User talk:HENRY V OF ENGLAND

Welcome!

Hello, HENRY V OF ENGLAND, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Rich Farmbrough, 22:47 22 January 2009 (UTC).

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Henry

Yes I saw your eloquent edit summary, however that information rightly belongs in the body of the article., I think title=King of France is appropriate for the infobox. Rich Farmbrough, 22:47 22 January 2009 (UTC).

I would suggest you discuss any other changes on the talk page of the article in question, if you think they need approval. Rich Farmbrough, 13:41 25 January 2009 (UTC).

Charles VII of France

I'm familiar with the Treaty of Troyes, but today Charles VII's reign is considered to have begun, upon his father death. Also, coronations don't necessarily mark the begining of reigns. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Charles, control parts of France. At the very least he & his nephew were basically both King of France. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OK.I agree Charles reign begins in 1422.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It was unfortunate that Henry V died so prematurely. It was just as well for France that Jeanne d'Arc defeated the English. Can you imagine what would have happened had Henry VI continued to reign in France? Margaret of Anjou would have been the de facto ruler of both England and France!! What fun.--jeanne (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Harry, take your concerns to talk: Charles VII of France, that way more editors will get involved. GoodDay (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Charles VII (suite & fin)

Dear HENRY V OF ENGLAND: I accept your apology, although there is nothing you did against me, as all was done, or rather said, in jest on my part. I fell on the debate by chance & wiggled myself into the conversation. I simply could not resist! In case we bump into each other again, be sure to keep on your helmet! Also, please join Jeanne, Surtsicna, GoodDay & me in Reims for a glass of champagne! Cordialement! (Just brought my msg to you on your talk page for your records). FW

Frania W. (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a hunch

Hiya Henry. I assume that english, is not your first language. Your postings, tend to be difficult to read, at times. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Being Henry V of England, his English may not be very modern... At least, he is trying! Frania W. (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

His spelling mistakes, led me to believe English, wasn't his mother tongue. GoodDay (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Henry VI of England

Your attempted changes to that article's Infobox, didn't work. Also, you should bring such ideas to the discussion, first. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Charles shouldn't be pushed aside infavour of Henry. The navbox should show them as disputing claiments. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Henry, I fully support GoodDay's suggestion for Charles VII's navbox. It is clearly the easiest way of explaining that Henry did dispute the title, but he was not recognised by historians as a King of France.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

HENRY V OF ENGLAND: Please go the Charles VII talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_VII_of_France&action=submit for start of the challenge. Naturellement, all's done in good spirit! If you do not get an immediate return it's because life outside Wikipedia is also very demanding... and we may not live in the same time zone, or even the same planet. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Challenge continuing on Charles VII talk page. Your turn. Frania W. (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Go on & see my last serve. Frania W. (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Put in my last serve for now. Taking a few hours off, but do not have much to add to the discussion. Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Henry. I have added my comments to the Charles VII talk page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

HENRY: Replying to the msg you left on my talk page: While there is nothing wrong in your way of thinking, what you are saying cannot be accepted in Wikipedia because the way you reach your conclusion is pure personal research. So, all you want to put in either boxes is what is accepted by historians. If you want to do your own research, go ahead, then write & publish a book that wiki editors can use as a reference. In the meantime, we should stay as concise as possible in the navboxes & accept GoodDay's wording with *disputed*, which is the truth. Yes, it was an interesting debate & I thank you for accepting the challenge. We fought fairly! Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Frania. An encyclopedia needs to be as concise and uncomplicated as possible, otherwise the reader becomes hopelessly confused.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

HENRY, on Charles VII talk page, I wrote that I would not cross the Channel to fight for the English... So I am staying out of Henry VI's life. However, I checked fr:wikipedia for the list of the kings of France:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_monarques_de_France.

Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Henry, that will have to be the final word on the matter. Henry VI is not listed as a king of France.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:SbqYcJ0n4gsJ:pagesperso-orange.fr/aetius/general/Medval3.htm+Charles+VII+a+usurp%C3%A9+le+tr%C3%B4ne+de+France&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

http://www.academieduvar.org/oeuvres/histoire/histoire2008/0802%20-%20Lachard%20%20grandes%20chroniques2.pdf

Salutations. FW

Frania W. (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Henry, As per your request to add Henry VI on the list of the kings of France, you do what you want, as I am not one to impose my views on anyone without a discussion. It probably will expand the discussion; but you already know that I do not agree on having him there. Salutations! FW

Frania W. (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Henry, As all of us stand on our own ground not moving an inch, the discussion is taking us nowhere. You are aware that a similar argument was the cause of the One Hundred Years War. And whether she was right or wrong, certainly wrong in your eyes, I am siding with Jeanne d'Arc; not that I believe in her "voices", but because, whoever she was, she knew in her own heart that Charles VII was the real king of France. Legally speaking, while his father Charles VI was alive, the future Charles VII was the dauphin, and the Treaty of Troyes was not a legal piece of paper. As powerful as he is, a king does not have the right to change a fundamental law to his liking, more importantly when the change will give the dynastic line another direction & disinherit the rightful heir to the throne. And that is exactly what was done by the Treaty of Troyes. The son of Charles VI was deprived of his right to the throne of France in favour of his future brother-in-law; the irony being that one of the conditions was that Henry V of England marry Catherine, the daughter of Charles VI & Isabeau de Bavière, which means that when the treaty was signed, the marriage had not yet taken place. How could such a magouille be considered legal? What would have happened if Catherine had dropped dead before her marriage to Henry V ? Nearly three centuries later, the all-powerful Louis XIV could not tamper with dynastic heredity either when he elevated his legitimised sons to the rank of Princes du Sang, thus placing them in the line of succession; his will was broken by the Parlement de Paris within a week after his death. A king of France wears the crown, he does not own it, thus he cannot dispose of it at will.

In conclusion, it seems to me that the note, with the word *disputed* inserted by GoodDay, is the best solution to our (dis)agreement. Aurevoir! FW

Hello Frania I am so happy you posted this comment.As you said If Charles became dauphine he was thus legaly bound to the throne but that is wrong because this is not in french law a tenure of qualification for kingship any more then holding the principilty of wales or earldom of the dutchy of cronwell so he is not legaly bound to the thronee upon inheriting the title dauphine.As said times before salic law had nothing to do with succestion of thrones but for private plots of land even though it is a standard of succestion in both england and france during the 15th century.This boycotting of Edward III legal claim became known as repolitik but the treaty fudged the past and never admmited the french were with wrongful kings.It was more of de justice since Charles VII was emmensely involved in the scandel of John the fearles death in 1419.You are wrong frania by stating the the treatys clauses declared henry should marry catherine and with her his heirs will inherit the thronee but actualy stated henry and his heirs should inherit france so its legal.If Catherine had died before henry had sons then it would be his brothers who became king as ppart of the clause so please read carefully frania.As also said before the treaty in practice removed Charles from succestion as part of de justice for the murder of john the fearless so upon Henrys death Henry VI of England and of France became the legal soveriegn by virtue of treaty in other words upon charles death no matter what happens all the rights,privilages,and virtue of the throne succeded to Henry VI and I am in complete support of historions in this and as in next in line he became soveriegn.The only thing the treaty was proved Illigial for was for opposing the traditional rights of succestion but yet again there is no written down document in french law before 1317 which stated "Men must succeded" the main cause for it not written was because the capetians were hugely invested with males and brothers to succeded nobody not even Edward III thought the capetian dynasty would become extinct and the same thing happend with basis of archery law in england since england loved archery and were the best archers nobody thought of a point to write key therois on how to draw the bow thus as it declined nowadays there is hardly any written therois of the days of the draw in england since it was so common no one yielded to the idea.So in complete support of historions Henry succeded to a double-monarchy as de jure or legal king.Charles could say he is the rightful king but dosent make him legal or de jure king.The treaty fudged the past.Goodbye frania and thanks for that question since it was the most difficult question I found so far on this debate but I agree this is going around in circles and me GoodDay Jeanne and you are all basicly stating the same thing over and over again.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Henry, In response to the note you left on my talk page:

As I said before, I am not crossing the Channel to give my allegiance to any Henry of England. Henry VI of England was crowned king of France in the part of France that was under English occupation at the time. For the unoccupied French, the English & their king had to be booted out & their law never recognised by the French. Un point c'est tout. As Jeanne said previously, the French never counted him among their kings, otherwise, the following Henri de France would have added *one* to his numeral and so on. Frania W. (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

De jure and de facto are meaningless and unhelpful term in this case (and actually in most cases). Both Henry VI and Charles VIII had a legal claim to the throne and both factually controlled parts of the country. I disagree with what Frania said that the Treaty of Troyes was illegal and that Charles VI could not disinherit his son - of course he could. (And example from the Louis XIV era, when the monarchy had already degenerated) cannot be transported back. One is King by acceptance by the land, not by mere inheritance and not by mere treaty. That Charles VII takes a precedence over Henry VI is a historical convention due to the fact that he prevailed. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

PS. And it is nonsensical to say Henry was de jure King until 1429 and then only de facto. If de jure means anything it cannot just end. There never was any legal event that ended Henry's claim. There was a political-military event that ended his factual rule in 1450. But I am glad that you now acccept 1450 as an end date.

Speaking for the French side, I would & do disagree with Str1977 (sorry!): the king has no right to disinherit his son and, if he does, the disinherited son has every right to fight for his right, which is exactly what Charles VII did with the help of Jeanne d'Arc. And the throne of France was inherited from father to son (dauphin). French kings owed their throne thru divine right, not acceptance by the land. The crown was handed down from father to son & the people had no say in the matter: they accepted it as a fact. It took the French Revolution to upset the order of things. As for my using the example of Louis XIV, it was to show that no matter how powerful a king was or had been, an illegal act by him could be reversed, and the succession had to follow its legal course. C'est tout! In our little dispute over Charles vs Henry, we should be able to reach some type of consensus. Frania W. (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. to Henry: RE your note on my talk page, because I do not agree with you & wrote that I would reverse your changes does not mean that I am not your friend on the other side of the English Channel! We just happen to disagree. FW

Henry, your persistant inclusion of Henry VI as also being Henri II of France is not helpful to Wikipedia. Henri II is Henri II of France.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted (again) your addition of Henry II of France to the images caption. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Henry, please actually read and comprehend what I write bevore complaining about it. I did not say he was a mere pretender until 1453. And "regal king" is actually a nonsensical term. all kings are regal as this adjective means kingly. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Reganl means a monarchs years upon asscending to the throne.Henry asscended to the throne of france in 1422 thus he is a regnal soveriegn of france.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"Reganl" means nothing at all. It is not a word. Please use a spellchecker or something like this as I am quite fed up with reading through your postings.

Regal means royal means kingly. A King is always regal or he is not a king at all. The word adds nothing to it. Sovereignity is another matter - not all kings are sovereigns but the French kings claimed sovereignity since the late 13th century. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Look up regnal in the internet dictionary. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/regnal?jss=1

p.s.learn your vocabulary.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You never talked about "regnal" before. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) By adding Henry VI was crowned as Henry II of France, you have to have a note about Henry II of France (reigned 1547-59). GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Re your mail (I thought I told you not to send me mails?) but here is your answer: once you come up with a source that calls Henry (either V or VI) Dauphin, you can add. But I have never heard about such a title and I don't think any Henry of England was ever called Dauphin. Remember the Dauphin is not simply the heir to the French throne, he is the nominal ruler of the Dauphiné. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

To HENRY V: I'm willing to accept having Henry VI of England being on the List of French monarchs article. But only if Charles VII's reign continues to be shown as 1422 to 1461 & Henry doesen't have the name Henry II of France. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I accept GoodDay--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Have any of you perhaps thought of dealing with this by using sourced statements of historians, instead of your own interpretations? There is, obviously, a large assort of views, historical and recent. But that entire article, and all of the related ones, needs sources. Not a list of books at the bottom, but references to the sources for the descriptions of events and views. Your own personal views on this are not relevant to the article. It's not a question of compromising between them, but of writing a sourced article. DGG (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

A thought

After the Western Schism the Roman Catholic Church chose to retroactively recognize as Popes, the Roman line (and disqualify the Avignon & Pisan lines). During the Schism, it could be argued the Avignon & Pisan lines were just a legitimate. We should adopt the same idea for the French monarchs, as France has retroactively chosen to disqualify Henry VI of England as King of France. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I fully support this idea.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't as it is based on false premises. Discussion on the List's talk page.

Margaret of Anjou

I have changed pretender to disputed Queen consort of France in her article; it's the most we can call her without veering into Original Research.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you,but however Pretender is outrageous due to the fact he inherited the throne by law.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Henri VI

Thank you for your message. I will begin with a little joke: Possibly the best thing about Henry V was that he spoke the French language fluently as did his courtieres, he married a French woman, and the House of Tudor that begins with her and the blood of Welshman Owen Tudor, starts a fine line of British monarchs with no English blood at all. Bravo! Smile! --- I begin with this little piece of « outrageous » history because each nation writes its own histories and has its own truths. - - - - I read three of the sources you posted earlier, but they are quite dubious and not reliable, I feel, because of their old date and authorship. The first, is from 1835 « The Chronological Historian » (actually, best of the three); 1867 « History of England for Young Students » (an English hagiography for little ones); and 1835 « Historical Pictures, England » (also for little ones). I could almost hear « God Save the Queen » playing in the background as I read the words. (smile!) I am sorry, but these are just not serious pieces of scholarship. These were written when English disdain for France was at its absolute peak, and Bonaparte was within living memory of all. Besides nationalism, most English historians had been heavily influenced by the plays of Shakespeare - and later Shaw - which are dramas inspired by history, rather than historical fact itself. - - - - On the other hand, the 2008 « The Contending Kingdoms » is more what I had in mind. (I did not read this earlier.) The author, Dr Richardson of the University of Surry, is a credible historian. (But, 52,25 pounds sterling for his slim 192 page book; Oh, my ! Thank you, Google Books !) The topic of the page where you directed me actually begins on page 25. The thesis of Dr Richardson hinges on the legitimacy of the Treaty of Troyes (which he feels is lawful, and most French authors do not); and his interpretation (objections, really) of the legitimacy of the (rightful) Dauphin (especially in this statement by Dr Richardson : « However, the tenure of this area not in French law a qualification or a prerequesite for kingship anymore than the holding of the principality of Wales, earldom of Chester, or duchy of Cornwall were pre-requesites for English kingship. », is mostly opinion, and does not hold-up under scrutiny. The fact is, every heir to the French crown after the annexation of Lyon did bear the title Dauphin. - - And, how Dr Richardson could compare the vast and wealthy Dauphiné region to little English Chester and impoverished Cornwall is another matter! Athough I need to corroborate this, I am fairly certain, both the population and wealth of Lyon and the Dauphiné exceeded that of England, itself.) - - Back to the Treaty of Troyes, the author's explanation of it and its ramifications are good on subsequent pages. The double-monarchy was, in theory, legitimized. But it was signed in weakness and fear by the French, who did not forget that they had seen Paris overrun by the Burgundians, were thankful of the tacit support of the English, which enabled the henchmen of Charles le Bien-Aimé to kill Jean sans Peur of Valois and Burgundy (« John the Fearless »), and no doubt felt that it was not beyond Henry V of England to kill Charles. I could write more, but this is not a good forum, and frankly, I know I cannot convince you because your ideas are so firmly set. Tomes have been written by wiser people than you and me who still disagree. - - - - - What I believe is important here is that Charles le Victorieux (« Charles VII ») was crowned in Rheims and continued to reign over two-thirds of France (central and south) from Bourges. The line of the House of Valois was unbroken. (He was, of course, succeeded by his brillant, machiavellian son, Louis le Prudent (« Louis XI »), among the greatest monarchs of French history.) - - - Lesser, but still important, the English suffered defeat after defeat as soon as nine years after the Treaty of Troyes, and were routed from Paris in 1436 and pushed back to Calais. England could not hold its land gains and did not have support of the French populace. - - - To end this, I stand by my original request: Please give me the name of a modern scholarly reference source that shows the « House of Lancaster » in the line of royal houses of France. The events surrounding the times of Henri VI are fascinating history, but to include him in a list of French monarch that is unsupported, in French or English, makes no sense here. Lists of French kings are common and appear in dozens of good texts. If you can identify one, I will concede. Charvex (talk) 05:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well said, Charvex. The House of Lancaster is no more a French royal dynasty than the House of Simnel is an English one; despite the fact that Lambert Simnel was crowned King of England in Dublin.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)::Hello Charvex.You said that no modern day source supports Henry as a french monarch.This is wrong as my book from R.A Griffiths says that he ascended to the french throne and concilidated a double monarchy,and so does Anne Curry.Historions do in fact regognize Henry VI as a french monarch and my exclodopedia from SPONSERD by the times says both Henry and Charles accsended to the throne of france.May I just say that theses are secondary sources and not primary sources like the treaty of troyes.Henry and his heirs will inherit france and as said in the starting note Charles outlived Henry and so Henry VI became king of france.We cant contridict what historions state and if you dont mind me asking what happend in 1422?The answer is that both Henry and Charles inherited and we cant deny that fact.You also state that because french people didnt regognize him as king he is not listed dosent help on the situation.As I already said the contending kingdoms,The hundred years war by Anne Curry,The reign of King Henry VI By griffiths R.A,my eclodopedia all state he was in fact a french king.Also if you happen to look up an internet source about Henry VI like in Brittincia or Oxford it says he was a french soveriegn.Just like Charles the fat Henry VI remained unnumberd king of france and thats why he was not in the list and he was expelled from france so thats the reason he dosent feature along with charles the fat in regnal templates.No offence I did smile upon your accusation about him bieng unnsoperted as a french king.Because what happend n the latter as you say is in fact vital and I agree and may as well be part of the same reason why he is not featured as a french king.Ufortunately I canot include any cross paths with jeanne d arc and Henry VI as this is not important on the situation.I would like to say congrutualations to you since you are correct and I simply confess that I cannot give you a list that shows henry as a french soveriegn and so Bravo.I can only give you internet Text sources and books thus comes in why he is not mentioned in the list for the reasons we both mentioned.However this does not mean he wasnt in fact a french soveriegn.Remember as I said the same is with Charles the fat not bieng mentioned in the regnal templates but was still a french regal.Thus because a king is unnumberd that is in fact does not mean he wasnt a french regal.I THINK you missunderstanded what I meant with the prequise thing.Remeber in 1435 the congress of arreas,the lawyers of Boulagne said that because charles inherited the dauphine he is then legaly bound and not to the fact he was the heir.THen does the prequiste example come in to play,in other words you dont have to have possetion or inherit the dauphine in order to be heir so french heir does not need to be the nominal ruler of the dauphine ar take the title dauphine to be heir.As back to the list,I also added a note in order for it not to look wierd having henry as a french soveriegn without reason.Also I already said you were right about lancaster not bieng a french house due to the fact as I said before that 1 KING dosent make it a house but rather multiple kings of the same dynasty.Lancaster was never regognized as a french house but henry was a frenh king.I added Lancaster to represent of what house he came from unless of course I said hes the guy from England(just joking).To have Henry in the list without the note is completely ourageous but have him with the note is a ferfect way to clarify his existence and such is neccesary for a disputed king and is perfectly fine.There is also already a note beside him and remember his relatiins with predesccesor(treaty of troyes) that completely holds for security on the matter.If you agree on that then chime up the note but there is realy no need to take him out when haave the reason for his succestion.I hope we agree for the best.And also my LOL signs are for amusement and not affect any NPOV at all.I also read that you said the french never regognized the legitimacy all together about henry.As said in R.A Griffiths section in his book about the double monarchy,Bedford wasnt affraid to ask french(northen commeners) on there views.Bedford even asked for international oppinion.You do know the northen frenchmen were happy to have henry on the throne(1422-1432).The double monarchy was said to have inspired northen frenchmen and englishmen to make a new minted coin for france representing Henrys throne intoxicated with three golden lilies on the coin.It wasnt untill the mid 1430s that there was a rise in french inscurtions.

Goodbye and thanks for the reply.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment on my page

Dear Henry, You deleted your last comment on my page with the explanation: *I deleted my comment as it against Civilty in WP*. I never considered not civil any of your comments to me or I would have personally told you. Although we do not agree & you have never succeeded in convincing me, I have always understood what you are/were trying to explain and have never felt that you were impolite toward me. Waving a friendly 'salut' from the other side of the Channel. FW

Frania W. (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Double monarchy article

If it is properly sources and makes it clear that this was a legal concept brought up by some lawyers (just as the pertaining passage in the article about Lex salica) and was current for a very short time. But who should write it?

Hate to be a party pooper, but that article might be a candidate for deletion. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You do appear to know a certain amount about the Hundred Years War, but I suggest you would be better concentrating you efforts on improving that article, or possibly the biographies of some of the leading figures. PatGallacher (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

HENRY, before answering the msgs you left on my talk page, I read your article & wrote the following comment on its page of discussion. This should give you an answer to the question you were asking me:

***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)

Bonjour Henry, What I wrote above was not a critical judgment of the article you just began, I was only telling you what I think you should or should not do for your article to be of Wikipedia standards so that it will not be deleted. While we are about half a dozen conversing here, there are "unseen" readers from both sides of the Channel who are quite knowledgeable on the subject & who will not hesitate to pounce on you at the least error.

1. The subject of your article being within the period of the Hundred Years War may already be covered in other articles.
2. The background leading to what you want to develop has to be concise, it is (was yesterday) already too long and leads the reader off subject.
3. Avoid repetitive description of events, such as battles, taking of fortresses, etc. which can be blue-linked to specific articles, mainly at the Hundred Years War. Your article is supposed to be on the dual monarchy of Henry VI of England & Charles VII of France, so stick to the subject.
4. Your assertions must be backed up with unbeatable arguments, not rumours and/or doubtful sources.
5. RE the redaction of this article: at times, your sandbox could be of help & keep criticism away.

Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Good advice about how to rewrite. Naturally, you are not expected or asked to settle the question of who was the rightful King of France. The prior discussion about it is not relevant--neither what Henry says nor Francia. If you are going to actually write about the matter here , you report the various judgements, both the politically inspired ones, and the hopefully more neutral judgments of modern historians. It's not a question of "facts" , exactly, not even "proven facts", since Wikipedia does not seek to establish the truth --we simply report what qualified people have published.DGG (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Henry, I changed the name of the article to Dual-monarchy. It sounds better.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

HENRY: I tried leaving a comment to you on Talk:The Dual-Monarchy of England and France, but for some reason, it does not show up. I tried leaving it here, but it does not show either. Hoping I'll have more luck there, I am going to try putting on my talk page. Frania W. (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the problem. Here is my comment:

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...) Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing the references of The Dual-Monarchy of England and France

Henry: You are at work adding publishing houses & page numbers in your references; however, these references need to be *tied* where they are related to the text, because when there is the title of a book & pp. 2, 3, 5, 21 etc. at the end of a section, we still do not know where in your text these pages are referring. You must go back to your text & match it with your sources: that's where you must link with the reference (Reference & Reflist) which will put your source at the end of the article with a small blue number that will appear on the text itself. (Oh, la la! my English is getting muddled!). I again suggest that you do not add anything to your text as long as this problem has not been addressed, otherwise, you will drown trying to fix it afterwards. When you continue, you will add the references as you go on; by then, you should have got the hang of it. If you do not know how to do this, let me know a certain place where you know a reference should go & give me the title of book with particular page, I will try to do it for you (I am sure more will step in to help you.) This should enable you to check the way it should be done by going into the working/editing part of the text & do exactly as you see it.

Adding a new section before all this is cleared will be of no help as the *wiki-invisibles* will openly come after you. It is not the length of your article that will save it; in fact, it may be exactly the opposite: it is the form & the quality. You need to follow a plan, have an introduction that tells the reader what to expect; then the meat of the subject divided into sections: the family ties between the royals of France of England, the Treaty of Troyes, the Salic law, the death of Henry V of England & Charles VI of France, the arrival upon the scene of the baby king of England vs Charles VII of France; the crowning of one in Reims & of the other in Paris, the relationship with the French people. Those are the events you must develop, not bows, arrows & canon balls. What needs to be known but is second or third step from article should only be blue-linked, otherwise you fall into off subjects. As it stands, the article is already quite long but, aside from the title that speaks of a dual monarchy, the subject has not yet been touched upon. There is too much *background* going too far back into the past. It would be much better to start from a stub with outline & go from there.

Bonne chance! Frania W. (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Frania is right. There is far too much background material, which is already covered in the article on the Hundred Years War. You need to relate the events which occured during the dual monarchy, just as Frania has suggested; also you need to discuss the regency, seeing as Henry was not a de facto ruler. I would advise you to omit everything prior to Henry V's invasion of France in 1415, and start from the seige of Harfleur and the Batttle of Agincourt. Oh, and this is important; the article needs a lead. I think you should add one immediately. It needs to summarize what the article is about.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, follow Jeanne's advice. The first template at head of article states This article has no lead section. Before adding anything, write the lead, then review that too-long background section, do not lose the sources if you do not need them at the time (stick them somewhere on your page or in your computer), and go on according to a well-defined plan, such as Jeanne is suggesting. Aurevoir. Frania W. (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Rough sketch of lead added to The Dual-Monarchy of England and France

I have added a rough sketch of a lead for the article as it cannot remain sans a lead. Henry, you can improve it as well as expand it because it needs to mention the Regency, as well as the victories of Joan of Arc to drive the English out of France; ending with the final English expulsion in 1453. As I have said, it's just a rough sketch, it can and should be improved. Now, over to you Henry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Henry, I do not agree with the changes you brought to the lead of the article as it had been set up by Jeanne. It was perfect!

1. the lead is not where various matters should be discussed, only introduced;
2. next comes the background;
3. then the different views of the parties involved must be developed in two separate sections; and it should be done without showing any bias toward one or the other, i.e. do not let your pro Henry VI view filter through the article;
4. 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).

I am bringing this comment to Jeann's page since the two of you were discussing this very point.

Frania W. (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

OK,Then no problem but it should also state Henry bieng king of France more openly in stead of giving the advantage to charles by refusing the article to state henry was also king.Sorry actualy prigmintioure is important.Ill mention salic law now again.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Henry, please revert to what Jeanne had done & do not touch her edits. When the article is finished, then we can read thru it again & bring changes here & there, if necessary. Most important right now is to build the article, not start the Hundred Years War all over again. Frania W. (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The lead is confusing, Henry. And it's the lead that gets the most scrutiny. Honestly, it cannot remain in it's current state, or the entire article might be tagged with a speedy deletion. I don't want to see that happen.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I just read the lead as last revised by Jeanne: the main events up to the death of Charles VI are mentioned, Treaty of Troyes & Salic law included, so I suggest we leave it alone & go on with the rest. Henry, you should realise that Jeanne & I are trying to help you so that this article so dear to your heart does not get deleted. So, please do not throw banana peels on our path. If Jeanne judges the lead to be confusing, then it is, so let her handle it. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Henry!!! Revert the lead as it was at Jeanne's last edit, p l e a s e. You are putting too much into it & confusing matters. If not, I am going to start praying for you to be en panne d'ordinateur = for your computer to break down!!! Frania W. (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Henry, my advice to you is to revert it-for the time being-to my version; then when the article is finished, you can start fine-tuning the lead. As it stands now, the lead will not past muster. I am saying this to salvage the article from possible deletion--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC).

Henry, A few days ago, you asked Jeanne for help because she has created several articles - *thousands*, according to you - so now that she is helping you, why don't you follow her advice? You have a lot to do on this article, so go on with it. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Remember HENRY. Once you create an article on Wikipedia, it can be edited by others. Ya gotta be careful of violating OWNERSHIP. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

HENRY, I really do not feel like arguing with you or repeat what I said previously about the mention of both the Treaty of Troyes & Salic law in the lead because you do not seem to understand what I (or others) are saying. And I am following the advice Jeanne is giving you, not touching the lead anymore until the article is finished, then fine-tuning can come in. However, my dear HENRY, you must realise that, in addition to the few of us who have been working with you on this Dual-Monarchy, *outsiders* may pop in at any time, bring changes & maybe even hack at the lead as it stands now.

P.S. What I mean about what goes in the lead: MENTION but NO ARGUMENTATION of events. When you take a stand for one in the lead, namely Henry VI of England, this is pure POV that is not leaving room for argumentation (by you) later on in the article because, in order to be true to your beliefs, you will have to demonstrate that the French who were not on the side of the English were wrong. I can hardly wait to read your treatment of Jeanne d'Arc !

Bringing this to your talk page. Bonne journée!

Frania W. (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The Realm of France

Bringing this to your talk page:

***Ok then I will leave the lead but Henry VI gets to be mentioned as well.As for Jeanne D arc its not like I am going to call her a whitch but I am not as well going to answer for her visions.Henry VI you know was close to bieng anknowledged as a saint.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)***

***P.S.I am going to start the part of the french realm tommorow.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)***

***Hello Frania.I was wondering on what house Henry VI is actually from.I have multiple sources that say he was a descent of saint Louis by his father and mother and bieng of descent of The House of Plantagement and Valois.The point of the treaty of troyes is that Henry and his heirs would become french monarchs.If Henry II of France mother was Valios and his father Lancastrian wouldnt that technicly make him from the house of valious or Lancastrian-Valoious.Example Valios-Angouleme.Henrys cadet brance would also have to be capetian as well.It was a double-inheritence not an inheritence just through his father as bieng the descent of Saint Louis.It makes perfect sense and for a moment without taking into consideration the there was two disputed kings would this be authentic.Henry is allready listed in sources of bieng Half Valios(French) and Half Lancastrian(English).Here is a source which says otherwise and confirms the legality of the treaty of Troyes.Please give me your oppinion and if we both agree on this Ill edit the list of french monarchs from Lancaster to Valios-Lancaster and maybe expand the note by 1 or 2 sentences.Goodbye Frania.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)***

HENRY: I went thru the section The French Realm in Dual-Monarchy article & also left a comment at article's talk page. Please read my 15:18 8 May 2009 revision where it says: typos + request for references + hidden comments.

As for your question of the royal House Henry VI of England belongs to, I will not advance an answer to this, all I can agree with is his ancestry reaching all the way up to Saint Louis, which does not mean that he has a double whammy in his favour to the throne of France. Again, viewed from the side of the French, Salic law & the doubts as to the validity of the Treaty of Troyes are/were enough keep him from the throne of France. Being a descendant of Saint Louis does not give him a right over the Dauphin of France who is also a descendant of Saint Louis. He can be a descendant of Saint Louis & not be able to claim the throne of his illustrious ancestor just because of the fact that his claim is thru his mother. And the fact that the Dauphin was disinherited because he was behind some guy's murder has me smile: read the history of England & count the many who became kings after murdering their rival!

Cordialement... even though the two of us will never agree! Frania W. (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes Frania and that includes Henry V's own father Henry IV of England, who arranged Richard II's murder and then subsequently usurped the throne in place of Mortimer who was next in line to the throne after Richard.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes Jeanne, that's the neighbourhood, or should I say the hoods http://freethesaurus.net/s.php?q=hood I was hinting at!!! Frania W. (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Frania and Jeanne

http://books.google.com/books?id=Qv9PlGCLy4YC&pg=PA235&dq=the+legality+of+the+treaty+of+troyes

This book provides the legality of the Treaty of Troyes and the legal dissinheritence of the dauphin.It also explains the legaliy of the treaty against salic Law.As fot your statement on henry IV,RICHARD II was removed in 1399 by an act of parliament before he was murderd and when Henry IV succeded then did he order the act of assasination.You must reliase that most of the legality to Charles dissinheritence was outside the treaty.Frania and Jeanne it all ends here if Charles was CONNFIRMED as incapable of succestion because of bieng guilty of lese-majesty and was further confirmed by a sentence at a formal lit de justice in 1421 how can Henry VI(Henri II of France) NOT be the legitimate king.This is why the treaty has been commonly misunderstood because French historions refuse to look at the later charges to Charles.Treaty or no Treaty Charles was incapable of succestion either way.As for what you people call Salic Law which is an ILlegal law.Read the terms of the treaty proparly dont just start making up your own terms.Henry V was adopted by Charles VI therefore making him his son.Strictyly by now there would be no absolute contridiction with Salic Law therefore Henry was capable of succeding as any of Charles sons although the actual text of Adopted-son was never used in the term it was explained.The Heir-Apparent was legaly confirmed as incapable of succestion by a lit-de justice so Charles VI next son(adopted) as legitimate Heir was Henry V.Henrys adoption is further enhanced in the treaty that Bravia and Charles be addresed as Father and Mother to Henry.Further more that gives Henry the legitimacy to adopt the title "Heir of France".Henry V also married Catherine which also made Henry,Charles son-in law.In order for the treaty to be confirmed legal there has to be ratification.As such,Both parties ratified the treaty in 1420.Most of the French arguements by now are overthrown.If Henry was just made heir with no reference to claim and without bieng enchanced then it would have been illegal and thus Charles can be accused of allienating the throne and treating the Kingdom as private land.Louis was incapable of succeding because he didnt profess his claim and was checked in England and to add he didnt have any title like heir prempusitive or apparent to the throne of France like Bedford therefore he wasnt strictly or legaly bound in the line of succestion to inherit.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Two facts remain, Henry. # Henry IV murdered Richard II; # Henry usurped the throne from the rightful heir Mortimer, an act of which eventually brought about the Wars of the Roses. No window-dressing or 21st century spin doctors will remove the stain of murder and usurpation from the Lancasters.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

threats were no threats !

Dear Henry!!! Oh! la! la! What's happening to your sense of humour? Did not you understand the joke ??? FW

Frania W. (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Frania I messed up LOL.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Henry, what are you talking about? I have not touched any of these articles for days & left no comment on any of them, except somewhere the comment Joan of Bark entrusted to me about putting you on a... bottomless boat. But, swear to God, nothing more on Salic law or the Treaty of Troyes! FW

Frania W. (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Jumpin' Junipers. If I ever get the chance, I'll burn that Treaty. GoodDay (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Henry, just where is the original Treaty of Troyes housed? And how many copies of the original are in existance?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Could be at the following:

Institut de France. Bibliothèque

23 quai de Conti

75006 Paris

tél. 01 44 41 44 10

Télécopie : 01 44 41 44 11

http://www.bibliotheque-institutdefrance.fr

bibliotheque@bif.univ-paris5.fr

Better not tell GoodDay!

Frania W. (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

He's booked on the next flight to Paris.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll meet him at Charlie airport,à plus tard! Frania W. (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You had better alert Nicholas Sarkozy of GoodDay's imminent arrival. Ah, Franco-Canadian relations will never be the same!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll handle both Nicolas & GoodDay. This being the weekend & everything being closed in France on Mondays, we have time to figure out how to avoid an international crisis.

Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Citation

Hello Frania how do you answer a ciatation since you asked for it on the article of the dual monarchy.If so,how do I link it to reference.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Answering Henry's note on my talk page: May I get back to you later for the citation? I have to... take a nap. Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

HENRY: If you want, you can bring the citation you want to include on Dual-Monarchy talk page & indicate the exact place in text where you want it. Be sure to also give the reference with title of book or document, publication, city or country, date, page. Let's try it that way. Frania W. (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Frania.I get the majority of my information from a couple of books I have at home.I finished them ages ago but I learned basiicly all the vivid campaigns from Griffith R.A Henry VI but I rarely needed to look back for to confirm it because I already learned most of the campaigns from the book,Wikepedia and other internet Enclodopedias.For the legality and/or the legality of the treaty,I used many sources to back my statement so I wouldnt be wrong in what I say.Do I give sources of every single book I researched or just maybe 2 or 3.I also researched the french arguements in a book called the Congrass of Arras.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

HENRY: I brought (above) your original question to this section so that we can follow on the same page what we are talking about.

I had understood you to ask how to include a citation in the text, and that's what I was prepared to help you with. I know that what you write comes from books & documents you have read, but it has no encyclopedic value if you do not back it up with these very sources.

In order to do this & when you are ready to, i.e. when you are at a point where you absolutely must prove that what you are writing is not the fruit of your imagination (places where references are needed are already shown in the text), you do the following:

• - you point & click on the third from right key on top - it will say *Insert block of quoted text*, : TYPE IN YOUR QUOTE;

• - once you have typed the quote, you need to give the reference, so click on the first key on the right where it says < ref ref > This will give you the space to type in your reference: title of book, name of author, publishing house, city, year, page number.

• - if you mess things up, one of us will come to the rescue.

Now, you may not find the need to give references from all the books you have read; in this case, you list all of them in the *bibliography* section (title, author, editor, etc.)

Hope this will help. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Frania is this example correct:

Vive le France

This is just a made up one.

--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

HENRY: Bravo! Frania W. (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC) (Are you changing side?)

Case of bastard/adopted son

Wait.Really important question Frania.Off course an adopted son is annowledged in the succestion to the throne.Am I right in this or would the fact of alienating the throne still be beased in principle.I think it is possible for a Bastard son of the king to succeded if he was anknowledged by the king to be his legitimate son from his wife.In fact many times kings got away of bieng bastards and still inheriting.Jochi the eldest son of Ghengis Khan who was also claimed to be a Bastard by his own father still inherited the West of Mongol conquests.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Henry: The case of a bastard and/or adopted son would have to be looked into case by case: there is not one *international law* covering them all. Genghis Khan is not one model I would give as an example to follow in Europe, be it that of the Middle Ages. In the history of Europe, any time a king disinherited his legitimate successor or legitimised one of his bastards in order to allow him to inherit the throne, it opened the door to contestation the minute the king died because never considered legal by the "next of kin".

Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 02:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The Beauforts were bastards who were legitimised by King Richard II with the clause that they were never to be in the line of succession to the throne of England.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Remember what I said about charles bieng incapable of succestion.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply

HENRY: You left this on my talk page:

Why no replys????--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean???

Do you mean the reply about the citation? I answered you

HENRY: Bravo! Frania W. (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC) (Are you changing side?)

up above in the Citation section.

Frania W. (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Charles VII of France

HENRY: Why did you blank out the page??? Frania W. (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Henry, blanking Charles' page does not negate his claim as rightful sovereign of France! Just joking LOL!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Treaty of Troyes

To the question on where to find the original of the Treaty of Troyes, this is the answer I recd from the CALAMES search group: Bonjour, En effectuant sur le catalogue Calames la recherche suivante: "Traité de Troyes", on obtient parmi les résultats l'intitulé suivant: "Traicté de Troyes, du mariage de madame Catherine de France, fille du roy Charles VI, et Henry d'Angleterre. 1420". Il s'agit de cet original, que vous trouverez à la bibliothèque de l'Institut de France. Pour connaître les modalités de consultation, vous pouvez prendre contact avec: Institut de France. Bibliothèque 23 quai de Conti 75006 Paris tél. 01 44 41 44 10 bibliotheque@bif.univ-paris5.fr Cordialement, la cellule assistance. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Frania as we were saying earlier on.Would it still be considerd alienating the throne if the adopted son becomes king.Whats the case on Henry V then.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

HENRY: I really do not have the time right now (personal work) to answer you in length, but it seems to me that anyone - bastard, adopted son or any bloke stepping in & sitting on the throne that belongs to the legal heir would be overstepping his bounds.

P.S Henry, you're welcome & I am glad we are such good-ever-fighting-never-agreeing friends. As the French saying goes: avec des amis comme ça, on n'a pas besoin d'ennemis (= with such friends, one has no need for enemies...) Just joking! Cordialement à vous de l'autre côté de la Manche! FW

HENRY: only adding *FW* to my note of yesterday as I had forgotten to sign. Frania W. (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Frania for your reply.As we were saying.If Charles VII was incapable of succestion(so therefore was no longer the lega; heir),could Henry be then the legitimate heir.My predescent for this is that Philp of Burgundy was 7th to the line of succestion during Charles VI reign but he was geniunly removed from the legitimate line for succestion to the French throne.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

HENRY:It is not *as we were saying...* because you are the one saying that Charles VII was incapable of succession, not I. So, as far as I am concerned, there is not *if*, because Charles VII was the rightful successor to his father Charles VI of France, nobody else. And to quote you further: Vive la France! Frania W. (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm growing concerned

As you can tell by my recent reverts of some of your edits, I'm growing concerned HENRY. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Will I stop the Hundred Years War

Hello.Will I just end the disscution on the hundred years war.This does not mean I am wrong as I expalined above.I am just getting tired of this.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

HENRY: What a great idea! Now you can go back to the Dual-Monarchy article presenting the case for each side without taking side. There is a lot to say about this controversy but, remember, this is History, events happened the way they happened, and we are not to judge these people, just report the facts. Consider yourself as a chronicler or a modern-time reporter. Frania W. (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Treaty of II

I promise I will never edit Henry VI as Henri II of France.I guess I did push it too far.I apoligize Frania.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

OK HENRY, your promise is registered under the name Treaty of II, under which you are going to be held until the end of times. And if you ever break it, remember the bottomless bark! Now back to your beloved Dual-Monarchy. Waving to you from the other side of the Manche. FW

Frania W. (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

OK.Last thing I swear to God.I reverted you on the queen mother page.I gave reference yo her bieng queen mother of france and anyway that is what it says in her article.Ok as you said back to the dual monarchy article unless I want to be sunk to the sea evertime I try to cross the channel.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

HENRY: Forget about everything else, stick to the Dual-Monarchy, otherwise you will not be able to untangle the threads. FW

HENRY, re your last last comment, I did not reverse your comment, we had an edit conflict because you were writing me while I was working on my page trying to put your last comment on new section *Treaty of II*. Frania W. (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Margaret of Anjou

Henry, scholars do not recognise Margaret of Anjou as a Queen consort of France. It's nothing personal, as she happens to be one of my favourite historical personages. But facts are facts!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk: House of Valois

Hiya HENRY. Why did you delete my May 25th posting on that article talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you restore it, please? GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Cats

Henry, I have added cats to your article as an uncategorised template was placed there. Do you like the ones I chose?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Joan of Arc

Hello Frania.Should I mention a great deal on joan of arc on the dual monarchy article or will I just leave it as it is with the same intro to the french revival--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear HENRY. I do not know what & how much you want to say about Jeanne d'Arc, so it is difficult for me to suggest what you should do. It seems that the best way is to keep on doing as you have done previously, i.e. start work on the section & we (others & myself) will edit & let you know, and you pursue from there. I think it has worked pretty well so far, and everybody is in a mood to give advice & help. In other words, I cannot tell you and do not want to tell you what to do... until you have done it & if I do not agree, I'll let you know ! As always, we'll keep on friendly terms. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't put too much info about Jeanne d'Arc, otherwise it will be a duplication of her own article. Just stick to describing the enormous part she played which led to the eventual downfall of English occupation in France.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Henri IV of France

Hello Frania.If you still happen to remeber the posts concerning numbering of the french regnal template you mentioned Henri V of France saying "Paris is worthe a mass".But this is wrong it was to do with the french religious wars when by salic law Henri IV of Naverra was the legitimate heir to Henri III of France.Henri IV was removed from succestion previuosly by the treaty of Netmours since he was a calvinist or a hugenout(followers of John Cavin and preched by John Knox).By the proccess Charles cardinal of bourbon was made heir and he was the brother to Henri I prince of conde.The house of guise and the catholic leauge kept the king in check and on the 12th of May 1588 the parisans setted up barricades on the streets of paris and the cul de sac were willing to save the duke of guise away from the hostility of the king Henri III(or Henri IV since I recognize Henry VI as king of France) and so the king fled and joined up with his cousin Henry of Naverra(Henri IV of France).Henri III called for the Estates-General to Blois.The duke of guise Henri I and his Brother cardinal of guise Louis II were asked to meet the king in his private chamber where they were previously awaiting in the council chamber.The gaursdmen seized the duke and stabbed him in the heart and arrested his brother whom was later to die from the pikes of his escorts,to add the dukes son was also arrested in order for that there will be no contender to the french crown.Henri IV by the way was exumenicated by Sixtus V but converted to cathlisim by force when he was in paris earlier on.The duke of guise was highly famed publicly and so the parliament of paris declared war openly against the king and charged him with personal crimes.The duke of Mayenna whom was the younger brother of the duke of guise became leader of the catholic leauge.He declared publicly that a public citizen was free to commit regicide against the the soveriegn Henri III.A dominican friar in 1589 drove a long knife into the kings spleen when seeking an audience with him.On Henri III 's deahbed he pleaded in the name of statecraft(public administration),that he should take throne.The only contest was now between Henri IV and the catholic leauge supported by Philip II and pope Greogery VIII .It was basicly an approxy war between Elizibith I and Philip II.At the battle of Arques Henri deliverd a crushing defeat against Murremncy and swept Normandy and won the battle of Ivery in 1450 letting him besiege Paris.The siege was broken off by spanish troops.The same thing happend at the siege of Roen.Paris refused to allow a calvin to be there king.He later converted to Catholisicm and said the famous speech that "Paris is well worth a Mass" not Henry V who came much later.Just to add it is in fact not a constitutional tradition that corinations must take place at Rheims(although this is seriously reccomended if it is avaliable).Here we can see another matter of a french king bieng crowned other then in Rheims.My point bieng said when in 1594 Henri IV was crowned king of France NOT in Rheims BUT in CHARTERS.The reason bieng the same thing as Henry VI,it was under foriegn authority in this case the catholic leauge.Even when Henri IV regained the city he wasnt obliged to have another corination was he?The answer is No so a french corination outside Rheims is perfectly fine.Probably the Greatest French Corination was Henri VI of England and France at Paris in 1431.I am not biased but I am correct to this,Although the corination came to naught in prcatice its extravegence,ceremony prompt and feast was the greatest in french history.Here is the main reference 1.Read from page pp206-pp217. http://books.google.ie/books?id=_Cc9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA231&dq=Henry+VI+french+coronation:Music+of+Paris&lr=#PPA206,M1 Goodbye Frania.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Reims, Paris, Chartres, the legality of the coronation has nothing to do with the place or the extravagance of the ceremony. In fact, the ceremony held in a cathedral is only a religious ceremony, which does not *make* the king. There was no coronation ceremony for Louis XVIII & he still was king of France. http://books.google.com/books?id=9PMFVLsDWBkC&pg=PA494&lpg=PA494&dq=sacre+de+Louis+XVIII&source=bl&ots=ikBUOxXCuK&sig=MPqQWJjf7KkvyqnJnnmxmP-vL-8&hl=en&ei=6VkpSpuqGpOeM5Cd_MgJ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

Frania W. (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Frania but thats exactly my point,a corination can take place anywhere in France it dosent matter.It is as you only a religious ceremony.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

HENRY: Yes, a coronation can happen anywhere in France, or not happen, as in the case of Louis XVIII; what matters is that the guy being *coronated* be the legal heir to the throne of France, which Charles VII, Henri IV, Louis XVIII were, but not Henri VI of England (Salic law + Treaty of Troyes signed by an insane king of France under duress). Frania W. (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Frania lol I am still puzzeled why you said Henri V of France said "Paris is worth a mass" when Henry IV of France and Naverra said that when he converted in order to secure Paris.Again thanks Frania.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you bring back to me what I am supposed to have said on that famous mass quote? Merci d'avance. Frania W. (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought we agree salic law has nothing to do with the treaty of troyes--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they were two separate things: on the one hand the French could invoke Salic law & on the other claim that the Treaty of Troyes was null & void because of the reasons given above. Besides, when the English were booted out of France, their Henry VI could not be king of France any longer. For the French point of view, which you tend to want to ignore because you believe the king of England owned France (!), Charles VII was heir to the throne & became king of France when his father expired - i.e. would have been even if Jeanne d'Arc had not made him to go be crowned in Reims. Charles VII's coronation was quite a feat & a necessary coup because done in Reims (not next to Bourges!) in spite of the fact that the English occupied the north of France.

Mon cher ami Henry, I also would like to point out that, on this story, the two of us have never agreed on anything. Frania W. (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Another thing Henry, had Henry VI been a legitimate and universally-recognised king of France, historians and academics throughout the intervening centuries would have listed him as Henry II, and the true Henri II of France would have been known in history as Henri III. Do you see why the article can never refer to Henry VI of England as Henri II of France? Too much confusion for the readers, plus it's OR on your part to do so!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Away from Wikipedia today because of D-Day - the most glorious day the French (in particular) should never forget. Taps... Frania Frania W. (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank You Henry, sorry I really didn't know what I was talking about and I didn't realise that there was so many references for it. It believe you now!--Daaviiid 10:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I don't really understand French history too much. Like why women weren't aloud to inherit, the House of Capet would still be alive today and possibly still the royal family of France. But I won't stick my nose in your converstions with Jeanne anymore. --Daaviiid 10:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Daaviiid, please feel perfectly free to comment on my talk pages. Believe me, you are not sticking your nose in.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

D-Day

Away from Wikipedia today because of D-Day - the most glorious day the French (in particular) should never forget. Taps... Frania Frania W. (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Are Germans invading again.Lets get Henry V,Jeanne D Arc and some English Longbowmen.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No! 6 June 1944 is when the Anglo-Américains landed in Normandy to kick the Germans out... I am sure that Jeanne d'Arc, Henry & Loongbowmen were showing them the way to Victory! Frania W.

Wow, HENRY! You finally came out of the Hundred Years' War! Mes compliments!

Frania W. (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I knew the stuff but I never got to use it.I would say after I finish the article,There shall never be a debate on the hundred years war for another 100 years.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A great decision on your part HENRY ! Let's do like these guys did, leave the fight for our great-grandchildren in 100 years ! Adieu! Frania

Frania W. (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

World War I

Hello Franai.I have a question concerning World War I.Is it right to say that the warefare in world war I the same as the warefare in the late 19th century like in the Boer War or Crimien War since there is absolutely no simmilary in warefare with war II.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

HENRY, Well, in all these wars, horses were used... and sometimes donkeys, maybe even bows & arrows. However, cannons also, then tanks & that's what made the difference in modern warfare (with air reconnaissance & bombardment from the air). If you are interested in the evolution of arms from one war to another, I recommend you read The Arms of Krupp - 1587-1968, by William Manchester, first published by Little, Brown in 1964, followed by additional reprints in 1965 & 1968. Book itself (my copy) is 833 pages but totals up to 941 with acknowledgments, appendices, chapter notes, bibliography & index. It is the four-hundred year history of the arm-making Krupp family. You can read the wiki article on Krupp, but if you are really interested, please get the book:

http://www.amazon.com/Arms-Krupp-Industrial-Dynasty-Germany/dp/0316529400.

On pp. 211-212 (page number may differ with different publications) there is mention of the Boer War as Krupp furnished arms to the Boers, then you will get the description of all the material made by Krupp for the wars of 1870, 1914, 1939...

Mit freundlichem Gruß, aufwiedersehen ! Frania.

Frania W. (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Will not talk to you anymore if you ever get curt again with any of the contributors with whom we/you are working. FW (my initials which can have different versions, some of them extremely nasty when I get mad!)

Thanks Frania.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Frania W. (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Time Period

Hello Frania.What other time period do you like or wanting to disscuss.(Just to test our Knowledge not a competition..... or is it???)Goodbye Frania.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Henry! You mean that you are considering stepping away from the Middle Ages? Dommage ! Are you thru with the Dual-Monarchy? Is the section *the two coronations* the last chapter or is there more to come? When I corrected it earlier, I inserted some hidden comments where I could not figure out the meaning of the sentence (missing words?), specially toward the end, so I did not change anything thinking that some of the others would.

As for the time period I like, there are too many to list, and too many subjects. How about... Beethoven???

Adieu, Henry. Frania W. (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well Frania.What I said about the corination is true.Here is the ref.

http://books.google.ie/books?id=_Cc9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA231&dq=Henry+VI+french+coronation:Music+of+Paris&lr=#PPA206,M1

Vivid account of the corination.I thought you read the ref because I mentioned it before.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S Frania.Regarding your comment about bieng curt to Kansas Bear.I was talking about Burgundys withdrawel of the fighting but Kansas Bear brought up the corination.I said in the start of my comment that I agreed that the corination failed to be recognized internationaly.What we didnt agree upon was that he came with his unsourced statement that Burgundy in fact never at all recognized Henry as king of france and refuses facts concerning the strain of relations during the 1430'.He gives a ref concerning the corination and says it was completely an Anglophile affair,which I agreed upon and it even says in Griffith R.A'S BOOK that the affair was completely English.I turned my attention to it but explained to him the overall recognition as Henry by bieng bound to the treaty of troyes oaths and still was a staunch ally during the early 1430s for the alliance to conquer france for henry(unless he thinks its for Charles).He rufused the facts and was pressistant on the corination but had nothing to do with overall recognition and Philip still publicly invocked Henry as king of France not Charles VII.Kansas Bear thinks that relations are effectively iron clad and cant be changed.Burgundian and English morale was nominaly good during the 1420's and I have refs saying he recognized Henry as king of France.Even if Kansas Bear replys he is going to still be presistant on the corination.But you and I know that the treaty of Arras between the french and Burgundians was because of English military indescisiveness,death of Bedford,Bad relations with the duke of Gloutchester and the his invastion of the low counties in 1424 which provoked Anglo-Burgundian hostility.The corination didnt have its outcome effect but even if the burgundians ignored it they were begining the withdraw of the recognition of Henry but I said above he was effectively rrecognized in the 1420,s and was still involved on the treaty of troyes basic terms which is represented by the alliance and even during the early 1430'sas I said he still invocked Henry as king of France.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually.You know what Frania.I would ask him does he have any record in which from 1422-1435 announce Charles is my soveriegn and I philip are his vassal.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

HENRY, my comment about you being *curt* toward Kansas Bear had nothing to do with your disagreement on the subject, but with the way you addressed him because he was not in agreement with you. Jeanne caught it & made the remark to you, so I stayed out of it, still, being rather old-fashioned, I found your words disagreeable, to say the least, not *gentlemanly*, and I told you directly on your talk page. KS got in our discussion in order to help & he gave a much-valued opinion backed with proof. All of us can get into heated arguments, there is nothing wrong with not agreeing, but it is not right not to remain courteous. My reaction would be the same if someone was acting impolitely toward you or Jeanne or GoodDay. That's all. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

OK

Are you alright Henry? We haven't heard from you in a few days.--David (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Coucou Henri ! Are you lost in your reading ? Trying to figure out how to use the arms of Krupp in the Hundred Years War ??? Aurevoir ! Frania W. (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Henry, I hope you're ok.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Henri, if you're lost at sea, send a Mayday signal ! Hoping you did not attempt the Channel crossing in your bottomless bark. We're waiting on the Normandy beaches for you... Frania W. (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC) signing for Jeanne d'Arc

Talkback

I've been work with Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy, creating a page for the Duchesses, Electresses and Queens of Bavaria. It is rather hard using a wikitable. --David (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

All of them, it's a list, though there was only a few of them, there was more Duchesses and Electresses--David (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Coronation of Henry VI????

Hello Frania do you think the corination section makes sence.I am changing some words.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Frania.I am also going to make another small article.Its called the treaty of Amiens 1423.I know there is also another treaty of Amiens 1802 so how do I come around this problem.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

HENRY: Simply give the title of the article with the date between parentheses Treaty of Amiens (1423). Hoping you do not get yourself tangled up in controversy... Frania W. (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Henry, may I suggest that you finish the Dual-Monarchy article first. Your new article sounds like a good idea, but if I were you, I'd concentrate on getting the current one completed so that the under construction template can come down. This is just my opinion, mind.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is something I was going to mention to Henry as the article looks unfinished - no conclusion. And as Jeanne had mentioned at the beginning, it has to be read through in order to get all the bugs out.

Frania W. (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

In line citations

Hi, HENRY V OF ENGLAND. I saw your question on Jeanne boleyn's talk page and thought I may be able to help. Hope you don't mind. You are quite welcome to ignore this if you wish. In line citations are also known as references. I think it's fair to say that references are not that easy to provide in an article, even when you have them. They are, at best, bloody awkward. I have used this fairly recently: Wikipedia:Citation templates. In reality though. I usually just copy a reference I've used before as a template. For example - a book reference:

<ref name="Gwynfor">
{{cite book
|last=Evans
|first=Gwynfor
|authorlink =Gwynfor Evans
|title=The Fight for Welsh Freedom
|publisher=Y Lolfa Cyf
|year=2000
|location=Talybont
|isbn=0-86243-515-3
|pages=7}}</ref>

appears in the article like this:

Or a web based reference:

 <ref name="Parc 1">{{cite web
|title=Parc-le-Breos  
|url=http://www.parc-le-breos.co.uk/index.htm
|accessdate=2008-11-06 
|publisher=Parc-le-Breos  
|year=2008
|work=Parc-le-Breos website 
}}</ref> 

appears in the article like this:

If you use a "ref name", once all the details are entered you only have to note the "ref name" for subsequent citations of the same work, you just have to remember to insert the / before the final >

<ref name="Parc 1"/>

like this. If you are creating a new article you'll need to format the reference section like this:

== References ==
{{reflist|colwidth=30em}}

which will show up at the bottom of the page, after all your other text.

NB. I've created a references section at the bottom of your page, so you can see how they appear. Let me know when you've read it and I'll delete it.

Hope that helps. If you have any questions please ask. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This guy Louis XVII pretender to the French throne

Hello Frania.I know this guy here was imprisioned from 1792-1795 when the commistioners arived at the temple prision and went to the apartment for orders of seperating the fills-de-france Louis from the rest of his family.He started crying uncontrolably when he was seperated from his mother Maria-ANNIONETE and his sister marie theraise was also taken to solidtry confinement.He was in the care of Mademe de Rabaud and was given a republican education by Antoine Simon and proclaimed by the royalists in favour of the dynamic line as Louis XVII(off course in pretence).What I Dont get is the actual difference between prince du royal and the title dauphine or are they the same?I thought of asking you since you are an expert on these things.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

HENRY, First, this *guy*, as you call him, was a little boy and his name was Louis Charles. He was the second son of king Louis XVI of France and of his wife, queen Marie Antoinette. He became Dauphin of France when his elder brother died in June 1789. At that time, he & his sister Marie-Thérèse were the only children left to the king & queen. Children of the king of France were Fils de France (Fils (son) or Fille (daughter). The Dauphin was the heir to the throne, i.e. the eldest living son of the king. When Louis XVI was beheaded, Louis Charles' mother & all the royalists proclaimed the young Dauphin king Louis XVII, title given to him by historians, even though he never reigned et pour cause, since he was imprisoned in the Temple Tower & died there.

All the titles of address from the Ancien Régime were still used during the Bourbon Restoration, but not during the reign of Louis-Philippe I, King of the French who belonged to the House of Bourbon-Orléans. When he came to throne at the beginning of August 1830, Louis-Philippe created the title Prince royal for his heir Ferdinand Philippe, Duke of Orléans, who was NEVER called Dauphin.

Reading for you:

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:GZLLN0Sb9kAJ:www.heraldica.org/topics/france/roygenea.htm+what+is+prince+royal+in+French+royalty&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

That should keep you out of trouble...

Frania W. (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Frania but why with the comment that will keep you out of trouble.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to be sure you don't... get in trouble. FW Frania W. (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

ok.I knew he was a child.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The way you wrote "this guy" sounds weird to me.

Please, don't call him *this guy* anymore. The poor little boy suffered so much! Do you know there is a (recent) movement in France asking that he be made the symbol of abused children? FW Frania W. (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes Henry, it's very lese-majesty. King Louis XVII was such a tragic figure from history, he reminds me of the Princes in the Tower. His sister was very tragic as well, even though she lived to an old age. A pity the line of Marie Antoinette died with her.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

More than lèse-majesté, it is lèse-abused children - nothing to smile about in this era of disrespect. Frania W. (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, Frania. His case is sad, and he should be used as the symbol for abused children. There are so many out there, and most of them suffer in silence.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Bringing discussion with Henry on his talk page:

Sorry Frania,I never knew there was an actual French political movement to have him viewed as Symbol for abused children.I knew the horrible things Antoine Simon did to him like making him sing le Mairlesailes while drunk.sleeping with prostitutes in which he contracted disiease from,Simon Antoine also taught him to curse and be rude and was in fact given a poor republic education.Again sorry I hadent a clue you were very sensitive on this matter.Apoligies.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not a political movement, simply a prise de conscience of many French citizens. Mme Giscard d'Estaing, the wife of former President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, has been promoting his being made the symbol of the enfance maltraitée. We have entered an era in which the well-being of children is being promoted, i.e. no abuse of any kind, and many French people have finally come to realise that their great Revolution was won partly on the back of a little boy whose only crime was to have been born a royal child. His tormentors made him suffer more than Jesus Christ endured.

On the other hand, you have to be careful believing all that has been written about what happened to him in the Temple Tower. That Simon was hired to make a real Republican out of him is accepted because proven; however, the story of having him sleep with prostitutes & contracting venereal disease(s) is to be viewed with much prudence. The Bourbon Restoration saw the publishing of many apocryphal writings: much of what has been written about Louis XVII belongs to that category.

Frania W. (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Treaty of Amiens (1423)

needs references given within text. Frania W. (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Image

I have uploaded an image of Henry VI for the Dual-Monarchy article. I got it from one of my books. It's a drawing of him as an infant being placed in the care of the 13th Earl of Warwick.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Jack 1755

I was born in Cork city, and I still live there.(Jack1755 (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

Hello Jack.What History book are you using for your Juniour Cert next year in third year.We are using Focus on the Past.Goodbye.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk)

I'm using "Uncovering History" by Sean Delap and Paul McCormack. It is frightfully inaccurate. Are you doing your Junior Cert this year? (Jack1755 (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

No.I am going into 3rd year in September after the Summer Holidays.Are you intrested in the Italian Wars of 1494-1559.I noticed you were intrested in the Medieval Italian Dutchy of Florence with Cosimo de Medici (founder of the medici rule in Florence) whom was ruler of the city in 1434-1464,was a patron of the Arts and had sent shcolars to retrive rare manuscripts to fill his great library.He was succeded by his weak son Piedro whom had inherited the bank from his father including the republic of Florence.Cosimo bieng the first medici ruler of Florence was given the title Father of the Land (Pater Patriae) which was written on his tomb.Piedro ruled for 5 years(1464-1469).Piedro was succeded by his son Lorenzo de Medici when at the age of 20 inherited the dutchy from his father in 1469.Lorenzo was one of the greatest medici rulers.Under his rule the Medici remained an important Banking Family.He was athletic and a patron for Botticelli,Learnado Da Vinci and Michealangelo.Like his Grand-Father he collected manuscipts especially from Greece since the Kingdom of Byzantium fell after Sultan Mehmed II conquest of the City of Constintalople in 1453.One scholer brought 200 mauscripts and Lorenzo also opend one of the first Public Library since it was open to all.Lorezo was also intrested in Litrituire but had many enemies most notably with his political relations towards the Pazzi family.In 1478 they plotted to assasinaite him and his brother Gualliono(whom was co-ruler brother) when they were praying at Mass on Easter Sunday.2 priests were choosen to kill them.Guallinio died unfortunitly when he was stabbed to death but his brother Lorenzo escaped with his life.It became known as the Pazzi Conspiicy.Florentien citizens ran around as a mob killing anyone involved in the conspiricy and even the Arcbishop of Pisa whom was the leader of the conspiricy.The pope lol excuminated Lorenzo and the people of Florence.The archbishop of Pisa's patron was Pope Sixtuis IV so it was an insult to his Holliness.Lorenzo never wanted that to happen but The Pope also saw that his excummination had little effect and so he formed an alliance with Ferdinand I of Napals whose son Alaphonso duke of Calabria launced the invastion.Lorenzo gatherd the people and prepared for War.They were not alone however since Bologna and Milian were there traditional allies.The War was traversed when Lorenzo engaged instead into a policy of Diplomacy and personaly visited Napals.This action had caused the peace.Lorenzo like his Grand-Father Cosimo sought to maintain peace between the Italian States.Lorenzo made good relations with Mehmed II Sultan of The Ottomen Empire in which the mediteranian and Medichi Finance and Commerce depended on.Ottomen comes from the word Osmen.The Seljuilk Empire of Turkey named itself after the famous Turkish sultan Osmen I to whom was the origin of the word Ottomen came from.

P.S. Are you intrested in the Irish revolotion with Wolf Tone,the American Revelotion or The French Revolotion. C'YA.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND

Thank You for the info Henry! I am fascinated by the French Revolution. I don't know much about Irish hisotry. I'm going into 3rd year too. (Jack1755 (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

Hmm .. I'm not too sure. I guess I watch the Fox News Channel alot. wbu ? (Jack1755 (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

I'm working on fixing my botched edits. I see you are working on the Dual Monarchy of England and France. How is that going ? U got msn ? (Jack1755 (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC))

Hey, How are you ?? (Jack1755 (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC))

Miscellaneous

HENRY, was this a statement or a question? FW

A statement.I was afraid you lost your merry atituide.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

HENRY V OF ENGLAND: Should I ever lose my merry *atituide*, the mere sight of *ye olde Englische* would revive it. Have you finished the Dual-Monarchy or are we going to have to put you on the grill to get it done? Frania W. (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Frania.I was just realy,realy,realy worried we lost you.I also prefer not to be grilled thankyou lol.I will finish the article.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Good! And you'll get help on the condition you be courteous with EVERYONE, even those with whom you disagree, otherwise I'll be out of your life forever with no further word. Frania W. (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Louis XVIII

Hey Frania lets have another disscution on some french kings.lol.I thnk that tag on Louis XVIII article regarding it as confusing should be deleted.It is a bit but not that much.Goodbye--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The tag was put there for a reason only a couple of days ago & should not be deleted. We are going thru the whole article & it will be removed when it's OK to do so, which it is not now. I personally can work on it only a section at a time because I am checking several books & am also very busy in real life & there are only 24 hours in a day. Frania W. (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes Frania I agree Henry VI was King of France lol(Just Jokin but really Henry was King of France)--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Henry VI of England and of France

I'll never except Harry as a King of France. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Say what you wish GoodDay.I am quite tired of this.Your argues GoodDay no offence are pure original research and you hae no source to back up your Aquisation rather then calling it an arguement.C'ya GoodDay.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's just my PoV (original research), I've never denied that. That's why I don't mess around with the The Dual-Monarchy of England and France article. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You're worrying (and typing) yourself into a frenzy, for nothing. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: Please, don't post anymore references to my talk-page. At the rate you're going, my talk-page would have to be archived daily. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll never, never except Henry VI of England as having been King of France. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither will I. As a Yorkist, I barely recognise him as a King of England. LOL--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Louis & Henry

I don't have (nor do I intend to dig up) the historians who oppose Louis XIX & Henry V's claims as King of France. But trust me, there are such historians. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes there are, Henry. Trust us, please.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Usurper

Hello Frania.Is Louis Phillipa I Duke of Orleans King of France a usurper.The legitimists under the duke of Chambond or Henry V of France was recognized by some loyalists and ruled for 7 days.The succestion went from the Comte'd Artois(Charles X) abdicaited in 1824 in favour of his son Louis-Antoine Duke of Angoulemia(Louis XIX) whom ruled for 20 mins and so it went To Louis-Antoine's nephew Henri duke of Chambond or Henry V.How did Louise Phillipa I prince du sang(Orleoans) take the throne.Or did the Chambers ratify the succestion of Louis Phillipa I Duke of Orleons SOMEHOW? Henry V should be given a template in the French Monarchs List Like Le Roi Henry VI of England since he had de facto soveriegnty for 7 days.Thats much better Then his uncle's rule for 20 mins which could hardly be described as a de facto rule.Hello Frania--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 06:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Frania?????--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly an usurper, but... After Charles X's abdication in favor of his son the duc d'Angoulême, who in turn abdicated in favor of his nephew the duc de Bordeaux (later comte de Chambord), Charles X wrote the duc d'Orléans asking him to watch over the rights of his grandson & govern for him until he was of age. However, within a few days, the duc d'Orléans accepted the decision of the Chambre des Députés for him to be king and thus became Louis-Philippe I, King of the French, while the young duc de Bordeaux was bypassed. I do not know if you want to call Louis-Philippe an *usurper* but he certainly took advantage of the situation & his young cousin never became king Henri V of France and, in fact, lost his chance when, many years later, he refused the tricolor as the flag of France. He wanted to restore the white flag of the kings of France. Had he become king, his reign would not have lasted anyway because the majority of the French wanted a Republic. All 19th century one-man reigns finished in disaster for the monarch & none of them reigned for twenty years: Napoléon I (1804-1814/15) died in exile, Charles X (1824-1830) died in exile, Louis-Philippe (1830-1848) died in exile, Napoléon III (1852-1870) died in exile.

Have not much time for Wikipedia for a few days. Aurevoir! FW/Frania W. (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Semi-Retire

Hello Frania.I have to semi-retire today since I am going on Holidays tommorow.I wont be active as much.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Cher Henry! Do you celebrate the *4th of July*, *Henry V of England's Day*, *Queen Elizabeth's Day* or *Leprechaun Day*?

Enjoy your semi-retirement & be sure to come back to us full of pep & argumentation!

Wikipedia won't be the same without you !

Have a nice summer. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Are you going anywhere nice Henry, I'll be off on holiday soon but I'm only going to Yorkshire. Goodbye for now--David (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh lovely, be sure and visit Richard III's old home (well the ruins), Middleham Castle. I went there in 1979, and I loved it!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

See u later

Bye Henry! Have a great vacation. Hope to see you again soon (Jack1755 (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

Bannockburn

On your question on archer numbers, I'd float in on the talk page. In an army of 6-8000, 500 probably a touch on the low side but with this level of inaccuracy on numbers who knows? I'd float it on the article talk page, as I know that the army numbers figures on the info box are quite tightly monitored and you might get a straight revert. Best wishes Monstrelet (talk) 09:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As Barbour's Chronicle is dated 1375, he couldn't have been at the battle himself. It is recognised he used probably eye witness accounts in lost sources, though (e.g. A life of Robert I produced perhaps in the 1330's). On archers, the fullest account is the Lanercost Chronicle, which has a shoot out between the English and Scots archers - the Scots lose and fall back. Chris Brown's Bannockburn reprints the main sources, if you want to follow it up.Monstrelet (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links - I do have a copy of it - I think Pete Armstrong talks good sense on Scots military topics (hence my encouragement to in-line cite him on the archer numbers question). Monstrelet (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Henry

Hello Henry we haven't heard from you in a while. Are you still on your holiday? Get in touch soon, I have a little problem with another one of these medieval women and I need your help. Thanks--David (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Henry, where are you? I hope you haven't been lost in another time dimension. If so, hurry back to the 21st century and let us know what the Battle of Agincourt was really like. Did Henry V actually make his famous greyhounds straining in the slips speech to his troops--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

HENRY V OF ENGLAND, Where thou be'st? Hast thou eloped with Jeanne d'Arc? Wes ðu hal !

Frania W. (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Henry, where are you? We miss you here at Wikipedia. Please let us know you are well

Bonjour HENRY! Glad to see you back! I see you are coming back with a Big Bang! Please leave a msg at Jeanne Boleyn (talk page as EVERYBODY is asking about you. We have been so worried, although I suspected you made up with Jeanne d'Arc & eloped with her. Best wishes for your new school year. Frania W. (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Internationality of wikipedia

Hi Henry. I undestand your opinions and I respect your sources, but the problem is that these are English sources, and they are completely different from French sources (and quite different from the sources of third-party countries). The French position is that the king of France received his power by God (Deo gratia), so neither the king could change what God had stated. The thesis of the adoption is absurde: even if we would not consider the fact that there are no adoption of sons by the kings during all French history (we are not speaking about the Roman Empire!), you know that hereditary European monarchies had a patrimonialistic conception of their States: if you are adopted by a man, it means that or your natural father is dead, or that he lost his patria potestas: in every case, you cannot have two fathers, and you can't inheredite from two fathers, because this fact isn't accepted in (Christian) European culture. If Henry would have become the legal king of France, this fact would mean that he had lost the Kingdom of England, fact that is evidently absurde.

Generally speaking, the problem is that wikipedia must mantain an international vision of facts. We have an English position, we have a French position (generally accepted worldwide, but we can also forget this fact), we must show both two, without chosing. We can't hide the fact that there was an incoronation of a king of France in Paris, we can't forget that this incoronation is in contrast with all the rest of the hereditary history of the French throne (remember that, differently from the "livened" history of England, in France there is a regular male inhereditance of the throne from 987 to 1830, without exceptions, so much that Louis XVIII took that numeral because he considered decided by God the throne of Louis XVII). We are not judges, we must only give more informations as possible. :-) --Cusio (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Please go to French monarchs talkpage for my reply.Thank You very much.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok! --Cusio (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Henry

Hello Henry welcome back to wikipedia, have you been doing anything nice over the holidays?--David (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm good, just I'm back at school and it is sort of boring, though it is my birthday next friday so that is something to look forward to--David (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Henry. How are you? Did you have a nice Summer? Tell all! -- Jack1755 (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Your article?

Henry I hope everything is well with you as you haven't edited for quite a long time. Your Dual Monarchy article still has not been completed. I hope you reconsider coming back to edit as we (Frania, GoodDay, David, Jack1755 and myself) miss you. Take care.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Where are you?

It's been over a year since we last heard from you, Henry. I hope you are well. Do consider returning to Wikipedia!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Meilleurs vœux !

File:Tour eiffel feu artifice.jpg

Bonne Année 2011 ! --Frania W. (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)