Talk:Henry VII of England

message: Request for inclusion of a link to the Council of Wales and the Marches at the end of the first paragraph of the section on 'Law Enforcement and the JPs'. Such as:
Following Edward IV's example, Henry VII created a Council of Wales and the Marches for his son Arthur, Prince of Wales which was intended to govern Wales and the Marches, Cheshire and Cornwall.
References can be found on the pages for Arthur, Prince of Wales and the Council of Wales and the Marches. Hughestoni (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please give the exact references from those pages you think are appropriate to the sentence you wish to add - otherwise we would just be guessing. Agricolae (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2020 

message: Thanks& sorry not include sources - please include the following paragraph at the end of the first paragraph of the section on 'Law Enforcement and the JPs'. (references from Arthur, Prince of Wales and Council of Wales and the Marches referring to the Council).
Following the example of Edward IV, Henry VII created a Council of Wales and the Marches for his son Arthur, Prince of Wales, which was intended to govern Wales and the Marches, Cheshire and Cornwall.  Hughestoni (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced that it is an appropriate insertion as neither of the citations is about Henry VII. This is a biography of Henry VII and should contain the things that are normally in biographies of Henry VII. One of your citations is a biography of Arthur and the other is on 15th-century Wales. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2020 

message: Please 
Following the example of Edward IV, Henry VII created a Council of Wales and the Marches for his son Arthur, Prince of Wales, which was intended to govern Wales and the Marches, Cheshire and Cornwall.
 
(Reference 1: Arthur (who died aged about 15) was Henry's son so Arthur did not create himself prince or create the council himself - Henry VII did so on his son's behalf. Does that therefore mean that Henry VII created the Council and it was something that he did as king? This is a valid reference given that Arthur was not of age and this was created by Henry himself). If you dislike this reference then please include the next instead.
(Reference 2: This is an article on 'Wales and the Marches in the Fifteenth Century' and therefore covers Henry VII's reign, particularly pp. 163-65). If you dislike this reference given that Henry VII is not mentioned in the title then please include the next one instead.
Chrimes  Henry VII  pp. 249-56
(Reference 3: This refers to the section in Chrimes's book on 'Policy towards Wales and Ireland' = Wales being pp. 245-57 but reference to Henry's creation of the Council of Wales being pp. 249 to 256.
If you dislike this reference then I can provide more as necessary - because Henry created the Council of Wales for his son Prince Arthur - I'm not inventing it - it's there in all the biographies so it should be included on this page). Hughestoni (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one suggested you invented it. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  where exactly do you want to insert this? SSSB (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2020 

message: In the issue section, there is a doubt, if a Edward did exist by the looks of it, as it has possible confused with Edmund, yet Henry VIII called his two daughters Mary and Elizabeth despite desperately wanting a son, I can only think, he named both his daughters after his young sisters, so it would made sense, that he called his son by his young brother, who died, that Edward must have existed. 
PS I know that was long winded. Japhes5005 (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several books by historian that acknowledge Edward's existence as well, such as 'Britain's Royal Families The Complete Genealogy" by Alison Weir, and "Henry VIII" by JJ Scarisbrick. Not to mention the claim that he is put to rest in Westminster Abbey. 80.112.156.214 (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edmund/Edward 

message: Request for inclusion of a mention and link to the Council of Wales and the Marches at the end of the first paragraph of the section on 'Law Enforcement and the JPs'. (as requested 7 December 2020).
CURRENT PAGE:
: Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Andy W. (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2020 

message: Henry's principal problem was to restore royal authority in a realm recovering from the Wars of the Roses. There were too many powerful noblemen and, as a consequence of the system of so-called bastard feudalism, each had what amounted to private armies of indentured retainers (mercenaries masquerading as servants). Following the example of Edward IV, Henry VII created a Council of Wales and the Marches for his son Arthur, Prince of Wales, which was intended to govern Wales and the Marches, Cheshire and Cornwall. Chrimes  Henry VII  pp. 249-56
He was content to allow the nobles their regional influence…
EXPLANATION:
Henry created the Council of Wales for his son Prince Arthur as part of the restoration of royal authority in Wales.
Justification for the references is explained in my requests of 7, 8 and 10 December 2020, but if the ODNB for Prince Arthur and Griffiths on Wales in the Fifteenth Century are not good enough (suggested by Celia Homeford on 9 December) I include the page reference to the creation of the Council of Wales as stated in Chrimes’ biography of Henry VII. Hughestoni (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Law enforcement and Justices of the Peace

message: The "Rise to the throne" section ends with the statement "Richard III's death at Bosworth Field effectively ended the Wars of the Roses". This is highly debatable. There were still Yorkists out there and they continued to be a threat to the thrown into the reign of Henry VIII. Indeed for much of Henry VII's reign he was worried about potential claimants from the house of York, particularly those using Edward of Warwick as a figure head. Most of these did not result in actual fighting, but some did, notably in the early reign of Henry VII. generally the Stafford and Lovell rebellion of 1486 and the rising in favour of Lambert Simnel (a false Warwick) in 1487 are counted by modern historians as part of the Wars of the Roses. The latter was ultimately led by the leading male adult survivor of the House of York, and Richard III's designated heir, John de la Pole, 1st Earl of Lincoln and was a serious military attempt to put a member of the House of York on the throne. Lincoln's death and the destruction of the Yorkist Army at the Battle of Stoke Field ultimately proved to be the last major battle between Yorkists and Tudor/Lancasterian force. The battle's article says that it "may be considered the last battle of the Wars of the Roses", while I would also note that the main Wars of the Roses article gives 16 June 1487 as the date of the Wars' conclusion (ie the date of the Battle of Stoke Field, not Bosworth). I would therefore suggest modifying the current text. Dunarc (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement about end of Wars of the Roses 

message: The infobox gives 22 August 1485 as the date of the start of his reign. While for all practical purposes this is correct as it is the date his army defeated and killed Richard III at Bosworth Field, but as it notes elsewhere in the article he legally dated his reign as starting on 21 August 1485.  There was a good legal reason for this as it meant anyone fighting for Richard at Bosworth was guilty of treason as they were retrospectively fighting against their legal king. This meant that they had to be pardoned by Henry, giving him power over them, or in some cases,  eg William Catesby, had a legal basis for executing them or (as in the case of The Earl of Surrey) a firmer legal basis for imprisoning them. Obviously the 21 August 1485 date is problematic as it was essentially legal fiction, but I wonder if it needs to be noted somehow in the infobox to avoid confusion? I would be grateful for others' thoughts on this. Dunarc (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Infoboxes just can't cope with this sort of thing, which is why they are so dreadful. The article should explain this, with refs, which it doesn't at present, but the infobox should just follow the main sources. Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I will try at some point to fish out a good source and make the date issue clearer in the actual article. Dunarc (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates of reign in Infobox 

message: Regarding children of monarchs who died young, without any titles, do we just call them by their first name, or should we also include their last name too, as I noticed for James II's daughter, Isabel Stuart, instead of just "Isabel"? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry VII's infant daughter Elizabeth, is it "Elizabeth" or "Elizabeth Tudor"? 

message: "It also ended future discussion as to whether the descendants of the fourth son of Edward III, Edmund, Duke of York, through marriage to Philippa, heiress of the second son, Lionel, Duke of Clarence, had a superior or inferior claim to those of the third son John of Gaunt, who had held the throne for three generations"
Edmund, Duke of York, most certainly did not marry his niece, Philippa, daughter of the Duke of Clarence. Philippa married Edmund Mortimer, the 3rd Earl of March. Edmund Mortimer's son was Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March. Roger's son was another Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March. Edmund Mortimer's sister Anne, married Richard, Earl of Cambridge, the second son of Edmund, Duke of York. Their son Richard possessed the Mortimer claim to the throne.
I would be happy to make the change myself but the page is locked, so I can only ask that whoever cares enough to keep control of this page please fix this very obvious error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayside55 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed that bit, which was uncited. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  No, Edmund of Langley did not marry his niece! 

message: Change the date of Henry’s daughter Katherine’s death from February 10, 1503 to February 18, 1503. Henry’s youngest daughter Katherine died on February 18, 1503; not February 10. His wife Elizabeth of York died in February 11 and their daughter, born on February 2, “lived not long after” and “tarried but a small season after her mother” before being “called unto a far better kingdom.” She died in the Tower on February 18, and was buried in Westminster Abbey. The site of her grave is unknown; probably, like her brother Edmund, she was interred in the Confessor’s Chapel in an unmarked grave. (Elizabeth of York: A Tudor Queen and Her World by Alison Weir). 2601:1C2:1:800:5853:41A0:25C3:B1BD (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2021 

message: Minor correction on the kings religion should be made he was Roman Catholic and not Anglican. 2603:8000:F43:6100:59DF:282F:B264:96F1 (talk) 04:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed this. Agricolae (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry VII religion 

message: The article on John Cabot gives very detailed information on Henry's letters patent concerning Cabot and his sons. The Bristolian William Weston who accompanied Cabot is also mentioned. The article on Cabot is extremely detailed and involves research only unearthed in 2008 and properly understood in 2018 (by historians at the University of Bristol). Statements from a 2006 book on anglicanism cannot be relevant to Cabot's voyages. The article on Cabot gives careful references and statements. Why make careless and unreliable statements on this article that are at odds with the article on Cabot? Of course, a wikipedia article cannot be used as a source for another article, but the WP:RSs used on Cabot and its verifiability of content can be re-used in this article. Please take time to read and digest the article on "John Cabot" before trying to insert new content that contradicts that article. At first glance the article on Cabot seems very well-written and meticulously sourced. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Mathsci, i was simply copying what is declared here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire#Origins_(1497%E2%80%931583). I can simply remove the part about him landing on Newfoundland if that is what you are disputing. You are not disputing that Henry commissioned him to search for the route right?Foorgood (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I already said that in general another random wikipedia article is not an acceptable source for this article; that applies to British Empire: there was no notion of "British Empire" in the late 15th century. Please look at the material on John Cabot. It's a bit long, but makes precise statements about Henry and Cabot. As other editors have previously attempted, I'm just trying to explain the general method of adding new content: find reliable sources and check that they are an accurate summary of those sources. Mathsci (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok i found it mentioned in his biography, let me know if theres something in the sentence that you say is at odds with Cabots article.Foorgood (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent research on Cabot 

message: Henry's obsession with King Arthur was one that stemmed from Welsh mythology; which is why he carried the Red dragon of Wales into battle, it signified his links with Brythonic (Welsh) rulers. 
In Arthurian legend, Arthur drove back the invading Saxons from Britain; thus making him 'Pen' (Welsh: Head) 'Draig/Drac/dracco' (Dragon), something both Owain Glyndŵr and Henry's father, Edmond Tudor illustrated themselves wearing dragon-topped crowns to symbolise their links to King Uther or/and Arthur.
When Henry VII won the battle on Bosworth against Richard III, he carried the red dragon with him to London, where he blessed it under the eyes of god as St.Paul's Cathedral.. this was crucially important to him because it signified that the dragon of Britain (Wales) once again reclaimed the throne from the invading Saxons (English), There's no confusion why Henry's son; Henry VIII created the round table at Winchester.. it was to (again), show that the Arthurian legend was materialised within the Tudor dynasty.
What confuses me the most is how modern scholars/historians choose to play down the Tudor family's links to Welsh identity and wish to portray them as simply 'English', which is wholly simplified and buys into England's 'English' history when avoiding the elephant in the room that the TewDwr dynasty (Tudors) of Penmynydd, Ynys Môn, Gogledd Cymru rose up and ruled both England and Wales represented under the COA of the Red Dragon of Wales and the hound of Richmond/Brittany.. the COA should be the biggest hint to how they viewed themselves.
When Henry VIII annexed Wales with (not into) England, prior to (1535 and 1542) Wales wasn't fully represented on its own, but followed the realm of greater England with Wales being England's principality, so when the Laws in Wales Acts passed, Wales was regarded as equals to England; thus the reasoning behind the term 'England and Wales', however on paper the Welsh language seemed to take a back seat, the Welsh language was respected greater than ever https://nation.cymru/culture/welsh-had-more-legal-status-after-acts-of-union-than-thought-lost-national-library-treasure-trove-reveals/.
However, as soon as the Tudor dynasty ended with the death of Elizabeth I, Wales' legal status' was stripped away, instead of the term 'England and Wales' representing equality, through the new Scotland/England kingdom,  the term now represented, once again; the realm of greater England.. the term was never scrapped, but instead.. recycled, which is how 'England and Wales Cricket board' can get away with promoting their own team as simply 'England Cricket'.
So I feel when editors edit pages which deals with people who originate from Wales, that they should first look at what Welsh historians have to say before looking at mainstream sources who've never researched Welsh history, Welsh language nor looked into his family links in Wales, it's very easy to neglect these important information if your eyes are fixated on narratives that wish to portray a person as their 'own people'.. with one example being the new book 'Queen's Jubilee book for children', with the Tudor dynasty showing up on England's history rather than Wales (where they originated) and because of this; viewpoints can be seen as depicting Henry VII as an English King rather than Welsh.Hogyncymru (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obsession with King Arthur and his Welsh identity 

message: Claims he had very fair hair in text, yet in portrait his hair is dark? Get it corrected 86.165.17.214 (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article in text inaccurate 

message: 91.103.190.194 (talk) 08:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MadGuy7023 (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2022