Talk:Dual monarchy of England and France

Spelling

The idea behind the article is good, seeing as there were two disputed kings of France following the death of King Charles VI in 1422; however the spelling and grammar needs to be improved. For instance, France is not spelled france, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Furtermore, the article should not be a retelling of the entire Hundred Year's war, as we already have an article on that but focus on the legal theory of the double monarchy. The war should be briefly described in a background section. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry lads this is my first article I only know the history I never actualy made an article.But thank you Jeanne for bieng supportive.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This article might be considered for deletion. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I also query whether this is an encyclopedic article. It is a bit difficult to see how an article of any length on this could be much more than a re-hash of the Hundred Year's War article, at most this could be dealt with as a section in that article. Also "dual monarchy" is the normal term. Should we have an article on all dual monarchies e.g. Scotland and England during 1603-1707? PatGallacher (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I must say that our dear HENRY is a persistent fellow! By creating this article, he is laying the stage for another round of discussions on whether Henry VI of England or Charles VII of France was the rightful king of France - this being the heart of the article. In order to succeed, he must follow a well-laid out plan and keep concise the background leading up to the death of both Henry V of England & Charles VI of France and to the so-called dual monarchy - no rehashing of the Hundred Years War. His bones of contention will be the "Treaty of Troyes" & the "Salic law". If he wants to be credible, he will have to act like a jurist, exposing the *right* of both sides and, above all, not take sides. He will also have to remember that even if they were right (which they were not in the eyes of the French because of the Salic law & the fact that the Treaty of Troyes was signed under duress by a French king who was insane), the English lost the war & left France. So, the argument of the legitimity of Henry VI or any king of England to the throne of France comes to naught. If our dear HENRY can pull it, he will have accomplished something; if not, his article will be headed for the pyre. Cordialement à tous! Frania W. (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. And I almost forgot: HENRY, you must give sources because it is not what you, or Jeanne, or GoodDay or anyone else thinks but it is the facts, the proven facts that matter. FW

Hello Frania.I never mentioned anything yet about Charles VII.It had no contridicting in factn with salic law as it was only succestion for the private norm and in fact had nothing to do with france.It was used as a cover up rather then a legal law in a council held in 1317.I never even started with the legality of the traty yet.I also mentioned reliable sources aout the existence of the doble-mnarchy.Like the angevin empire because it was destroyed that dosent mean we say The angevin empire never existed.I starting with preface of how the double-monarchy came about or there would have been no reason to create it if Henry wasnt a french king.I didnt take sides and I am just mentioning what historions state and check the sources.You said that frenchmen never had regognized the legitimacy of Henry VI when the northen frenchmen and the Burgundians including the duke of brittiny and the pope regognized Henry.It wasnt until the mid-1430s when there began a rise of French inscurtions.Because Henry was expelled that does not mean he didnt have legitimacy to rule France.Please be exat in my article in which it is one sided.The french regency for Henry did exist if you happen to remember John the duke of Bedford.I see nothing against NPOV because I never mentioned Charles at all exept when I said he was king as well.You make it sound that charles was completely inane when he was half-insane.The french king also had his wife as a regent in order to rule for him anyway.Charles VI was incompetent of ruling and thats why he had a regent who was present during the treaty.I promise Frania that I will also expose the right of Charles but I cant dot this in one day because you must understand I have to mention Henry as king of france first in order for it to make sense on how it was formed.I am not pushingfor anyside.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The article needs to begin with the English victory at Agincourt, not the start of the Hundred Years War. All the sections prior to 1415 need to be trimmed down or eliminated altogether.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Treaty of Troyes

Fran W, is correct about this article having to be balanced. The Troyes treaty must be equally presented as valid and invalid. The article will need both the arguments presented. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal Opinion

It's funny that all of these monarchies fought against each other not wanting "foreign" kings etc.. but they were all related! Intermarried from the same stock! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrboire (talk • contribs) 17:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk about your family reunions. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone watched inter-family fighting after opening & reading of a will? Ask a French notaire & he will tell you stories that make this dual monarchy pale in comparison. Frania W. (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have seen siblings fight over Christmas ornaments.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Technicly what Jeanne said is true.Each nation is a mother of another nation therefore they are related.France is the motherland of England and so was there first Norman king william the conqueror bieng from france and introduced french customs into England.The Scottish nobilty are of descent of the normans since David I invited the normans to settle in scotland and so after a century were distunguished as scottish gentry.Many old english(normans) also settled in Ireland and picked up Irish customs,Thus it is said that "they became more Irish then the Irish themselves" although there was a bit of fighting between the normans and Irish during Henry II reign.The names O' Butler are all originating from the normans.The new english however are different from the old english as old english were hardly in contrast with the Irish since they both spoke the same language(Irish) and married into each others family.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I will start the part of regency in England on Friday.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

HENRY: Please be sure to give each source as you go on with the text by clicking on reference key right after you have written the word/phrase/sentence of which you want to give the source: when done correctly, references will automatically be shown at end of article. Since you are the one with the books, you are the only one who can do it. In fact, you should take the time to review what you have already done & put in the needed references before you continue, as the list of books at the end of each section is of no help without the precise relation to what is already written. Within the text as you see it when you edit the article, I have put hidden comments & also *reference needed* where some of the references should go. Also be sure that you are not copying whole or parts of sentences from book as this is "plagiat": everything has to be sourced, and anything taken verbatim from an author must be put between quotemarks & sourced. (If you make a couple of spelling errors (who knows?) someone might come around with a broom & sweep them out...) Frania W. (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

See I do know something! They are all related.--Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC) PS I Didn't intend for this section to get so long!

I am going to consider to change the background.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The lead

I feel the lead should be in Jeanne's version, as it was less cumbersome. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry GoodDay,I dont get what you mean by what I said bieng more cumbersome.The dual-monarchy came about when henry vi inherite,not when charles inherited.charles was never king of england so how can it be a dual-monarchy then.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

its not admitting to henry ever bieng a french monarch merly stating the treaty.Charles is given the upper hand especialy by the statement at the end "only soveriegn".--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to add also honestly.The lead dosent even give an intro to how the dual-monarchy was formed,it just goes on with happend to the dual-kingship.Yes there was two disputed kings in practical terms but it dosent still explain how the dual kingdoms was made.In theroy Henry VI was the anknowledged legal king of charles VI so he inherited legaly bieng the heir even though charles acted as king also.Therefore what I said about Henry VI inheriting france is more exact and precise on the point.The prior version didnt explain how it was formed.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

HENRY: Jeanne's version:

The Dual-Monarchy of England and France occurred during the latter phase of the Hundred Years War between the years 1422 until 1453, when two kings disputed the crown of France. These were kings Charles VII and Henry VI of England. It commenced on 21 October 1422 upon the death of King Charles VI of France...

What could be clearer than that? If you stick everything into the lead, there is no need for the article.

By the way, I just reverted you... Frania W. (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral POV is required

The article needs to be an explanation of the Dual-Monarchy not a vindication of Henry VI. The French and English viewpoints thus need to be presented equally.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, this article can't become a campaign add for recognition of Henry VI of England, as King of France. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There is too much background text!! Wikipedia has a good, lengthy article on the Hundred Years War. There are also too many flowery phrases such as "power had a sweet taste". These have got to go, as they are not encyclopedic.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Trim'er down. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Aye aye sir.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It dosent matter leave jeannes version.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Now what I added is neutral for both sides and no side is given the advantage this way.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

HENRY! What do you mean ***It dosent matter leave jeannes version.***  ??? which you wrote at 20:58 on 2 May, then went on to add more imbroglio to the lead at 21:27 same day. I am again reverting you. Frania W. (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Henry, leave the lead as it is and get to work on the main body of the article. This is my advice to you. And cut out all the background prior to 1415, and begin editing from the Regency period onwards.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Background: The English and French had been constantly at war over hereditary sovereignty in France; the Hundred Years War (1337-1453) escalated, and the conflict between the two nations reached its peak in an intermittent series of belligerent phases, with each phase usually ending with a temporary truce lasting for a few years. In my opinion, since the Hundred Years War is already blue-linked, only this first sentence has any value. No need to go back to victories & defeats of either side beyond 1415. Frania W. (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. Sounds good, Frania!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Frania.Can we just leave the NPOV lead that I adjusted because its more clear and the english had also a contredection against the salic law and is much more fair to both sides.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

HENRY, would you mind telling me if English is your mother tongue, because I have the feeling you do not understand what we have been trying to tell you since you created this article on 24 April 2009, that is ten days ago. The lead of an article is meant to succinctly present an article: no arguments in it, keep them for future sections where we can have the two points of view, that of the English & that of the French. All of us who are trying to help you launch the article are constantly stopped in our tracts by your same rangaine. What we really need for you to do right now is to forget the lead and match all the references with related points in your text. Do you have a problem with that? Having a perfect lead is not enough, the article must follow, and if you do not insert the references properly, they will have to be removed as not being linked to their proper place renders them meaningless.

As to what you call the *NPOV lead* that you adjusted, what do you call this :but failed to outlive Charles VI so Henry VI became the first(and in reality only)king of both kingdoms.  ? and this about Salic law: but was as well equaly debated in the English side that the so called law as they said,was applied only for German lands which was where it originaly came from during Charmaglanes reign and didnt apply France.

I am bringing this exchange to the Dual-Monarchy talk page & also reverting your last revision.

Frania W. (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Off-course English is my mother tounge.That was a bizzare question.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 03:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Then it must be my French... The reason I asked is because you do not seem to understand what we have been telling you for days. Frania W. (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Should I remind you of your statement:

1. it does not matter where the Salic law originated, it has to be mentioned in order to have the reader understand the argument utilised by the French side; again, whether you agree with its use by the French does not matter because it is your opinion; the fact is that it was one of the main ""arguments of the French,"" a position the French have held throughout the history of their kings to this day (even by today's pretender).This confirmes it thats why I reverted you.My statement was pure fact and NPOV or else there couldnt have been 2 disputed kings hence the first intro to the lead.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I trimed the background.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Too many references?

There seems to be an overabundance of references on this article. References are good, but so many on an article so small? I confess to not having read one of those books but is it possible that several of them are referencing the same points over and over again? A smaller ref section with all the salient points would in my opinion be sufficient. Jack forbes (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Jack, the problem with the references as they are now is that HENRY put them down AFTER having written his original piece, without referencing the parts where they belonged. So we end up having titles of books with page numbers, but we do not know where in the text these books & page numbers refer. As HENRY is the person with the references, he is the only one who can fix the problem. Maybe he'll do it after he stops messing around with the lead. So as it stands, the list of books should be in a section Bibliography, not References. Frania W. (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

So, as it stands the article is not properly referenced. The very first thing Henry should do is fix his references and point them to the relevant sections of the article with all page numbers noted. It shouldn't be too difficult as he appears to have access to all the books concerned. Henry, you should forget the lede for now and concentrate on fixing these problems. Jack forbes (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen anyone as stubborn as HENRY who keeps putting handicaps (= banana peels) in the path of those who are trying to help him. Now that the article has enough viewers & discussionists we should be able, at one point, to remove all that is not necessary together with the references. At that time, HENRY will have to read what's left of his original writing & put in the references. Then, and only then, should he add anything, and when he does, save his additions only after he has "matched references to relevant sections". We cannot wait for him to create an article one thousand kilometer long before putting some order in its redaction. And I would like to add as a personal note to HENRY that he should consider himself lucky to be surrounded by a little group sticking to his article in order to save it from deletion. Frania W. (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea to remove the references now if he does not immediately take our advice, to give him the push he needs. Is there any consensus to do this? Jack forbes (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we should get consensus on this. Certainly, Jeanne Boylen, GoodDay, Pat Gallacher, DGG, Str1977 & the Holy Spirit will want to give their advice. Besides, if we remove references, nothing will be lost since all can be retrieved by going thru the article history. Personally, I cannot see going further without first putting some order & giving a point by point outline of development of article, i.e. headlining future sections, which will show the article is in progress. Frania W. (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I cut down on the refs.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way Henry, you cannot source Shakespeare as he was a dramatist not a chronicler or historian. He is famous for being very creative with historical events and people; for instance Richard III was not the deformed hunchback Will makes him out to be. Nor did Richard cry out at Bosworth "A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse". Richard's final words actually were "Treason treason, treason, teason, treason".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the references to Shakespeare. Were an academic to happen upon this article and behold references to the bard, he or she would rightfully go berserk. The article would lack all credibility if quotes by Shakespeare are employed. Shakespeare can only be used in a cultural depictions section--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Another thing Henry, you have used as reference an author by the name of Glen Richardon; however, the only historian I have located with a similar name is Glenn Richardson. Is this the person to whom you refer?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Richardson it is. [1]. Henry, if you could match your page numbers to the text it would help clarify your references. Jack forbes (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added the ISBN and publishing house to the book by P. Earle and will go through the rest when I have more time. Jack forbes (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jack and Jeanne.I know the references to the lines of shakespear was never said but I added at the end it would make for a good story.However I agree to the fact the nesscisity of such is not needed.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Misspeling its what jeanne said.Glen Richardson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk • contribs) 14:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I am going to make a simple overview of the phases from 1337-1420 in a few sentences and blue-linking it to the hundred years however I am leaving the house of lancaster section because it is impotant.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes Henry, I agree with you that the House of Lancaster section is important. It needs to remain.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You are doing a fine job there Jeanne and Henry. The only other help I could give is fixing typo's, NPOV and sentences but Jeanne is doing a grand job there. Henry, I hope you take a little bit of my advice concerning the references. I'm sure all of you will finish with a great article and I wish you all the best. Jack forbes (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

My God, Jack, this sounds like an adieu! Frania W. (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Only an adieu for this article Frania, for now. I will keep my beady eyes on the article though, and if I feel it's needed I still might make a comment or two. Jack forbes (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Not an adieu, Jack, only an au revoir! Looking forward to reading you again. Frania W. (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Then au revoir, Frania. Jack forbes (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Too essay-like

I'm afraid that most of the article has become too essay-like, hence much of the text will have to be re-written in an encyclopedic manner, or else eliminated entirely. The article does not need to be longer than those on the Hundred Years War, Henry VI, Charles VII. Ideally, most of the background sections should be trimmed down to a few brief paragraphs. There is no need to mention Edward III, the Black Prince, Charles V, etc. as this article deals with the latter phase of the Hundred Years War and should stick to events following the ascension of Henry V.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No kidding? Tell this to our dear HENRY. Et ce n'est pas demain la veille that he'll be converted to your view(s). Amicalement, Frania W. (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought I trimmed the parts about the background.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It still reads like an over-long essay.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

And there are only two (2) linked references to article. We have no idea what part of the article the bibliography listed refers to. This is going to be one huge criticism. HENRY, it would be so easy for you to include these references as you type in your text. When you are at a point when you are able to give a reference that will show as a small blue number beside a certain word or sentence in the article, all you have to do is click on the button called < ref ref >, and you enter your reference between the < >. If you mess it up, we'll fix it for you, but at least we'll have the exact spot where reference should be entered. Frania W. (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Frania is right, Henry. You'll have to add in-line citations to the article. I'd suggest you do it now before another template is placed on top of the page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I just went through The French Realm: fixed typos, inserted request(s) for references, and added *hidden comments* for HENRY's attention. I think (from very beginning) it is what should be done to HENRY's text and, from now on, it should be clear to him where references are to be given. And if he puts them as he goes along, ce sera du gâteau! Cordialement à tous! Frania W. (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Citation

HENRY: Put citation here & indicate where you want it in text. Merci. FW Frania W. (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Templates

I have restored the templates to this article. If editors on this article believe I have done the wrong thing please let me know. Jack forbes (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You did the right thing, Jack.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone checking the list of articles where 86.15.54.147 (talk) has been removing templates? I left a msg on Jeanne's talk page yesterday. Frania W. (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

IP 86 is really on a roll. He removed Margaret of Anjou's template-again!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked for a month. Jack forbes (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

He was certainly obsessed with removing templates.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I wish the IP would've had a Template of his own making, on his IP page. If he had, I would've deleted. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Anglophobia now?

Jeanne, when I postulated that Francophobia was swamping or obfuscating thorough coverage of Anglo-French relations, I did not mean that I wished for you and GoodDay to pick the French side. I hope that Henry's intense drive to elaborate on the Hundred Years' War, will also extend to all connections between England and Normandy (dukes and Conquest barons), Aquitaine (dukes and princes), Burgundy (Margaret of York's marriage), Flanders (Queen Matilda's family and William's companions), Champagne (Stephen's family) and Toulouse (Eleanor's family) in France. I just listed the six ancient temporal peers of France, because I don't know how the six ancient ecclesiastic peers fit with England, as I did not study clerical history. Many more secular ties between England and France are there, but for simplicity, I listed the major ones. See this. I think because of politics, many people forget this kind of mesh of blood between the nations. There is a misconception that only the nobles have this kind of mixture, that the web was merely alliances sealed through marriage. Anybody with an education in the Classics, knows well that Britain and Gaul had almost the same relationship as England and France and that each had a comparable overall situation with respect to Romanisation of these countries. The Parisii and Belgae bridge of le Manche, predates republican and imperial periods anyways, certainly making the Chunnel nothing extraordinary! How many are enthusiastic to see a Channel history exposition? Vive l'Entente Cordiale!

It is so very obvious that without all of this history, a country such as Canada would be impossible. Canada is much like English occupied France, the conquest that should have been completed in Europe. I have French background from both via England and English colonies. Doubtless, I have English lineages from France and French colonies too. Yes, mine predates Huguenots, yet time has allotted for those ancestors as well. I am pleased to have Anglo-French/Franco-English blood from Old and New Worlds: England, France, America and Canada. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

My God! Mon Dieu! What an outburst! Quelle explosion! Dis donc, Catterick, qu'est-ce que ça veut dire "the conquest should have been completed in Europe" ? Remember, when times get really bad for us Frenchies, we always find a Jeanne d'Arc, a Napoléon or a... de Gaulle, or so we say. In the meantime, you have suggested more work to our dear HENRY, which should keep him busy & out of trouble. Cordialementally! Frania W. (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Frania, I must have missed this: You know, English possession of French territory, is hardly different than the position of Bretagne/Armorique within Gallie, as itself, an offshoot or extension of territoire Britannique. Perhaps only the royal rule by insulares on the Continent is less typical, unless one accounts for a handful of Bretagne monarchs. LutetiaPetuaria | 06:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(I have to find myself a name that sounds more French if I am to be with no allies.)

A personal opinion doesn't need to be in the article. That's just my opinion. Another opinion of mine would be, to have French rulers of England. It's been done before. Both choices are unpopular, apparently. Who cares? I certainly don't and HENRY V seems to not either. ΚατουρακτονιονCataractonium | 02:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean OUR HENRY V ??? Frania W. (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Why, all our ranks are broken. Shame, eternal shame, nothing but shame....Charles d'Albret

Of course. Frania, there is hardly anything more comforting, than to interact with French people, in the English language. I really enjoy reading in French, but responding accurately in proper French would take too much time for your patience, sorry. About half a decade past, I used to engage in bilingual discussions on a daily basis, over the internet. I could get up to speed once again, reading in French and responding in English. Curious, non? LutetiaPetuaria | 05:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Catterick, you should see the pages I fill with notes, I start in a language then for no reason at all go into in the other before the sentence is finished, and so on and so on... It has nothing to do with not knowing a language, it is just the way I write, which is extremely amusing or confusing to someone who has to copy my notes... and I can read any text that is full of mistakes, as I recognise extremely misspelled words, which is like reading a third language, by trying to sound them out. As you must have noticed, old King Henry's medieval English is no problem to Jeanne or myself. We love to translate it.

As for the Bretons of France, they are special, many of them with a royalist heart & not (really) considering themselves French. They are staying very close to their traditions & keep close ties with their brothers across the Channel... bagpipes & all.

I think we may be off subject for this Dual-Monarchy talk page. See you chez Jeanne. Frania W. (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I was keeping it on topic. I established a comparison of British land in Gaul, which was continued when Britain became England and Gaul became France. "Celtic" and "Germanic" are nonsense, which may be off topic. LutetiaPetuaria | 00:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Personally, I don't recognize Henry as having been King of France. You might say, I view him as a franco-phoney. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Très witty ! FW/Frania W. (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I really do hope Henry here on Wikipedia decides to explore the ties that bind, rather than make it into some kind of Anglo-superiority thing, to which, the French-biased editors will focus on exclusivism of all things English. LutetiaPetuaria | 00:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Cat, was the *French-biased editors* arrow shot in my direction? In which case, you'd better watch it because I am a very good archeress. Our HENRY will definitely make it into an Anglo-superiority thing with God & Right on the side of the English & Jeanne d'Arc be damned, but he'll get an arrow every step of the way. Adieu ! Frania W. (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC) (I should change my name to Francia because that Polish name sounds very weird in this context.)

Men shoot arrows at their women's targets. LutetiaPetuaria | 03:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

God dispose the day. Henry V of England (or should it read Good dispose the Day?).

Groovy. GoodDay (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

God dispose the day.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

All our ranks are broken. Shame, eternal shame, nothing but shame.........Charles d'Albret

Here is the entire Henry V's quotation, which does not appear in English books but does in French translation of Shakespeare's work : Dieu dispose du jour, la femme dispose de la nuit. Frania W. (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Article is imcomplete

The article is clearly incomplete. Is there is template which can be added so that other editors could work on completing it and bringing it up to Wikipedia standards? The creator of this page hasn't edited at Wikipedia for quite a while.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

Is there any particular reason why the English half of the coat still bears the quartering of the French colours? After impaling the English royal arms with the French, the end result is a coat that is half-French, and half-pretentious to the French throne. I would think, looking at all of this from several hundred years after the fact and not knowing much about these things, that the "arms of pretension" would be done away with, once the de jure claim becomes the de facto political reality. Then the impalement would be properly half-French and half-English... or half-Norman, depending on how you want to look at it. So what's the story? Is it just something that happened because no one thought to change the old arms of pretension? Tradition at the expense of common sense? D Boland (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The two halves of the coat of arms designate the claims held by Henry VI's parents; the dexter half is "France moderne" representing his claim to France derived from his mother's side, the sinister half: the quartered insignia of France and England both representing the territorial claims held by his father (Henry V). If the insignia had been they way you suggested (impaled between England and France), this insignia would be interpreted as merely the two claims held by his father. The arrangement chosen would indicate to a (French) viewer that Henry VI held authority as king of France from both his parents thus unifying their mutually excluding claims; consequently a much stronger political signal. The arrangement is somewhat odd though, since the father's insignia would normally be presented dexter, but in this case, it seems to be a sign of respect similar to the English habit of displaying the French arms in the first and fourth quarter of the quatered arms, the first quarter is the most prestigious position in a quartered coat of arms. These two coins display the same symbolism, although presenting Henry VI's parental coats of arms in separate shields. [2] [3] Neither insignia would have been interpreted to be Norman, as the Norman arms only displays two lions. Valentinian ^{T / C} 11:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dual monarchy of England and France. 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://archive.is/20140404143200/http://brepols.metapress.com/content/r7t2225332251503/ to http://brepols.metapress.com/content/r7t2225332251503/

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) 09:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks like text was auto-translated into English

There is little grammatical sense to a lot of the text. The following passage from this article uses unclear terminology, lacks sentence structure, and reads as though someone ran a non-English article through Google Translate, and never proofed it for errors.

"Gloucester realised the idea of using history or precedent; in 1216, the first English minority since the Norman conquest was upheld and later, William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke who was rector to king Henry III while the latter was in his minority. He wanted to have the same authority but as wardship to the young king. The lords countered that this precedent was too far back in time, and furthermore Richard II was in his minority as King but John of Gaunt (Humphrey's grandfather) was given no specific position in the council. They ruled with general consensus between the gentry rather than a single rector to the king. Bedford was rector of France because a single regent was favoured in France rather than a ruling council and the dual monarchy existed through a personal union and each kingdom is allowed with their own traditions and customs. The lords did not want to attack Humphrey personally in his pretensions to regent but rather the will itself. They denied that Henry V had any right to determine the governance of England or of disposing of any royal land. The will itself was too inclined to Roman law and rather heavily foreign to the English. It was said Gloucester's keepership was made forfeit by Henry's death." Jonahbw (talk) 07:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)