Already a member?
Sign in
Welcome! Wikis are websites that everyone can build together. It's easy!
Location:
The Tudors Historical Inaccuracies and Mysteries
Discussion: How do you correct the historical inaccuracies?
Watch
|
wexcat wexcat |
How do you correct the historical inaccuracies?
Sunday, 2:55 AM EDT I'm bugged because the "historical inaccuracy" site has an inaccuracy. Katharine of Aragon DID have an English ancestor, but it was not Katharine of Lancaster. Her English ancestor was John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, 3rd son of Edward III. His second wife was Constance of Castile, whose parents were the deposed King and Queen of Castile. He married her to get a throne for himself and spent much of their 22 year marriage in fruitless efforts to regain it. They had one surviving child, a daughter named Catalina, who he married to the son of the "Pretender" King of Castile, making his daughter the Queen of Castile upon the death of the "Pretender". I'm skipping those names. Katherine of Aragon's English ancestor was therefore John of Lancaster. His 3rd wife was his life long mistress, Katherine Swynford. There is a '50s historical romance novel about her (and him) titled KATHERINE by Anya Seton and Alison Weir recently published a book in England titled KATHERINE SWYNFORD, which I'm just now finishing. The Plantagenets (the first being Henry II, married to Eleanor of Aquitaine), had reddish hair. Henry VII Tudor and his wife, Elizabeth of York (Henry VIII's parents), are both descended from John and his 3rd wife, Katherine, who had 4 "bastards", later legitimatized by the Pope and Richard II. Katherine Swynford, Duchess of Lancaster, would just "die" to read she is Katherine of Aragon's ancestress!! Do you find this valuable? |
 MsSquirrly |
RE: How do you correct the historical inaccuracies?
Sunday, 7:32 AM EDT Did you try clicking on the "easy edit" button after you had logged in? It should work. The wiki is made by its members so you should be able to change anything you see that is incorrect. Do you find this valuable? |
|
wexcat wexcat |
RE: How do you correct the historical inaccuracies?
Sunday, 7:38 AM EDT Yes. The edit button allows you to change the way the screen looks (change the size and colors of the table cells) or add a link. But, I saw no way to add text to the table. Have you ever edited the page with text? Do you find this valuable? |
 angelosdaughter |
RE: How do you correct the historical inaccuracies?
Sunday, 7:44 AM EDT "Katharine of Aragon was named after her English great-grandmother Katherine of Lancaster a daughter of John of Gaunt (a younger son of Edward III) who had married Henry III of Castile in 1388 and died in 1418. Her son by Henry succeeded his father as John I, and married his cousin Isabella of Portugal.; they were the parents of Isabella of Castile. Isabella had been born into a land ravaged by war, both dynastic and holy. Her brother, Henry IV, was a spineless weakling, and her mother went insane when she was a girl. Fortunately, in 1469, a marriage was arranged for Isabella with her cousin, Ferdinand of Aragon, a vigorous youth eleven months her junior. In 1474, Henry IV died childless and Isabella became Queen of Castile in her own right." Alison Weir, "The Six Wives of Henry VIII", pg 18. This is a nonfiction history, not a novel. Novels take literaty license with the facts. Katherine of Lancaster (whose Spanish name would have been Catalina-the Spanish for Katherine; her mother was Constance of Castile), daughter of John of Gaunt. was Queen Isabella's (Katharine of Aragon's mother's) paternal grandmother and Katharine of Aragon's great-grandmother, so yes, she is one of Katharine's English ancestors, John of Gaunt being the other. . Do you find this valuable? |
|
MsSquirrly |
RE: How do you correct the historical inaccuracies?
Sunday, 8:27 AM EDT "Yes. The edit button allows you to change the way the screen looks (change the size and colors of the table cells) or add a link. But, I saw no way to add text to the table. Have you ever edited the page with text? "wexcat, you just type your text in the table and hit save. However, make sure you have your facts straight because the members are pretty good at knowing their stuff and will change it back if its incorrect. Do you find this valuable? |
|
wexcat wexcat |
RE: How do you correct the historical inaccuracies?
Sunday, 12:29 PM EDT We are writing the same thing. I'm using Weir and other historians as my source. The dispute is in calling John and Constance's daughter by an English name. As Weir writes in her latest book, they named her CataRina, not CataLina, but she might have been called Katherine in England. When she married back into the Castilian royal line and later became queen, she most assuredly was called Catarina/Catalina. I object to her being called Katherine of Lancaster because that title rightfully belongs to Katherine Swynford, John's 3rd wife, not to the daughter he had with his 2nd wife, Constance of Castile. By calling their daughter Katherine of Lancaster, Weir violated her own "rules" by Anglicizing her name. Being born in England with an English father, she can rightfully be called English, but Constance would hate that and the girl lived in England a very short time, being married as a teen-ager and staying in Castile thereafter. She's remembered in history as Spanish, not English. However, the bottom line is that we don't disagree on anything. We're discussing the same woman. I don't think it's helpful to confuse things by referring to her by an English name that wasn't used much in her own lifetime. I mentioned Seton's novel for interest. I studied English history in University and would only post facts for which I can site historical evidence ad infinitum. I mention that because I rarely post, but I'll be sure I can site sources, too, if I do. Do you find this valuable? |
|
MsSquirrly |
RE: How do you correct the historical inaccuracies?
Sunday, 12:54 PM EDT well if you check out wikipedia.org : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_of_Lancaster It says Catherine of Lancaster (also known as Katherine Plantagenet and as Queen Catalina of Castile and Leon) (1372/1373 – 2 June 1418) was the daughter of John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster, and his second wife, Constance of Castile. Honestly back in those days, they were not as rigid as we are about the spelling of names so I dont believe it is that big of an issue. Do you find this valuable? |
|
angelosdaughter |
RE: How do you correct the historical inaccuracies?
Sunday, 4:47 PM EDT "well if you check out wikipedia.org : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_of_LancasterThat is so true; Katharine, the name of three of Henry's Queens has so many variations in this wiki and probably in the historical record. I think K of A spelled her name "Katharina" most of the time, but I think even she varied the spelling. Do you find this valuable? |
|
angelosdaughter |
RE: How do you correct the historical inaccuracies?
Sunday, 4:50 PM EDT "We are writing the same thing. I'm using Weir and other historians as my source. The dispute is in calling John and Constance's daughter by an English name. As Weir writes in her latest book, they named her CataRina, not CataLina, but she might have been called Katherine in England. When she married back into the Castilian royal line and later became queen, she most assuredly was called Catarina/Catalina. I object to her being called Katherine of Lancaster because that title rightfully belongs to Katherine Swynford, John's 3rd wife, not to the daughter he had with his 2nd wife, Constance of Castile. By calling their daughter Katherine of Lancaster, Weir violated her own "rules" by Anglicizing her name. Being born in England with an English father, she can rightfully be called English, but Constance would hate that and the girl lived in England a very short time, being married as a teen-ager and staying in Castile thereafter. She's remembered in history as Spanish, not English. However, the bottom line is that we don't disagree on anything. We're discussing the same woman. I don't think it's helpful to confuse things by referring to her by an English name that wasn't used much in her own lifetime. I mentioned Seton's novel for interest. I studied English history in University and would only post facts for which I can site historical evidence ad infinitum. I mention that because I rarely post, but I'll be sure I can site sources, too, if I do."Okay, wexcat, I was just getting confused, we are talking about the same woman; as MsSquirrly says spelling rules were very lax then; it probably had a lot to do with the fact that many people were illiterate. Do you find this valuable? |
|
wexcat wexcat |
RE: How do you correct the historical inaccuracies?
Sunday, 4:54 PM EDT I agree with you & likely would have ignored it had I not been reading KATHERINE SWYNFORD. I've never seen Catalina referred to as Katherine of Lancaster before & I jumped to an erroneous conclusion based of this anglicized spelling. Any history "buff" and/or genealogist is frustrated by the custom of reusing family names repeatedly generation after generation as well as within generations (as in siblings naming their children the same family names such that cousins bear the same name). On page 271 of KATHERINE SWYNFORD, Weir's latest book, is this statement regarding John & Constance's daughter. "In 1406, his grandson, Catalina's son [Catalina being the daughter whose name we've been discussing], Juan II, succeeded to the throne of Castile...[lineage to Ferdinand & Isabella] Their youngest daughter, Catalina of Aragon, born in 1485, was named for her great-grandmother, Catalina of Lancaster..." I have just now learned Weir calls her Katherine of Lancaster in an earlier book. Many years and books later she sticks to the name used in historical papers, Catalina. I am sorry now I brought this up because it is clearly nitpicking about spelling, a no-win prior to the 20th century. Love the series. Probably will retreat to an audience on the list. Thanks everyone. Do you find this valuable? |
|
MsSquirrly |
RE: How do you correct the historical inaccuracies?
Sunday, 10:23 PM EDT hey wexcat, please don't stop taking part even if you have a difference of opinion. It makes the discussion forum much more interesting. Hey, I have to say that I respect angelosdaughter because she is very intelligent and well read about the Tudors but we don't always see eye to eye and thats ok. because we can agree to disagree and still enjoy the discussion. Besides if we all agree ...theres nothing to discuss! Do you find this valuable? |
 SemperEadem |
RE: How do you correct the historical inaccuracies?
Sunday, 10:47 PM EDT "well if you check out wikipedia.org : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_of_LancasterI think the more ways you could spell something enhanced your persona of an "educated" and "creative" person back in the day. That went for names and common words, too. Not that this comment had anything to do with the conversation, I'm just delving up old bits of knowledge that hide in the recesses of my poor brain. :-D Do you find this valuable? |
|
wexcat wexcat |
RE: How do you correct the historical inaccuracies?
Sunday, 11:27 PM EDT I'm okay with this and I don't think this ended in a difference of opinion. I'm stuck on Katherine Swynford being the only Katherine of Lancaster. Having said that, I know that John and Constance's daughter was likely called Katherine in England by everyone but Constance, who I'll bet stuck with Catalina. I've just never seen her referenced as anyone other than Queen Catalina of Castile or else as Catalina of Lancaster, and the latter very rarely because she was sort of a non-entity in extant records until she became Queen Catalina of Castile. Her childhood didn't merit much record keeping, at least in what is left to us. Moot point, though. I just feel silly now, but promise not to lose sleep over it. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
angelosdaughter |
RE: How do you correct the historical inaccuracies?
Monday, 1:28 AM EDT "because we can agree to disagree and still enjoy the discussion. Besides if we all agree ...theres nothing to discuss! "This is so true, and sometimes the disagreements cause me to look further into the subject and occasionally my opinion changes. It's good to be open to other viewpoints and differences of opinion. Do you find this valuable? |
|
wexcat wexcat |
RE: How do you correct the historical inaccuracies?
Monday, 8:38 AM EDT "This is so true, and sometimes the disagreements cause me to look further into the subject and occasionally my opinion changes. It's good to be open to other viewpoints and differences of opinion."Yes, and I want to thank you, angelosdaughter, for jerking me out of tunnel vision. I see "Katherine of Lancaster" and I only think of Katherine Swynford. Probably exacerbated because I was reading the book and really absorbed, but tunnel vision nonetheless. When I dug around in my books about Catalina of Lancaster, I never did find her referred to as Katherine of Lancaster, but I found a few OTHER Katherine of Lancasters, possibly named after Katherine Swynford, as a grandmother, but could have been St. Katherine, a popular saint at the time, or...who knows? It was a good reminder to me about the problems with the spelling, use, and origin of names prior to the 20th century. If I were to do this over, I would have posed my concern as a question rather than as an inaccuracy. I'd still have learned Catalina was sometimes referred to as Katherine and I wouldn't have spent hours feeling silly. Learned a few things. I'm not very experienced with chatrooms or lists, which is why I think reading awhile before posting is a good idea. Do you find this valuable? |
|
angelosdaughter |
RE: How do you correct the historical inaccuracies?
Monday, 12:12 PM EDT "Yes, and I want to thank you, angelosdaughter, for jerking me out of tunnel vision. I see "Katherine of Lancaster" and I only think of Katherine Swynford. Probably exacerbated because I was reading the book and really absorbed, but tunnel vision nonetheless. When I dug around in my books about Catalina of Lancaster, I never did find her referred to as Katherine of Lancaster, but I found a few OTHER Katherine of Lancasters, possibly named after Katherine Swynford, as a grandmother, but could have been St. Katherine, a popular saint at the time, or...who knows? It was a good reminder to me about the problems with the spelling, use, and origin of names prior to the 20th century. If I were to do this over, I would have posed my concern as a question rather than as an inaccuracy. I'd still have learned Catalina was sometimes referred to as Katherine and I wouldn't have spent hours feeling silly. Learned a few things. I'm not very experienced with chatrooms or lists, which is why I think reading awhile before posting is a good idea."wexcat, You know, the variation in spelling of names is something, as I think you remarked earlier, that one comes across especially in genealogy. I have been attempting to trace my family history and one of the surnames has been spelled so many different ways on various primary sources, especially censuses, that I am tolally confused. Some of the handwriting on these documents is almost illegible; misspellings are common, variations because the name was Spanish and the census taker spelled it phonetically, some of the recorders were barely literate, heck some of the people in my family back that far were barely literate. We're still not sure what the original surname was. This wiki is my first experience of chatrooms, too. and I found that I sometimes come across as a pompous know-it-all, something that is much worse than feeling silly or nitpicking. I think we all have a chance to grow here. I hope you will keep posting. Do you find this valuable? |