Talk:Henry FitzRoy, Duke of Richmond and Somerset

message: I've heard that Henry Fritzroy was the first surviving son of Henry VIII - is this true?  I couldn't find any reference to it within the article yet I have read it from several sources (all be it, mainly books, not the internet).----  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.148.53 (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Henry had one son by Katherine who lived less than seven weeks and one (or perhaps two) others who died even sooner than that. Katherine and Anne also each had more than one miscarriage each. Edward (the legitimate son and heir) was the second surviving son. --Michael K SmithTalk  14:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  First surviving son 

message: "Anne was executed on 19 May 1536, and despite the King's crocodile tears (he embraced Richmond, telling him that he was lucky to have escaped the "witch's" plans)..."
As amusing as it is to link to the entry on crocodile tears, this seems a bit opinionated. In my judgement, Henry was quite capable of believing whatever he wanted to believe, so the (uncited) tears may have been genuine emotion. Either way, it is neither here nor there in terms of a factual article.
Lizbetann 23:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's generally accepted among historians that Henry was what is now called a "borderline" personality. When it came to his regard (or lack of it) for others, his psychological "switch" had only two positions -- ON and OFF. He was perfectly capable of idolizing someone one moment and ordering their execution the next (per Wolsey, More, & Cromwell). So they were genuine tears -- but only at that moment. --Michael K SmithTalk  14:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Crocodile Tears?" 

message: What evidence is there for the plan to marry Richmond to Mary? Seems bizarre given that Anne Boleyn went to the block accused of, among other things, incest...
Jaguarjaguar (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eurgh 

message: From the main article header: "the only illegitimate offspring that Henry acknowledged."
Just read Murphy's biography and she states that at the time of Richmond's death, both Mary Tudor and Elizabeth were legally illegitimate as proposed and asserted by Henry VIII, although that status was disputed by the women themselves and their families and supporters.
Sorry, don't have the book to hand to give the proper reference.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.170.39.35 (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article should be taken to mean "illegitimate in the light of subsequent history." What we would now regard as "illegitimate," in other words, and I think that's how most readers would interpret this. --Michael K SmithTalk  14:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  the only illegitimate offspring that Henry acknowledged? 

message: At one point, there was talk of making him the King's legitimate heir, the more so since Henry VIII had yet to have a legitimate son. This was never proven at any point and time and still cannot be proven.
What cannot be proven?  That "there was talk"? If so, the first sentence needs to be more nuanced.  Any reference for any of this? HenryFlower 07:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice point. One reference supplied. There was talk, but fairly negative in this ref; e.g., "Fitzroy in 1536 could now become the heir by law - but he's too ill to benefit." Unoquha (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk of making him heir 

message: There's a series by Tanya Huff (starting with Blood Price) where one of the characters is Henry FitzRoy, turned into a vampire and working as a romance novelist in modern Canada.  And apparently one of Mercedes Lackey's books has him as a major player as well.  There are likely others.
209.147.145.213 (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would references to him in (non-contemporary) fiction fit in the scope of this article? 

message: Can anyone confirm Elton wrote that? I don't think that is true. Boleyn (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: He had two illegitimate daughters?

message: There were two conflicting dates given for FitzRoy's birth (15 June in the infobox and lede, 18 June under "Birth"), and the only source provided was for the second, which is from a book that apparently has no convenient web presence other than a HubPages article. I did what I could do, based on the article content and a modest amount of web-based research:
* Added (inadequate) source for 15 June 1519, which seems to be a frequent statement from non-WP-copy sources.
* Rephrased the start of "Birth", paragraph 2, to read: "FitRoy's birthdate is often given as 15 June 1519, but the exact date is not known."
* Added three sources for this statement: Hutchinson, Young Henry: The Rise of Henry VIII ("15 June 1519"); Murphy, The bastard prince: Henry VIII’s lost son, p. 25 (which I can't confirm but which was already given for the entire paragraph); HubPages, "The Death of Henry FitzRoy: Henry VIII’s Illegitimate Son" (which appears to be a summary of info from Murphy, as a book review).
Can someone reliably source both of these commonly given dates? (Yeah, it's a lot to go through just to fix dates, but WP's article is probably the easiest way to get this info, so it's important to get it right.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction to the above: WP wouldn't let me include the HubPages link, so there are only 2 sources. Ultimately it's not importantly because we really need a better source anyway. The page can be found by searching for "Death of Henry FitzRoy: Henry VIII’s Illegitimate Son". ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthdate 

message: I know that it is from Weir's novel but doesn't "Henry VIII openly acknowledged the boy, perhaps because he felt that his lack of a male heir was a slur upon his manhood" sound somewhat opinionated? Uh Kay Shuh (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The Weir book cited is a biography, not a novel. Yes it is an opinion and only speculation, but then many citations from qualified historians quoted in these sort of articles are no better. Sbishop (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A slur upon his manhood"