realcatalina

[realcatalina]

Another update regarding my youtube channel

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

Henry VII

Elizabeth Of York

Prince Arthur

Mary Tudor, Queen of France

Mary I

Elizabeth I

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

Anne Boleyn

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

Catherine Parr

(+True looks of Queen Isabella of Castile)

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

From Tudor fashion:

Dating English hood-using frontlets

Layers of gable hood in c.1500

Why do we struggle to date Tudor fashion?

Tudor maternity fashion

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

From Habsburgs:

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

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

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

And others:

Possible origin of IHS brooch

Why is Parr left out of the family portrait?

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

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

More about True looks series in future:

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

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

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

I am not sure about the name yet. On the hunt for true Catherine Howard? Searching for true Catherine Howard? Something like that.

[realcatalina]

I found Tudor coronation robes

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

are actually 1480s coronation noblewoman outfits.

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

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

Part 1-discovery

Part 2-main rules

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

Part 3 shall be More ranks, cloaks and liveries

and Part 4 Materials and colours (deep dive)

And once that is covered, I would like to attempt to update those outfits for one of the 16th-century coronations. But that is a long way away.

[realcatalina]

A video of yours on the looks of Mary appeared in my youtube reccomendations few weeks ago and i quickly watched your remaining works and i must say i’m so amazed by them all and your logical reasonings, i was especially happy to learn about the degrading colours of paint pigments over time, i never thought of it that way really, and also i LOVE how careful you are when it comes to „contemporary” accounts. I feel like many people just read accounts from like the 19th century and taking them word for word. Or also reading accounts from people who lived in the era but barely, or sometimes even never been close to the person they are describing. It just annoys me so much. But anyways, i’d like to hear your opinion on one tudor miniature, if that’s alright with you.

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

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

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

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

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

As for the date of the miniature, it should be roughlythe same time as the large-scale portrait you are comparing it to. The problem is they misdated that one recently(assuming since she wears black she must be a widow-but she's not Victorian!). Both should be c.1544 roughly. Imo.

[realcatalina]

I love your post about historical portraits (I love the post about KOA Sittow). So in your opinion KOA could have this hair color or lighter)

It's definitely very close (but I wouldn't go for the lighter option). In c.1525 miniature, it appears to be just a tiny bit darker than this.

However, it might have slightly changed as she aged(exact shade), due to health season and ageing.

The image by Sittow also shows a bit darker around the roots and a bit more golden as it cascades down, or more towards golden brown:

In c.1520 portrait-where her hair might be exposed and not covered by stripy fabric(as it is later), it seems to be more to coppery tones, than to golden:

I hope this helps.

[realcatalina]

I only just realized that's not a cross at her neck in this portrait; it's a T! Is it for Trastamara or Tudor? Or something else?

Actually, that is a cross. Just not in the typical shape we associate with crosses nowadays. It is the so-called Tau cross or St. Anthony's cross.

Tau cross - Wikipedia

Jane Seymour and Catherine Parr wore it also:

[realcatalina]

I read your post about sittow's portrait of Catherine. I am leaning towards Catherine as there is a tapestry of her and Arthur's wedding (although they say the tapestry was after Arthur died) it is worth noting that it looks like the sittow painting. From what I found out the date is about 1500. Is that correct or am I wrong?

So you're asking if it is indeed Catherine depicted within the tapestry and if the tapestry is the right date for the wedding? (1501)

Well, we know that before Catherine even arrived to England, engravings of the wedding did exist.

(Here her sleeves are much too narrow to be from 1501-that's 15th century for sure.)

Thus you are rightfully sceptical.

There seems to be a whole of tapestries thought by some to depict the betrothal of Arthur and Catherine and eventually their wedding.

These tapestries(as far as I know) are located in Magdalen College, Oxford.

And potentially some of them might be.

But whoever labelled this one as Catherine and Arthur, didn't think it through:

Yes, we have several ladies wearing cofia de tranzado(Spanish headwear). But the central lady here(under the tapestry with the pomegranate), has a crown and sceptre. But since her husband doesn't-it means only she is the ruler.

Which makes zero sense for Catherine and Arthur. And you won't get away with the excuse that Arthur's attributes might have been removed(altered) after he died. Because even if Arthur as prince of Wales got depicted with a scepter and crown-his wife wouldn't be.

While queen consorts are depicted with crowns and sceptre at coronations, have you ever seen a princess consort to be depicted with one? I haven't.

The cofia+pomegranate+ sceptre and crown. Points to the woman being either Isabella I or Joanna I. But since Joanna's husband almost immediately proclaimed himself a king-that ambitious man would never have a tapestry depicting her with a crown and him without made.

Thus it should be Isabella and Ferdinand.

Isabella became Queen in 1474, while Ferdinand only in 1479(when his father died.) No shame in admitting his father died after her brother did.

But the big question is, who did commission this?

Several couples come to mind.

Philip and Joana(after 1500), Manuela and Isabella or Maria, Ferdinand and Isabella themselves, and Henry VII for the wedding of Catherine to his son.

The decor of the wedding of Infanta with the English prince could certainly showcase the ancestry of both bride and groom. So perhaps some showed some of Spanish history.

And it doesn't matter that this tapestry has only pomegranates and no roses. Because potentially you would have Spanish history with Spanish symbolism on one side and English history with Tudor symbolism on the other side.

So it truly boils down to the question where does the fashion fit?

For Catherine and Arthur, the tapestries should have been finished by 1501 or 1500(because she was supposed to arrive earlier), and frankly-this is not based upon a real wedding, otherwise, gable hoods would be there!

Hence we'd expect Netherlandish fashion either of the late 1490s or from year 1500 when Henry VII visited the Netherlands.

(We have windows depicting Henry VII and Elizabeth of York, and Philip and Joana. But they are not that helpful in this case.)

-although they showcase similar underparlets.

For Catherine and Henry, the fashion of the early to mid-1500s.(it is unlikely that with heated relationships of the late 1500s, that Henry VII would waste money on it then, and in 1509-not enough time I think.)

The problem is this is not the best quality picture and I failed to find a better one. Because the dresses between the 1490s and mid-1500s didn't change much in the Netherlands-you'd have to go by headwear or necklace.

Headwears are either Spanish or type-which appears much in tapestries-but I could never place it:

(So headwears are useless.)

And necklaces in this quality-I am not sure if these are the 1490s style or the more elaborate 1500s style.

Thus I cannot tell if the necklaces are 1490s or 1500s style.

So, against my best judgment I am forced to date the tapestry based upon the male outfits, something I am not good at!:

However, since this one resembles the fashion of men in the 1510s so much(way more than any in the 1500s). (But female outfits don't fit the 1510s.)

Thus I would say that our tapestry is not meant to be for the wedding of Catherine and Arthur(d. in 1502).

More likely for the planned wedding of Henry and Catherine in 1505(-which was postponed indefinitely until his father died). Their 1509 wedding was private, so if these were ever used, it would most likely be for their coronation in 1509.

Or potentially(if they were finished), they might have also been used when Mary Tudor got married by proxy to Charles V in 1507.

(People call it betrothal but in the eyes of Tudors it was a wedding).

And because Henry VII was strongly in favour of that marriage-we cannot rule it was meant for Mary's match, rather than to have anything to do with Catherine. (Showcasing side of the groom-his ancestry.)

We would need to see as much of this tapestry series( in HD preferably) and study it in detail to figure it out.

But there might be a good reason why you think it is Catherine by Sittow-genetics.

It's possible the Netherlandish artists got inspired by her sister Joanna(who also resembled their mother a lot) and used her as inspiration for Isabella's face.

[realcatalina]

I am not really good in recalling exact letters and sources.

But summary:

They had so much in common, that on good days, they got along great and would certainly think they found their one true love. But on bad days, their equally stubborn personalities clashed horribly.

And for me, that is not a truly loving relationship. You love your partner, and you respect your partner enough to try to resolve matters peacefully. And in a mature manner.

(Well, Henry was 17 when they got married. But Catherine wasn't always acting maturely either. And certainly didn't yield each time-as is often suggested.)

But you know, some people argue, then they make up and still love each other deeply. So I let you decide. If you think it is admiration, sexual attraction, love, or something else.

They certainly acted in love and proclaimed their love for each other.

They had one large argument in 1510(which the Spanish ambassador wrote about to Catherine's father), but it was probably a culmination of their grief and frustration of losing a baby in January, thinking another lived up February/March-then that hope was crushed.

Then they went back to being loving, and seem to get along very well in between 1510-1513.

However, in 1514 they argued over Catherine's father for months, and even after they stopped, it never returned to loving imo, more to a truce.

I would say each wanted to win that argument very badly.

Neither did, yet in the process they destroyed their relationship. Ripped it apart with continuous arguing, instead of sitting down, agreeing to disagree on the topic, and moving on.

@catalinadearagonsblog @realcatalina @latristereina

One thing that has interested me about Catalina is her relationship with Henry at the beginning of their marriage. I would like to know what it was really like as some say it was love, others say it was admiration or both. Are there any letters or reports about it?

[realcatalina]

Do you think the new portrait is Mary I?

I think it's certainly possible it is Mary I. I have in past voiced strongly that it bears a much stronger resemblance to Mary I than to Catherine Parr. Mary wins over in features. Against Parr.

However, if we look at images that I think could be Catherine Howard-then I am undecided if it is Mary indeed.

But unless we have multiple confirmed images of Catherine Howard, it is impossible to tell definitely which one it is.

(The miniature in RCT with a 'consort pendant' is Anne of Cleves. I think I proved that enough on this blog. Hence we have zero of confirmed Howard this far.)

Until we do have such an option I am happy to call it Mary I instead of Catherine Parr. I am glad they changed it, I am hoping in future they will rename alleged Mary Howard's miniature(which has Parr's features through and through).

Unfortunately, I am skeptical of the dating of this miniature and thus the attribution to Susanna Horenbout.

Certainly, the records of the cross that matches are a good sign. Unfortunately, it's not as big evidence as they think it is.

Portraying delicate pieces of jewelry on miniatures was very difficult and not always does it do justice. (For example- the IHS brooch on Catherine of Aragon's miniature is nearly unrecognizable. It is the same Jane Seymour wears in her portrait by Holbein.)

In this case, however the jewel is clearly visible and should be fairly recognizable. So, why do they mention Mary wearing a clearly different cross in the NPG miniature by Lucas Horenbout?

It is not making their case stronger at all.

Religious jewelry was popular. Crosses with pearls and diamonds were common. So, how can you be sure it is the exact one you think it is?

-Realistically I don't think you can. It's not unique enough to be a good indicator.(There are only so many variations of cross-shaped jewelry you can make! Normal cross typically fits 5 to 6 gemstones across centuries, and up to 3 hunting pearls-a common part of jewelry in the Tudor era.)

So crosses matching the same description could be multiple within the royal family(and in the royal collection to which mary had access to), maybe even in Mary's own possession prior to 1546.

Hence yes it is a point for Mary, but it is not a strong point.

Certainly not the thing you can base dating solely on.

While the French hood's shape, nor partlet are not that far off from 1546, the way to date French hood in the 1540s is by looking at the hair.

And it is pretty simple.

Early you start with straight hair, closely fallowing head, not sticking out at all(Anne of Cleves-alleged miniature of Howard)

Then in c.1540-1543, we start to see hint of buns(slightly starting to poke out), but also simultaneously first slightly curly/wavy examples, still closely fallowing head, and it is pretty rare for them to stick out.

Parr in c.1543 juggles both hairstyles, but it sems curly/wavy was temporarily her preferred style, but it sticks out way more.

In 1544 Mary's portrait-curly hair.

But Parr in c.1545 has two straight buns down-returning to it-but again, it is more pulled out. Elizabeth in c.1546 has hair straight in two buns down. Margaret Douglas(possibly) in c.1546 has two straight buns down.

And c.1547/8 examples of Mary and Elizabeth show both buns up(the style then extends to 1550s-is typical for them, but starts in late 1540s)

So there is a clear pattern. Which art historians are yet to discover.

And they don't have it easy. Because, the official dating of 1540s, and 1550s portraits is nightmare. Most recent(before this) portrait to be misdated was the Jersey portrait of Parr. It was officially dated as 1547-1548.

Solely because she wears black-she must be a widow! (sarcasm.) Yeah, maybe in Victorian times. This is the Tudor Queen. She can wear black normally. No case for that date whatsoever!

-No, Parr's portrait is c.1544, it matches Mary's 1544 portrait so much! Except for the stays.

With so many examples of inaccurate dating between 1540-1560, it is no wonder historians then make wrong assumptions, based upon them.

Ooops-got bit sidetracked.

Mary's miniature imo is from early 1540s, c.1540-1542.

Hair is closely fallowing head, not sticking out at all nor any hint of buns, only slightly wavy. So almost same as in 1530s.

It's not consistent with any of the hairstyles seen in Parr's reign, but rather with Holbein's late work. He died in 1543.

It is basically the french hood and hairstyle from image on right

-just in different angle and with different billements, and bit more spread partlet(not by much though-it is wider at Parr's reign).

Maybe like this you will be able to better see the french hood's similiarity.

(the piece behind ear often gets later altered(overpainted).)

So with dating of 1540-1542. I am sorry, but Lucas Horenbout is still in the picture. He died in 1544. But that doesn't mean it should be just broadly atributed to 'workshop of Horenbout family'. His father seems to be not working by this point. His wife possibly was artist, but unlikely to have that similiar style to Lucas.

Since this is strongly Horenbout style...it should be one of the siblings.

But I think there is nothing wrong in attributing it to both siblings in case of ambiguity.

Hence I would label it as:

Miniature portrait of Queen Mary I as Princess, in c.1540-1542, by Lucas or Susanna Horenbout

Until proven otherwise.

[realcatalina]

Can you tell me what date was this miniature? Since some time ago I thought that the Horenbourt miniature (I don't know if it is spelled like that) was Catherine before she passed away, but now I am not quite sure.

It's by Lucas Horenbout(whose name has several different ways of spelling-don't worry about it). He is confirmed to have arrived in England by 1525, the letters in which he gained citizenship suggest he arrived a year earlier in 1524.

It is commonly dated among his earliest work in England c.1525(imo c.1524-1525) and I have yet to find any suggestion of it not being so.

It certainly fits circa 1524-1530. It shouldn't be later. Certainly nowhere near Catherine's death.

Because the text says 'Queen Catherine, his wife'. Implying there was matching miniature of Henry VIII originally.

But why are you so confused by this?

-Because people would be. The cuts on shoulders appear in fashion chaos of 1538-1543 in England. Much later.

However, this is not English fashion, even though it is on English Queen.

This is a Spanish outfit. Cofia de tranzado(headwear) and dress with such cuts on shoulders are typical for the Iberian peninsula.

(And also parts of Italy...But it is through the Naples branch of the Aragon royal house, that these very similar outfits became popular in Italy.)

It can be difficult to date a princess living abroad, wearing her native fashion. (Because it usually doesn't 100% fit her native fashion, it's usually close but can warry significantly too. For example, Isabella of Austria, Queen of Denmark has a recognizably different style to her native-yet so close!) But here I think it fairly fits.

[realcatalina]

In the restored portrait of Richard III, he is depicted with a strange chin, which matches the features of his portrait, while the portrait of Henry VII's tomb features an ordinary chin instead of a strange one. [/cp]

I will assume this is in response to my post where I explain why I believe Richard's portraits are misidentified portraits of Henry.

How can I believe the chin is of the same man if the chins don't match when compared?

Simple. If you compare all depictions of Henry-he has several very different chins and several different shapes of the nose. Same guy! It depends on what the artist overexaggerated or focused on, or upon the angle in which the feature is depicted.

Try it before the mirror, how much your chin can look different in different angles. You will be stunned.

Weight loss also plays a role. It's not ruling out it is the same person.

Not every artist had the skill of Holbein with his hyperrealistic style. And even all of his art is not perfect(sketches).

That was my answer, and now my rant.

I don't know how to politely say this and I don't wish to be mean, but

please in the future make a bit more effort in writing your question, so that it is easy to understand, and there is no confusion between us.

I have real trouble understanding what you wanted me to do, what was the question. I would have wished you had taken your time writing the word compare, instead of its abbreviation "cp", or rather "[/cp]".

There are many CP abbreviations, standing for different things.It might be that this is the most common one in your environment. But it is a "Spanish village" to me. And if you don't get the reference, google it. I had to.

Another thing I didn't get was which portraits you mean.

Maybe it is a technical issue, and you have included the pictures and they didn't show to me(has happened to us on Tumblr before). Then I apologize for my outburst.

However, if it isn't a technical issue, then I don't get how am I supposed to guess which of the many portraits of Richard you mean. None has been restored recently.

"Portrait of the tomb" is the wrong term. It's effigy. Or it can be called a depiction or statue. But given you called it a portrait of a tomb instead of just a tomb, I started to question if you meant something other than the tomb itself. Like the funeral effigy(on right):

My point is, that I am not a mind-reader. And this guesswork takes a lot of time and energy on my part, which I would rather spend making content for you guys. Hence, please. Try to meet me halfway, by putting more effort into your communication with me.

It will be better for both of us.

[realcatalina]

Tudor Week: Day 7

Favourite Tudor-related location :Sheriff Hutton Castle in Yorkshire

Now it is a ruin, a mere shadow of a royal castle. It was here that Elizabeth of York would have learned the outcome of the battle of Bosworth. Howards lived here when Earl of Surrey kept the peace in North for Henry VII (Howards didn't own it) and later Henry Fitzroy lived here.

[realcatalina]

Tudor Week 2024: Day 6

Favourite Tudor Couple-Henry VII and Elizabeth of York

The most successful Tudor marriage

[realcatalina]

Tudor week 2024: Day 5

-Favourite Tudor Iconography (e.g. Tudor Rose, Anne Boleyn's falcon, Jane Seymour's Phoenix).

My most favourite royal badge is this one:

Tudor roses and pomegranates-symbolizing union of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon:

Honestly in yellow the pomegranate doesn't look so good.

[realcatalina]

Tudor Week 2024: Day 4

Fancast Your Favourite Tudor Family Member.

Now this TudorWeeek Day has been a challenge for me. My thing is figuring out how Tudors actually looked. The majority were natural redheads. Either strawberry blond, light red or in between and had mostly blue or hazel(brown-grey) eyes. Yet is harder to imagine how actors would look with lighter red hair.

But Pihla Viitala as Mina in Hansel and Gretel looks so Tudor!

The hair is not the exact shade, but the features! (Her natural color is brown.) The nose, shape of lips, and brows especially! Fits so well. They are lighter than the hair and very narrow.

Great match to Elizabeth of York and both her daughters in their youth. You would probably guess it is so for Mary Rose.

But if Receuil d'Arras's sketch is to be believed(c.1590 copy) then Margaret had basically the same features as her mum in her youth too(although possibly darker red hair).

However, the actress is now 42. It would probably be no longer possible for her to play Elizabeth or Mary Rose(who died about the age of 37.) Although she looks great.

But she could still comfortably play Margaret in her later years(she died at the age of 52) and perhaps give away with myth of Margaret being somehow less attractive. (She wasn't, the depictions just don't give her justice).

What do you think?

[realcatalina]

Tudor Week 2024:Day 3

Best Tudor What If? Here are some of my favourite What If scenarios:

-What if Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon had a son, who lived to adulthood.

Very likely despite the marriage crisis of the mid-1510s, the couple would find a way back together and there would be no reason to seek an annulment. No split from the catholic church, nor dissolving the monasteries. Princess Mary would likely end up marrying some prince or King and would have a much happier childhood.

-What if one of Henry VIII's brothers lived?

-If Arthur lived, he obviously would one day become king, with Catherine by his side. They would have several more years to have kids(I am working with perimenopause theory for Catherine and her mum's lack of pregnancies after age 33/4). Catherine would not suffer through her dowager years, however, her dowry not being paid in full would likely still occur, because drought and other circumstances put financial strain on her parents' coffers.

Prince Henry would most likely not pursue priesthood, but would instead live as duke and brother to the King. It would be possible he would be sent to rule over Ireland, away from the English court.

-If Prince Edmund lived?

The prince would be originally in the shadow of his older brother the heir(later his king). But eventually, as there would be no male heir from the royal couple, Prince Edmund's importance would arise tenfold.

But the question is, how would having a living brother affect Henry's mentality? Would it make him feel more secure, and would they get along and he would simply consider him heir? Or would he see him as a threat and still cling to the hope of having his own children(Great Matter scenario).

Aside from the civil war(Matilda vs Stephen), the royals could also try to solve the succession crisis through marriage.

And that might be gross. Because potentially Mary could wed Edmund. Yes, it is incest(uncle and niece). However, in 1496 King Ferdinand II of Naples married his aunt Joanna. (He was the son of her half-brother.) With full approval of the church. He died about a month later, so no kids there.

Another possible scenario is that they would try to Mary to marry Edmund's son(like Claude and Francis). Since Edmund would be 17 years older than Mary, he could be married and have a child of similar age to her. If it was son, the crisis would be over and Mary would get to be Queen Consort. Of course, Catherine of Aragon would not like it. But English would certainly prefer it over a woman on the throne.

-What if the sisters of Henry VIII chose duty?

Mary and Margaret both made stupid decisions regarding their second marriages. Which in the end cost their family and England.

Margaret's decision to remarry to Douglas was a disaster.

She lost custody of her sons and right to be regent due to this. She had to flee country, one of her sons died while she was away, she had to leave her daughter behind to return to Scotland. And her son never seem to truly forgave her(for leaving him) and she failed in making Scotland and England into allies or at least countries living peacefully next to each other.

Had she not remarried, her position as regent would be unshakable. She lost so much, because of stupidly falling for Douglas.

You might have more sympathy for Mary after being married to the old French king, to wish to have a younger husband instead.

-But had she returned as an unwed widow to England, she would very likely have a young husband too. Very likely Catherine of Aragon would be lobbying for her to wed Charles V after all, and it wouldn't be so bad for Mary. Charles though not looker was a good husband. Although a bit too much into his step-grandmother in real life, if he and Mary would get married before he left for Spain, young beautiful Mary would certainly be all he would have eyes for.

The scenario was greatly disappointing for all fans of Isabella and Charles- however beneficial for England, and disadvantageous for France. Would be interesting to see what side would Charles take during great matter if his wife was Henry's sister.

-If Mary Rose was wed to Charles without ever being sent to France, it would be an even better scenario, although she would not have jointure nor some jewels she acquired there.

But she would have a chance to meet Margaret of Austria in the Netherlands.

-What if Catherine of Aragon's ladies called for midwives?

Atypical labor pains resulted in a dead child in 1511 and shock caused ladies to not call upon midwives and hush it up instead. Catherine's stomach then grew, possibly with a huge infection-real cause of the reproduction issues later on.

However, had experienced midwives been called upon Catherine's child might have been revived, or at least she would have received better medical care. Thus potentially she wouldn't later have lost her babies and at least some of them would live.

-What if Mary I's pregnancy was real? And child lived.

Boy or girl, if they lived they would be heir to England. But should Mary indeed die just a few years later, the question is who would be regent and raise the child?

Would it be shipped off abroad for its safety, only for others to put Elizabeth on the throne? And then that child would try to reclaim the throne later?

Or would Elizabeth be imprisoned or even killed by regent, to keep the infant safe?

Or would Elizabeth get to power, but her heart would waver and she would rather raise the child as her own? (Either as its regent or as its Queen). Or would she imprison it simply, and the child would spend decades in the Tower or some other residence, locked away.

-What if Elizabeth of York and/or her daughters lived?

Well, I hope she would talk some sense to her second son, and her daughters too. Her other daughter surviving would affect dynastic relationships in Europe, with far-reaching consequences. Although I am not sure who they would end up marrying, since they would be likely good-looking, they would certainly be highly desirable brides.

[realcatalina]

Tudor Week 2024: Day 2

-Favourite Tudor contemporary quote about or said by the Tudor family.

I truly like two sentences from the last letter of Queen Catherine of Aragon to Henry VIII.

For my part, I pardon(forgive) you everything, and I wish to devoutly pray God that He will pardon(forgive) you also.

Lastly, I make this vow, that mine eyes desire you above all things.

[realcatalina]

Tudor Week 2024: Your Favourite Tudor

I have multiple very favourite Tudors. But recently I became very interested in the much-overlooked Margaret Tudor, Queen of Scotland.

I recreated her image from Receuil d'Arass, using her mother's portrait as guide. Often the drawing is claimed to be contemporary. It was created in c.1590, based upon her c.1502-1503 portrait by Meynnart Wewyck.

I am pretty sure this is close to her hair colour, I am not sure what her eyes were(I need to dig deeper). However, her father and son had blue eyes and her mother had brown-grey(hazel eyes). So I left them grey.