Talk:Henry the Young King
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Didn't think this was possible. My first thought was merely to criticise the entry. Instead I shall read more on this period and try to flesh out the sparse facts you present. Thanks C
- Such is the power of Wikipedia. Welcome! --mav
I am sceptical about the starting of divorce proceedings, because this would have lost control of the Vexin for the Plantagenets. Is there any evidence Henry and Margaret parted because of divorce? Or is it more likely, as E.Hallam [The Plantagenet Chronicles] and A.Kelly [Eleanore and the Four Kings] state, that civil war made it too dangerous for her to remain accessible as a hostage? G.Duby [Guillaume le Mareshal] states that Wiiliam was exonerated from any taint of adultery and returned to Young Henry's side on campaign shortly before Henry died. Additionally none of the contemporary chroniclers gave the adultery story any credance. Trev.
Double check facts in this article with facts from the article on Marguerite... info on her pregnancies and marriages don't match up. It says she was married @ 2 years old but was more than likely only betrothed at that age.
Dear Mr Sanders though you may think that the divisions were unnecessary your meddling while I was writing up one of the new sections casued me to lose a lot of text and waste half an hour of my time. Perhap you can wait till I have done it this time and then address your concerns David Skipper 12:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for that; however, there is generally the option of merging edit conflicted text into the saved version, and it is almost always copyable from the screen. Alternately, you can signal that you are in the middle of writing a large scale revision by sticking up a work in progress template (I don't know how to do that, but I'm sure someone else could tell you), or posting to that effect on the talk page. Personally, I always write up large scale edits on word - it keeps it safe. I'm sorry if I caused you any problems - however, it might be best if you indicate that you are not done next time (you gave no indication that you were doing anything other than introducing divisions into what was a short article). Michaelsanders 12:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, and the idea of working off screen is a good one. Work in progress sign - I must find out how to do that.David Skipper 13:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh ... and I intend to be revising this article pretty thoroughly over the next few days David Skipper 13:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Right then - I'll make sure I don't interfere with it (though I now know that the divisions are intended to be better filled, I might have tidied up a few words or something - so it's good you said it). Michaelsanders 13:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm so confused
"In June 1170 the fifteen-year-old Henry was crowned king during his father's lifetime" "Young Henry fell out with his father in 1173. Contemporary chroniclers allege that it was due to the young man's frustration that his father had given him no realm to rule..." What was he king of? If he was king of England how come he's not Henry III? Another sentence explaining what the 1170 coronation meant might clear up this confusion. Nitpyck (talk) 06:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Right. I know very little about this material but suspect there's possible very old vandalism.
The original template box looked like this (bottom of the page). The "French Nobility" section has Henry II pipe linked as Henry I. I assume this was intentional as it was specifically pipelinked in the original. (Henry I of France appears to be a different person though, so perhaps it was a typo).
Either way, this edit by 220.127.116.11 changed it to Henry II.
18.104.22.168's contributions to the matter have been somewhat questionable, hence my concern. Additionally, the same user made the same change (Henry I -> Henry II) to Eleanor of Aquitaine, with this edit. It was however reverted later on (somewhere, I don't have the exact change) to the article as it is currently, where it is listed as "Henry I (1152–1153)".
If someone more knowledgeable than me on this matter is able to clear this up, that would be great.
If this was vandalism, it's almost 3 years old and so the oldest vandalism I've helped clear up. Woohoo.
Either way, please drop me a message on my talkpage with the result. --BlueNovember (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Young King of the English
He has been called the Young King in historical literature for many decades, perhaps longer. See, for example, the book The young king, Henry Plantagenet (1155-1183), in history, literature and tradition, by Olin H. Moore, published 1925. The label is like "Lionheart" or "the Great"--enshrined in historical literature, not a legitimate title or contemporary designation.DeAragon 21:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dearagon (talk • contribs)
- Sorry I didn't mean the article title, that seems to be what you are thinking. I'm talking about his royal title as king was junior king of the English. I took the liberty to change that in the succession part of the infobox.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
His royal title was 'King'--not junior king. One of the reasons he resented his father's reluctance/resistance to relinquish real authority into young Henry's hands may have been that he had the title of king but not the real authority. That seems to have worked in France but not in England. 'The young king' was probably to distinguish young Henry as king from his father Henry, the "old" king. DeAragon 03:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dearagon (talk • contribs)
Some history missing?
Slightly perplexed by this article. In one paragraph it says Henry is, effectively, reconciled with his father Henry II, albeit it at the cost of any real power. In the death paragraph it says he died during a campaign against his father (and brother). What happened to make them fall out again? Villafancd (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Something doesn't compute
So, if this person was "officially King of England", and gets a listing at List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign, why is he categorised in Category:Heirs to the English throne and Category: Heirs apparent who never acceded but NOT in Category: English monarchs? Huh? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 10:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- He was crowned king, but as he never reigned he was never the monarch. PhilomenaO'M (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)