Talk:Henry VII of England

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2020

Request for inclusion of a link to the Council of Wales and the Marches at the end of the first paragraph of the section on 'Law Enforcement and the JPs'. Such as:

Following Edward IV's example, Henry VII created a Council of Wales and the Marches for his son Arthur, Prince of Wales which was intended to govern Wales and the Marches, Cheshire and Cornwall.

References can be found on the pages for Arthur, Prince of Wales and the Council of Wales and the Marches. Hughestoni (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Please give the exact references from those pages you think are appropriate to the sentence you wish to add - otherwise we would just be guessing. Agricolae (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2020

Thanks& sorry not include sources - please include the following paragraph at the end of the first paragraph of the section on 'Law Enforcement and the JPs'. (references from Arthur, Prince of Wales and Council of Wales and the Marches referring to the Council).

Following the example of Edward IV, Henry VII created a Council of Wales and the Marches for his son Arthur, Prince of Wales, which was intended to govern Wales and the Marches, Cheshire and Cornwall. Hughestoni (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that it is an appropriate insertion as neither of the citations is about Henry VII. This is a biography of Henry VII and should contain the things that are normally in biographies of Henry VII. One of your citations is a biography of Arthur and the other is on 15th-century Wales. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2020

Please

Following the example of Edward IV, Henry VII created a Council of Wales and the Marches for his son Arthur, Prince of Wales, which was intended to govern Wales and the Marches, Cheshire and Cornwall.

(Reference 1: Arthur (who died aged about 15) was Henry's son so Arthur did not create himself prince or create the council himself - Henry VII did so on his son's behalf. Does that therefore mean that Henry VII created the Council and it was something that he did as king? This is a valid reference given that Arthur was not of age and this was created by Henry himself). If you dislike this reference then please include the next instead.

(Reference 2: This is an article on 'Wales and the Marches in the Fifteenth Century' and therefore covers Henry VII's reign, particularly pp. 163-65). If you dislike this reference given that Henry VII is not mentioned in the title then please include the next one instead.

(Reference 3: This refers to the section in Chrimes's book on 'Policy towards Wales and Ireland' = Wales being pp. 245-57 but reference to Henry's creation of the Council of Wales being pp. 249 to 256.

If you dislike this reference then I can provide more as necessary - because Henry created the Council of Wales for his son Prince Arthur - I'm not inventing it - it's there in all the biographies so it should be included on this page). Hughestoni (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

No-one suggested you invented it. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

References

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. @Hughestoni: where exactly do you want to insert this?
SSSB (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Edmund/Edward

In the issue section, there is a doubt, if a Edward did exist by the looks of it, as it has possible confused with Edmund, yet Henry VIII called his two daughters Mary and Elizabeth despite desperately wanting a son, I can only think, he named both his daughters after his young sisters, so it would made sense, that he called his son by his young brother, who died, that Edward must have existed. PS I know that was long winded. Japhes5005 (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

There are several books by historian that acknowledge Edward's existence as well, such as 'Britain's Royal Families The Complete Genealogy" by Alison Weir, and "Henry VIII" by JJ Scarisbrick. Not to mention the claim that he is put to rest in Westminster Abbey. 80.112.156.214 (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2020

Request for inclusion of a mention and link to the Council of Wales and the Marches at the end of the first paragraph of the section on 'Law Enforcement and the JPs'. (as requested 7 December 2020).

CURRENT PAGE:

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Andy W. (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Law enforcement and Justices of the Peace

Henry's principal problem was to restore royal authority in a realm recovering from the Wars of the Roses. There were too many powerful noblemen and, as a consequence of the system of so-called bastard feudalism, each had what amounted to private armies of indentured retainers (mercenaries masquerading as servants).

He was content to allow the nobles their regional influence…

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Law enforcement and Justices of the Peace

Henry's principal problem was to restore royal authority in a realm recovering from the Wars of the Roses. There were too many powerful noblemen and, as a consequence of the system of so-called bastard feudalism, each had what amounted to private armies of indentured retainers (mercenaries masquerading as servants). Following the example of Edward IV, Henry VII created a Council of Wales and the Marches for his son Arthur, Prince of Wales, which was intended to govern Wales and the Marches, Cheshire and Cornwall.

He was content to allow the nobles their regional influence…

EXPLANATION:

Henry created the Council of Wales for his son Prince Arthur as part of the restoration of royal authority in Wales. Justification for the references is explained in my requests of 7, 8 and 10 December 2020, but if the ODNB for Prince Arthur and Griffiths on Wales in the Fifteenth Century are not good enough (suggested by Celia Homeford on 9 December) I include the page reference to the creation of the Council of Wales as stated in Chrimes’ biography of Henry VII. Hughestoni (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Statement about end of Wars of the Roses

The "Rise to the throne" section ends with the statement "Richard III's death at Bosworth Field effectively ended the Wars of the Roses". This is highly debatable. There were still Yorkists out there and they continued to be a threat to the thrown into the reign of Henry VIII. Indeed for much of Henry VII's reign he was worried about potential claimants from the house of York, particularly those using Edward of Warwick as a figure head. Most of these did not result in actual fighting, but some did, notably in the early reign of Henry VII. generally the Stafford and Lovell rebellion of 1486 and the rising in favour of Lambert Simnel (a false Warwick) in 1487 are counted by modern historians as part of the Wars of the Roses. The latter was ultimately led by the leading male adult survivor of the House of York, and Richard III's designated heir, John de la Pole, 1st Earl of Lincoln and was a serious military attempt to put a member of the House of York on the throne. Lincoln's death and the destruction of the Yorkist Army at the Battle of Stoke Field ultimately proved to be the last major battle between Yorkists and Tudor/Lancasterian force. The battle's article says that it "may be considered the last battle of the Wars of the Roses", while I would also note that the main Wars of the Roses article gives 16 June 1487 as the date of the Wars' conclusion (ie the date of the Battle of Stoke Field, not Bosworth). I would therefore suggest modifying the current text. Dunarc (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Dates of reign in Infobox

The infobox gives 22 August 1485 as the date of the start of his reign. While for all practical purposes this is correct as it is the date his army defeated and killed Richard III at Bosworth Field, but as it notes elsewhere in the article he legally dated his reign as starting on 21 August 1485. There was a good legal reason for this as it meant anyone fighting for Richard at Bosworth was guilty of treason as they were retrospectively fighting against their legal king. This meant that they had to be pardoned by Henry, giving him power over them, or in some cases, eg William Catesby, had a legal basis for executing them or (as in the case of The Earl of Surrey) a firmer legal basis for imprisoning them. Obviously the 21 August 1485 date is problematic as it was essentially legal fiction, but I wonder if it needs to be noted somehow in the infobox to avoid confusion? I would be grateful for others' thoughts on this. Dunarc (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Infoboxes just can't cope with this sort of thing, which is why they are so dreadful. The article should explain this, with refs, which it doesn't at present, but the infobox should just follow the main sources. Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try at some point to fish out a good source and make the date issue clearer in the actual article. Dunarc (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Henry VII's infant daughter Elizabeth, is it "Elizabeth" or "Elizabeth Tudor"?

Regarding children of monarchs who died young, without any titles, do we just call them by their first name, or should we also include their last name too, as I noticed for James II's daughter, Isabel Stuart, instead of just "Isabel"? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

No, Edmund of Langley did not marry his niece!

"It also ended future discussion as to whether the descendants of the fourth son of Edward III, Edmund, Duke of York, through marriage to Philippa, heiress of the second son, Lionel, Duke of Clarence, had a superior or inferior claim to those of the third son John of Gaunt, who had held the throne for three generations"

Edmund, Duke of York, most certainly did not marry his niece, Philippa, daughter of the Duke of Clarence. Philippa married Edmund Mortimer, the 3rd Earl of March. Edmund Mortimer's son was Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March. Roger's son was another Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March. Edmund Mortimer's sister Anne, married Richard, Earl of Cambridge, the second son of Edmund, Duke of York. Their son Richard possessed the Mortimer claim to the throne.

I would be happy to make the change myself but the page is locked, so I can only ask that whoever cares enough to keep control of this page please fix this very obvious error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayside55 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I removed that bit, which was uncited. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2021

Change the date of Henry’s daughter Katherine’s death from February 10, 1503 to February 18, 1503. Henry’s youngest daughter Katherine died on February 18, 1503; not February 10. His wife Elizabeth of York died in February 11 and their daughter, born on February 2, “lived not long after” and “tarried but a small season after her mother” before being “called unto a far better kingdom.” She died in the Tower on February 18, and was buried in Westminster Abbey. The site of her grave is unknown; probably, like her brother Edmund, she was interred in the Confessor’s Chapel in an unmarked grave. (Elizabeth of York: A Tudor Queen and Her World by Alison Weir). 2601:1C2:1:800:5853:41A0:25C3:B1BD (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Henry VII religion

Minor correction on the kings religion should be made he was Roman Catholic and not Anglican. 2603:8000:F43:6100:59DF:282F:B264:96F1 (talk) 04:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I have removed this. Agricolae (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Christ's College

Hello with correct citation formatting, I am hoping to add a great contribution of Henry's based on these two sources: . It would state that Henry granted his mother letters patent to establish Christ's college in 1505 and it would go right after the sentence that mentions 1505 in his later years.Foorgood (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you start at Wikipedia:References dos and don'ts and then follow the 'See also' links to the Help pages. By the way, these are not very strong sources because neither is actually about Henry VII. One is about coats of arms and the other is about the college. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

This article has sources other than his biographies are you saying those need to be removed? Here is a source about henry and his mother . As i said the article has sources that are for example about henry viii. its just so strange that you would nitpick on that.Foorgood (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The third reference is for archivists at St John's College, Cambridge. Mathsci (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

For Christ's College, Cambridge, there was a quincentenary history edited by David Reynolds, "Christ's: A Cambridge College over Five Centuries" (Macmillan, 2004) with contributions from Simon Schama, Roy Porter and David Cannadine. There are also the statutes of God's House & Christ's College, a short book. God's House was previously built on the lands of King's College Chapel, which is associated with Henry VII. Mathsci (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Harris Rackham wrote the "Early Statutes of Christ's College, Cambridge" (1927) preceded by the statutes of the prior foundation of God's House (in Latin with a parallel English translation). Mathsci (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I dont understand what you mean its about henry and his mother. As i said there are several sources in the bibliography of this article that dont have henry vii in the title here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VII_of_England#Bibliography

Richard the Third. Sphere Books. ISBN 978-0-351-17095-9.

MacCulloch, Diarmaid (1996). "The Consolidation of England 1485–1603". In Morrill, John (ed.). The ::Oxford Illustrated History of Tudor and Stuart Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. The Oxford ::History of Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press The Papacy and the Levant, 1204–1571. American ::Philosophical Society. ISBN 9780871691613.

Starkey, David (2006). Monarchy: From the Middle Ages to Modernity. New York: Harper Perennial. ISBN 978-0-00-724766-0.

Stephens, W. R. W (1876). Memorials of the South Saxon See and Cathedral Church of Chichester. London: Bentley.

Warnicke, Retha M. (2000). The Marrying of Anne of Cleves: Royal Protocol in Early Modern England. ::Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521179690.

Weir, Alison (1995). The Princes in the Tower. New York: Ballantine. ISBN 978-0-345-39178-0.

Weir, Alison (2007). The Six Wives of Henry VIII. New York: Grove Press. ISBN 9780802198754.

Weir, Alison (2013). Elizabeth of York: The First Tudor Queen.Foorgood (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

(e/c) A Wikipedia biography should have content that modern scholarly biographers of the subject think is relevant. We should not just include a documentable fact because we personally think it is interesting. With several book-length biographies of Henry to draw from, if they don't include a particular fact in their 300+ pages, it would be giving that information undue weight to include it in an article that is only a fraction of that size. The citations you have given would support its inclusion in an article about Christ's College, or one about Margaret, but if several book-lengh biographies of Henry fail to mention it, then it may not be an important enough aspect of his own life to merit mention in our article about him.

And yes, the page does currently include material cited to other sources. This does not mean it necessarily should. In some cases this is harmless, simply a matter of convenience - information that is typically found in a Henry VII biography is just easier to cite from other sources readily to hand (for example, rather than struggling with Google Books snippets of the material in the biographies). That is acceptable - we are aiming for what might be found in an 'average' Henry VII biography of similar length, but the source we cite for that information need not be a biography. On the other hand, some of the material that is currently in the article shouldn't be. It is the aspirational nature of Wikipedia that pages start out poor in quality, with much indiscriminate information and less reliable citations (or no citations at all), with the idea being to just get something out there so more people see it and start progressively improving it until it is high quality. When an article reaches a particular point in this process, even if nobody has the immediate time or motivation to go though it and purge all of the remaining problematic material, at least we want to stop it from getting worse by resisting further indiscriminate or badly-cited material being added. Given its length and overall quality, this article has moved beyond the 'lets just get something out there' stage, and improved to a point where an 'other poor material is already in the article so why can't I add more poor material' argument runs seriously counter to this aspiration. Agricolae (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

So is my new edit which is not about Christ college but Kings college chapel acceptable? Its from a biography already listed in the article and the chapter is titled Financial and Economic Security under the heading How did Henry spend his money. Am i not able to make edits without checking if you accept them first?Foorgood (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Similar content appears in the articles on King's College Chapel, Cambridge and Gothic architecture (with multiple images of the exterior, fan vaulting, stained glass, etc). Mathsci (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

This biography says he brought it to completion but ok.Foorgood (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

When Henry VII died in 1509, construction of the Chapel had not ended. An accessible BBC film by Lucy Worsley describes the Chapel, somewhat light-heartedly.[1] There is a short 1923 account of King's College Chapel by Walter Poole Littlechild, clerk to the College; he writes ,"Henry VII, who has been credited with an excessive tendency to accumulate treasure, was, next to the Founder, much the largest contributor. A short time before his death in 1509, moved perhaps to emulate the liberal example of his pious mother, he gave £5,000 to the college, with instructions to his executors to finish the building. May we not also think that Richard Fox, Founder of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, Bishop of Winchester from 1500 to 1528, who was Henry VII's constant adviser, Privy Seal, and one of his executors, had something to do with this mark of Henry's generosity and favour? This sum of £5,000 was probably all spent by the beginning of 1512, when the King's executors made over to the Provost and scholars, in 1511-12, a second sum of £5,000. Thus in 1515, in the 7th year of King Henry VIII's reign, the stonework of the chapel was completed." In the book, "Winter King: Henry VII and the Dawn of Tudor England" by Thomas Penn (2013), Penn writes that, in 1506, Henry VII "progressed into East Anglia, stopping off at Cambridge, where they were treated to a number of orations praising the munificence of Henry,and in particular his mother, towards the university. While there, Henry took note of the half completed shell of King’s College Chapel, which 'resteth as yet unperfected and unfinished, little or nothing wrought or done thereupon' since the death of his uncle Henry VI a half-century previously." This seems fine, even if some effort was needed to find the sources. Mathsci (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Agricolae: may i ask you and others why if other things that Henry VIII did are mentioned in the article, why may i not add that he is also known for initiating the English Reformation.Foorgood (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Arguments for inclusion of desired content should never depend, at least in any but the most general sense, on the presence of other topics in the article, because it makes inclusion contingent on the happenstance of Wikipedia editing. The argument for inclusion/exclusion is real simple. If modern scholarly biographies of Henry VII give sufficient coverage to this aspect of his reign, then our article should give it proportionate coverage. If these biographies do not mention it, or only do so in passing in a 300+ page book, then it shouldn't be included. None of this has anything to do with whether something else entirely may currently be found in the article. Agricolae (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Recent research on Cabot

The article on John Cabot gives very detailed information on Henry's letters patent concerning Cabot and his sons. The Bristolian William Weston who accompanied Cabot is also mentioned. The article on Cabot is extremely detailed and involves research only unearthed in 2008 and properly understood in 2018 (by historians at the University of Bristol). Statements from a 2006 book on anglicanism cannot be relevant to Cabot's voyages. The article on Cabot gives careful references and statements. Why make careless and unreliable statements on this article that are at odds with the article on Cabot? Of course, a wikipedia article cannot be used as a source for another article, but the WP:RSs used on Cabot and its verifiability of content can be re-used in this article. Please take time to read and digest the article on "John Cabot" before trying to insert new content that contradicts that article. At first glance the article on Cabot seems very well-written and meticulously sourced. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Mathsci, i was simply copying what is declared here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire#Origins_(1497%E2%80%931583). I can simply remove the part about him landing on Newfoundland if that is what you are disputing. You are not disputing that Henry commissioned him to search for the route right?Foorgood (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I already said that in general another random wikipedia article is not an acceptable source for this article; that applies to British Empire: there was no notion of "British Empire" in the late 15th century. Please look at the material on John Cabot. It's a bit long, but makes precise statements about Henry and Cabot. As other editors have previously attempted, I'm just trying to explain the general method of adding new content: find reliable sources and check that they are an accurate summary of those sources. Mathsci (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok i found it mentioned in his biography, let me know if theres something in the sentence that you say is at odds with Cabots article.Foorgood (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Obsession with King Arthur and his Welsh identity

Henry's obsession with King Arthur was one that stemmed from Welsh mythology; which is why he carried the Red dragon of Wales into battle, it signified his links with Brythonic (Welsh) rulers.

In Arthurian legend, Arthur drove back the invading Saxons from Britain; thus making him 'Pen' (Welsh: Head) 'Draig/Drac/dracco' (Dragon), something both Owain Glyndŵr and Henry's father, Edmond Tudor illustrated themselves wearing dragon-topped crowns to symbolise their links to King Uther or/and Arthur.

When Henry VII won the battle on Bosworth against Richard III, he carried the red dragon with him to London, where he blessed it under the eyes of god as St.Paul's Cathedral.. this was crucially important to him because it signified that the dragon of Britain (Wales) once again reclaimed the throne from the invading Saxons (English), There's no confusion why Henry's son; Henry VIII created the round table at Winchester.. it was to (again), show that the Arthurian legend was materialised within the Tudor dynasty.

What confuses me the most is how modern scholars/historians choose to play down the Tudor family's links to Welsh identity and wish to portray them as simply 'English', which is wholly simplified and buys into England's 'English' history when avoiding the elephant in the room that the TewDwr dynasty (Tudors) of Penmynydd, Ynys Môn, Gogledd Cymru rose up and ruled both England and Wales represented under the COA of the Red Dragon of Wales and the hound of Richmond/Brittany.. the COA should be the biggest hint to how they viewed themselves.

When Henry VIII annexed Wales with (not into) England, prior to (1535 and 1542) Wales wasn't fully represented on its own, but followed the realm of greater England with Wales being England's principality, so when the Laws in Wales Acts passed, Wales was regarded as equals to England; thus the reasoning behind the term 'England and Wales', however on paper the Welsh language seemed to take a back seat, the Welsh language was respected greater than ever .

However, as soon as the Tudor dynasty ended with the death of Elizabeth I, Wales' legal status' was stripped away, instead of the term 'England and Wales' representing equality, through the new Scotland/England kingdom, the term now represented, once again; the realm of greater England.. the term was never scrapped, but instead.. recycled, which is how 'England and Wales Cricket board' can get away with promoting their own team as simply 'England Cricket'.

So I feel when editors edit pages which deals with people who originate from Wales, that they should first look at what Welsh historians have to say before looking at mainstream sources who've never researched Welsh history, Welsh language nor looked into his family links in Wales, it's very easy to neglect these important information if your eyes are fixated on narratives that wish to portray a person as their 'own people'.. with one example being the new book 'Queen's Jubilee book for children', with the Tudor dynasty showing up on England's history rather than Wales (where they originated) and because of this; viewpoints can be seen as depicting Henry VII as an English King rather than Welsh.Hogyncymru (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Article in text inaccurate

Claims he had very fair hair in text, yet in portrait his hair is dark? Get it corrected 86.165.17.214 (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Should the article reflect his nationality? A consensus

The reason for me wanting his nationality shown on Henry's article is for this very reason;, when looking at his coat of arms, you have the Welsh dragon and the hound of both Richmond and Brittany.. the dragon isn't anchored/chained where-as the hound is, what this shows us is that he viewed himself purely Welsh.

His whole Tudor family were natives of Penmynydd, North Wales and as such; it is highly improbable to assume that he did not speak his native Welsh tongue regardless of how long he spent time away from Wales, using the Welsh tongue would've proved essential when communicating with fellow Welshmen to exchange information, to barter, to listen to poets/signers etc.

The reason he carried the Welsh dragon was to show his Welsh ancestry, which was an incredibly powerful tool to persuade fellow Welshmen to fight for his cause.. as the Arthurian dragon was heavily engrained within Welsh society at that time; so to have the dragon take hold of the English throne was a huge symbolic reference which evidently shows how Welsh people viewed themselves during this time which rubbishes people's opinions that Welsh identity wasn't prevalent during his rule.

Modern scholars like to portray the past through English viewpoints and heavily undervalue Henry's Welsh identity and wish to portray his lineage weak and invalid, however when Henry ruled, he recognised the old native Welsh rulers, royal rulers which his lineage originated from, however, English monarchs only ever recognised their own lines, so of course the Welsh line would be in question.. so often, when modern scholars depict the COA of the Tudors, they'll often omit the dragon's pizzle yet keep it on the hound.. (seen here) why is this? curious question.

The biggest reason for needing his nationality shown is this; when people speak of the British royals, many automatically assume 'English', or the same is applied to 'King of England', they assume 'English king'.. and don't get me started on how Americans view United Kingdom as a whole, they view the UK as 'England' so the other nations; Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland often takes a back seat, so it simply doesn't suffice saying where he was born as Wales is hardly ever recognised, so it's important to differentiate between 'English' and 'Welsh'.

So please have your say, does it offend a few people to show he was Welsh? does it complicate the article by adding it?

Sources that mention King Henry VII as a 'Welsh King': - Hogyncymru (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Too much text!!! The first paragraph of the lead shows the place of birth of Henry unequivocally, with Wales as a blue link. The last sentence with the phrase — "Royal house of Welsh-French origin" — also makes it clear that Henry's ancestry goes back to Wales (Owen Tudor) and France (Catherine de Valois plus House of Plantagenet). Henry had mixed ancestry as shown in the body of the article. There it's perhaps more concerning that the image of Henry's tomb in Westminster is not available, because of Commons rules for sculptures.

The cy.wiki article shows a neutral approach. Slightly paraphrasing to avoid repetition, they write: Henry Tudor, king Henry VII of England (28 January 1457 - 21 April 1509), was the King of England from 1485 until his death. Henry was the son of Margaret Beaufort and Edmund Tudor, one of the sons of Owen Tudor. He was born and raised in Pembroke Castle, Pembrokeshire, the stronghold from where his uncle Jasper Tudor ruled. Mathsci (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean 'too much text'? compared with Elon Musk's page, this article is child's play, also, don't forget that he took his father's family name, NOT Catherine of France, therefore it is the Tewdwr line we should concentrate on here.. plus you use the Welsh wiki version as example, but you failed to pick up on the word 'Cymro', meaning 'Welshman' which is used more than once in his article. Hogyncymru (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Why repeat the same material here, when only a tiny portion of the lead is concerned? An image of the tomb of Henry VII now appears in the article. Historically, Henry's links with France are highly significant and mentioned in the article. Welsh ancestry is currently mentioned in the lead and the article. But that seems to be all that can be said with any certainty. Why not ask Deb — she's an admin from Wales. Mathsci (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

'Royal house of Welsh and French origin' does not depict him correctly, the house, the tudor house heavily weighed on his Welsh side, with the dragon on his arms free of any chains.. thus, how the kingdom reflecting Wales, much like a person owning a dog with a collar around its neck.. this is the importance of symbology, it directly shows the image of the dynasty.. same is displayed on the COA of the Queen today, the lion (of England) free of chains whilst the Unicorn (Scotland) being chained around the neck.. which means that today's royal family views themselves as English.

So nowhere in this article does it say that Henry was a 'Welsh king' or 'Welsh dynasty' because the majority of those who edit this page rely heavily on bias research, research who just happen to be of English origin (because the population of England outweighs the population of Wales.. thus; very little of this article is based off of research done by Welsh speaking historians who have specific expertise within Welsh studies) so when the Welsh version of this article tells us that Henry was a Welshman, the English version does not.. So to finish, Henry Tudor's dynasty was a Welsh one, the only reason he displayed the hound was to validate the English royal structure so that the English would accept him as a king, modern historians/scholars can tell us that his Welsh line was weak/invalid all they like, but within his own time, he knew his Welsh line was pure. Hogyncymru (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The royal arms of Scotland have always had collared unicorns, even when the monarchs were solely Scottish. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

That's not true, there are plenty of pictorial examples of the unicorn not having the crown around its neck Hogyncymru (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is true. Besides, even though all the arms in that blog show unicorns with collars, blogs that copy from wikipedia are not reliable sources. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Reptiles don't have visible pizzles. They have cloacas. Also, that picture is taken from wikicommons and was created by a wikipedian. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

A dragon doesn't exist, why are you bringing real life facts to the table when the coat of arms depicts a fictitious creature? heraldry never used facts, only a sense of story-telling, so if they depicted the dragon with a pizzle... then it had a pizzle, end of conversation relating to that. Hogyncymru (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

You're reading way too much into the absence of pizzles. By continuing to imply that it's some sort of secret conspiracy to deny dragons their rightful anatomy, you are making your argument look even more absurd than it was already. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mathsci: That image of the tomb has been flickrwashed by the flickr user and isn't actually an image taken by her. You can see other examples of her poaching material from elsewhere and pretending its her own here, here and here. As you can see in these cases, she hasn't removed the identifying captions and watermarks from wherever they were originally taken. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Anne Longmore-Etheridge: "Freelance writer/editor, historian, genealogist, ship's cook, hedgehog, spatula. Founder of Your Dying Charlotte, a blog abt. early photos, mourning, genealogy" from Maryland. I assume that she ate the hedgehog, baked in mud, followed my nettle pudding, and washed down with a beaker of mead. Also – "The iron-gray hair was deep-dyed with of blood. Even the walls and low ceiling of the little living room bore evidence of the tragedy in dull garnet blotches." (dyingcharlotte.com) The contact info has "Gentle Reader, I would be delighted to hear from you. Please do not hesitate! Heed! Speed!" She is a poetess. Mathsci (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Celia Homeford: More seriously, the tomb is available here with a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license for Susan May's researchgate submission. I will upload it to commons, after scaling. The exact reference is May, Susan (2017). "Establishing the Tudor Dynasty: The Role of Francesco Piccolomini in Rome as First Cardinal Protector of England". Royal Studies Journal. IV (2). Winchester University Press: 102–140. doi:10.21039/rsj.v4i2.134. (Birmingham City University). The caption reads: "Pietro Torrigiano, Tomb of King Henry VII and Queen Elizabeth of York, 1512-18, gilt bronze, white marble and black touchstone. London, Westminster Abbey, Henry VII Chapel." Mathsci (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

But that's labelled as copyrighted to the Dean and Chapter, not Susan May. I don't think CC-BY refers to images published in the paper that are not created by the author. It's actually quite difficult to take a picture of the tomb from above, because of where and how the tomb is constructed. I think it's best to leave it as it is now, at least until someone actively complains. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed on closer examination of the pdf/article, the photograph is copyrighted to the Dean and Chapter of Westminster. (I remember contributing to John Troutbeck, Canon Precentor of Westminster Abbey and Chaplain-in-Ordinary to Queen Victoria.) The 1499 coronation cope of Arthur can always be downloaded on commons because it's two-dimensional.[2] Mathsci (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Ethnicity is inherently complicated in royalty that are the progeny of generations of cross-ethnic marriage - Henry was only 1/4 Welsh, and less than 1/8 French. He was also 1/16 German and 1/16 Italian, but most of all, he was 1/2 English/Anglo-Norman. If one goes by genealogy alone, he was more English than anything else, so to simply say he was Welsh is misleading and inaccurate. Ethnic self-identification is a different thing entirely and is not straightforward to determine, unless we have direct statments to that effect, but "[W]hen looking at his coat of arms, . . . what this shows us . . .", ". . . it is highly improbable to assume . . .", "[t]he reason he carried the Welsh dragon was . . ." all smacks of WP:OR. We should not be making our own deductions. As such, we need to mirror the emphasis published reliable sources place on his ethnicity and not impose our own judgment. That becomes a problem when "[m]odern scholars like to portray the past through English viewpoints and heavily undervalue Henry's Welsh identity and wish to portray his lineage weak and invalid, . . .", and "[t]he biggest reason for needing his nationality shown is . . . it simply doesn't suffice saying where he was born as Wales is hardly ever recognised, so it's important to differentiate between 'English' and 'Welsh'", which all smacks of this being done to intentionally deviate from what reliable sources (English-biased ones) are saying with the intent of righting a wrong - WP:SOAPBOX. I would say that we need a source that actually discusses Henry's ethnic self-identification to make his ethnicity lede-worthy. Agricolae (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

You can use any phrasing you like in talk, it's not here you add just facts, but you also use probable ideas to lead you in a direction that may be questioned, you mention that he was; .. only 1/4 Welsh, and less than 1/8 French. He was also 1/16 German and 1/16 Italian, but most of all, he was 1/2 English/Anglo-Norman, yet he was born in Wales, carried with him the dragon of Wales which signified his Arthurian line, named his first child Arthur after king Arthur (from Welsh mythology), his family fought along-side Welsh prince Owain Glyndŵr (who also carried with him a dragon).. to assume nationality is to do with pure Welsh blood, it does not.. everything he stood for and fought for.. depicted his father's Welsh ('Tew' - 'Dŵr') line, you argue that Ethnic self-identification is a different thing entirely and is not straightforward to determine, yet the article mentions 'Welsh Tudors of Penmynydd', 'Welsh ancestry', 'Henry's Welsh descent', 'he gathered to his Welsh birth and ancestry', yet he himself cannot be called a 'Welsh king'?, I assume that we should remove the phrase 'Welsh archers' from the wiki page 'battle of Agincourt' too?. Hogyncymru (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I explicitly said he was genealogically those ethnicities, and separated this from ethnic self-identification, which we, as Wiikipedia editors, should not be deducing ourselves. The rest of this is just selective interpretation of selective data - yes, he was born in Wales, but so was Edward II and he wasn't Welsh in ethnicity; Henry III named a son Edward, but that doesn't make his ethnicity Anglo-Saxon. Richard II added the attributed arms of Edward the Confessor to his coat of arms, and he wasn't an Anglo-Saxon king either. Henry VIII also named a child Mary, which doesn't make his ethnicity was Levantine Jewish. Yes, Henry's family fought for Glendwr, but his family (on the other side) fought against Glendwr. And "to assume nationality is to do with pure Welsh blood" is just an absurd strawman. We call the Welsh archers at Agincourt Welsh because that is what reliable sources usually call them. So no, we don't call him a "Welsh king" unless that is how most scholarly sources refer to him (as they do when referring to the Welsh portion of his ancestry - and as to his 'Welsh birth', that is a geographical designotion, not an ethnic one). Further discussion seems pointless, so I will just record my !vote as Don't include. Agricolae (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

But Welsh scholars do call him a Welsh king though.. unless you think the views of English scholars are more important than Welsh scholars? Hogyncymru (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2022

91.103.190.194 (talk) 08:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Henry VII was known to be rather fond of money.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MadGuy7023 (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

John of Gaunt not 4th son of Edward III, but the 3rd son.

Under ANCESTRY and EARLY LIFE, 2nd para - "The descent of Henry's mother, Margaret, through the legitimised House of Beaufort bolstered Henry's claim to the English throne. She was a great-granddaughter of John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster (fourth son of Edward III)...."

That is INCORRECT.

John of Gaunt was the 3rd son of Edward III, though 4th child.

Section quoted above should be altered to, "The descent of Henry's mother, Margaret, through the legitimised House of Beaufort bolstered Henry's claim to the English throne. She was a great-granddaughter of John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster (third son of Edward III),..." Baskerville22 (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

He was the fourth son: Edward, William, Lionel then John. William died shortly after birth. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no "William" listed under "Issue" in the WIKI entry for Edward III of England. Baskerville22 (talk) 07:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there is. Between Edward and Lionel. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

No, there is not -

FROM the Wiki entry for Edward III

"Issue

Detail

Edward the Black Prince

Isabella, Countess of Bedford

Joan of England

Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence

John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster

Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York

Mary, Duchess of Brittany

Margaret, Countess of Pembroke

Thomas of Woodstock, 1st Duke of Gloucester" Baskerville22 (talk) 09:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

That's the infobox. We don't mention minor children there. See Edward III of England#Issue and Issue of Edward III of England#William of Hatfield (1336–1337). Celia Homeford (talk) 09:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see.....the "we" demotes a special little Wiki club that holds certain information from the unwashed - or should that be, the uninitiated - in order that the "we" may feel superior to those who foolishly assume that "ISSUE" actually means, "Adult Issue". Only it doesn't, does it ? I see in the Wiki page for Edward IV, his son, Edward V, is listed under "Issue", and he died aged just 12 y.o. Baskerville22 (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

No, we means the community of editors cooperating together. Children who died as infants, stillbirths and miscarriages are usually excluded from the infobox, which is a brief summary only. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Clearly primary

Regardless of the article title, it seems ridiculous & against our rules that Henry VII goes to the disam page and not here. There are several Henry VII's including a medieval HRE who was in place for less than a year; the rest are much more obscure. None get even 10% of the English Henry's views. I can't see this has been discussed before. Someone good with ngrams etc should propose a change, redirecting Henry VII here. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)