Talk:Arthur, Prince of Wales

message: In the Christian Bible it states that it is unclean for a man to take his brother's wife, and if a man did so, the union would be childless. Where does this idea come from?   Leviticus commands a man to take his brother's widow if no children were produced, and I can't think of anything in the New Testament that supplanted that.  Leviticus does forbid a man to take his brother's wife while he is still alive.  Is that where the idea that a widow was also forbidden came from? Nik42 05:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think so, the unnamed contributor has a point, if there weren't anything in the bible saying something against marrying your brother's widow, they wouldn't have needed a papal dispensation, therefore, there must be something concerning that -- and most likely, a few different things that doesn't match the previous words -- to begin with. But what really shocked me was the partial tone of the author, taking for granted that Katherine wouldn't have lied about it (I do find more likely that Arthur would have said he had her even if he didn't, it would be better for his male ego, but I can hardly believe a couple of 15-year-old would lie together and not have sex for longer than one night, specially if they were legally married)Diana Prallon (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brother's Widow 

message: I recall seeing a 1997 Public Broadcasting Service "New Explorers" video documentary on hantavirus called "On the Trail of a Killer Virus" (ID  AV# 81516)  which briefly discussed the theory about a hantavirus being involved in Arthur’s death.  I don’t recall them citing a historian or microbiology publication.  The video the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta investigating the Sin Nombre virus ( Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome ) spread by infected deer mice.  Web shows this was on A&E in 2000.  Someone have access to this documentary?  Is a source provided in the credits?  65.54.154.25 (talk) 06:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the Wikipedia article on sweating sickness - there are 4 sources listed there regarding hantavirus.  History Lunatic (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for source - hantavirus theory

message: Though educated (and, formerly, working) as an historian, Tudor history was never my specialty, and I lack the time to complete the necessary research to be certain:  but, on the face of it, this unreferenced and orphaned sentence,
"Some historians maintain that Arthur had a bond with Thomas Howard, 2nd Duke of Norfolk, who defended the northern border of England against the Scots",
appears to be blatant puffery written in an attempt to further an avid descendant's claims.  I suggest that it be removed if no one substantiates the assertion within, say, a month or two.  Firstorm (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Special Bond"? 

message: This article states that Arthur was created a Knight of the Bath at his christening, then states it happened again when he was invested as Prince of Wales when he was three years old.  Can anyone clear this up?  History Lunatic (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added links to the primary source on the baptism and his creation as Prince of Wales. It seems he was made Garter knight during the creation, so I have made the article read so. (The source is a Cotton library manuscript, the ending is different in the two publications linked.) And, it is most unlikely that Vernon could take the heir of England to his private home, so I have modified that reference.Unoquha (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  When was Arthur created a Knight of the Bath? 

message: "The popular belief that Arthur was sickly during his lifetime stems from a Victorian misunderstanding of a letter from 1502;" Okay, can someone explain the misunderstanding, please? What was actually written? What did it mean? What was it mistakenly thought to mean? --Khajidha (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explain the misunderstanding 

message: I disagree with most of the "Legacy" section. Prince Arthur's legacy ended with his death. At most a brief discussion of Catherine's situation (possible marriage to Henry VII, then married to Prince Henry) is okay. After that, the whole discussion about Henry VIII and his marriages belongs solely in Henry VIII's legacy section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregg va (talk • contribs) 13:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with the Legacy section 

message: Since we have credible sources the current portrait is the only one, it would be inappropriate to show the other one: :File:Arthur_Prince_of_Wales_c_1500.jpg.
Also see . CapnZapp (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  portrait