Talk:Henry the Fowler

message: The following sentence is grammatically incorrect:
He appears in Return to Castle Wolfenstein when the nazi tryning wake him from the death so we can win the war. He is the last boss.
Not to mention very biased. "We"? In addition, shouldn't the title be more formal, as "Henry I of Germany", just as Frederick Barbarossa's article is called "Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor".
-Alex, 12.220.157.93 07:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper grammar please 

message: Anyone have any insight into Henry's parents?  This page says they were Otto the Illustrious and Hedwiga, a descendent of Charlemange, but Otto's page says he married Hathui, a daughter of a Duke of Austria.  Was Hedwiga Otto's mistress, though that's not so likely, i suppose, if she were of "royal" blood.  I'll question this on Otto's talk page too, since it's the same question for him, but backwards, i guess. Lindsay H. 08:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was the third son of Otto the Illustrious and Hathui (Hedwige), daughter of Henry of Franconia. Neither was of royal blood. Srnec 15:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Henry's Parents

message: The "Bamberg Horseman" or "Bambergian knight" seems to be a multiple personage: he portrays Henry I and his son Otto the Great at the same time. Wikipedia says so.
Indeed the historians don´t know exactly which person is depicted; maybe it is Henry II who founded the diocese Bamberg. Certainly neither Henry the Fowler nor Otto the Great are personified.
 
Alfred E. Neander 19:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong picture, again 

message: Henry I aka "the fowler" , "Heinrich der Vogler": 
It is a legend that a delegation of German tribes met Henry in the woods to offer him the king´s crown while he was bird-hunting. The sport of catching birds in traps was regarded as a pleasure of the common man, not of noblemen. So the picture of Henry as "the fowler" shows him as a rustic, vital man, a future king of the common people, it became quite popular in the 19th century.
There are still several (!) places of the legendary event, e.g. the "Finkenherd" in Quedlinburg.
Maybe Henry I was busy with hunting birds when the delegation came, maybe he wasn´t. Maybe there never was a delegation, at least he was elected just by the Franconians and his own people, the Saxons.
As a matter of fact, Henry was the first king of his name to be king, and should be mentioned by his regnal name. Even in Germany he is better kown as Heinrich I., and less as  Heinrich der Vogler.
Alfred E. Neander 19:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article moved 

message: Henry returned to public attention as a character in Richard Wagner's opera, Lohengrin (1850). There are indications that Heinrich Himmler imagined himself the reincarnation of the first king of Germany. Pretty dubious statement out of a pretty dubious book.--Tresckow (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the proposal was move. Thanks Srnec, I read your comments with interest. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry I and Himmler 

message: *Support as nom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I added his place of birth and death. 24.31.169.252 (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Additions

message: Shouldn't this article be about Heinrich?Presidentbalut (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think his name is Heinrich. Not Henry.
So wikipedia's policy is to give people wrong names?68.45.174.58 (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it odd to translate his name. You can see how confusing it is in this article. Heinrich der Vogler is "Henry". Whereas Heinrich Himmler is "Heinrich". Why?HeinrichMueller (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If you go by the name given in the sources it would be "Heinricus" or "Henricus". "Heinrich" is a modern German form as well. Also it's a regnal name which is always translated even today.--MacX85 (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heinrich or Henry? 

message: The punctuation of this sentence-- 
   "Matilda bore him three sons, one called Otto, and two daughters, Hedwig and Gerberga, and founded many religious institutions, including the abbey of Quedlinburg where Henry is buried and was later canonized."
     --gives us to understand that Henry was canonized.  However, if one searches the internet data, it appears that Matilda is the only one who was canonized, having founded many religious institutions, including the abbey of Quedlinburg..."
  Question:  Is Henry a Saint, or is this just bad writing?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.177.74 (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Henry canonized? 

message: 'Nazi ideology referred to Henry as a founding father of the German nation, fighting both the Latin Western Franks and the Slavic tribes of the East, thereby a precursor of the German Drang nach Osten."
Do not most people hold Heinrich der Vogler to be the Founding Father of the German Nation? HeinrichMueller (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Godwin's Law? 

message: I am 70 years old. I have been a genealogist for 52 years. Lately (especially this past years, or so), someone has been changing historical pages on Wikipedia pages. Adding the wrong Houses, names, family, duplications, inaccuracies, and some are just shear fantasy. Leaving out children, and adding children that they do not have. It is hysterically sad, really. Many of these pages are lacking any sort of viable sources/ references, and the pages are not set up correctly. I pity anyone who visits Wikipedia looking for accurate/ factual answers. 
Furthermore, I do not know who is responsible, because their are so many names listed on the talk pages. What I do know, is that Wikipedia is fast becoming utter rubbish. If something is not done about it, Wikipedia, will no longer be a viable resource for research. If it were just a few pages, then I would try to fix them myself. However, there are so many errors, that it has become completely overwhelming. I am too old, and have no time for this rubbish. 
Originally, I used direct resources overseas for my research, while living in England. Wikipedia was great in the beginning, until they let every Tom, Dick, and Mary edit pages. In future, I will no longer use Wikipedia as a resource for my research. It is just becoming too inaccurate, and way to unorganized to be of any use to any serious genealogist. 
Perhaps, in future, people will use Wikipedia to get a good laugh. What a mess. I am so gone.
S.M. Randall Randallratzancestry (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently, Someone has been changing Historical pages.