Talk:Henry III of England

message: Another Wikipedia article used to indicate that monarchs typically pick their second son as Duke of York, and their sons theoretically can inherit the dukedom from them, but never do, because either the Duke's older brother (the Prince of Wales) has no legitimate children so the Duke of York becomes King and the dukedom merges into the crown, or because the Duke of York has no sons (daughter can't inherit dukedoms).  [This has since been deleted from that article.]  I started going through Wikipedia articles concerning future, present, and past monarchs of the United Kingdom, Great Britain, and England, looking for someone whose first two sons both had sons.
In summary, here's what I found in existing Wikipedia articles:
Queen Victoria was the last monarch whose first two sons both had sons.  But she wasn't a King, because she was female.
If we don't include sons or grandsons who are known to be illegitimate, then the last possible male example I can find is Henry III, but it seems implausible that there would be no one in over 700 years.  If it really is so rare that it hasn't happened in over 700 years, then this would be something notable about him that should be mentioned in the article.
(Prince Charles will probably be the next.  He is likely to become King, and his two sons each have one or more sons.)
If we include a King's illegitimate sons or the illegitimate sons of a King's legitimate sons, then it would be someone more recent, but I'm not sure whom.  It's impossible to tell whether George IV qualifies (he had so many unconfirmed rumored or reported illegitimate sons that we can't tell who his first two illegitimate sons were).  More research is needed to see George III does (Wikipedia didn't clearly state whether Prince Frederick had a son).  If neither them qualifies, then it would probably be Henry IV, whose first son (Henry V) had a legitimate son and whose second son (Thomas) had an illegitimate son.
Here's the details of what I've found so far from Wikipedia on past monarchs, starting from the present, initially including both genders, and later only males:
Queen Elizabeth II's second son (Prince Andrew, the current Duke of York) has only daughters.
George VI had only daughters.
Edward VIII had no children.
George V's first two sons (Edward VIII and George VI) had no daughters.
Edward VII's first son (Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale) had no known children.
So Queen Victoria (whose first two sons were Edward VII and Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) would be the last monarch of either gender.
William IV had no surviving legitimate sons, one of his first two sons (both of whom were illegitimate) had no children (of either gender), and his only legitimate sons were all stillborn.
George IV had no legitimate sons.  I'm not sure which of his rumored or reported illegitimate sons were really his, so I can't tell who his first two illegitimate sons were.
George III's sons (George IV and Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany) had no legitimate sons; one (George IV) probably had illegitimate sons; I'm not sure if the other (Prince Frederick) did.
George II's second son (Prince George William) had no children.
George I had only one son.
William III (and Mary II) had none.
James II's first four sons had no children.
Charles II had no legitimate sons and his second illegitimate son was probably Charles FitzCharles, 1st Earl of Plymouth, who had no sons.
Charles I's first son died the day it was born.
James VI's first son (Henry Frederick) died without children.
Henry VIII's first son died before the age of two months.
Henry VII's first son (Prince Arthur) died without children.
Richard III's son Edward died age 10.
Edward V died about age 12.
Edward IV's second son (Richard) died before age 1.
Henry VI had only one son.
Henry V had only one son.
Henry IV's second son (Thomas) had only an illegitimate son.
Richard II had no children.
Edward III's second son died in infancy.
Edward II's second son (John of Eltham, Earl of Cornwall) had no children.
Edward I's first son (John) died age 5.
Henry III's first two sons had sons.47.139.45.69 (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: James II of Scotland reigned from 1437 to 1460. His eldest son James III had three sons, and his second son Alexander had four. Opera hat (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was he really the last English/GB/UK King whose first two legitimate sons each had a legitimate son?  Seem impossible, but this is what Wikipedia indicates. 

message: The book  World Historical Fiction: An Annotated Guide to Novels for Adults and Young Adults by Lynda G. Adamson (Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999,  (p.660) lists at least five historical novels featuring Henry III of England. They are The Queen from Provence (1979) by Jean Plaidy, The De Montfort Legacy (1973) by Pamela Bennetts, The Outlaw of Torn (1927) by Edgar Rice Burroughs, The Marriage of Meggotta (1979) by Edith Pargeter and Falls the Shadow (1988) by Sharon Kay Penman. These could be added to the main article about Henry III, or possibly a separate "Cultural Depictions of Henry III of England" section could be added to the "Cultural depictions of English and British monarchs" Template.  188.141.25.160 (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry III in popular culture. 

message: recently added (aka Magna Carta) after Great Charter of 1225 with . I am doubtful about calling the 1225 version Magna Carta. However, I am no expert on post-Conquest nomenclature.  do you have a view on this? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: OK but I would leave out "aka", which is an unnecessary colloquial abbreviation. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

text: I've changed to "Henry promised to abide by the Great Charter of 1225, a later version of the 1215 Magna Carta,..." (rather a double link).  Aka is certainly wrong. Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magna Carta 

message: In trying to shorten the lede, per some of the suggestions in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, I made a change, but it was subsequently reverted by a later editor, but I don't know why:
I suggest we find an amenable compromise. —GoldRingChip 00:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted. This is an WP:FA article, which has been reviewed and supported as of the highest standard. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Henry III of England/archive1. Major changes should not be made without discussion here on the talk page. I also think the original version was better. For example, some of the changes were deletions of dates, which are important for context. I do not see any reason for shortening the lead. Of course it can no doubt be improved and specific proposals for changes can be discussed here as you say. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortened lede 

message: Quick note that a couple of lines on the evaluation of Henry III in Anglo-Jewish historiography would be a helpful addition. The period is often referred to as a "watershed", where Henry's policies essentially sent the Jewish community's finances on the road to ruin, while of course their position had come under physical, religious and political attack. While it wouldn't be the case that the 1290 expulsion was an inevitability, Henry had started Royal policy down that track, wittingly or unwittingly. I'm happy to suggest a couple of lines and sources. Jim Killock (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article makes clear, Henry III and his reign are often overlooked in traditional British historiography.: "Henry's reign did not receive much attention from historians for many years after the 1950s: no substantial biographies of Henry were written after Powicke's, and the historian John Beeler observed in the 1970s that the coverage of Henry's reign by military historians remained particularly thin." If you can find better coverage of his reign in your sources, you should probably start making improvements. Dimadick (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. I'll start with . There are plenty of others; I will try to keep this brief tho. Jim Killock (talk) 09:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy section: Anglo-Jewish historiography