Talk:Henry V (play)

St. Crispin's Day Speech

Is the "most quoted" speech really the "Once more unto the breach..."? Here in the USA I'd warrant that you are much more likely to hear selected bits from "This day is called the feast of Crispian..." in Act IV, scene ii (I think...) Ellsworth 16:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I would concur. john k 17:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It was a New Page today, but now new made a redirect here. Good my Lords, it were well to parse it prettily here some where. --Wetman 07:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Not in England, I'd warrant. "Once more unto the breach..." is better known, perhaps because it is a full-bodied rallying cry that manages to stir our ever-so-reserved patriotism. "Cry god for Harry, England, and Saint George!", indeed. MJSchofield 12:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the link to the St Crispin's day speech, since that page now redirects here. I was somewhat surprised; the speech probably could support a whole page and it's barely touched on here. Matt Deres 20:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

We've got the the St. Crispin's Day speech in the article twice, once under 'Performance History' and a major exceprt under 'Synopsis'. I think one of them should be deleted. But which one? In comparison, the passage 'Once more into the breach ... or close up the wall with a bunch of dead British guys' :-) is talked about in the talk page but it absent in the article. Which St. Crispin's reference should we axe? KeithJonsn (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Where's the speech? Surely it's public domain; why does clicking on "St. Crispin's Day Speech" take me to a page that doesn't even have it? (Maybe there's a Link, but by now I'm back to Google.) Septimus.stevens (talk) 08:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

We don't have an article on the St. Crispin's Day Speech. Perhaps you could start one? Celuici (talk) 09:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Branagh image

I've started to whip this puppy into shape by adding a number of images and a few internal wikilinks. Anyhow, there is a small problem with the Branagh image in this article. I've seen the film, but it was years ago, who is the man in the blue tunic on the left in that image? I can identify Branagh and Brian Blessed, but I cann't figure out the other guy. Are there any othner notable actors in the image? *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 04:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed that for you. AndyJones 09:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Mission Accomplished Speech Comparisson

I must take issue with the comparison of George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech (5/1/03) with the St. Crispian speech. The latter was given prior to the battle, while the former was a statement of a previously achieved victory. They are not similar in form, nor in their chronology in the timeline of battle.

Band of Brothers

I'd have to take another look at the scene, but I don't believe the speech given by a surrendering German general in "Points" is the St. Crispin's Day speech. One of the other characters, Liebgott, translates the speech as it is being orated. The two might be similar, but it would be a stretch to link them together. Kbrooks 22:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarence & Huntingdon

While adding the mysteriously vanished Monsieur le Fer (the French soldier who Pistol captures) to the Dramatis Personae, I also notice that the Duke of Clarence and Earl of Huntingdon are also missing. This is a more interesting question - they have no lines, but are given stage directions and referred to by name in the text. They only appear in Act V, Scene II, the peace negotiations. The stage direction is "Enter, at one door, King Henry, Exeter, Bedford, Gloucester, Clarence, Warwick, Westmoreland, Huntingdon and other lords[...]" and later, Henry says "Brother, we shall go. Go, uncle Exeter, And brother Clarence, and you, brother Gloucester, Warwick, and Huntingdon, go with the King..." and exeunt all except Henry, Katharine and Alice.

Should non-speaking parts, however high-ranking and referred to by name, go in as Dramatis Personae or not? Brickie 12:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't mind if they are. Maybe just say (non-speaking) next to them. Wrad 16:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• • I'd say include them: they appear at List of Shakespearean characters (I know, because I put them there). Interestingly Clarence isn't mute in the Quarto version of Henry V, because he has the part which we think of as Bedford's (source: Ard3 p.116). AndyJones 17:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"ridiculing the Iraq invasion."

The article mentions, currently, that the 2003 National Theatre production "[ridiculed] the Iraq invasion." I saw that production. It used the backdrop of the Iraq invasion, but I don't recall it ridiculing it at all. Anyone else see it and care to comment? 88.105.12.21 22:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard of that. Astrastarr 01:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you should feel free to remove it, if there's no source to support the statement. AndyJones 08:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Henry v dvd.jpg

Image:Henry v dvd.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Running time?

This needs to be included to maintain article integrity. 60.240.116.132 (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't understand this question, sorry. I particularly don't understand what you mean by "article integrity". I think the play's running time can be mentioned if the reliable sources give some prominence to it: otherwise not. Besides, surely the variation in the running-time of a play from performance to performance will be quite substantial: especially a play like this one, which is sometimes played in full but is often played heavily abridged. It's not like a movie, which has a running time you can measure to the second. AndyJones (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Andy is spot on. In live theatre, running times can vary dramatically (no pun intended) based on numerous factors, and even an uncut version of the play can vary due to the pacing requirements of the director, or the idiosyncrasies of the leading actors. For example, I once saw a leading actor in the role of Romeo add almost 20 minutes to a production simply by slowing down his numerous monologues in a "Shatner-esce" attempt to make them more understandable!Smatprt (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Dramatis Personae

Brothers To The King (Dramatis Personae)

I have never before had the temerity to remove something, except when I have known it to be WRONG. It is perfectly true that some versions juggle with the identities of the brothers. It's Clarence in the "Bad" Quarto and some RSC productions have made him a speaking part. But "in some versions replaced by the Duke of Clarence" seemed to me to stick out like a sore thumb. You can always find something that is done in SOME versions - Burgundy has been elided with the Constable, the Boy has been a contination of Francis from the previous plays ... It seems to me that there is no end to it, if you put notes about variants like that on the cast-list itself. I hope this seems reasonable to others who know the play and its history.
Rogersansom (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency of approach

Shakespearean char lists have a style that differs from modern expectations (in ways that go beyond their repellent reverence for syphilitic tyrants); still, i think it is desirable to present the DPs intact, if only for the sake of those reading the article's and the play's versions concurrently -- so they can choose to do it in synchrony. But we have not stuck to solely that approach, rather inserting some unannounced annotations.
IMO it makes sense for both sets of info to be included, but they must be delineated. I would suggest that this be done by starting, below the secn-heading "Dramatis Personae", with an italic note starting

The following reflects the playwright's list of characters, and descriptions of some of them, according to ...

and specifying an authoritative modern edition. The italic note should end along the lines of

The material in box brackets is (like the links) additional information compiled by the authors of this article.

One example of the need for such additions is the entry where i found

* [[Charles d'Albret|Constable of France]]

and replaced with

* Constable of France (Charles d'Albret)

since most our audience (separated from the events by at least four more -- and even more eventful -- centuries, and in many cases by wider bodies of water, than the Bard's) are unlikely to find "Constable of France" meaningful, but may not want to plow thru the individual character's bio to see what the job meant: each link needed will not always correspond to its own word or phrase of the original. Nevertheless, it should be made clear what was or not in the original: e.g. "* Constable of France [Charles d'Albret]
--Jerzy•t 05:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

I tried to delete the most trivial entries. Billbrock (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"an Welshman" needs a tidy.

This untidy phrase was tidied, but has been reinstated. In full, we have: "The army also includes a Scot, an Welshman, an Englishman and Fluellen, a comically stereotyped Welsh soldier". The Welshman is in there twice — "an Welshman... and Fluellen, a comically stereotyped Welsh soldier". The first Welshman of the two seems to be the English footsoldier "Williams", who was inserted at the expense of MacMorris, the Irish sapper (which presumably explains "an Welshman").

Williams is specifically described as "English" in my edition of the play (Bate), but generally this is not instanced. There is an interpretation, in performance, which has the nationalities of the three footsoldiers reflect the nationalities of their "comically stereotyped" officers, but at present having two Welshmen is uncited. Here they are clumsily written and one of them has ousted the Irishman MacMorris. I propose to tidy this, once again.--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No need—User:AndyJones has beaten me to it. Thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

And yet: the OP has reinstated the material, albeit in a less blatant way, yet again. The text makes specific reference to only one Welsh and one Scottish soldier. Is this pattern of edits beginning to look like disruptive editing? --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

My edits are not disruptive, as the aim is most definitely to improve the article. Old Moonraker has also confused edits of mine with reversions by AndyJones. The section regarding the nationalities in the army is very general, so if it is supposed to be only referring to the officers then it should say so, not assumed. If it is to be more general, then it needs to mention both groups of soldiers. The group in Act 1Scene 4 is not a lesser group in terms of the plot. Now I admit that in my first edit of this line I'd forgotten about MacMorris and assumed that Williams had been misinterpreted as an Irishman, possibly because of his first name, Michael. That assumption was wrong, but it does show the weakness of the sentence. Rather than looking at one edition on your bookshelf, try taking in a performance and you'll see that Bates, Williams and Court are nearly always played as English, Welsh and Scottish, along with the appropriate accents, according to the origin of their surnames and according to the origin of the officers. It shouldn't take me long to find a source indicating this.

When this sentence was reverted by AndyJones it went back to incorrectly indicating only one Scot and one Welsh soldier in the whole play. As it stands now it only mentions one Englishman in the whole army. How about the more accurate 'The army also includes stereotypical Scotsmen, Englishman, an Irishman and Welshmen including Fluellen...'? Mdw0 (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright. My comments on that are:

1. Henry V has no Act 1 Scene 4.
2. I don't think anyone commenting here just looked at one edition on a bookshelf. Speaking for myself I have copies of both major films, and the ESC and BBC versions, and the HarperCollins, Naxos and Arkangel audio versions. And while I cannot be bothered to watch/listen to them all to check, from recollection I do not think any of them plays Bates, Court and Williams as of three different nationalities.
3. I think you are flatly wrong to say that taking in a performance would prove your point. But if it did, that would be original research, which we don't do here at Wikipedia.
4. You say it will not take you long to find a reliable source to support the argument you are making here. If so, please do it and we can discuss. Otherwise this whole discussion is pointless, isn't it? Because that's how Wikipedia articles are built: we look at what the reliable sources say about the subject of the article and that's what we include. That's less problematic with Fluellen/Jamy/Gower/MacMorris because the text itself repeatedly refers to their nationalities. But there's no clear textual support for your reading.
5. Is it seriously your view that "Bates" is an English name and "Williams" a Welsh name and "Court" a Scottish name? What is your source for that?
6. Saying that an army "includes" an Englishman, an Irishman, a Scotsman and a Welshman does not imply that there is only one of each of those nationalities in the army. It merely singles out four individuals within that army.
7. Your proposed change is "The army also includes stereotypical Scotsmen, Englishman, an Irishman and Welshmen..." which presumably isn't what you are really proposing. In particular, why are the nouns suffixed "-men" "-man" "-man" "-men"?

In summary, I don't think this change is necessary. Indeed I think it is not just confusing, but actually wrong. That Williams may sometimes be played as Welsh may be true. But even if so, it is hardly an important enough point to mention in this article - unless of course reliable sources see some significance in it. AndyJones (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually changing the form of the word for the nationalities makes the change even better - 'includes stereotypical English Scottish Irish and Welsh soldiers including Fluellen...' That's inclusive and accurate, and is all I'm after. Surely there's no argument with that change? I cant agree that this sentence is clearly only about the captains as it has never specified so. Mdw0 (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Please cease this disruptive editing. AndyJones (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I could say the same thing to you - such an arrogant reversal of a minor improvement makes you look very precious. This is editing, not disruptive editing, but you seem to want this text set in stone. You are reverting for no reason. What is disruptive about a minor improvement? You seem to like hitting that revert button rather than examining the actual edit - those parentheses are unneccessary. Above, you said you have a problem with using 'man' on the end of the nationalities, so I took on your suggestion to change the way the nationalities are worded, and can be used to refer to both groups of soldiers, or only the captains. But then you immediately reverted to a version that contains the wording you said you didn't like! Now it says the army contains 'an Englishman' without any reference to which Englishman. How is that singling out an individual? My edit performs the description of the nationalities much better. This latest reversal appears to be personal, because you disagreed with me earlier, so now you want to reject any amendment I make, no matter if its an improvement or not. My edit is not incorrect, and is more accurate than before. It reads better than before, certainly better than any of my previous edits, makes perfect sense and allows the nationalities mentioned in the text, as well as the way the other soldiers are sometimes played. This is the first time I have done a simple revert, as you have failed to present any reasoning not to. You have also failed to make an attempt at improving the text yourself. You'll struggle to show that this isnt petty and personal on your part. Revert if you like - I'm done. Mdw0 (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've reverted. You say this is a "minor improvement" but actually it implied more than one stereotypical Welshman, which is clearly wrong. I assume this discussion is now closed?? AndyJones (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Obviously the discussion can be opened again if the OP does provide a reference for his/her reading, as has been requested, but as things stand that reading remains as WP:NOR and has no place here. WP:NOR is an important WP policy and it isn't helpful to have editors acting in support of it labelled as "arrogant...petty and personal". --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Turning stomachs

I clarified the "turning stomachs" statement by the chorus. The context is that the audience should be imagining that they are moving from Henry's castle, to Southampton, and then across the English Channel. This is therefore a humorous comment not related to the amount of gore/violence in the play; I made this clear. Although, why is this statement included at all? It seems to be a relatively minor passage. Robert 00:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert the Devil (talk • contribs)

Bad synopsis

The synopsis is atrocious, and seems more focused on telling when "famous speeches" are delivered than what actually happens in the play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.185.247.140 (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The above was posted 2012, and recently a clean-up tag was added. Is this tag really needed? And if so, is there anyone who can do it? Rwood128 (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Difficult to understand?

I can't imagine why an audience might have trouble understanding the Fluellen scenes. I've always thought them very straightforward and found they tend to raise a laugh. Is there any source to support the idea that Branagh thought an audience wouldn't be able to understand? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 19:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Duke of Burgundy

Shouldn't be "Duke of Burgundy" in dramatis personae section be a link to Philip III the Good instead of his father - John the Fearless? Philip III was the one who singed treaty of Troyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.21.174.130 (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henry V (play). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111012024840/http://www.nea.gov/grants/recent/10grants/am10.php?disc=Dance to http://www.nea.gov/grants/recent/10grants/am10.php?disc=Dance

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Who he was

Who was he? 85.210.118.147 (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

"fictional"?

"Previously, the fictional Global War Crimes Tribunal ruled that Henry's war was legal, no noncombatant was killed unlawfully, and Henry bore no criminal responsibility for the death of the POWs. The fictional French Civil Liberties Union, who had instigated the tribunal, then attempted to sue in civil court. The judge concluded that he was bound by the GWCT's conclusions of law and also ruled in favour of the English."

I can't make head or tail of this section. What are the "fictional French Civil Liberties Union" or the "fictional Global War Crimes Tribunal"? As far as I can tell, there is a French Civil Liberties Union, and there is a Global War Crimes Tribunal, so what is fictional about them? And how would a real or fictional version of either be involved in the mock trial in Washington. There is a lack of information here that is discombobulatingly confusing, unless I'm missing something very obvious. Meerta (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Spelling of Catherine.

This article uses Catherine and Catharine. The external link to the Internet Shakespeare Editions text for the 1623 Folio versions uses Catherine (modern) and Katherine (old spelling). The external link to Standard eBooks text uses Katharine and Katherine. Which spelling should this article use? Masato.harada (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, looks like no-one else is bothered about this. An online search shows me the spellings used in the following texts are:

• Catherine: Internet Shakespeare Editions text for the 1623 Folio (modern); this Wikipedia article (also uses Catharine).
• Catharine: this Wikipedia article only (also uses Catherine). Seems to be an outlier.
• Katherine: Internet Shakespeare Editions text for the 1623 Folio (old spelling); Standard eBooks (also uses Katharine); Folger Shakespeare Library.
• Katharine: Standard eBooks (also uses Katherine); Project Gutenberg; OpenSource Shakespeare.

I'm going to standardise this article's spelling as Katharine, which conforms with the use of 'Kate' in the play, and looks slightly dated, too Masato.harada (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Agincourt/Azincourt

The Synopsis section refers in the 6th paragraph to "... the small town of Agincourt ...". However, the Wikipedia articles for both the town and the battle state that the town where the battle took place is called Azincourt. The battle's name in English uses 'Agincourt', but it doesn't appear as if (even in English) the name of the town uses or ever used the spelling with the 'g', and in fact Agincourt is a completely unrelated and distant town in France. So for accuracy and clarity, shouldn't this article read "... the small town of Azincourt ..." - or alternatively perhaps "... the small town of Azincourt (notwithstanding that the battle is usually referred to in English as 'Agincourt') ..."? The name of the town in this article could also usefully be wikilinked to the town's article, which would help interested readers to understand the issue. JA 1961 (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The article is about the play, which uses Agincourt, not the real world, so the answer is No. There is already a link in the lead section to the Battle of Agincourt article, which discusses the Agincourt/Azincourt spelling, which is sufficient. Masato.harada (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Film

Stating that "Three major film adaptations have been made" is obviously original research. Who classified these as the three major film adaptions? And why does 2019's 'The King' make the cut but not 1966's 'Chimes at Midnight' when both are amalgams of material from several plays including 'Henry V'? 82.16.121.150 (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I can't speak to The King which I haven't yet seen. In my opinion The Chimes at Midnight doesn't make the cut because although it contains some bits from R2, MWW and H5 it's predominantly an adaptation of Falstaff's story in 1H4 and 2H4 so doesn't qualify as a major adaptation of H5. I'm more inclined to tag these things rather than , since there are sources which discuss the film history of the play (and some parts of the section we're talking about are completely unsourced). AndyJones (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)