Talk:Henry V of England

message: The article on John Bradmore says that the ″arrow penetrated on the left side below the eye and beside the nose of the young prince″ (attributed to Stephen Cooper’s Agincourt, Myth and Reality). This is also the description given by Juliet Barker in her Agincourt, p 29. Barker goes on to surmise that the scar that this wound must have left explains why the only surviving portrait of Henry (the one from the National Portrait Gallery shown in the article) shows him in profile instead of the normal three-quarter face. However, the portrait shows the left profile of Henry, with no scar. The picture has not been printed back-to-front. Could it be that the arrow entered the right side of his face? Or it is just artistic license to omit the scar and Barker’s surmise is erroneous? Exbrum (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's as likely that the event never occurred, of course.  >SerialNumber54129...speculates 15:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

text: I think it's very unlikely that an arrow entering the left side of his face would have scarred the right side. But what does Lang (1992) say here? Registration or institution access is required, so I am unable to see the full pdf of that Social History of Medicine paper. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shot in face at Shrewsbury 

message: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_English_Royalty#Reign_dates Jhood1 (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to change reign dates 

message: Should this article mention that Henry V won the Battle of Agincourt earlier than it does?Vorbee (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: How mean ye? It mentions it in the lead, and then again when the chronology reaches 1415. Although I agree it's a crappy enough article that I was half expecting it not to mention it at all  :)   —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle of Agincourt

message: Though his birth date is cited as either 9 August or 16 September of either 1386 or 1387, both sources for it in the lead categorically point to 16 September 1386. One of them is Ian Mortimer's Fears of Henry IV, and the other is Henry V's entry on the ODNB (which is apparently free to read). I looked into Mortimer's book and some of the sources he uses for his assertions, and was able to gather the following:
* Thomas, Duke of Clarence, was born in the autumn of 1387 (as indicated by payments for his nurse), so it is impossible for Henry to have been born around that time.
* Henry IV's household was at Monmouth (Henry V's place of birth) in September 1386 but not in August 1387.
* A number of contemporaries pointed out that Henry V was born in the feast of st. Edith (16 September), and the date 16 September 1386 appears to have featured in contemporary accounts (unlike the other dates), according to Christopher Allmand in his 1992 biography of Henry V.
* Henry was either aged 26 or was in his 26th year (aged 25) when he was crowned in April 1413. Allmand states the latter, but in J. H. Wylie's 1896 biography of Henry IV (which is cited by both Allmand and Mortimer) the former is presented as true. <source (p. 324, footnote)> This confusing outlook is the only evidence I found that might support the assertion that he was born in 1387.
* 9 August seems to have originated as a misprint for his coronation day (9 April 1413) and probably has no justification. Very few original sources seem to give August as his month of birth. <source (p. 323, footnote)>
* Payments made by Henry in Maundy Thursday (c. March~April) 1403 indicate that he was in his 17th year, and so could not have been born in August/September 1387.
* Statements that he was in his 36th year when he died support the notion that he was born on 16 Sep 1386.
Given these assertions, wouldn't it be logical to use 16 September 1386 as his birth date? Mortimer states that, given this, Henry V's date of birth is "as certain as of that of any late medieval king". Any of the 1387 dates are wrong, while August 1386 is highly unlikely. Frac6 (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read the citations too. They don't say it is the date. They say it is the likely date. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Mortimer's book and the ODNB entry actually say that it is. The former is particularly emphatic about it, and both present it as the only alternative. Perhaps you saw an outdated version of his ODNB entry, which indeed gives more than one date, but the most recent one shows 16 Sep 1386. Mortimer says his birthday is "as certain as of that of any late medieval king, and the references to his birth in 1387 are incorrect".Frac6 (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly, the last editor to be so emphatic over this was one User:Nevlos; now blocked, I see. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

text: The citations are free for anyone to see, and they're in the lead for maximum visibility, no less. What is your comment even supposed to mean? Frac6 (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

text: Should the date be changed then? The facts are there. Frac6 (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

text: I reverted because the only change was to the date in the info box with no change to the article text. I was fine with the edit that actually made the article text support the new date. Ealdgyth - Talk 10:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

text: I agree that you've made a policy-based argument in favour of the change, and that those who object should meet it with similar arguments. However, per WP:ONUS, once it becomes clear that someone objects to your bold edit, the burden is on you to gain consensus before making the change. I'll note, however, that at the very least it appears the available sources support an extended discussion of the dating of his birth (a separate section vs. a sentence or two), including the historiography: and that's often a more productive and nuanced discussion to have than two sides arguing about a single binary datum in the article's lede. --Xover (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  So the edit that I made included a preliminary attempt to discuss the dating of the birth in the article body. If you think a more detailed historiographical discussion is interesting/notable enough for the article then you are welcome to expand upon it. I think that would be more productive than reverting back and forwards. However, if you want a different date in lede or a "contested see below", then you would need to find sources to support that. Given the high-quality of sources above and the way the use the date as uncontroversial I find that unlikely. As regards consensus my understanding is that includes the quality of the arguments, and when I made the edit I felt I had address Celia Homeford's concerns about what the sources actually said by noting that there was a different pre/post 2007 academic consensus. Jhood1 (talk) 07:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

text: While the sources cited above are fine to make an argument, the mediæval manuscript cited here is original research and has no bearing on the discussion. I also find the addition of the  tag in the lede to be POINTy and tendentious: it may be technically accurate, but only because the cite is to a previous version of the ODNB entry (which is still available, no less). I would encourage self-reverting that. --Xover (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The  also applies to the immediately preceding reference to Mortimer's book, which also gives the same birth date and is the main source for the statement (and is conveniently accessible as well). It's not POINTy (and not tendentious) as to be classified as a policy violation: I did not write anything which could be classified as making an explicit point; I made use of a template whose purpose is to highlight inconsistencies between text and source, which is the case here. What do you think about the date change itself, though? I don't want this to drag on forever with constant mention to side issues like this. There has been no significant objection to the idea itself so far. Frac6 (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

text: I have nevertheless removed the tag as per your request, but I'll again ask you to think this through. Frac6 (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

text:  If discussion is ongoing then I will self-revert. However, that discussion must be about what the reliable sources say. I have presented extensive evidence above from high quality sources. If another editor disputes that my edit reflects RSs then I would expect them to make that case here. However, since Celia Homeford contribution on 30 August regarding Christopher Allmand's 1997 biography no argument has been made against the proposal that mentions sources. I believe I have shown above that there was a change in the sources in 2007. But if the opposition to the change does not justify itself in terms of sources then it seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and that cannot be used to say there is no consensus. Jhood1 (talk) 11:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry V cannot have been born in 1387 

message: Hello!
I have just added a couple of sentences to the page regarding John Bradmore having recorded his treatment of Henry at the Battle of Shrewsbury in a Latin manuscript named 'Philomena'. The account which is recorded here is very similar to one which has been recorded in Thomas Morstede's 1446 manuscript. Let me know what you think!
ChocolateOrange1 (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thomas Morstede 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :King Henry V. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 4#King Henry V until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Certes (talk) 12:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "King Henry V" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: :"Starting in August 1417, Henry promoted the use of the English language in government"
As opposed to what? French? This could be clearer. 92.40.174.78 (talk) 10:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  English language vs ? 

message: Regarding Dancingtudorqueen's image change, I personally prefer reverting the image back to the far more famous portrait of Henry instead of an obscure one that Dancingtudorqueen has done. Anyone's thoughts? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 06:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The "more famous" portrait was not done in his lifetime and is of much poorer quality. The miniature shows more of his face opposed to just a side perspective and it is contemporary. Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree; it's not "of much poorer quality" (but not entirely sure what you mean by "quality" anyway). I'd suggest that both images could be used somewhere in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I think the miniature is probably best for the main image, as it shows his entire face opposed to one side - we could move the posthomous portrait somewhere in there. Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I'm not convinced that the poorer quality entire face is better than the long-standing posthumous portrait. We have no way of knowing which is really the better likeness, in any case? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: One example is Henry IV of England - his miniature is being used despite it being less known. Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Why can't we use :File:King Henry IV from NPG (2).jpg? Seems miles better. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

text: The Henry IV portrait I've seen used in some books, probably some textbooks too, before, though the Henry V one from the same illustration is much more obscure compared to it. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well, I guess images of other Henries exist. Here we just need to discuss Henry V. I don't see why we need to go for what's more familiar. Probably best to follow the image used most in scholarly works about him.  Martinevans123 (talk) 07:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry V's image changed? 

message: The section connecting Henry V to the later rise of Britain and even English nationalism is unsubstantiated speculation. Makes the whole article look at propaganda. Should be deleted. 2001:BB6:AC63:5900:BC34:24A6:4B49:15B2 (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wild speculation 

message: There are a number of incorrect dates stated at the start of the document. 82.5.148.176 (talk) 11:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you provide examples? Remsense聊 12:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates incorrect