Talk:Henry VIII/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2014

replace compaign with campaign cheers 27.33.102.15 (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Done Many thanks for reporting the error, I have made the change. Keith D (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources...

...Ian, the problem with something like http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=grbcpb&id=I12415 is that it's simply been uploaded by "Gary" (nfi). That doesn't meet the standards of WP:RELIABLE. Definitely worth having a look to see if you can find the same information in a more reliable form. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is Henry FitzRoy, 1st Duke of Richmond and Somerset included within the list of "Issue"?

I am baffled by this. I cannot find illegitimate children of reigning monarchs on any other page, why is this one included? Henry VIII had other illegitimate children, why are they not included in the list? Mrspy (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as I understand, Henry VIII only acknowledged Henry Fitzroy, the others are conjecture. Plenty of other articles mention monarchs illegitimate children. See Henry I, Richard III and Henry VII Span (talk) 04:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Henry VIII's mistresses and out-of-wedlock children are definitely noteworthy. I've added a section (drawn from 2 small existing articles) on the mistresses of Henry VIII and the children he may have fathered. I moved Henry Fitzroy form the list of children he had with his wives to this new section. As mentioned, illegitimate children of monarchs (acknowledged & alleged) are often mentioned in articles, they are however, most always mentioned separately.Drdpw (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Birth date of Edward VI

Under "Succession" it says "Edward VI (1547-1553). Since Edward was then only nine years old," This clearly includes a typo, since the dates indicate he only lived to be 6 years old. The article on Edward VI himself states his dates as (12 October 1537 – 6 July 1553) . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasmasterman (talk • contribs) 17:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the article is giving the dates that Edward reigned. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Spotted a typo

There's a small typo in the page:

With the chance for a annulment lost and England's place in Europe forfeit, Wolsey bore the blame;

This should be either 'an annulment' or simply:

With the chance for annulment lost and England's place in Europe forfeit, Wolsey bore the blame;

Seewolves (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)SW 10 March 2015

I think "an annulment" is preferable, since we're talking about an instance of it, and maybe "of marriage" to qualify it. I'd make the change, but you seem to be almost auto-confirmed, when you can do it yourself. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Images for inclusion

Hi. The National Library of Wales have just released two versions of a rare image of Henry VIII as a child to Wikicommons. The image is believed by experts to depict Henry VIII weeping following the death of his mother in 1503. His father and sisters also appear in the image. Please consider adding the image to the article. Jason.nlw (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Vaux_Passional._Henry_VIII_(f.9).jpg
File:Vaux_Passional_(f.9)._Henry_VIII_(Cropped).jpg

His death

This page has no information on the death of Henry the 8th. Unless he didn't die? CarolynVines (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

You must have missed the sections on 'Physical decline' and 'Death and burial'. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention the birth-death dates in the header of the article. Time for new glasses? HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

revisited-Discovery.com

I agree with USER:Span - this is a weak reference, and it should go! HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

>It's a pretty well ref'd article, or it was when it achieved GA. But the web page "King Henry VIII's Madness Explained" from discovery.com is a very weak source >for discussing the potential causes of Henry's ill health. Even the page itself says its content is pure conjecture. Other much stronger biographical sources would >be welcome, with a proper overview view given of current, well founded, evidence-based theories. Span (talk) 04:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2015

82.219.32.93 (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC) PLZ LET ME EDIT PAGE

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Marriage to Catherine Howard

In the info box it states that Henry's marriage to Catherine Howard was annulled. It should say 'executed'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowberry7877 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - Henry's marriage to Catherine Howard was not ended by her execution, which was the case with Anne Boleyn only, but by the marriage being ruled "invalid" (the term used at her main article). Since subsequent marriages here are labeled as ended by "annulment", then the term isn't restricted to papal annulments. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Name?

Is he really "Henry" or "Heinrich"?119.92.93.84 (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Henry VIII's last wife Catherine Parr should say "her death" instead of "his death"

under the name of Henry VIII's wife Catherine Parr it says as follows:

(m. 1543; his death 1547)

It should say as follows:

(m. 1543; her death 1547)

The reason it should be changed is because Catherine Parr is a female and not a male.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this edit request Sincerely,

Fox685Fox685 (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

No, she died in 1548. Their marriage ended with his death in 1547. Surtsicna (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Addition/Change to "physical decline" section.

New research on the impact of repeated concussions on Henry's behaviour.86.2.12.245 (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Something's wrong but I don't know what's right

In the section on Ireland the text reads:

However, upon the death of the 8th Earl of Kildare, governor of Ireland, fractional Irish politics combined with a more ambitious Henry to cause trouble.

I don't understand "fractional" here. It's probably meant to be either "factional" or "fractious" (though not much difference between those two). If there is such a thing as fractional politics, it should be explained. JamesMLane t c 22:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that "fractious" is meant, as it has the sense of "Refractory, unruly... (OED, 1st ed.), where "factional" merely means "Of or belonging to a faction or factions...". Dhtwiki (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

How many Henrys (sons)?

The Issue section lists three Henrys, Duke of Cornwall born to Catherine of Aragon, but the Henry, Duke of Cornwall page only lists two. Catherine's page doesn't give a name for the third, stillborn boy. So should the list on this page be corrected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.191.204.101 (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• There were three Henrys. See Children of Henry VIII. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Someone seems to have removed some information on the third Henry, possibly on the basis that he was still born and that recording stillbirths is a bias. I put it back at Henry, Duke of Cornwall[1]. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

This article is terrible

This is one of the worst articles, very hard to navigate and find basic info. I still havent find who was his first wife whose marriage annulement ie divorce caused break with the Pope. This reads like a boring history text, no easy parsing for info, not even the name of that woman and link in the intro. Division of article is completely arbitrary. Plus article is edit protected. HORRIBLE. HOW IS THIS A GOOD ARTICLE? Wiki used to be good for easy lookup but this is just useles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.146.188 (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok there is an infobox, but it should really be in the intro ALSO. Plus, you cant NOT put a name and link to his first wife in the first sentence in chapter about annullment. IT MUST BE there. What is frustrating is that you put link to some other Catherine in the beginning of that chapter, VERY CONFUSING AND FRUSTRATING. Such poor writing. This site is supposed to be EASY to find information on. YOU EDIT-PROTECTED THIS and disallow easy fix. WIKIPEDIA IS THE WORST!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.146.188 (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok I will try to fix it. BTW people should not remove comments from talk pages Kiliopa (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

actually it is fine to remove nonconstructive comments from talk pages. And I think when you look at the article you will see that there are no substantial problems. Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Not for you to decide - restored.

No it isn't fine. "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission". [2]. Sheeptostarboard (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Numbering monarchs

It's been the practice on Wikipedia to not number monarchs. Let's stop including the line "second monarch of the Tudor dynasty", please. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

For example: We don't have "fourth monarch of the Windsor dynasty" in the intro at Elizabeth II, or "sixth monarch of the Hannover dynasty" in the intro at Victoria. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, the difference is that you will find plenty of references describing Henry VIII as the second Tudor king. I doubt you will find any referring to Victoria as the sixth Hanoverian monarch. Surtsicna (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't question that he is the second Tudor to be English monarch. It's just not necessary to mention it in the intro. It's not the practice on Wikipedia to number monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Wiki practice is to mention whatever reputable sources deem fit to be mentioned, isn't it? Surtsicna (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

We don't number monarchs like we do presidents, prime ministers etc, you know that. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

We normally don't. But we do say that Afonso I was the first King of Portugal and that Tvrtko I was the first King of Bosnia. We also say that Charles I was the last Emperor of Austria. You are constantly trying to enforce a template of some sort, as if articles about all kings, popes, princesses, etc, have to follow the same pattern. That is simply not achievable. In some cases, it is not even helpful. Henry VIII is commonly called the second Tudor king, possibly because the Tudor period is well known as such. The fact that Victoria is not known as the sixth Hanoverian monarch is no reason for us to ignore the fact that Henry VIII is known as the second Tudor monarch. Surtsicna (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, in many of the articles for English and British monarchs, there are references to their position in their dynasty. Here's what I've collected:

William the Conqueror: "William I (Old Norman: Williame I; Old English: Willelm I; c. 1028[1] – 9 September 1087), usually known as William the Conqueror and sometimes William the Bastard,[2][a] was the first Norman King of England, reigning from 1066 until his death in 1087."

Henry IV of England: "Henry's mother was Blanche, heiress to the considerable Lancaster estates, and thus he became the first King of England from the Lancaster branch of the Plantagenets."

Henry V of England: "He was the second English monarch who came from the House of Lancaster."

Edward IV of England: "He was the first Yorkist King of England."

Richard III of England: "He was the last king of the House of York and the last of the Plantagenet dynasty."

Henry VII of England: "Henry VII, known before accession as Henry Tudor, 2nd Earl of Richmond (Welsh: Harri Tudur; 28 January 1457 – 21 April 1509), was King of England after seizing the crown on 22 August 1485 until his death, the first monarch of the House of Tudor. "

Elizabeth I of England: "Sometimes called The Virgin Queen, Gloriana or Good Queen Bess, the childless Elizabeth was the last monarch of the Tudor dynasty.

James II of England: "He was the last Roman Catholic monarch to reign over the Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland."

Anne, Queen of Great Britain: "Despite seventeen pregnancies by her husband, Prince George of Denmark, she died without any surviving children and was the last monarch of the House of Stuart."

George I of Great Britain: "At the age of 54, after the death of Queen Anne of Great Britain, George ascended the British throne as the first monarch of the House of Hanover."

George III of the United Kingdom: "He was the third British monarch of the House of Hanover, but unlike his two predecessors he was born in Britain, spoke English as his first language,[1] and never visited Hanover."

William IV of the United Kingdom: "The third son of George III and younger brother and successor to George IV, he was the last king and penultimate monarch of Britain's House of Hanover."

Queen Victoria: "She was the last British monarch of the House of Hanover."

George V: "In 1917, George became the first monarch of the House of Windsor, which he renamed from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha as a result of anti-German public sentiment."

George VI: "Edward abdicated in order to marry, and George ascended the throne as the third monarch of the House of Windsor."

Seems to me that where it is appropriate to make those references, there is no problem with including them. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Using "first" or "last" is acceptable. But, anything/everything in between, not so. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Why? Surtsicna (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Because monarchs are generally not numbered, where's presidents & prime ministers are. Anyways, I'm out numbered here (no pun intended), so there's little point in re-establishing my edits. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Evidence seems to suggest otherwise, though. Surtsicna (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

GoodDay, you've several times said it's not the practice on Wikipedia to mention the position of a monarch in his/her dynasty. Is there any previous discussion on this issue that you could point me to? I've not come across it before? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 06:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

As ever, we should follow the practice used in reliable, high-quality secondary sources; if they mention this as a prominent fact, so should we - if not, we shouldn't. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

That's fair. And I would suggest that there is a good reason to point out Henry's status as the second Tudor, because he was the first adult king in almost a century to succeed his father peacefully to the throne, and only the second in almost two centuries. Henry VIII succeeded Henry VII in 1509. The last time an adult son had peacefully succeeded his father was Henry V in 1413. Before that, the last time had been when Edward II peacefully succeeded his father in 1327. The pattern of an adult son peacefully succeeding his father was an important sign of dynastic stability, compared to the successions that did not fit that pattern over the past two centuries. Dynastic stability, or lack thereof, was an important part of medieval politics. This point is therefore worth including in the lead, in my opinion.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Missing/broken link

Can't edit as article is protected. But under Henry's issue, there are three Henry, Duke of Cornwalls listed. The linked page only discusses the first two, not the third. Can someone edit and then remove this? Thank you. 208.124.109.66 (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

This entry is locked, can someone fix one thing for me?

In the third paragraph of the indroductory section there is a sentence that reads:

"He was an extravagant spender and used the proceeds from the Dissolution of the Monasteries and acts of the Reformation Parliament to convert money into royal revenue that was formerly paid to Rome."

Can we just switch it around to:

"He was an extravagant spender and used the proceeds from the Dissolution of the Monasteries and acts of the Reformation Parliament to convert money that was formerly paid to Rome into royal revenue."

The first one is so clunky, and I went to change it quickly but I got shut down. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.109.111 (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I've just changed the original to read "...to convert into royal revenue money that was formerly paid to Rome." Dhtwiki (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Physical decline

Cite this article as well: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2685729368.40.122.133 (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2017

Henry VIII of England was actually buried on 16 February 1547 2A02:C7D:C601:5F00:EC74:938E:E7F4:E887 (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

That is correct. However, as it currently reads, the article is incoherent on this matter, because the infobox states he was buried on 4 February, but the main text states that "On 14 February 1547 Henry's coffin lay overnight at Syon Monastery, en route for burial in St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle." PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding " Death and burial": What sense does this make?

Twelve years before in 1535 a Franciscan friar named William Peyto (or Peto, Petow) (died 1558 or 1559), had preached before the King at Greenwich Palace "that God's judgements were ready to fall upon his head and that dogs would lick his blood, as they had done to Ahab",[145] whose infamy rests upon 1 Kings 16:33: "And Ahab did more to provoke the Lord God of Israel to anger than all the kings of Israel that were before him".[146] The prophecy was said to have been fulfilled during this night at Syon, when some "corrupted matter of a bloody colour"[147] fell from the coffin to the floor. There is nowhere mentioned why this is important to note here. Some monk said something sometimes, and something different happened later - is all this part of common knowldge, is it interesting, is it important?2003:E4:ABC1:400:A027:95B8:EF92:63B1 (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2017

the song about his wives are divorce beheaded died divorce beheaded survived 94.207.224.50 (talk) 08:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Execution of Anne Boleyn

The section on Catherine Howard states - Catherine too was beheaded on 13 February 1542

whereas the section on Anne Boleyn states - At 8 am on 19 May 1536, Anne, age 36, was executed on Tower Green.

Would it not also be worth adding "was executed via beheading" or just "beheaded on Tower Green"

I had to look up externally how she was executed and would be simple to include here :) Might even be worth adding some additional details such as these from this webpage:-

As a concession to her former position, she was not beheaded by a clumsy axe. A skilled swordsman was brought over from France. She was assured that there would be little pain; she replied, with typical spirit, ‘I have heard that the executioner is very good. And I have a little neck.’

https://englishhistory.net/tudor/monarchs/anne-boleyn/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.37.212.252 (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Holding a big ham leg

I think the famous portrait of Henry sitting down and holding a ham leg in his left hand and a goblet in his right should be in this article. I can't believe it's not here, though I can't find it anywhere online for some reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:FD22:7600:FCA3:11A1:E49D:B28E (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

good point-- I added a new section on popular culture: Historian Suzannah Lipscomb remarks: "in this comedic film, full of coy innuendo, the focus is not on the religious and political changes of his reign, but on his marital relations. Henry is the victim of manipulative women, a sympathetic and wronged man, who just wants to be loved and happy like anyone else. He turns to food in his loneliness, devouring and flinging a chicken leg over his shoulder. The audience is encouraged by vicarious identification into considering kingship to be an unenviable burden." [Suzannah Lipscomb, "A King Caught on Camera." History Today (April 2016), 66#4 pp 48+ ] Rjensen (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• Well, if we're adding important cinematic portrayals, not only should we add Charles Laughton's classic - and hysterical, - if not historically accurate - turkey leg throwing interpretation; but we should also include, at least photos of Keith Michell's arguably definitive portrayal; Richard Burton's pyrotechnic interpretation; and Robert Shaw's overly childlike, and overshadowed, work as well. Surely, screencaps of all of them would significantly enhance the article. Just my view. X4n6 (talk) 05:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

What is the main theme of Henry?

Well this article as most descriptions of Henry's reign has his six wives and succession, as the general theme.

My impression is that the six wives is just a side theme better enough for English tabloids and less the basic content of the reign. Not even what is described as consequences of the marriage affairs are really consequences of something else.

Henry is certainly a hot subject and we can read from Wiki “This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Henry VIII of England article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.” I think my subject is rather about the quality of the article (that I think should balance on other facts than the marriage affaires to understand the subject better) than a debate over Henry’s deeds (that contains very biased different parties and could continue forever).

I am neither English nor continental but as a Swede where the protestant reformation to a large extent is accepted triggered mainly to politics and governmental finances as the main political thread, rather than the religious issues. I think an outside view could be interesting to read?

Another factor is a teenage king not meant to be king taking over a general intrigue from his father among nations in Europe where much (of alliance hopping and huge unestablished resources like the continent of America etc never later seen) is possible that is unthinkable in the future centuries, and after the IWW intro completely unthinkable in today’s people’s minds. Family lives of 16th century monarchs aren’t much different in general to Henry’s, and rather not much different up to now (tougher is the future royal family affairs I guess). The big exception was that a Catholic king Henry VIII did not get any permission he wanted (and every king up to the got) from the Pope, because the political enemies of Henry (Charles)controlled the Pope and his Spanish wife, the queen. Here in Wiki, we must think of, we have an article to be read by present readers.

I think the article is good in the beginning describing Henrys French ambitions and that in the end Charles takes it all and left Henry empty handed, with just the bills of costs in his hands.

But I think most important in the story were Henry’s ambition to get the Pope (whoever Pope there were) to support Henry’s interests in the general intrigue. And, the red thread after 1517 is that in the end, the Pope backed Charles (Austria/Spain) and not Henry or France. Then everything after that are in general consequences of the bad papal relations. And definitely not the other way around. Decency were hardly a 16th-century Pope's main interests?

In short politically Henry had to drop the Pope as the Scandinavian kings did on exactly the same basis. The Pope did not deliver anything of value and was very expensive, as the Catholic Church was political fuzz with no local perspective and a huge fortune to take over (in England biasedly expressed to cover the costs the Pope have generated shortly before). In Sweden from the parliament 1600 the church was a solid state authority sorted in like the army, the post office and the taxman in the governmental administration. The wealth of the church integrated in the state and the clergy civil servants of the government. In fact the main channel of communication between the sovereign and the subjects.

Thing is that 1517 was the turn point and the queen was of no use, rather a huge security risk uncontained. Like sleeping with the enemy not capable of delivering political or private pleasure. She as the Pope had to go of the same reason.

I think Anne Boleyn was a thrilling piece after the turn both politically and privately. What I understand she participated in the protestant reformation of England far more than usually told. And most likely after some time became politically uncontrollable. In Henry’s mind converting from a resource to a big problem and had to go. The other wives were as interesting as most kings marriage affairs in general these upon to recently if even now.

That the Anglican church is not Lutheran (a huge royal free ticket to the basic political protestant constitutional formalities) is due to what Henry did to please the Pope before 1517 in order not losing face, and in general politics of the late 16th and early 17th centuries. And certainly a lot has to do with the turnout of the religious issues of the late 16th century monarchs in England as in Scandinavia. In England the late 16th century race of control over America became a huge business issue in competition with the Spaniards and the Dutch. Where the Amsterdam business joined the English crown in the glorious revolution later, and ended up on top both in London and New York under the English/Dutch sovereign. USA would speak Spanish if the reformation had failed in England, because that was the intension of the Pope (under Charles control). The Popes intensions were just not compatible with English business and political ambitions.

And to turn the wheels back I think it is important to see the Christianity created in Constantinople in the 4th century as pure politics rather than religion. The new way of controlling a huge empire politically where the creed is rather a creed to the emperor than to Christ. And confess to Christ meant the impossibility to reject the empire and the emperor. And reject the creed the opposite. Meant that breaking out of Byzantine Empire meant the impossibility to accept its creed. Islam is made to really reject the creed. But split between Rome and Constantinople is made by smaller means, details of the creed so small we can hardly understand what the fuzz is, is of huge political importance. The same story comes again in the early 16th century’s reformations. And in Scandinavia the basic reformation starts even long time before the creed issues, which only confirms what is already done. In Sweden and Denmark 50 years before the reformation, by cutting the band to the Pope authority, still being Catholic and need Luther to be released from a political limbo of constitutional formalities.

Luther came as a gift from heaven for the northern European kings and Henry were stuck in his past and had to improvise and invent the wheel himself (or rather by Cromwell & Co). And as a Byzantine consequence Catholics became enemies of the state, and has not to do with faith and only politics. Same things, the Polish are Catholics because the Russians are Orthodox and the Germans, Swedes and Danes are Lutherans. The Irish are Catholics because the English are Anglican of only political reasons, stating "we are not British", else there would not be any Ireland? The Jews are Jewish because else there wouldn’t be a Jewish nation, has nothing to do with personal faith? The nation behaves like the nation or is no nation?

This red line is no fun, if you are as most in England presently unpolitical light religious Anglican or an English Catholic, is quite understandable. But that makes it also much harder to tell the Henry VIII story. And is really the story of Henry VIIIs six wives something today’s reader really gets anything out of, do anyone understand what the fuzz was all about, the common six wives story sound so remarkably unproportional??

And if the Pope would have been on Henrys side, he would not have got a divorce no problem, or any Fitz would be king after Henry with papal blessing. But a Papal Henry would be as colourful as Henry VII (also important for England) and someone else would be the father of modern England. I think Henry VIII is, and Elisabeth is its mother. In Sweden Gustaf and in Denmark Frederik are celebrated as the father of modern state, them distinguished it from the total political fuzz of the mediaeval times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzalpha (talk • contribs) 11:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC) --Zzalpha (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC) // sorry forgot to sign

calendar

Hello, what calendar are his dates? example, did he die on what we call Jan 28 or on what we call Feb 9?--207.107.113.161 (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

"Despite his resulting excommunication"

This language in the lead is improper as he earned his excommunication. 'Despite his dissolution of the monasteries he remained a believer in core Catholic teachings' would be in the right direction, although entirely too ironic, but the irony comes about from talking about him as a religious person, and one whom has "Catholic" religion (the Anglican use of the term "catholic" which is unusual form), when rather he's instituted anti-Catholicism everywhere. The problem of not stating him a villain is that the result is promoting him a religious visionary. -Inowen (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to change reign dates

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_English_Royalty#Reign_dates Jhood1 (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Here are some sources for Henry VIII reign beginning 22 April 1509:

• Handbook of British Chronology (Fryde et al) p.42
• Handbook of Dates (Cheney) p. 37

I would propose changed the first line of the article to either "22 April 1509" or "1509". The latter seems clearer. Jhood1 (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

File:After Hans Holbein the Younger - Portrait of Henry VIII - Google Art Project.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:After Hans Holbein the Younger - Portrait of Henry VIII - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 28, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-06-28. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Henry VIII of England (1491–1547) was King of England from 1509 until his death. Henry was the second Tudor monarch, succeeding his father, Henry VII. Perhaps best known for his six marriages, his disagreement with the Pope on the question of annulment led Henry to initiate the English Reformation, separating the Church of England from papal authority and making the English monarch the Supreme Head of the Church of England. He also instituted radical changes to the English Constitution, expanded royal power, dissolved monasteries, and united England and Wales. In this, he spent lavishly and frequently quelled unrest using charges of treason and heresy.Painting: Portrait of Henry VIII, workshop of Hans Holbein the Younger

Semi-protected edit request, 27 June 2018

The current construction in the lede section betrays a misunderstanding of the nature of canonical penalties. Here is my suggested rewrite: "He appointed himself the Supreme Head of the Church of England and dissolved convents and monasteries, which resulted in his excommunication. Henry remained a believer in core Catholic theological teachings." 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 04:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Not done: The problem with reinforcing the nature of canonical penalties by rewording the lead in this manner is that it risks promoting the idea that the Catholic Church was the theologically infallible side of this dispute, rather than it being merely the opposing side to it.  spintendo  07:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The only intent of the rewrite is to avoid implying that his excommunication might have caused him (or anyone else) to "disbelieve core Catholic teachings". How can that possibly have the effect that you describe? Let us presume that this request has nothing to do with previous polemics that may have been posted on this talk page. Furthermore, the assertion currently in the lede is NOT SUPPORTED by the cited source: it is currently representing WP:SYNTH to say "despite X, Henry did Y." 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 07:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Please clarify: What is it about the passage on page 361 of the Scarisbrick source, that is incorrect? Kindly repeat the passage here and elucidate how what is written there, does not verify the part of the Wikipedia article it is supposedly a reference for.  spintendo  10:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

"On 17 December 1538 the pope at last prepared to promulgate the bull of excommunication which had been drawn up over three years previously but since suspended, deposing Henry and absolving his subjects from obedience.4 The continuing destruction of English monasticism, the open negotiations between Henry and the Lutherans and the spoliation of shrines (particularly, of course, that of Becket) had finally convinced Paul that Henry must be overthrown." -- There is nothing in this passage, let alone the page or the whole book, that describes Henry's faith in Catholic teachings post-excommunication. This source was quietly changed years and years ago, from another source, The Catholic Encyclopedia article, which does arguably support Henry's Catholic faith in the days before his excommunication, vis-a-vis his book Defence of the Seven Sacraments and his papal title of Fidei defensor, but while I do not doubt the veracity of the statement, I have yet to find a source that supports his continuing Catholic belief after his excommunications (there were more than one), which of course were not for the crime of heresy per se. So at this point, I see that we clearly need to delete that phrase from the lede (it is not even in the body, failing MOS:INTRO). I propose to rewrite it simply: "He appointed himself the Supreme Head of the Church of England and dissolved convents and monasteries, which resulted in his excommunication." 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Partly done: The reference for the claim statement should not have been placed in the lead. Statements elsewhere in the article should be where these references are placed. Indeed, a statement was located elsewhere describing Henry's excommunication, but alas it did not contain a reference. Thus, the Scarisbrick reference from the lead was moved to that statement in the body of text. The statement in the lead regarding Henry's "core religion" (whatever that is supposed to mean) is apparently referenced not by the aforementioned Scarisbrick source, but rather, by the Elton source, page 301. That source was already placed elsewhere in the article next to the text which it references (which ostensibly covers its mention in the lead as well.)  spintendo  19:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Third request

Now I may not have been clear previously, because I contradicted myself whilst coming up to speed on the facts, but I will restate my case more clearly. "Henry remained a believer in core Catholic theological teachings." This statement is unsourced, failing WP:V. It is, on its face, a wholly different assertion from "Ultimately, Henry remained committed to an idiosyncratic mixture of Catholicism and Protestantism; the reactionary mood which had gained ground following the fall of Cromwell had neither eliminated his Protestant streak nor been overcome by it.". I would be happy if you would quote Elton, p. 301, because it would be very interesting if the page contained information which supported both what is asserted in the lede, as well as what is asserted in the body, especially because they essentially contradict each other. The statement in the body does not correlate excommunication with Henry's beliefs, so why are they conflated sans WP:RS in the lede? Furthermore, let us return to my initial objection: WP:SYNTH: "Despite X, Henry believed Y." Y does not follow from X and there is no source that says it does, because it is simply not possible. Therefore we cannot state it in Wikipedia's voice.

• Edit request: Please modify the sentence in the lede to read: "He appointed himself the Supreme Head of the Church of England and dissolved convents and monasteries, for which he was excommunicated." 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Henry's religious designation incorrect in template

The template incorrectly describes Henry as Anglican. The first English monarch to be described as Anglican is Edward VI, according to all histories, plus Wikipedia's own page on Anglicanism. Henry was born a Roman Catholic, but broke with Rome. He continued to regard himself, and is described generally, as "Catholic" or English Catholic after that break - part of the Catholic communion but not under the authority of Rome. He continued to practice the tenets of Catholicism, attended Mass and the sacraments, and to his dying day regarded himself as a Catholic, just not a Roman Catholic. He opposed continental Protestantism, which made the position of his last wife, Catherine Parr, delicate as she, unlike him, was a believer in Protestantism.

It was Edward VI who broke completely with Catholicism and adopted Anglicanism, with different theological beliefs to Catholicism, and a move from the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist to a reformed Protestant one. So it is factually incorrect to call Henry VIII an Anglican after he left Roman Catholicism. It contradicts all histories, and other pages on Wikipedia, all of which say that Henry broke from Roman Catholicism but it was Edward who broke entirely from Catholicism and created an English form of Protestantism called Anglicanism. 213.233.148.16 (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Damage to Henrys coffin and the account his body burst

Came across this on Unreal Facts. Stgeorges-windsor.org dosnt have the source hosted online anymore but it was archived(source 3). I feel like the damage to his coffin and explanations deserve mentioning, especially the one about his body 'exploding' because unreal facts linked source for this is gone and not everyone knows about the web archive so they might look to wikipedia if they wanna fact check this story.

Maybe add something like this on to the end of physical decline and death At some point in time Henry VIII's coffin became badly damaged. Alfred Young Nutt (illustration of tomb on the right) observed in 1888 that the coffin was damaged by “the action of internal forces outward” with his body exploding while it sat in the vault from the build up of gasses \maybe also link to exploding whale\ creating significant pressure. Reports also exist of his coffin having exploded with "putrid matter" leaking from it while sitting overnight after his funeral in Syon House waiting for transport in the mourning to his place of burial and that stray dogs came and licked up the mess. Less grotesque theories however state the coffin could have been damaged when the trestle supporting it collapsed, when Charles I's coffin was "hastily" added to the tomb in 1649, or from the coffin simply breaking due to being inadequate for the kings large size at his death. Technocolor (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2018

Hi, you've got some facts on his wifeoos wrong 194.81.160.122 (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

We would need to know what they are in order to correct them. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Citation Required Under Marriage to Anne Boleyn

Hi there! I noticed that under the heading "Marriage to Anne Boleyn," the third paragraph beginning with "The King and queen were not pleased with married life." could use additional citation. Several of the sentences can appear as biased against Anne Boleyn without evidence supporting the statements WP:Neutral.--Halostock97 (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Fully protected edit request on 22 December 2018

A protected redirect, Henry VIII, needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:

• from this:

#REDIRECT [[Henry VIII of England]]

• to this:

#REDIRECT [[Henry VIII of England]]

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from move}}
{{R from short name}}
{{R mentioned in hatnote}}
{{R unprintworthy}}
}}

• WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

The {{Redirect category shell}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  14:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, Graham87, does the redirect at Henry VIII really need to be indef fully protected? It's been almost a decade so I'd say odds are good whoever had the horrible history teacher that precipitated the need for full protection has graduated by now. --Xover (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: I've downgraded the protection on that redirect to semi, so you can make this edit yourself now (I or anybody else could do it, but I'd prefer that you do it yourself for attribution purposes). @Xover:: I didn't do the original protection; I just restored it to how it was before my history merge of this article. The user who originally protected the article was NawlinWiki|, who took this action in response to Grawp, who does not often do that type of vandalism now. Graham87 15:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Graham87, Jonesey95 and Xover! Ya'll have a Merry Merry and a Happy Happy! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  15:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Not right

i feel like some of this isn't right please make sure and edit it please thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahsimons24 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about your concerns, Ahsimons24? Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  01:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

"Monks, Monks!"

These are given as Henry's last words in the "decline and death" section. The citation is to page 687 in a paper that examines a document that listed Henry's possessions but does not seem to include any account of his death. The cited paper runs over pages 11-29 of its volume; it does not have a page 687. Perhaps the editor meant Richard Davey (1909) instead of Jonathan Davies (2005)? Davey's book [3] includes the last words (along with some speculation about what the dying Henry saw) but does not provide a source. Many sources trace back to Agnes Strickland. Strickland [4] in turn attributes it to Nicholas Harpsfield but does not endorse his account, nor identify which book by Harpsfield contains it. (I haven't found one myself.)

Request: Remove the claimed last words due to defective sourcing. Change "Henry VIII" in the following sentence to "He". 24.7.14.87 (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I've removed it. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2019

I spotted an error, his eldest son, is Edward the IV, but it says on the Wikipedia Edward VI, I just thought I would get in touch. So Edward the VI needs to be changed to Edward IV Datobviousguy (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Edward VI is correct. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Edward IV of England is Henry VIII's maternal grandfather. Dimadick (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2019

<!ts below. --> i feel like i should be able to edit because there's false information in the 5th page

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. What errors do you see and what should it be edited to? RudolfRed (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Question

Was Henry bald at the end of his life - as none appears from his headgear? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Early Years inconsistency on Order of the Baths

Reading the body of the article it says during Henry VIII early years he was inducted into the Order of the Bath. The reference 'Order of the Bath' links to a Wiki article that says the Order was founded in 1725, well after Henry's passing.

Digitalflack (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC) J Flack, aka DigitalFlack

From the article: He was subsequently appointed Earl Marshal of England and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland at age three, and was inducted into the Order of the Bath soon after. It's probably confusing to say that Henry was inducted into the order, which was indeed constituted under George I, rather than say he was made a "Knight of the Bath", which is how those made so by the earlier ceremony were referred to, according to that order's article. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2019

LelandhistoryhenryVIII (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Henry Vii Had six wives and was very extremely chubby ĦẽŊŊṛ

That’s right.

The third sentence begins “Henry is best known for his six marriages” and each of the six marriages is treated in detail below.

Was extremely chubby. The lede includes “he became severely obese”, and see Henry VIII of England#Physical decline and death “ Late in life, Henry became obese, with a waist measurement of 54 inches (140 cm), and had to be moved about with the help of mechanical inventions.”

—SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2019

Shidehpouria (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

hello, i was wandering if i could put some info on about the dissolution of the monasteries

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. There is already such a section here and an extensive article about this. You will have to be much more specific about what information you think needs to be added. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Organization

Wouldn't it be better to move the section on government and finances up to be before the section on his physical decline and death? Iegbuni1 (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Henry VIII Other Children that are not mentioned in the Issues List.

Henry VIII had a Stillborn Son in January 8th, 1515 with Catherine of Aragon and had another illegitimate son named Richard Blewett (Edwards) in March 25th, 1525 with his Mistress Agnes Beaupenny Blewett. Jimmyy68 (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Wording

' he became severely obese'. Could we change the wording to maybe say he was overweight?-ThanksOoh Saad (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Hans Holbein, the Younger, Around 1497-1543 - Portrait of Henry VIII of England - Google Art Project.jpg scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:Hans Holbein, the Younger, Around 1497-1543 - Portrait of Henry VIII of England - Google Art Project.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for June 28, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-06-28. Any improvements or maintenance to this article should be made before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Henry VIII (28 June 1491 – 28 January 1547) was King of England from 1509 until his death. This oil-on-panel portrait was painted by Hans Holbein the Younger c. 1537, depicting the king in a near-frontal pose similar to that used by the artist in a number of other portraits. It is a markedly linear picture without background distractions; Henry gazes into the distance, with his head, hands and general demeanour imbuing his personality with a sense of solidity and strength. The painting is in the collection of the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum in Madrid, Spain.

In 1536, Henry suffered a leg injury in a jousting accident. The wound festered chronically for the remainder of his life and became ulcerated, thus preventing him from maintaining the level of physical activity he had previously enjoyed. He became grossly obese, and this hastened his early death; the view that he suffered from syphilis has been dismissed by most historians.

Painting credit: Hans Holbein the Younger

Recently featured:

• Birth
• San Lorenzo, Turin
• Virginia

Requested move 23 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: MOVED. There is clear, policy-based consensus for this move to occur and I see no value in awaiting the result of the below RfC. .(non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Henry VIII of England → Henry VIII – This has been discussed before at Talk:Henry_VIII_of_England/Archive_1#Move_proposal, but the discussion went nowhere. I am reviving it because the concise form of this title makes it clear who this is talking about and the Henry VIII readers are most likely looking for. Interstellarity (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. I've always been a bit bemused by the current title (although not enough to anything about it), but as Henry VIII is already a redirect to the article, and Henry VIII (disambiguation) carries all the details about the much less notable Henry VIII's, I don't see any reason not to. (It should be noted that the move proposal mentioned above was in 2011 and had only one dissenter to the move then). - SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. As far as published reference works go, just plain "Henry VIII" is pretty standard. See Oxford Dictionaries, American Heritage Dictionary, and Renaissance: An Encyclopedia for Students. Encylopedia.com has nine "Henry VIII" articles from various reference works. None of them put "of England" in the article title. Allan Rice (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support, à la Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria et al. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. How many other Henry VIIIs do we know? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Only ten titles are related to "Henry VIII" in some sovereign titles. --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 01:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. This Henry VIII is vastly more prominent than the others. At the top there can be a link to the disambiguation page for the small minority of visitors who might be looking for one of the other Henry VII's. Jehochman ^Talk 14:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Henry VIII is already a redirect to this article. Anybar (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• (Note: double !vote)Oppose @Rreagan007: That is not a point. If you only get this title "Henry VIII" as a primary topic, which they have four titles starting with [Henry VIII of] Brzeg, Henneberg, Henneberg-Schleusingen, and Silesia. But unfortunately, there are no WP:COMMONNAME, no WP:CONCISE, and no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC behind this title. --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Henry VIII already redirects here, which means it's already considered to be the primary topic on Wikipedia. And the subject of this article is most commonly referred to in English as "Henry VIII", which makes it the common name. And "Henry VIII" is more concise than "Henry VIII of England". Therefore, all three of the article naming policies that I cited clearly apply to this case, so I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Can you please be more specific in how you don't think they apply? Rreagan007 (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Fine, only one solution with this primary title within WP:CONCISE in English. But also, "Henry VIII" would be moved to a disambiguation page. --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Then you're seeking to change long-standing consensus that this article is the primary topic for "Henry VIII" by moving the Henry VIII (disambiguation) page. Well I strongly oppose that. And you also didn't address the fact that "Henry VIII" is the common English name for the subject of this article. I have to ask, is English your native language? Rreagan007 (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Please do not !vote twice. It looks confusing. Surtsicna (talk) 08:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. 53 publications cited in the article name him Henry VIII; none name him Henry VIII of England. The title Henry VIII is thus clearly supported by WP:AT policy. Surtsicna (talk) 08:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - It's sad really, that these monarch bio article titles are increasingly becoming inconsistent. We should've had a larger RM or an Rfc, to suggest all monarchial bios be moved to Monarch and (where necessary) Monarch (country), the latter would've been best for your point #4 at NCROY. Such a mess it's becoming :( GoodDay (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Request_for_comment

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Request_for_comment. Interstellarity (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Archives lost

It seems that in the recent move, the archives and their index have been lost. The respective pages now contain a REDIRECT to themselves. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Michael Bednarek: Fixed by Wikiacc. Jack Frost (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2020

Anne of Cleves section of Henry VIII pages, says Thomas Cromwell was Earl of Essex at time of proposing Anne of Cleves as Henry VIII’s 4th wife, but he became Earl of Essex a few months after Henry and Anne were married on Jan 6 1540. Cromwell became Earl of Essex in April 1540. According to Thomas Cromwell’s Wikipedia page it was April 18, but I haven’t been able to verify the exact date in April. FSly (talk) 06:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. QueerFilmNerd^talk 18:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I removed the reference to Cromwell as Earl of Essex during the Cleves match, and I left the source in my edit note. As FSly notes, Cromwell did not become Earl of Essex until April 1540. See Diarmaid MacCulloch, Thomas Cromwell, chapter 22, page 520. Serogers02 (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Burning at the stake

Henry did have a lot of people beheaded during his reign, but did he have anyone burned at the stake? PatGallacher (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

When was he Duke of Cornwall?

As of the date of this post, the article contained this text: QUOTE: After a little debate, Henry became the new Duke of Cornwall in October 1502, and the new Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester in February 1503.UNQUOTE I looked at the article on the Duke of Cornwall but it is not there explained why Henry (later VIII) didn't become Duke of Cornwall INSTANTLY when his older brother Arthur died. At the very moment Arthur died, Henry was the Heir Apparent (but was not Prince of Wales instantly, not until his father so created him later on, as that requires the Monarch's action). And the current Monarch when Henry (later VIII) was Heir Apparent was his parent (not his grandparent or aunt or uncle, or anything else). When you are the Heir Apparent (to the crown) and are the son of the Monarch whose Heir Apparent you are, you are, per se, the Duke of Cornwall, are you not? This "after a little debate" jazz isn't referred to in the article on Duke of Cornwall. Can someone please quote a little of the explanation from the footnoted source? I don't doubt that there's some REASON to say that Henry wasn't acknowledged to be Duke of Cornwall instantly as soon as Arthur died, but I think the reason needs to be brought in. Also, when the debate ENDED, what was the result of the debate? I find it hard to believe that the result of the debate would be that Henry BECAME Duke of Cornwall in October 1502, even as much as I entertain the possibility that the DEBATE about whether he was Duke of Cornwall ended in October 1502 and the result of the debate was ACKNOWLEDGING that he'd ALREADY been Duke of Cornwall for some time, since the instant when his older brother Arthur died.2603:7000:9906:A91C:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Annullment

Who is free to say that his first marriage was annulled? There should be an indicator there for discussion to let the reader decide. Dbdtw (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Dbdtw, is your comment stating that the first marriage was not annulled? The article cites to sources to support that the marriage was "null & void". If you disagree, could you include sources to be reviewed so a counter-argument can be made? Jurisdicta (talk) 05:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Henry VIII's order of children

What's the general consensus regarding illegitimate children and their ranking in the issues order? On other articles, like that of Richard III's, they put illegitimate children below the legitimate children, or they separate that into a section of their own? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not think this has ever been discussed, Yourlocallordandsavior. I usually strive to make infoboxes as succinct and as simple as possible, as excessive detail detracts from their utility. See WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE for more information. Very often it can be easily inferred which children are legitimate and which are not by noting their titles (e.g. at William IV of the United Kingdom). Other times it would be rather imprudent and insensitive to make this distinction (e.g. at Albert II of Monaco, Albert II of Belgium). In most cases, however, legitimacy is simply not indispensable information and belongs in the text, not the infobox. Surtsicna (talk) 10:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I guess it only matters if that illegitimate child becomes revelant to a history, like with the Duke of Monmouth, then that is when it's ideal? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Annulment from Anne

So Henry never got an annulment cuz if you watch oversimplified’s YT video on him it clearly states he wasn’t gonna divorce Anne 2007DodgeRam (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Youtube videos are rarely Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I have added one from an historian. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

It might be worth adding that the annulment on 17 May was based on the prior liaison between Henry and Anne's sister Mary, which in canon law meant that Henry's marriage to Anne had always been void (noted at p.454 of the Scarisbrick biography 1971 Penguin edition, I don't have either of the two editions listed in the article biography so cannot insert a reference)

Sbishop (talk) 08:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Sbishop

Anne and Henry didn’t get an annulment. Go online and search. 2007DodgeRam (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

We did go online and search. That's how we know you're wrong. As for anything you want to research, try to use scholarly or peer-reviewed sources instead of youtube and twitter. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry but google's knowledge panel says Jan. 17, 1533-May 19, 1536 (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it does - but based on what? If someone knew nothing about the annulment, they would naturally say the marriage ended upon Anne's death.

Sbishop (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Sbishop

What makes you think they got one? 2007DodgeRam (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The fact that as referenced in the article, a reputable historian includes details of the annulment process in her book. I don't personally have a copy of the annulment. The whole basis of Wikipedia verification of facts is the use of reputable sources such as fully researched biographies by recognised experts in the relevant field. Anyone wanting to change an article should be able to produce a source which is at least as reliable as that currently being used as the reference point.

Sbishop (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Sbishop

spouses: "died"

is there any chance to change some spouses from "died" to "executed"? as he was the one who had them executed? except his third wife, as she did die in childbirth 116.110.42.18 (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Do we need to include Henry, Duke of Cornwall, into Henry VIII's infobox list of children?

For a son of Henry VIII to have lived 52 days, given Henry's track record of unsuccessfully having children, I was wondering is it necessary to include this child in the infobox? Is he deserving/significant enough of his own spot in the infobox of Henry's children, alongside his other children, of whom lived into adulthood or were historically important? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's necessary to have him in the infobox. For he would've been king, had he outlived his father. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

What you should be asking is whether we need to have an article about him. If the answer to that is yes, then there is no reason not to include him in the infobox. Surtsicna (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

References

All the references in this article loop back to the article itself instead of the actual references. Suspect someone made an error during an edit. 166.205.124.25 (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2022

Change:

"Henry is best known for his six marriages, including his efforts to have his first marriage (to Catherine of Aragon) annulled."

to:

"Henry is best known for his six marriages, and for his efforts to have his first marriage (to Catherine of Aragon) annulled."

Reason: the use of the word "including" is illogical. 2A00:23C8:7B08:6A00:8D73:3898:891A:3BB7 (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Happy Editing--IAmChaos 21:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2022

can you give me edit powers Oliver frbhfrbfu (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Music

There has been some discussion about Henry VIII (Henry Tudor?) having been a composer. How prolific was he? I heard a composition authored by Henry VIII a couple of years ago on a local classical radio station.

Is there an article anywhere in Wikipedia about Henry VIII as a composer? How many compositions did he write? Is there enough of his output to warrant a separate article on his music, or a subsection here? Erzahler (talk) 09:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

There is one sentence on this subject in the Wiki article on Tudor Music. There are certainly articles on the internet about this subject eg at https://www.classical-music.com/features/articles/musical-life-king-henry-viii/ but I am not competent to know how accurate they are. Sbishop (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Burning at the stake

(Reply to now archived talkpoint)

To the question "did Henry VIII have people burned at the stake?", I would say there were burnings of Protestant heretics during his reign but their punishments were laid down in Acts of Parliament predating the King's life (passed during reign of Henry IV, to deal with the Lollards) so I would beware ascribing without evidence personal involvement of Henry VIII in their punishment. (It was a different matter with regard to those he deemed traitors against himself, who ended up being beheaded when convicted of treason after trial.)Cloptonson (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Balanced discussion

I was shocked upon reading this "good article", which appears to present Henry as a victim of Anne Boleyn's "failure to give him a son" as a matter of fact. This attitude of misogyny and victim-blaming is dangerously similar to that which presumably prompted Henry to fabricate a legal case against his wife and 5 other men to ensure their deaths. A "good article" distinguishes plain facts from balanced discussion thereof, such as Henry's emotional response and my own accusations of misogyny.

I suggest that, at the very least, the wording be changed to avoid suggesting that not bearing a son is somehow a failure in some sort of perversely imagined duty as a woman. This attitude remains prevalent and even dominant in some societies and, since it directly contradicts the human rights of women, surely ought not be perpetuated or encouraged on a platform as widely read as Wikipedia.

Nah, itu baru betul... (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Although I was surprised to read this, upon looking over the section which deals with the marriage of Anne and Henry I am inclined to agree with the comment above, since the text refers in two places to Anne's 'failure' to give him a son. Now of course, that was how Henry perceived it; but the current wording does suggest that it was indeed Anne who had failed rather than it being essentially a matter of chance. I would support a change of wording in two places so that the article simply refers to the couple not having a son, with the wording regarding Henry's attitude left intact. Sbishop (talk) 08:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

rubbish - this is just so much "woke" nonsense - the English language here is not prejudiced in any way 50.111.8.120 (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

It’s a troll. Richard DeMelo (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion for section "wife, mistress and children"

In a section focused on presenting facts about his family & bloodline, the inclusion of David Starkey's quote appears unnecessary, biased and out of place. I suggest removing the quote altogether and focus on the grid. 2601:44:407:3386:C54C:D17D:7D90:92B6 (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree it's inappropriately placed. It's also just opinion.Sbishop (talk) 08:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

"Henry VIII (1491–1547)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Henry VIII (1491–1547) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 17 § Henry VIII (1491–1547) until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)