Talk:Henry V (play)

message: Is the "most quoted" speech really the "Once more unto the breach..."? Here in the USA I'd warrant that you are much more likely to hear selected bits from "This day is called the feast of Crispian..." in 
Act IV, scene ii (I think...) Ellsworth 16:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would concur. john k 17:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a New Page today, but now new made a redirect here. Good my Lords, it were well to parse it prettily here some where. --Wetman 07:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in England, I'd warrant. "Once more unto the breach..." is better known, perhaps because it is a full-bodied rallying cry that manages to stir our ever-so-reserved patriotism. "Cry god for Harry, England, and Saint George!", indeed. MJSchofield 12:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: We don't have an article on the St. Crispin's Day Speech. Perhaps you could start one? Celuici (talk) 09:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: St. Crispin's Day Speech

message: I've started to whip this puppy into shape by adding a number of images and a few internal wikilinks. Anyhow, there is a small problem with the Branagh image in this article. I've seen the film, but it was years ago, who is the man in the blue tunic on the left in that image? I can identify Branagh and Brian Blessed, but I cann't figure out the other guy. Are there any othner notable actors in the image? *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 04:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed that for you. AndyJones 09:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Branagh image

message: I'd have to take another look at the scene, but I don't believe the speech given by a surrendering German general in "Points" is the St. Crispin's Day speech. One of the other characters, Liebgott, translates the speech as it is being orated. The two might be similar, but it would be a stretch to link them together. Kbrooks 22:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Band of Brothers

message: While adding the mysteriously vanished Monsieur le Fer (the French soldier who Pistol captures) to the Dramatis Personae, I also notice that the Duke of Clarence and Earl of Huntingdon are also missing. This is a more interesting question - they have no lines, but are given stage directions and referred to by name in the text. They only appear in Act V, Scene II, the peace negotiations. The stage direction is "Enter, at one door, King Henry, Exeter, Bedford, Gloucester, Clarence, Warwick, Westmoreland, Huntingdon and other lords[...]" and later, Henry says
"Brother, we shall go. Go, uncle Exeter,
And brother Clarence, and you, brother Gloucester, 
Warwick, and Huntingdon, go with the King..." 
and exeunt all except Henry, Katharine and Alice.
Should non-speaking parts, however high-ranking and referred to by name, go in as Dramatis Personae or not?
Brickie 12:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarence & Huntingdon 

message: The article mentions, currently, that the 2003 National Theatre production "[ridiculed] the Iraq invasion." I saw that production. It used the backdrop of the Iraq invasion, but I don't recall it ridiculing it at all. Anyone else see it and care to comment? 88.105.12.21 22:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should feel free to remove it, if there's no source to support the statement. AndyJones 08:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "ridiculing the Iraq invasion." 

message: :Image:Henry v dvd.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Henry v dvd.jpg

message: This needs to be included to maintain article integrity. 60.240.116.132 (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Andy is spot on. In live theatre, running times can vary dramatically (no pun intended) based on numerous factors, and even an uncut version of the play can vary due to the pacing requirements of the director, or the idiosyncrasies of the leading actors.  For example, I once saw a leading actor in the role of Romeo add almost 20 minutes to a production simply by slowing down his numerous monologues in a "Shatner-esce" attempt to make them more understandable!Smatprt (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Running time?

message: I have never before had the temerity to remove something, except when I have known it to be WRONG. 
It is perfectly true that some versions juggle with the identities of the brothers. It's Clarence in the "Bad" Quarto and some RSC productions have made him a speaking part. But "in some versions replaced by the Duke of Clarence" seemed to me to stick out like a sore thumb.  You can always find something that is done in SOME versions - Burgundy has been elided with the Constable, the Boy has been a contination of Francis from the previous plays ...  It seems to me that there is no end to it, if you put notes about variants like that on the cast-list itself.  I hope this seems reasonable to others who know the play and its history. Rogersansom (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brothers To The King (Dramatis Personae) 

message: Shakespearean char lists have a style that differs from modern expectations (in ways that go beyond their repellent reverence for syphilitic tyrants); still, i think it is desirable to present the DPs intact, if only for the sake of those reading the article's and the play's versions concurrently -- so they can choose to do it in synchrony. But we have not stuck to solely that approach, rather inserting some unannounced annotations.  IMO it makes sense for both sets of info to be included, but they must be delineated. I would suggest that this be done by starting, below the secn-heading "Dramatis Personae", with an italic note starting
: The following reflects the playwright's list of characters, and descriptions of some of them, according to ...
and specifying an authoritative modern edition. The italic note should end along the lines of 
: The material in box brackets is (like the links) additional information compiled by the authors of this article.
One example of the need for such additions is the entry where i found 
: * Constable of France 
and replaced with
: * Constable of France (Charles d'Albret)
since most our audience (separated from the events by at least four more -- and even more eventful -- centuries, and in many cases by wider bodies of water, than the Bard's) are unlikely to find "Constable of France" meaningful, but may not want to plow thru the individual character's bio to see what the job meant: each link needed will not always correspond to its own word or phrase of the original. Nevertheless, it should be made clear what was or not in the original: e.g. "* Constable of France [Charles d'Albret]--Jerzy•t 05:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency of approach 

message: I tried to delete the most trivial entries.  Billbrock (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Popular Culture 

message: I clarified the "turning stomachs" statement by the chorus. The context is that the audience should be imagining that they are moving from Henry's castle, to Southampton, and then across the English Channel. This is therefore a humorous comment not related to the amount of gore/violence in the play; I made this clear. Although, why is this statement included at all? It seems to be a relatively minor passage. 
Robert 00:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turning stomachs 

message: The synopsis is atrocious, and seems more focused on telling when "famous speeches" are delivered than what actually happens in the play.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.185.247.140 (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The above was posted 2012, and recently a clean-up tag was added. Is this tag really needed? And if so, is there anyone who can do it? Rwood128 (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad synopsis 

message: I can't imagine why an audience might have trouble understanding the Fluellen scenes. I've always thought them very straightforward and found they tend to raise a laugh. Is there any source to support the idea that Branagh thought an audience wouldn't be able to understand? --Lo2u (T • C) 19:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difficult to understand? 

message: Shouldn't be "Duke of Burgundy" in dramatis personae section be a link to Philip III the Good instead of his father - John the Fearless? Philip III was the one who singed treaty of Troyes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.21.174.130 (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duke of Burgundy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Henry V (play). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111012024840/http://www.nea.gov/grants/recent/10grants/am10.php?disc=Dance to http://www.nea.gov/grants/recent/10grants/am10.php?disc=Dance
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Who was he? 85.210.118.147 (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who he was 

message: "Previously, the fictional Global War Crimes Tribunal ruled that Henry's war was legal, no noncombatant was killed unlawfully, and Henry bore no criminal responsibility for the death of the POWs. The fictional French Civil Liberties Union, who had instigated the tribunal, then attempted to sue in civil court. The judge concluded that he was bound by the GWCT's conclusions of law and also ruled in favour of the English."
I can't make head or tail of this section. What are the "fictional French Civil Liberties Union" or the "fictional Global War Crimes Tribunal"? As far as I can tell, there is a French Civil Liberties Union, and there is a Global War Crimes Tribunal, so what is fictional about them? And how would a real or fictional version of either be involved in the mock trial in Washington. There is a lack of information here that is discombobulatingly confusing, unless I'm missing something very obvious. Meerta (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "fictional"?