Talk:Catherine of Aragon/Archive 2

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

83.250.132.66 (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I really can't bother to revert Chloe's edits every minute. The purpose of this encyclopaedia is to include only the important information, not every detail. Coronation section is now unproportionally large. If every section gets expanded that much, we would get a 1000 KB long article. Surtsicna (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's good to be bold and try to improve articles, but the point of this encyclopaedia is to summarise 500 pages into one page. Of course, that page shouldn't contain all the details. Should we write what Catherine had for breakfast on her coronation day? I am talking about such details. Anne's coronation is summarised into 5 lines. It doesn't include description of the whole celebration. I hope you know what I mean.


 * To add a reference you need to put . If your source is not included in the References section, just write the book's title and the book's author in the appropriate section. You'll see how it's done with other references. Surtsicna (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I have wondered in the past whether it might be worth having individual articles on monarchs' coronations, and I suppose by extension those of their consorts. There are quite often interesting anecdotes about them, like Lord Rolle living up to his name by tumbling down the Abbey steps at Queen Victoria's coronation, and of course the whole hoo-ha over Queen Caroline's forcible exclusion in 1821. Opera hat (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not a bad idea, considering that we have articles on representations of people in popular culture. Surtsicna (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Chloe, I'm not principally opposed to there being a description of the coronation, but it is currently not very well edited&mdash;it seems as if the same material has been pasted in twice and then modified in one, possibly both, of the copies, so the same event is described twice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

I would go for something like:

Katherine of Aragon (16 December 1485 – 7 January 1536), Castilian Infanta Catalina de Aragón y Castilla,, popularly known as Catherine of Aragon, was the first wife and queen consort of Henry VIII of England.

and drop the hatnote. Or has this been tried? (John User:Jwy talk) 23:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it has, and it starts another round of whether or not its true, or redundant, or confusing. The explanation needs to lead, but it shouldn't lead the article itself because it's hardly the most important part of Katherine's article. Your suggestion is correct for leads in biographies, but this article has the unique problem that the popular spelling is universally accepted, and the historic spelling is obscure to the point that most people have simply never seen it before. Including myself. I must have seen it reading Shakespeare, but I simply didn't remember it—I've never seen the spelling elsewhere before running across it here in Wikipedia, and I've enjoyed reading and exploring history all my life. I can only imagine the horde of editors and users who have been raised on modern movies, and need an instant heads-up. —Yamara ✉  02:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously, it wasn't the only thing that triggered such discussions. I still think my suggestion makes the page most consistent with what people are looking for, explains why the redirect happens.  It SHOULD be in the lead if it helps someone orient themselves with minimal confusion.  It takes care of the dissonance of the user entering (now I guess it is the 'C' version).  But I have no where near the passion about this as some of you.  (John User:Jwy talk) 22:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

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

What are you doing?! You're ruining this article! Boleyn, you cannot rename the image and change the title of a book (e.g. Patience, Princess Catherine to Patience, Princess Katherine) just because you think it's the right way to spell her name! Are you going to say that Lady Jane Grey is actually Lady Iane Grey just because the letter J did not exist during her lifetime? Oh, please. Surtsicna (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What nonsense! The letter "J" has existed for thousands of years, and is clearly visible on the signatures of "J" people who lived in Lady Jane Grey's lifetime, such as Jane Boleyn.  Paul75 (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You really think that the letter J has existed for thousands of years? Oh, dear. You ought to read J|this article. Surtsicna (talk) 10:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and this is Wikipedia and everything on here should be taken with a grain of salt.  Perhaps if you read more widely you would know that Greeks used the letter.  Whatever the correct history of the letter is, it has been used in English since well before Jane Grey's time and there it is an absolute fabrication to suggest the correct spelling of her name is "Iane".  Her signature, with a very clear "J" is  and Paul75 (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

If Katherine was indeed "the correct contemporary English spelling" of her name, then Catherine of Aragon, Catherine Howard and Catherine Parr mispelled their names.

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


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

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


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

Image of Juana

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

Hi It is disputed whther the image is of Juana/Joanna of Catalina/Catherine, the poirtrait is named "Portrait of an Infanta" but it is not known which of the two sisters it is.GranadasPomegranate (talk)
 * Therefore we should remove it. There are enough portraits of Catherine in this article, so we don't need a portrait which could be of Catherine. Surtsicna (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

I strongly support the change. GranadasPomegranate (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, there is no consensus yet since nobody has agreed yet. Since you are the one who proposed the change, it's natural that you strongly support the change. I, however, strongly oppose the change because the current portrait is the one which shows her as queen and she is undisputably more significant as Queen of England than as Dowager Princess of Wales. Surtsicna (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support the change.62.56.113.77 (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So? You haven't explained why you support the change. You can't just "strongly support the change" and expect other people to agree if you haven't made a valid arguement. Surtsicna (talk) 10:46,12 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Lead section, sub section Foreign language
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section#Foreign_language

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

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


 * IF those involved wish to start Anglicizing names, why haven't they started with English nobility? Seems rather odd to skulk through the non-English nobility Anglicizing names, when apparently no one has taken the time or effort to Anglicize English nobles! Besides, for the sake of historical accuracy, the individual's name in their native language should be shown. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't opposed including the name Catalina. I have opposed preferring various Spanish language spellings and names over English language spellings. There have been several attempts to move this page to Katherine of Aragon and similar names and I believe that spellings used by English language historians are indeed more important than spellings used by Spanish language historians. You cannot claim that she was baptized as Catalina; she was most likely baptized as Catharina (Latin speling). You cannot claim that Catalina was her real name if you don't prove that she ever used that name. Do you have any sources that confirm that she spelled her name Catalina? She did not spell her name Catherine but I do not claim that Catherine was her real name. Of course, Catalina should remain, but please do not mention real names unless you can prove that the relevant person actually used that name.
 * Wikipedia should use Anglicized names only when the majority of reliable English language sources use Anglicized names. Therefore, Kansas Bear, if you find an article that does not use the most common English language name, feel free to move it. I agree with your last point. It is well said too as I find it very annoying when people claim that a person who lived five centuries ago spelled his/her name the way that name is spelled today. Surtsicna (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

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

"Defender of the faith"
Keeps cropping up, without citation, as awarded to Katherine "in her own right". I've reverted a few times, but a view from a regular contributor to the page would be welcome. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Searching for a ref I actually found a reliable source that suggests that in fact she was a little hostile to mainstream church institutions. Doesn't rule anything out of course, but it does seem less likely. Added the material in a new section. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Henry VIII was awarded the title "Defender of the Faith" by Pope Leo X, therefore IF Katherine were awarded such a title, who gave the title to her? Would not this information be relevant and recorded? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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


 * I don't admit to being an expert on this, I simply assumed it was capitalized as I've always seen it so. Antoina Fraser says it was a 'title' held by her; "Villa Sancta bestowed upon Queen Catherine the title Fidei Defsensor more usually assocated with her husband." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.225.99.166 (talk) 07:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for coming back on this. If, as Fraser says, it's a 'title', then it should indeed have caps. But: how does an itinerant friar from Greenwich have the authority to bestow titles? Still puzzled. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure, really. Maybe he was a high ranking priest when he had been in Spain? Or it was an exception because of the high rank or the woman receiveing the honour? I'll have to look into that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.225.99.166 (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, as you say, it was because of her status, to match her husband's "FID DEF". Originally this may all have been totally irrelevant, given the Latin writing style; here it's more a question of applying the style guide, "avoiding unnecessary capitalization". Look forward to the result of your further research. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Faith: Saints and Relics
I find the statement "The celebration of saints and holy relics formed no part of her personal beliefs" highly suspect, unverifiable, and misleading. A Franciscan tertiary who wouldn't "celebrate" St Francis? If there is some shocking source for this, I think it should be discussed here. Rarty (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed - I thought she was a keen pilgrim; she certainly went to the Virgins of Walsingham, & Caversham. Tagged. Johnbod (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ref supplied. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't say the same thing at all; please rephrase closer to the ref. Johnbod (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for quoting the reference. Not collecting relics, not seeming to display credulity re: saints, and having a keen eye for failings of the clergy - if true, are not really marks against her otherwise unquestioned Catholic piety. This part of the article as written is very misleading and unjustifiably gives the impression that she personally rejected the veneration of relics and saints, and possibly the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Which would make her less orthodox a Catholic than Henry VIII, even in the end!Rarty (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Changing to "The outward celebration of saints and holy relics formed no part of her personal devotions" is if anything worse, I would have thought - certainly not justified by the reference. Johnbod (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Any suggestions, then? Don't do what I did and WP:boldly stick it straight into the article: lets try at sort out a version on this page first. And, where is her Catholic piety being questioned? That would certainly not be in accord with the reference and should be changed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure anything should be said without more depth in sources. She seems to have been an Erasmian sort of Catholic. These refs may be useful:, . but I don't know any of the full-length biographies. Or stick close to the tentative language of the DNB. Johnbod (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Her association with Thomas More is noted elsewhere in the piece, but not in this context and could be included. The points about deriving her piety from the ideas of the Spanish renaissance (but put more elegantly than that) are also very relevant. Erasmian is touched on, briefly, but if there is a more specific element of tutelage between them (as with Henry) this could well be extended. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is much of the emphasis on (Ren) humanistic education, both hers and Mary's under her, that these refs have; that could be usefully added too. Johnbod (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * With regard to her pious practices, since she was a Franciscan tertiary, that would require praying the breviary throughout every day (Little Office or Divine Office). That is hours of prayer every day and since the Office is considered the public prayer of the church (even if said in private), this would seem to contradict the source claiming that commemoration of the saints formed no part of her faith, and seems significant to note in this section. Rarty (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Because of this I was thinking we should probably change the main picture. I would suggest the Sittow portrait of Catherine as a widow, what is everyone else's thoughts on the matter? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GranadasPomegranate (talk • contribs) 21:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's confirmation from the NPG itself; in the light of this the caption in the infobox seems wrong. Support the use of a contemporary image instead, provided it comes with a reliable identification. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Close relations to King Henry VIII
Did anyone ever realize how close Catherine of Aragon and Henry VIII were related? Perhaps this answers the mystery as to why they could only produce one healthy child, Mary. Catherine descended from John of Gaunt twice by her mother. King Henry descended from John of Gaunt by both parents. Thus making them double third cousins through John of Gaunt alone, and double fourth cousins as both descended from Peter II of Castile. Henry descended from Isabella of Castile who married Edmund of Langley (son of Edward III and his wife Philippa) and Catherine descended from Isabella's sister, Constance who married John of Gaunt (son of Edward III and Philippa). Their children were double first cousins which share twice the consanguinity as first cousins and are as related as half-siblings. Why was this not realized or was it when Henry wanted his divorce? Historically, some European nobles cited a close degree of consanguinity when they required convenient grounds for divorce, especially in contexts where religious doctrine forbade the voluntary dissolution of an unhappy or childless marriage. Conversely, the consanguinity law of succession requires the next monarch to be of the same blood of the previous one; allowing, for example, illegitimate children to inherit. Is this where Elizabeth could claim her right to the throne perhaps since she was considered by some to be illegitimate? Lady Meg (talk) 04:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there close relation had anything to do with it; it was just probably bad luck. Many closer relating royalty had many children. There were first cousins that married first cousins that married their first cousins and so on. The Habsburg and Iberian royalties were probably the first to popularize marrying their own cousins over and over again.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Jewish ancestry
Can anybody mention Catherine's Jewish ancestry? It seems her great-great-great grandmother was a Jewish woman named Paloma, who descends from Yahia Ben Rabbi.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Never sole ambassador in London
Not to sure about the first female ambassador story used here twice on the page. The published primary source is Calendar of State Papers Spain, vol. 1, (1862), which is online here. It appears that De Puebla was the long-standing Spanish diplomat in London and Catherine wrote letters to Ferdinand and Isabella asking for another special ambassador, because she thought De Puebla inadequate. In particular she asked for Pedro de Ayala, and I've put the story on his page. But De Puebla was Spanish ambassador in London right through the period.Unoquha (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC) De Pueblo was unwell, and Catherine was indeed given diplomatic credences (?perhaps the first female to have them), but it is clear from her letters that he didn't cease activity.Unoquha (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)