solution for Katherine/Catherine below. --Yamara 22:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


I don't believe there is one way of spelling her name. She did not adopt just one form as is evident from her signatures on official documents and in letters. Take for example her final letter to Henry VIII - she signed herself 'Katharine'. But in a letter dating to her daughter in the mid 1520s and a letter to Wolsey in 1513 she signs herself as 'Katherine'. She appears to have adopted the English variation of her name which tended to endorse the letter K. The decision to place ‘Katharine’ on her tomb is less based on detailed research into whether she called herself this or not and more based on the preference for this spelling at the time the tomb was built. It was popular in the nineteenth century especially to refer to her as ‘Katharine of Aragon’ but this was not justified by an examination of source material. It was more due to the authors' general preference for this variation.

House of Trastámara box[edit]

I've readjusted the page quite a bit. The House of Trastámara columnar box was difficult to reorient into the Ancestry heading because of its size; so I resorted to moving all of Catherine's family info under it, renamed it "Lineage", and removed a 19th century engraving from the page (which was adding little) so that Historiography would flow alongside the royal box. It still wasn't long enough, so I resorted to the loathed forced breaks, each of which has a note to not remove it until more text is added. Not a perfect solution, but at least all the art and boxes are now placed next to relevant texts. -- Yamara 20:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

A housekeeping update: Some months ago the Lineage section got a nice graphic, and the forced breaks were all done away with. Hoorays. --Yamara 20:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean??[edit]

"Katherine had to wait for a month to see if she was pregnant and had tripelets [emphasis added] rothed to Arthur's younger brother, the future Henry VIII of England." I would like to take out the italicized stuff & simply put in "before she could be betrothed" or "and then became betrothed", even tho' that is simplifying mattersFlaviaR 17:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


A Solution for Katherine/Catherine[edit]

I like Wikipedia rules, they keep people from getting their user names in The Onion. I even like to write rules for a living.

However, the time has come to solve this spelling issue. Editors keep coming in and making changes thinking they know stuff, only to learn halfway down the article it was scholarship not vandalism they were undoing. Users think Wikipedia is gone cuckoo again, because we spell Catherine of Aragon with a "K", and never read down to where they might be informed.

The article is titled "Catherine of Aragon" because that is the most popular modern spelling. Users are going to type that spelling in far more often than "Katherine of Aragon". So moving the page to the title "Katherine of Aragon" seems counterproductive. But the spelling is not historically accurate, which is an encyclopedia's primary goal.

"Katherine of Aragon" redirects to this article. The MOS under WP:Hatnote has an acceptable use for a hatnote here: Ambiguous term that redirects to an unambiguously named article, where an odd or partial spelling leads to the correct title.

However, WP:Hatnote also warns that an "Example of improper use" is filling a hatnote with Legitimate information about the topic that is otherwise in the article.

Aware of this, I have constructed a hatnote that both reveals a redirect from the correct spelling, and concisely explains the spelling issue. Since the spelling is the first thing to confront and confuse uninformed readers AND editors, I have made the "disambiguation" links to the appropriate section within the article itself.

Therefore, I am openly invoking the Ignore All Rules policy against MOS WP:Hatnote, as this is an improvement for all unfamiliar editors, and of immediate value to users.

PLEASE NOTE. This is a solution to an ongoing problem with this particular article. If anyone has an alternative solution, please voice it below. If it is a superior solution, let's take a vote around. If you don't have a solution to this problem, please don't simply remove this one. It solves a problem. —Yamara 22:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

PS - Somebody please get on verifying the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. I know I've seen Katherine's own sig, but it would be best to have cites. —Yamara 22:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Verify the source? User:Brakbudy verified it on 19-Feb. Is there a reason to doubt his word? And if someone else verifies it, will their word be any more reliable? -- Zsero (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I would go for something like:

Katherine of Aragon (16 December 14857 January 1536), Castilian Infanta Catalina de Aragón y Castilla, , popularly known as Catherine of Aragon, was the first wife and queen consort of Henry VIII of England.

and drop the hatnote. Or has this been tried? (John User:Jwy talk) 23:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it has, and it starts another round of whether or not its true, or redundant, or confusing. The explanation needs to lead, but it shouldn't lead the article itself because it's hardly the most important part of Katherine's article. Your suggestion is correct for leads in biographies, but this article has the unique problem that the popular spelling is universally accepted, and the historic spelling is obscure to the point that most people have simply never seen it before. Including myself. I must have seen it reading Shakespeare, but I simply didn't remember it—I've never seen the spelling elsewhere before running across it here in Wikipedia, and I've enjoyed reading and exploring history all my life. I can only imagine the horde of editors and users who have been raised on modern movies, and need an instant heads-up. —Yamara 02:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, it wasn't the only thing that triggered such discussions. I still think my suggestion makes the page most consistent with what people are looking for, explains why the redirect happens. It SHOULD be in the lead if it helps someone orient themselves with minimal confusion. It takes care of the dissonance of the user entering (now I guess it is the 'C' version). But I have no where near the passion about this as some of you. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This article looks really bad now! Catherine of Aragon is the title, but the article starts with Katherine of Aragon. Is the spelling of her name so important? After all, she was born as Catalina and later signed herself Katharine and Katherina (never Catherine and never Katherine). It's stupid to say that Catherine is the modernized spelling because it implies that Katherine is the correct one (and it's no more correct then Catherine since she never spelled her name that way). Es.wiki spells her mother's name Isabel, although Isabella I of Castile signed herself Ysabel. Wikipedia cannot use the spelling used five centuries ago. Surtsicna (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you doing?! You're ruining this article! Boleyn, you cannot rename the image and change the title of a book (e.g. Patience, Princess Catherine to Patience, Princess Katherine) just because you think it's the right way to spell her name! Are you going to say that Lady Jane Grey is actually Lady Iane Grey just because the letter J did not exist during her lifetime? Oh, please. Surtsicna (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What nonsense! The letter "J" has existed for thousands of years, and is clearly visible on the signatures of "J" people who lived in Lady Jane Grey's lifetime, such as Jane Boleyn. Paul75 (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
You really think that the letter J has existed for thousands of years? Oh, dear. You ought to read this article. Surtsicna (talk) 10:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and this is Wikipedia and everything on here should be taken with a grain of salt. Perhaps if you read more widely you would know that Greeks used the letter. Whatever the correct history of the letter is, it has been used in English since well before Jane Grey's time and there it is an absolute fabrication to suggest the correct spelling of her name is "Iane". Her signature, with a very clear "J" is [1] and [2]Paul75 (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Surtsicna, if you want to make a point, you can do so without resorting to being offensive. Historians (and I am one, incidentally) almost invariably spell her name with a 'K'. It is not simply that it was the contemporary spelling that people feel it should be spelt 'Katherine'. I completely take your point on the titles. I went through and changed some back before I saved it, and planned to finish the rest later that day, but somebody had already changed it.Boleyn (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"While the most common modern English spelling of her name is "Catherine of Aragon", the correct contemporary English spelling is Katherine"

Correct spelling of a personal name?! Will you please stop writting nonsense? Surtsicna (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, correct spelling of a personal name. Why would that be a problem? -- Zsero (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

:: People spell their names as they want and their way of spelling their name is the correct way. If Katherine was indeed "the correct contemporary English spelling" of her name, then Catherine of Aragon, Catherine Howard and Catherine Parr mispelled their names.

I don't care how you spell her name, I just don't want this article to look this crappy. If you're going to use Katherine, then please change the title to Katherine of Aragon. Surtsicna (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If you mean the page name, then no, that must be the most common spelling, even if it's not the most correct. But there's no reason the article must spell it the same way as the page name. For instance, Bill Gates has his name as 'William Henry Gates III. -- Zsero (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Zsero, that is different its a different name, but a differnt spelling just looks crappy if you are going to change the title of the page then do that but if your not- leave the spelling alone, and there is logic in the fact that catherine is the most cmmon spelling so therfor the most acurate, people say she spelt it witha k but then they are spelling it "katherine" when she spel it "katharine" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.56.183 (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Zsero, I stopped reverting your changes. I do not want to argue about her name, it's not so important. I just think that the article would look much nicer if we choose only one spelling. Surtsicna (talk) 11:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Still no consensus on a change[edit]

We have the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography saying that any professional publication should use a K, and on the other side we have, what? Some editors saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and insist on changing it to a C without any consensus for it.

By the way, these diffs prove that User:62.56.56.183 is the same person as User:Chloe2kaii7. That means they count as one in any !vote, and for 3RR. Just making sure everyone realises that. -- Zsero (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already said that I don't care how her name is spelled. Everybody knows who she is and one letter doesn't make any difference. I just wanted her name to be consistant. Just making sure everyone realises that. Surtsicna (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I orginally highlighted this problem last year. Without any intentions of being rude, are the people debating this English or American / non-English? Being English, the spelling of Katherine has always been universal in this country, Catherine is a slightly alien form to me and I have always grown up with the spelling Katherine/Katharine. Her tomb in Peterborough is marked "Katharine the Queen", and I really think Catherine is a complete misnomer. Perhaps this is lost outside of Britain. Spelling with a C is simply of modern bastardisation of her name. However, I am more than happy to be disproved - politely of course please! Paul75 (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
And since she is an English queen, never an American one (not being alive during the British Empire) one might imagine an English spelling to supersede an American one.
But this simply underscores my point. This confusion will continue for the hundreds of millions of potential American users of Wikipedia who have never heard of the spelling, which in turn will confuse the tens of millions of potential English users. Wikipedia being open to instant editing, the article will always be seen as wrong by one set of these millions or the other.
The hatnote is a solution to this unique problem.
Anyone with an alternate solution is welcome, obviously, to discuss it here. But the problem is very plain and real. Cheers, Yamara 18:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC) (New York City)

What is wrong with the hat-note? I have never seen Catherine of Aragon with K anywhere until I saw it here in this article. Not in Churchill, Schama, or specialized works that I own. The use with a K is cited, however and until the article reaches FA status there are more important edits to make. It looks fine to me as is. -- Secisek (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


I have never sen Catherine's name anywere with a "K", but if you must change it to a "K" then change the title, too but then when we suggest that you do that you say "but then it won't be as easy to find" well then surely that is a reason in its self not to change it? Chloe2kaii7 (talk) 09:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The name of a page is always the most common spelling, regardless of how "correct" it is. The name is how people find it, and since most people do spell it with a C, that is what the page name is and should remain. The K spelling redirects. But the page itself should use the more correct spelling. There is no reason why the page must use the same spelling as the name. How it's spelled on the page doesn't affect the ease of finding it. And if anyone is confused, there's the hatnote at the top, and a whole section further down, explaining it. And the readers will leave the page more informed than they came, which is the point of an encyclopaedia. -- Zsero (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:V. Look at it this way, Wikipedia has taught you something.
It happens. Take the fact that the United States has always had monetary denomination smaller than a penny-- and everyone knows it and uses it on a regular basis. Nonsense? I once was about to edit the statement "Nowadays, most Americans are familiar with the concept of a 'mill'", as absurd on its face. But I read on, and discovered that why yes, I did know it. I simply never knew its name.
The spelling is verified, and needs to be acknowledged, however surprised a reader is by it. Popular spelling for centuries also has to be acknowledged. The hatnote is still a solution to this issue, while hiding one spelling is not. -Yamara 19:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the hatnote is brilliant, and it should stay exactly the way it is. I don't care about the most common way it is spelt - the correct academic term is K. This is an encyclopedia, not a magazine article.Paul75 (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
In this encyclopedia, the general consensus has been established to use the common name in most cases - so the consensus IS to care. I still would prefer a lead sentence as I propose above, that will make the issue clear, doesn't hide name and is more consistent with what a regular user of Wikipedia might expect:
Katherine of Aragon (16 December 14857 January 1536), Castilian Infanta Catalina de Aragón y Castilla, popularly known as Catherine of Aragon, was the first wife and queen consort of Henry VIII of England.
swapping the K and C and replacing "popularly known as" with "actually named" depending on what the article title ends up being. I haven't seen objections to this explained. (John User:Jwy talk) 04:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. -- Zsero (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to listing both names in this way, but be warned: I have tried this on this article before (and I think another sympathetic editor wished me a cryptic "good luck with that" back then). It is the biography standard for Wikipedia. But this is a case where the legions of pop culture addicts will not leave the academic editors in peace. The hatnote's solution is to force the explanation of Katherine's name to before where it would belong in a proper article, so that the ignorant can be informed, before their ignorance allows them to revert knowledge.
As I read WP:NAMES#Names, the article name should remain as it is and the lead should be:
Catherine of Aragon (16 December 14857 January 1536), Castilian Infanta Catalina de Aragón y Castilla, properly known as Katherine of Aragon, was the first wife and queen consort of Henry VIII of England.
For me, that would sufficient mention of the K form outside the name paragraph. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Anti-vandalism is all about anticipating the ignorant. That's why, through experience, I am pushing for the hatnote; most editors don't want to vandalize the verifiable. But too many people have a knee-jerk reaction to seeing Katherine of Aragon spelled with a K. Cheers, Yamara 14:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, definitely keep the hatnote. I think it's reasonable, though, to add "popularly known as Catherine of Aragon" to the lede. -- Zsero (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I found the hatnote as it was written to be inappropriate. It seems to divide people into "scholars" and "well-meaning, but idiots" if read a certain way. I am certain that some scholars use Catherine just as much. I have changed it. Charles 06:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I am British, and I have seen it spelt both ways (and Katharine) many times, with "Katherine" probably being the most popular. The name (not specifically that of the queen) is commonly spelt in all three ways in Britain, although "Catherine" is probably the most popular. However, because it's the most popular spelling doesn't mean that's the way we should spell it in an article about a specific person - that would be ludicrous. Personally, I think we should go with the ODNB as the most authoritative British historical biographical work, as we are talking about an English queen. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What the ODNB actually says is There was some discussion of whether Catalina, or Katherine, as her name was invariably spelt in England in accordance with contemporary usage, should accompany her husband on his return to his duties as prince of Wales at Ludlow. That is to say, it was spelt Katherine in the sixteenth century; the ODNB chooses to spell it that way now. It says nothing about professional standards. (We should not invariably follow ODNB nomenclature; for example, they never use titles.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, JSTOR has 594 hits for "Catherine of Aragon" as opposed to 59 for "Katharine of Aragon". Those include Garrett Mattingly's biography, titled Catherine of Aragon; is it really Zsero's contention that he is unprofessional? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Page has been fully protected vs. redirects[edit]

The admins want consensus before such things happen. Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Catherine_of_Aragon --Yamara 23:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Dates[edit]

I've just delinked all occurances of dates within the article, editing for consistency as I did so (something easy to miss if you've got your date prefs set to some form or other). Note that the first section contains a 15–16 December. This cannot be autoformatted using the current system. We are therefore faced with a dilemma: we've got to choose between autoformatting most but not all dates or autoformatting none of them. The first choice gives us inconsistency and overlinking. JIMp talk·cont 01:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the problem with inconsistency here? I would prefer we preference enable all dates that we can. (John User:Jwy talk) 02:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Jwy—what a relief to happen upon this article, in which the high-value links are allowed to breathe. See MOSNUM, which no longer encourages date autoformatting and which now prescribes rules for the raw formatting, whether they’re autoformatted or not), and MOSLINK and CONTEXT.
Autoformatting from the start was highly indulgent, being purely in-house programmer's wonkery for WPians alone, and forcing millions of readers to negotiate bright-blue splotches for no advantage at all. Worse still as Jimp discovered here, autoformatting conceals inconsistencies in raw format from us, the very people who are in a position to fix this; yet our readers have to cope with the inconsistencies in their displays. I'm interested to hear your views, Jwy. TONY (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The inconsistency problem is this. The article contains a date range of the form day–day month year. Such a range cannot be autoformatted using current WikiMedia. If you're logged in but have your prefs set to a different format, other dates will be formatted differently. Consistency is an all-or-nothing affair (by definition). Autoformat all dates that we can and we leave those that we can't unformatted: this is inconsistency. I'll much quicker swallow the formatting prefered by "them" than have some inconsistant mix of "ours" and "theirs".

Tony brings up a point well worth consideration. It is only Wikipedians who reap the dubious benifits of autoformatting. Take a look at my edits. You'll notice that there had been three formats in use:

  • [[December 16]], [[1485]]
  • [[16 December]], [[1485]]
  • [[16 December]] [[1485]]

Now the software is smart enough to add missing commas and remove extra ones but it won't fix your inconsistency problems unless you've chosen a preference. What an unlogged-in-with-preferences-set reader is going to see is 16 December 1485 sometimes and December 16, 1485 other times. Autoformatting hides this from the Wikipedian—there are problems we just don't see (that's what I mean by "dubious") ... well I see 'em, having turned my prefs off. JIMp talk·cont 04:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Until I researched further because of your changes, I was unaware the linked dates could provide inconsistent formatting, so I understand a bit more. I'm not convinced which is more important, however: Complete consistency (no auto-formatting at all) vs. most dates in my preference (all autoformattable dates linked with consistent pre-formatting order). Your choice would apply to almost all pages, so I would suggest further discussion in a broader forum before too many changes. (John User:Jwy talk) 05:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

WT:MOSNUM and WT:MOS are pretty broad and the feeling there is that this thing is broken and we haven't much hope of getting it fixed (we've tried and tried). Yeah, I like dates to be in my preference too, but remember it only works for Wikipedians ... the very people we should urge to turn their prefs off so that they can see the page warts & all so that those warts can be weeded out. What I'm getting at here is, suppose, we didn't have that unformattable date range on the page ... suppose we're looking at a page without any unformattable dates ... what do we see? What we see, if we're logged in and have our prefs set, is all dates nicely how we like them. What we see, if we're not logged in or haven't set our prefs, is dates in whatever format they were typed into the article. So reset your prefs to no preference so you'll be able to see what the majority of visitors to Wikipedia (i.e. those without a login at all) see. By doing that you'll notice if an article is using a mix of formats (as this one had done). To see what I mean, log out (or better still, reset your prefs) and have a look at this. JIMp talk·cont 07:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, JimP: I'm taking your advice now and removing my preference so I can identify (without going into the edit window) the inconsistencies that we don't want our millions of readers to see. Jwy: what matters most is what our readers see, not what we see, yes?. TONY (talk) 07:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, there's the other point that linking produces ISO dates for those with prefs so set which imply the Gregorian calendar whereas the article uses the Julian. JIMp talk·cont 15:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

My new major edits[edit]

Ive just made some major edits by adding some news pics and two new sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chloe2kaii7 (talkcontribs) 18:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Merging of Catherine of Aragon in Popular Culture[edit]

I have reinstated the tag stating that Catherine of Aragon in Popular Culture should be merged with this article, given that it was removed without a consensus to do so. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 22:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

everything there can be expanded and sourced; there's enough for an article. No reason to merge. DGG (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Titles in Pretence[edit]

I'm not sure I follow what this section in the succession boxes is on about. PatGallacher (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

She refused to acknowledge the annylment of her marriage and continued to claim being the legitimate Queen. The Roman Catholics throughout Europe also acknowledged her as Queen. I am not too sure if such a claim should be reflected in the succession boxes. Dimadick (talk) 10:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we should delete this point from the article. A succession box for "Titles in pretence" or something like that should only apply to a line of pretenders who have maintained a continuous claim e.g. Jacobite pretenders to the British throne. I understand the point that she still claimed to be Queen, but in what meaningful sense was she succeeded by Jane Seymour and not Anne Boleyn? Presumably in the sense that the RC Church recognised the former but not the latter's marriage to Henry. This is far too obscure a point to merit a succession box. PatGallacher (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I added the box, but I agree that it should be removed. Yes, the succession box was supposed to explain how Jane Seymour was considered the next rightful Queen of England (since she married Henry VIII after Catherine of Aragon's death). However, that's too complicated to be explained by a simple succession box, which is why the succession box only makes the subject less clear. So, shall we remove it? Surtsicna (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Queen regent/regnant, Infanta vs. Princess[edit]

While I would accept that it is OK to treat infanta as the Spanish equivalent of princess, most of Chloe's edits are bad. A queen consort who has been temporarily given the post of regent is not at all the same as a queen regnant, the former is still the wife of the king, the latter is a monarch in her own right. Also we don't need such a long list of titles in bold at the start. PatGallacher (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In Spain and Portugal, difference is made between Princes and Infantes. Only the person who is the first in line to the throne (and that person's spouse, if the person is male) is Prince of Spain - Prince of Asturias to be precise. All the others are Infantes and Infantas. See Spanish Royal Family. Catherine was never heiress presumptive, thus she was only Infanta of Castile, Aragon, etc. I agree with PatGallacher's other arguements. Queen regent is a queen consort who acts as a temporary head of state on behalf of her husband, while queen regnant is a female monarch. Catherine was not a queen regnant. Surtsicna (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You can run into problems translating titles or cultural equivalents. The heir to the Spanish throne is "el Príncipe de Asturias". I would argue that "infante" is a closer English equivalent to "prince". PatGallacher (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right, but the titles of Infante and Infanta are never translated, just like the title of Dauphin is never translated as Dolphin or Prince. Have you ever heard of Louis, Dolphin of France? Or Maria Anna, Dolphiness of France? Calling Catherine Princess of Castile is simply factually inaccurate. Surtsicna (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Titles in full[edit]

Sorry, I know this is a bit long, but I hope it's pretty definitive.

Over the last few days something approaching an edit war seems to have broken out over whether or not to include the following titles for Catherine of Aragon in the article: "Queen Consort of England (Which at that time included Wales and Calais), and also for a time Queen Regent of England (Which at that time included Wales and Calais) Princess of Wales, Dowager Princess of Wales, Infanta of Castile, León, Aragon, Majorca, Naples and Valencia, and Barcelona". I believe the proponents of inclusion mean well but are mistaken on several counts. User:62.56.112.43 asked in an edit summary at 11.12 on 4 October 2008 "excuse me but can you actually specify what part of that imformation is wrong? hmm can you": I think I can.

Location of the information[edit]

Such a list should not appear in the lead section or in the infobox on the top right of the page, as these areas are for introduction and summary only. Any detailed list of Catherine's titles should be in a separate section further down the page. Template:Infobox British Royalty does actually include a piped link to such a section, under "Detail", but one does not presently exist. User:Chloe2kaii7 did create such a section at 19.23 on 4 October 2008 but this was reverted by User:PatGallacher at 19.46 the same day.

"England (Which at that time included Wales and Calais)"[edit]

This is simply wrong: England did not include Wales or Calais at this time.

Though Wales was ruled by the King of England, this was as a separate fief with a separate civil law. Wales was not annexed to England until after Catherine's divorce from Henry; see the article on the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542 for more information.

Calais was never part of England; it was the remnant of the English possessions on the Continent which they ruled as claimants to the entire Kingdom of France. See English claims to the French throne for details. Henry VIII's full title during his marriage to Catherine was "King of England and France and Lord of Ireland"; the title Defender of the Faith was added in 1521 (see style of the British sovereign).

"Queen Regent"[edit]

Though Catherine may have been regent for the Kingdom in 1513-1514 and was certainly Queen Consort at the time, it does not necessarily follow that she bore the title of Queen Regent. For example, the Prince of Wales was regent of the United Kingdom from 1811 to 1820 and was known as the Prince Regent, but Prince Paul of Yugoslavia, who was regent of that kingdom from 1934 to 1941, was not. User:62.56.53.218 said in an edit summary of 09.48 on 5 October 2008 "Just added her ttles in full they are all factual go check". One should not have to "go check"; if you know she was styled Queen Regent at that time then the onus is on you to provide evidence for it. See WP:PROVEIT.

There is a difference in being regent for a time while ruler is absent from their realm and being regent because the rightful ruler cannot perform their duty. Henry made Katherine his regent while he warred in France, appointing her the final say-so while he was absent from his realm. That is very different from the future George IV being declared Prince Regent because his father was unable to rule. Most often we see a Queen Regent when the ruler is a child, but only if his mother had been Queen Consort and was now given the power to rule in her minor child's name.
In the case of 1513, Katherine was both Queen Consort and Regent, but she was not Queen Regent. History Lunatic (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)History Lunatic

"Infanta of Castile, León, Aragon, Majorca, Naples and Valencia, and Barcelona"[edit]

Catherine's father bore the titles of "King of Aragon, Valencia, Majorca, Sardinia and Corsica, Count of Barcelona, Duke of Athens and Neopatria, Count of Roussillon and Cerdagne and Margrave of Oristano and Goceano". Her mother bore the titles of "Queen of Castile, Leon, Sicily, Toledo, Galicia, Sevilla, Cordova, Murica, Jaen, the Algarves, Algeciras and Gibraltar, Lady of Biscay and Molina". However the Iberian lands listed had long been united under the Crown of Aragon and the Crown of Castile, respectively, and I think it extremely unlikely that Catherine bore the title of Infanta for every one of her parents' notionally independent Kingdoms. Again, if somebody knows differently then he or she has to prove it.

This site, which is quite good for this sort of thing, cites a contemporary example (about five-sixths of the way down the page) in which Catherine is styled "Nos Katherina Princeps Walliæ, Ducissa Cornubiæ, Comitissa Cestriæ, Infans Castellæ & Aragonum, Filia Altissimorum & Potentissimorum Principum Dominorum meorum Domini Ferdinandi & Dominæ Elizabetha Regis & Reginæ Castellæ, Legionis, Aragonum, Siciliæ, Granatæ, &c." Note that though her parents' titles are given in the long form, she herself is still only Infanta of Castile and Aragon.

Summary[edit]

To sum up, then, Catherine's titles were:

  • Infanta of Castile and Aragon, from birth in 1485.
  • Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall and Countess of Chester, from her marriage to Arthur Prince of Wales in 1501.
  • Dowager Princess of Wales, from Arthur's brother's creation as Prince in 1504.
  • Queen(-Consort) of England and France, and Lady of Ireland, from her marriage to King Henry VIII in 1509.
  • In 1519 Henry VIII, previously known as "His Grace", adopted the style of Majesty, and presumably Catherine was styled likewise.
  • Dowager Princess of Wales again, from her annulment in 1533 which effectively meant that her marriage in 1509 had never taken place. She never recognised this and continued to consider herself Queen until her death in 1536.

Any other titles attributed to her need sources to back them up. Opera hat (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

I fully agree with Opera hat. I have added a section called Titles and styles. All of Catherine's titles are summarised there and there is no need to list the in the lead section. Do not include the title of Queen Regent until you can prove that she used that title.

On the other hand, I need to correct Opera hat: Prince Paul of Yugoslavia did hold a special title which distinguished him as a regent. He was styled Njegovo Kraljevsko Visočanstvo Knez Namesnik (English: His Royal Highness The Prince Regent), but that's irrelevant for Catherine of Aragon. Surtsicna (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! The article on prince regents might need changing for clarification, then. I do tend to rely far too heavily on other wp articles when making contributions: despicable I know. Opera hat (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

An example of a regent whose status was not described by his title is Catherine's own father, Ferdinand II of Aragon/V of Castile. He acted as regent for his second daughter, Catherine's sister Joanna the Mad, but he didn't style himself King Regent. What I want to say is that assuming regency doesn't necessarily change person's title. Surtsicna (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suspect the original contributor confused the term "Queen Regnant" with that of Queen and Regent. Choess (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Coronation[edit]

The Coronation section is incompletely edited, almost the same matter is repeated twice. I don't want to mess with it myself, since I don't know what should be in and what should go, but it should be cleaned up.

83.250.132.66 (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I really can't bother to revert Chloe's edits every minute. The purpose of this encyclopaedia is to include only the important information, not every detail. Coronation section is now unproportionally large. If every section gets expanded that much, we would get a 1000 KB long article. Surtsicna (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
It's good to be bold and try to improve articles, but the point of this encyclopaedia is to summarise 500 pages into one page. Of course, that page shouldn't contain all the details. Should we write what Catherine had for breakfast on her coronation day? I am talking about such details. Anne's coronation is summarised into 5 lines. It doesn't include description of the whole celebration. I hope you know what I mean.
To add a reference you need to put <ref>author's name, page</ref>. If your source is not included in the References section, just write the book's title and the book's author in the appropriate section. You'll see how it's done with other references. Surtsicna (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually I have wondered in the past whether it might be worth having individual articles on monarchs' coronations, and I suppose by extension those of their consorts. There are quite often interesting anecdotes about them, like Lord Rolle living up to his name by tumbling down the Abbey steps at Queen Victoria's coronation, and of course the whole hoo-ha over Queen Caroline's forcible exclusion in 1821. Opera hat (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea, considering that we have articles on representations of people in popular culture. Surtsicna (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Chloe, I'm not principally opposed to there being a description of the coronation, but it is currently not very well edited—it seems as if the same material has been pasted in twice and then modified in one, possibly both, of the copies, so the same event is described twice.

83.250.132.66 (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone help?[edit]

Catherine was, during the reign of Henry VII, for a short time the Spanish Ambassador in England. Here's my source btw: http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/Katherine-of-Aragon-92423.html


I just cant find the exact dates. As I feel this should be added in the titles secvtion and somewhere in theb "Princess of Wales" section, as that deals with her life at the court of Henry VII.


So can anyone have a look somewhere? Or does anyone already know?

First of all, that page is not to be trusted too much. She certainly wasn't styled HRH The Spanish Ambassador (it's not a title at all), so there is no point to include that information in Titles and styles section. She might have served as an unofficial ambassador of Spain sinc she was daughter of the Spanish monarchs and the highest ranking woman of the realm (after Queen Elizabeth's death), but that's not so notable. Every princess who marries a foreign prince serves as unofficial ambassador of her homeland. Surtsicna (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced text[edit]

This article is lacking in citations and references. I have provided a few, from reliable sources, as well as removing some of the speculations and unnecessary information. The Coronation section needs to be cut down to just a few lines. As it stands now, it reads like a novel.--jeanne (talk) 04:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


Speaking of novels, I am moving the note about Charity Bishop's novel to Popular Media and out of the biography block. I think someone misplaced that.GingerSnapsBack (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


I took the initiative of striking a couple of uncited lines concerning reactions to the news of Katharine/Catherine's death, and replacing the basic information with something we could reference. I used Warnicke because, unlike some authors, she includes the two different versions of what happened when King Henry learned Catherine died. I thought this was the best way to be neutral and factual, since the accounts contradict each other (one says Henry wore yellow and the other says Anne did, and there are different ideas on what that meant). I did not add back in the frequently repeated claim that yellow was the color for Spanish mourning, because I have not been able to find anything reputable that backs this up, only information to the contrary. If someone has a decent citation and can verify that this is true, please put it back into the article. It seemed like editors here were looking to clean up information without a proper reference. I hope I did not overstep here. GingerSnapsBack (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"It is a common belief that Catharine was indeed related to Clement VII."  How? What is the citation for this? Mannanan51 (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Mannanan51

References for the Spelling Of Her Name section[edit]

The citation for the statement Rarely were names, particularly first names, written in an exact manner during the sixteenth century and it is evident from Katherine's own letters that she endorsed different variations. does not support this whatsoever. There needs to be a proper reference and proof of the claims in this statement. I'm sorry to be such a bore, but we can't really have this sort of original research on Wikipedia, it needs a source and as such I think the "citation needed" needs to remain there. Paul75 (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


But what form of citation is needed? Proof that early modern names were often spelt in a variety of manners? Well this is evident from her own letters (and it would be rather exhaustive to record them all!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.49.212 (talkcontribs)

See WP:CITE for a start and WP:NOR. It can be frustrating. (John User:Jwy talk) 04:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Examples of her signature on the Internet is a start - I know there is a letter of hers in which she signs her name "Katharine" out on the net, but I haven't seen one with her signing herself "Catherine", but if you have seen one it is out there somewhere - use the book title or website as a citation.Paul75 (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the citation there is sufficent, I see no problem with it.GranadasPomegranate (talk)


Sorry to go on about this issue, but why was it recently put that Katherine only referred to herself as ‘Katharine’ or 'Katharina'? As mentioned in the relevant footnote she also endorsed the name ‘Katherine’. I've just adding in this information. --86.137.45.68 (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Image of Juana[edit]

I believe the image lower down in the article is of Catherine's sister Juana, and therefore should be removed or at least say that it is Juana in the text.--jeanne (talk) 08:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
If the image is indeed of Joanna the Mad, it should be removed. This article is not long enough to include images of anyone other than Catherine herself. Surtsicna (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi It is disputed whther the image is of Juana/Joanna of Catalina/Catherine, the poirtrait is named "Portrait of an Infanta" but it is not known which of the two sisters it is.GranadasPomegranate (talk)

Therefore we should remove it. There are enough portraits of Catherine in this article, so we don't need a portrait which could be of Catherine. Surtsicna (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


ut we have none of her as a young girl, and it doesnt chnage the layout much, as there are no other images of her in the early years section, it s pity we dont have more room, there are many lovely paintings of her as a young woman that would be nice, but an article just looks messy with too many pics, but i think we have a good amoutn at the moment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.79.248 (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Image quality[edit]

Hi, the image in the info box is a little grainy, Il see if I can get a better quality of the image of the same painting.GranadasPomegranate (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC).

References[edit]

62.56.79.248 needs to learn how to correctly cite a reference. Without page number(s) these reference(s) are contentious and subject to removal. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

62.56.79.248 also needs to learn how Wikipedia works and should also learn some grammar. I've notified 62.56.79.248 about his/her mistakes, but (s)he just blanked the talk page. 62.56.79.248 needs to learn that Wikipedia doesn't work by principle I'll keep adding text even though other users agree that it shouldn't be added. Surtsicna (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I concur. These "references" have been removed and the wiki-page on how to properly cite references was given. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


I'm adding in some referances, unfortunatley I don't own Starkey so some of the information that comes from his books, I can't give citation on as I would not know or be able to check the specific page numbers. However I own Weir and Fraser so can give citations from these booksGranadasPomegranate (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC).

Try reading for a change: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_article_does_not_cite_any_references_or_sources.#How_to_format_citations . Which indicates said "references" can be challenged and removed. You are simply edit-warring. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Books[edit]

I noticed in this paragraph "In recent years, the historian Alison Weir covered her life extensively in her biography The Six Wives of Henry VIII, first published in 1991. Antonia Fraser did the same in her own 1992 biography of the same title; as did the British historian David Starkey in his 2003 book Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII." it says afterwards that citation is needed. I'm not sure what would be sufficent citation, apart from listing the chapters in which she is included in each book? If not some help would be appreciated. GranadasPomegranate (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Portrait[edit]

As the majority does not wish for "Portrait of an Infanta" to be included, I was wondering how people would feel about adding something similar to this into the early years section:

A portrait by Juan de Flandes, entitled "Portrait of an Infanta" circa.1496, is thought to be of either Catherine of her sister Joanna. An ongoing debate about which Infanta it s has come to no conclusion. The fact that the young girl holds a rose, may be seen as symbolism regarding the House of Tudor,has been seen as evidence as it being Catherine, as Catherine was betrothed to it's Heir, but Elisa Bermejo, however, considers the flower as an attribute related to the sitter's very young age. David Starkey considers the portrait to be of Catherine, and has used the image, along with other portraits of the six wives of Henry VIII, on the cover of his book "The Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII". The fact that the sitter appears to be between 10-12 would fit Catherine's age at the time of the painting, she being about 11. However it has been noted that "Portrait of an Infanta" has similarities with a painting of Joanna held in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, but similarities have also been drawn to paintings of Catherine.

So what do you think?62.56.79.248 (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


I personally think it's a good idea, it provides good information and is neutral, and I think the current version of that paragraph is good. I have a source for some of that information, if you cannot provide one. It is a website, I can't remeber the name of it, but I have it bookmarked.GranadasPomegranate (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox portrait[edit]

I would like to see it changed to the portrait of her as a young widow, or maybe even just a part of it(e.g. from her head to her K and pomegranate necklace) as I would say it is her most well known portrait. Also we could put the portrait we already have further down in the article and remove the image of her as a widow in the "Wife and widow to Arthur" section. So this is a consensus.

I strongly support the change. GranadasPomegranate (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No, there is no consensus yet since nobody has agreed yet. Since you are the one who proposed the change, it's natural that you strongly support the change. I, however, strongly oppose the change because the current portrait is the one which shows her as queen and she is undisputably more significant as Queen of England than as Dowager Princess of Wales. Surtsicna (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


I strongly support the change.62.56.113.77 (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

So? You haven't explained why you support the change. You can't just "strongly support the change" and expect other people to agree if you haven't made a valid arguement. Surtsicna (talk) 10:46,12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fine I didn't know we needed to give a reason, I'm new to Wiki. My reason is I believe it is, like GranadasPomegranate says, her most well known portrait.62.56.113.77 (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Original name belongs in the lead[edit]

Why should the original names (baptismal & surname) be removed from the lead? What's wrong with an encyclopedia being encyclopedic? Marie Antoinette, Mozart, Chopin, and many others are given the right of having their original names in the lead, not butchered or in a footnote. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky has even the right & privilege to cyrillic characters Пётр Ильич Чайковский!, but a Spanish woman, Catalina de Aragón cannot retain her Spanish birth identity, even the accent on the *o* of Aragón has to be done away.

This crusade which amounts to delete & deny the identity of historical figures is becoming absurd.

P.S. In fact, in Spanish she is known as Catalina de Aragón y Castilla.

Frania W. (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


Question: Where is it said in Wikipedia rules & regulations that foreign names should be skipped altogether?

Giving the original name of non-English born historical figures is common practice not discouraged by Wikipedia which, in fact, gives directives on how to do it. What seems to one editor irrelevant, such as the name of a personage as he/she is known in his/her country of origin, might be relevant to others, and, as long as it is shown in italics in the lead sentence, it does not transgress wiki rules. It is thus incomprehensible to me that one editor takes it upon himself to undo the work of others one article after another, not because others are working against Wikipedia conventions, but because he feels that certain details are irrelevant.

From Wikipedia:Lead section, sub section Foreign language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section#Foreign_language

"Do not boldface foreign names not normally used in English, or variations included only to show etymology. Foreign names (including transcriptions) that use the Roman alphabet should be italicized if they are not bolded[...]"

Frania W. (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

IF those involved wish to start Anglicizing names, why haven't they started with English nobility? Seems rather odd to skulk through the non-English nobility Anglicizing names, when apparently no one has taken the time or effort to Anglicize English nobles! Besides, for the sake of historical accuracy, the individual's name in their native language should be shown. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I haven't opposed including the name Catalina. I have opposed preferring various Spanish language spellings and names over English language spellings. There have been several attempts to move this page to Katherine of Aragon and similar names and I believe that spellings used by English language historians are indeed more important than spellings used by Spanish language historians. You cannot claim that she was baptized as Catalina; she was most likely baptized as Catharina (Latin speling). You cannot claim that Catalina was her real name if you don't prove that she ever used that name. Do you have any sources that confirm that she spelled her name Catalina? She did not spell her name Catherine but I do not claim that Catherine was her real name. Of course, Catalina should remain, but please do not mention real names unless you can prove that the relevant person actually used that name.
Wikipedia should use Anglicized names only when the majority of reliable English language sources use Anglicized names. Therefore, Kansas Bear, if you find an article that does not use the most common English language name, feel free to move it. I agree with your last point. It is well said too as I find it very annoying when people claim that a person who lived five centuries ago spelled his/her name the way that name is spelled today. Surtsicna (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

SORRY GUYS If i put this in the wrong place: but in the article it says "(mis)interpreted". that is an evaluation in my eyes and hence it is not neutral. maybe i should be stated that "he interpreted as" which could be more appropiate for an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.240.215 (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"Defender of the faith"[edit]

Keeps cropping up, without citation, as awarded to Katherine "in her own right". I've reverted a few times, but a view from a regular contributor to the page would be welcome. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Searching for a ref I actually found a reliable source that suggests that in fact she was a little hostile to mainstream church institutions. Doesn't rule anything out of course, but it does seem less likely. Added the material in a new section. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Henry VIII was awarded the title "Defender of the Faith" by Pope Leo X, therefore IF Katherine were awarded such a title, who gave the title to her? Would not this information be relevant and recorded? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Added citation. Six Wives of Henry VIII, Antoina Fraser; page 95.

{{Failed verification}} tag added. Offering myself for correction here, but I looked at ISBN 0140132937 and page 95 deals only with the fall of Buckingham; Catherine isn't mentioned. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I was looking at the wrong edition. It is there and, as a gesture of humility, I will expand the circumstances in the article text. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Done. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Caps for "defender of the faith"[edit]

I'm unwilling to demonstrate my ignorance yet again, following my classic demonstration, above, of the WP:IDONTKNOWIT pitfall but, unlike the king, wasn't "defender of the faith" in Katherine's case a description, rather than a title, and thus not capitalized? Views would be helpful, particularly from the editor at 212.225.99.166, whose response on this page when his/her edits are under discussion would be particularly welcomed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't admit to being an expert on this, I simply assumed it was capitalized as I've always seen it so. Antoina Fraser says it was a 'title' held by her; "Villa Sancta bestowed upon Queen Catherine the title Fidei Defsensor more usually assocated with her husband." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.225.99.166 (talk) 07:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for coming back on this. If, as Fraser says, it's a 'title', then it should indeed have caps. But: how does an itinerant friar from Greenwich have the authority to bestow titles? Still puzzled. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Not sure, really. Maybe he was a high ranking priest when he had been in Spain? Or it was an exception because of the high rank or the woman receiveing the honour? I'll have to look into that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.225.99.166 (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, as you say, it was because of her status, to match her husband's "FID DEF". Originally this may all have been totally irrelevant, given the Latin writing style; here it's more a question of applying the style guide, "avoiding unnecessary capitalization". Look forward to the result of your further research. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Faith: Saints and Relics[edit]

I find the statement "The celebration of saints and holy relics formed no part of her personal beliefs" highly suspect, unverifiable, and misleading. A Franciscan tertiary who wouldn't "celebrate" St Francis? If there is some shocking source for this, I think it should be discussed here. Rarty (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - I thought she was a keen pilgrim; she certainly went to the Virgins of Walsingham, & Caversham. Tagged. Johnbod (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Ref supplied. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't say the same thing at all; please rephrase closer to the ref. Johnbod (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for quoting the reference. Not collecting relics, not seeming to display credulity re: saints, and having a keen eye for failings of the clergy - if true, are not really marks against her otherwise unquestioned Catholic piety. This part of the article as written is very misleading and unjustifiably gives the impression that she personally rejected the veneration of relics and saints, and possibly the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Which would make her less orthodox a Catholic than Henry VIII, even in the end!Rarty (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Changing to "The outward celebration of saints and holy relics formed no part of her personal devotions" is if anything worse, I would have thought - certainly not justified by the reference. Johnbod (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Any suggestions, then? Don't do what I did and WP:boldly stick it straight into the article: lets try at sort out a version on this page first. And, where is her Catholic piety being questioned? That would certainly not be in accord with the reference and should be changed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure anything should be said without more depth in sources. She seems to have been an Erasmian sort of Catholic. These refs may be useful: [3], [4]. but I don't know any of the full-length biographies. Or stick close to the tentative language of the DNB. Johnbod (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Her association with Thomas More is noted elsewhere in the piece, but not in this context and could be included. The points about deriving her piety from the ideas of the Spanish renaissance (but put more elegantly than that) are also very relevant. Erasmian is touched on, briefly, but if there is a more specific element of tutelage between them (as with Henry) this could well be extended. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there is much of the emphasis on (Ren) humanistic education, both hers and Mary's under her, that these refs have; that could be usefully added too. Johnbod (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
With regard to her pious practices, since she was a Franciscan tertiary, that would require praying the breviary throughout every day (Little Office or Divine Office). That is hours of prayer every day and since the Office is considered the public prayer of the church (even if said in private), this would seem to contradict the source claiming that commemoration of the saints formed no part of her faith, and seems significant to note in this section. Rarty (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sittow portraits[edit]

I have adjusted the caption to the Sittow portraits to reflect the conjectural nature of the identification, which also covers the Vienna portrait. Detroit identify theirs as Catherine [5], Berlin do not, in a much longer entry. The date of the Berlin painting is agreed as 1515-17; if it was of Catherine it used an old drawing etc. The whole issue is discussed in J.O. Hand & M. Wolff, Early Netherlandish Painting, National Gallery of Art, Washington(catalogue)/Cambridge UP, 1986, ISBN 0521340160, pp 232-233 (they have the other half of the diptych that the Berlin portrait was part of). Johnbod (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

NPG Infobox portrait found NOT to be contempary[edit]

It's been discovered that the famous NPG portrait of Catherine actually isn't contempary as previously thought. It dates from the 1700s. Here's a great article on the subject: http://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/the-npg-portraits-of-anne-boleyn-and-catherine-of-aragon/6247/

Because of this I was thinking we should probably change the main picture. I would suggest the Sittow portrait of Catherine as a widow, what is everyone else's thoughts on the matter? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GranadasPomegranate (talkcontribs) 21:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's confirmation from the NPG itself; in the light of this the caption in the infobox seems wrong. Support the use of a contemporary image instead, provided it comes with a reliable identification. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That could certainly be provided. The place in which it is held identifies it as Catherine, as does biographers such as Starkey, Fraser, and Weir. Based on the symbols in the jewellery, the colouring and age of the woman, and the widow's attire, not to mention the fact that said woman would have to be pretty high presedance to be painted by the Court painter there seems little room for doubt it is Catherine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GranadasPomegranate (talkcontribs) 13:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like anyone else is going to weigh in on the matter. I'll change it, and should anyone have a problem with that I'll revert it back to the NPG image until that matter has been discussed further GranadasPomegranate (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC).

Portrait of Catherine[edit]

I noticed that someone put up a portrait of Catherine Parr in the "King's Great Matter" section and labeled it as Catherine of Aragon. The file clearly identifies it as Catherine Parr, the description on the picture page is incorrect and I had to correct that; the original source that it came from was incorrectly quoted or someone just changed the description without looking at the original source put up by the up loader of the picture. Because other people copy wiki and use it as a "reliable" source it is now on other pages incorrectly identified as Catherine of Aragon. What a disgrace to Catherine Parr.

Catherine Parr Portrait at Lambeth Palace.jpg
Catherine Parr Catherine of Aragon at Lambeth Palace

The Peerage Entry Catherine Parr, The Tudor Place Catherine Parr
It is also identified by the Lambeth Palace online Library site - Catherine Parr Lambeth Palace Painting

Lady Meg (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Update: According to here, dated just the other day (24 Jan 8:44 AM GMT), IT IS Catherine of Aragon. Therefore, I move that it be renamed accordingly in Commons and be re-upped in said "King's Great Matter". Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I have known for months about this but forgot I even made a comment about this portrait on here. Yes, the portrait is now Katherine of Aragon, but I have no idea how to change file names. I also already took the portrait off of Catherine Parr's page months ago. So I support changing the name and adding it to Katherine of Aragon's page. -- Lady Meg (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. Even I don't know how to update and edit, and considering that I'm already a 10-year old user of Wiki! Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Henry VIII annulled Catherine of Aragon and got rid of her, and now posterity declared they be together for eternity. LOL. I read somewhere that Anne Boleyn's portrait is somewhere besides the legitimate (unhappy) couple. Talk about sarcasm... Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 04:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Close relations to King Henry VIII[edit]

Did anyone ever realize how close Catherine of Aragon and Henry VIII were related? Perhaps this answers the mystery as to why they could only produce one healthy child, Mary. Catherine descended from John of Gaunt twice by her mother. King Henry descended from John of Gaunt by both parents. Thus making them double third cousins through John of Gaunt alone, and double fourth cousins as both descended from Peter II of Castile. Henry descended from Isabella of Castile who married Edmund of Langley (son of Edward III and his wife Philippa) and Catherine descended from Isabella's sister, Constance who married John of Gaunt (son of Edward III and Philippa). Their children were double first cousins which share twice the consanguinity as first cousins and are as related as half-siblings. Why was this not realized or was it when Henry wanted his divorce? Historically, some European nobles cited a close degree of consanguinity when they required convenient grounds for divorce, especially in contexts where religious doctrine forbade the voluntary dissolution of an unhappy or childless marriage. Conversely, the consanguinity law of succession requires the next monarch to be of the same blood of the previous one; allowing, for example, illegitimate children to inherit. Is this where Elizabeth could claim her right to the throne perhaps since she was considered by some to be illegitimate?
Lady Meg (talk) 04:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there close relation had anything to do with it; it was just probably bad luck. Many closer relating royalty had many children. There were first cousins that married first cousins that married their first cousins and so on. The Habsburg and Iberian royalties were probably the first to popularize marrying their own cousins over and over again.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Jewish ancestry[edit]

Can anybody mention Catherine's Jewish ancestry? It seems her great-great-great grandmother was a Jewish woman named Paloma, who descends from Yahia Ben Rabbi.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Never sole ambassador in London[edit]

Not to sure about the first female ambassador story used here twice on the page. The published primary source is Calendar of State Papers Spain, vol. 1, (1862), which is online here. It appears that De Puebla was the long-standing Spanish diplomat in London and Catherine wrote letters to Ferdinand and Isabella asking for another special ambassador, because she thought De Puebla inadequate. In particular she asked for Pedro de Ayala, and I've put the story on his page. But De Puebla was Spanish ambassador in London right through the period.Unoquha (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC) De Pueblo was unwell, and Catherine was indeed given diplomatic credences (?perhaps the first female to have them), but it is clear from her letters that he didn't cease activity.Unoquha (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Charles V[edit]

Catherine must have known that by not having produced a healthy male heir she would inevitably be looking at an Annulment/divorce "for reasons of state". In advance of this approaching situation Henry must have sounded out the Pope about the routine annulment usually available to Kings and other heads of state for reasons of state.

There doesn't seem to have been any serious objections and when Catherine did reach menopause, Henry applied to the Pope for the routine annulment. It is at this stage that something seems to have gone wrong. It cannot have been simply the Pope being a prisoner as the armies occuppying Rome were gone after six looting months. Having been released the Pope was desperate for money and would almost certainly have given Henry the routine annulment for the right price.

Charles V was the most powerful man in Europe but just how much support could or would he be willing to give a menopausal aunt in the matter of state that was facing Henry VIII, especially as Henry was initially willing to pension off Catherine. In turn, Catherine would probably have bowed to the Popes anulment and accepted Henry's pension.

There still seems to be some unidentified reason for the whole routine plan going so badly wrong requiring Henrys later religious and political actions.AT Kunene (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Flodden[edit]

This article contains the phrase "...Battle of Flodden, an event in which Catherine played an important part" but in the Battle of Flodden article there is no mention of her, other than to list her as one of the leaders. Either the phrase should be removed, or the Battle of Flodden article should be expanded. Emika22 (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Flodden appears in the section 'Pregnancies and children', in chronological position. I've added a quote from her letter to Wolsey mentioning her role. Regarding the next sentence, she was at Richmond Palace, I doubt she rode further much than 'north of London' to address any troops.Unoquha (talk) 12:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Other details[edit]

The History Channel recently broadcast a programme where the medical experts seemed to think that Henry VII and Arthur died of Tuberculosis. Henry (VIII) didn't catch the disease which may have saved his life.

When Henry broke with Rome, the Pope stripped Henry of the title "Defender of the Faith" but according to the professor at the Hampton Court exhibition, Henry gave it back to himself. How this may have affected Catherine is uncertain but his daughter Elizabeth certainly inherited the title and down to the present Queen of England.

Shouldn't Catherines title have been "Ambassdress" following the latin feminine custom in use at the time and still the correct usage.AT Kunene (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

According to contemporary reports, Arthur died of a fever of some kind. An important thing to note is that Catherine was also ill, apparently with the same symptoms, at the same time; however, she recovered. If it was TB Arthur had, it's unlikely she would have recovered. I didn't see the programme so I don't know if the content shed any further light on the matter. Deb (talk) 10:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

This article relies heavily on citations to thepeerage.com, which has been discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard WP:RSN and determined that it is not a reliable source, and should not be used as references in articles.[6][7] The citations have been removed, but not the associated text, and tags inserted for the former footnotes. Better sources must be found for this text; text that is not supported by in-line citation to a reliable source may be removed.Fladrif (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Henry[edit]

Henry is said to have been worried about the lack of a precedent for a female monarch. Boadicea was a female monarch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.139.7 (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Ann Boleyn was the main motive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.139.7 (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
A complicated theory about Matilda and two civil wars appears in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.26.92 (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps Henry was worried about the effects of the rule of Manchu Empress Dowager Cixi in China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.26.92 (talk) 11:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
If Henry had known the future, he would have approved of Elizabeth's rule in England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.26.92 (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
If Henry was worried about causing another civil war, he succeeded in causing one, in England, in the 17th. century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.139.7 (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)