Jump to content

Talk:Henry VIII

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 209.7.119.175 (talk) at 13:17, 17 March 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articleHenry VIII is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 3, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 18, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
February 7, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Template:V0.5 Template:FAOL Template:WPCD-People

Attractive?

The text says he was attractive as a young man. Is there any source to support this? Kdammers (talk) 05:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lots of sources report his beauty. see Hall I(1900) p xxiv Rjensen (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you include that as a reference? (It's pretty hard for me to see how the man depicted on the cover of Hall's book could be considered attractive -- but it is maybe a later picture, and I'm not a 16th century brit.) Kdammers (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is such a daft comment by someone who obviously doesnt understand that for his time he was attractive. That has nothing to do with what you think now.193.1.57.1 (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be a better way to phrase this ("Henry was an attractive and charismatic man in his prime, educated and accomplished." from the introduction) that would be more in line with the Wikipedia style? Joekrie (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the best Wikipedia style is clear, short, accurate and based on RS, which characterizes the quote.Rjensen (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilian

An image caption near the section Public image and memory says Meeting of Henry VIII and Maximilian. The link leads to a disambiguation page. I looked at the original upload comment for the image and couldn't find out which Maximilian it was, I also searched this article and found no other mention of a Maximilian. I therefore manually went through the disambiguation page and the cross-checked the people's life spans with Henry's. The only two which seemed to match were both Holy Roman Emperors, Maximilian I and Maximilian II. I was wondering if anyone knew which Maximilian Henry was meeting.

Thanks, WVRMADTalk Guestbook 14:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although not a specialist, I assumed it was Maximilian II, his contemporary ... but the doubt persists !--Alexandre Rongellion (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Henricus_Rex, 16 December 2010

In the list of popes during Henry's reign, the note next to Clement VII asserts that he granted Henry's divorce in 1527. This is neither true, nor is it accurate to the statement's own citation. The note should be changed to state the he was pope during Henry VIII's efforts to obtain a divorce, but in no way should the note suggest that the divorce was granted. Henricus Rex (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might mention that the incomplete tomb that Henry took over from Wolsey was itself never completed. The renaissance sarcophagus itself was eventually used for the body of Lord Nelson and can be seen in the crypt of St Paul's Cathedral; see E. Chaney, 'Henry VIII's Tombs: "Plus Catholique que le Pape", Apollo, CXXXIV (October 1991), pp. 234-8; revised and expanded as 'Early Tudor Tombs and the Rise and Fall of Anglo-Italian Relations', in E. Chaney, The Evolution of the Grand Tour, rev ed. 2000) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.21.10 (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 78.147.16.180, 15 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Re Henry's tomb, cite information provided in wiki article on Wolsey's with ref to Edward Chaney, 'Early Tudor Tombs...', in The Evolution of the Grand Tour (Routledge, 2000).

78.147.16.180 (talk) 11:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have added the reference from the Wolsey article. Keith D (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Catholic Wikipedia

A serious encyclopedia cannot take sides in history all of you leftists earning your bachelor's degree and ruining wikipedia for us! You can't say that the break with Rome was a "positive action". Also the first part of his reign is completely glossed over so we can get to what leftists like..the break with Rome. (Henry VIII would have hated every member of the LGBTQPCR community and basically every leftist). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.27.225 (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC) pppppppoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopppppppppppppppppppppppppooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopppppppppppppppppppppppppppppoooooooooooooooooooooooooooppppppppp . The divorce issue exemplified the problem but was not itself the cause of the problem. As long as Cardinal Wolsey dominated the government the widespread sentiment for reform could go nowhere." There's plenty of opining here, and even the citation provided is cited in an opinionated manner. I have no love for either Henry VIII nor the Catholic Church of the period, but this is hardly balanced by any standard. Matt Thorn (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Thorn makes a good point, and I have revised the article to make it clear that these were the issues as seen from Henry's viewpoint. Rjensen (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Carew

Nicholas Carew was appointed Order of the Garter instead of George Boleyn in 1536, not Jane Seymour's brother. I've pointed this out before. The references are at LP. x, 715 and 752. Please look it up and make the correct amendment, because it's silly errors like this which give Wikipedia a bad name and make people think it's pointless. Please don't be lazy. Make the effort to look it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.234.11 (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


There's no reason you cannot make the change yourself. What does 'LP. x, 715 and 752' mean? I'd look it up if I could. Bevo74 (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LP are Letters and Papers of Henry VIII in 21 volumes, therefore I'm quoting from volume 10. I cannot believe someone interested in Tudor history, to the extent of bothering to comment on this site, doesn't know that. Primary sources are always more accurate than secondary sources, which are often relied upon by Wiki. Alison Weir? Yuk! Letters and Papers are available to view on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.234.11 (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I knew a lot about the Tudors I wouldn't have any reason to visit this page for my own information, but I would be in a strong position to improve the articles by adding good references. Bevo74 (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to cite, use, or summarise from L&P you could build a precise piped link in the ref from Letters and Papers, Henry VIII (not a scan, but the whole thing re-typed); then it is easy for anyone to check if the primary source is misrepresented, noting that the wiki-guidance on primary sources cautions against analysis of primary source material by editors (it's hard to get the page number from this site, but the individual document number is adequate, and commonly used by historians).Unoquha (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Composer

King Henry - in addition of being a king - was also a music composer. Possible evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw59KAcObFI&feature=related We should include him into some sort of "Renaisance Composers" category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.61.53.79 (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]