Talk:Henry VI of England/Archive 1

France

Perhaps in the succession box, there should be a note about Henry being King of France, as he is mentioned in Charles VI's succession box. Lemmy Kilmister 15:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I don't know which template to use, but I would suggest something similar to:

*------------*------------------------------------*-------------*
| Henry V    | King of England 1422-1461 and 1470 | Edward IV   |
|            *------------------------------------*             |
|            | Lord of Ireland 1422-1461 and 1470 |             |
|            *------------------------------------*-------------*
|            | Duke of Aquitaine 1422-1461        | Charles VII |
*------------*------------------------------------* (of France) |
| Charles VI | King of France 1422-1429 de jure
of all of france. de facto of northen france.          |  de jure 1429. de facto of southern france           |
*------------*------------------------------------*-------------*

Tonymec 09:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was hoping for.

Deaþe gecweald 11:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

I have been reading the pages for Henry VI and Edward IV in parallel (for obvious reasons), and noticed that the House of Lancaster coat of arms presented here is the same image as the House of York one on Edward's page of poo

What? there's no such thing as the arms of the 'house of lancaster' and the 'house of york' -both are arms of dominion, i.e. the arms of both the state and the monarch.92.3.132.85 (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Bottom Succession box

We're missing the information, Henry VI was King of England, France (disputed) and Lord of Ireland, 1470-71. GoodDay 22:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some weaselly approach has made him into a titular head of France, even though this is not the practice for Alfonso X of Castile and Richard, 1st Earl of Cornwall. Actually, the title Rex Romanorum has been converted into pretense! The article on Charles VII of France makes no note of this in its succession box. The folly! 24.255.11.149 (talk) 09:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Succession Box

The succession box for English claimant to the French throne (or something along those lines) shows him holding this position from 1422 to 1429, and then being succeeded by Edward IV. This is clearly wrong - he certainly continued to claim France after 1429, and could not have been succeeded by Edward IV at this date, as Edward was not born for another thirteen years. This needs to be changed.125.239.168.202 (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Film versions

In the list of film versions, I found the Royal Shakespeare Company's screen Henries confused with the English Shakespeare Company twenty years later. I corrected this and left it as clear and accurate as I could.

Rogersansom (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ascension at 8 Months

I emended the text to read that Henry became king at the age of 8 months, as opposed to 9 months. He was 8 months, 25 days old at the time of his recognition, therefore he was the age of 8 months at that time of that event.

Competing Kings, 1422-29

In the navigation box, we should have Charles VII along side Henry VI as King of France. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Henry VI should be mentioned as king of france from 1422 to 1429.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend for the navigation box, the following. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC):

Also, as Henry VI was the foreign claiment. I recommend in the navbox, linking King of France to English claims to the French throne article. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

On second thought. I like the current version, Titular King of France navbox. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Does ANYONE HAVE ANY COMPLAINTS.this will be in the Henry VI article in 1 week.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I rather the current version, Titular King of France or my version. I rather not have de jure (or de facto). GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats okay gooDay you can have titular king of france disputed with charles VII but it must be regnal instead of pretensce.Im afraid GooDay de jure must also be mentioned since pretensce means not reigning and regnal means a soveriegn with a reign ether due to de facto soveriegnty reign or de jure soveriegnty reign.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I oppose de jure & de facto stuff. Let's keep the article as is or adopt my version. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

De jure or de facto mostly isn't helpful. It isn't here, as both had a legal title to the throne and both factually controlled parts of the country.

It is nonsensical to use 1429 as the end date for the dispute as Henry (or his men) long afterwards controlled important parts of the country and claimed the throne. And he was crowned as King of France only in 1431. Seems rather silly that he dropped the Kingship two years before being crowned in Paris. 1429 does not mark the end of Henry's kingship but the beginning of Charles taking a more reassertive policy. It is the beginning of the end for the Lancastrians in France but not the end itself. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Murder

I am not certain that Richard, Duke of Gloucester had a hand in Henry's murder. Was Richard actually in London on the night of the murder? It is mentioned in the article on Edward IV that Henry was killed in the Tower the same night that Edward returned to London. Due to Tudor propaganda, Richard III has been accused of so many murders, I'm surprised people aren't saying that he was reincarnated as Lee Harvey Oswald!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have discovered that Richard was in the Tower the night of 21/22 May when the murder of Henry occured, so it's possible Richard did it; however, Edward IV was also present in the Tower, along wih many others who all had equal opportunity to murder Henry. Remember, Edward had the most to gain by elimating Henry, whereas Richard didn't, seeing as Edward had a son to succeed him, besides a lot of daughters who all stood before him in the line of succession. It's not conclusive that Richard did commit the crime (on behalf of his brother, Edward), but his presence at the actual scene of the crime does not entirely rule it out. Oh dear, Oliver Stone should make a film of this.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

My theory is, a soldier under royal orders from Edward IV, rubbed out Henry VI. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, so do I. London in the 15th century was pretty much like Dallas in November 1963; it wouldn't have been hard to locate a hired hand to eliminate someone who stood in the way.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

We'll likely never know who did the deed. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Which deed? London or Dallas, or both?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

dallas was lee harvey oswold. that was easy enough London. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Gordon Brown can always set up another Warren Commission into the killing, he can also set up a second commission into the murder of the princes in the Tower which was also laid at Richard's door.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, the 1483 case. Richard (IMO) order the demise of his nephews. PS: If you wish to change Richard back to Edward, I'm content with that. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand now (after checking this article's history). In my efforts to reverse the IP's edit (which was poorly done), I unknowning replaced Edward with Richard. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Deed executed (pun is intended.) How does it look?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Jolly good. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still have some concerns. In particular, I am unaware of any proof that he really was murdered at all. The article on Readeption of Henry VI only says he was "appears" to have been killed, and that seems to be the position taken by most historians. Personally, I'd say I'm about 98% sure he was murdered, but the article shouldn't state it as a fact unless there is conclusive evidence. Kevin Nelson (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps he comitted suicide, upon learning of his son's demise. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The ascendancy of Suffolk and Somerset

We need a reference for a Commons campaign as I have no idea what that is or entails nor can I find a reference within Wiki on one Plachert (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2012

In 1447, this unpopularity took the form of a Commons campaign against the Duke of Suffolk,

King of England and France?

Henry, there was no consensus for making such a drastic move; I shall revert it back to the original title. Sorry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

imprisoned

in the Section Wars of the Roses he is imprisoned by Edward on 4 March 1461 - suddenly he is imprisoned again in 1465: ???? -- Hartmann Schedel ^Prost 13:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Headline text

. This could have made the battles in the wars of the roses even more confusing than they actually were! Would it be possible for some knowledgeable soul to address this issue, and replace one (or, of course, both) incorrect image with the right one? Thanks! --King Hildebrand 12:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Both coats of arms are simply the traditional ones borne by the Kings of England from 1360 to 1603. As both Edward IV and Henry VI claimed to be King of England, naturally they bore the same arms. (Henry of course did not go to battle personally, so it made little difference.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomCritic (talk • contribs) 14:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ironic

Looks like someone got overly fond of the word 'ironic' in the latter paragraphs of the article...

Gloucester's death?

At one point on the page (toward the end of "The Child King" section) it says that Gloucester died "probably of a heart attack" but later in the page at the end of the section on his marriage it says Gloucester "died in captivity, whether of natural causes or foul play was not clear." These two statements seem somewhat contradictory. Or at least to come from people with two different points of view. Should greater conformity be sought? Wikikd 02:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Yes. There were rumours at the time of poisoning and I have mentioned these without confirming their veracity, just their very existence. 88.193.200.140 (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Margaret of Anjou

How do we list Margaret of Anjou? As a disputed Queen consort of France? Or queen consort of France recognised only in English-controlled territories until 1453? Do you see how confusing this has become?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

She'll have to be added. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

But there is no history book, genealogist or encyclopedia that says she was a queen consort of France. If we list her it's OR on our part. The most we can say is that she was a disputed queen consort of France.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If we put her as disputed Queen consort of France, then Henry VI would have to be listed as disputed King of France. Due to the fact that their marriage isn't disputed. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You're getting on a slippery road if you add Marguerite d'Anjou as a queen consort of France. Even as a "disputed" queen consort, I am yet to find a text that would support this. Frania W. (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

We have sources at her article.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Harry Potter

In 'Babbitty Rabbitty and her Cackling Stump', where is the king identified as Henry VI? NE.S. 14:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Death

How did King Henry VI die? MrTranscript (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe the exact cause of his death is known.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Why use "Readeption"?

The word "Readeption" has only ever meant the restoration of the throne to Henry VI. See . The word is not listed in the print dictionaries I have. Even the web only has the word in the various derivatives of this page. Including the wiki dictionary page. I suggest the modern, less obscure word "Restoration" be used. 75.115.61.114 (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Gb 16:43 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 08:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It is in the OED online, but you are right in that it seems never to have been used in any other sense except the restoration of Henry VI. Nevertheless, it is the word that is used in this sense, and so it should continue to be used. Herbgold (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed it is specific to that event- and purposely so. But can I suggest, that instead of looking up "readeption" and then moaning because it hardly exists you take the view that if there is a readeption, then logically there must have been an adeption? -Ah! You say. That would be it then Ted. An adeption is e.g. 'obtaining'... so Henry's readeption is his re-obtainment of the throne. To indicate that he obtained it, but was not (e.g.) given it or granted it, or that he personally gained or won it. That he was put back on the throne by others and had no active role in the event. See? Hope your knight is all good. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

To call it a "resuccession" would sound even odder, & imply that he had not been legitimate before. "Regaining" or "restoration" are the obvious modern words, & I see no reason not to use them. How many good modern sources actually use "reademption"? Johnbod (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

All of them.

Grummitt, D., The Wars of the Roses (New York, 2013), 208.
Ross, J., John de Vere, Thirteenth Earl of Oxford (1442-1513): 'The Foremost Man of the Kingdom’ (Woodbridge, 2011), 57.
Hicks, M.A., The Wars of the Roses (London, 2010), 201.
Wolffe, B., Henry VI (London, 2001), 339.
Carpenter, C., The Wars of the Roses: Politics and the Constitution in England, c. 1437-1509 (Cambridge, 1997), 178.>/br> Griffiths, R.A., The Reign of Henry VI (Berkeley, 1981), 891.
Lander, J.R., Government & Community: England 1450-1509 (London, 1980), 394.
Wilkinson, B., The Later Middle Ages in England, 1216-1485 (London, 1969) 293.
...should be enough to be getting on with eh _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Why use a word that most folks have no clue about? i'll note that Wolffe's mention is "Henry's brief restoration, from the end of September 1470 until 11 April 1471, or 'readeption' as it was then styled, was thus..." which makes it rather plain that Wolffe is comfortable with using restoration to describe the event, and his statement makes it clear he considers the readeption as a technical term used at the time but now obsolete. The above list would be more useful if the actual context of the use was given. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The point about providing sources is that you go and look them up. As to how well known the word is: how many words in (for example) the article on Discrete geometry will be obscure to "most folks"? A large number. That's because they are specialist words, just as this is, relevant to a particular time and place. The point of the encylpodaedia is that we tell what is the considered opinion; not what we think they will understand. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I did look up one. And it didn't quite say what was implied it said. It's silly to use a specialist word in the section header - especially a specialist word that is not explained. Use the word in the body, but explain it. You aren't writing an article on a specialized subject in history here - Henry VI is a pretty broad subject that's going to get a lot of people who are NOT interested in the specialist words. If this was an article on a particular medieval tax, it makes more sense to use specialist language, but even then, if you can explain it, do it. We shouldn't be aiming to confuse our readers... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no extra gain of meaning in "Readeption" over the alternatives, and no point in puzzling readers, or making them do extra work for no gain. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem. So we explain it in the text and then, for consistency, use it in the header. You cannot ignore the langugae of a discipline (at least, WP does not.) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

No, there is no sense in using it in the header. The header is used by readers to find sections of interest. If a reader has heard that Henry VI was deposed and then restored to the throne and comes here to find out more information - if the header is some term he has no clue about, he won't find what he's looking for. What we do is use the common term in the header and then educate the reader in the text of the section. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

That would seem a sensible suggestion from my perspective. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

But logically, if a person has seen "the readeption of Henry VI" mentioned in a book and is wondering what it means, aren't they going to be looking for it here? Whereas a person who has never heard the word before will find out what it means from reading this article. Deb (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Readeption of Henry VI still has its own article. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I've put it back, with explanation, but not in the header:

Header: "Return to the throne

main|Readeption of Henry VI

Text: "... Warwick returned to England, forced Edward IV into exile, and restored Henry VI to the throne on 30 October 1470; the term "reademption" is still sometimes used for this event.".

I hope we are all happy with this, and can get back to things like improving the very short lead. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

John, I've taken a stab at the lead. Not my speciality area, so pls feel free to correct any errors! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to revert this (probably for the 4th or 5th time), but I have changed "reademption" to "readeption". "Reademption" is not a word, and so is never used in this sense. "Readeption" is, and is. Herbgold (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Did he ever rule fully by himself?

Did he, as an adult really rule England fully by himself, or was England ruled by his councellors?Cynicalquest (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

When he came of age, the Council became advisorial, as it was ever since Henry I.Basket _Feudalist 08:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)