Talk:Catherine Howard

Henry Manox redirect??????

Why the hell does Henry Manox redirect here?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????// — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.8.216 (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. He should have his own entry.--AlwynJPie (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Nickname

Katherine's nickname was Kitty. She was known as Kitty Howard. And her name was spelt Katharine or Katherine, not Catherine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.149.17 (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

She seems to have signed her name "Katheryn." Perhaps her name was latinized to Catherine.97.83.34.156 (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Dates

If Katherine Howard was "definitely dead" before she was 21, then how could she possibly have been born between 1520 and 1525 and died in 1548? Either the portrait comment is incorrect, or Catherine's date of birth is later.

Katherine was definitely dead before she was 21 because she died in the early months of 1542, not 1548. The general consensus favours a date of birth either in 1521 or 1525.Gboleyn 15:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh?

Why are there two identicle portraits of Catherine? The second one is only smaller, and a bit brighter. I honestly see no real difference between them, and wonder why we can't just combine the captions onto the large one (which, to me, doesn't look so pixel-y)?

"Fraser has persuasively argued that the above portrait is one of Jane Seymour's sister, Elizabeth Seymour-Cromwell. " I think someone changed the top image81.158.255.21 18:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there's something wrong here. Both images are of the same portrait. The top image is unanimously attributed to Holbein in a Google search. There isn't enough information about the second watercolor (artist, date, etc.) to easily find another copy. I'll keep looking, but recommend we delete the 2nd Holbein image and change the article to indicate that, although the picture exists, we don't have a copy of it.--Marysunshine 22:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I did some looking around, and I think the Holbein image is actually this. (Larger image available here.) That image appears to be under copyright by the National Portrait Gallery of London, so perhaps that's why it was removed (?). Google search is distorted because most sites feed off Wikipedia's (incorrect?) article here.--Marysunshine 22:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and edited the redundant image out of the page. Both images are of uncertain origin, so I also removed the POV statements about which one was more likely a legitimate portrait of Catherine. Also, I corrected a few typos and altered the text to discuss both pictures (linking to the National Gallery image as per copyright). --Marysunshine 22:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Edited biography to remove unsourced POV/update writing style, added references, flagged two statements for citation, and added subheads to the biography. Hopefully this has improved the article a bit. I'm still vaguely stumped on the portrait issue -- both of them seem to be attributed to Holbein as "unknown, previously thought to be Catherine Howard." Oh well.--Marysunshine 01:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone aware of why Catherine Howard is flagged as a courtesan? It seemed an unusual way to find my way to her page.

im not sure 62.56.56.183 (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

She should not be. Yet she was a woman who had pre-marital relationships and a flirtation, or possibly an affair, during marriage. By courtesan, we would usually mean prostitute, and her extra-marital relations were certainly not for money. However, she could meet dictionary.com's definition: a prostitute or paramour, esp. one associating with noblemen or men of wealth. [Origin: 1540–50; woman of the court, deriv. of corte court] Boleyn (talk) 17:30, 23rd march 09 (UTC)

K/Catherine Howard

Given that alternate spellings were rife in this era, I propose we stick with "Catherine" (which is the name of the article) unless quoting or referencing sources that refer to her by another variant. --Marysunshine 18:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked her up on the official site of the British Kingdom. Her name is spelled with a K there, see http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page19.asp

As this is the official site, I think the article name as well as all the mentionings in the article itself should be changed. Please tell me whether you agree? Kimelinor 18:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That may well be the 'official' spelling of her name, as the royals spell it. However, traditionally, historical royals don't get the luxury of an 'official' spelling - their names will be spelled as appropriate to country, language, politics, period of history, etc. Consequently, english wikipedia uses the form of name most common in the English-speaking world: which in this case, courtesy of google, is 130,000 results for "Catherine Howard", as opposed to 52,000 results for "Katherine Howard". Thus, that's the spelling English wikipedia uses. Michael Sanders 20:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I can imagine that it handier to use a spelling everyone expects, but isn't the role of an encyclopedia to use an 'official' term? You argue that historically the spelling was unsure, but apparently to the royals/officials it is not anymore today; they choose a K. Especially in the case of a name, the spelling is vital rather than the meaning. As this is english wikipedia: (so not American) why should the american spelling overrule the british one, although the subject of the spelling was actually britsh?

You can make sure everybody is able to reach the proper site, as a matter of fact "Katherine Howard" in wikipedia already leads directly to this site, so it can be done vice versa as well.

As for your example of google, obviously most Katherine/ Catherine Howards don't refer to the wife of Henry VIII, this is therefore in my view not sufficient reason to use a C rather than a K. Kimelinor 13:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm a year late, but I agree on its own that's convincing. The Google search only shows that "Catherine Howard" is a more common name than "Katherine Howard." It doesn't necessarily say it's a more common spelling for this particular woman. Still "Catherine Howard" queen does get more Google Scholar hits than "Katherine Howard" queen so I guess it works. I've always seen her name start with a "K" though and that's the only start we can find by her.--T. Anthony (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd throw a wrench into the discussion (and add somebody else's two cents). Antonia Fraser uses the "K" spelling for Catherine Howard in The Wives of Henry VIII (ISBN 0140132937), though purely to distinguish her from Catherine Parr. Her logic, as I recall, was as follows: "C" for Catherine of Aragon, to follow the Spanish "Catalina"; "C" for Catherine Parr, who was probably/plausably named for Catherine of Aragon; and "K" for Catherine/Katherine Howard, as I said, to reduce confusion. Then again, Catherine of Aragon, seems to have preferred the spelling "Katherine" in England, per the same source, so the point may well be moot.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 21:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Royals don't get 'official' terms: as the Fraser example aptly proves, historians and non-historians alike spell and render royal names any way they like, for a variety of reasons - sometimes there is a commonly accepted spelling/rendering amongst those of a same language (e.g. the wife of Charles VI of France is generally 'Isabeau of Bavaria' in English, not 'Isabella' or 'Elisabeth of Bavaria'). English wikipedia's response to any spelling/name version which is uncertain, or varied, is to adopt that form most commonly used in the English language, on the basis that most people will type in that version of the name when they search for the person (and it is considered good form to keep the article at that version, to avoid 'unsightly' redirect signs at the top of the page), and generally illustrated for convenience sake by an online search (although those can be challenged, they are accepted as a rule of thumb in all but the most ludicrous cases - e.g. if a derogatory term is more commonly used than the proper name - since the person is considered notable enough to be the subject of search engine 'hits' rather than a non-notable namesake; in the case of two notables sharing the same name, I believe more complex searches are practised).

And to clarify: when I refer to this as 'English wikipedia', I mean of course 'English language wikipedia' - i.e. the version which serves anyone who can read and write English, be they in 'England', America, another English-speaking country, or simply a polyglot. And, to my knowledge, there is no straightforward American/English spelling of 'Catherine/Katherine Howard' (I suppose 'Kathryn' is a particularly American spelling, but have never seen any references to 'Kathryn Howard'): both spellings are used by both. It's just that 'Catherine Howard' is the most common formulation, and thus the article title. Michael Sanders 22:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, and although I do not agree entirely, I think this is definately not a case of a clear answer and therefore subject to endless discussion. My suggestion would be, keep the name of the article as it is, but move the name reference up from the notes to the end of the introduction in order te clarify that in many books, musea and 'official' royal documents she is -now- spelled with a K.

Does anyone have any objections to that? Kimelinor 06:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I moved the note up for that purpose. If you want to add anything to that, do so by all means. Michael Sanders 15:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think K is much more accurate- Chloe2kaii7

Katheryn is more accurate. The signature shown on the page suggests a spelling with a K would be more appropriate. Herivelismus (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

But did Catherine know how to spell her name? Who would have told her? Did whoever it was know if it was correct? If she was named after her father's sister it is quite likely that her father would have wanted her name to have been spelt the same way. --AlwynJPie (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Henry Mannox

A knowleadgable editor should look at the article Henry Mannox and do something with it (merge it here probally, or prod for deletion). The fact that he is not mentioned in this article conserns me. Jon513 16:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion to merge the articles, unless there is an editor with sufficient information to produce a proper article about Henry Mannox Haemo 03:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

He should have a seperate entry ever if there is only a brief explanation of who he was; it is easier for reference.--AlwynJPie (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Did Henry sign the bill of attainder?

The bill of attainder article claims that Henry VIII delegated royal assent in this case, to avoid having to sign personally. This article claims that he did sign personally. Which is correct? here is a citation which claims not.

Henry did not sign it personally. The Council affixed his seal and the declaration 'Le roy le veut' ('the King wills it') with his permission. User:Gboleyn

Portrait

I am sure I read somewhere that the portrait of Catherine Howard, given on this page, had in fact been identified to be of Anne Parr, and that as such no authentic portrait of Catherine Howard existed. Has anyone else heard this? Frickeg 05:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Do we mean Catherine Parr. It is certainly a Queen, wearing an identifiable royal jewel, & might just have been painted in the 4 mths between Parr's mariage in 1543 & Holbein's death. But I've never heard Parr suggested, & the Royal Collection website entry doesn't mention this idea. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No, not Catherine - her sister Anne. I have a feeling that it was in one of David Starkey's books. Frickeg (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

According to Antonia Fraser, in her book "The Six Wives...", there is no known portrait of Katherine Howard that survived. Remember, she wasn't queen for very long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.169.17 (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the statement in regards to the small picture, "So, whilst it is almost certain that the portrait is not Catherine Howard, but rather Henry's sister-in-law, Elizabeth Seymour, the miniature shown above right is very likely to be Henry's unfaithful fifth Queen," contradictory? The statement should be more un-biased (and perhaps make more sense?) so I'm going to edit it. --98.222.76.79 (talk) 03:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Does the first 2 sentences of the Portraits section really belong with the Jane Seymour article, suddenly switching to Howard at sentence 3? Its a very strange start to a discussion on Catherine's portraits Rajmarshall (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Weight

I changed the wording in the Marriage section, about Henry's weight, slightly. It read as too definite before. Scholars are only estimating Henry's girth at the time based on portraits and suits of armor he is known to have worn from the time period. --Hiraeth 01:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Her last words were, "I die a Queen, but I would rather have died the wife of Culpepper."

What is the primary source supporting this statement? If memory serves me this alleged quote came from a pamphlet written by a Spanish diplomat or agent who was very critical of Henry VIII and who was not himself present at the execution. The pamphlet was written and circulated as part of a smear-campaign against the king and attempted to romanticise Catherine's relationship with Culpepper with Henry playing the part of the ogre ruining the life and love of two young people.

If I remeber correctly none of the true eyewitness-accounts of the people present at the execution mention Catherine saying anything like that. Unfortunately I don't rememeber the name of the Spanish diplomat but I shall endeavour to find it and the text of the pamphlet and something on the discussion about its veracity. Perhaps someone else who knows what I'm talking about can corroborate if, indeed, I am right.

If I am, I feel that the quote should be removed or that it should state clearly that it is uncertain whether she said it or not. Nothingbutmeat 12:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Though this is an old posting and I notice that a source has been added, the article is still structured to imply that the quote is actually true, whereas even the source cited says it was an invention. I have added the rest of the information from the cited source.24.190.34.219 (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a misquote. No contemporary account supports this in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pphilpo (talk • contribs) 20:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

More than likely she did not say it because she was not Queen. Henry had the marriage annulled before she died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.127.106 (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

She would have been too frightened to utter such words.--AlwynJPie (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Mistake in name

Has Katherine / Katherine. I'll amend to Catherine / Katherine, per our article name. --Dweller 12:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia removed

It not relevant to the article whom is a distant relation to Catharine. Every monarch page would be full of people's names if this mattered. Trivia sections are also, in general, not necessary. If the information is useful it can go on that person's page. 24.159.242.254 (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Another name error

Why the hell is there a period at the end of the article? Shouldn't the article be at Catherine Howard, rather than a redirect to Catherine Howard.?  — AnnaKucsma  Speak! 18:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Least educated wife?

It says she became the least educated of Henry VIII's wives, yet she could read and write. Contrast this to Anne of Cleves who received no formal education and could only read and write in German. Also contrast this to Jane Seymour who could only read and write her name. I found this info on their respective Wikipedia pages. Maybe an expert can find a citation for this, because right now it appears Anne of Cleves or Jane Seymour deserves the title least educated. Imogenne (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this should be removed. All three wives you mention were, as far as we are aware, literate only in their first languages. I'd be interested to see a quote saying that Jane Seymour could only write her name, this doesn't fit in with what else I've read. Catherine was certainly barely literate, as her surviving letter to Thomas Culpeper proves, but it could be replaced with a comparison to the well-educated Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn rather than the title of 'worst', which will be disputed. Boleyn (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reworded the sentence to make it more neutral and consequently added a source24.190.34.219 (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Lambeth Palace

It says she grew up in Lambeth Palace - but that was the archbishop's home ? What was she doing there ? -- Beardo (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

She grew up in Lambeth, at her step-grandmother's house, but this was not Lambeth Palace. Boleyn (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Catherine was most likely born in Lambeth — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlwynJPie (talk • contribs) 10:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Lacks citations

The article needs more in-line citations.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

There have been recurrent attempts by anonymous IP editors, apparently working together, to insert a rather dubious claim by a Peter Clarke regarding Catherine Howard, the latest sample found here. There is no source in this version and the Wikilink on Clarke's name leads to a disambiguation page. A previous version quoted a book with the ISBN 0-04-054363-6, which is invalid. Furthermore, intermediate edits like this and this lead me to doubt the constructive intentions of the editor(s). This has lead me revert the changes and semi-protect the article for a week. Renewed attempts will lead to a longer protection period. Favonian (talk) 11:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The Peter Clarke who is a professor at Newcastle is a geologist. Something fishy is going on. john k (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Wingate in County Durham as Catherine's place of birth appears made up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlwynJPie (talk • contribs) 10:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Second Portrait

their is no official portrait of Catherine but historians believe that the one shown first (at the top of the page) is her. but the second portrait has recently been disassociated with her and historians believe it is more likely to be Katherine Parr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.171.136 (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Place of birth

I have been unable to find any credible historical connection with Catherine Howard and Wingate, County Durham.

In most biographies, when her place of birth is specifically mentioned, it is usually Lambeth or London. It is believed her mother, Jocasta "Joyce" Culpeper , who was born in Oxon Hoath in Kent (c1480-1531), already had 9 other children to look after before Catherine was born. This indicates that she was constantly pregnant or nursing throughout her adult life and unlikely to have traveled far.

Wingate in County Durham is 270 miles away from London; unlike today a journey from London to Durham would have taken many days by land or sea and would have been very uncomfortable and tiring for anyone.

I cannot find evidence that Catherine Howard ever left South-East England before the Royal Progress of 1541 where she accompanied Henry and his entourage as far north as York which is 209 miles from London? Wingate is over 60 miles further north. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlwynJPie (talk • contribs) 11:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Date of birth

There is a wide range of date given for her date of birth between 1518 and 1527. I would like to know what the most likely date is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlwynJPie (talk • contribs) 11:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Should her most probable date of birth be changed from 1523 to 1521 as this is the date estimated by the most credible historians?AlwynJPie (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

On further evidence perhaps 1523 is a more likely date for her birth. http://www.philippagregory.com/news/news/346 http://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/2014/08/01/katherine-howards-birthday-a-guest-post-by-conor-byrne/ AlwynJPie (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Place of birth

Lambeth or London seems the most likelyAlwynJPie (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I have been unable to find any credible historical connection with Catherine Howard and Wingate, County Durham.

In most biographies, when her place of birth is specifically mentioned, it is usually Lambeth or London. It is believed her mother, Jocasta "Joyce" Culpeper , who was born in Oxon Hoath in Kent (c1480-1531), already had 9 other children to look after before Catherine was born. This indicates that she was constantly pregnant or nursing throughout her adult life and unlikely to have traveled far.

Wingate in County Durham is 270 miles away from London; unlike today a journey from London to Durham would have taken many days by land or sea and would have been very uncomfortable and tiring for anyone.

I cannot find evidence that Catherine Howard ever left South-East England before the Royal Progress of 1541 where she accompanied Henry and his entourage as far north as York which is 209 miles from London? Wingate is over 60 miles further north. AlwynJPie (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC) AlwynJPie (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

hatnotes without citations!

This: ^The portrait, believed to be Catherine Howard, has been persuasively identified through the jewels on her dress, which match those in her inventory. <- was put in by an anon IP from what I have been able to see. People, hatnotes require RS citations like anything else. I am removing it for now - if you have a reference, add it again. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Annulled or not?

Our infobox says the marriage was annulled, which can only have been before she was executed. But Wives of Henry VIII strongly suggests that no annulment took place. It mentions the annulments of other marriages of Henry's, but not of Catherine Howard's.

So, what is the accurate historical position? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Alison Weir, The Six Wives of Henry VIII says:

• The marriage of Henry VIII and Katherine Howard was never formally annulled ... and the King became a widower on Katherine's death.

This discussion comments:

• Alison Weir (The Six Wives of Henry VIII) says the Howard marriage was "never formally annulled." David Loades' The Tudor Queens of England notes that "by 22 November [1541] the Council was convinced of the guilt of all three [Howard, Dereham, Culpeper]. On that day it was decreed that Catherine was no longer to be styled Queen but only the Lady Catherine Howard. This had no judicial significance, but was perhaps a pointer to the way in which it had been decided to proceed against her.

• Possibly it was this action by the Council that has led people to assume the marriage was annulled. A lot of secondary sources state that while confined at Syon, Catherine was "served as queen" or "attended as queen," and the primary sources keep referring to her still as the queen, so perhaps the Privy Council's decision was not generally known or published. There was also a law in effect against speaking against the queen, whoever it was, so perhaps everyone was just being careful. (end quote)

So, it seems clear that she remained Henry's queen right up to her death. I'll amend the infobox. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Duke of Grafton, in Tudor times?

"On the 29th [August 1540] the Duke of Grafton arrived for a Council meeting."

Really? According to Duke of Grafton there was no such title before 1675. Or is that article seriously mistaken? Harfarhs (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Margaret Douglas

On this edit, I'm not sure Margaret Douglas couldn't have had her portrait painted while in the Tower or Syon; she was allowed correspondence and gifts from the king at about the same time, and Syon complained about her rather worldly train of people and activities. The portrait also looks pretty penitent, even without what is probably a Holbein portrait miniature frame whose back depicts Lot's wife turning to a pillar of salt. I've tentatively clarified, given a more precise reference, and restored it. If there is something I don't know which makes this potential identification really unlikely or impossible, please let me know, and of course I'll remove it. HLHJ (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The subject of the Toledo portrait was twenty-one (not twenty) years of age. Margaret Douglas was twenty-one from 8 October 1536 until October 1537 while she was imprisoned, first in the Tower then (from November 1536) at Syon. During this time she was in disgrace, for having become secretly engaged to Thomas Howard without Henry VIII's permission (a serious offence). Bear in mind that the king had no male heir until Queen Jane Seymour gave birth to a son on 12 October 1537. Margaret was finally released on 29 October 1537. Thomas Howard died in the Tower two days later. When his son, Edward, was born, the king convinced himself that Margaret, like his daughters, was illegitimate. Thus rendered harmless, she was restored to favour. It would have been extraordinary had Margaret Douglas been permitted to have her portrait painted during her imprisonment. Moreover, after her arrival at Syon, Margaret couldn't afford to pay her servants or provide food and drink, let alone cover the not inconsiderable expense of a portrait by Hans Holbein!

"On the bodice of her gown, is a brooch from which hangs a circular pendant with a diamond at the centre and a biblical theme: Lot with his family, guided by an angel, fleeing from Sodom. To the left of the central gem is Lot’s wife who was turned to a pillar of salt because she disobeyed God and looked back to Sodom. A design by Holbein for this pendant survives in the British Museum."

British Museum number SL,5308.25. Medallion of Lot with his family, guided by an angel, fleeing from Sodom, one of ten designs for medallions, from the ‘Jewellery Book’. https://research.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=720738&partId=1

Pendant jewels with a classical or biblical theme were popular with ladies of the Tudor court, for example Lady Lee: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Lee_(lady-in-waiting)#/media/File:Workshop_of_Hans_Holbein_the_Younger_-_Portrait_of_Margaret_Wyatt,_Lady_Lee_(1540).jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.99.67 (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

God bless you for this comment. 216.154.5.238 (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Cleves/Howard miniature debate

A lot of dubious claims have been surfacing about the miniature of Katherine being Anne of Cleves with poor evidence other than resemblance and an contemporary testimony. I’ve already sent in a request to get this page protected because of them. Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Pregnancy?

I think at some point there was a false pregnancy. Oric22 (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Name

Catherine of Aragon should be Catherine, because her name was Catalina. Catherine Parr was most likely named after Catherine of Aragon. Catherine Howard should be referred to as Katherine, seeing as we're not sure if she was named after Catherine of Aragon. Joyce Howard didn't have the close relationship with Catherine of Aragon that Maud Parr enjoyed- there's no reason that Katherine should be called Catherine, seeing as Joyce probably never even worked for Catherine of Aragon.

True, many women were called Catherine in 1520s England, but none so prominent as the queen. There are no close relatives that I know of called Catherine in their family. Yes, there are no relatives called Katherine either, but the Howards were most likely Roman Catholics. Katherine was a name brought from the Crusades, therefore the "Holy Land". Joyce and Edmund Howard would have named their daughter after a saint.

Hence, she's Katherine. If not for all usage, then at least to differentiate from Catherine Parr and Catherine of Aragon. If they're in the same sentence- Catalina of Aragon, Katherine Howard, and Catherine Parr. Oric22 (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)