Talk:Henry VI of England

Notre Dame or St.Denis?

This article states that Henry VI was crowned king of France at Notre Dame de Paris on 16th December 1431, but books on the subject all state that the crowning took place at St Denis the burial place of French kings just to the north of Paris. If checking proves this to be true, could a correction be made? Thank you. --Roy Fuller, Angers, FRANCE p.s. further delving into books on the subject shows that Antonia Fraser in her work The Lives of the Kings and Queens of England places the crowning at St Denis, as does the Collins Gem Guide to the Kings and Queens of England, while Peter Ackroyd in his recent History of England Vol. I favours Notre Dame. Quid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.13.7.119 (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC) I was also a bit surprised, but I've added a ref to an article in History Today (1982) that says Notre Dame and seems pretty reputable. Deb (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Lingard, History of England, 1854 (SOURCE)

A reference to this (2) had a tag asking for a bettter source; I've done that, but is the implication that we want all ref's using Lingard replaced with modern authors? Which would not be impossible to achieve. I assume Lingard was only used because it's OoC on Archive.org and no books were available? Plenty of other sources are available if required. Basket _Feudalist 08:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

As it is right now, with the original reference to Lingard removed but subsequent references retained without the full citation ("Lingard, p.xx"), it is somewhat frustrating and worse than a reference to an old-fashioned source. I restored the full citation ("Lingard, John, A History of England, Vol. V, 1854, pg. xx") to the first remaining subsequent reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.169.158 (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Spellcheck strikes again!

Presumably at some time in the past "Readeption" was spell checked to "Redemption". Have corrected it. Herbgold (talk) 07:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Pretenders Succession Box

King Henry VI was a pretender to France from 1453 until 1471 (when he died) and a pretender to England from 1461 to 1470, and in 1471 after he was deposed again. This is not disputed by anybody. Because of that, this needs to be included in the succession box. User:Surtsicna just reverted my factually accurate and appropriate addition of these succession boxes from the article. I have since reverted this reversion. If there is a specific issue with the succession box, then it should be discussed here. As it stands, there is nothing factually wrong with this box and Surtsicna's assertion that "This is seriously oversimplified. We cannot possibly hope to fit the entire Wars of the Roses into three succession boxes" is just plain wrong. The purpose of these succession boxes is not to depict the entire War of the Roses in an s-box, it is to depict when a person, in this case Henry VI, was claiming a title he did not in fact have. If Surtsicna is implying that the claim is more than just a simple pretension, then a different succession box can be created to depict this. If the user is arguing, however, that no box should be used to show this period of pretension, then the user is wrong. Again, the purpose of a succession box is to show titles held in continuity, which Henry VI held in abundance. Much more complex succession boxes exist elsewhere on Wikipedia and the use of three succession boxes to depict Henry VI's titles during the Wars of the Roses is certainly appropriate.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 02:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have taken this personally for some reasons; I hope I am wrong about that. While I find succession boxes useful and often tend to them myself, I am puzzled by your arguments. Could you please tell me which policy or guideline says that "this needs to be included in the succession box", i.e. that succession boxes are indispensable? In this particular case, the boxes do overly simplify the matter. In fact, they oversimplify it to the point of being misleading. How can we claim that Henry VII followed Henry VI as "titular King of England and Lord of Ireland"? In what sense is that correct? This is what I meant by trying to fit the Wars of the Roses into three boxes. The boxes are supposed to be straightforward and clear. They are not supposed to make us wonder how. Surtsicna (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to ask you not to reinsert disputed material during the discussion, per WP:BRD. Surtsicna (talk) 02:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will hold from a future reversion. I did not mean to take it personally, I just have been getting tired of the succession box fights. It is not you personally, rest assured. In any case, perhaps you are correct that Henry VII should not be listed as the next, but to be fair I do not list him as the immediate successor (i.e., by using Template:s-aft), but as the "Next" (i.e., Template:S-vac), implying there is, in fact, a break. No other person succeeded Henry VI as Lancastrian claimant in that gap, so this is factually correct. On a larger point, succession boxes often have information in them that doesn't make sense outside the context of the article. That is why succession boxes don't have citations; all their information should be available elsewhere in the page. It is a summary of a person's titles and those who used those titles before and after them. It's entire purpose is to simply a person's life to their titles. Therefore, Henry VI's page is inaccurate without the pretender information. Was Henry VI [i]not[/i] claiming the throne of England between 1461 and 1470? Yes, he was and most other pages that have such a pretension list them. Did he not continue to claim the French throne after 1453? Yes, he did, but he certainly was not considered by many French people as being their king (Channel Islands and Calais excepted). I am perfectly willing to find another way of dealing with the Lancastrian succession after 1471 within the context of succession boxes, but to remove these three succession boxes entirely is a mistake. Let's try to find a solution to this problem.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 03:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I know what you meant by listing Henry VII as the person who followed Henry VI as "titular King of England and Lord of Ireland", but I only know that because I am familiar with the matter. It is unlikely, to say the least, that a casual reader would understand that. As for the French claim, note that we do not include it in succession boxes of Henry VI's predecessors or successors. I recall an argument being made that the French claim was subsumed into the title King of England and that, since it was not actively pursued, it should not be included in the boxes. To be fair, Henry VI's claim to France held as much weight after 1453 as Henry VIII's did in the next century. Is there a reason to include the French claim here, but not in the articles about 20 English monarchs who followed him as claimants (up to George III? Surtsicna (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes! There is absolutely a reason to include it here and not elsewhere. Henry VI, unlike all his successors, actually ruled a part of France as King. And I'm not talking about just Calais and the Channel Islands. From 1422 to about 1435 he ruled almost 50% of the kingdom. And while he slowly lost all of that, he still controlled Normandy until 1450 and Guyenne/Aquitaine until 1453. I'd say that places him leaps and bounds beyond his successors. Note I mark the Treaty of Troyes as the event that prompted his claim, not Edward III of England's claim to the throne from 1328/1337. Henry was recognised as King of France within all of his rather vast French domains, at least legally, and that is much more than can be said of any of the other kings of France. Furthermore, Henry VI was actually crowned king of France at Notre-Dame de Paris as Henri II in 1431. All of these are reasons he should be listed as a disputed king. His pretension after 1453 was definitely not the same and that is why I moved it to the Template:s-pre, because he couldn't really justifiably be called king anymore after that. If we must remove the S-Pre box for France, I won't fight it anymore. However, Henry VI, regardless of all the other English monarchs, should definitely have a "Disputed" box for France in his succession box for the period to 1453.

Regarding the other English kings after him, I think there's a good case to include the pretensious title (under S-Pre) until Mary I lost Calais in 1558. After that, the title was never recognised anywhere in France (the Channel Islands were vassals of the Duke of Normandy, technically, and not the King of France). However, until that time, one could technically say that an English king ruled a part of France as King of France. It is not enough to really justify a disputed title, but enough to justify a pretensious one. After that, I would not include King of France among the English titles in any capacity, much like Duke of Normandy is not included.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 11:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh but of course, I never suggested that we should remove the box that calls him "disputed King of France 1422-1453". I asked you about the box that says "titular King of France 1453-1471". From 1453 to 1461, Henry VI was not leaps and bounds beyond his successors; from 1461 to 1470, they were leaps and bounds beyond him, since he controlled no part of France. Anyway, I am not sure how I feel about your last suggestion. Perhaps you should start a discussion somewhere were more people would take part? Surtsicna (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

That is an acceptable solution. Do you have a suggestion for a good place to have this discussion? I've never been great at finding in Wikipedia the discussion forums for topics that span multiple articles. Also, we still haven't resolved the King of England/Lord of Ireland pretender field for Henry VI. I assume you don't have a problem for the period 1461 to 1470, the issue seems to be for the period after 1471. I suppose we could do something like this:

It puts specific reasons for why Henry VI when deposed in both instances, which side he was claiming, the specific days that his pretensions began and ended, and it lists Henry VII by his noble name, which is more appropriate to the purpose of this box and more in line with other pretender lines. I tried to think of an alternative to listing Henry VII in some capacity, but all I came up with is just listing the title as "Vacant" without a qualifier, which seemed wholly unsatisfying and inaccurate. Again, the purpose of this box is to show his titles and his predecessors and successors. In the case of the Lancastrian claim to the throne, Henry VII (as Earl of Richmond) was the next person to claim the Lancastrian title and I think it is if anything more helpful to show that here than less helpful. Most pages don't explain why a certain individual became the successor after a vacancy. I see no reason to justify it here. When you click on Henry VII's page, there's reason enough there.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 21:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

You should try Talk:List of English monarchs. Lots of people follow it. As for the boxes, there are two problems. One is obviously Henry VII; the other is the lack of purpose as defined by you ("to show his titles and predecessors and successors"). The first box shows neither a predecessor nor a successor, which means that it does not illustrate any succession. A succession box that does not illustrate a succession serves no purpose, right? The second one, again, shows no predecessor, but the successor is even more problematic. When Henry VII adopted the titles King of England and France and Lord of Ireland, he was already in control of the kingdom; he had declared himself king "by right of conquest" after conquering England. This also means that he did not (at least officially) derive his claim from Henry VI. Henry VII was thus never a titular king. I concur, however, that most pages do not explain why someone became the successor after a vacancy, but that is because, usually, there is nothing to explain. For example, everything is clear at Charles IV of France#Bibliography: there simply was no King of France for a period after his death. There was a king of England right after Henry VI's death, however, and not just one. Surtsicna (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

You make good points all around and I concede that Henry VII, although proclaimed by many as the Lancastrian claimant, did not himself assume the title until 1485 and then in succession not to Henry VI but to Edward V, who was deposed and murdered. Therefore, I suppose he should not be listed as the Lancastrian Claimant. Regarding the issue of the pretensions of Henry VI, though, I suppose he is his own predecessor and successor from 1461 to 1470, which is why no name is listed there. See Louis XVIII of France#External links for a similar situation. No predecessor or successor is listed in the second box and only another pretender is listed in the first box (in the case of Henry VI, he is his own predecessor so an s-non as above is appropriate). I suppose instead of showing a vacancy after 1471 in the box above, it could just say "Lancastrian Claim lapses" or "Extinct" or a more general "Vacant" (with nobody named). I just feel that not including the pretender box for Henry VI, at least for the years 1461 to 1471, is an error since he and his partisans continued to claim the title during that time. After 1471 is much more debatable since he was killed soon after his defeat and the Lancastrians were pretty much dissolved for a time.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 01:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

He certainly was the titular king/claimant for a decade and it would be an error not to point that out. But I am not sure we need a succession box to point it out. A succession box serves to show a succession, and there was not any in this case. In many such examples, we do not use (or need) a succession box. James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth, declared himself king and attempted to win the throne but failed, and his claim was not taken up by anyone. Henri Christophe's title of King of Haiti, inherited from nobody and inherited by nobody, is subsumed into a general box for heads of state of Haiti. If it is deemed necessary to mention Henry VI's claim in the succession boxes, could we do it like this:

|}

This way the boxes mention his claim clearly, and we do not need to resort to fixing the Lancastrian succession issue. Surtsicna (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Very creative use of Template:s-ref. I had created that template years ago for precisely a purpose like this, and here I go forgetting all about it! Go figure. I could see this working for many situations like this, where the information itself is redundant but still not unnecessary to mention. I support this idea and it addresses the pretentious periods after 1461 for England and Ireland as well. Well played. That being said, I am still not sold on not including a succession box for 1461 to 1470 for England and Ireland (I've given up on trying to get one for him for after his readeption). Question: was Henry VI recognised as king by any large population within England or Ireland from 1461 to 1470? I'd say the answer to that question may determine what should be done for this period. If he did control nominally any territory within England or Ireland, then I'd say his title was more than just a pretension and should be visually shown. If not, then it can remain as a footnote as in the example above. To rebut your statement earlier, however, unlike the Duke of Monmouth or the "King" of Haiti, Henry VI was a former king of England and became one again. That situation is very different and again I point you to Louis XVIII of France, which has an identical situation in reverse and two succession boxes representing it. As it stands, I support your idea for the French title after 1453, but not for the English/Irish title.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 13:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Coat of arms...

Sigehelmus, I've previously challenged this image with a citation needed tag, and ultimately deleted it, because it is uncited, both here and on the Commons. If it is to be re-added, it needs a reliable citation that states that Henry did have such a coat of arms, with these supporters, red Tudor roses etc. If you look at the contemporary images in the article, showing how Henry himself presented his heraldry, they are completely different, thus my suspicion that something is wrong with this one. If a reliable source can be found, of course, I don't have a problem with it being included. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree - the image is totally without sources. As a side note - see image of Henry VI on horseback from Harley 2169 f. 3 which shows a different set of arms on Henry's shield. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

A minor correction - they're actually Lancastrian roses (and hence appropriate) not Tudor (which consist of a Yorkist rose contained within the Lancastrian one). Agree apart from that. Bagunceiro (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Oops - I meant to write Lancastrian, honest! :) Looking at A J Pollard, though, he casts doubt as to the extent that Henry VI used a red rose. Hchc2009 (talk)

I'd have to chase up a source, but Henry's primary cognizance was a white swan, and it is possible (but by no means inevitable) that he used a red rose as one of his many. Certainly not, I would suggest, to the extent of it holding a primary place upon his amorial. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Henry VI of England/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Broad, though needs refs. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 07:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC) == Writing style == The style of this article is not very encyclopedic. Some of the sentences could also be better built. And yes, some references are essential. Can we start with some suitable books? Thruston 08:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 08:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 17:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henry VI of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20140404143200/http://brepols.metapress.com/content/r7t2225332251503/ to http://brepols.metapress.com/content/r7t2225332251503/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Baumgaertner source

Baumgaertner is not a historian and writes fiction novels. His work, Royal Interlude, is a work of fiction.

• "Royal Interlude Gene Baumgaertner - 2014 - ‎Fiction[1]

Also, Susanne Saygin, is a historian of science,[2] and this source was deleted.[3]

So far, Qmbv has decided not to use edit summaries or respond to my post on their talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to change reign dates

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_English_Royalty#Reign_dates Jhood1 (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Here are some sources for Henry VI reign beginning 1 Sep 1422:

• Handbook of British Chronology (Fryde et al) p.41
• Handbook of Dates (Cheney) p. 36

Jhood1 (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Henry VI of England

The portrait in this article is NOT that of Henry VI, but rather Edward VI, who displaced Henry VI as monarch. Buzzhaughton (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I am inclined to trust the National Portrait Gallery on this. Surtsicna (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Edward VI did not replace Henry VI. It was Edward IV. GoodDay (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe the portraits of Henry VI and Edward IV look similar to each other and to Henry VIII as they were probably painted as a pair for the eighth Henry, and so the artist (who had of course never seen either Henry VI or Edward IV, who were both long dead) painted both kings to look slightly like but not quite the same as his patron. Jacob de Wet II did something very similar for Charles II when he painted all the kings of Scotland. Obviously, he had very little to go on as to how they all really looked, so he just made them all look slightly like, but not quite the same as, Charles II by painting the same nose and eyes and then filling in different facial hair and so on. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Henry VI's Tutor

Hello!

I have recently made a Wikipedia page for the medieval surgeon Thomas Morstede. This has led me to look at the other medieval surgeons and physicians in proximity to the kings who reigned during the period of the Wars of the Roses. I have a slight problem with something which is mentioned in this Wikipedia page for Henry VI. It states in the third paragraph of the 'Child King' section that- 'From 1428, Henry's tutor was Richard de Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, whose father had been instrumental in the opposition to Richard II's reign.' This may be true, however Richard de Beauchamp was not the only tutor to the young Henry VI. In fact- John Somerset was also tutor to Henry VI for at least the period 1430-1432. It states in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography that John Somerset by then was 'a doctor of medicine, whose duties included tutoring the young king as well as preserving his health'. John Somerset is an important figure in Henry VI's life- From tutoring Henry as a child, Somerset was able to socially advance and gain many concessions from the king including fur trimmed robes and gifts of cash and goods (also mentioned in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography). In fact- Somersets influence was so great that the commons in 1450 petitioned for his removal because of his 'subversive influence over Henry VI' (written by Carole Rawcliffe in 'The Profits of Practice). For this reason- I propose to alter the sentence which claims Richard de Beauchamp was Henrys tutor from 1428 onwards- as John Somerset also tutored the king and held influence over him from a young age. Please let me know what you think to this and have a look at my page for Thomas Morstede also. Thanks!

ChocolateOrange1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Expand on the section "Posthumous cult"

This section of the article mentions only one element of the surviving cultural influence of the cult of Henry VI in England, regarding hymns about him that are still sung. I believe this section could be expanded to include more information on more specific reasons for the nature of the decline of the cult and when it's last remaining devoted members lived. I believe there could also be an expansion on how he is currently viewed by clergy of the Catholic Church and members of the English public. LeFeelInternacionale (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC) Nicholas Mastro

Peak of English power in France

Wouldn't that have actually been under Henry II? 67.79.158.83 (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• How so? Say more, make some arguments for it and maybe put it in the article… WP:Be bold! —GoldRingChip 17:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Age at time of accession?

This article (and Commons image) states that Henry was 9 months old when he ascended to the throne, but as per the dates in this article and sources, I make Henry to be 8 months and a few weeks old at the time of his accession. Griffiths in The Reign of King Henry VI (p.1) agrees: "Henry was less than nine months old when his father, Henry V, died in France on 31 August 1422". The Allmand source also seems to agree with my maths (10 months old when he became King of France as well). However, the DNB states "His father's death on 31 Aug. 1422 made him king of England when only nine months old."

Is this just a case of people seeing the months and making it 9 even though he hadn't reached his 9th mensiversary by 1 September? I didn't want to change it myself as the sources conflict and it's possible I'm being thick. Incidentally this was changed in 2008 after a talk page comment but was changed back without a reason given in 2009. Ligaturama (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)