Talk:Henry VIII/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Image of Young Henry is Wrong?

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.

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A9iby4U9jFxGKFcBCjeJzbkF?p=arthur+prince+of+wales&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-471&x=wrt

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

sociopath

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)

The organization of the article needs work

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.

Headline text

I think we owe it to the world to have the doggerel with names at the head of the 'marriages' paragraph.

divorced, beheaded, died; divorced, beheaded, survived.

Catherine, Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour; Ann of Cleves, Catherine Howard, Catherine Parr. Henry asked to be buried next to Jane Seymour because she gave him a son!

See what a service this would be! --MichaelTinkler

Catherine Parr I believe is the one missing -- SimonP

Close, but I think she was the Katherine with a K

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

I think it's fixed now. -- Notheruser 04:03 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

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:

1. Henry left the Catholic Church and was England's first protestant monarch. Wrong: Henry left ROMAN Catholicism but still saw himself as an english Catholic, whose had a funeral Mass, etc. His son, Edward VI went the final step, breaking with Catholicism completely and becoming the first protestant monarch.
   
   
2. Henry divorced some of his wives. Wrong: What Henry got was an annulment, ie a declaration that there was not,, and never had been, any valid marriage. A divorce is the termination of a valid marriage. Henry's marriages were ruled non-marriages, automatically making his children by them illegitimate (though as king he could and did regularly change their status to legitimate!)
   
   
3. Henry was divorced (or rather had annulments) from two of his wives. Wrong: He was divorced/annulled from FOUR of his wives, Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, Anne of Cleves and Katherine Howard. In the case of Boleyn and Howard, the annulment came only hours before their execution. Of course, no-one bothered to point out that if the marriages never existed, then Boleyn and Howard couldn't have committed adultery (the reason for their executions) as neither had been married to the King ever and so could sleep with whomever they chose. In reality, Henry executed two of his non-wives for not committing adultery against their non-existent husband. Oh dear!

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)

It appears that Henry did indeed write Greensleeves. He was a genuinely multi-talented man - intellectually brilliant, a very good composer, writer, poet.

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)

Update: this explanatory info is now at Cousin chart -- Curps 21:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

---

divorce from Catherine

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 churchCharlieh7337 (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)

Syphilis?

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)

Neither. Syphilis is a guess, nothing more. It's not "incorrect," as it's not disproven, nor can it be said with certainty that both Henry VIII and Edward VI suffered from it (and it's certainly incorrect to say a son "catches" syphilis from his father, unless they have a rather peculiar relations: congenital syphilis is acquired from one's mother, who may or may not have acquired syphilis from one's father.) -Nunh-huh 05:26, 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.

Length of Article:

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)

Illegitimate issue

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:

• A short page about him with surplisingly long references
• The article about him on the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica
• The article about him on the 2000 Columbia Encyclopedia
• A presentation of a 1956 biography about him, 240 pages long

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.

User: Dimadick

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

Having considered your reply, I will not object to the inclusion of the illegitimate children. But I request that the notes section be made brief, listing only: 1. that the child is illegitimate (or allegedly illegitimate) 2. if the child married, whom he or she married, and if he or she did or did not have further issue. Further details should be contained in the article on the individual in question itself. (If necessary, I will create articles for these people). I hope that this proposal will be acceptable. -- Emsworth 22:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Henry, Prince of Wales

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

He does not seem to be listed on Prince of Wales, so I presume you are correct. Thanks for pointing this out. -- Emsworth 22:52, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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.

Culpeper and Dereham's execution date

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 versus Julian calendar? (There is no consistency between the Google results either - they agree on December 1541, but give the date at the 8th, 1st, 10th, 18th...) -- ALoan (Talk) 13:39, 14 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)

Arms

Was Henry the first to use the lion supporter for his arms? Astrotrain 22:33, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thomas More

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)

Anglican Communion

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)

Yes (and Anglican Communion) should be deleted. --ClemMcGann 16:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

What lanquage did HenryVIII speak? German?

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...

Not true, I'm afraid. All monarchs until the end of the 18th century would have been able to speak French and Latin. Edward (Henry's son) was taught French, Italian, Spanish, Latin, and Greek. But I know of no sources suggesting that either he or his father spoke German -which in any case didn't really exist as a single language at the time. Hackloon 00:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

In terms of first language, all the kings from 1066-1377 (possibly a bit later) would have had French as their first language. From 1377 to 1689, English. William III's first language was Dutch. Anne spoke English. The first two Hanoverians spoke German. English monarchs since George III have all spoken English as their first language. john k 03:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Henry VIII composed songs with French lyrics : http://www.csupomona.edu/%7Ejcclark/emusic/renaissa.html#t --Teofilo talk 15:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Considering both the political circumstances and the relative evolution of European languages at the time-it is not inconceivable that Henry VIII may indeed have had a smattering of "German" in his language repetoire. The German in this case being 'Diets'(Middle Dutch or Middelnederlands) the collective name for mutually understandable germanic dialects that would eventualy evolve into modern German and Dutch, English could also have been classed at an earlier point as 'Diets'. This earlier version of Deutsch/Dutch was widely spoken in many parts of the continent and was arguably the most important language for trade at the time (Antwerp,Brugge,Hanse).It is quite probable that many English regional dialects of the period would bear more resemblance to their germanic cousins than would be apparent today. Given the amount of trade with the Low Countries and their significance to the geo-politic of his time, might Henry have perceived the benefits of learning Diets?--Tamurello 13:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting suggestion, but unlikely I think. All correspondance at the level of ambassadors and monarchs was carried out in Latin. Moreover, Diets did not have any level of cultural prestige which would have rendered it a "princely" priority. There's a very good article by David Cressy on (among other things) the education of Henry called "Royal Tutors in the Reign of Henry VII" (will look up exact reference later). Hackloon 23:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   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.

PLEASE REVERT DATES

Could someone please revert the dates ....

are the dates wrong?

Removing refs

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

You're right, and I ordinarily would *not* remove a reference -- but why this (newly published) book, which was apparently used in writing two sentences in a single paragraph, when there are no similarly specialized sources listed for any of the other non-general topics in the article? Please feel free to put it back if you think it really ought to be there. I maintain a very lengthy bibliography in the areas of royal & aristocratic theory/history/genealogy/whatever, and I've been adding titles to a number of articles -- especially those that have few or no references listed at all. (I'm a librarian, I can't help it.) And I've been making a distinction, based on reading a great many articles on Wikipedia and writing a few, between references/sources and "further reading," a point with which you obviously agree. But there are also a lot of articles here in history subjects where references, sources, footnotes, websites, and even historical fiction are all lumped into a single list. . . . --Michael K. Smith 22:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, I think the lack of other specialized sources is exactly that – a lack. This article probably pre-dates the big emphasis on referencing, and needs retrospective work. I shall replace the removed title: obviously if you find the same info in one of the more general books, then feel free to remove it again. I'm also going to start a "Further reading" section, for which the safest early candidates would be your recently added titles (unless you know they are good references for the un-reffed material here). I hope this is all OK. JackyR 00:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Words Without Spaces Between Them

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

Unanswered Questions

I have some unanswered questions on my talk if you would help me answer them Apple 132

How many times did Cromwell die? He is beheaded and resurrected in the next paragraph. There is no mention of the Stuarts, and how could the link to Queen Elizabeth I and her rivalry with Mary, Queen of Scots not be mentioned? Baron D. Z. (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is a work in progress. Make and cite corrections as you see them. Be bold. -- Secisek (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are correct. Cromwell cant die in 1540 and be promoted in 1542. The Stuarts are mentioned, the death of James IV is covered. The rivalry Mary of Scots and Elizabeth are beyond the scope of this article. -- Secisek (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Naming monarchs

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)

That's too bad. IP Address 00:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Aaрон Кинни (t) 23:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why is this funny?  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 02:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Protection

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?

Danny?

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)

Henry's Temple and the Catholic Irish

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)

TfD nomination of Template:HVIII's rchildren

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)

Henry didn't have issue with Catherine Parr

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.

I wonder if the confusion stems from the fact that Catherine Parr did bear a child after the Henry's death. The catch is that she gave birth more than a year and a half after the king died (she had married Thomas Seymour).  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 14:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Bold textWHY DID HENRY VIII DIVORCE OR KILL ALL HIS WIVES APART FROM 2????? also-why did he only really love 1 of them ???????

As I understand it, the chief reason was that he needed a son and heir. In those days no one understood that sperm determine the sex of a baby so people thought women were responsible for that. Also, up until Henry VIII's daughters, women hadn't inherited the throne of England. Durova 20:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The page being shown to me is incomplete. is it true for everyone else? can someone please corect it?

Cultural depictions of Henry VIII of England

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)

Legitimate Issue Vs Illegitimate Issue

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)

Last/family name(s)?

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)

The last name of Henry VIII is Tudor, but not all British monarchs had last names officially. Normans did not have a last name of Norman. In fact, they had no last name. Originally, these pages all had the last name (Tudor) added, but it was determined that, since it was the same as the dynasty name, it was repetative. If you would like the official and unofficial names of all British monarchs, I would be happy to provide a list for you. Another way to look for family names on a number of these lists is by looking at the bottom of the page on the succession list. It often says something like "House of Tudor" and if that is a cadet branch of a larger house, it may mention that as well. Does that answer your question? If not, you can send me a message on my talk page. I may or may not respond here again.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 23:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

gap

There is a gap in the narrative between 1505 and 1533. The part beginning in 1533 refers mysteriously to "these events".

Accuracy tag

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)

Two wives?

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)

Well, sorta but not really. He annulled four of his marriages — Catharine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, Anne of Cleves, and Catherine Howard (in the cases of Boleyn and Howard, only a few hours before their executions) — but there would have to have been a marriage to begin with in order to annull it.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 02:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Annulling means the marriage was never valid, surely. Also, it looks very odd to start the article 'Famous for having six wives' and then down in trivia saying 'but actually he only had two...'. 81.110.14.145 21:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I reworded the trivia item to be more clear about the view you have to take for this to true. Previous text: "Technically, Henry was only married twice. Four of his marriages were annulled which means they never took place." I changed the ending to "...which means officially they never happened at all." This distinguishes the official view of what counts as a marriage (even retroactively) from the practical view that there was in fact a ceremony, a preacher, vows exchanged, etc. Chester320 22:51, 19 April 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)

Incorrect Death Date

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)

Illegitimate Son

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)

I have cleaned up a small section that claims Edward VI to be his only surviving son to say his only "legitimate" surviving son. I hope this is acceptable to everyone. Colincbn 02:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious addition

Someone with an IP added the following item to the "Trivia" section:

• He was also reputed to be a Grand Master in the Hampshire Masonic Lodge.

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)

Henry's Wives

The section on Henry's Wives needs to be cleaned up--it is almost incomprehensible. Jaded531 20:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Assertio septem sacramentorum aduersus Martin. Luther

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)

Pigrimage of Grace

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.

'Unhealthy' son

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

When did Arthur die?

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)

Petition for annulment of first marriage

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)

Foreign policy

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)

Henry VIII's policy towards Scotland failed because he was a bull and Scotland his china shop! In political and strategic terms, Scotland was for Henry as Spain was for Napoleon: a 'running sore', a sideshow which effectively undermined the whole imperial strategy. He could conceivably have achieved much more by patience and diplomacy; for Scotland and England had been growing closer together, and the 1502 Treaty of Perpetual Peace, gave him a foundation on which to build. Rather, he preferred aggressive courses, encouraged by fleeting military sucesses, like the Battle of Flodden, where empty glory took the place of real achievment. A potential friend was turned into a resentful enemy, one that was willing to renew the ancient alliance with France, which had the effect of further weakening Henry's Continental ambitions.

In the great game of international poker Francis I, Henry's chief opponent, was a far better player than the English king, always recognising the strategic importance of the Scottish card, which he played effectively time and again. Henry had neither the patience nor the skill to adopt a piecemeal approach to his problems. Obsessed with conquest in France, he blustered and fumed in Scotland. He wanted the Scots to be co-operative and quiescent; but to ensure stability in the north he was prepared to commit only sufficinent resources to keep the problem alive, but not enough to bring a permanent solution. He was told by Thomas Cromwell, his most talented minister by far, that "Who that entendeyth Fraunce to wyn with Skotland let hym begyn." But Henry did not win in Scotland, in military or diplomatic terms. His victory at the Battle of Solway Moss in 1542 might have opened fresh opportunities; instead it only made an unsatisfactory sitution even worse. With the throne of Scotland occupied by the infant Mary, he saw the prospect of bringing the intractable northern realm under his direct control on the cheap, so to speak, by a marriage between the little Queen and Prince Edward, his own son and heir. Again diplomacy may have worked; again diplomacy gave way to bullying and bluster, this time in the form of the Rough Wooing. This violent attempt to 'persuade' the Scots of the advantages of an English alliance had the reverse effect, moving them ever deeper towards France. It was also in the Battle of Ancrum Moor to provide the occasion for the worst English military defeat of the whole reign. When Henry died in 1547 his ambitions in France and his schemes in Scotland had achieved virtually nothing. It was a reign of empty achievments and vanished opportunities. Clio the Muse 01:31, 13 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)

Henry Only ever had one wife!

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)

The Prince of Wales?

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)

The title is held by the eldest "living" son of the sovereign. After Arthur died, that became Henry, and as such his father created him Prince of Wales. Hope that helps. Prsgoddess187 13:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's wrong, the title belongs not to the eldest son, nor the eldest living son, but rather the heir apparent (see George III) DBD 19:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, it helped me. 87.250.113.199 12:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it's bestowed on the heir-apparent. GoodDay 23:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Accession

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)

Two Henry, Duke of Cornwall's with different birthdates?

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)

Early life

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)

Sorry, your first version is not correct. "Sibling" means brother or sister, meaning Henry VIII's brothers and sisters, not Henry VII's. If your wording referred to Henry VII's "children", that would be correct - but this article is about VIII, not VII, so making it reference Henry VIII's siblings makes more sense. Cheers, Ian Rose 01:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Anne Boleyn was his daughter, Elizabeths mother.

King of England; Lord of Korea and Japan?

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)

Shakespeare's Play

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)

Mistresses

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)

Illegitimate Children

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)

Or in a popular biography, a mixture of the two. qp10qp (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't much like the way the article deals with this question—by listing the Carey children as Henry's but noting that some historians question it (oddly, the listing is not referenced but the questioning is—though only to popular historian Weir). It should be the other way round. Rather than treat this as fact, the best historians merely note Hales's unreliable rumour-mongering and the view of someone like Anthony Hoskins (see Scarisbrick, Bernard). It remains only a possibility, therefore–literally a footnote in history (as it should be on our page, in my opinion). William Carey acknowledged the children as his own; realistically, that leaves historians with little scope to prove otherwise. The adult Henry Carey bore no resemblance to Henry, though his thin-faced looks weren't dissimilar to Elizabeth's, which may have been the Boleyn in him. qp10qp (talk) 12:15, 24 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)

A brief sentence there might be useful in place of the listing. One could put the names of historians in the ref.qp10qp (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That would work. Having them in the table could give the wrong impression, at first glance, suggesting that it was generally accepted that they were Henry's children during their lifetimes - as in "The Other Boleyn Girl" - and that it's only now that some historians dispute their paternity.193.95.162.29 (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that John Perrott should also be removed from the table, especially if the only "evidence" of his paternity is a claimed resemblence to Henry. Since Henry Fitzroy was the only illegitimate child acknowledged by Henry, I think that he is the only one who should be included in the table. If alleged illegitimate children are to be included in the article, a brief paragraph or sentence after the table would be enough but I don't think that they should be included with Henry's acknowledged children.193.95.162.29 (talk) 07:35, 25 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)

Not entirely true re. Henry banishing reminders of Anne from his life. Thomas Boleyn is known to have attended court functions following his daughter's death, inlcuding playing a part in Edward's christening ceremony. At one point after Elizabeth Boleyn's death, Henry was considering the idea of a marriage between his niece, Lady Margaret Douglas, and Thomas Boleyn and when the latter died, he paid for Masses to be said for him. If he was willing to allow Anne's father to stick around, I don't think that we can attach any great significance to the fact that the children of Mary Boleyn - who was estranged from the family at the time of Anne's downfall - were allowed to stay at court.86.47.42.32 (talk) 12:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you are referring to the Mary Rose, wasn't that boat named after Henry's sister? 18.173.1.125 (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2009 (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)

most of the above is speculation; we cant know what Henry did or did not think about infant mortality or his mistresses' bed-sharing habits if it is not part of the historical record.18.173.1.125 (talk) 14:13, 14 October 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)

Please correct date of coronation on sidebar.

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)

Corrected; well spotted. (The infernal thing you refer to is called an "infobox": yuk!) qp10qp (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Mary I.

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)

Please do add it in. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. qp10qp (talk) 15:55, 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)

Daughters' Titles

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)

Even better, just call them Mary and Elizabeth. qp10qp (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

True. Whatever style is used, I think that it should be the same for both of them.86.47.42.32 (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

On Henry's military experience

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)

Well, he led the siege of Boulogne personally in 1544, though it seems he rather got in the way. By all accounts, though, he was happier then than he'd been for years. I think you could still be regarded as manly and heroic without doing much fighting, because of all the jousting and so forth, which could be quite dangerous (ask Henry II of France).

You are right to spot that the article needs much improvement. I'd like to have a go at it one day. qp10qp (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"I think you could still be regarded as manly and heroic without doing much fighting, because of all the jousting and so forth, which could be quite dangerous." -- I do certainly agree with this. I was just interested in having clarification in the article as to whether his rep was due to "civilian" or "military" experiences or some combination therof. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Descendants

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've noticed this. The obsession with miscarriages and stillbirths on Wikipedia raises my eyebrow. Wikipedia seems obsessed with children. Even when they lived only for a day or two: they appear in infoboxes, dynasty boxes, and tables/lists of children, often several times in the same article. This makes Wikipedia oddly diferent from other encyclopedias and from history books: to what end? Also, our articles tend to push ancestor tables further generations back than the genealogical tables in history books. What for? qp10qp (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Mistresses

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)

As both Fraser and this article explicitly state, for the purposes of this discussion we are excluding women who he later married from his mistresses. I don't know about Elizabeth Fitzwalter, Fraser doesn't mention her, other historians may do so. PatGallacher (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Henry VIII Myths?

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)

It does look like a croissant (LOL), but it's his glove. His weight is addressed in the section: "Death and succession". I can only recall seeing him with a drumstick in adverts and in the Charles Laughton film, so perhaps that is part of his image in popular culture. qp10qp (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Facinating! Thank you for your help. Though I was refering crescent shaped brown thing that Henry was holding, and the painting being a portarit. Though, I have little knowledge of monarchy, so I'll go ahead and presume you're correct. Also, I though the whoe eight wives theory was fiction... my, was I wrong! Heh, this is a really good article. I believe it should go for the Featured Article database. So once again, I would like to thank you for your intelligent and quick response, and I hope to see you again someday.

P.S.: Did you know France used the guillitine in private until 1972? Public beheading was stopped years ago.

TurtleShroom! :) ^†Jesus Loves You and Died for you!^† 23:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Names

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)

Semi-protection

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)

Latin titles mess [POV opinion of Timerode]

Please somebody undo the drunken mess John made of the infobox. - Timerode (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well thank you very much. So much for putting time and effort into extending relevant data. And from someone who didn't even have the wit to work out how to undo. --JohnArmagh (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I am open to persuasion, but as this is the English language Wikipedia I do not think it is appropriate to put lengthy material in languages other than English, particularly if the English version is already there, and particularly in infoboxes where space is limited. PatGallacher (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that where an official title is in a language other than English then that information is relevant, as long as English translation is provided. I believe this to hold true of articles relevant to countries with languages other than English. Similarly it is appropriate to include native language/script where etymologically relevant. This is the English language wiki - but it should not give the impression that it has an English-language bias, or imply that the English translation is (or was) the official designation --JohnArmagh (talk) 16:57, 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 martyr John Wycliffe

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.

erratum

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)

The section was lost to vandalism on 27 September 2008. I have restored it from the version prior to deletion. Keith D (talk) 19:05, 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)

Thanks - I have remove 2 links to the database as appears to be no longer available. Keith D (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

romans

i don't think the romans were involved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.217.69 (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

jousting

why was jousting so popular? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.217.69 (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Later War with France

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)

Fame

what made him so famous???

• HVIII was the direct relation to the longest line of monarch succession in England...the Tudors. When Elizabeth died that ended the House of Tudors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.57.36.176 (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• He created the church of England and laid down the foundations for divorce, so he was rather an influential figure both then and today --Thanks, Hadseys 22:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Execution of Anne Boleyn

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)

Mary I under France and the Hapsburgs

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)

Title

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)

Cranmer annulled the marriage just before she was executed. qp10qp (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2009

On the Final Table

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)

New file File:Henry VIII Presenting a Charter to the Barber Surgeons Company by Bernard Baron.jpg

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)

Henry VIII and royalist claimants

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)

Succinctly

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)

New images

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)

• 
  After Hans Holbein the Younger, circa 1536-1537
• 
  Circa 1535-1540
• 
  Circa 1520
• 
  Late 16th century
• 
  After Hans Holbein the Younger, circa 1542
• 
  With Henry VII, Elizabeth of York, Jane Seymour, by George Vertue, after Remigius van Leemput, after Hans Holbein the Younger, 1737

William Tyndale

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.

Children/Issue

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))

Reverted edit: Issue → Children; Issue is not a term used exclusively to refer to children of English royalty. It is a technical genealogical term not widely understood by laymen. In this sense, go with the term most commonly understood. Cindamuse (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2010 (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)

I concur. The gallery, while it looks nice, does not add credence to an encyclopedia article. The images are best diffused within the article to enhance the prose regarding the particular child. Be bold and go for it. Cindamuse (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

He didn't have 6 wives

According to the book of general ignorance, when asked "How many wives did Henry VIII have" they have to say:

We make it two. Or four, if you're a Catholic. Henry's fourth marriage to Anne of Cleves was annulled. This is very different from divorce. Legally, it means the marriage never took place. There were two grounds for the annulment. Anne and Henry never consummated their marriage; that is, they never had intercourse. Refusal or inability to consummate is still grounds for an annulment today. In addition, Anne was already betrothed to Francis I, Duke of Lorraine when she married Henry. At that time, the formal act of betrothal was a legal bar to marrying someone else. All parties agreed no legal marriage had taken place. So that leaves five. The Pope declared Henry's second marriage to Anne Boleyn was illegal, because the king was still married to his first wife, Catherine of Aragon. Henry, as head of the new Church of England, declared in turn that his first marriage was invalid on the legal ground that a man could not sleep with his brothers widow. The King cited the Old Testament, which he claimed as 'God's law', whether the Pope liked it or not. Depending on whether you believe the pope or the king that brings it down to either three or four marriages. Henry anulled his marriage to Anne Boleyn just before he had her executed for adultery. This was somewhat illogical: if the marriage had never existed, Anne could hardly be accused of betraying it. He did the same with his fifth wife, Catherine Howard. All the evidence suggests she unfaithful to him before and during their marriage. This time, Henry passed a special act making it treasonable for a queen to commit adultery. Once again, he also had the marriage. So that makes four annulments, and only two incontestably legal marriages.

• In spite of this I propose a new section entitled "Confusion over number of marriages" or words to that effect --Thanks, Hadseys 00:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently numerous historians believe he did have six wives[2]. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

• It's written by the people from Q.I. who have meticulously researched it, and given that we're encyclopedia I don't think we should perpetuate common misconceptions, epecially given that Henry VIII is a large part of the school syllabus in the UK. It definately deserves a mention

If you want to get technical about the number of marriages, Henry was excommunicated in 1533. This means that he would have been barred from the sacraments, including marriage. Logically, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, all marriages that took place while he was excommunicated would be invalid, meaning that he only ever had one wife - Katherine of Aragon.

Since Henry himself contested the legality of that marriage, none of his marriages could be said to be "incontestably legal". 86.47.42.32 (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2009 (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)

Since Wives of Henry VIII is a separate article, is that not the proper place for such an analysis? Scolaire (talk) 07:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Arthur's Death?

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)

Empty space

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)

Could be browser dependant as I do not see a problem using Firefox 3.5.3. Also could vary with the TOC hidden. Keith D (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably true. There seems to quite often be spacing issues between browsers. For whatever reason, it is considerably smaller today. Perhaps someone corrected it on Firefox, as I am using IE7. Sapiencia (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Anne & Amelia of Cleves

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)

Use of mechanical inventions?

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)

List of 5 popes

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)

Bluff King Hal

The moniker "Bluff King Hal" redirects to this article, but the article explains nothing about it. Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Protestant monarch?

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)

Thanks for pointing this out, I fixed it now. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Though he took the english church away from papal authority, Henry VIII remained a catholic all his life. (I guess this happened because one can add a category without providing a source!)--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Health, sports and injuries

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)

If you can dig up some sources, I'd love to see them, and I'm sure other folks here would, too. Without sources, however, it can't be included. Jedikaiti (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Mnemonics

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)

Anne Boleyn's Refusal to Become Henry's Mistress

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 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, she would have had to been conceived on or about December 15th, 1532 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.

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)

While your concerns may be valid, rather than disparage Wikipedia, why not register and make the changes yourself? There are tools provided by Wikipedia that bring resolution to your concerns. Additionally, please make sure to sign your comments on talk pages by typing four tildes, i.e., ~~~~ after your entry. Thanks. Cindamuse (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Seeming contradiction as regards religious attitudes

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)

Good point. The details in the text are correct but I think the lede sentence needs changing to say that he was a lifetime believer in core Catholic theology, but he changed the rituals and ceremonies. Rjensen (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Henry never referred to Anne of Cleves as a Flanders Mare.

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandamitford (talk • contribs) 08:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Early Reign: 1509–1525 - matching a 'groundless' opinion

'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)

Mnemonics again

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)

"Handguns" seems ambiguous

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)

Edit request from 82.4.51.7, 16 June 2010

{{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. SpigotMap 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)

Automate archiving?

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)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Cites to Hibbert

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)

Mistresses

{{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)

Vandalism

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)

Pending changes, or even page protection is always an option if it gets out of hand. There's always an option. Jmlk17 21:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Number of wives

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)

so what is the myth? he married six times. as for "valid" that is a legal term and it turns out the law was maleable in Henry's hands.Rjensen (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Validity between the churches doesn't negate the fact that he was married, six times, to six different women. Jmlk17 04:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Pretended?

"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)

Children by Catherine of Aragon

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 request from Amylhampton, 29 October 2010

{{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)

Done -Atmoz (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Maximilian

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)

Edit request from Henricus_Rex, 16 December 2010

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 request from 78.147.16.180, 15 January 2011

{{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)

Anti-Catholic Wikipedia

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)

Ugh. Setting aside the idiocy and paranoia of "UnsignedIP," there do seem to be some NPOV problems with this article. Here's a glaring example: "The pope behaved more as an Italian prince involved in secular affairs, which often obscured his religious role. The Church treated England as a minor stepchild, allowing it one cardinal out of fifty, and no possibility of that cardinal becoming pope. For reasons of state it was increasingly intolerable that major decisions in England were settled by Italians. The divorce issue exemplified the problem but was not itself the cause of the problem. As long as Cardinal Wolsey dominated the government the widespread sentiment for reform could go nowhere." There's plenty of opining here, and even the citation provided is cited in an opinionated manner. I have no love for either Henry VIII nor the Catholic Church of the period, but this is hardly balanced by any standard. Matt Thorn (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Matt Thorn makes a good point, and I have revised the article to make it clear that these were the issues as seen from Henry's viewpoint. Rjensen (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Attractive?

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)

lots of sources report his beauty. see Hall I(1900) p xxiv Rjensen (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you include that as a reference? (It's pretty hard for me to see how the man depicted on the cover of Hall's book could be considered attractive -- but it is maybe a later picture, and I'm not a 16th century brit.) Kdammers (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This is such a daft comment by someone who obviously doesnt understand that for his time he was attractive. That has nothing to do with what you think now.193.1.57.1 (talk) 17:51, 18 November 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)

the best Wikipedia style is clear, short, accurate and based on RS, which characterizes the quote.Rjensen (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Composer

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

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)

If you want to cite, use, or summarise from L&P you could build a precise piped link in the ref from Letters and Papers, Henry VIII (not a scan, but the whole thing re-typed); then it is easy for anyone to check if the primary source is misrepresented, noting that the wiki-guidance on primary sources cautions against analysis of primary source material by editors (it's hard to get the page number from this site, but the individual document number is adequate, and commonly used by historians).Unoquha (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

Done — Bility (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Move proposal

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)

I agree -- the title Henry VIII of England‎ is too pedantic. Rjensen (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Suppport I agree with the move, as the current title implies there are similarly notable Henry VIIIs, which there are not. Henry VIII fits with our convention on article names for English monarchs.--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support as there are no other Henry VIIIs out there (we could also have the same discussion with all the King Edwards out there, especially II-VIII as well as some of the King Louiss). Hot Stop (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Pre-emptive disambiguation is still being followed in the large majority of relevant cases, see James V of Scotland, Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, umpteen others. PatGallacher (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit 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)

Not done: as I read both the current article and your request, This was clearly a sign of the ignorance of those days, it appears that how the current article the information in there is what they thought at the time and therefore is what the article should read. Jnorton7558 (talk) 10:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit 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)

Done SteveO (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Spearhead

Can anyone help contribute to this discussion/improve the article? Thanks in advance. Boleyn (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Biography

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 a pedophile, that refers to an adult who prefers pre-pubescent children. He would at best be an ephebophiliac, and I don't believe he was even that, since he was not doing something considered deviant or even unusual during his time. Why don't we judge people by the cultures they lived in, rather than judging them by whatever our modern cultural standards are? Ella Plantagenet (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

Do you intend to go through the biographies of every historical figure on wikipedia and note every one of today's laws (not in existence during their times) that they probably broke? Will there be thorough footnotes detailing in which modern jurisdictions these laws apply and in which they don't along with explanations of what the societal norms at the time were and why they were not laws at the time of the subject's existence? Sounds like a massive undertaking, rather you than me! danno 18:13, 27 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)

Since when did we decide to start assigning modern cultural values to a man who died 450 years ago? Which modern culture should we pick to judge Henry by? American culture? European culture? Middle Eastern culture? African culture? Asian culture? Indian culture? And after we've picked which overarching culture, which of the hundreds if not thousands of subcultures within those cultures should we pick? Why not try to see his through the eyes of the culture the man actually existed in? Henry did so many reprehensible things, I don't think it's necessary to start dragging modern cultural values into it. Ella Plantagenet (talk) 09:00, 26 August 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.

law of affinity

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)

No, the Bible, specifically Leviticus, explicitly says that if a man marries his brother's wife, the union will be childless. That's why Henry needed papal dispensation to marry Katherine of Aragon in the first place. Ella Plantagenet (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

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.

I fixed it--and added a cardinal he did behead (that was John Fisher) Rjensen (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 193.63.61.50, 23 September 2011

ollie onslow 193.63.61.50 (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a request--Jac16888 ^Talk 11:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Big Mistake in article

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)

Question about Jane Seymour painting

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)

She did die in 1537, twelve days after her son was born. The painting of 1545 was done as a dynastic propaganda painting after a new Act of Succession had been passed, confirming Edward's status as Henry's legitimate heir, but also including Edward's illegitimate half-sisters Mary and Elizabeth (though both their mothers had been Henrys queens, he had divorced them and declared them illegitimate, a controversial thing in both cases). Jane was included in the painting because Henry viewed her as his one true wife and mother of his only legitimate child - Edward. Such propaganda paintings back then were often not meant as a true depiction of a person from life but as a representation of dynastic lines. Henry had both himself and Jane depicted in another painting that included both his long deceased parents for example. And his daughter Elizabeth rarely sat in person for the countless paintings of her done during her life, the painters just copied her features from older paintings.--Feuerrabe (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Marriage to Catherine Howard 'null & void'

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)

The point is the following: The marriage was annulled, which is different from a divorce. Annullment means the marriage is declared as never having legally existed (which is what the 'null and void' is about). This in turn means that she can't technically have committed adultery by sleeping with her husband's groom, since said 'husband' was never legally her 'husband' in the first place and can therefore not have been cuckolded by her.--Feuerrabe (talk) 20:47, 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)

I'm not sure it actually was annulled, we dont have a reference for this statement, it seems to be Original research on the implication that it is automatically anulled by the existance of the previous contract, rather then annulled by some action take afterwards...without a reference I find this odd, especially since catherine's own page has a statement that differs, which has 2 references which reads "Catherine herself remained in limbo until Parliament passed a bill of attainder on 7 February 1542.[19] The bill made it treason, and punishable by death, for a queen consort to fail to disclose her sexual history to the king within twenty days of their marriage, or to incite someone to commit adultery with her."Smitty1337 (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Smitty, it seems you are right and that marriage was never annulled. I just searched through David Starkey's book 'Six Wives', which gives a very detailed account of Catherine Howard's fall and execution and nowhere does it mention an annullment. I suggest we take this sentence out of the article.--Feuerrabe (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, only briefly reviewed the reference but it would seem to be a valid point. Perhaps we could place a similar statement as the quote from Howard's article and maybe keep the same references? I'll wait for consensus before taking action on that however I will remove the null/void statement as it seems confusing at best and likely inaccurate or at least misleading.Smitty1337 (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I support that, Smitty. I think the important fact is the bill that was passed afterwards.--Feuerrabe (talk) 12:33, 22 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)

You are correct that the marriage to Anne Boleyn was anulled of course. However I do own Antonia Fraser's book which you have used as a source for an anullment of Howard's marriage but cannot find any mention of it there and you did not cite a page. If Fraser mentions an anullment, please add the exact page where she does so. Antonia Fraser's book contains some mistakes in other areas, so I am sceptical of her as a source. Starkey in his 'Six Wives' goes into extreme detail on Howard's marriage and execution but never mentions an anullment. There is no mention of an anullment in Henry VIII's biography article in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography either or in the contemporary Letters and Papers of Henry's reign on British History online. Lastly, it seems to me that it was necessary in Henry's eyes to anull the marriage with Anne Boleyn, because he had a child with her and wanted to render her illegitimate. But he had no children with Katherine Howard. Any subsequent marriage after her would have been completely legal without an anullment, simply because she was dead and gone.--Feuerrabe (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The best reference to the annulment of Anne's marriage is Letters & Papers Henry VIII, vol.10 (1887) no. 896, 17 May 1536, which gives the following abstract of the archival source; "Sentence pronounced by the archbishop of Canterbury of the nullity of the marriage between the King and Anne Boleyn, in the presence of Sir Thos. Audeley, chancellor, Charles duke of Suffolk, John earl of Oxford, and others, at Lambeth, 17 May 1536." This calendar can be read on-line at British History Online.Unoquha (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we all agree that the marriage to Anne Boleyn was annulled, it's well documented. I am just doubting that there was ever an annullment for Catherine Howard, which the article now claims.--Feuerrabe (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 3 November 2011

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	(1491-06-28)28 June 1491 Greenwich Palace, Greenwich
Died	28 January 1547(1547-01-28) (aged 55) Palace of Whitehall, London
Burial	4 February 1547 St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle
Spouses	Catherine of Aragon (m. 1509–1533) (annulled) Anne Boleyn (m. 1533–1536) (annulled) Jane Seymour (m. 1536–1537) (her death) Anne of Cleves (m. 1540) (annulled) Katherine Howard (m. 1540–1542) (annulled) 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)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{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)

Citation request

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)

Last words

About his last words,what does "Monks! Monks! Monks!" mean?74.178.186.35 (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I found "monks+monks+monks" this and added it in as a possible explanation.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Category

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)

Edit request on 14 April 2012

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)

Edit request from , 11 November 2011

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)

Parallelism

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)

Edit request on 25 July 2012

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)

Looks like someone got it--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 July 2012

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)

Done RudolfRed (talk) 06:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Citation system...

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)

Such is the range of schoalrship what I think actually needs to happen is for some to be removed in the process. But yes, I'm in favour of essentially two sections: sources used in the article, and works by noted authors (or some other criterion) for further reading (i.e. not cited). I don't mind what these are called. Harvnb's fine, just I reckon most of the source might not be used once the article is worked on and I'd be hesitant to neaten up all the sourcing now. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Any objections if we go ahead with this...? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I object because it would ruin the highly useful "bibliography" section. History students use the article as a guide to the literature, rather than merely as sources cited in the text. Rjensen (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Rjensen, my fault, I probably wasn't being clear about what we might have consensus for. I was proposing:

• Applying short citations consistently through the article, using the harvnb template.
• Retitling "Sources" as "Bibliography", and applying consistent formatting with the cite book template.
• Retitling the existing "Bibliography" as "Further Reading" (as per the MOS), but not removing any of the content.

Does that address your concerns? Hchc2009 (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, especially " not removing any of the content" Rjensen (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, personally I think which extra reading is listed needs a review, but that can (and should) come later. I do strongly suggest not doing the harvnb thing until work has been done on the article. Converting my normal system to harvnb is nothing compared to what could be saved time-wise by there being fewer sources used after. That being said, obviously you can if you're that way inclined. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:19, 29 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)

• The citations are now done. Lots of them are missing page references, and I can't work out which Hibbert volume is being referred to it (it lacks a title or even a year...) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• And the bibliography is all in the same format. Again, lots and lots of basic gaps (publishers, locations, etc.) but at least its all consistent. I'm inclined to wait until we've culled some of the unreliable sources out (e.g. 1902 collections of real and fictional last words) before filling all of those gaps in... Hchc2009 (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

the problem is that users lose info with harvnb, especially the chance to click on a link and get to the exact page of a cited sources, such as Karen Stöber (2007). Late Medieval Monasteries And Their Patrons: England And Wales, C.1300-1540. Boydell Press. p. 190. This is a serious loss for very little gain to anyone. Rjensen (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus? Nope. Two people commented and both objected ["I do strongly suggest not doing the harvnb thing until work has been done on the article" said one and I objected.] the translation to harvnb deletes info that is very useful, esp a direct link to the exact page. Rjensen (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Rjensen, this probably highlights the challenges of communicating over the internet... I thought that when you said "OK" above that was you agreeing to the proposal. Was your preference going for long citations consistently throughout? Hchc2009 (talk) 08:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I was willing to see the harvnb usage as an experiment. I am disappointed in the results, which are less helpful in my opinion. For example with long cites when you put your cursor on a footnote you could read the entire cite, but now you only get a useless single word. Furthermore we now have two confusing and competing bibliographies that do not tell users what books would actually be useful for them. Rjensen (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you use popups (yellow-orange boxes when hovering)? That's quite a specific thing. When the system's done you can click on "Loades 2009" and it'll highlight the right book. On the other note originally there were three sections, so that's actually an improvement. We have the first section, which is sources used in the article, and the second section which is sources not used in the article. If we ran them into one it would be a very long list, something that it would be hard for a reader to get a handle on. We could consider shortening both sections, if only there could be a concerted effort in terms of criteria. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Potential improvements to the article...

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:

• We probably need to build in a little bit more background in terms of the civil conflicts that led up to Henry taking the throne, which contributed both to some of the tensions he perceived, but also the propaganda he used. I might have a book on this we could draw on.
• The foreign policy aspects of his reign aren't as clearly pulled out in the article as some other parts of his life.
• His approach to government and the military are similarly probably under-represented.
• I'm not convinced the "List of Popes during the reign of Henry VIII" adds much to the article.
• Some of the sources being cited are definitely out of date for this sort of article; (e.g. the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia).
• Some of the sources are definitely not high quality (e.g. "Discovery News"), or not authoritative for a history article (The Independent Newspaper). Some are distinctly popular histories, e.g. Antonia Fraser's works, and we could probably find some more specialist academic works to support these points.
• "Depictions in literature and popular culture" will probably need a (cited) paragraph or two in support of it. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; I'd be a little slow to write out Fraser-type sources though. Other sources yes. I was going to cynically delay work until 1 August for the core contest (which might draw in further help). I was considering removing the "popes" section myself; their interactions are better elsewhere (and most of the section's information is basic information about the popes themselves and not their dealings with Henry). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been bold on the list, but flagged up that someone might disagree and wish to restore it. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Mistresses

Separate section? In the chronology? All put it with the "Great matter"? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd go for incorporating the paragraphs into the relevant chronological sections. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Westminster Abbey - how was Henry involved in its improvement?

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)

Edit request 11 October 2012

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)

good point. I fixed it and rephrased the passage to avoid passive voice. Rjensen (talk) 11:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Why all the other changes, Rjensen? Also if I recall correctly Scarisbrick rather undermines his point by mentioning clerical provisions for Henry. However it doesn't add much to our understanding of him, but some of the other changes do have an effect. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to follow Scarisbrick more closely (and quoted him), while dropping some minor stuffing. Rjensen (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

If you cling to Scarisbrick to closely you import his views directly and put the article at risk of not representing the whole range. I was assimilating Scarisbrick and Loades but other sources would work here. The unattributed ""untrained in the exacting art of kingship." is a bit confusing in the sense that it could be contemporary and I don't think there's any need to since there is no real difference between historians on the point. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

"untrained in the exacting art of kingship." is cited to Scarisbrick p 6, and seems quite an important point to bring to the readers attention. I did drop stuff about the small child at age 5 witnessing a ceremony. Rjensen (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

What does that phrase mean? (Although it is much better with the attribution.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I shan't keep you long

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)

In response to the word flirt, my dictionary lists "flirt" as meaning "Experiment with or show a superficial interest in (an idea, activity, or movement) without committing oneself to it seriously" (as well as its human meaning).

In response to your "fastest" thing, if you can find a reliable source that makes this claim, post it here and another editor will add the claim to the article, if appropriate. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

That last bit was added here by a different user, so I removed it. Favonian (talk) 14:07, 3 November 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)

Name love?

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

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)

I'd start by inserting them into the chronology at the appropriate point. (Sorry I didn't see this before, by the way.) Be careful not to put too much weight on the subject; there has to be some suggestion by modern historians that they were the children on Henry - although the fact they/others claimed such is interesting, because this article is a summary that probably isn't enough to justify inclusion here. Multiple historians supporting at least the possibility of their paternity is a good start. Once it's added to the chronology and properly referenced then we can go on to assess whether their claim is strong enough for the issue box at the bottom. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Voyages of discovery of Henry VIII

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>

Important new findings on Henry VIII's possible brain damage

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.

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/the-jousting-accident-that-turned-henry-viii-into-a-tyrant-1670421.html

{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)

That article is already used in the "Death and succession" section at #107. (The same idea at #110.) There are several competing and/or supplementary theories, and it's important we don't accept one too much over the others when it's clear that respected academics disagree. It's worthy of a proper mention, which is why it's included there.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Charles V

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)

Levitical marriage of widows

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)

Reliable Sources would be needed to use such an interpretation in the article and they would have to be specifically about Henry VIII.

Wedding location for Henry and Anne

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

Anne of Cleves

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))

Poor choice of wording for Anne's downfall

"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? DEL24.163.71.116 (talk) 06:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree. In fact, I'd been about to comment on the same line myself. Unless somebody can find reliable sources suggesting that historians of repute believe that Anne was somehow ensorcelled (and incidentally, I went out of my way to try and find some for sake of curiosity) I'm going to rewrite the line to show that these are allegations at best. If 'witchcraft' is being used to mean something other than the modern day definition (as I suspect may be the case), then this should be clearly stated. Indeed, her own article states that "Modern historians view the charges against her, which included adultery, incest, and witchcraft, as unconvincing." Weirdtheory (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Good call - it was only the incredulity the reader was presumed to have against witchcraft that led me to the prior arrangement, but I guess to some the proviso is needed. In respect of some form of adultery I believe the jury's out. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Christina of Denmark, Duchess of Milan

Christina

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)

I don't believe she's mentioned in the biographies, at least not significantly enough to make mention in this article: many potential wives were painted and considered. It would be suitable in her and Holbein's articles, though. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• How about a See also link: Christina of Denmark potential bride after Jane Seymore - Soerfm (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 June 2013

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)

There aren't any hard criteria for inclusion, but Henry does not appear to be the main focus of the work. Has it won any awards, or set any new standards? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Closing as Not done for now: No response from requester. --ElHef (Meep?) 15:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 June 2013

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)

Marking request as Already done in this edit, by Grandiose. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 13:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolute power?

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)

Discovery.com

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)