Catherine of Aragon was a member of the Royal Family, and according to www.royal.gov.uk that's her name

quote:

---

Henry's interest in foreign policy was focused on Western Europe, which was a shifting pattern of alliances centred round the kings of Spain and France, and the Holy Roman Emperor. (Henry was related by marriage to all three - his wife Catherine was Ferdinand of Aragon's daughter, his sister Mary married Louis XII of France in 1514, and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V was Catherine's nephew.) ... Henry had married his brother's widow, Catherine of Aragon, in 1509. Catherine had produced only one surviving child - a girl, Princess Mary, born in 1516. www.royal.gov.uk/history/henry.htm

Henry VIII (reigned 1509-47) was 17 when he became king. His first wife, Catherine of Aragon, provided him with a daughter, Mary, but no male heir. In order to divorce her, he broke with the Roman Catholic Church and declared himself Supreme Head of the Church of England. Five subsequent marriages produced two children, Elizabeth and Edward. www.royal.gov.uk/history/tudor.htm#HENRYVIII

---

if anyone can read her writingthis is the signature of Catherine of Aragon , transcripts of her letters have her signing her name as Katharine, or Katharine the Queen and, to muddy the waters a bit more, her gravestone reads Katharine Queen of England .. anyone in here know Spanish?

In the few places where they survive, when Henry and Katherine's initals are intertwined they are represented as H and K.

Read more about linguistics. Though I disagree heavily with Noam Chomsky as to his politics, he is correct when he frames language. A hard "c" is a "k".

And now I read a little more. Extensive quotations from dictionaries seem to point toward (A): lack of resilience or (B): A sitatn of falre to cmmncte.

Author Alison Weir is probably one of the foremost historical experts on the Tudors and she also confirms griffinj's post in 'Henry VIII - King and Court'. She has also written a book on the wives which I haven't read, but I suspect it would also mention the same thing.

I have Allison's Weir's wonderful book "Britain's Royal Families: The Complete Genealogy" and she says Katherine throughout.

There are at least two accepted spellings of this former queen's names, so I'm surprised that anyone thinks this particular issue is worth discussing.

I don't want to spoil the fun, but we ought to face up to the uncomfortable fact that at many (or perhaps even most or all?) universities in Britain many, many students are quite at sea over words one might reasonably expect them to know. For example, a few years ago a British university issued a printed booklet for its students majoring in English Literature - yes, Eng. Lit., of all things, telling them not to confuse "allusion" with "illusion" or "allude" with "elude", and not to confuse "eminent" with "imminent" (or "immanent"). As if that weren't enough, the booklet went on to remind students of the importance of getting "there" - "their" - "they're"" right, and also "whose" and "who's" ...

One of the secretaries, who'd left school at 16 with a few 'O' levels, boggled at the list in amazement and said, "We were expected to be on top of most of that kind of thing before we started secretarial training." or should it be ?

It's a very sorry state of affairs when English Literature majors have such a wobbly "grasp" (if one may call it such) of their very own native lingo ... I hope people won't mind me for introducing this icy blast from the world of an ordinary British university.