Queen Katherine Parr: The Cameo Beads

PORTRAIT JEWELRY DETAIL OF QUEEN KATHERINE PARR

Katherine Parr
attributed to Master John
oil on panel, circa 1545
71 in. x 37 in. (1803 mm x 940 mm)
Purchased with help from the Gulbenkian Foundation, 1965
Primary Collection
NPG 4451

Katherine Parr was a true Renaissance queen. The Renaissance was literally a time of the rebirth of Classical knowledge and learning, and humanists venerated the wisdom of Ancient scholars, spending their time translating and philosophising of the surviving texts. And of course, this fascination with Antiquity was reflected in other areas of society, such as art, literature, even dress. Katherine was very engaged with humanist scholars and participated in humanist activities such as the study of languages and the translation of classical texts. This appreciation of classical learning can even be seen in her portraiture.

The National Portrait Gallery houses a portrait of Katherine painted by Master John, an artist we know little about except he unusually seems to have been English born, and he had an incredible eye for detail in his work. The portrait is dated to 1545, a year or two into her third marriage to Henry VIII, and is one of three contemporary portraits of Katherine that are extant (for more on Catherine’s contemporary portraits, see my post here: https://tinyurl.com/2p973nph ). It is a beautiful portrait, however it is very easy to miss the exquisite detail work that has gone into it. I certainly did, until I read the wonderful Nicola Tallis’ ‘All The Queen’s Jewel’s, 1445-1548,’ which discusses the minutiae of the jewels of the Tudor queens, as can be found in a whole range of different records, including inventories and portraits.

Up close of the NPG 4451

Several aspects of this particular portrait are highlighted by Nicola, but I think the most fascinating are the girdle beads hanging from Katherine’s waist. At first glance, they seem like any other girdle beads – a standard accessory for any Tudor lady – but once you get up close and personal to the portrait, it becomes clear that each bead is a cameo face.

From Nicola Tallis, All the Queen’s Jewels

Cameos were very fashionable, very valuable, and very rare during this period. They most commonly depicted figures from the Ancient world, just as these ones do. In this portrait, the uniqueness of each cameo suggests that each one was supposed to represent a specific figure from Antiquity. Unfortunately, their identities have not survived. From Parr’s inventories as queen we do know that she owned a number of cameos and jewels with ‘antiquez personz.’ From Katherine’s records, and by comparing inventories, we know that some of these pieces were actually inherited from her predecessors, Jane Seymour and Katherine Howard, whilst others were commissioned by Katherine herself.

That Katherine carefully selected this piece to be portrayed in is significant. It shows how much she valued her own learning, and it aligned her with the brightest minds of her day. It also showed her status, to be able to afford such a valuable item. It signalled that she was a lady of learning, and a queen that humanists could approach for patronage.

These cameo beads are such a small detail, but they speak volumes about fashion trends, the skill of the artist, and the character of Katherine herself.

Reference: Nicola Tallis ‘All the Queen’s Jewels’. Pages 126-127 discuss this portrait and the beads in particular, and there is a discussion about the use of cameos and ‘antique faces’ in jewellery on page 87. Thanks to Jessica Carey-Bunning for researching!

More reading

How did the portrait become reidentified as Katherine Parr in 1996?

National Portrait Gallery’s 4451 Conservation

Susan James. Lady Jane Grey or Queen Kateryn Parr?, Burlington Magazine, vol. 138, January 1996, pp. 20-4.

Queen Katherine Parr: Prayers or Meditations (1545)

“She was the first queen of England to write and publish her own books and to become a recognized author during her lifetime and the first Englishwoman to publish a work of prose in the sixteenth century.” (Susan James, “Catherine Parr: Henry VIII’s Last Love”, 2010, pg 12)

“The first edition of Queen Katherine Parr’s Prayers or Meditations appeared on June 2, 1545, under the title Prayers stirryng the mynd vnto heauenlye medytacions. This volume reprinted the two non-Biblical prayers—one for King Henry, the other for men to say going into battle—that concluded her translation Psalms or Prayers, published a year earlier. A second edition with the same contents, bearing the same date, carried the title Prayers or meditacions, wherin the mynde is styrred paciently to suffre all afflictions here. The definitive version (the third edition) appeared on November 6, 1545, under the title PRAYERS OR Medytacions, wherein the mynd is stirred, paciently to suffre all afflictions here, to set at nought the vayne prosperitee of this worlde, and alwaie to longe for the everlastynge felicitee: Collected out of holy wookes by the most vertuous and graciouse Princesse Katherine quene of Englande, Fraunce, and Irelande.1 This volume concluded with four prayers that may well be Queen Katherine’s compositions, the latter of the two just mentioned and three others that gradate from a public to a private perspective: “A devout prayer to be daily said,” “Another prayer,” and “A devout prayer.” The first two editions, identical except for their titles, and the third, definitive one rapidly gained popularity with English readers, who often knew the work as “The Queen’s Prayers.” Thirteen editions appeared before the end of the sixteenth century.” (Parr, Katherine, and Janel Mueller (ed.). “Introduction to Prayers or Meditations (1545).” In Katherine Parr: Complete Works and Correspondence. Edited by Janel Mueller (ed.).University of Chicago Press, 2011. Chicago Scholarship Online, 2013. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226647265.003.0009.)

Folger Shakespeare Library PDI Record: — Call Number (PDI): STC 4824a Creator (PDI): Catharine Parr, Queen, consort of Henry VIII, King of England, 1512-1548. Title (PDI): [Prayers stirryng the mind unto heavenlye medytacions] Created or Published (PDI): [1550] Physical Description (PDI): title page Image Root File (PDI): 17990 Image Type (PDI): FSL collection Image Record ID (PDI): 18050 MARC Bib 001 (PDI): 165567 Marc Holdings 001 (PDI): 159718 Hamnet Record: — Creator (Hamnet): Catharine Parr, Queen, consort of Henry VIII, King of England, 1512-1548. Uniform Title (Hamnet): Prayers stirryng the mind unto heavenlye medytacions Title (Hamnet): Praiers Title (Hamnet): Prayers or meditacions, wherein the minde is stirred, paciently to suffre all afflictions here, to set at nought the vayne prosperitee of this worlde, and alway to longe for the euerlastinge felicitee: collected out of holy workes by the most vertuous and gracious princesse Katherine Queene of England, Fraunce, and Ireland. Place of Creation or Publ. (Hamnet): [London : Creator or Publisher (Hamnet): W. Powell?, Date of Creation or Publ. (Hamnet): ca. 1550] Physical Description (Hamnet): [62] p. ; 8⁰. Folger Holdings Notes (Hamnet): HH48/23. Brown goatskin binding, signed by W. Pratt. Imperfect: leaves D2-3 and all after D5 lacking; D2-3 and D6-7 supplied in pen facsimile. Pencilled bibliographical note of Bernard Quaritch. Provenance: Stainforth bookplate; Francis J. Stainforth – Harmsworth copy Notes (Hamnet): An edition of: Prayers stirryng the mind unto heavenlye medytacions. Notes (Hamnet): D2r has an initial ‘O’ with a bird. Notes (Hamnet): Formerly STC 4821. Notes (Hamnet): Identified as STC 4821 on UMI microfilm, reel 678. Notes (Hamnet): Printer’s name and publication date conjectured by STC. Notes (Hamnet): Running title reads: Praiers. Notes (Hamnet): Signatures: A-D⁸ (-D8). Notes (Hamnet): This edition has a prayer for King Edward towards the end. Citations (Hamnet): ESTC (RLIN) S114675 Citations (Hamnet): STC (2nd ed.), 4824a Subject (Hamnet): Prayers — Early works to 1800. Associated Name (Hamnet): Harmsworth, R. Leicester Sir, (Robert Leicester), 1870-1937, former owner. Call Number (Hamnet): STC 4824a STC 4824a, title page not for reproduction without written permission. Folger Shakespeare Library 201 East Capitol Street, SE Washington, DC 20003

The Name Game: the title of “Lady”

The mother of Anne Boleyn is often referred to as “Lady Elizabeth Howard”. That’s NOT correct! Why? In those times, if your name was “Lady Elizabeth Howard”, you would have been the wife of a knight with the surname Howard. Elizabeth Boleyn’s mother, born Elizabeth Tilney, was married to Thomas Howard in 1472. At that time, she simply took on the surname Howard. In 1478, Thomas was knighted and she became known as Lady Elizabeth Howard until 1483–when Thomas began using the title, Earl of Surrey. After the Battle of Bosworth in 1485, she was again known as Lady Elizabeth Howard until 1489 when Howard became Earl of Surrey once again.

If we were in TODAY’S society, Elizabeth still would NOT have a courtesy title at birth (c.1480). Her father was a knight until 1483, when he would have started using HIS courtesy title, Earl of Surrey. At that time, she could have become “Lady Elizabeth Howard” as the daughter of an Earl, but I don’t think the practice of the courtesy title “Lady” was laid out or even practiced—or was it? However, by 1485, her father was in the Tower and she would return to Elizabeth Howard. In 1489, she could become “Lady Elizabeth Howard” again as Henry VII restored her father’s title, Earl of Surrey. But upon her marriage, she became Elizabeth Boleyn. Once her husband was knighted in 1509 (WITH Thomas Parr), she became Lady Elizabeth Boleyn.

So have we always had courtesy titles for the children of nobility or was that instituted later on? Do we even have wives of knights becoming “Lady x” in this day and age? Seems like knighthoods are scarce these days while back in the day everyone seems to have been knighted eventually.

And what of Queen Katherine Parr’s titles? Sure.

She was Lady Burgh from 1529-33. Technically, she would have been Lady Katherine Burgh. By her second marriage, she became Lady Latimer as the wife of the 3rd Baron Latimer. If you want to get technical you could call her Lady Katherine Neville, Baroness Latimer. By 1543, she became known as the Dowager Lady Latimer. She is referred to as Lady Katharine Latymer in an account of the marriage of her and King Henry VIII. In July she became Her Majesty The Queen or HM Queen Katherine. By Jan 1547, she became Katherine, the Queen Dowager or just The Dowager Queen. She technically was still the only Queen of England. Upon her marriage to Thomas Seymour, Lord Seymour of Sudeley, I believe she retained her highest honor as Queen, but was also technically Lady Seymour of Sudeley. Think of Princess Mary Tudor who retained her status as the French Queen even when she married Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk. Or even Jacquetta of Luxembourg, who retained her title of Duchess of Bedford for life apparently.

So…let’s do Queen Katherine’s family titles for fun! Her great-grandmother was Alice Neville, daughter of the Earl and Countess of Salisbury. She has been incorrectly labeled as “Lady Alice Neville” at times (yes, I’ve done it!) However, I believe it’s her mother who was known as Lady Alice Neville, Countess of Salisbury. So historically, the younger Alice is known as Lady Alice FitzHugh as the wife of the 5th Baron FitzHugh. Her daughter became Lady Elizabeth Parr, as wife to Sir William of Kendal, Knt. She then became Lady Elizabeth Vaux as the first wife of Sir Nicholas, Knt. (later Baron Vaux). Her son by William, Sir Thomas, married Maud Green. After the death of Lady Elizabeth Vaux, her husband married Anne Green, sister to the new Lady Parr.

The Queen’s Uncle: Sir William Parr, 1st Baron Parr of Horton

Sir William Parr, 1st Baron Parr of Horton (c. 1483 – 10 September 1546) was the son of Sir William Parr of Kendal and his wife Elizabeth Fitzhugh. His mother was a niece to Warwick, the Kingmaker and thus a cousin of Anne Neville, Duchess of Gloucester and Queen of England as the wife of Richard III. Lady Elizabeth and her mother, Lady Alice FitzHugh, rode in the coronation train for Anne when she became queen and it is believed they stayed on as ladies to the queen. Elizabeth had been in the household since Anne became Duchess.

Parr’s siblings included an elder brother, Sir Thomas Parr of Kendal (d.1517), who was father to the future queen of England, the Marquess of Northampton, and the Countess of Pembroke. Their sister Anne married Thomas Cheney (or Chenye) and was mother to Lady Elizabeth Vaux, wife of the 2nd Baron Vaux of Harrowden. The father of the 2nd Baron was Nicholas Vaux, 1st Baron. His first wife was the widowed Lady Elizabeth Parr, mother to Thomas, William, and Anne. By Elizabeth, Nicholas had 3 daughters, Lady Katherine Throckmorton, Lady Alice Sapcote, and Lady Anne le Strange.

William Parr was a military man who fought in France, where he was knighted by King Henry VIII at Tournai Cathedral, and Scotland. Parr seemed to be uncomfortable in court circles and insecure in securing relationships. None the less he accompanied the King at the ‘Field of the Cloth of Gold’ in France. Like his brother, Sir Thomas Parr, William flourished under Sir Nicholas Vaux.

William was a family man. After the death of his brother, Sir Thomas Parr, William’s sister-in-law Maud, widowed at age 25, called upon him to help in financial matters and to manage her estates in North England while she was busy in the south securing a future for her three children. William had been named one of the executors of his brother’s will. Along with Cuthbert Tunstall, a kinsman of the Parrs, Parr provided the kind of protection and father figure which was missing in the lives of Maud’s children. William’s children were educated along side Maud’s children.

Although William was en-adapt at handling his financial matters, he was ironically appointed the office of Chamberlain in the separate household of Henry FitzRoy, 1st Duke of Richmond and Somerset, the acknowledged illegitimate son of King Henry VIII and Elizabeth Blount, based at Sheriff Hutton Castle in Yorkshire. It was William who found a spot for his nephew, William Parr, later Earl of Essex, in the Duke’s household where he would be educated by the very best tutors and mixed with the sons of other prominent families. Though thought to be a wonderful environment for Parr and his nephew to flourish in, the household was not a great passport to success as Parr hoped for. Henry VIII was very fond of his illegitimate son, but had no intention of naming him his heir. It has been claimed that Parr and his sister-in-law, Maud Parr, coached William to make sure that he ingratiated himself with the Duke, in case the Duke became heir to the throne but there is no factual evidence to support this claim.

Although Parr was named Chamberlain of the Duke’s household, the household was actually controlled by Cardinal Thomas Wolsey in London. This control by Wolsey diminished any opportunity of Parr gaining financial benefit or wider influence. Along with the limited possibilities came other daily frustrations as the Duke’s tutors and the household officers under Parr disagreed on the balance of recreation and study. Parr was a countryman who thought it perfectly normal for boys to prefer hunting and sports to the boring rhetoric of learning Latin and Greek. As the Duke’s behavior became more unruly Parr and his colleagues found it quite amusing. The Duke’s tutor, John Palsgrave, who had only been employed six months, would not tolerate being undermined and decided to resign. Such was the household in which Parr presided over. Parr was suspicious of schoolmaster priests and anyone of lesser birth, even though he was not considered a nobleman at the time. The experience did not further the Parr family. If Sir William had paid more attention to his duties and responsibilities he may have reaped some sort of advancement; thus when the overmanned and over budgeted household was dissolved in the summer of 1529, Parr found himself embittered by his failure to find any personal advancement or profit from the whole ordeal.

Despite his failed attempts at achieving personal gain from the household of the Duke, Sir William made up for it during the Pilgrimage of Grace during 1536. William showed impeccable loyalty to the Crown during the rebellion. He had been in Lincolnshire along with Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk and supervised the executions at Louth and Horncastle. William tried to ingratiate himself with Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk and Thomas Cromwell, 1st Earl of Essex. Parr’s presence at the execution in Hull of Sir Robert Constable prompted Cromwell to share in confidence a correspondence in which he received from the Duke of Norfolk on William’s “goodness” which “never proved the like in any friend before.”

Sir William was Sheriff of Northamptonshire in 1518 and 1522. He was also Esquire to the Body to Henry VII and Henry VIII. In addition to this, he was a third cousin to King Henry VIII through his mother. William was appointed Chamberlain to his niece Katherine Parr and when she became Queen regent during Henry’s time in France, Catherine appointed William part of her council. Although he was too ill to attend meetings, the appointment shows her confidence in her uncle.

Parr was knighted by King Henry VIII on Christmas Day, 1513. He was made a peer of the realm as 1st Baron Parr of Horton on 23 December 1543. Upon his death in 1546, with no male heirs, the barony became extinct.

He married Mary Salisbury, the daughter and co-heir of Sir William Salisbury; who brought as her dowry the manor of Horton. It was a happy marriage which produced four daughters who survived infancy:

* Maud (Magdalen) Parr, who married Sir Ralph Lane of Orlingbury. One of their children was Sir Ralph Lane, the explorer. Maud grew up with her cousin Katherine Parr, who would later become the last queen of Henry VIII. Maud would become a lifelong friend and confidante of the queen.
* Anne Parr, who married Sir John Digby.
* Elizabeth Parr, who married Sir Nicholas Woodhall.
* Mary Parr, who married Sir Thomas Tresham I.

He is buried at Horton, Northamptonshire where the family estate was.

Lady Maud Lane and Lady Mary Tresham are ancestors to the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Sussex through their late mother, the Princess of Wales.

Ever wonder why SOME sources mix up Anne and Mary?

References

‘Parishes: Horton’, A History of the County of Northampton: Volume 4 (1937), pp. 259-262. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=66363&strquery=SirWilliamParr Date accessed: 19 October 2010.

Burke, A general and heraldic dictionary of the peerages of England, Ireland, and Scotland, extinct, dormant, and in abeyance, pg. 411

Porter, Linda. Katherine, the Queen: The Remarkable Life of Katherine Parr, the Last Wife of Henry VIII. Macmillan, 2010.

The Family of Queen Katherine: the wife of Sir Thomas Tresham (d.1559)

Sir Thomas Tresham was born by 1500 to Sir John of Rushton and Isabel, daughter of Sir James Harrington of Hornby. He was married to a daughter of Sir William Parr, 1st Baron Parr of Horton, uncle to Queen Katherine Parr. Which daughter? Oh dear! Depends on the source. Some say Mary. Some say Anne. So let’s look at these sources. Can we finally identify which daughter of Lord Parr became Lady Tresham?

So…let’s start at Wikipedia. Why? Because it comes up first in the search for “Sir Thomas Tresham” and let’s face it, most people will just click on his grandson and call it a day. So, you’re looking for Sir Thomas Tresham (1500-59). His wife here on Wiki is Mary Parr, youngest daughter and coheiress to Lord Parr of Horton. Source? John Burke. A genealogical and heraldic history of the extinct and dormant baronetcies of England, Ireland, and Scotland, pg. 532 which states:

“He m. the Honourable Mary Parr, youngest daughter and co-heir of William, Lord Parr, of Horton…”

Ok. So a legit source used for genealogy says it’s Mary. Any other sources? You betcha!

Burke’s A Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary of the Peerages of England, Ireland and Scotland, Extinet, Dormant and in Abeyance. E. Ed., pg. 411 which states:

“Anne, m. to Sir John Digby, of Ketilby, in the county of Leicester.

Mary, m. to Sir Thomas Tresham, Knt.”

Douglas Richardson’s Magna Carta Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families, 2nd Edition, 2011, pg. 300 which states:

“They had four daughters, Maud (wife of Ralph Lane, Knt.), Anne (wife of John Digby, Knt.), Elizabeth, Mary (wife of Thomas Tresham, Knt.)

HOWEVER…a source listed in the notes says:

“Tresham ped.: “Sir Thomas Tresham, Kt. Lord Prior of Jerusalem in England = Anne, da. and coheir of Sir William Parr of Horton, Kt…”

A note from a chapter in the back of Nicola Tallis’s Elizabeth’s Rival: The Tumultuous Tale of Lettice Knollys, Countess of Leicester, 2017 which states:

“Francis Tresham was the grandson of Thomas Tresham by his first wife, Mary Parr. Thomas’s second wife was Lettice’s paternal grandmother, Lettice Peniston.”

Arms: Argent, two bars, azure: a border engrailed [?] from The History of the County Palatine and Duchy of Lancaster

In the genealogical table found in The History of the County Palatine and Duchy of Lancaster, Volume 5, 1893 states:

“Anne, wife of Sir John Digby, of [Ketilby]

Mary, wife of Sir Thom. Tresham, of Rushton”

Collins’s Peerage of England; Genealogical, Biographical, and Historical, 1812, pg. 472 which states:

“Anne, to Sit John Digby, of Kettleby, co. Lincoln, Kt.

Mary, to Sir Thomas Tresham, Kt.”

Bank’s The Dormant and Extinct Baronage of England Or, An Historical and Genealogical Account of the Lives, Public Emploiments, and Most Memorable Actions, of the English Nobility who Have Flourished from the Norman Conquest to the Year 1806: Deduced from Public Records, Ancient Historians, the Works of Eminent Heralds, and from Other Celebrated and Approved Authorities · Volume 3, 1809, pg. 596-7 which states:

“Anne, to Sir John Digby, of Ketilby, in com, Leic

Mary, to Sir Thomas Tresham, knight”

More sources that state Mary married Sir Thomas Tresham and Anne to Sir John Digby:

Edward Kimber. An Extinct Peerage of England Containing an Account of All Those Families Whose Titles are Extinct …, 1769, pg. 246.

So where does the name Anne Parr appear as the wife of Sir Thomas Tresham? We have an article on The Tudor Society which states:

“Thomas was married twice, first to Anne Parr, daughter of William, Lord Parr,”

Sources? I can’t seem to find where this author got their information. The sources I can find to support this:

The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1509-1558, ed. S.T. Bindoff, 1982. “TRESHAM, Sir Thomas (by 1500-59), of Rushton, Northan” states:

m. Anne, da. and coh. of Sir William Parr, Lord Parr of Horton”

The Visitations of Northamptonshire Made in 1564 and 1618-19 With Northamptonshire Pedigrees from Various Harleian Mss, 1887, pg. 202 which states:

“Sir Thomas Tresham, Kt., Lord Prior of Jerusalem in England = Anne, da. and coheir of Sir William Parr of Horton, Kt., Lord Parr of Horton”

Here’s an early publication by Collin’s, The Baronettage of England, written in 1720 which states on pg. 242:

Anne, daughter and coheir of William Parr, afterwards Lord Parr of Horton

So… who is who?? You got me. All I know is that a daughter of Lord Parr of Horton married Sir Thomas Tresham. Anyone else think they can solve this? Why does it matter? Just thought it would be nice to sort out the daughters.

EDIT: found the article for Sir John Digby on History of Parliament. His wife?

m. settlement 1528/29, Mary, da. and coh. of Sir William Parr, Baron Parr of Horton…

His widow married Henry Broke

Go figure! So perhaps it is Lady Mary Digby and Lady Anne Tresham…at least according to The History of Parliament.

(c) Meg McGath, 10 March 2023.

Queen Katherine Parr: “Britain’s Royal Families”

The book, “Britain’s Royal Families”, was written back in 1989!! Alison Weir keeps reissuing her publications and doesn’t seem to update anything when she does. Would love to know her sources for some of these: the entry for Queen Catherine Parr. If you look at her entry—she has the grandfather of Parr’s actual husband as Parr’s husband. In actuality, Parr was married to Sir Edward Burgh, GRANDSON of Sir Edward, [2nd] Lord Borough, in 1529. The younger Edward died c. April 1533. Catherine would have been known as Lady Burgh or Borough (depends on how you spell it) as her husband was only a knight. She is not the subject of Holbein’s “Lady Borow”. It is now thought to be her mother-in-law. Parr’s marriage to Latimer took place in 1534 according to Dr Susan James and Linda Porter. Weir has that wrong too — stating 1530 or before the end of 1533. Catherine would have been known as Lady Latimer or Baroness Latimer (of Snape). She became Her Majesty, Queen Catherine on 12 July 1543. She was known as “Regent General of England” from July to 30 September 1544 and signed her name, “Kateryn, the Quene regente, KP”. On the death of King Henry she became Dowager Queen Catherine. She was to retain the title of queen even when she remarried. She took precedence over all the women at court, was allowed to keep the jewels of the queens of England until the next queen. There is no official date for Parr’s marriage to Sir Thomas Seymour. A lot of sources state in secret, May 1547. Janel Mueller states May 1547 due to a letter written by Seymour to the Dowager Queen. The marriage wasn’t made public until June. Weir incorrectly states before the end of April 1547. She would have been known as Queen Catherine as that was her highest honor, but she was technically Queen Catherine, Baroness (or Lady) Seymour of Sudeley. Weir says Catherine died on the 7th of September. Weir seems to not do her research here AGAIN as Parr’s FUNERAL was 7 September 1548 in Sudeley’s, St Mary’s Chapel. At Sudeley you can find a copy of what they inscribed on her lead coffin. It’s next to her tomb, which states the date of her death is the 5th. She is buried in St. Mary’s Chapel, Sudeley Castle.

Catherine’s daughter was Mary Seymour who was born on 30 AUGUST 1548. There is no death date for her as records on her disappear after her second birthday. Weir seems to think she either died in the 1560s or repeats the myth that she married.

References

Susan James, “Catherine Parr: Henry VIII’s Last Love”, 2009.

Linda Porter, “Katherine the Queen: The Remarkable Life of Katherine Parr”, 2010.

Janel Mueller, editor, “Katherine Parr: Complete Works and Correspondence”, 2011.

(c) Meg McGath, 8 March 2023

Join us on Facebook: Queen Catherine Parr

The Paston Letters: Alice, Lady FitzHugh to Sir John Paston

The Paston letters, 1422-1509 A.D.: A new ed. containing upwards of four hundred letters, etc., hitherto unpublished, Volume 3, edited by James Gairdner.

The Six Wives: Parr and Seymour

By Carol-Ann Johnston

I think this is an apt description of Henry VIII’s third and sixth wives: Jane Seymour and Catherine Parr, for years it has a struck me how many similarities there are between the two women.

Both women unexpectedly came to the throne, both died shortly after the birth of their first child, both were married to one of England’s most dangerous Kings (the same dangerous King), both women faced uncertainty and danger during their marriages, both sensibly conformed at the sign of that danger, only death ended their marriages and finally both were the only two women Henry acknowledged as his wives and Queens, they were even represented by banners and badges at his funeral.

However, each had their own differences: Jane was a traditional Catholic, Catherine a Protestant reformer, Jane had a large collection of brothers and sisters, Catherine had only one of each. Jane’s first and only marriage was to Henry VIII whereas Catherine had been married and twice widowed before. Both were caught up in the Pilgrimage of Grace: Jane as a loyal wife with private doubts and concerns whilst Catherine was physically held hostage by the rebels. Jane had a son, Catherine a daughter, both of their children died young, Edward when he was 15, Mary at an unknown date but possibly as young as 2. Both died at a time, in different circumstances, when they were both safe and secure: one could look forward to a secure future as a Queen of England who would never be set aside and perhaps more children, the other who had not produced children in her previous 3 marriages could look forward to expanding her family and continuing to support and promote the reformation in England during her stepson Edward VI’s reign, ironically the son of Jane Seymour who had been close to her during his father’s reign.

In a final twist of fate, posthumously for one of them, both would become family as sisters in law, Catherine Parr married her fourth and final husband Thomas Seymour in May 1547.

Would Jane and Catherine have gotten along if Jane had lived? 

It’s a reasonable assumption that Thomas would have married Catherine a lot sooner as it was the death of his sister and his royal brother in laws interest in Catherine that stopped any plans the pair had in 1543.

Jane was naturally a conciliatory person and a peacemaker so despite their differences in religion I don’t think there would have been major issues there. It’s interesting to speculate that she may have ended up ‘refereeing’ arguments between another sister-in-law and Catherine. Jane was close to Anne Stanhope, her brother Edward’s second wife, however Catherine did not have the same good relationship with her and whilst we can set aside sources claiming that they clashed over precedence at court as written long after the events supposedly occurred, there is surviving contemporary evidence of Catherine’s annoyance with Anne. In one letter written to Thomas she writes that she has been let down by the Protector (Edward Seymour):

“This is not his first promise I have received of [the Protector’s] coming, and yet unperformed. I think my lady hath taught him that lesson, for it is her custom to promise many comings to her friends and to perform none.”

Another disagreement was over the Queen’s Jewels with Edward apparently reserving them for Annes use in her position as the wife of the Lord Protector of England but she had no right to them whilst Catherine as the Dowager Queen did. The three also clashed over what appears to have been Edwards handling of her dower lands, in a letter to Thomas again she writes:

“This shall be to advertise you, that my lord, your brother, hath this afternoon a little made me warm. It was fortunate we were so much distant, for I suppose else I should have bitten him. What cause have they to fear having such a wife? It is requisite for them continually to pray for a short dispatch of that hell.”

If Jane had lived of course none of these incidents would have occurred and without them there may have been an easier relationship between the two, although it’s possible a new source of friction would have occurred once Catherine married Thomas and Anne may have had to ‘make room’ for Catherine in her and Jane’s friendship? She does appear to have been considered prickly by some.

Perhaps Catherine would not have come to court? Perhaps their relationship would have been civil and friendly but conducted through letters or the odd visit? Jane would have remained at the centre of court but the King and Queen often went on Progress, they may have visited the Queens brother and his wife and possibly stayed with them?

This is all speculation but what we know for sure is that Catherine was very much aware of Jane’s existence, and on some level, presence in her marriage.

Henry was devastated by Janes early death and as the years passed, he came to look back on their marriage and Jane herself as the perfect wife and queen. She had caused him no problems or controversy; she did not argue or contradict him (barring one plea in public) and she promoted reconciliation. She was a traditional ‘English rose’ with her pale skin, fair hair and blue eyes and though never described as a beauty seems to have been fair enough to catch Henrys eye.

She confirmed Henry’s belief that she was the woman for him by giving birth to his much longed for male heir and Janes only child Edward in October 1537. The country erupted into celebrations but joy soon turned to tragedy when Jane fell ill and died just 12 days after her son’s birth. Jane died giving Henry his greatest wish and he never forgot that.

Jane was included in both family and individual portraits long after her death, when Henry died it was discovered that only portraits of his third consort were recorded in his collection, he also kept some of her clothes and belongings. Clothes could be expensive and were often recycled or reused so for some of Janes to be kept aside and still in his keeping at the time of his death implies a more emotional connection than has often been credited to Henry.

In 1545 whilst Catherine was Queen a portrait was painted by an unknown artist that came to be known as the Family of Henry VIII. It depicted Henry with his Queen and all three of his children but the Queen depicted is not Catherine but Jane who had been dead 8 years by this point. What Catherine thought of this portrait isn’t known but it must have at least upset her, at most unsettled her. From Henry’s perspective Jane was the mother of the heir to the throne and the matriarch of the Tudor dynasty, there was no question of her not being depicted.

It is also worth mentioning the sadly lost Whitehall Mural although this painting was commissioned during Henry and Janes marriage. This painting depicted the founder of the Tudor dynasty Henry VII with his wife Elizabth of York standing either side of a large marble plinth, in the foreground were Henry VIII and Jane Seymour. Painted by Hans Holbein the Younger it was an extraordinary piece of work located at the Palace of Whitehall quite possibly in Henrys Privy Chamber where only family, close friends and trusted advisors would have seen it including Catherine. Luckily for us Charles II commissioned a copy of the Mural by Remigius van Leemput in 1667 before the original was destroyed in a fire that swept the Palace in 1698, this much smaller version can still be seen today at Hampton Court Palace where the exquisite detail Leemput was able to copy gives us an idea what the original looked like.

Half of the original cartoon (a full-sized drawing on paper with holes punched in it, through which the artist could trace the outline onto the wall) has survived and is housed in the National Portrait Gallery in London, the surviving half is of Henry VIII and his father and is 101 ½ inches by 54 so the original was more than likely 203 inches by 108, quite a daunting image.

That’s not to say Catherine didn’t have her own ways of claiming her due of course. In her book Catherine Parr: Henry VIII’s Last Love, Susan James has pointed out that there are quite a few portraits of Catherine as Queen, some commissioned by Catherine herself, was she reminding the world and Henry that she was his Queen, not the late and great Jane Seymour? As James writes:

‘’A multitude of portraits insisting on her rightful place at Henrys side was one way in which the living queen could tactfully and wordlessly combat the pervasive cult of Janeolotory outside the framework of Henrys own beliefs. Giving Henry a second, living son would have been the only way for Catherine to supplant Jane within that framework.’’

James also reveals that Catherine abandoned the Queens Apartments at Hampton Court Palace soon after her marriage. Jane had died in these rooms and even been embalmed there before she was carried in procession to the Palace Chapel to lie in state and it’s understandable that Catherine was reluctant to use them, I wonder if the thought ever occurred to Anne of Cleves and Catherine Howard? Annes tenure as Queen was incredibly short and she perhaps did not stay at Hampton Court during her queenship but we know Catherine Howard did and in fact left her own mark on the Palace.

Jane and Catherines lives and even deaths were intertwined both then and now, one knew it the other never did, and it’s fascinating to see their stories continue today. Did it every occur to Catherine the similarities and coincidences between herself and Jane? I guess we can only wonder.

8 August 1588: BURIAL of Anne Talbot, Countess of Pembroke

Anne Talbot was the daughter of George Talbot, 4th earl of Shrewsbury and his second wife, Elizabeth Walden, dau. and coheir of Sir Richard Walden of Erith.

Her half brother was Francis Talbot, fifth Earl of Shrewsbury; and she also had many half sisters, among them Mary, Countess of Northumberland, Margaret and Elizabeth, Baroness Dacre of Gillesland.

A contract was made in 1530 with George Talbot, 4th Earl of Shrewsbury to marry Anne Talbot with a Darcy, probably Sir George or his son Thomas. Although there was no subsequent marriage. On 29 May 1537, she married Peter Compton and was the mother of Henry, 1st baron Compton.

In May 1552, Anne became the second wife of William Herbert, 1st earl of Pembroke, who married her for her money and connections. On frequent occasions Queen Elizabeth dined with Lady Pembroke at Baynard’s Castle in London. On 25 Apr 1559, the Queen supped at Baynard’s Castle, Pembroke’s house. On 15 Jan 1562, the Queen stayed overnight at Baynard’s Castle. On 28 Apr 1562, according to rumor from the Spanish Ambassador, the Queen married Lord Robert Dudley there.

On 17 Feb 1563, a double marriage was celebrated at Baynard’s Castle between the Herbert and Talbot families. Francis, son of George Talbot, 6th Earl of Shrewsbury (nephew of the Countess), married the Countess’s stepdaughter, Anne Herbert, and her stepson, Henry, later 2nd Earl of Pembroke, married Catherine Talbot.

On 28 Jun 1564, the Queen went secretly to Baynard’s Castle to dine and to see St Peter’s Watch. On 14 Feb 1566, Elizabeth went ‘disguised’ to dine at Baynard’s Castle. Between the 8 and the 10 of Jul, the Queen stayed at Pembroke’s Hendon house.

When Pembroke died, Anne received a letter of condolence from the Queen and was allowed to keep her own clothes and jewels, which would otherwise have gone to her eldest stepson, and stay in Baynard’s Castle.

Archaeologia Cantiana Vol. 83 1968

Anne died in London and was buried at Erith, Kent on 8 Aug 1588 with her mother, Elizabeth, Countess of Shrewsbury.

18 JULY 1588: DEATH of Anne Talbot

Sheffield Manor Lodge [The Star]

18 JULY 1588: THE DEATH of Anne Talbot, Countess of Pembroke, 2nd wife to Sir William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke.

Anne Talbot (18 March 1523 – 18 July 1588) was the daughter of George Talbot, 4th earl of Shrewsbury and his second wife, Elizabeth Walden, dau. and coheir of Sir Richard Walden of Erith. She had been previously married to Peter Compton (d. 30 January 1544). Their posthumous son was Henry Compton, 1st Baron Compton.

After the death of his first wife, Anne née Parr, sister of Queen Catherine, Pembroke married Anne after 1552. The two had no issue, but she was stepmother to three children. Her nephew, the 6th Earls children included Lord Francis and Catherine Talbot who married her stepdaughter and elder stepson.

No info is given on where she’s buried. She wasn’t buried with her 2nd husband who’s buried with his 1st wife at St Paul’s Cathedral, London. Anne may be back at Sheffield Cathedral where the Shrewsbury family has a chapel. However, research into her finds on Tudor Place that she was buried in Elrith, Kent where her mom was heiress. Anne became heiress to her mother. The Complete Peerage says, “Anne Talbot was buried on 8 August 1588 at Erith, Kent, England.”

Image of Sheffield Manor, home of the 4th Earl of Shrewsbury and his family. The manor stayed in the Talbot family until the death of the 6th Earl. After the death of George Talbot, the Earls rarely visited the site and the land was leased to tenant farmers. It fell to the Duke of Norfolks in 1660.