Ladies-in-Waiting: Jane, Countess of Southampton

 

Jane Cheney Southampton
Effigy of Jane, Countess of Southampton at Titchfield, Hampshire, England where she is buried with her husband.[Tudor Effigies]
Jane Cheney, Countess of Southampton (d.15 September 1574) was the daughter and heiress of William Cheney of Chesham Bois, Buckinghamshire, by Emma Walwyn, daughter of Thomas Walwyn.[1]

There is some obscurity about the identity of Southampton’s wife. He was married before 1533 to Jane, niece of Stephen Gardiner [q. v.], bishop of Winchester, and sister of the unfortunate Germain Gardiner, the bishop’s private secretary, who was executed for denying the royal supremacy in 1543 (Letters and Papers, xii. i. 1209, ii. 47, 546, 634, 825). In all the pedigrees, however, his wife is styled ‘Jane daughter of William Cheney or Cheyne of Chesham Bois, Buckinghamshire,’ and there is no trace of his having had two wives. The inference is that the Countess of Southampton’s mother married first a brother of Bishop Gardiner, and secondly William Cheney, being mother of Germain Gardiner by her first husband, and of the Countess of Southampton by her second.[DNB]

Jane married to Thomas Wriothesley (21 December 1505-30 July 1550), the son of York Herald, William Wriothesley and Agnes Drayton, daughter and heiress of James Drayton of London.[1] Thomas Wriothesley was held in high favor with King Henry VIII. However, he would become one of the members of the Catholic faction that tried to arrest Queen Katherine Parr. As Jane was a member of Parr’s household, one wonders what she would have thought when her own husband was reprimanded for trying to serve an arrest warrant to the Queen while she was sitting in the garden enjoying an afternoon with the King. Wriothesley was not met with a warm reception and was yelled at by the King for such behavior after the two had been reconciled on the matter at hand.

Coat of Arms Thomas Wriothesley 1st earl of Southampton
Quartered arms of Sir Thomas Wriothesley, 1st Earl of Southampton, KG. [Wikipedia]
The couple had several children; three sons and five daughters.[1] Sadly, the first two sons died and only the third survived; Henry. Henry was christened on 24 April 1545 at St. Andrews in Holborn. One of his godfather’s was the King, who was represented by Sir William Parr, 1st Earl of Essex (brother of the current Queen, Katherine Parr).  His other godfather was the Duke of Suffolk and his godmother was the Lady Mary. Jane brought up her children in the Catholic faith and that may have hindered them.[3]

The eight thousand acre, Beaulieu Abbey, was acquired by the Wriothesley family in 1538. Another monastic estate granted to the family was Titchfield in Hampshire where the principal family home was located.

Jane was fashionable and had the luxury of jewels due to her husband’s status. In her will is described a fine jewel, ‘a brooch of gold set with an agate and four little rubies [and] there is a picture of a face upon the agate.’ Cameos were popular, especially for queen’s like Katherine Parr who can be seen wearing a girdle of them in her large portrait in the National Portrait Gallery.[2]

Jane outlived her husband who died on 30 July 1550. Her son, who was still a minor at the time of his father’s death, became the ward of William Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke, husband of Lady Anne Herbert (sister of the late Queen Katherine Parr). As a widow, Jane inherited manors in Hampshire like Titchfield and Southampton House in Holborn.

In her will of 1574, Jane left to her daughter Katherine one book, ‘my best book of gold set with four diamonds on one side, and a ruby in the middle, weighing about nine ounces and a half, and the Queen’s Majesty handwriting in the same book.’ A second book, ‘a book of gold enamelled with a black knot with two scallop shells, weighing about four ounces and a half’ went to her daughter Mabel. These books could be attached to a girdle like jewelry. Jane had used them to collect signatures, inscriptions and short versus from friends. The books were religious in nature. And to her son, Henry, Jane left ‘a square tablett of golde wherein is the picture of my lorde his father’s face in in, weighinge about two ounces and a half.'[2]

Titchfield Abbey
After the Dissolution, Titchfield Abbey was converted into a mansion, known as Place House, seen here as it looked in 1733. [Wikipedia]
Jane died on 15 September 1574 and she was buried in Titchfield, Hampshire where her effigy can be seen.

Links

Sources

  1. Cokayne, G. E. (1953). The Complete Peerage edited by Geoffrey H. White. XII (Part I)
  2. Susan James. The Feminine Dynamic in English Art, 1485-1603 Women as Consumers, Patrons and Painters. Google eBook.
  3. Akrigg, G.P.V. (1968). Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Advertisements

Ladies-in-Waiting: Dorothy Bray, Lady Chandos

Dorothy Bray, Lady Chandos of Sudeley (c.1524-31 October 1605) was the daughter of Edmund, 1st Baron Bray (1484-18 October 1539) and Jane Hallighwell (c.1480-24 October 1558). She was at court as a maid of honor to Anne of Cleves, Catherine Howard and Katherine Parr.

She embarked upon a brief tryst with Sir William Parr, brother of the future queen c.1541, which was over by 1543. Parr’s wife, Anne Bourchier, heiress to the Earl of Essex, had already left their marriage and embarked with her lover and had children by him, so Parr was left behind. Parr’s interest was then diverted to Dorothy’s niece, Elisabeth Brooke.

Dorothy married Edmund Brydges, 2nd Baron Chandos (d.11 September 1573) and their children were Eleanor (b.c.1546), Giles (1547-1594), Mary, Katherine (1554-1596), and William (d. 1602). Dorothy was at court as Lady Brydges during Mary Tudor’s reign.

In 1574, Queen Elizabeth visited Lady Chandos at Sudeley Castle. In 1588, she was living in Essex House in London and had 220 books in her bedchamber there.

Dorothy’s second husband was a younger man, Sir William Knollys (1545-1632).

Dorothy was known among courtiers as “old lady Chandos”. Unfortunately, her husband fell in love with one of the queen’s maids of honor, Mary Fitton. During that time, Dorothy was living with him in a house adjoining the royal tilt yard (Violet Wilson. Queen Elizabeth’s Maids of Honor and Ladies of the Privy Chamber).

Dorothy’s daughters, Eleanor and Katherine, and eventually her granddaughters, Frances and Elizabeth Brydges, would also become maids of honor.

Portraits: The “Duchess of Chandos” attributed to John Bettes the Younger, 1578, could be Dorothy Bray, although the sitter looks very young for someone who would be around fifty-four years old at the time. Dorothy’s effigy appears with her second husband in the church at Rotherfield Greys, Oxfordshire.

Sources

Ladies-in-Waiting: Mary Wotton, Lady Carew

Mary (née Wotton), Lady Guildford
Mary (née Wotton), Lady Guildford by Hans Holbein

Mary Wotton (1499-17 September 1558) was the daughter of Sir Robert Wotton of Boughton Malherbe, Kent (1465-1524) and the heiress, Anne Belknap. By her sister, Mary was the great-aunt of Lady Jane Grey.

The Wotton family were merchants from London. The Wottons seemed to have suffered as a result of the War of the Roses, but seemed to survive and come out on top afterwards like the Howards, Carews, etc. At one time, Sir Robert was Controller of the Royal Household. He also received the Order of the Garter. Mary’s brother, Nicholas, was a diplomat and Ambassador to France to Queen Mary. Her nephew, Sir Henry, was also a diplomat and a poet. Her sister became Marchioness of Dorset and eventually Duchess of Suffolk.[4]

Wotton may have been the Mistress Wotton who was a chamberer to Mary Tudor, queen of France, in 1513.

She married first, as his second wife, Sir Henry Guildford (1489-1532) and was his executrix. Guildford was long associated with Sir Nicholas Carew so that may explain how the eventually widowed Lady Guildford married secondly to a Carew.

Mary, as Lady Guildford is listed as being one of the ladies who performed in a masque at the elaborate banquet that took place after the signing of the Treaty of Universal Peace with the French Ambassadors. The entertainment was lead by the King himself and his sister, the French Queen. At that time, Mary, Lady Guildford, was listed as part of the household of Queen Katherine of Aragon. Other ladies listed are Lady Carew, Elizabeth (Bessie) Blount, and Lady St. Leger. Wotton appeared quite frequently at court and probably lived there.[1]

According to Susan James, Lady Carew (previously Lady Guildford) was a veteran at court who had known Katherine’s mother, Lady Maud Parr.[2] The family connections were strong as the Parrs were already connected to the Guildford family. Lord Guildford was the son of Joan Vaux, sister of Sir Nicholas Vaux. After the death of Lord Parr in 1483, the widowed Elizabeth, Lady Parr, remarried to Sir Nicholas Vaux. Vaux became stepfather to the future Queen Katherine’s father, Sir Thomas. As for the Carews, Sir Thomas and Maud were friends with them while they were at court during the reign of Queen Katherine of Aragon. Several of the Carew family members would be placed within the household of Queen Katherine Parr including Wymond Carew who became the Queen’s treasurer.[2]

Apparently, along with her mother-in-law, Lady Jane Guildford, and her sister, the Marchioness of Dorset, she was one of the most prominent women at court in the 1530s.[1]

After Guildford died, she continually wrote to King Henry to receive some sort of help, referring to herself as a “poor widow”. She received a release from all her obligations to the king on March 25, 1533 but was still deeply in debt in 1535 when she wrote to Lord Cromwell on the subject.[1]

Her second husband, married in July 1540, was Sir Gawin Carew of Exeter and Wood, Devon (c.1503-1583). Mary was the second of his three wives. Gawin was the fourth and youngest son of Sir Edmund Carew. He was a Protestant and was devoted to the cause. When Anne of Cleves arrived, he was tasked with receiving her. We find that Sir Gawin was a Navy man and was in command of the ship Matthew Gonson during 1545. The ship was 500 tons and contained 300 men.[4]

As Lady Carew, she lived at Wood Barton, but was obviously frequently at court as she went on to attend Queen Katherine Parr and was part of her inner circle. Perhaps Mary was even given apartments again.

The appearance of Mary is not described anywhere, but from the complaints of King Henry we can tell that Queen Katherine’s ladies were not much to look at. Perhaps their daily clothing did not help enhance their beauty; if they were beautiful. It was probably to the Queen’s credit that she kept her ladies in subdued colors and didn’t flaunt them like other consorts did. Queen Katherine had seen what happened to Henry’s other wives and probably didn’t want a repeat of what happened before she became Queen.[2]

Along with Lady Herbert, Lady Lane, and Lady Tyrwhitt, Lady Carew was tasked with assisting the Queen on her first Maundy Thursday activities (1544), where the Queen performed her duty of washing the feet of poor women.[2]

When Katherine published her book, Psalms or Prayers, Mary and the inner circle of the Queen were included as recipients of the book.[3]

Lady Carew died on 17 September 1558. She is buried in the Church of Kentisbeare in the Whiting Chapel. Her effigy is not present, but can be seen on the monument of her husband, Sir Gawen Carew in the Chapel of St. Mary Magdalene in Exeter Cathedral.[4]

For more on her tomb and memorial, see here (Memorials of the West).

Portraits

Sources

  1. Barbara Harris. English Aristocratic Women, 1450-1550: Marriage and Family, Property and Careers. Google ebook.
  2. Susan James. Catherine Parr: Henry VIII’s Last Love.
  3. Mike Pincombe, Cathy Shrank. The Oxford Handbook of Tudor Literature: 1485-1603. Google eBook
  4. Report and Transactions of the Devonshire Association. Google eBook

Portraits of Queen Katherine: Reason and Logic vs Opinion

NOT_Margaret_Douglas
God love that Pinterest, but did I read that correctly? The woman in the middle is Margaret Douglas? Wasn’t that identified as Queen Katherine Parr in 1965 and then again in 1996? So where does the Margaret Douglas identity come from?

Pinterest, the new online addiction for millennials. Pinterest is a website where you can “pin” photos online to a virtual “board”. I was merely looking for a picture on the web and did an image search. I noticed that several of my articles photos popped up. So, why is this website using my photo? Welcome to Pinterest! The rest is history!

Pinterest can be your best friend or your worst nightmare, depending on who you are. If you’re a historian, like me, it’s a complete mess! Portraits are mislabeled, facts are not true, the link that provided the photo has disappeared yet the photo remains, etc.

Most people catch on and realize that they can indeed change the caption that is mindlessly being re-pinned onto other boards. Yes, when you Pin something, the caption (in this case, the wrong one) doesn’t change unless you manually do it. So…we find portraits from the Tudor era that have been incorrectly identified and re-pinned hundreds of times! Oh, my head!

I have been wanting to write something on Pinterest for a long time; about the relentless misidentified Tudor portraits. Well, this final pin has my full attention.

The pin is right in the middle of the screen cap above. It seems that someone pinned the portrait “Katherine Parr” from a website that identifies the portrait as “Margaret Douglas”. Confused? Me, too!

So I thought I would check out the website and boy did I get more than I bargained for!

kleio_false3
Kleio.org: the website run by Ms. Vogt-Luerssen. This is her page for “Margaret Douglas, Countess of Lennox”. As you can read for yourself, Ms. Vogt-Luerssen insists that the portrait is Margaret Douglas and NOT Katherine Parr. “Margaret Douglas, daughter of the Scottish Queen Margaret Tudor and one of the favourite nieces of the English King Henry VIII., c. 1532 The depicted is NOT Katherine Parr!”

Kleio.org is a personal website run by a woman named Maike Vogt-Luerssen. I was somewhat taken back by what I saw under the portrait. Ms. Vogt-Luerssen insists that the portrait is Lady Margaret Douglas, niece of King Henry VIII, and daughter of Margaret, Queen of Scots. The portrait on her page is dated c.1532. Underneath the caption, Ms. Vogt-Luerssen has written “The depicted is NOT Katherine Parr!”

And to that, I reply “au contraire mon fraire”!!

In an earlier article I did in March of 2013, I studied the portrait that has actually been long associated with Lady Jane Grey; grandniece of King Henry VIII by his other sister Queen Mary of France (Duchess of Suffolk). Surprisingly, through research, I learned that the original portrait came to the Portrait Gallery in 1965 as “Katherine Parr”.

“Most people don’t even realize that the painting came in as “Katherine Parr.” In fact, unless you do thorough research you won’t even know that the portrait was originally at Glendon Hall, the seat of the Lane family. Glendon Hall once belonged to Sir Ralph Lane who married Hon. Maud Parr, a cousin and lady-in-waiting to Queen Katherine Parr. The portrait came to be generally accepted as Lady Jane for decades. The re-naming to “Lady Jane” was based on what you ask?”

Following research published in 1996, the identity of the sitter has been reassessed and the traditional identification of the sitter as “Katherine Parr” has been re-confirmed (James, 1996). Several of the jewels worn in the portrait can be traced to certain lists. James used several different inventories of jewels belonging to queens Katherine Howard (inventory as of 1542), ‘The Quene’s Jewells’ (inventory as of 1550), and a third undated list entitled “Inventory of jewels — parcel of the Queen’s Jewels and other stuff which came from the late Admiral’s [Thomas Seymour] house of Sudeley.” The 1542 list is of particular interest due to the fact that after Howard was arrested, her jewels were handed over to her lady-in-waiting, Lady Anne Herbert (sister of the future queen Katherine Parr). The list of 1550 was ordered by the Lord Protector as part of a comprehensive inventory of the ‘goods of Henry VIII.’ This list was entitled “The Quene’s Jewells.” Each list was looked at by James. The coronet shaped brooch was not found in the list for 1542. However, a similar one was described in the 1550 list and that of Parr’s possessions. The brooch may be identified with one described in the 1550 jewel list as, an ‘ouche’ or ‘flower’ was a brooch worn pinned to the bodice.

– Meg McGath, “Queen Katherine Parr: The Coronet Brooch“, 2013

catherineparrchest
Detail of “Queen Katherine Parr”; NPG 4451.

Argument for a Necklace

So I was very surprised when I went on to the site Ms. Vogt-Luerrsen runs. She had no actual sources for her claim that the portrait was “Margaret Douglas”. Nothing. Until September 1st when she published a private email she had received from “M.M” (which she has since changed to “just an email”). Hmm, wonder who that is. The email basically asked what Ms. Vogt-Luerrsen’s sources were. The writer even tried to offer some help to show why the portrait was not Margaret Douglas. Her response, is a fabrication she put together using my original response to this…

Dear M.M.,
I am a historian and a researcher too, and my knowledge is based on the contemporary historical sources of the 16th century, the written and the pictorial ones. The depicted woman you mentioned is without any doubt Margaret Douglas and certainly NOT Queen Katherine Parr. Actually not too long ago the depicted young lady was declared to be “Jane Grey” by the art historians. They now have changed their mind to “Katherine Parr”. My research is based on the history of the fashion. How can anybody make the claim that the depicted is Katherine Parr? Does this person have any idea what Katherine Parr really looked like? We have plenty of images of her. See here:

http://www.kleio.org/en/history/famtree/vip/abb20t/
Let’s look at the portrait of Margaret Douglas. Her costume is the only tool to date the painting. It was in fashion around 1528 to 1535. Jane Grey was born in 1537. She was not even born when this portrait was made. Therefore we can rule her out.
Katherine Parr got married to her second husband John Neville around 1530/1531. She married the English King Henry VIII in the year 1543. And in 1543 she was already a woman of the age of 31 years. Does this young woman (15 – 20 years old) look like 31 years old? We are in the Renaissance! Do you have any idea what a woman looked like when she was 30 years old?
The fashion tells us that the depicted on the portrait cannot be Katherine Parr. The portraits of Katherine Parr also tell us the depicted on this portrait can not be Katherine Parr. Margaret Douglas and her cousin Eleanor Brandon were the favourite nieces of Henry VIII (at least in the beginning of the 1530s).

Look at portraits of Eleanor Brandon: http://www.kleio.org/en/history/famtree/vip/abb2vv/
Margaret Douglas and Eleanor Brandon both received a specific piece of jewellery *(a necklace) from him which he also gave – according to Susan James – to his new bride Katherine Parr in 1543. The two specimens of these *necklaces of Margaret Douglas and Eleanor Brandon look almost the same, but there are small differences. Susan James was therefore not very well informed when she made her claim that the depicted is Katherine Parr.
You should read my biography about Margaret Douglas (Margarete Douglas: Die hinreißend schöne Schottin in der englischen Königsfamilie) in my E-Book: Die Frauen des Hauses Tudor – Das Schicksal der weiblichen Mitglieder einer englischen Königsdynastie:

http://www.kleio.org/de/buecher/tudor/
Kind Regards, Maike Vogt-Lüerssen

*The now PUBLIC email that Ms. Vogt-Luerssen published on her site differs from her original printed here after I responded to THIS email. However, let us examine this email and pick it apart.

Argument of Period Clothing

The argument against Katherine Parr holds no sustenance. Ms. Vogt-Luerssen questions as to how the painter actually knew who the sitter was. Well, for one, the sitter was actually present when the portrait was done. Ms. Vogt-Luerrsen then goes on to say that the fashion worn in the portrait pertained to only 1528-1535. Pretty sure that no one wore that style of clothing during that supposed time period.

The Earliest Portrait of Katherine Parr or Katherine of Aragon?
Although thought to be a portrait of Henry VIII’s sixth wife, Katherine Parr, the costume, which dates to the 1520s or 1530s, and the facial features matched far more closely with portraits of Henry’s first wife, Katherine of Aragon. (National Portrait Gallery, 2008)

Let’s see, Katherine of Aragon was still the Queen of England in 1528. In fact, her title wasn’t taken away until 1533. So, no, that was not the fashion at the time. Even when Mistress Anne Boleyn started to emerge at court, her style, as drawn by Holbein in 1532-35, stayed relatively the same. Anne was more in tune with the fashions of the French Court, but she is still seen wearing the Gable Hood, even in the most authentic depiction that we have of her. As for Katherine of Aragon’s fashion, she was known for her specific style of clothing that included the Gable. She also introduced the Spanish Farthingale which would become popular later on in the reigns of Katherine Howard (1540-41) and Katherine Parr (1543-47).

Tradition holds that the Spanish Farthingale arrived in England in the early 1500s, introduced by Katharine of Aragon, Henry VIII’s future queen. In a description of the marriage of Katherine and Prince Arthur in 1501, her clothing is described as:

“…her gown was very large, bothe the slevys and also the body with many plightes, much litche unto menys clothyng, and aftir the same fourme the remenant of the ladies of Hispanyne were arayed; and beneath her wastes certayn rownde hopys beryng owte ther gownes from the bodies aftir their countray maner.”

Despite this early reference, it is only in the 1540s–four decades later–that clear evidence of a stiffened hoopskirt begins to appear in documents, portraits and paintings of the time. The classic mid-16th century English look is created in large part by the farthingale: an inverted small triangle of the bodice over a larger one of the skirt. Queen Mary Tudor had several farthingales in her wardrobe: two farthingales of crimson satin edged with crimson velvet, and one of crimson grosgrain edged with crimson velvet.{2}

The appearance of the fashion in the portrait of Katherine Parr appears to have become documented and portrayed in portraiture in the 1540s. Katherine Parr was known for her love of fashion. In fact, Parr and the Lady Mary (daughter of Katherine of Aragon) bonded over their clothing. The two were always wearing the latest fashions. Katherine made it known that she preferred Spanish relations to the French. Katherine was keen on presenting the Lady Mary above all. The two were constantly seen together.

12783855_1688370734769470_1797439626_n
Detail of the NPG portrait of “Queen Katherine Parr“.

My Argument: The Brooch

I’m not sure where you are getting your info. I have researched this issue thoroughly since Susan James’s book came out in 2009. Your theory is based off your own opinions. There are no concrete sources listed in your argument. I can list over a dozen that prove that the portrait IS Katherine.
Katherine married Henry in 1543. The portrait was done circa 1545. Margaret Douglas was a lady to Queen Katherine. And in England, Margaret Douglas was not treated to any type of special kind of attention. Margaret held no rank that would have put her above the Queen. In fact, Margaret was behind several women. Under Henry VIII’s succession act, she wasn’t even named as a successor. She was merely a daughter of Queen Margaret and her noble husband–not even a Princess! Henry cut any ties to his Scottish family.
Check records for the time–was there a portrait commissioned by Henry VIII for his niece? Not that I know of. You have anything? And any sources saying Henry gifted a specific necklace to Margaret; description and all?
How can you deny the research that was done by the NPG? The portrait came in as “Katherine Parr” and was challenged. Due to research done by Susan James, the portrait was returned to the ORIGINAL identity of Katherine Parr in 1996.
Dr Susan James came out with a SPECIFIC study on this portrait — identifying it as Katherine Parr. Her sources were the lists of jewels worn by the Queens of England and Katherine Parr’s inventory. There is NO study that identifies this portrait as Margaret Douglas. There are no sources that even propose the portrait to be Margaret!
The portrait was actually done circa 1545. Jane Grey had NO access to the specific jewels in question. Even Margaret Douglas would have NO access to those jewels. Pretty sure Margaret was lower than Lady Jane in status due to Henry’s succession act. Also, Jane would have been extremely young if she was painted in 1545 (you say she wasn’t born under your date of when the portrait was done). When Susan James focused on changing the identity BACK to Katherine Parr, she used the brooch Katherine is wearing in the portrait. Also, Margaret Douglas wouldn’t be wearing such rich clothing and jewels as a lady in waiting. Katherine was always the top lady when it came to fashion (along with Lady Mary Tudor, later Queen). Margaret’s full length portrait done later in full black is basically what Katherine Parr had her ladies wear along with Parr’s Royal emblem.
As for dates, Katherine Parr was still married to Edward Borough in 1531. She didn’t marry Latimer until 1534!
On the argument of her age–does the portrait of Lady Mary look like a woman only a few years younger than Katherine? The half length portrait was painted around the same time (c.1543/45). The NPG also did a long exhausting study on that portrait also done by Master John. That portrait is listed as being commissioned in actual records.
And when scientific tests were done on Parr’s portrait, this was revealed: “Head

In infrared reflectography it is clear that the hairline has been raised, the face made slightly fuller along the left-hand side, and the position of the nose altered. The headdress has been drawn in a sketchy manner.” This was found by infrared reflectography. The original portrait done by Master John was altered — most likely an attempt to preserve the portrait. There were some extra marks around the eyes in Katherine’s portrait.
You have no concrete sources. You are asking me to look at your portraits that you have compiled. There is no link to any source except your own site which states it’s Margaret. I don’t read German, however my brother is fluent.
Going against actual biographers such as Dr Susan James, Linda Porter, Dr David Starkey, the curators at the National Portrait Gallery in London, the curators at Sudeley Castle, and the many sources available is ridiculous. The labeling of the portrait as Margaret is not correct; the facts that have been presented by ACTUAL historians label the portrait as Katherine Parr.
I’ve been studying Katherine Parr for over a decade! A historian who works on the identity of portraits claimed to be Jane Grey, Dr Stephan Edwards, has his own pages that state that the portrait is Katherine. This portrait has been thoroughly studied and Margaret was NEVER even brought up as a possible sitter! It was between Katherine Parr and Jane Grey. Again, Margaret had her own full length portrait done much later on. This portrait of Katherine Parr looks NOTHING like Margaret’s other portraits. Here are some actual links that state WHY the portrait is Katherine Parr. A lot of research and work was done to positively identify this portrait as Katherine Parr and hopefully you can put down the ego and open your mind on this subject.
Meg McGath

tudorqueen6.com

From Dr Edwards: “Susan James convincingly re-identified NPG 4451 as Katherine Parr by comparing the bodice brooch to items described in inventories of the jewels owned by Henry VIII’s wives, including Parr. The brooch is unique as James suggests and the sitter in NPG 4451 is indeed Katherine Parr.” Would you like me to send you Parr’s inventory and the queen of England’s jewel inventory which was held by Lady Anne Herbert (sister of Queen Katherine)??

NPG_brooch
Detail of the Coronet Brooch of Katherine Parr, NPG; © Susan James (black&white detail) © National Portrait Gallery (color detail)

This is the subject of the so called debate in which I revealed to Ms. Vogt-Luerssen that the portrait was indeed “Katherine Parr” based on the studies done by the NPG and biographer Dr Susan James.

Many sources were attached to this email response. Shortly after, I found that the woman actually published my private email on her public site. Fine, game on. What really made me angry about the publishing of a private email was the fact that this woman, Ms. Vogt-Luerssen, took MY own words (research, see below) from this reply and inserted them into her refutation on her site. What words did Ms. Vogt-Luerssen replace with MINE? A few paragraphs back, I made sure to highlight words in RED.

Margaret Douglas and Eleanor Brandon both received a specific piece of jewellery *(a necklace) from him which he also gave – according to Susan James – to his new bride Katherine Parr in 1543. The two specimens of these *necklaces of Margaret Douglas and Eleanor Brandon look almost the same, but there are small differences. Susan James was therefore not very well informed when she made her claim that the depicted is Katherine Parr.

EMAIL from Ms. Vogt-Luerssen

And now, I have a side by side comparison of the email to Ms. Vogt-Luerssen’s page on “Margaret Douglas”.

kleio_false2
The discrepancies of the email and what is posted on the actual LIVE site. On the left, is the original email from Ms. Vogt-Luerssen [photo still taken by my Iphone]. On the right, is the actual website in which she took my research and information (about the brooch) to make her own “research” seem legit. Again, no sources and no portraits of Margaret Douglas and Eleanor Brandon to prove either claims in these two highlighted sections (necklace OR brooch).
You also have Ms. Vogt-Luerssen calling Dr. Susan James, a well known biographer of Katherine Parr, “not well informed”. To my knowledge, James has had the most experience when it comes to researching Katherine Parr to this date.

Ms. Vogt-Luerssen now has FALSE information on her website. She has been confronted by several people; including some Doctoral Scholars who are well known in the Tudor community. So, the cat is out of the bag so to say. This is ONE of several issues this woman refuses to fix on her website. Her reputed knack for identifying Tudor portraits (by opinion only) is horrific and goes to show what passes as “Historical Accuracy” online. I have had conversations with several Tudor scholars on this and the final conclusion is that Ms. Vogt-Luerssen is not a Historian and IS a hack trying to sell her own compilation of opinions and ill research. And to boot, she has written a “non-fiction” book called, The Women of the House of Tudor – The fate of female members of an English royal dynasty,which she points to at every mention she can.

Follow ups to the other vital mistakes will be linked to here.

  • Queen Katherine Parr in Art: False Portraits of Queen Katherine [currently working on]

Sources

 

copyright_meg_tudorqueen
20 November 2016

 

 

Family of Queen Katherine Parr: Sir John Throckmorton of Coughton

Tomb of John and Margery Throckmorton, Coughton Court, Warwickshire, England.
Tomb of John and Margery Throckmorton, Coughton Court, Warwickshire, England. [Ad Astra]
John was born at Coughton Court circa 1524. He was one of the eight sons and of the seventeen children of Sir George Throckmorton of Coughton Court and his wife Kathryn Vaux, daughter of Sir Nicholas, Baron Vaux of Harrowden and his first wife, the widowed Lady Elizabeth Parr [born FitzHugh]. By his mother, he was cousin to Queen Katherine Parr, the sixth queen and wife of King Henry VIII.

Household of Katherine Parr at Chelsea Manor.
Household of the Dowager Queen Katherine Parr.
Throckmorton isn’t as well known as his elder brothers like Sir Nicholas and Sir Robert. John most likely started his career at court inside the household of Queen Katherine. In the years to come, he definitely had his cousin, Queen Katherine, to thank for his advancement at court. However, when she died in 1548, the advancement wasn’t favored as much and John had to rely on others like the Duke of Northumberland who took over after Edward VI sent his uncle [and Lord Protector] to the scaffold. Among the leading men, Throckmorton had several friends and family links; Queen Katherine’s brother, William, who was now Marquess of Northampton, and the Earl of Pembroke who had married the queen’s sister, Anne.
 
When the little curbuffle with Lady Jane Grey came to pass — loyalties changed. After Sir William Cecil refused to write up the proclamation of Lady Jane becoming queen, the task was given to Throckmorton. Like Cecil, he refused to have anything to do with it. Throckmorton would go on to back the Lady Mary [eldest daughter of King Henry VIII by his first wife, Katherine of Aragon] at Framlingham. Those who remained with Lady Jane [including one of his brothers and the Marquess of Northampton], were met with harsh penalties and punishment for their treason against Mary. His cousin, John [II], was eventually executed under Mary’s command for his role in the Dudley conspriracy.
 
During the five Marian parliaments, Throckmorton would be present for four. His first appearance, with his brother Nicholas, was most likely due to their cousin-in-law, William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke [husband to the late Anne Parr, sister of Queen Catherine and the Marquess of Northampton]. As a Catholic, Throckmorton suffered somewhat under the reign of Mary’s sister, Elizabeth. Four years after his death, his heir would be executed for his role in a revolt against the Protestant queen Elizabeth.
 
Throckmorton married to Margaret Puttenham, daughter of Robert of Sherfield-upon-Loddon. They had at least four sons and two daughters. His son, Francis, would be involved in the great Throckmorton Plot of 1584 which would have replaced Queen Elizabeth with Mary, Queen of Scots [a senior legitimate descendant of the Tudor family by King Henry VIII’s elder sister, Princess Margaret]. Francis is featured in the film Elizabeth: The Golden Age.
The children of Sir Thomas and Lady Maud Parr.
The children of Sir Thomas and Lady Maud Parr. [L to R: William, later Marquess of Northampton; Queen Katherine; and Anne, later Countess of Pembroke]

By both parents, John was cousin to Queen Katherine Parr. However, his mother was the queen’s paternal aunt as her father and Katherine shared the same mother. Parr’s father was the result of his mother’s first marriage to Sir William Parr, Lord of Kendal, while Katherine was the result of their mother’s second marriage to the Lancastrian Sir Nicholas Vaux [later Baron Vaux of Harrowden]. By Katherine Parr’s mother, Maud Green, Katherine was a second cousin, once removed of Sir George Throckmorton as they shared Sir John Throckmorton (born circa 1380) and Eleanor de la Spiney (born circa 1385) as common ancestors.

Queen Katherine Parr: The First Woman and Queen of England to be Published

First published in 1545,
First published in 1545, “Prayers or Meditations” by Queen Katherine Parr became so popular that 19 new editions were published by 1595 (reign of Elizabeth I). This edition was published in 1546 and bound by a cover made by the Nuns of Little Gedding. Located at Sudeley Castle, Winchcombe.

Queen Katherine Parr published two books in her lifetime. The first, ‘Prayers and Meditations’, was published while King Henry VIII was still alive [1545]. Some sources state 24 April 1544 as being the day that the book was available.

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
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
Henry was said to be proud and at the same time jealous of his wife’s success. ‘Lamentations of a Sinner’ was not published until after Henry died [in 1547]. In ‘Lamentations‘, Catherine’s Protestant voice was a bit stronger. If she had published ‘Lamentations’ in Henry’s lifetime, she most likely would have been executed as a heretic despite her status as queen consort. Henry did not like his wives outshining him [i.e. Anne Boleyn]…hence her compliance and submission to the King when she found that she was to be arrested by the Catholic faction at court. Her voice may have been dialed down a notch, but once her step-son, the Protestant boy King Edward took the throne — she had nothing to hold her back. Her best friend, the Dowager Duchess of Suffolk, and brother Northampton encouraged Parr to publish.

A publication of the book c.1550 [after the death of Queen Katherine]
A publication of the book  The Lamentation of a Sinner c.1550 [after the death of Queen Katherine]

Published in 1547 [according to Sudeley Castle] after the death of King Henry VIII, “The Lamentation of a Sinner” was Catherine’s second book which was more extreme than her first publication. She was encouraged by her good friend the Duchess of Suffolk and her brother, the Marquess, to publish. The transcription of the title page here is… “The Lamentacion of a synner, made by the most vertuous Lady quene Caterine, bewailyng the ignoraunce of her blind life; let foorth & put in print at the inflance befire of the right gracious lady Caterine, Duchesse of Suffolke, and the ernest request of the right honourable Lord William Parre, Marquesse of Northampton.”

I was lucky enough to see a copy both a Sudeley Castle and at the Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C.

Queen Katherine's
Queen Katherine’s “Lamentations” on display at the Vivat Rex Exhibition at the Folger Shakespeare Library.

The Lamentation of a Sinner

Lamentations of a Sinner

by Catherine Parr, Queen of England and Ireland

A publication of the book c.1550 [after the death of Queen Katherine]
A publication of the book c.1550 [after the death of Queen Katherine]

“The Lamentacion of a synner, made by the most vertuous Lady quene Caterine, bewailyng the ignoraunce of her blind life; let foorth & put in print at the inflance befire of the right gracious lady Caterine, Duchesse of Suffolke, and the ernest request of the right honourable Lord William Parre, Marquesse of Northampton.”

Published in 1548 after the death of King Henry VIII, “The Lamentation of a Sinner” was Catherine’s second book which was more extreme than her first publication. She was encouraged by her good friend the Duchess of Suffolk and her brother, the Marquess, to publish.
[Vivat Rex Exhibition, Folger Shakespeare Library, STC 4828]