- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Move to Henry, son of Edward I. There's clear consensus for a move and this appears to be the most widely supported option. Cúchullain t/c 16:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Generally, this is not how to disambiguate names of princes vs. monarchs and new proposed title is more informative. User:The Emperor's New Spy 20:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Support a move of some sort. The proposed title looks awkward to me, but the current name is misleading; I assumed it described Henry I of England. --BDD (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Somewhat Support I too thought the present name refereed to Henry I and would support a change, but also agree that the proposed title is awkward. "Henry, son of Edward I" works better but is not perfect.
- Are there no other names he was known by other than "Henry of England"? Most royal children in this period were known by the place they were born, for example Thomas of Brotherton (born at Brotherton) and Edward of Caernarfon (later Edward II; born at Caernarfon); or were known by their title, for example Alphonso, Earl of Chester and Richard, 1st Earl of Cornwall. Dieing aged 7 he probably didn't receive a title, but is there any reference to him as "Henry of Windsor" perhaps? If so, that name would be inline with article names of other royal children. --Rushton2010 (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Right you are! I'll strike a couple of ones ;) Favonian (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Whoops.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 06:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Support – The suggested title isn't great – I agree with those above who say it's awkward – but at least it's better than the current one. Egsan Bacon (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Support. The current title is unsatisfactory as it implies that the subject is one of the various English kings named Henry. I don't think was actually called this anyway. Edward I (1988) by Michael Prestwich calls him "Henry, s. of Edward I". I suggest we drop "of England" from the proposed title. 1.53.162.100 (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Support a move, but not sure to what; probably Henry (son of Edward I of England), using parentheses instead of commas. "Henry of England" is a ludicrous title for this obscure prince (his father's entry in the DNB doesn't even mention him), given there were eight King Henries of England. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Support a move, but not necessarily to the suggested title. The current title isn't good. I propose Henry, son of Edward I or Henry (son of Edward I) without "of England" after "Edward I". --Article editor (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Suppot as proposed; it's very clear whereas the current is utterly confusing. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
