![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The first image on the page looks suspiciously like Henry's older brother, Arthur of Wales, not young Henry who famously had red hair. Here's a link to many other images of Prince Arthur and note the resemblance.
Someone should confirm this and change it if need be? 64.132.218.4 20:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a photo of henry, i suggest the photos on yahoo are incorrect. may source for this is Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII by David Starkey. There is a similar portrait of arthur also in this book and there is a clear difference between the brothers looks due to differences in hair colour. 8 June 2007
Have there been any psyciatric evaluations of the english monarchs? It seems to me that this king was more sociopathic than most. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.163.247.142 ( talk) 03:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
It would be interesting! There are a couple of book on Henry's medical problems and the effect they had on his reign - the best is by McNalty - and it touches on this. But a book on how being king affected your mental health generally would be interesting. To grow up with everyone fawning on you from birth would really shape your personality. Boleyn ( talk) 07:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
As one of the contributors of substantial text to this article, I continue to run up against the larger deficiency of how it is currently organized.
It is one thing to correct errors or try to fill large gaps in the subject - i.e., before a week ago there was absolutely nothing on Henry's life or his reign between his engagement to Catherine and his decision to divorce her over two decades latter. But the general arrangment seems scattershot and problematic. It seems to me that the history of his life and reign, in its various stages, should constitute one continuous segment (divided into the appropriate periods, obviously), and subjects such as his court, his bastard children, major acts and so on should come afterwards.
It also seems that some of these sections are woefully incomplete as currently titled. A discussion of the "Major Acts" of Henry's reign surely ought to list more than what we currently have. Surely we start from the Act of Supremacy and work our way down from there. Likewise, his "Legacy," which speaks only of two aspects of his military legacy (coastal fortifications and the growth of the navy). A comprehensive discussion would at least touch on his break with Rome, the dissolution of the monasteries and concomitant shift of wealth and power to the rising gentry, the parlous financial state of the kingdom and the treasury at his death (which even Elizabeth never fully restored), the rise of vagrancy and first efforts at secular poor relief...and so on.
And of course, all of this needs to be done in such a way as to not make the whole article unduly long.
I think we owe it to the world to have the doggerel with names at the head of the 'marriages' paragraph.
See what a service this would be! --MichaelTinkler
Catherine Parr I believe is the one missing -- SimonP
I think that all of his "Catherines" were spelled with a K. You might think that Catherine of Aragon would be with a "C" for the Spanish Catalina, but she had trucks stamped with "K of A" . It is noted in the Wikipedia Catherine Howard that her only surviving letter is signed Katheryn. According to her biographer Susan E. James, Catherine Parr spelled her name Kateryn. I believe that Catherine is a historians' convention. It would be nice if the articles at least includes the ladies' preferred spelling. -- Beth Root
i think that since most didn't know how to read and write back then both spellings are correct the one with the K and the C if you look them all up the pages have things were theyre spelled a couple ways
Charlieh7337 ( talk) 23:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC) I'm partial to the fuller version:
King Henry the Eighth, to six wives he was wedded: One died, one survived, two divorced, two beheaded.
Although I've alway found it a bit confusing, because Anne of Cleves survived him, too, and even survived C/Katherine Parr, the one who "survived" him by about a year.
Did you realize there was one year (1536) in which he had three wives? Catherine of Aragon died, so the coast was finally clear for him to ditch Anne Boleyn, and he married Jane Seymour immediately.
isis
Can somebody please fix that bottom table so it isn't so wide? -- Zoe
Actually it was Katherine Howard and Catherine Parr. (Kateryn Parr spelt her name two ways in the many documents we have which she signed: once as Katheryn and all the rest as Kateryn, the common sixteenth-century English spelling which was also used on the only surviving letter signed by Kateryn Howard. Boleyn ( talk) 21:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC))
I love the doggerel but like so much about Henry VIII, it isn't quite accurate.
The myths:
Who says history isn't fun sometimes! STÓD/ÉÍRE
But why are we using the mnemonics in the first place if they're wrong?? -- Susurrus 00:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I quote Susurrus. More: I found this quote in Wikipedia (Spanish) about Cristierna of Denmark (Nyborg-1522, Tortona-1590): "célebre por haber rechazado la propuesta nupcial del rey Enrique VIII de Inlgaterra con esta frase: "Si tuviera dos cabezas, con gusto daría una a su Majestad". Does anybody know about this sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by S vecchiato ( talk • contribs) 09:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
If you put it in English, we could answer! I guess it's the urban myth that she said that if she had two heads, she would give one to Henry VIII? As far as I'm aware there is no evidence to back this up and it's not taken seriously. She was described as 'like one who was tickled' when she was told that Henry had never raised his voice to anyone, so it does sound as if she was not keen to become his fourth wife.
Boleyn (
talk) 16:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Did Henry write "Greensleeves"?
After some headscratching, I figured out that 3C1R meant third cousin once removed, but even though I am a fine south Georgia boy with a well-documented family, I be danged if that table really says much to me. 7th cousin! Anybody reading this might be my seventh cousin. All those dukes and earls and nabobs are related anyway, aren't they? Were these cousinships politically significant? The only cousins mentioned in the article are Catherine Howard and Anne Boleyn. The matrix needs some explanation. Ortolan88 05:03 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)
Someone who knows more than I do should add "Greensleeves" and other talents to the article, not to mention a bit of help on the matrix. Ortolan88
"Coronated"? I've heard of carbonated, so by analogy this must mean having a crown forced in under pressure. PML.
NOT AGAIN! Who the hell keeps putting this word into articles? I've removed it I don't know how many times and it still keeps re-apprearing. Well spotted, PML. I thought I'd got all of this silly word! STÓD/ÉÍRE 00:19 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
I removed the over-lengthy and difficult to follow table. It really seems out of place in this article. Maybe it could be put into another article appropriately titled if anyone cares enough. Here's the removed text. Daniel Quinlan 08:06, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)
The Henry VIII and his wives' relationship matrix:
relationships |
Henry VIII |
Catherine of Aragon |
Anne Boleyn |
Jane Seymour |
Anne of Cleves |
Katherine Howard |
Catherine Parr |
Henry VIII |
self |
half 3C1R |
5C1R |
5C |
5C |
5C1R |
3C1R |
Catherine of Aragon |
half 3C1R |
self |
6C1R |
4C3R |
5C1R |
6C1R |
half 3C2R |
Anne Boleyn |
5C1R |
6C1R |
self |
half 2C |
8C1R |
1C |
4C1R |
Jane Seymour |
5C |
4C3R |
half 2C |
self |
7C1R |
half 2C |
5C1R |
Anne of Cleves |
5C |
5C1R |
8C1R |
7C1R |
self |
8C1R |
7C |
Katherine Howard |
5C1R |
6C1R |
1C |
half 2C |
8C1R |
self |
6C |
Catherine Parr |
3C1R |
half 3C2R |
4C1R |
5C1R |
7C |
6C |
self |
Key: C = cousin; R = removed;
Example: 2C1R = 2nd cousin once removed (See "Cousin" on Wikipedia page Family for further explanation)
Henry couldn't divorce Catherine, because he was catholic, so he created his own church. Under the new Church of England he divorced her.
actually no he just made the king of england the ruler of the church in england england was still catholic the king could just do stuff without the popes approval now infact after he made this break the pope still awarded him the title "defender of the faith" some one abbove posted this better than me he explained it better andstuff but henry did not form his own church Charlieh7337 ( talk) 01:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
What Charlie says is true: Henry VIII didn't create the Church of England, it traces its roots back to celtic times, well before Augustine came over and persuaded the church in (what was to become) England to join with the Church of Rome. At some point (in Tudor times?) it became Established in Law, but it's been here considerably longer than the Roman Church has. 172.201.212.187 ( talk) 21:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Not Again!!! From the article: "The legend that Henry suffered from syphilis is incorrect, since none of the children suffered from any symptoms of the disease, nor did any of his wives." But the article on Edward VI states that he suffered from syphilis, passed on by his father. Which is correct? -- Glengarry 05:05, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
A book I read recently (--will try to track it down and list as source) noted that the syphilis story emerged about a hundred years after Henry's death. Made that notation in the article. The story was not current during his life or the lives of his children. This book countered syphilis as a cause of death by asserting that the recorded symptoms during Henry's last years suggest congestive heart failure, secondary to adult onset diabetes. WBardwin 00:24, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Henry VIII's ailments, remedies, and prescriptions were all well documented at the time. There are plenty of notes from doctors, gentlemen of the privy chamber, and others going into minute detail on his health. Yet Maria Perry points out in her book The Sisters of Henry VIII, that none of those contemporary notes give any indication of syphilis. He did not take any of the medications used for that disease. Perry's suggestion for anyone who still buys that myth is to compare Henry's medical history to that of his rival Francis I. There's where you'll find everything you ever wanted to know about 16th Century treatment of syphilis.
The succession section is lengthy and could probably be condensed into a strong paragraph, with links to Henry's children. This would give a little more room for persons and details relating to Henry's reign, like Sir Thomas More. WBardwin 00:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Reverted the deletion of the list of illegitimate issue by Lord Emsworth. At least until he explains what the reason they "do not relate to Henry" is.
1)Henry Fitzroy, 1st Duke of Richmond and Somerset was recognised by Henry himself and the article about him reports Fitzroy was regarded as a possible heir for the throne before his untimely death.
2)Both Careys have been suggested as his children. The list marks them as "alleged illegitimates" and names their other candidate father. Not inconsistent with other cases of disputed identity of the father such as Nero Claudius Drusus. So if the Careys were Henry's Children than that would make them both first cousins and half siblings to Elizabeth I
3)Thomas Stuckley, John Perrott and Etheldreda Malte have all been reputed to be his illegitimate children and are marked as such. The other candidate father for Etheldreda is already listed.
Again I do not see a violation of NPOV by mentioning their names and what is known about them.
The addition of potential links to their names is actualy rather standard. This allows for articles to be created, provided that someone is actually up to the job, but does not necessarily dictate that they should.
Lord Emsworth, could you list your objections in the discussion page rather than your edit summary? That way they would be more clear. User: Dimadick
The "Issue" table was meant by me to include only legitimate issue, as can be seen on all other British monarch pages that have it. The notes, moreover are meant to be brief, listing if the individual married and had issue (the table is meant to be a genalogical aid relating to royal succession, etc.). The table need not include an excessive amount of biographical detail, such as the posts in which the individual served, etc.: this information is better reserved for the articles themselves. The illegitimate children do not in any way cloud the issue of royal succession, or otherwise relate to Henry; it is unnecessary for the article on Henry to encompass their biographies, as it in effect does with such a table. As to the links, I will not object to their inclusion. -- Emsworth 16:07, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The listing of "Issue" might leed to the assumption of completeness. I thought about retitling the subsection to "Legitimate Issue" and creating a different subsection for the illegitimates but I thought it would look rather ridiculous.
Most English Monarchs do not have particularly well-known issue. With the possible exception of Charles II of England whose article already mentions the most notable of his fourteen recognised illegitimates. However the illegitimates attributed to Henry had careers of their own:
1)The details on Henry Carey are already on his own article. I tried to flesh it out sometime ago as it mostly consisted of the current subsection about Hunsdon House.
2)Catherine Carey was reportedly a female favorite to Elizabeth I and has had some notable descedants. Including among others daughter Lettice Knollys, grandson Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex and fifth generation descedant Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl of Sunderland.
3)Thomas Stuckley has quite a reputation of his own. See for example:
4)John Perrott was a rather notable political figure, For details on his administration in Ireland see the following text by Thomas D'Arcy McGee: A Popular History of Ireland, Book 8
5)Etheldreda had no known descedants. But her inheritance seems to have turned the Harringtons to a particularly wealthy family. Though they are probably better known for Sir John Harrington being a founder of the Virginia Company. He is for example mentioned twenty-first in the "Third Virginia Charter" of 1612. See: http://www.fightthebias.com/Resources/Hist_Docs/third_virginia_charter.htm
"Inappropriate to list alleged illegitimate children"
Their parentage is disputed but not completely rejected (though this is probably for lack of evidence either way). Mentioning the alternative father should leave enough doubt for the claim rather than propagating or rejecting it. By the way the 1911 Brittanica lists Thomas Stuckley as a son of Sir Hugh Stucley of Affeton who was married to Jane Pollard rather than Mary Berkeley. See: Sir Hugh Stucley Of Affeton Kt
John Perrott has also been attributed to the otherwise unknown Sir Thomas Perrott of Istington and Haroldston, husband of Mary Berkeley.
"The notes are meant to be brief, listing the individual's marriage and stating if he or she had issue. They are not supposed to include an excessive amount of biographical details."
Which is understandable in the cases of Mary I, Elizabeth I, Edward VI who already have extensive articles to themselves and are generaly known. But I would argue that the rest would need some introduction.
The external links are only appropriate as sources for the list. I will see what I can do in listing the author, date, title. By the way, why is the text by Garry Stevens listed as being from 2004? The page itself claims to have no updates or modidications since July, 2003.
The text of your original reply was modified while I was preparing my response.
"The illegitimate children do not in any way cloud the issue of royal succession, or otherwise relate to Henry".
They clearly relate to him as possible issue and further portray a King who had several mistresses in addition to his famous six wives. Thus provide background information.
The illegitimates naturaly do not affect succession. William the Bastard was a very rare case of a bastard succeeding his father to a throne. But I do not see why a geneological table must necessarrily reflect issues of succession only. Not every descedant of a Monarch is eligible for a throne at any point but this is not a reason for them to be dismissed. We list for examples the children of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria by Sophie Chotek though neither of the three ever had right to the Austrian throne. User: Dimadick
I noted that his first son is listed as Henry, Prince of Wales. Having died before completing two months are you certain Henry wasn't only a Duke of Cornwall? User: Dimadick
True but there have been Princes Of Wales who were created less than 2 months after they became heir apparent (like Richard II). Maybe the person who edited the Prince of Wales article forgot to put him in.
This is given as 1 December 1541. This suggests we may be a few dates out. Could someone familiar with this part of history check this, and check the Culpeper and Dereham articles? Cheers, jguk 21:37, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Gregorian calendar started being used from 1582 onwards. The dates of the executions should be in the Julian calendar. User:Dimadick
Yes, but the Gregorian Calendar wasn't introduced into Britain until the mid-18th century (presumably because it was seen as another Papist Plot). (Hence, among other reasons, the Battle of the Boyne, which took place on Ist July, 1690 is commemorated on "our glorious twalfth.")-- PeadarMaguidhir 19:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
About the execution dates... My source says 10 december 1541(antonia Fraser: The six wives of Henry
VIII, 1992) 6 Aug, 2006 (Kurt)
Was Henry the first to use the lion supporter for his arms? Astrotrain 22:33, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
Surely Sir Thomas More should be mentioned?
The mention of Sir Thomas More makes a mockery of the process the Catholic Church uses in determining sainthood. If no one else wants to revise the language, I'll take a stab at it anon. Current text: "In order to reward his support, the Roman Catholic Church later made him a saint."
"Henry executed his friend Sir Thomas More for refusing to convert to Anglicanism." I added this a while ago, but it was removed. I think it should be mentioned somewhere in the article though.-- Grendlefuzz 01:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The reference to the Anglican Communion contravenes Wikipedia guidelines on historicity. It does not come into existence until the 19th Century. The reference is erroneous anyway, it is not headed by the English monarch, but by the Archbishop of Canterbury. MnJWalker 00:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I have recently read that all the monarchs of England since 1066 spoke German? I found that very interesting, if it is in fact true. Until George VI that is...
it is also well known that when anne of cleves entered the english court there was a great deal of communication problems as she did not speak english and the vast majority of english aristocracy did not speak german.
Some fool has been tapering with page and all i can get at the moment is some juvenille scrawl.
Could someone please revert the dates ....
are the dates wrong?
Erm, isn't this a dodgy thing to do? The book on Henry's navy certainly looks specialised, but if it was used to write the article, it should be referenced. References is not Further reading, after all. JackyR 22:15, 28 February 2006
In this article I noticed several sets of words which had no space between them. I attempted to fix these, but to no avail. Does anyone know what is going on? Is it a bug in the Wiki engine? ThefirstM 18:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes this is a problem, although I could not work out why it occurred with some linYOks and not with others. I have employed a workaround by adding a space within the link e.g., " Bishop of Winchester ". This allows the link to still work and gives the space before the next word. This workaround does not work if there is a plural, as in " prince-electors", so I had to invert the order of that phrase soYO that there was no space required after prince-electors. MnJWalker 15:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Princes-elector, surely? Cursitor
I have some unanswered questions on my talk if you would help me answer them Apple 132
Hi IP Address (cool name, btw!), I noticed your addition of family names to lots of articles of monarchs. I've been to read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), and neither seem to support this sort of naming: either in the egs they give or with "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English." So I'll wait a bit for your comment on this and then probably remove the family names. Cheers, JackyR 19:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Could this be unprotected? -- HartzR 12:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Seconding this request for unprotection -- there's nothing on the talk page that gives me any context for seeing why it was protected in the first place. palecur 05:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
== Euphemism ==yo
Why don't we just call this guy a psychopatologic serial killer, which he was? Didn't Freud determine his bloody behaviour was compensation for his suppressed desire for mother-murder?
As long as it's protected, could someone fix the bit in the legacy about the Royal Navy being a development of the Napoleonic Wars? The RN was in full bloom by then, a vastly more accurate statement would be to say it was a product of the Anglo-Dutch wars of the 17th century, as that is when a professionalized force was created in the sense that we think of a modern Navy. not the point of the page, I know, but why leave inaccuracies laying about?
Near the end of the "Early Reign" section is the sentence: "Danny's interest in European affairs extended to ...". Who is Danny? Is this intended to be Harry? -- RCopple 01:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC) OK I think as a newbie I may be learning my way about. Looks to me that "Danny" appeared courtesy of [Schikelgruber] at 2006-05-22 14:17:59 -- RCopple 02:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
During the days of the infamous Penal Laws (designed to reduce Catholics to a state of misery--18th century), there were many incentives for the Irish to turn Protestant. The most beautiful contribution to the Gaelic culture of the time was/is the song, "Fill, fill a rún ó," in which a mother laments the loss of her son's immortal soul. However, an anonymous versifier, said to have been a priest, wrote this quatrain:
Ná bac leis an gcléir gallda Lena gcreidimh, feallsúnacht ná saoi Mar nĺl mar bhuanchloch dá dteampall Ach magairlí Aonraí Rí.
A fairly accurate translation is attributed to Brendan Behan:
Never mind the English clergy Their philosophy, religion or faith For the foundation stone of their Temple Was the bollocks of Henry the 8th.-- PeadarMaguidhir 10:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Template:HVIII's rchildren has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Conscious 13:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Why does this page keep getting edited to show Henry having issue with Catherine Parr. I have fixed that twice in the last two days, and it keeps getting reverted.
Bold textWHY DID HENRY VIII DIVORCE OR KILL ALL HIS WIVES APART FROM 2????? also-why did he only really love 1 of them ???????
The page being shown to me is incomplete. is it true for everyone else? can someone please corect it?
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
It would be very useful to me and perhaps others if the protocol for all of the biographies were to include illegitimate children .
Firstly I want to say how impressed I am with Wikipedia and all of the work done on it - in the areas I am already informed on I find it generally balanced, detailed and accurate.
On the subject of the illegitimate children, I am interested in the geneology of the royal family because of its impact on the fertility and health of the various members - eg HVIII and Catherine of Aragon were related many times over. I am also interested in geneology because the female siblings and illegitimate issue are important when trying to understand alliances, why people acted in a certain way, or favoured particular people - eg William Hasting's favour was possibly due to his close relationship to Edward IV. In addition there are plenty of marriages of the illegitimate children of reigning monarchs who then become the ancestors of ruling monarchs, usually through marriage.
As information on the illegitimate children can be very difficult to find, because the general interest is in the direct line of monarchs only, if you have the information it can be very useful to others to note it. Scmcnt 05:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
How does one find out the last names of these monarchs? I see most of his wives' original last names are there, but I can't clearly find his anywhere within the first few paragraphs. I know they tend to be the same name for each monarch for several generations, but shouldn't that last name be somewhere within the first paragraph of the article? -- Arzikl 02:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a gap in the narrative between 1505 and 1533. The part beginning in 1533 refers mysteriously to "these events".
In the earliest stages of review of the article's FA status, glaring error of basic fact has already been noted (e.g., the "Early reign" section starts off, in discussing a crucial military-political development, by incorrectly identifying Francis I as ruling France in 1512 rather than Louis XII) and evidences obvious problems with factual comprehension and presentation (e.g., the statement that Henry "earned a golden rose from the Pope as early as 1510" without elaboration). See more at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Henry VIII of England.— DCGeist 20:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Response: As the author of the two difficulties under dispute, I concede the criticisms made here; I can only reply that the text represented something of a work in progress, which I had experienced delays in making the final revisions to. Upon further reflection, I decided to drop altogether the award of the golden rose in 1510, which was after all done more for political than theological reasons; and correct the misimpression (which I certainly did not intend) that Francis I had acceded to the throne of France by 1512. Some of the other difficult points (regarding the the dating of Henry's alliances) have been tightened up as well - perhaps with more to follow later.
The plain fact is that the entire "Early Reign" section (as it currently stands; others are free to edit it, obviously) is my work - the lack of which previously struck me as a glaring deficiency in the treatment of Henry's reign. The previous version seemed to suggest that nothing noteworthy occurred in Henry's life between his initial engagement to Catherine of Aragon and his decision to divorce her. Richardlender 21:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Richardlender 21:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it an unknown fact that Henry VIII only had two wives. It is commonly thought that he had six but i have recently read that he only had two. Is it correct or have i just got some wrong information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.134.70 ( talk) 19:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
If the article is to take into account that Henry had four of his six marriages annulled, perhaps it should also note that during her reign as queen, Elizabeth I restored her mother's title as Queen, reversing the annulment of her parents' marriage (Joanna Denny's "Anne Boleyn", p. 325). I believe that Mary did something similar for Catherine of Aragon, but I don't have a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.66.207 ( talk) 14:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Henry VIII died on January 28, 1547, which is correctly listed in the main article (in the various places it is listed.) However, in the text box to the right of the page (under his portrait) his death date is listed as January 31, 1547. SleepyAE 15:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
In the body of the article it says Henry never acknowledged his son by Bessie Blount. In the footnote to the table of Henry's issue it says the opposite. Scaramouche 17:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone with an IP added the following item to the "Trivia" section:
I've buried it as an HTML comment (i.e., still there but doesn't show up). Can anyone verify the above claim? Were the Freemasons even around yet? — AnnaKucsma ( Talk to me!) 21:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The section on Henry's Wives needs to be cleaned up--it is almost incomprehensible. Jaded531 20:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I have added a reference to this treasure of the Vatican number 9 Hope that's okay. Greetings, Fleurstigter 09:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Redundant material is included in the sections entitled "Religious upheaval and his marriage to Catherine of Aragon" and "Major Acts in the Kingdom" regarding the Pilgrimage of Grace. In the latter section the Pilgrimage could be referred to but not described.
I have taken the liberty of removing the 'unhealthy' from the description of Edward in the 'Legacy' section, simply because it's inconsistent with the Edward VI article, which accepts the controversy of his supposed frailty:
"Edward's own journals mention no illness at all apart from a bout of measles in 1552, and the pulmonary tuberculosis which killed him. The policies of the Duke of Northumberland also indicate that he was making a foundation on which Edward was expected to build when he reached his maturity, rather than expecting Edward to die young."
- Psusennes 30/05/07 16:40 GMT
The first section of the article says that Arthur Prince of Wales died in 1501, but the second section says that he died in 1502. ??? Flash Man999 09:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, I fixed it. Flash Man999 11:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion over how Henry VIII petitioned Rome for the annulment of his first marriage.
The article on Henry VIII states:
"Henry ordered Cardinal Wolsey to begin formal proceedings with Rome to annul his marriage on the grounds that Catherine's brief marriage to the sickly Arthur had, indeed, been consummated."
Whereas the article on Thomas More ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More) states:
"In 1527, Henry instructed Thomas Cardinal Wolsey to petition Pope Clement VII for an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, on the grounds that the pope had no authority to override a Biblical injunction, and that therefore Julius's dispensation had been invalid, rendering his marriage to Catherine void."
Which is it?
84.51.130.92 11:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
There's so much about Henry's wives, but where can our reader find information about Henry's foreign policy? I copy below Clio's educated opinion from WP:RD/H, which may be useful for volunteers to start a separate section on the subject: -- Ghirla -трёп- 22:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Foreign policy is even more then this after recently doing a massive essay on Henry's foreign policy, there is one key thing that most people have forgotten to mention which is the warrior king image. Henry VIII certainly wanted to be a warrior king from the start of his reign to 1529. he literally wanted glory which could be found in battle. and also the first scottish war only happened because of the fact that Scotalnd attacked England because henry was in france fighting. He never had any foreign policy involving Scotland at all until they attacked. Scoatland also attacked because there were allies with france so they wanted to help france, thus trying to split henry's troops to fight 2 battles. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
90.210.188.15 (
talk) 18:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
i haven't read it all, but contrary to popular belief, Henry 8th only ever had one wife, because his divorce was only recognised by him in england, everywhere else it didn't count for anything, so all of his other marriages were illegitamate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.163.209 ( talk) 17:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
He was King of England! English people recognized his divorce and that's all he needed. Even if you think that he was married to Catherine of Aragon until her death, it doesn't mean that she was his only wife. He had two wives after her death: Jane Seymour and Katherine Parr. You can say that Henry VIII had two wives or three wives or six wives but he surely had more than one wife. 87.250.113.199 12:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure he held this title? Isn't this a title held only by the eledst son of the Sovereign (in this case, Arthur) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.250.113.199 ( talk) 18:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, it helped me. 87.250.113.199 12:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Since the English succession was automatic, Henry VIII became King on April 21st, 1509 (upon Henry VII's death), not the 22nd upon his accession being proclaimed. Even if Henry VII's death was kept secret for a few hours, he (Henry VII) was still dead. GoodDay 00:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
In the table under the heading "Issues", there are two Henry, Duke of Cornwall's with different birthdates. Both Henrys died within a few months, so should there not be a date of death for the second one? In fact, quite a few dates are missing in that table for all the children who died in infancy.
24.4.160.245 ( talk) 08:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The second section should clearly begin:
Born at the Palace of Placentia in Greenwich, Henry VIII was the third child of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York. Only four of Henry VII's six siblings — Arthur (the Prince of Wales), Margaret, Henry and Mary — survived infancy.
I leave this here in case anyone changes it back again. It did say:
Only three of Henry VIII's six siblings — Arthur (the Prince of Wales), Margaret, and Mary — survived infancy.
(note well the VIII) which is confused nonsense. For confirmation check the issue of Henry VII.
Keithbowden 23:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Anne Boleyn was his daughter, Elizabeths mother.
The caption for the first picture has been changed to "King of England; Lord of Korea and Japan". Surely this is a mistake (or vandalism)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.103.159 ( talk) 22:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC) henry wanted to become a woman but his advisors would not have it, therefor henry wanted to make his advisors mad so had so many wives !
Ive noticed a few minor errors firstly no talk of greensleeves and HenryVIII had no record of having an affair with one of the sisters —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maestro96 ( talk • contribs) 19:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
There's no mention of the Bard's The Famous History of the Life of King Henry the Eighth, yet there's a section for "In Popular Culture"? Criminal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.97.7 ( talk) 01:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I suspect some material from The Other Boleyn Girl is creeping into this article. We should probably get some sources for the information on, say, Mary Boleyn's uncle trying to push her on the king. That at least is probably not true. 12.144.50.194 ( talk) 17:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah and Mary (Not Madge as is popularly believed) Shelton was his mistress, she doesn't get a mention! Chloe2kaii7 ( talk) 12:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it not confirmed that Anne Stafford, the sister of the 3rd Duke of Buckingham, was Henry's mistress early in his reign? I thought this caused the famous quarrel between Henry and the Duke. 18.173.1.125 ( talk) 15:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, according to Chapuys one of the Stafford sisters, probably Anne was his mistress in 1510. It is in the Calendar of State Papers, Spanish and is cited on p.123, Henry VIII: King and Court, Alison Weir. Boleyn ( talk) 16:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
What happened to his illegitimete children birthed by Mary Boleyn? They are mentioned nowhere in this article.
Do not forget that it is well known that King Henry (Tudor) VIII had two children with his mistress of the time, Mary Boleyn.He then dicided to marry Anne Boleyn who was claimed to only have 6 fingers.Or am I simply wrong??
(I am a big believer in the whole Boleyn period of time).
~sweetlife31~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetlife31 ( talk • contribs) 10:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
They are mentioned in the 'Marriage and Issue' section and the 'Mistresses' section. However, Henry never acknowledged Henry and Catherine Carey as his children and we only have one recorded rumour from the time that Henry Carey was the King's son, and no recorded rumours about Catherine Carey. The one contemporary we know of who questioned Henry Carey's paternity alleged many things about Henry VIII's love life that are unlikely to be true. From my research, I think it is unlikely that the Carey children were Henry's. I think if they had been Henry's, he would probably have acknowledged them as he did Henry Fitzroy. Unfortunately, the popularity of 'The Other Boleyn Girl' has led many to think that this is a definite fact. However, we cannot now know. I don't think they deserve any more of a mention than they receive. Boleyn ( talk) 16:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
True! Excuse my naivity, however I am not a historian so my facts tend to stick to what I read!! SO once again, I excuse myself! Sweetlife31 ( talk) 10:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It can be difficult. I'm a historian but love historical fiction - it's sometimes difficult to remember whether I read some information in one of the many great fiction books based on Henry VIII's court or in a reliable source. Boleyn ( talk) 16:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be best to remove Catherine and Henry Carey from the table detailing Henry's offspring altogether and, instead, to add a short paragraph after the table, saying that while some historians (naming them) believe that one or both of them might have been Henry's children, Henry never acknowledged them as his and other historians (names, again) dispute that he fathered them, or something along those lines. 193.95.162.29 ( talk) 11:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps Henry acknowledged Henry Fitzroy and Not Henry and Catherine Carey because Bessie Blount was unmarried at the time of birth of Henry Fitzroy whereas Mary was married to Carey at the time? Remember that Henry named a boat after Mary, and that Mary's children, Henry and Catherine Carey were given a place at court long after the execution of their Aunt Queen Anne B, which is very strange considering how he tried to eliminate all of the family members and reminders of Anne from his presence for the rest of his life. Just a thought —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.38.189 ( talk) 20:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to add to the discussion on the illegitimate children of Henry's by Mary Carey. There are various sources that can be found that show at the time of both Catherine and Carey's births large grants of patronage were given to William Carey. Also there is a primary source of the court case of Anne Boleyn where the marriage was found invalid as he had had sexual relations with her sister. Henry was quesitoned at the case and asked "You slept with both the sister and mother" Henry replied by shaking his head and stated "Never the mother". When discussing whether the children were Henry's or her husbands William, Henry was a possessive man and would not have allowed one of his mistresses to share her husband's bed. When bringing up the idea if Catherine and Henry Carey were his children why did he not acknowledge them. Catherine the elder of the two was a girl and Henry had no need to acknowledge her unless she had brothers. Discussions on why Henry was never acknowledged was most likely because that infant survial rates were very low in that period. Henry would most likely would have waited to see if the child survied infancy, when the child showed sgins of surviving infancy he was already planning his marriage to the child's aunt Anne Boleyn. There would have been no need as he would have expected that he would have sons with Anne Boleyn. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.153.244.247 (
talk) 18:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
A year ago, there seemed to be a consensus here that Mary Boleyn's children did not belong in the table of marriages and issue - yet the table still includes them. Has such a consensus been reached, and would someone like to try altering the table?
Oriana Naso (
talk) 10:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Coronation of King Henvry VIII occured on the 24th of June 1509 as stated in the article text and misstated on the sidebar text (or whatever one calls the info box to the right of the article...) where it is stated as a day earlier: the 23rd of June 1509. -- Augustusxxx ( talk) 08:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe i've failed to read it correctly, but within the section covering 1509 - 1525, there is no reference to the birth of Mary I. She is first mentioned in the section about Anne Boleyn. As she was Henrys first child and did later become Queen, i feel this should be rectified. 82.36.173.55 ( talk) 13:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I would just like to point out that Mary was not actually Henry's first child, there was his son Henry born on New Years Day in 1511; he died a few weeks later. It would perhaps be more accurate to say that Mary was Henry's first surviving legitimate child —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Redheaded boudicea (
talk •
contribs) 13:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick point about the paragraph below;
"Henry married his last wife, the wealthy widow Catherine Parr, in 1543. She argued with Henry over religion; she was a reformer, but Henry remained a conservative. This behaviour nearly proved her undoing, but she saved herself by a show of submissiveness. She helped reconcile Henry with his first two daughters, the Princess Mary and the Lady Elizabeth. In 1544, an Act of Parliament put the daughters back in the line of succession after Edward, Prince of Wales, though they were still deemed illegitimate."
Is there a particular reason that Mary is referred to as ‘Princess’ and Elizabeth as ‘Lady’? By that point, both daughters were illegitimate and had been deprived of their titles as princesses and they are also referred to as ‘Lady’ in the text of the Act of Succession. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to refer to them both as ‘Lady’? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.42.32 ( talk) 10:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Especially in view of the fact that Henry's popular image during his lifetime, that of Elizabeth, and even now is of a quite manly and even "heroic" fellow:
(1) Is it the case that Henry's only actual military experience in the field was during his 1513 invasion of France and the
Battle of the Spurs?
(2) Wikipedia doesn't seem to have much on Henry's actual comportment during this campaign and battle. Can anything more about this be added to this article or to that one?
Thanks. --
Writtenonsand (
talk) 15:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Is the current British Royal Family descendants of Henry VIII? Kenallen ( talk) 21:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Of Henry VII, through his elder daughter, Margaret. Henry VIII didn't have any grandchildren, not through his acknowledged children, at any rate. 193.95.162.29 ( talk) 13:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Henry VIII had no confirmed grandchildren. If the children of Mary Boleyn were fathered by Henry VIII, then he is the ancestor of Princes William and Harry of Wales. Lady Diana was a descendant of Mary Boleyn. Chuckw-nj ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC).
Somebody is pushing a peculiar line here, including miscarriages and stillbirths in the list of Henry's children. Also it is very dubious to mention Henry's alleged frequent infidelities during his marriage to Anne Boleyn. PatGallacher ( talk) 21:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I am largely going by Antonia Fraser's account, the image of Henry which comes across is of a brute, but a more complex brute than he is often seen, he may not have been much of a womaniser. Fraser mentions that there are only 3 named women known to have been his mistress (apart from women he later married). This article contradicts itself when it says that he only had 2 known mistresses, Elizabath Blount and Mary Boleyn, then mentions an affair with Mary Shelton a few paragraphs later, clarification is called for. In this context I would also question the claim that Henry's alleged frequent infidelities were a serious factor in the failure of his marriage with Anne Boleyn. PatGallacher ( talk) 11:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Fraser names Margaret Shelton as one of his three known mistresses. Can we be sure that the "revisionist" view that it was really Mary Shelton who was his mistress is now generally accepted and non-controversial? PatGallacher ( talk) 18:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
doesnt anne boleyn count as a mistress as elizabeth was concieved before they were amrried, and also what about elizabeth fitzwalter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.95.173 ( talk) 17:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anything in this article mentioning Henry VIII's large weight or his love of food. I recall seeing a painting of him holding a massive drumstick (I always thought it was turkey though it might have been lamb)at one point in life, though this whole thing may be a myth. However, in the portrait on the infobox, you can see Henry VIII holding a crossannt, one of those crescent shaped rolls. Is it possible that I am confusing Henry VIII with Louie XIV? Can anyone straighten this out and/or add said information into this article? Is this even reality or popular culture? Is it a myth? I don't want to make a false contribution. If anyone has any ideas or facts, tell me on my
talk page, or respond here.
Thank you!
TurtleShroom! :) †Jesus Loves You and Died for you!† 23:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Most of England's more recent royals have a number of names; Charles, Prince of Wales, for example, is named Charles Phillip Arthur George. No other name than 'Henry' is given in this article, however. Is this because Henry VIII indeed had only one name, or because we haven't yet included his other names? Zoe Ocean 12:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
He just had the one name. Having many first names is reasonably modern, to my knowledge. Boleyn ( talk) 05:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
In view of the high level of vandalism recently I have requested that this page be semi-protected. PatGallacher ( talk) 18:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Učitlca za ANG. SUCK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.100.117 ( talk) 14:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Please somebody undo the drunken mess John made of the infobox. - Timerode ( talk) 09:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Done it, but why did you not do this yourself? Do you not know how to revert an article? You go to the previous version, open it for editing, then save it without modifying. PatGallacher ( talk) 10:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The opening paragraph of the article identifies John Wycliffe as a martyr. Wycliffe was not a martyr. Can someone with the rights to change the page fix this? Bcc2008 ( talk) 15:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Wycliffe was the first translator of an english bible was martyred for it. Leave it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.241.99 ( talk) 16:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. After reading Wycliffe's wikipedia page, I was wrong. Wycliffe wasn't martyred. But years after his death his bones were dug up and he was burned. Whoever does have edit powers, feel free to correct this. 98.202.241.99 ( talk) 17:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Samuel Steed.
there is a mistake with the date of anne's execution, the time is repeated twice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.80.11 ( talk) 20:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a typo under Royal Finances: can an editor please correct 'forture' to 'fortune'. RCIreader ( talk) 15:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Is it me or has the section from 1525-1533 gone missing somewhere along the line, at the moment we seem to have a section continuing on from another, but it doesn't make sense.
Also can the year Henry Fitzroy was born be included, it's not clear how old he was when he was married. TerriG 149.155.96.6 ( talk) 18:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Can't do this edit myself since the entry is protected, but there is some vandalism from yesterday that still needs correcting. Under "Mistresses" it currently reads "In 1510, it was reported that Henry was conducting an affair with one of the brothers of Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham, either Pete or dave Hastings, Count of Huntingdon. Chapuys wrote that: the husband of that lady went away, carried him off and placed him in a convent sixty miles from here, that no one may see him.." I believe it should be "...Henry was conducting an affair with one of the sisters of Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham, either Elizabeth or Anne Hastings, Countess of Huntingdon. Chapuys wrote that: the husband of that lady went away, carried her off and placed her in a convent sixty miles from here, that no one may see her." Kajivar ( talk) 19:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The website when "Henry VIII Chronology World History Database" is clicked to go to is not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyb65 ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
i don't think the romans were involved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.217.69 ( talk) 13:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
why was jousting so popular? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.217.69 ( talk) 20:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that there is almost no mention of the war between England and France in the later years of Henry's reign. This war was important; Boulougne was won and it would leave many issues for the next regime to deal with. Should a new section be created for this, or should it be added to an existing section? Ruby2010 ( talk) 21:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
what made him so famous???
Parts of this section are showing up under "Birth of a Prince". The second and third paragraphs that are currently under "Birth of a Prince" should be at the end of "Execution of Anne Boleyn" instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.215.182 ( talk) 04:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
This sentence appears under the 'Franc and the Hapsburgs" section:
On 18 February 1516, Queen Catherine bore Henry his first child, Princess Mary of England, who later reigned as Mary I of England.
This is in error Mary was not his first child. Henry, who lived for about 5 weeks, was his first child. There was at least one other unsuccessful pregnancy as well. Mary was his first surviving child. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuck0856 ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is this page title of England? How many Henry VIIIs were there exactly? If there were any, they clearly are not as well-known as this Henry. I don't understand the disambiguation. Majorly talk 01:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Herny said he wanted to be buried next to jane seymoure when he died! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.93.168 ( talk) 16:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The Henry VIII wikipedia page shows the following wives; Wasn't Anne Boleyn executed, and the marriage not annulled as stated here. Spouse Catherine of Aragon m. 1509, ann. 1533 Anne Boleyn m. 1533, ann. 1536 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.143.251 ( talk) 22:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the dates for Lord of Ireland be 1509-1541? Reason being that in 1541 the Irish Parliament changed the designation from Lord of to King of. Or was he both Lord and King at the same time? -dav4is ( talk)
ARTICLE LACKS BALANCE
This Wikipedia article lacks a discussion of the despotic, autocratic and even murderous nature of this king of England. Perhaps under "Legacy" a count of the executions and other deaths--including at least one child in the Tower--should be stated plainly. Radical as it may seen now, future historians will pay greater attention to the psychopathology of historic figures as it will be discovered that this more fully explains conduct and historic outcomes. Trust me. And I say this even though Henry is an uncle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.28.64 ( talk) 05:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Recently the file File:Henry VIII Presenting a Charter to the Barber Surgeons Company by Bernard Baron.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 23:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Have come across an article in The Guardian about a putative line of descent [1]. Was there any possible validity to the claim? Jackiespeel ( talk) 14:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Currently the article reads: One died, one survived, two divorced, two beheaded". (Or, more succinctly, "Two beheaded, one died, two divorced, one survived.")
How is the second version more succinct than the second? Succinct means brief. Ordinary Person ( talk) 10:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I recently uploaded several new images of Henry VIII, below. Although this article already has many images, I hope some of them may be useful. Dcoetzee 11:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
William Tyndale had been in Europe since 1524. He was not driven there in 1530 because of his dissent on the King's divorce. Also the section describing Henry's broad influence and giving the example of his martyrdom of Tyndale is inaccurate. Tyndale was not martyred at Henry's behest. He was arrested by the Holy Roman Emperor Charles while living in Antwerp. Cromwell specifically requested that Tyndale be released to England but was denied. It is true that Henry Phillips of England was the one who found and arrested him with the Holy Roman Emperor officers. It is speculated that he was funded by someone powerful in England but this was not King Henry who Phillips detested and english agents on the Continent always referred to him as traitor. It was speculated by Mozley that Stokesley, Bishop of London was behind it. All of these clarification come directly from "William Tyndale A biography" by David Daniell, Yale University Press, 1994. 98.202.241.99 ( talk) 17:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Post by Samuel Steed.
I'm fairly sure when talking about English royalty that the term Issue is used instead of Children, so I'll change the heading. ( Scottrb ( talk) 23:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC))
Do we really need a seperate section for portraits of his kids? Maybe these could be included at the bottom of the section listing his marriages & children towards the end of the page. Jedikaiti ( talk) 19:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
According to the book of general ignorance, when asked "How many wives did Henry VIII have" they have to say:
Sounds like a bad idea--more likely to create confusion than enlightenment. Your "book of general ignorance" has a few good points on the details of each marriage--you'd be more more productive if you made sure the discussion of each marriage covered the relevant points (and hopefully you have a better source than "book of ignorance"!). Glendoremus ( talk) 01:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
That last might well be worth adding into the article. The critical questions of which marriages were valid, legal, consummated, christian etc- were huge during his reign and after. It doesn't merit a full QI overturning of the "Henry had six wives" line - but it might well merit a few sentences, concluding that "none of his marriages could be said to be 'incontestably legal' " (as above). Spanglej ( talk) 23:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
It says in this article (under Early Years--> Death of Arthur) that Arthur died of "what is known today as tuberculosis." Isn't the cause of Arthur's death still debated and unlikely to ever be known? The most recent thing I have heard is sweating sickness, not TB. The Arthur Tudor Wikipedia article says: "The cause of his death is unknown but may have been consumption, diabetes, or the mysterious sweating sickness, which some modern theorists tie to a hantavirus." Shouldn't this be changed here? 18.173.1.125 ( talk) 14:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
In section 5, paragraph 4 of the article on Henry VIII, there is a large empty space at the beginning of the paragraph. Perhaps the picture of Tyndale should be moved to the left, or the picture of Jane Seymour moved up? ~ Sapiencia ( talk) 20:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is Amelia of Cleves not mentioned here?
Henry desired to marry once again to ensure the succession. Thomas Cromwell, promoted to 1st Earl of Essex, suggested Anne, the sister of the Protestant Duke of Cleves, who was seen as an important ally in case of a Roman Catholic attack on England. Hans Holbein the Younger was dispatched to Cleves to paint a portrait of Anne for the king. ~ Henry VIII of England
Here it clearly states that she was considered for Henry's bride.
The artist Hans Holbein the Younger was dispatched to paint portraits of Anne and her younger sister, Amelia, both of whom Henry was considering as his fourth wife. ~ Anne of Cleves
Also, I heard that Anne disliked marriage to Henry as much as he did to her. Apparently she was disgusted by his obesity and discreetly made herself unlikeable so they could get an annulment. They did, however, remain on friendly terms. How much of this is fictional? I suppose we'll never really know what Anne thought about Henry, but her opinions are very unclear here.
Queen Anne was intelligent enough not to impede Henry's quest for an annulment. ~ Henry VIII of England
Sapiencia ( talk) 18:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I do not know if this is true, but I once heard or read somewhere that since Henry VIII was too overweight to move on his own he required the assistance of mechanical inventions, including a steam powered wheelchair which he used to roll around the palace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhspmb ( talk • contribs) 18:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Although the story of Henry's involvement with 5 Popes is woven through the story, I think the table helps bring the history into one place, along with dates and a portrait. Please do not delete without some discussion. Pacomartin ( talk) 11:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
The moniker " Bluff King Hal" redirects to this article, but the article explains nothing about it. Binksternet ( talk) 19:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I see that Henry VIII has been tagged as a Protestant monarch at the bottom of this article. Surely this is mistaken? Henry was a highly devout Roman Catholic for all his life, as the opening paragraph of the article mentions. Despite his rejection of papal authority over the English Church, he was still a firm believer in the traditional doctrines of Roman Catholicism and held none of the radical reformist beliefs of his heir, Edward VI, or his first minister, Thomas Cromwell.
This is evidenced by the Act of the Six Articles 1539, where Henry affirms the truth of substantiation during the mass, the requirement for priests to be celibate, and the need for confession among other things. Henry was ruthless towards radical Protestants during his reign, burning them at the stake for heresy, just as his devoulty Catholic daughter, Mary I, did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritasetvigilare ( talk • contribs) 11:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Henry was competing against the top sportsmen of his country at the time.
Henry was unconsious for two weeks after jousting accident. After he recovered it has been reported that king became short tempered and violent. This was somewhat before he had his 2nd wife executed.
I think this should be incorporated to get fuller image of the personality.
I think this has been proven, but may fall under original reserch... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.184.83.235 ( talk) 12:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Mnemonics to help recall what happened to Henry's wives are helpful, but I wonder if the extended discussion of the accuracy of the mnemonics is helpful to the main topic. I refer to the section from "...and, although her marriage to Henry..." to "...resulted in Seymour's death". This section seems to be me to be at least partly contentious and to be truly about the accuracy of the mnemonics or about Henry's wives rather than Henry. It also highly detailed and, in my view, interrupts the flow of the full article. I suggest that the section be removed. IainThorpe ( talk) 01:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
On several pages about Anne Boleyn and/or Henry VIII ( Anne Boleyn, Henry VIII of England, Wives of Henry VIII, etc) I see things saying that Anne refused to become Henry's mistress and would not give into his seductions unless he made her his queen. For example, from the Wives of Henry VIII page:
Anne resisted the King's attempts to seduce her and she refused to become his mistress, as her sister, Mary Boleyn, had done. It soon became the one absorbing object of the King's desires to secure a divorce from his wife, Catherine of Aragon, so he could marry Anne.
However, another quote from the Wives of Henry VIII page:
On 23 May 1533 [1] Cranmer ruled the marriage to Catherine null and void. On 28 May 1533 he pronounced the King legally married to Anne Boleyn (with whom Henry had already secretly exchanged wedding vows , probably in late January 1533). This led to the break from the Roman Catholic Church and the later establishment of the Church of England.
And finally, a quote from the Elizabeth I of England page.
Born 7 September 1533 Greenwich, England
If Elizabeth were born on September 7th, 1533
[2], she would have had to been conceived on or about December 15th, 1532Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page). By the time Anne and Henry married, she would have had to be about 5 months into her pregnancy, and at this point it would be very obvious that she was expecting. So either the dates are wrong, or Anne did not resist seduction well enough.
Most sources agree that Anne was pregnant when Henry and she married, if not by the time Henry's marriage with Catherine was annulled. [3] [4] [5]
If this page is to be edited, the above pages (and if there are more relating to this subject, likewise) should be changed, too.
Sapiencia ( talk) 22:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
When George Boleyn failed to receive the order of the garter in April 1536 it was awarded to Sir Nicholas Carew, not Jane Seymour's brother. This needs to be changed as it is a noticable error. The reference for this is L&P, x. 715, 752. I gave you this information months ago using primary sources instead of the inaccurate secondary sources you usually use. Needless to say the document has not been changed, which confirms what a complete waste of space Wikipedia is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.119.247 ( talk) 18:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
In the lead, we have "He remained an advocate for traditional Catholic ceremony and doctrine throughout his life", yet in Dissolving the monasteries we have
Henry made radical changes in traditional religious practices. He ordered the clergy to preach against superstitious images, relics, miracles, and pilgrimages, and to remove most candles. The catechism of 1545, called the King's Primer, left out the saints. Latin rituals gave way to English. Shrines to saints were destroyed—including the popular one of St Thomas at Canterbury; relics were ridiculed as worthless old bones.
Doesn't sound like traditional Catholic ceremony and doctrine to me... Is the lead poorly worded, or has the latter section been over-exaggerated? Hadrian89 ( talk) 15:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
It is a myth that Henry ever refered to his 4th wife as a Flanders Mare. The phrase was first coined 100 years lafter Henry's death by historian Gilbert Burnet. When Henry and Anne first met Henry was in disguise, hoping to sneak a look at his new bride before their first official meeting he donned a "cover" and went to meet her. Henry was reported to be the most handsome Prince in Chrisendom, tall and athletic. Unfortunately by the time he married Anne he was morbidly obese and limping from an old, infected wound in his leg that refused to heal. Rather than being charmed by this stranger who approached and kissed her she was rather disgusted by this huge stranger. Henry's ego was truly bruised, and the marriage was doomed. [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandamitford ( talk • contribs) 08:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
'They were groundlessly charged with high treason and were executed in 1510. This was to become Henry's primary tactic for dealing with those who stood in his way.[4]' The Kings and Queens of England by Ian Crofton (2006).
Where's the contrary opinion, the argument? It's in the court records! I find this sort of sentence, true or not, and common enough, unacceptable as scholasticism. Interesting that this view is put forward, not because it is the popular, thoughtless and taught view, but because it's not possible to hold a court and examine evidence, at least without allegations fitting the intended or actual harms and, constituting grounds for a crime. In short they cannot be 'groundless', the grounds were the allegations. While raised as an issue at first, witchcraft did not end up among the charges used by the court which found her guilty of treason in conspiracy with her alleged lovers (including her brother). ("Anne Boleyn as a Witch," by Brian A. Pavlac). SO it might be better to go along with the courts' findings , unless our grounds for doubting them, are substantial enough to outweigh them.
I think what is meant is that the evidence was poor, perhaps due to hearsay, or an unreliable witness, etc., or perhaps that there was no evidence for the allegations; in any case this means the judges acted on instructions, and it is the peers of the realm who were corrupt as a jury. If so, the implications consequences are worse than one lone despotic, wicked King. We have to consider that Kings face treasonous bids for power. Does Crofton actually examine the evidence from court, let alone discuss these issues, critical to understanding Henry the 8th? Does he consider, did Henry have enemies? The trouble is, with 'revisionism' in history, is the official version is also revisionism, but without any reason. Treason is treason - meaning plotting against the monarchy, or sedition of power. It is the case, we are taught history as if we are morons, without critical faculties: What's the agenda, we must ask? This current view can only be to usurp the power of monarchy, by saying it is an unreasonable institution and indeed, in Britain the monarchy was ended in order to make way for theft of land rights through enclosures with force and associated financial transactions, belonging to people whose institution of monarchy protected. Napoleon said it: ‘The only institution ever devised by men for mastering the Money-power in the State, is Monarchy.’
Let's consider: there are enemies everywhere at court: Katherine Parr, Henry VIII's sixth wife was a kindly lady and proved a good stepmother to the King's three children. She came close to being tried for treason in 1546 when her enemies at court attempted to prove that she was a committed Protestant. However, she convinced Henry that she was loyal to him and his Church and was protected by him. Next let's look at one view concerning Catherine Parr: Late in 1541 she was accused of immoral conduct prior to her marriage. Although she confessed, Henry was at first, inclined to clemency. Only when evidence was produced for similar misconduct after her marriage, was she was arrested for treason and then beheaded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakbop ( talk • contribs) 20:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I recently reverted an edit from last January that went over the top on the mnemonics about the six wives. But actually, I think the whole paragraph should be removed. For a start, mnemonics are not supposed to be accurate, they're only an aid to remembering things. Secondly, the paragraph is unsourced. Thirdly, and most importantly, mnemonics about the six wives actually have nothing to do with Henry's final years 1540-1547. -- Scolaire ( talk) 21:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
The section on Power and Authority contains the sentence, "He took pride in showing off his collection of weapons, which included exotic archery equipment, 2,250 pieces of land ordnance and 6,500 handguns."
Usually the term "handgun" refers to a pistol or revolver, as opposed to a long gun, like a shotgun, rifle, or musket. However, in this sentence, since it's juxtaposed with "land ordnance" it seems like it refers to any hand-held firearm. I don't have access to the cited material, so I'm not sure which it means for sure, but if someone does, I recommend the sentence use a different word or phrase to clarify the meaning. 209.159.37.194 ( talk) 14:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Please change the first paragraph from 'Supreme head of the church of England' to 'Supreme Head of the Church in England' as the former title didn't exist until the reign of Elizabeth I
82.4.51.7 ( talk) 16:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Not done: According to the article for the Supreme Head, he appointed himself that title. It is properly sourced.
Spigot
Map 16:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
If you go into that article again and into the Act of Supremacy it states that he was conferred the said title —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.51.7 ( talk) 16:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.-- Oneiros ( talk) 17:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I can't find any proper cite for Hibbert in the main article who is cited in Notes 47, 48. Sorry for the improper edits....new guy here. 24.151.85.223 ( talk) 16:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I just had a look at this myself, this is probably something by Christopher Hibbert, but which of his books I'm not sure, I don't see anything about Henry in his list of works. Can someone clarify? PatGallacher ( talk) 16:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
A source for the revision that Henry VIII had an affair with Mary Shelton, not Margaret Shelton, is The Lady in the Tower by Alison Weir, pp 13-14, and fn 35 on p. 375. She uses as her sources, William Latymer, "Treatise on Anne Boleyn" and the Spanish Calendar (of Letters, Despatches and State Papers relating to Negotiations between England and Spain). ````Mary Benedict (maryscribe) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Maryscribe (
talk •
contribs) 03:22, 2 March 2010
Done Welcome and thanks for the reference. It would be helpful to know the publisher, year and ISBN of the edition from which you read this. Thanks again,
Celestra (
talk) 20:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
As with most things you can Google it. It is published by Jonathan Cape and its 13 ISBN is 978-0224063197; its 10 ISBN is 0224063197 78.146.175.152 ( talk) 16:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
This article is becoming a vandalism magnet again, but this time it's more subtle, by what looks like sockpuppets rather than IPs. Any comments on how to proceed? We could put it on the status where it requires to be reviewed by a reviewer. PatGallacher ( talk) 10:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I know this has been discussed before here and here at least, but not lately. There is evidently conjecture about how many of Henry VIII's wives were valid. Does anyone with closer knowledge of the subject have sources for this? It certainly warrants mentioning to avoid what appears to be a "myth", provided that we can support with reliable sources, of course. — sroc ( talk) 22:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
"He pretended that his conscience was uneasy at the marriage contracted under papal dispensation with his brother's widow." source number 62, the Catholic Encyclopedia.
This hardly seems an impartial source for a statement that is supposed to reveal the private thoughts of this monarch. Is there anything substantive to support this statement? Vancouveriensis ( talk) 02:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The article Henry, Duke of Cornwall says that "Henry in total had six children by Catherine of Aragon". However, in the section Marriages and issue, this article lists only five. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.39.229 ( talk • contribs) 20:01, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Found a small typo:
Death and succession
King Henry VIII died in the Palace of Whitehall in 1547.
Late in life, Henry became obese (with a waist measurement of 54 inches/137 cm) and had to be moved about with the help of mechanical inventions. He was covered with painful, puss-filled boils and possibly suffered from gout.
Should be "pus-filled" not "puSS-filled" Thank you! Amylhampton ( talk) 17:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
An image caption near the section Public image and memory says Meeting of Henry VIII and Maximilian. The link leads to a disambiguation page. I looked at the original upload comment for the image and couldn't find out which Maximilian it was, I also searched this article and found no other mention of a Maximilian. I therefore manually went through the disambiguation page and the cross-checked the people's life spans with Henry's. The only two which seemed to match were both Holy Roman Emperors, Maximilian I and Maximilian II. I was wondering if anyone knew which Maximilian Henry was meeting.
Thanks, WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 14:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Although not a specialist, I assumed it was Maximilian II, his contemporary ... but the doubt persists !-- Alexandre Rongellion ( talk) 22:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
In the list of popes during Henry's reign, the note next to Clement VII asserts that he granted Henry's divorce in 1527. This is neither true, nor is it accurate to the statement's own citation. The note should be changed to state the he was pope during Henry VIII's efforts to obtain a divorce, but in no way should the note suggest that the divorce was granted. Henricus Rex ( talk) 04:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
You might mention that the incomplete tomb that Henry took over from Wolsey was itself never completed. The renaissance sarcophagus itself was eventually used for the body of Lord Nelson and can be seen in the crypt of St Paul's Cathedral; see E. Chaney, 'Henry VIII's Tombs: "Plus Catholique que le Pape", Apollo, CXXXIV (October 1991), pp. 234-8; revised and expanded as 'Early Tudor Tombs and the Rise and Fall of Anglo-Italian Relations', in E. Chaney, The Evolution of the Grand Tour, rev ed. 2000) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.21.10 ( talk) 22:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} Re Henry's tomb, cite information provided in wiki article on Wolsey's with ref to Edward Chaney, 'Early Tudor Tombs...', in The Evolution of the Grand Tour (Routledge, 2000).
78.147.16.180 ( talk) 11:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Done I have added the reference from the Wolsey article.
Keith D (
talk) 22:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
A serious encyclopedia cannot take sides in history all of you leftists earning your bachelor's degree and ruining wikipedia for us! You can't say that the break with Rome was a "positive action". Also the first part of his reign is completely glossed over so we can get to what leftists like..the break with Rome. (Henry VIII would have hated every member of the LGBTQPCR community and basically every leftist). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.27.225 ( talk) 19:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The text says he was attractive as a young man. Is there any source to support this? Kdammers ( talk) 05:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a better way to phrase this ("Henry was an attractive and charismatic man in his prime, educated and accomplished." from the introduction) that would be more in line with the Wikipedia style? Joekrie ( talk) 18:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
King Henry - in addition of being a king - was also a Possible evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw59KAcObFI&feature=related We should include him into some sort of "Renaisance Composers" category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.61.53.79 ( talk) 16:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Nicholas Carew was appointed Order of the Garter instead of George Boleyn in 1536, not Jane Seymour's brother. I've pointed this out before. The references are at LP. x, 715 and 752. Please look it up and make the correct amendment, because it's silly errors like this which give Wikipedia a bad name and make people think it's pointless. Please don't be lazy. Make the effort to look it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.234.11 ( talk) 20:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
There's no reason you cannot make the change yourself. What does 'LP. x, 715 and 752' mean? I'd look it up if I could.
Bevo74 (
talk) 20:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
LP are Letters and Papers of Henry VIII in 21 volumes, therefore I'm quoting from volume 10. I cannot believe someone interested in Tudor history, to the extent of bothering to comment on this site, doesn't know that. Primary sources are always more accurate than secondary sources, which are often relied upon by Wiki. Alison Weir? Yuk! Letters and Papers are available to view on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.234.11 ( talk) 21:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
If I knew a lot about the Tudors I wouldn't have any reason to visit this page for my own information, but I would be in a strong position to improve the articles by adding good references. Bevo74 ( talk) 22:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first paragraph, it would make more sense if claimant linked to the article on English claims to the French throne, and not have Kingdom of France link to it. Hot Stop ( talk) 18:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I propose a move to Henry VIII. Cf. Queen Victoria and Elizabeth II - the old "Name ## of Place" convention is dying out, and we now use the most common name, which is surely just Henry VIII.-- Codenamecuckoo ( talk) 08:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi! I do not normally edit wikipedia pages, but while I was reading this page I thought it would be nice to add one thing: Under "Death of Prince Arthur", it talks about how King Henry's marriage to his brother's wife was a controversy because of a verse in Leviticus, "If a brother is to marry the wife of a brother they will remain childless." It was because of this verse that Henry VIII found grounds for a divorce from Queen Catherine, however; this verse was obviously speaking about a living brother's wife being stolen from him by his brother. This was clearly a sign of the ignorance of those days, since in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 God commands that a man must marry his brother's widow to provide children for them: "If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel. However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.” Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, “I do not want to marry her,” his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, “This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother’s family line.” That man’s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtgrl2000 ( talk • contribs) 23:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a trailing closing bracket in the first sentence of the second paragraph: "Besides his six marriages, Henry VIII is known for his role in the separation of the Church of England from the Roman Catholic Church). " (after Roman Catholic Church). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.130.41.222 ( talk) 12:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone help contribute to this discussion/improve the article? Thanks in advance. Boleyn ( talk) 08:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Since it is clear that the Blount girl was somewhere between the ages of 12-15, why doesn't this article mention, somewhere, that technically Henry VIII was a Pedophile? There is no reason why this should not be stated. It is not speculation, we know that they had a child together.
He was not considered a pedophile in those days, the average life expectancy was somewhere around 30. Many, many women died in childbirth and infant mortality rates were very high. A woman was of marrying and childbearing age as soon as her body was ready. He was not considered a pedophile at all in his time. It was the norm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrsSMurray ( talk • contribs) 20:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of what was the norm at the time, I think the article should mention that to us, presently, he would have been considered a pedophile. It is not unusual to compare the acts of rulers or people of the past to those alive today. Henry VIII was/is a Pedophile when we look at it from this century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.189.213 ( talk) 06:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
But we're not writing an Encyclopedia for people in the 15th Century. We must also include a look at his actions from a 21st century perspective. From here, he was/would be a pedophile. Just like we give a 21st century perspective on certain cults/traditions/myths of the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.189.213 ( talk) 23:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
According to the article on her, she was born at the latest 1502. Henry FitzRoy was born in 1519, when she was 17. There's no reason to assume she was any younger than 16.
I read somewhere that was more to do with cutural reasons than religious, given that in the bible a brother was supposed to marry his brother's wife if the deceased brother had no children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.96.2 ( talk) 21:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
In the section regarding his legacy, specifically executions, it mentions that Cardinal Wolsey died in prison. I believe this in incorrect. My understanding is that he died while travelling. I suspect this is an artifact of misrepresentation in a popular TV show.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
ollie onslow 193.63.61.50 ( talk) 11:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
In the section Death and Succession, it makes no mention whatsoever about his death, it goes on to describe his health and current theories about diseases he may have had. It also makes no mention about "succession" mentioned in the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.148.0.39 ( talk) 17:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
In the section "Birth of a Prince" it says that Jane gave birth to a son in 1537 and died that same year. However in the same section there is a painting from an unknown artist done in 1545 that shows a young Prince Edward with the King and Jane Seymour... how could this be if she died shortly after childbirth? If he had her painted in so that it "felt" as though she was there then I could understand that but some clarification would be nice. I know if confused me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsaylu33 ( talk • contribs) 05:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
As was the case with Anne Boleyn, which she died of aid and killed Henry,Catherine Howard could not technically have been guilty of adultery, as the marriage was officially null and void from the beginning. This claim needs to be either explained & developed, or deleted. What point are you making? Costesseyboy ( talk) 20:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, but I see no reference to this, other than the sentence in question. Something more is needed to make it clear. At what point was the marriage annulled? Costesseyboy ( talk) 22:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The entry Annulment also claims that that Anne Boleyn's marriage to Henry VIII was annulled, so my correction was right, especially, I have added my sources, Antonia Fraser. Anne Boleyn's marriage was declared invalid 17 May 1536, two days before her execution (19 May 1536), so Henry VIII could not have been a widower of AB. Katherine Howard's marriage to Henry VIII also was annulled, as I added my sources, Antonia Fraser. Catherine Howard was apparently engaged to someone else when she married Henry, or had slept with another name rending their marriage invalid. Therefore Henry VIII could not become a widower of Katherine Howard, too. In the eyes of king Henry only two marriages was valid: Jane Seymour and Katherine Parr and he got a widower only once: after the death of his third wife, Jane Seymour. And please, do not move my editing before adding your sources, because I have NOT seen your evidence, yet. Borgatya ( talk) 22:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I propose this editded version of the infobox be added to the article (in replacement to the current one) as I have added the marrage dates, Nowrapped and added small text to them, I think the dates should be listed in the infobox for biographical purposes.
Henry VIII | |
---|---|
![]() King Henry VIII after
Hans Holbein the Younger, Walker Art Gallery, Liverpool | |
King of England | |
Reign | 21 April 1509 – 28 January 1547 |
Coronation | 24 June 1509 |
Predecessor | Henry VII |
Successor | Edward VI |
Born | Greenwich Palace, Greenwich | 28 June 1491
Died | 28 January 1547 Palace of Whitehall, London | (aged 55)
Burial | 4 February 1547
St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle |
Spouses |
Catherine of Aragon (m. 1509–1533) (annulled) Anne Boleyn (m. 1533–1536) (annulled) [7] Jane Seymour (m. 1536–1537) (her death) Anne of Cleves (m. 1540) (annulled) Katherine Howard (m. 1540–1542) (annulled) [8] Catherine Parr (m. 1543–1547) (his death) |
Issue Among others |
Mary I of England Henry FitzRoy, 1st Duke of Richmond and Somerset Elizabeth I of England Edward VI of England |
House | House of Tudor |
Father | Henry VII of England |
Mother | Elizabeth of York |
Religion | Christian (
Anglican, previously Roman Catholic) |
Signature |
![]() |
-- BV76 ( talk) 01:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. Personally, the alterations make the infobox look a little bit long, but I think that's something that should be discussed here, but the editprotected template should be used after a
consensus is formed, but not before. Of course feel free to discuss here, that's what talk pages are for. :) Thanks,
Steven Zhang
The clock is ticking.... 05:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)A citation is requested for the following claim under Death and Succession: "Concurrently, Henry developed a binge-eating habit, consisting of a diet of mainly fatty red meats and few vegetables."
Also, the next sentence, "It is believed that this habit was used as a coping mechanism for stress"--I don't remember what this sort of sentence is called, but "It is believed..." is not useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spriggig ( talk • contribs) 04:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
About his last words,what does "Monks! Monks! Monks!" mean? 74.178.186.35 ( talk) 15:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, just letting people know that [Category:People of the Tudor period] now has 3000 articles, many of which have only been edited by one or two people. If anyone with knowledge of this period could help, they'd be very welcome. Best wishes, Boleyn ( talk) 19:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In section Marriages and issue: second box titled 'Henry, Duke of Cornwall-1 January 1511- 22 February 1511- died aged almost three months. This is incorrect. Please change to read: died aged almost two months.
Selene Scott ( talk) 20:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Done Thanks,
Celestra (
talk) 20:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The last sentence under the heading "Mistresses" reads "Biographer Antonia Fraser has claimed that Henry had an affair with Mary Shelton in 1535, in opposition to the traditional belief that Margaret ("Madge") Shelton was Henry's lover." It doesn't make a great deal of sense - ether Ms. Fraser is in agreement with traditional sources or "Madge" is not traditionally believed to be Henry's lover. I'd have fixed it myself, but I don't know what Mary Shelton is traditionally believed to be.
There is a genuine controversy over this person's first-name (although Mary and Margaret might be considered interchangable names in the period) see Margaret and Mary Shelton, which does not as yet explain its point very well. Unoquha ( talk) 06:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
In the following sentence, the verb "establishing" should be replaced with "the establishment of" to avoid the arbitrary switch from ordinary nouns ("separation...," "Dissolution...") in the first two items of the series to a gerund in the third.
Henry's struggles with Rome led to the separation of the Church of England from papal authority, the Dissolution of the Monasteries, and establishing himself as the Supreme Head of the Church of England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.200.167 ( talk) 03:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Early Years 1497-1509 line 2: Please change Ricahrd to Richard as spelling of first name of Bishop Foxe. Venn & Venn,1922-1958 "Alumni Cantabridgiensis."
156.98.253.233 ( talk) 17:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the introduction of the section Early years: 1491–1509, "official act as Duke. in November" should be changed to "official act as Duke. In November". Just a typo. Spock74 ( talk) 05:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Spock74 ( talk) 05:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Evening. I'm trying to work out what the established citation system is for the article. At the moment it seems to be a blend of short citations in several different styles (e.g. "Crofton, p. 129.", "Scarisbrick (1997). p. 4."), some long citations (e.g. "Robert M. Adams, The land and literature of England (1986) pp. 111–12."), the occasional abbreviated primary source (e.g. "PRO, E36/215 f.449"). The Sources and Bibliography sections also seem to be oddly named (the latter appears to be what would normally be a Further Reading section).
What I'd like to propose is consistently applying short citations throughout the article. I'd like to propose using the harvnb template for these. I'm proposing moving the Bibliography (as is) into a Further Reading Section, and then converting the Sources section into the Bibliography, using the cite book (or journal etc.) family of templates. WP:CITE applies to this, so I believe I'd need a consensus first. What do people reckon? Hchc2009 ( talk) 18:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Right, I've commenced work; I've done the majority, but my fingers are now tired so I'll take a break... Hchc2009 ( talk) 17:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Following on from Grandiose's proposal to take the article forwards (at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history), some quick thoughts from me at this early stage:
Separate section? In the chronology? All put it with the "Great matter"? Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 19:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I am aware that he granted the Abbey the status of a cathedral, which prevented its destruction, however the article states that he was responsible for improvements to it. These aren't mentioned in the Westminster Abbey article. Although I know that article isn't exhaustive, it would be a serious omission to not mention any improvements made or facilitated by Henry VIII. So until I can find my Westminster Abbey book, are there any experts who can make both articles correspond please? DavidFarmbrough ( talk) 05:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
This sentence: "As it was expected that the throne would pass to Prince Arthur, Henry's older brother, Henry was prepared for a clerical career." has no reliable source. As written in the biography of Scarisbrick ((1997). Henry VIII (2nd ed.). Yale University Press. ISBN 0300071582.), page 4: "According to the well-known tale of Lord Herbert of Cherbury, Henry VII had originally intended that his second son should enter the Church and occupy the primatial see of Canterbury. There is no evidence for this " A 17th century book is not reliable, and reliable academic sources (Scarisbrick for one) say there is no evidence to this statement. I therefore suggest either altering this statement to indicate that there is no evidence for this, or to leave it out altogether. If someone would be so kind as to edit for me, thank you so much! Gadifere ( talk) 10:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I apologize, I am not a "computer expert," (so I do not know how to go about doing this "the right way") but I feel strongly that the word "flirt" in the Navy section of Henry VIII's article is misused and overly ... well ... flirty! I believe it would be more refined or elegant to read that he "... dallied with the design of ships ..." my 2cents thanks Vicki in Seattle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.143.130 ( talk) 16:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The internet is crowded with the alleged quotation of Henry the 8th to 'one of his wifes' or 'each of his wives' saying:
"I shan't keep you long."
Has anyone a source for this claim? As this appears frequently in either case it might be worthwhile to have it in the article (alleged/real quotation) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
78.34.44.162 (
talk) 22:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Did Henry love the names Katherine/Catherine and Anne? because three of his wives were called Katherine/Catherine - Catherine of Aragon (Catalina de Aragon), Katherine Howard and Katharine Parr. And two of his wives were called Anne - Anne Boleyn and Anne/Anna of Cleves.
Sort of like Johnny Carson and his Joans/Joannes ...
Actually, I think that these names (same as William, Charles and Henry) were just used over and over again, honoring their ancestors. Trivia ... did you know that for a time here in America when a baby died young, it was not uncommon to name the next child of the same gender the exact same name ... weird, but it happened in my family 100 yrs ago ... which is the only way I would have ever known about this "custom." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.143.130 ( talk) 16:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
John Perrot and Ethelreda Malte are said to be his illegitimate children. John was the son of Mary Berkeley and Thomas Perrot, but in an account written by Sir Robert Naunton he mentions John being the illegitimate son of Henry VIII. Ethelreda was the daughter of Joan Dingley who was the royal laundress, who might have slept with the King. I was wondering whether I should add this in the section about his children at the bottom of the article?
-- 92.21.40.213 ( talk) 12:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be mention of Henry VIII's instigations of John Rut and Sebastian Cabot's voyages to America? - In 1516, Cabot and Sir Thomas Pert, then Vice Admiral of England, sailed in two ships to explore the coasts of Brazil and the West Indies for Henry VIII; in 1527, John Rut searched Newfoundland for the Northwest Passage, returning via an exploration of the east coast of North America and Florida. Also I think that the novel inclusions of members of Parliament for Wales, Tournai, Chester and the Pale of Calais deserves citing in the article. — Preceding [[[Special:Contributions/92.39.192.219|92.39.192.219]] ( talk) 17:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)] comment added by 92.39.200.223 ( talk) 19:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC) <JAN-19-2013>
As a fairly new editor to Wikipedia, I am unable to make changes to this page. However I feel it is important that text be added, which is sourced on the link below. I paste here an amalgam of the new information and the extant text.
{to replace the top of the section currently titled The Execution of Anne Boleyn}
1536: The Jousting Accident and the Execution of Anne Boleyn
On 8 January 1536 news reached the king and the queen that Catherine of Aragon had died. Upon hearing the news of her death, Henry and Anne reportedly decked themselves in bright yellow clothing, yellow being the colour of mourning in Spain at the time. Henry called for public displays of joy regarding Catherine's death. The queen was pregnant again, and she was aware of the consequences if she failed to give birth to a son. Her life could be in danger, as with both wives dead, Henry would be free to remarry and no one could claim that the union was illegal.
On January 24, 1536, Henry was unhorsed in a tournament and suffered severe trauma. It seemed for a time that his life was in danger. The monarch was wearing full armour, and his horse fell on top of him. He was unconscious for nearly two hours. "Even five minutes of unconsciousness is considered to be a major trauma today,” said Dr Lucy Worsley, in a 2009 documentary based on a recent medical study. Dr Worsley, who is historian and chief curator of Britain’s Historic Royal Palaces, along with medical doctor Catherine Hood and biographer Robert Hutchinson, traced Henry’s increasingly irrational, tyrannical behaviour to this date. “Damage to the frontal lobe can perfectly well result in personality change,” said Dr Worsley.
When news of this accident reached the queen, she was sent into shock and miscarried a male child that was about 15 weeks old, on the very day of Catherine’s funeral, 29 January 1536.[68] For most observers, this personal loss was the beginning of the end of the royal marriage.[69] It was immediately after the January incidents that Henry told Anne Boleyn that they would never have male children together, and he turned against her.
Attikus2013 ( talk) 08:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
The France and the Habsburgs section. It does not inform readers that it was Charles V who won the Battle of Pavia. Will edit this.-- Maikeruda ( talk) 11:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Under King's Great Matter: 1525–1534 it says: "When Henry confronted Catherine in 1527, claiming that their marriage had never been valid – the Old Testament forbade marrying the wife of your brother in Leviticus – all hope of tempting Catherine to retire to a nunnery or otherwise stay quiet were lost."
I would just like to point out that this was an incorrect interpretation of the Old Testament law and that in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 it is actually required that a man marry his brother's widow, the difference here between this verse and others supposedly forbidding it being that it was forbidden to marry a LIVING brother's wife, but required to marry the wife of a dead brother. So, although this WAS actually used as an excuse to annul his marriage to Catherine, it was an ill-founded one and saying "the Old Testament forbade marrying the wife of your brother in Leviticus" is not exactly correct. What Henry VIII did by marrying his brother's widow was actually totally in step with scriptural commands, but apparently the ignorance of that time prevented even the church from recognizing this. I think it would be good to add this fact onto this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.33.83.33 ( talk) 00:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
It states in here that Henry the 8th and Anne Boleyn were married in Westminister Abbey?................I was under the impression that while she was coronated in Westiminster, they were married in Whitehall Palace? If I am wrong, then I apologize, but I believe that I am correct. ( Sweet Magnolia1234 ( talk) 19:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)) 3/14/2013
The article cites the "Flanders mare" line about Anne of Cleves as if it was genuine, sourced tom some random feminist study of the six wives. If you read Starkey's work on the The Six Wives of Henry VIII (London, 2003) p. 617-643 you'll find no mention of the line, for it exists in no contemporary source. Eric Ives confirms it as a later invention in his Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article on Henry VIII: http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/12955?docPos=1
Please update this often repeated inaccuracy to prevent its further spread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.21.232 ( talk) 01:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC) ( 217.44.21.232 ( talk) 01:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC))
Talk:Henry VIII of England/GA1
"Anne's downfall came shortly after she had recovered from her final miscarriage. Whether it was primarily the result of conspiracy, adultery or witchcraft remains a matter of debate among historians" I doubt any serious historians believe that Anne Boleyn's demise was due to witchcraft on her part. Rather it should say "allegations of witchcraft," or perhaps, "allegations of conspiracy, adultery or witchcraft," don't you think? DEL 24.163.71.116 ( talk) 06:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I can't find any mentioning of this woman in the article though the desciption of the image says the following:
“ | Holbein painted this portrait of Christina of Denmark, the young widowed Duchess of Milan, for Henry VIII of England, who was considering her as a possible wife. Thomas Cromwell sent Holbein to Brussels, accompanied by Philip Hoby, to draw the duchess, and she sat for him for three hours. John Hutton, the English representative in Brussels, wrote of the result that "Mr Haunce ... hathe shoid hym self to be the master of that siens [science], for it is very perffight". Henry was so delighted with Christina's portrait that, according to the imperial ambassador Eustace Chapuys, "since he saw it he has been in much better humour than he ever was, making musicians play on their instruments all day long". Holbein painted Christina's portrait in oils shortly afterwards, and the work has been recognised as one of his finest. In the event, Henry never secured the wary duchess as his wife. "If I had two heads," she said, "I would happily put one at the disposal of the King of England".
(References: John Rowlands, Holbein: The Paintings of Hans Holbein the Younger. Complete Edition. Boston, David R. Godine, 1985. ISBN 0879235780, pp. 116–17; Derek Wilson, Hans Holbein: Portrait of an Unknown Man, London: Pimlico, 2006, ISBN 1844139182, p. 251.) |
” |
- Soerfm ( talk) 15:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Suggested addition to bibliographic references :
Recently published in-depth study by Elisabeth Wheeler "Men of Power : court intrigue in the life of Catherine Howard" ISBN 978-1-872882-01-7 -- covering Henry's life and the machinations of the powerful political factions which developed around him. 80.177.208.102 ( talk) 17:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This section (as below) on the Page Henry VIII of England is incorrect in that it was not his daughter Mary that was married to Louis of France, it was his sister, Mary Tudor. The lines below are in the paragraph headed 'France and the Habsburgs'.
With the replacement of Julius by Pope Leo X, who was inclined to negotiate for peace with France, Henry signed his own treaty with Louis: his daughter Mary would become Louis' wife, having previously been pledged to the younger Charles, and peace secured for eight years, a remarkably long time.[47]
Thank you Tracey Holland 92.20.141.190 ( talk) 21:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
In the fourth paragraph of this article it is asserted that Henry VIII enjoyed 'absolute power'. I would disagree with this assertion. Certainly, the authority of this Tudor sovereign was significant, bolstered by a very able and energetic secretariat. But the English monarch, even in the 16th Century, did not enjoy 'absolute power'. This is because certain limits on the Royal authority, mainly to do with finance, were exercised by custom and Statute of Parliament. And the English Parliament, even in the early 16th Century, was not a 'rubber stamp' authority. I would like agreement and consensus on this point, that England has never endured an absolute monarchy, and that this assertion be removed in favour of a more accurate description of Henry VIII's powers. Consequently, and subject to consensus, I have changed 'absolute' to 'considerable', which is a more accurate description of Henry VIII's admittedly significant powers. Ds1994 ( talk) 19:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
It's a pretty well ref'd article, or it was when it achieved GA. But the web page "King Henry VIII's Madness Explained" from discovery.com is a very weak source for discussing the potential causes of Henry's ill health. Even the page itself says its content is pure conjecture. Other much stronger biographical sources would be welcome, with a proper overview view given of current, well founded, evidence-based theories. Span ( talk) 04:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
King Henry viii weighed about 320 pounds! Thats alot for the 1500's and even know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.26.39 ( talk) 17:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)