Talk:Henry III of England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Henry III of England is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Military / Royalty and Nobility (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the military biography work group (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.
 
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated FA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Featured
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject English Royalty (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Royalty. For more information, visit the project page.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject London (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

King John[edit]

King John wasn't infamous, he was famous! and great too! Susan Mason

I don't disagree with the fact that he was famous, but his incompetence has registered him as one of, if not the worst king of England ever.

King John was certainly famous but not incompetent. He faced the internal upheavals and external assaults with ability, but what placed him amongst the worst English kings was his cruelty, asserting character and arbitrary methods. John perceived himself to be the absolute monarch with power given from God, the sole authority to whom John justified his actions. All the other people in the kingdom had to get aware of it. Ourania 21:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)RaniaOurania 21:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Relinquished control in 1270???[edit]

How is it possible than Henry III "effectively gave up the reins of government to his son" when that son, Edward I of England, was out of the country from 1270 to 1274 on the Eighth Crusade and Ninth Crusade? If Henry wasn't regnant in 1270 until his death in 1272, who was? Certainly not his absent son. I'll give this a week or so, then I will change the language if nobody comes forward with an explanation and a source to back it up. - Bryan is Bantman 18:24, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I have edited the article and it no longer says that. User:Dark Lord of the Sith Revan

Re-write[edit]

I've split this page into many sub-categories and moved informatino about between them. Are there othr ways of improving this article? I am soon going to start finding more sources. 0L1 22:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


The sub-categories seem to be ok, but they certainly need to be expanded.The paragraph about Henry III and Edward the Confessor, for example, could be developped as following: There is the other side of the coin; under the pretension of following Edward’s example in virtue, Henry served his own vested interests. Westminster, Edward’s residence, was incorporated with Henry’s into a single centre implying thus the centralized state of England. The English and French kings may have both ‘promoted monarchy by emphasizing its divinity’, but the evidence suggests that Henry was conspicuously pious whereas Louis IX truly believed in ‘godly ideals’. Moreover, Henry emphasised their common love of hunting in order to justify his own lack of prowess and manliness, elements which were required for every monarch. On the other hand, Matthew Paris dedicated the Estoire de Seint Edward le Rei to Henry’s queen Eleanor of Provence (if I am not wrong it was in the 1242s). Edward the Confessor played a major role in Matthew’s ideas of royal piety. His ‘reign was a paradigm of conciliatory kingship – the Edward of the Estoire was everything Paris wished for in Henry III’. To reflect this model of kingship, the monk tended to emphasize Edward’s adherence to his councils, his detest towards the foreigners and his deep devotion to God for he attended the Masses with contemplation and he enlarged Westminster as well. Moreover, Matthew laid emphasis on the fact that the Confessor avoided extravagance and he preferred to live humbly.

Sources Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 42 (Oxford, 2004), p. 625. W. M. Ormrod, Political life in medieval England, 1300-1450 (N. York, 1995), p. 66. C. Brooke, The Saxon and Norman Kings (London, 1967), pp. 62-65. P. Binski, Westminster Abbey and the Plantagenets (1995), p. 6. P. Binski, ‘Reflections on La Estoire de Seint Aedward le rei’, Journal of Medieval History, 16 (1990), p. 340 La Estoire de Seint Aedward le Rei: the Life of St. Edward the confessor, introd. M. R. James (Oxford, 1920), pp. 12-13 & 17.

Moreover, in the sub-category Criticisms, I suggest the addition of (1) Henry's countless money extortions and levying of heavy taxes which exhausted the kingdom (2) the king's collaboration with the papacy and his tolerance towards the pope's satellites; both caused the barons' and the english church's indignation. Ourania 16:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)RaniaOurania 16:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

An only child?[edit]

At the start of the article, it reads, "Henry III (1 October 1207 – 16 November 1272) was crowned King of England in 1216 despite only being a child."

Despite being an only child? This confuses me. I'm sure there's a logical explanation for this sentence but Henry III was clearly NOT an only child at the time he was crowned king. Also, I think the sentence is really grouping un-related thoughts (crowning and family status).

Thank you.

Sorry - I wrote that sentence. What I meant was, he was not an adult when he was crowned, he was only 9 years old. I meant that "he was only a child" not "he was an only child". I will rewrite it to make it more clear - sorry for the inconvenience. 0L1 20:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

:Henry wasn't the first child-monarch of England, what about Edward the Martyr? GoodDay 19:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

By the Face at Lucca![edit]

It says, among entries under Henry III's 'Personal details', that 'His favourite oath was "By the face of Lucca", referring to the Volto Santo di Lucca'. I don't know about Henry III, but this was true of William II! I have taken the liberty of editing this information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volto_Santo_of_Lucca (q.v.), since the source (Schaff) previously cited in the relevant footnote there actually refers to William II, not Henry III; if, in my ignorance, Henry III also subscribed to this oath as his favourite, then prima facie there is every reason to suppose that he derived it from his forebear William II - though why this should be, I couldn't say; and, if the latter is true, then William II's oath is arguably of more historical interest with regard to the Volto Santo di Lucca itself, being earlier. I have also added a reference to a printed edition of a primary source for this English royal oath, in the relevant footnote at the above page for the Volto Santo of Lucca; and, in the same footnote, I have expanded the reference to Schaff by means of an external link. I'll try to remember to edit this information on Henry III's page also, if there has been no contrary response to this post in a week or so; and, there being no mention of this on William II (Rufus)'s page, I shall now do some editing there, too.

Nortonius (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Where does Nortonius' idea that this oath was connected with William Rufus come from? --Wetman (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Wetman, did you see [1]? Nortonius (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

War in Wales[edit]

Just wondering whether the war between Henry III and Llywelyn ap Gruffydd of Wales that ocurred in the 1250s should be mentioned in the article? It was the war that started when Henry subjugated large amounts of Wales and then faced strong resistance from the Welsh until ultimately he was defeated. --81.151.114.179 (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

Deleted spurious sentence by 63.254.243.42 under coronation concerning "absorption" of Henry II and supposed transformation into a chimera. Misopogon (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Eleanor (sister)[edit]

Which Eleanor of England was the sister of Henry III who married William Marshal, 2nd Earl of Pembroke. If anyone can identify the correct one, a wikilink in the Sutton Valence article is needed. Mjroots (talk) 09:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I've found it - Eleanor of Leicester. Plz correct the Sutton Valence article if it is not correct. Mediaeval England is outside my comfort zone. Mjroots (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Saintonge War[edit]

I'm surprised that this article doesn't mention the Saintonge War (summer 1242) into Henry III was deeply involved and twice defeated. As for the war in Wales, the both wars he lost should be mentioned in this article.92.157.195.132 (talk) 09:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Question: Why the large section on Eleanor of Brittany[edit]

The large section on Eleanor of Brittany is not useful to this article

- While she died during Henry III's reign, her life story has little to do with it
- She was not a large influence on Henry III
- She has Wiki article of her own

I would argue (my opinion) that her death during Henry III's reign is not notable enough to merit a mention in his article, let alone a large section. Lizbetann (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Not only that, but the information is simply not correct. Of course, since the laws of succession had not been legally codified, and would not be for another four+ centuries, there was no way that Arthur, 12 years old at the death of Richard, would have become king, much less Eleanor, a woman, 3-4 years later...not with John around, and certainly not after Henry was born.

In any case, the practice was to designate the heir, so she wouldn't have been among those listed, again not with Richard, Arthur, John, and then Henry to choose from.

After all...the legitimate, in-what-would-become-law-in-later-centuries heir to the throne only 70 years prior, Matilda, had to fight the THIRD son of a younger DAUGHTER of William the C., until he died, only to see the throne pass to her son instead of her.

There simply was no way for Eleanor of Brittany to have ever inherited the throne, ever, or to ever have been considered a threat to John or Henry.

Who wrote this? Timber72 (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Since there are no objections, removing the section on Eleanor of Brittany. Lizbetann (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Sigh. Yes, clearly it was me who had written all this. Don't you think the treatment of his cousin reflected his personality? If you have a relative with NO THREAT who you would usually like to treat generously, would you think of keeping her closely confined till her death?

When I wrote it, this article did not have so plentiful contents, so I thought such a section would make it more complete; now it has become long and complete enough, so the details of the Pearl seem of little necessity here? But, however little influence Eleanor had on the reign of Henry, as far as I have learned, the fall of Peter des Roches was related to her as a result of a so-called plan to ship her away. Above all, the death of Eleanor effectively ended the line of Geoffrey, making that of John indisputable. Without the Pearl, there would also be no place for those cases recorded in Lanercost Chronicle.——Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Expansion[edit]

I've taken a stab at an expansion of the article; I think that it now covers the literature on Henry, and everything should be fully referenced etc. I'm 100% certain that there a bunch of typos, etc. in here though, and it will need a decent copyedit. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

What a job! :) Are you planning on nominating it for DYK? By my calculation it's eligible. Ruby 2010/2013 22:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Fascinating, indeed! By my calculation, however, i's not eligible for DYK. It's now c. 67,945 characters long (including citation numbers, which are not normally counted), but it has to be longer than 77,000 characters - and those 10,000 need to be added today. Surtsicna (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm... Using the DYK Checker, it was expanded from 11897 characters to 65836 characters, which is more than five times. Am I calculating something wrong? Ruby 2010/2013 01:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I am calculating it wrong. I was using Cut & Paste Character count. I have no idea how to use the other two. Anyway, I am going to nominate it and let someone else do the math :D Surtsicna (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Those DYK rules always confuse me! If it helps, in word terms, the page size tool has it up from 2016 to 10700 or so now, excluding foot notes etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Surtsicna. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Looks great! Ruby 2010/2013 16:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I look forward to seeing it on the Main Page! Surtsicna (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

Toolbox

See WP:DEADREF
for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Henry III of England/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Brigade Piron (talk · contribs) 18:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I'll review this if you don't have any problems with it. A disclaimer: I know absolutely nothing whatsoever about the subject, but at least I'll come at it from the perspective of the average reader. I've scanned it through and there are no obvious problems. I'll read it through properly and bring up the table in due course.Brigade Piron (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi! I've gone through and made the changes. I've added some more bits on the Jewish policies in, but I can't go much further without getting into considerable detail on the Jewish bond policy, or alternatively straying a bit from Henry's role in the process. I'm a bit stuck on the lead paragraphs though (my usual weak spot) - I can't work out what to lose without it then failing to summarise the sections adequately. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct.
Background and childhood
  • The first two paragraphs of this section need clearer focus/reshuffling. At the moment, it goes from discussing Henry to discussing Britain, back to discussing Britain again in the next paragraph. The paragraph break seems quite arbitrary. Could you reshuffle it into paras with a common theme.
  • "taught to ride, by probably Ralph of St Samson" -> ", probably by..."?
Further on
  • Types of penny - long cross and short cross are, I believe, technical terms so inverted commas or capitals.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • Could the lead be cropped in any way? It's long and doesn't really allow the reader to dip into it. Not a major problem.
This aspect is still an issue, and would be an obstacle if you want it to go for A-class, but not such a big issue here.Brigade Piron (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  • Yes, although it occurs to me that the section on the persecution of Jews could possibly do with being extended, given its importance. It is currently quite short.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.
  • Congratulations! I'm sorry it took so long to review & I wish you the best on your future contributions. Brigade Piron (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)