This user may have left Wikipedia. HENRY V OF ENGLAND has not edited Wikipedia since 6 September 2009. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
Welcome!
Hello, HENRY V OF ENGLAND, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Rich
Farmbrough, 22:47 22 January 2009 (UTC).
Yes I saw your eloquent edit summary, however that information rightly belongs in the body of the article., I think title=King of France is appropriate for the infobox. Rich Farmbrough, 22:47 22 January 2009 (UTC).
I would suggest you discuss any other changes on the talk page of the article in question, if you think they need approval. Rich Farmbrough, 13:41 25 January 2009 (UTC).
I'm familiar with the Treaty of Troyes, but today Charles VII's reign is considered to have begun, upon his father death. Also, coronations don't necessarily mark the begining of reigns. GoodDay ( talk) 22:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
OK.I agree Charles reign begins in 1422.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 18:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear HENRY V OF ENGLAND: I accept your apology, although there is nothing you did against me, as all was done, or rather said, in jest on my part. I fell on the debate by chance & wiggled myself into the conversation. I simply could not resist! In case we bump into each other again, be sure to keep on your helmet! Also, please join Jeanne, Surtsicna, GoodDay & me in Reims for a glass of champagne! Cordialement! (Just brought my msg to you on your talk page for your records). FW
Frania W. ( talk) 23:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Hiya Henry. I assume that english, is not your first language. Your postings, tend to be difficult to read, at times. GoodDay ( talk) 23:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Your attempted changes to that article's Infobox, didn't work. Also, you should bring such ideas to the discussion, first. GoodDay ( talk) 17:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Charles shouldn't be pushed aside infavour of Henry. The navbox should show them as disputing claiments. GoodDay ( talk) 23:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
HENRY: Replying to the msg you left on my talk page: While there is nothing wrong in your way of thinking, what you are saying cannot be accepted in Wikipedia because the way you reach your conclusion is pure personal research. So, all you want to put in either boxes is what is accepted by historians. If you want to do your own research, go ahead, then write & publish a book that wiki editors can use as a reference. In the meantime, we should stay as concise as possible in the navboxes & accept GoodDay's wording with *disputed*, which is the truth. Yes, it was an interesting debate & I thank you for accepting the challenge. We fought fairly! Aurevoir!
Frania W. (
talk) 03:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Salutations. FW
Frania W. ( talk) 02:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
De jure and de facto are meaningless and unhelpful term in this case (and actually in most cases). Both Henry VI and Charles VIII had a legal claim to the throne and both factually controlled parts of the country. I disagree with what Frania said that the Treaty of Troyes was illegal and that Charles VI could not disinherit his son - of course he could. (And example from the Louis XIV era, when the monarchy had already degenerated) cannot be transported back. One is King by acceptance by the land, not by mere inheritance and not by mere treaty. That Charles VII takes a precedence over Henry VI is a historical convention due to the fact that he prevailed. Str1977 (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Speaking for the French side, I would & do disagree with Str1977 (sorry!): the king has no right to disinherit his son and, if he does, the disinherited son has every right to fight for his right, which is exactly what Charles VII did with the help of Jeanne d'Arc. And the throne of France was inherited from father to son (dauphin). French kings owed their throne thru divine right, not acceptance by the land. The crown was handed down from father to son & the people had no say in the matter: they accepted it as a fact. It took the French Revolution to upset the order of things. As for my using the example of Louis XIV, it was to show that no matter how powerful a king was or had been, an illegal act by him could be reversed, and the succession had to follow its legal course. C'est tout! In our little dispute over Charles vs Henry, we should be able to reach some type of consensus. Frania W. ( talk) 03:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S. to Henry: RE your note on my talk page, because I do not agree with you & wrote that I would reverse your changes does not mean that I am not your friend on the other side of the English Channel! We just happen to disagree. FW
Reganl means a monarchs years upon asscending to the throne.Henry asscended to the throne of france in 1422 thus he is a regnal soveriegn of france.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 16:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
p.s.learn your vocabulary.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 13:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) By adding Henry VI was crowned as Henry II of France, you have to have a note about Henry II of France (reigned 1547-59). GoodDay ( talk) 16:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Re your mail (I thought I told you not to send me mails?) but here is your answer: once you come up with a source that calls Henry (either V or VI) Dauphin, you can add. But I have never heard about such a title and I don't think any Henry of England was ever called Dauphin. Remember the Dauphin is not simply the heir to the French throne, he is the nominal ruler of the Dauphiné. Str1977 (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
After the Western Schism the Roman Catholic Church chose to retroactively recognize as Popes, the Roman line (and disqualify the Avignon & Pisan lines). During the Schism, it could be argued the Avignon & Pisan lines were just a legitimate. We should adopt the same idea for the French monarchs, as France has retroactively chosen to disqualify Henry VI of England as King of France. GoodDay ( talk) 16:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. I will begin with a little joke: Possibly the best thing about Henry V was that he spoke the French language fluently as did his courtieres, he married a French woman, and the House of Tudor that begins with her and the blood of Welshman Owen Tudor, starts a fine line of British monarchs with no English blood at all. Bravo! Smile! --- I begin with this little piece of « outrageous » history because each nation writes its own histories and has its own truths. - - - - I read three of the sources you posted earlier, but they are quite dubious and not reliable, I feel, because of their old date and authorship. The first, is from 1835 « The Chronological Historian » (actually, best of the three); 1867 « History of England for Young Students » (an English hagiography for little ones); and 1835 « Historical Pictures, England » (also for little ones). I could almost hear « God Save the Queen » playing in the background as I read the words. (smile!) I am sorry, but these are just not serious pieces of scholarship. These were written when English disdain for France was at its absolute peak, and Bonaparte was within living memory of all. Besides nationalism, most English historians had been heavily influenced by the plays of Shakespeare - and later Shaw - which are dramas inspired by history, rather than historical fact itself. - - - - On the other hand, the 2008 « The Contending Kingdoms » is more what I had in mind. (I did not read this earlier.) The author, Dr Richardson of the University of Surry, is a credible historian. (But, 52,25 pounds sterling for his slim 192 page book; Oh, my ! Thank you, Google Books !) The topic of the page where you directed me actually begins on page 25. The thesis of Dr Richardson hinges on the legitimacy of the Treaty of Troyes (which he feels is lawful, and most French authors do not); and his interpretation (objections, really) of the legitimacy of the (rightful) Dauphin (especially in this statement by Dr Richardson : « However, the tenure of this area not in French law a qualification or a prerequesite for kingship anymore than the holding of the principality of Wales, earldom of Chester, or duchy of Cornwall were pre-requesites for English kingship. », is mostly opinion, and does not hold-up under scrutiny. The fact is, every heir to the French crown after the annexation of Lyon did bear the title Dauphin. - - And, how Dr Richardson could compare the vast and wealthy Dauphiné region to little English Chester and impoverished Cornwall is another matter! Athough I need to corroborate this, I am fairly certain, both the population and wealth of Lyon and the Dauphiné exceeded that of England, itself.) - - Back to the Treaty of Troyes, the author's explanation of it and its ramifications are good on subsequent pages. The double-monarchy was, in theory, legitimized. But it was signed in weakness and fear by the French, who did not forget that they had seen Paris overrun by the Burgundians, were thankful of the tacit support of the English, which enabled the henchmen of Charles le Bien-Aimé to kill Jean sans Peur of Valois and Burgundy (« John the Fearless »), and no doubt felt that it was not beyond Henry V of England to kill Charles. I could write more, but this is not a good forum, and frankly, I know I cannot convince you because your ideas are so firmly set. Tomes have been written by wiser people than you and me who still disagree. - - - - - What I believe is important here is that Charles le Victorieux (« Charles VII ») was crowned in Rheims and continued to reign over two-thirds of France (central and south) from Bourges. The line of the House of Valois was unbroken. (He was, of course, succeeded by his brillant, machiavellian son, Louis le Prudent (« Louis XI »), among the greatest monarchs of French history.) - - - Lesser, but still important, the English suffered defeat after defeat as soon as nine years after the Treaty of Troyes, and were routed from Paris in 1436 and pushed back to Calais. England could not hold its land gains and did not have support of the French populace. - - - To end this, I stand by my original request: Please give me the name of a modern scholarly reference source that shows the « House of Lancaster » in the line of royal houses of France. The events surrounding the times of Henri VI are fascinating history, but to include him in a list of French monarch that is unsupported, in French or English, makes no sense here. Lists of French kings are common and appear in dozens of good texts. If you can identify one, I will concede. Charvex ( talk) 05:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Goodbye and thanks for the reply.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 00:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Henry, You deleted your last comment on my page with the explanation: *I deleted my comment as it against Civilty in WP*. I never considered not civil any of your comments to me or I would have personally told you. Although we do not agree & you have never succeeded in convincing me, I have always understood what you are/were trying to explain and have never felt that you were impolite toward me. Waving a friendly 'salut' from the other side of the Channel. FW
If it is properly sources and makes it clear that this was a legal concept brought up by some lawyers (just as the pertaining passage in the article about Lex salica) and was current for a very short time. But who should write it?
Hate to be a party pooper, but that article might be a candidate for deletion. GoodDay ( talk) 16:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
You do appear to know a certain amount about the Hundred Years War, but I suggest you would be better concentrating you efforts on improving that article, or possibly the biographies of some of the leading figures. PatGallacher ( talk) 21:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour Henry, What I wrote above was not a critical judgment of the article you just began, I was only telling you what I think you should or should not do for your article to be of Wikipedia standards so that it will not be deleted. While we are about half a dozen conversing here, there are "unseen" readers from both sides of the Channel who are quite knowledgeable on the subject & who will not hesitate to pounce on you at the least error.
Cordialement, Frania W. ( talk) 19:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
HENRY: I tried leaving a comment to you on Talk:The Dual-Monarchy of England and France, but for some reason, it does not show up. I tried leaving it here, but it does not show either. Hoping I'll have more luck there, I am going to try putting on my talk page. Frania W. ( talk) 22:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixed the problem. Here is my comment:
HENRY: Please be sure to give each source as you go on with the text by clicking on reference key right after you have written the word/phrase/sentence of which you want to give the source: when done correctly, references will automatically be shown at end of article. Since you are the one with the books, you are the only one who can do it. In fact, you should take the time to review what you have already done & put in the needed references before you continue, as the list of books at the end of each section is of no help without the precise relation to what is already written. Within the text as you see it when you edit the article, I have put hidden comments & also *reference needed* where some of the references should go. Also be sure that you are not copying whole or parts of sentences from book as this is "plagiat": everything has to be sourced, and anything taken verbatim from an author must be put between quotemarks & sourced. (If you make a couple of spelling errors (who knows?) someone might come around with a broom & sweep them out...) Cordialement, Frania W. ( talk) 22:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Henry: You are at work adding publishing houses & page numbers in your references; however, these references need to be *tied* where they are related to the text, because when there is the title of a book & pp. 2, 3, 5, 21 etc. at the end of a section, we still do not know where in your text these pages are referring. You must go back to your text & match it with your sources: that's where you must link with the reference (Reference & Reflist) which will put your source at the end of the article with a small blue number that will appear on the text itself. (Oh, la la! my English is getting muddled!). I again suggest that you do not add anything to your text as long as this problem has not been addressed, otherwise, you will drown trying to fix it afterwards. When you continue, you will add the references as you go on; by then, you should have got the hang of it. If you do not know how to do this, let me know a certain place where you know a reference should go & give me the title of book with particular page, I will try to do it for you (I am sure more will step in to help you.) This should enable you to check the way it should be done by going into the working/editing part of the text & do exactly as you see it.
Adding a new section before all this is cleared will be of no help as the *wiki-invisibles* will openly come after you. It is not the length of your article that will save it; in fact, it may be exactly the opposite: it is the form & the quality. You need to follow a plan, have an introduction that tells the reader what to expect; then the meat of the subject divided into sections: the family ties between the royals of France of England, the Treaty of Troyes, the Salic law, the death of Henry V of England & Charles VI of France, the arrival upon the scene of the baby king of England vs Charles VII of France; the crowning of one in Reims & of the other in Paris, the relationship with the French people. Those are the events you must develop, not bows, arrows & canon balls. What needs to be known but is second or third step from article should only be blue-linked, otherwise you fall into off subjects. As it stands, the article is already quite long but, aside from the title that speaks of a dual monarchy, the subject has not yet been touched upon. There is too much *background* going too far back into the past. It would be much better to start from a stub with outline & go from there.
Bonne chance! Frania W. ( talk) 03:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Henry, I do not agree with the changes you brought to the lead of the article as it had been set up by Jeanne. It was perfect!
I am bringing this comment to Jeann's page since the two of you were discussing this very point.
Frania W. ( talk) 17:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Henry, please revert to what Jeanne had done & do not touch her edits. When the article is finished, then we can read thru it again & bring changes here & there, if necessary. Most important right now is to build the article, not start the Hundred Years War all over again. Frania W. ( talk) 18:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Henry!!! Revert the lead as it was at Jeanne's last edit, p l e a s e. You are putting too much into it & confusing matters. If not, I am going to start praying for you to be en panne d'ordinateur = for your computer to break down!!! Frania W. ( talk) 21:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Remember HENRY. Once you create an article on Wikipedia, it can be edited by others. Ya gotta be careful of violating OWNERSHIP. -- GoodDay ( talk) 14:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! -- SineBot ( talk) 19:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Bringing this to your talk page:
HENRY: I went thru the section The French Realm in Dual-Monarchy article & also left a comment at article's talk page. Please read my 15:18 8 May 2009 revision where it says: typos + request for references + hidden comments.
As for your question of the royal House Henry VI of England belongs to, I will not advance an answer to this, all I can agree with is his ancestry reaching all the way up to Saint Louis, which does not mean that he has a double whammy in his favour to the throne of France. Again, viewed from the side of the French, Salic law & the doubts as to the validity of the Treaty of Troyes are/were enough keep him from the throne of France. Being a descendant of Saint Louis does not give him a right over the Dauphin of France who is also a descendant of Saint Louis. He can be a descendant of Saint Louis & not be able to claim the throne of his illustrious ancestor just because of the fact that his claim is thru his mother. And the fact that the Dauphin was disinherited because he was behind some guy's murder has me smile: read the history of England & count the many who became kings after murdering their rival!
Cordialement... even though the two of us will never agree! Frania W. ( talk) 18:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello Frania and Jeanne
http://books.google.com/books?id=Qv9PlGCLy4YC&pg=PA235&dq=the+legality+of+the+treaty+of+troyes
This book provides the legality of the Treaty of Troyes and the legal dissinheritence of the dauphin.It also explains the legaliy of the treaty against salic Law.As fot your statement on henry IV,RICHARD II was removed in 1399 by an act of parliament before he was murderd and when Henry IV succeded then did he order the act of assasination.You must reliase that most of the legality to Charles dissinheritence was outside the treaty.Frania and Jeanne it all ends here if Charles was CONNFIRMED as incapable of succestion because of bieng guilty of lese-majesty and was further confirmed by a sentence at a formal lit de justice in 1421 how can Henry VI(Henri II of France) NOT be the legitimate king.This is why the treaty has been commonly misunderstood because French historions refuse to look at the later charges to Charles.Treaty or no Treaty Charles was incapable of succestion either way.As for what you people call Salic Law which is an ILlegal law.Read the terms of the treaty proparly dont just start making up your own terms.Henry V was adopted by Charles VI therefore making him his son.Strictyly by now there would be no absolute contridiction with Salic Law therefore Henry was capable of succeding as any of Charles sons although the actual text of Adopted-son was never used in the term it was explained.The Heir-Apparent was legaly confirmed as incapable of succestion by a lit-de justice so Charles VI next son(adopted) as legitimate Heir was Henry V.Henrys adoption is further enhanced in the treaty that Bravia and Charles be addresed as Father and Mother to Henry.Further more that gives Henry the legitimacy to adopt the title "Heir of France".Henry V also married Catherine which also made Henry,Charles son-in law.In order for the treaty to be confirmed legal there has to be ratification.As such,Both parties ratified the treaty in 1420.Most of the French arguements by now are overthrown.If Henry was just made heir with no reference to claim and without bieng enchanced then it would have been illegal and thus Charles can be accused of allienating the throne and treating the Kingdom as private land.Louis was incapable of succeding because he didnt profess his claim and was checked in England and to add he didnt have any title like heir prempusitive or apparent to the throne of France like Bedford therefore he wasnt strictly or legaly bound in the line of succestion to inherit.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 02:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear Henry!!! Oh! la! la! What's happening to your sense of humour? Did not you understand the joke ??? FW
Could be at the following:
Better not tell GoodDay!
Frania W. ( talk) 18:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello Frania how do you answer a ciatation since you asked for it on the article of the dual monarchy.If so,how do I link it to reference.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 19:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello Frania.I get the majority of my information from a couple of books I have at home.I finished them ages ago but I learned basiicly all the vivid campaigns from Griffith R.A Henry VI but I rarely needed to look back for to confirm it because I already learned most of the campaigns from the book,Wikepedia and other internet Enclodopedias.For the legality and/or the legality of the treaty,I used many sources to back my statement so I wouldnt be wrong in what I say.Do I give sources of every single book I researched or just maybe 2 or 3.I also researched the french arguements in a book called the Congrass of Arras.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 23:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Frania is this example correct:
Vive le France [1]
This is just a made up one.
-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 00:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Wait.Really important question Frania.Off course an adopted son is annowledged in the succestion to the throne.Am I right in this or would the fact of alienating the throne still be beased in principle.I think it is possible for a Bastard son of the king to succeded if he was anknowledged by the king to be his legitimate son from his wife.In fact many times kings got away of bieng bastards and still inheriting.Jochi the eldest son of Ghengis Khan who was also claimed to be a Bastard by his own father still inherited the West of Mongol conquests.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 23:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
HENRY: You left this on my talk page:
What do you mean???
Do you mean the reply about the citation? I answered you
up above in the Citation section.
Frania W. ( talk) 23:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
HENRY: Why did you blank out the page??? Frania W. ( talk) 04:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
To the question on where to find the original of the Treaty of Troyes, this is the answer I recd from the CALAMES search group: Bonjour, En effectuant sur le catalogue Calames la recherche suivante: "Traité de Troyes", on obtient parmi les résultats l'intitulé suivant: "Traicté de Troyes, du mariage de madame Catherine de France, fille du roy Charles VI, et Henry d'Angleterre. 1420". Il s'agit de cet original, que vous trouverez à la bibliothèque de l'Institut de France. Pour connaître les modalités de consultation, vous pouvez prendre contact avec: Institut de France. Bibliothèque 23 quai de Conti 75006 Paris tél. 01 44 41 44 10 bibliotheque@bif.univ-paris5.fr Cordialement, la cellule assistance. Cordialement, Frania W. ( talk) 19:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
As you can tell by my recent reverts of some of your edits, I'm growing concerned HENRY. GoodDay ( talk) 15:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello.Will I just end the disscution on the hundred years war.This does not mean I am wrong as I expalined above.I am just getting tired of this.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 15:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I promise I will never edit Henry VI as Henri II of France.I guess I did push it too far.I apoligize Frania.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 16:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
OK.Last thing I swear to God.I reverted you on the queen mother page.I gave reference yo her bieng queen mother of france and anyway that is what it says in her article.Ok as you said back to the dual monarchy article unless I want to be sunk to the sea evertime I try to cross the channel.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! -- SineBot ( talk) 15:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hiya HENRY. Why did you delete my May 25th posting on that article talkpage? GoodDay ( talk) 19:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Would you restore it, please? GoodDay ( talk) 19:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello Frania.Should I mention a great deal on joan of arc on the dual monarchy article or will I just leave it as it is with the same intro to the french revival-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 01:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Frania.If you still happen to remeber the posts concerning numbering of the french regnal template you mentioned Henri V of France saying "Paris is worthe a mass".But this is wrong it was to do with the french religious wars when by salic law Henri IV of Naverra was the legitimate heir to Henri III of France.Henri IV was removed from succestion previuosly by the treaty of Netmours since he was a calvinist or a hugenout(followers of John Cavin and preched by John Knox).By the proccess Charles cardinal of bourbon was made heir and he was the brother to Henri I prince of conde.The house of guise and the catholic leauge kept the king in check and on the 12th of May 1588 the parisans setted up barricades on the streets of paris and the cul de sac were willing to save the duke of guise away from the hostility of the king Henri III(or Henri IV since I recognize Henry VI as king of France) and so the king fled and joined up with his cousin Henry of Naverra(Henri IV of France).Henri III called for the Estates-General to Blois.The duke of guise Henri I and his Brother cardinal of guise Louis II were asked to meet the king in his private chamber where they were previously awaiting in the council chamber.The gaursdmen seized the duke and stabbed him in the heart and arrested his brother whom was later to die from the pikes of his escorts,to add the dukes son was also arrested in order for that there will be no contender to the french crown.Henri IV by the way was exumenicated by Sixtus V but converted to cathlisim by force when he was in paris earlier on.The duke of guise was highly famed publicly and so the parliament of paris declared war openly against the king and charged him with personal crimes.The duke of Mayenna whom was the younger brother of the duke of guise became leader of the catholic leauge.He declared publicly that a public citizen was free to commit regicide against the the soveriegn Henri III.A dominican friar in 1589 drove a long knife into the kings spleen when seeking an audience with him.On Henri III 's deahbed he pleaded in the name of statecraft(public administration),that he should take throne.The only contest was now between Henri IV and the catholic leauge supported by Philip II and pope Greogery VIII .It was basicly an approxy war between Elizibith I and Philip II.At the battle of Arques Henri deliverd a crushing defeat against Murremncy and swept Normandy and won the battle of Ivery in 1450 letting him besiege Paris.The siege was broken off by spanish troops.The same thing happend at the siege of Roen.Paris refused to allow a calvin to be there king.He later converted to Catholisicm and said the famous speech that "Paris is well worth a Mass" not Henry V who came much later.Just to add it is in fact not a constitutional tradition that corinations must take place at Rheims(although this is seriously reccomended if it is avaliable).Here we can see another matter of a french king bieng crowned other then in Rheims.My point bieng said when in 1594 Henri IV was crowned king of France NOT in Rheims BUT in CHARTERS.The reason bieng the same thing as Henry VI,it was under foriegn authority in this case the catholic leauge.Even when Henri IV regained the city he wasnt obliged to have another corination was he?The answer is No so a french corination outside Rheims is perfectly fine.Probably the Greatest French Corination was Henri VI of England and France at Paris in 1431.I am not biased but I am correct to this,Although the corination came to naught in prcatice its extravegence,ceremony prompt and feast was the greatest in french history.Here is the main reference 1.Read from page pp206-pp217. http://books.google.ie/books?id=_Cc9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA231&dq=Henry+VI+french+coronation:Music+of+Paris&lr=#PPA206,M1 Goodbye Frania.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 03:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Frania lol I am still puzzeled why you said Henri V of France said "Paris is worth a mass" when Henry IV of France and Naverra said that when he converted in order to secure Paris.Again thanks Frania.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 18:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Away from Wikipedia today because of D-Day - the most glorious day the French (in particular) should never forget. Taps... Frania Frania W. ( talk) 11:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank You Henry, sorry I really didn't know what I was talking about and I didn't realise that there was so many references for it. It believe you now!--Daaviiid 10:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Away from Wikipedia today because of D-Day - the most glorious day the French (in particular) should never forget. Taps... Frania Frania W. ( talk) 11:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Franai.I have a question concerning World War I.Is it right to say that the warefare in world war I the same as the warefare in the late 19th century like in the Boer War or Crimien War since there is absolutely no simmilary in warefare with war II.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 19:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Frania.What other time period do you like or wanting to disscuss.(Just to test our Knowledge not a competition..... or is it???)Goodbye Frania.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 21:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you alright Henry? We haven't heard from you in a few days.-- David ( talk) 15:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I've been work with Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy, creating a page for the Duchesses, Electresses and Queens of Bavaria. It is rather hard using a wikitable. -- David ( talk) 15:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
All of them, it's a list, though there was only a few of them, there was more Duchesses and Electresses-- David ( talk) 16:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Frania do you think the corination section makes sence.I am changing some words.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 12:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, HENRY V OF ENGLAND. I saw your question on Jeanne boleyn's talk page and thought I may be able to help. Hope you don't mind. You are quite welcome to ignore this if you wish. In line citations are also known as references. I think it's fair to say that references are not that easy to provide in an article, even when you have them. They are, at best, bloody awkward. I have used this fairly recently: Wikipedia:Citation templates. In reality though. I usually just copy a reference I've used before as a template. For example - a book reference:
<ref name="Gwynfor"> {{cite book |last=Evans |first=Gwynfor |authorlink =Gwynfor Evans |title=The Fight for Welsh Freedom |publisher=Y Lolfa Cyf |year=2000 |location=Talybont |isbn=0-86243-515-3 |pages=7}}</ref>
appears in the article like this: [2]
Or a web based reference:
<ref name="Parc 1">{{cite web |title=Parc-le-Breos |url=http://www.parc-le-breos.co.uk/index.htm |accessdate=2008-11-06 |publisher=Parc-le-Breos |year=2008 |work=Parc-le-Breos website }}</ref>
appears in the article like this: [3]
If you use a "ref name", once all the details are entered you only have to note the "ref name" for subsequent citations of the same work, you just have to remember to insert the / before the final >
<ref name="Parc 1"/>
like this. [3] If you are creating a new article you'll need to format the reference section like this:
== References == {{reflist|colwidth=30em}}
which will show up at the bottom of the page, after all your other text.
NB. I've created a references section at the bottom of your page, so you can see how they appear. Let me know when you've read it and I'll delete it.
Hope that helps. If you have any questions please ask. Cheers, Daicaregos ( talk) 17:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Frania.I know this guy here was imprisioned from 1792-1795 when the commistioners arived at the temple prision and went to the apartment for orders of seperating the fills-de-france Louis from the rest of his family.He started crying uncontrolably when he was seperated from his mother Maria-ANNIONETE and his sister marie theraise was also taken to solidtry confinement.He was in the care of Mademe de Rabaud and was given a republican education by Antoine Simon and proclaimed by the royalists in favour of the dynamic line as Louis XVII(off course in pretence).What I Dont get is the actual difference between prince du royal and the title dauphine or are they the same?I thought of asking you since you are an expert on these things.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 17:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Bringing discussion with Henry on his talk page:
Sorry Frania,I never knew there was an actual French political movement to have him viewed as Symbol for abused children.I knew the horrible things Antoine Simon did to him like making him sing le Mairlesailes while drunk.sleeping with prostitutes in which he contracted disiease from,Simon Antoine also taught him to curse and be rude and was in fact given a poor republic education.Again sorry I hadent a clue you were very sensitive on this matter.Apoligies.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 19:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
needs references given within text. Frania W. ( talk) 17:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I was born in Cork city, and I still live there.( Jack1755 ( talk) 22:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC))
P.S. Are you intrested in the Irish revolotion with Wolf Tone,the American Revelotion or The French Revolotion. C'YA.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND
Hmm .. I'm not too sure. I guess I watch the Fox News Channel alot. wbu ? ( Jack1755 ( talk) 16:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC))
I'm working on fixing my botched edits. I see you are working on the Dual Monarchy of England and France. How is that going ? U got msn ? ( Jack1755 ( talk) 21:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC))
Hey, How are you ?? ( Jack1755 ( talk) 03:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC))
HENRY, was this a statement or a question? FW
HENRY V OF ENGLAND: Should I ever lose my merry *atituide*, the mere sight of *ye olde Englische* would revive it. Have you finished the Dual-Monarchy or are we going to have to put you on the grill to get it done? Frania W. ( talk) 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey Frania lets have another disscution on some french kings.lol.I thnk that tag on Louis XVIII article regarding it as confusing should be deleted.It is a bit but not that much.Goodbye-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 17:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes Frania I agree Henry VI was King of France lol(Just Jokin but really Henry was King of France)--
HENRY V OF ENGLAND (
talk) 16:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll never except Harry as a King of France. GoodDay ( talk) 23:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll never, never except Henry VI of England as having been King of France. GoodDay ( talk) 19:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't have (nor do I intend to dig up) the historians who oppose Louis XIX & Henry V's claims as King of France. But trust me, there are such historians. GoodDay ( talk) 20:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Frania.Is Louis Phillipa I Duke of Orleans King of France a usurper.The legitimists under the duke of Chambond or Henry V of France was recognized by some loyalists and ruled for 7 days.The succestion went from the Comte'd Artois(Charles X) abdicaited in 1824 in favour of his son Louis-Antoine Duke of Angoulemia(Louis XIX) whom ruled for 20 mins and so it went To Louis-Antoine's nephew Henri duke of Chambond or Henry V.How did Louise Phillipa I prince du sang(Orleoans) take the throne.Or did the Chambers ratify the succestion of Louis Phillipa I Duke of Orleons SOMEHOW? Henry V should be given a template in the French Monarchs List Like Le Roi Henry VI of England since he had de facto soveriegnty for 7 days.Thats much better Then his uncle's rule for 20 mins which could hardly be described as a de facto rule.Hello Frania-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 06:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Frania?????-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 14:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Frania.I have to semi-retire today since I am going on Holidays tommorow.I wont be active as much.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 16:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you going anywhere nice Henry, I'll be off on holiday soon but I'm only going to Yorkshire. Goodbye for now-- David ( talk) 17:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Bye Henry! Have a great vacation. Hope to see you again soon ( Jack1755 ( talk) 17:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC))
On your question on archer numbers, I'd float in on the talk page. In an army of 6-8000, 500 probably a touch on the low side but with this level of inaccuracy on numbers who knows? I'd float it on the article talk page, as I know that the army numbers figures on the info box are quite tightly monitored and you might get a straight revert. Best wishes Monstrelet ( talk) 09:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
As Barbour's Chronicle is dated 1375, he couldn't have been at the battle himself. It is recognised he used probably eye witness accounts in lost sources, though (e.g. A life of Robert I produced perhaps in the 1330's). On archers, the fullest account is the Lanercost Chronicle, which has a shoot out between the English and Scots archers - the Scots lose and fall back. Chris Brown's Bannockburn reprints the main sources, if you want to follow it up. Monstrelet ( talk) 12:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the links - I do have a copy of it - I think Pete Armstrong talks good sense on Scots military topics (hence my encouragement to in-line cite him on the archer numbers question). Monstrelet ( talk) 16:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Henry we haven't heard from you in a while. Are you still on your holiday? Get in touch soon, I have a little problem with another one of these medieval women and I need your help. Thanks-- David ( talk) 16:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Henry. I undestand your opinions and I respect your sources, but the problem is that these are English sources, and they are completely different from French sources (and quite different from the sources of third-party countries). The French position is that the king of France received his power by God (Deo gratia), so neither the king could change what God had stated. The thesis of the adoption is absurde: even if we would not consider the fact that there are no adoption of sons by the kings during all French history (we are not speaking about the Roman Empire!), you know that hereditary European monarchies had a patrimonialistic conception of their States: if you are adopted by a man, it means that or your natural father is dead, or that he lost his patria potestas: in every case, you cannot have two fathers, and you can't inheredite from two fathers, because this fact isn't accepted in (Christian) European culture. If Henry would have become the legal king of France, this fact would mean that he had lost the Kingdom of England, fact that is evidently absurde.
Generally speaking, the problem is that wikipedia must mantain an international vision of facts. We have an English position, we have a French position (generally accepted worldwide, but we can also forget this fact), we must show both two, without chosing. We can't hide the fact that there was an incoronation of a king of France in Paris, we can't forget that this incoronation is in contrast with all the rest of the hereditary history of the French throne (remember that, differently from the "livened" history of England, in France there is a regular male inhereditance of the throne from 987 to 1830, without exceptions, so much that Louis XVIII took that numeral because he considered decided by God the throne of Louis XVII). We are not judges, we must only give more informations as possible. :-) -- Cusio ( talk) 13:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Please go to French monarchs talkpage for my reply.Thank You very much.--
HENRY V OF ENGLAND (
talk) 13:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok! -- Cusio ( talk) 14:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello Henry welcome back to wikipedia, have you been doing anything nice over the holidays?-- David ( talk) 19:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm good, just I'm back at school and it is sort of boring, though it is my birthday next friday so that is something to look forward to-- David ( talk) 08:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Henry. How are you? Did you have a nice Summer? Tell all! -- Jack1755 ( talk) 13:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Henry I hope everything is well with you as you haven't edited for quite a long time. Your Dual Monarchy article still has not been completed. I hope you reconsider coming back to edit as we (Frania, GoodDay, David, Jack1755 and myself) miss you. Take care.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 09:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
It's been over a year since we last heard from you, Henry. I hope you are well. Do consider returning to Wikipedia!-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 16:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
File:Tour eiffel feu artifice.jpg
Bonne Année 2011 ! -- Frania W. ( talk) 22:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
This user may have left Wikipedia. HENRY V OF ENGLAND has not edited Wikipedia since 6 September 2009. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
Welcome!
Hello, HENRY V OF ENGLAND, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Rich
Farmbrough, 22:47 22 January 2009 (UTC).
Yes I saw your eloquent edit summary, however that information rightly belongs in the body of the article., I think title=King of France is appropriate for the infobox. Rich Farmbrough, 22:47 22 January 2009 (UTC).
I would suggest you discuss any other changes on the talk page of the article in question, if you think they need approval. Rich Farmbrough, 13:41 25 January 2009 (UTC).
I'm familiar with the Treaty of Troyes, but today Charles VII's reign is considered to have begun, upon his father death. Also, coronations don't necessarily mark the begining of reigns. GoodDay ( talk) 22:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
OK.I agree Charles reign begins in 1422.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 18:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear HENRY V OF ENGLAND: I accept your apology, although there is nothing you did against me, as all was done, or rather said, in jest on my part. I fell on the debate by chance & wiggled myself into the conversation. I simply could not resist! In case we bump into each other again, be sure to keep on your helmet! Also, please join Jeanne, Surtsicna, GoodDay & me in Reims for a glass of champagne! Cordialement! (Just brought my msg to you on your talk page for your records). FW
Frania W. ( talk) 23:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Hiya Henry. I assume that english, is not your first language. Your postings, tend to be difficult to read, at times. GoodDay ( talk) 23:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Your attempted changes to that article's Infobox, didn't work. Also, you should bring such ideas to the discussion, first. GoodDay ( talk) 17:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Charles shouldn't be pushed aside infavour of Henry. The navbox should show them as disputing claiments. GoodDay ( talk) 23:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
HENRY: Replying to the msg you left on my talk page: While there is nothing wrong in your way of thinking, what you are saying cannot be accepted in Wikipedia because the way you reach your conclusion is pure personal research. So, all you want to put in either boxes is what is accepted by historians. If you want to do your own research, go ahead, then write & publish a book that wiki editors can use as a reference. In the meantime, we should stay as concise as possible in the navboxes & accept GoodDay's wording with *disputed*, which is the truth. Yes, it was an interesting debate & I thank you for accepting the challenge. We fought fairly! Aurevoir!
Frania W. (
talk) 03:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Salutations. FW
Frania W. ( talk) 02:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
De jure and de facto are meaningless and unhelpful term in this case (and actually in most cases). Both Henry VI and Charles VIII had a legal claim to the throne and both factually controlled parts of the country. I disagree with what Frania said that the Treaty of Troyes was illegal and that Charles VI could not disinherit his son - of course he could. (And example from the Louis XIV era, when the monarchy had already degenerated) cannot be transported back. One is King by acceptance by the land, not by mere inheritance and not by mere treaty. That Charles VII takes a precedence over Henry VI is a historical convention due to the fact that he prevailed. Str1977 (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Speaking for the French side, I would & do disagree with Str1977 (sorry!): the king has no right to disinherit his son and, if he does, the disinherited son has every right to fight for his right, which is exactly what Charles VII did with the help of Jeanne d'Arc. And the throne of France was inherited from father to son (dauphin). French kings owed their throne thru divine right, not acceptance by the land. The crown was handed down from father to son & the people had no say in the matter: they accepted it as a fact. It took the French Revolution to upset the order of things. As for my using the example of Louis XIV, it was to show that no matter how powerful a king was or had been, an illegal act by him could be reversed, and the succession had to follow its legal course. C'est tout! In our little dispute over Charles vs Henry, we should be able to reach some type of consensus. Frania W. ( talk) 03:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S. to Henry: RE your note on my talk page, because I do not agree with you & wrote that I would reverse your changes does not mean that I am not your friend on the other side of the English Channel! We just happen to disagree. FW
Reganl means a monarchs years upon asscending to the throne.Henry asscended to the throne of france in 1422 thus he is a regnal soveriegn of france.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 16:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
p.s.learn your vocabulary.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 13:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) By adding Henry VI was crowned as Henry II of France, you have to have a note about Henry II of France (reigned 1547-59). GoodDay ( talk) 16:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Re your mail (I thought I told you not to send me mails?) but here is your answer: once you come up with a source that calls Henry (either V or VI) Dauphin, you can add. But I have never heard about such a title and I don't think any Henry of England was ever called Dauphin. Remember the Dauphin is not simply the heir to the French throne, he is the nominal ruler of the Dauphiné. Str1977 (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
After the Western Schism the Roman Catholic Church chose to retroactively recognize as Popes, the Roman line (and disqualify the Avignon & Pisan lines). During the Schism, it could be argued the Avignon & Pisan lines were just a legitimate. We should adopt the same idea for the French monarchs, as France has retroactively chosen to disqualify Henry VI of England as King of France. GoodDay ( talk) 16:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. I will begin with a little joke: Possibly the best thing about Henry V was that he spoke the French language fluently as did his courtieres, he married a French woman, and the House of Tudor that begins with her and the blood of Welshman Owen Tudor, starts a fine line of British monarchs with no English blood at all. Bravo! Smile! --- I begin with this little piece of « outrageous » history because each nation writes its own histories and has its own truths. - - - - I read three of the sources you posted earlier, but they are quite dubious and not reliable, I feel, because of their old date and authorship. The first, is from 1835 « The Chronological Historian » (actually, best of the three); 1867 « History of England for Young Students » (an English hagiography for little ones); and 1835 « Historical Pictures, England » (also for little ones). I could almost hear « God Save the Queen » playing in the background as I read the words. (smile!) I am sorry, but these are just not serious pieces of scholarship. These were written when English disdain for France was at its absolute peak, and Bonaparte was within living memory of all. Besides nationalism, most English historians had been heavily influenced by the plays of Shakespeare - and later Shaw - which are dramas inspired by history, rather than historical fact itself. - - - - On the other hand, the 2008 « The Contending Kingdoms » is more what I had in mind. (I did not read this earlier.) The author, Dr Richardson of the University of Surry, is a credible historian. (But, 52,25 pounds sterling for his slim 192 page book; Oh, my ! Thank you, Google Books !) The topic of the page where you directed me actually begins on page 25. The thesis of Dr Richardson hinges on the legitimacy of the Treaty of Troyes (which he feels is lawful, and most French authors do not); and his interpretation (objections, really) of the legitimacy of the (rightful) Dauphin (especially in this statement by Dr Richardson : « However, the tenure of this area not in French law a qualification or a prerequesite for kingship anymore than the holding of the principality of Wales, earldom of Chester, or duchy of Cornwall were pre-requesites for English kingship. », is mostly opinion, and does not hold-up under scrutiny. The fact is, every heir to the French crown after the annexation of Lyon did bear the title Dauphin. - - And, how Dr Richardson could compare the vast and wealthy Dauphiné region to little English Chester and impoverished Cornwall is another matter! Athough I need to corroborate this, I am fairly certain, both the population and wealth of Lyon and the Dauphiné exceeded that of England, itself.) - - Back to the Treaty of Troyes, the author's explanation of it and its ramifications are good on subsequent pages. The double-monarchy was, in theory, legitimized. But it was signed in weakness and fear by the French, who did not forget that they had seen Paris overrun by the Burgundians, were thankful of the tacit support of the English, which enabled the henchmen of Charles le Bien-Aimé to kill Jean sans Peur of Valois and Burgundy (« John the Fearless »), and no doubt felt that it was not beyond Henry V of England to kill Charles. I could write more, but this is not a good forum, and frankly, I know I cannot convince you because your ideas are so firmly set. Tomes have been written by wiser people than you and me who still disagree. - - - - - What I believe is important here is that Charles le Victorieux (« Charles VII ») was crowned in Rheims and continued to reign over two-thirds of France (central and south) from Bourges. The line of the House of Valois was unbroken. (He was, of course, succeeded by his brillant, machiavellian son, Louis le Prudent (« Louis XI »), among the greatest monarchs of French history.) - - - Lesser, but still important, the English suffered defeat after defeat as soon as nine years after the Treaty of Troyes, and were routed from Paris in 1436 and pushed back to Calais. England could not hold its land gains and did not have support of the French populace. - - - To end this, I stand by my original request: Please give me the name of a modern scholarly reference source that shows the « House of Lancaster » in the line of royal houses of France. The events surrounding the times of Henri VI are fascinating history, but to include him in a list of French monarch that is unsupported, in French or English, makes no sense here. Lists of French kings are common and appear in dozens of good texts. If you can identify one, I will concede. Charvex ( talk) 05:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Goodbye and thanks for the reply.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 00:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Henry, You deleted your last comment on my page with the explanation: *I deleted my comment as it against Civilty in WP*. I never considered not civil any of your comments to me or I would have personally told you. Although we do not agree & you have never succeeded in convincing me, I have always understood what you are/were trying to explain and have never felt that you were impolite toward me. Waving a friendly 'salut' from the other side of the Channel. FW
If it is properly sources and makes it clear that this was a legal concept brought up by some lawyers (just as the pertaining passage in the article about Lex salica) and was current for a very short time. But who should write it?
Hate to be a party pooper, but that article might be a candidate for deletion. GoodDay ( talk) 16:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
You do appear to know a certain amount about the Hundred Years War, but I suggest you would be better concentrating you efforts on improving that article, or possibly the biographies of some of the leading figures. PatGallacher ( talk) 21:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour Henry, What I wrote above was not a critical judgment of the article you just began, I was only telling you what I think you should or should not do for your article to be of Wikipedia standards so that it will not be deleted. While we are about half a dozen conversing here, there are "unseen" readers from both sides of the Channel who are quite knowledgeable on the subject & who will not hesitate to pounce on you at the least error.
Cordialement, Frania W. ( talk) 19:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
HENRY: I tried leaving a comment to you on Talk:The Dual-Monarchy of England and France, but for some reason, it does not show up. I tried leaving it here, but it does not show either. Hoping I'll have more luck there, I am going to try putting on my talk page. Frania W. ( talk) 22:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixed the problem. Here is my comment:
HENRY: Please be sure to give each source as you go on with the text by clicking on reference key right after you have written the word/phrase/sentence of which you want to give the source: when done correctly, references will automatically be shown at end of article. Since you are the one with the books, you are the only one who can do it. In fact, you should take the time to review what you have already done & put in the needed references before you continue, as the list of books at the end of each section is of no help without the precise relation to what is already written. Within the text as you see it when you edit the article, I have put hidden comments & also *reference needed* where some of the references should go. Also be sure that you are not copying whole or parts of sentences from book as this is "plagiat": everything has to be sourced, and anything taken verbatim from an author must be put between quotemarks & sourced. (If you make a couple of spelling errors (who knows?) someone might come around with a broom & sweep them out...) Cordialement, Frania W. ( talk) 22:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Henry: You are at work adding publishing houses & page numbers in your references; however, these references need to be *tied* where they are related to the text, because when there is the title of a book & pp. 2, 3, 5, 21 etc. at the end of a section, we still do not know where in your text these pages are referring. You must go back to your text & match it with your sources: that's where you must link with the reference (Reference & Reflist) which will put your source at the end of the article with a small blue number that will appear on the text itself. (Oh, la la! my English is getting muddled!). I again suggest that you do not add anything to your text as long as this problem has not been addressed, otherwise, you will drown trying to fix it afterwards. When you continue, you will add the references as you go on; by then, you should have got the hang of it. If you do not know how to do this, let me know a certain place where you know a reference should go & give me the title of book with particular page, I will try to do it for you (I am sure more will step in to help you.) This should enable you to check the way it should be done by going into the working/editing part of the text & do exactly as you see it.
Adding a new section before all this is cleared will be of no help as the *wiki-invisibles* will openly come after you. It is not the length of your article that will save it; in fact, it may be exactly the opposite: it is the form & the quality. You need to follow a plan, have an introduction that tells the reader what to expect; then the meat of the subject divided into sections: the family ties between the royals of France of England, the Treaty of Troyes, the Salic law, the death of Henry V of England & Charles VI of France, the arrival upon the scene of the baby king of England vs Charles VII of France; the crowning of one in Reims & of the other in Paris, the relationship with the French people. Those are the events you must develop, not bows, arrows & canon balls. What needs to be known but is second or third step from article should only be blue-linked, otherwise you fall into off subjects. As it stands, the article is already quite long but, aside from the title that speaks of a dual monarchy, the subject has not yet been touched upon. There is too much *background* going too far back into the past. It would be much better to start from a stub with outline & go from there.
Bonne chance! Frania W. ( talk) 03:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Henry, I do not agree with the changes you brought to the lead of the article as it had been set up by Jeanne. It was perfect!
I am bringing this comment to Jeann's page since the two of you were discussing this very point.
Frania W. ( talk) 17:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Henry, please revert to what Jeanne had done & do not touch her edits. When the article is finished, then we can read thru it again & bring changes here & there, if necessary. Most important right now is to build the article, not start the Hundred Years War all over again. Frania W. ( talk) 18:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Henry!!! Revert the lead as it was at Jeanne's last edit, p l e a s e. You are putting too much into it & confusing matters. If not, I am going to start praying for you to be en panne d'ordinateur = for your computer to break down!!! Frania W. ( talk) 21:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Remember HENRY. Once you create an article on Wikipedia, it can be edited by others. Ya gotta be careful of violating OWNERSHIP. -- GoodDay ( talk) 14:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! -- SineBot ( talk) 19:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Bringing this to your talk page:
HENRY: I went thru the section The French Realm in Dual-Monarchy article & also left a comment at article's talk page. Please read my 15:18 8 May 2009 revision where it says: typos + request for references + hidden comments.
As for your question of the royal House Henry VI of England belongs to, I will not advance an answer to this, all I can agree with is his ancestry reaching all the way up to Saint Louis, which does not mean that he has a double whammy in his favour to the throne of France. Again, viewed from the side of the French, Salic law & the doubts as to the validity of the Treaty of Troyes are/were enough keep him from the throne of France. Being a descendant of Saint Louis does not give him a right over the Dauphin of France who is also a descendant of Saint Louis. He can be a descendant of Saint Louis & not be able to claim the throne of his illustrious ancestor just because of the fact that his claim is thru his mother. And the fact that the Dauphin was disinherited because he was behind some guy's murder has me smile: read the history of England & count the many who became kings after murdering their rival!
Cordialement... even though the two of us will never agree! Frania W. ( talk) 18:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello Frania and Jeanne
http://books.google.com/books?id=Qv9PlGCLy4YC&pg=PA235&dq=the+legality+of+the+treaty+of+troyes
This book provides the legality of the Treaty of Troyes and the legal dissinheritence of the dauphin.It also explains the legaliy of the treaty against salic Law.As fot your statement on henry IV,RICHARD II was removed in 1399 by an act of parliament before he was murderd and when Henry IV succeded then did he order the act of assasination.You must reliase that most of the legality to Charles dissinheritence was outside the treaty.Frania and Jeanne it all ends here if Charles was CONNFIRMED as incapable of succestion because of bieng guilty of lese-majesty and was further confirmed by a sentence at a formal lit de justice in 1421 how can Henry VI(Henri II of France) NOT be the legitimate king.This is why the treaty has been commonly misunderstood because French historions refuse to look at the later charges to Charles.Treaty or no Treaty Charles was incapable of succestion either way.As for what you people call Salic Law which is an ILlegal law.Read the terms of the treaty proparly dont just start making up your own terms.Henry V was adopted by Charles VI therefore making him his son.Strictyly by now there would be no absolute contridiction with Salic Law therefore Henry was capable of succeding as any of Charles sons although the actual text of Adopted-son was never used in the term it was explained.The Heir-Apparent was legaly confirmed as incapable of succestion by a lit-de justice so Charles VI next son(adopted) as legitimate Heir was Henry V.Henrys adoption is further enhanced in the treaty that Bravia and Charles be addresed as Father and Mother to Henry.Further more that gives Henry the legitimacy to adopt the title "Heir of France".Henry V also married Catherine which also made Henry,Charles son-in law.In order for the treaty to be confirmed legal there has to be ratification.As such,Both parties ratified the treaty in 1420.Most of the French arguements by now are overthrown.If Henry was just made heir with no reference to claim and without bieng enchanced then it would have been illegal and thus Charles can be accused of allienating the throne and treating the Kingdom as private land.Louis was incapable of succeding because he didnt profess his claim and was checked in England and to add he didnt have any title like heir prempusitive or apparent to the throne of France like Bedford therefore he wasnt strictly or legaly bound in the line of succestion to inherit.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 02:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear Henry!!! Oh! la! la! What's happening to your sense of humour? Did not you understand the joke ??? FW
Could be at the following:
Better not tell GoodDay!
Frania W. ( talk) 18:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello Frania how do you answer a ciatation since you asked for it on the article of the dual monarchy.If so,how do I link it to reference.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 19:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello Frania.I get the majority of my information from a couple of books I have at home.I finished them ages ago but I learned basiicly all the vivid campaigns from Griffith R.A Henry VI but I rarely needed to look back for to confirm it because I already learned most of the campaigns from the book,Wikepedia and other internet Enclodopedias.For the legality and/or the legality of the treaty,I used many sources to back my statement so I wouldnt be wrong in what I say.Do I give sources of every single book I researched or just maybe 2 or 3.I also researched the french arguements in a book called the Congrass of Arras.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 23:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Frania is this example correct:
Vive le France [1]
This is just a made up one.
-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 00:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Wait.Really important question Frania.Off course an adopted son is annowledged in the succestion to the throne.Am I right in this or would the fact of alienating the throne still be beased in principle.I think it is possible for a Bastard son of the king to succeded if he was anknowledged by the king to be his legitimate son from his wife.In fact many times kings got away of bieng bastards and still inheriting.Jochi the eldest son of Ghengis Khan who was also claimed to be a Bastard by his own father still inherited the West of Mongol conquests.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 23:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
HENRY: You left this on my talk page:
What do you mean???
Do you mean the reply about the citation? I answered you
up above in the Citation section.
Frania W. ( talk) 23:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
HENRY: Why did you blank out the page??? Frania W. ( talk) 04:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
To the question on where to find the original of the Treaty of Troyes, this is the answer I recd from the CALAMES search group: Bonjour, En effectuant sur le catalogue Calames la recherche suivante: "Traité de Troyes", on obtient parmi les résultats l'intitulé suivant: "Traicté de Troyes, du mariage de madame Catherine de France, fille du roy Charles VI, et Henry d'Angleterre. 1420". Il s'agit de cet original, que vous trouverez à la bibliothèque de l'Institut de France. Pour connaître les modalités de consultation, vous pouvez prendre contact avec: Institut de France. Bibliothèque 23 quai de Conti 75006 Paris tél. 01 44 41 44 10 bibliotheque@bif.univ-paris5.fr Cordialement, la cellule assistance. Cordialement, Frania W. ( talk) 19:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
As you can tell by my recent reverts of some of your edits, I'm growing concerned HENRY. GoodDay ( talk) 15:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello.Will I just end the disscution on the hundred years war.This does not mean I am wrong as I expalined above.I am just getting tired of this.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 15:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I promise I will never edit Henry VI as Henri II of France.I guess I did push it too far.I apoligize Frania.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 16:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
OK.Last thing I swear to God.I reverted you on the queen mother page.I gave reference yo her bieng queen mother of france and anyway that is what it says in her article.Ok as you said back to the dual monarchy article unless I want to be sunk to the sea evertime I try to cross the channel.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! -- SineBot ( talk) 15:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hiya HENRY. Why did you delete my May 25th posting on that article talkpage? GoodDay ( talk) 19:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Would you restore it, please? GoodDay ( talk) 19:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello Frania.Should I mention a great deal on joan of arc on the dual monarchy article or will I just leave it as it is with the same intro to the french revival-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 01:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Frania.If you still happen to remeber the posts concerning numbering of the french regnal template you mentioned Henri V of France saying "Paris is worthe a mass".But this is wrong it was to do with the french religious wars when by salic law Henri IV of Naverra was the legitimate heir to Henri III of France.Henri IV was removed from succestion previuosly by the treaty of Netmours since he was a calvinist or a hugenout(followers of John Cavin and preched by John Knox).By the proccess Charles cardinal of bourbon was made heir and he was the brother to Henri I prince of conde.The house of guise and the catholic leauge kept the king in check and on the 12th of May 1588 the parisans setted up barricades on the streets of paris and the cul de sac were willing to save the duke of guise away from the hostility of the king Henri III(or Henri IV since I recognize Henry VI as king of France) and so the king fled and joined up with his cousin Henry of Naverra(Henri IV of France).Henri III called for the Estates-General to Blois.The duke of guise Henri I and his Brother cardinal of guise Louis II were asked to meet the king in his private chamber where they were previously awaiting in the council chamber.The gaursdmen seized the duke and stabbed him in the heart and arrested his brother whom was later to die from the pikes of his escorts,to add the dukes son was also arrested in order for that there will be no contender to the french crown.Henri IV by the way was exumenicated by Sixtus V but converted to cathlisim by force when he was in paris earlier on.The duke of guise was highly famed publicly and so the parliament of paris declared war openly against the king and charged him with personal crimes.The duke of Mayenna whom was the younger brother of the duke of guise became leader of the catholic leauge.He declared publicly that a public citizen was free to commit regicide against the the soveriegn Henri III.A dominican friar in 1589 drove a long knife into the kings spleen when seeking an audience with him.On Henri III 's deahbed he pleaded in the name of statecraft(public administration),that he should take throne.The only contest was now between Henri IV and the catholic leauge supported by Philip II and pope Greogery VIII .It was basicly an approxy war between Elizibith I and Philip II.At the battle of Arques Henri deliverd a crushing defeat against Murremncy and swept Normandy and won the battle of Ivery in 1450 letting him besiege Paris.The siege was broken off by spanish troops.The same thing happend at the siege of Roen.Paris refused to allow a calvin to be there king.He later converted to Catholisicm and said the famous speech that "Paris is well worth a Mass" not Henry V who came much later.Just to add it is in fact not a constitutional tradition that corinations must take place at Rheims(although this is seriously reccomended if it is avaliable).Here we can see another matter of a french king bieng crowned other then in Rheims.My point bieng said when in 1594 Henri IV was crowned king of France NOT in Rheims BUT in CHARTERS.The reason bieng the same thing as Henry VI,it was under foriegn authority in this case the catholic leauge.Even when Henri IV regained the city he wasnt obliged to have another corination was he?The answer is No so a french corination outside Rheims is perfectly fine.Probably the Greatest French Corination was Henri VI of England and France at Paris in 1431.I am not biased but I am correct to this,Although the corination came to naught in prcatice its extravegence,ceremony prompt and feast was the greatest in french history.Here is the main reference 1.Read from page pp206-pp217. http://books.google.ie/books?id=_Cc9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA231&dq=Henry+VI+french+coronation:Music+of+Paris&lr=#PPA206,M1 Goodbye Frania.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 03:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Frania lol I am still puzzeled why you said Henri V of France said "Paris is worth a mass" when Henry IV of France and Naverra said that when he converted in order to secure Paris.Again thanks Frania.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 18:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Away from Wikipedia today because of D-Day - the most glorious day the French (in particular) should never forget. Taps... Frania Frania W. ( talk) 11:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank You Henry, sorry I really didn't know what I was talking about and I didn't realise that there was so many references for it. It believe you now!--Daaviiid 10:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Away from Wikipedia today because of D-Day - the most glorious day the French (in particular) should never forget. Taps... Frania Frania W. ( talk) 11:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Franai.I have a question concerning World War I.Is it right to say that the warefare in world war I the same as the warefare in the late 19th century like in the Boer War or Crimien War since there is absolutely no simmilary in warefare with war II.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 19:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Frania.What other time period do you like or wanting to disscuss.(Just to test our Knowledge not a competition..... or is it???)Goodbye Frania.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 21:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you alright Henry? We haven't heard from you in a few days.-- David ( talk) 15:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I've been work with Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy, creating a page for the Duchesses, Electresses and Queens of Bavaria. It is rather hard using a wikitable. -- David ( talk) 15:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
All of them, it's a list, though there was only a few of them, there was more Duchesses and Electresses-- David ( talk) 16:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Frania do you think the corination section makes sence.I am changing some words.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 12:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, HENRY V OF ENGLAND. I saw your question on Jeanne boleyn's talk page and thought I may be able to help. Hope you don't mind. You are quite welcome to ignore this if you wish. In line citations are also known as references. I think it's fair to say that references are not that easy to provide in an article, even when you have them. They are, at best, bloody awkward. I have used this fairly recently: Wikipedia:Citation templates. In reality though. I usually just copy a reference I've used before as a template. For example - a book reference:
<ref name="Gwynfor"> {{cite book |last=Evans |first=Gwynfor |authorlink =Gwynfor Evans |title=The Fight for Welsh Freedom |publisher=Y Lolfa Cyf |year=2000 |location=Talybont |isbn=0-86243-515-3 |pages=7}}</ref>
appears in the article like this: [2]
Or a web based reference:
<ref name="Parc 1">{{cite web |title=Parc-le-Breos |url=http://www.parc-le-breos.co.uk/index.htm |accessdate=2008-11-06 |publisher=Parc-le-Breos |year=2008 |work=Parc-le-Breos website }}</ref>
appears in the article like this: [3]
If you use a "ref name", once all the details are entered you only have to note the "ref name" for subsequent citations of the same work, you just have to remember to insert the / before the final >
<ref name="Parc 1"/>
like this. [3] If you are creating a new article you'll need to format the reference section like this:
== References == {{reflist|colwidth=30em}}
which will show up at the bottom of the page, after all your other text.
NB. I've created a references section at the bottom of your page, so you can see how they appear. Let me know when you've read it and I'll delete it.
Hope that helps. If you have any questions please ask. Cheers, Daicaregos ( talk) 17:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Frania.I know this guy here was imprisioned from 1792-1795 when the commistioners arived at the temple prision and went to the apartment for orders of seperating the fills-de-france Louis from the rest of his family.He started crying uncontrolably when he was seperated from his mother Maria-ANNIONETE and his sister marie theraise was also taken to solidtry confinement.He was in the care of Mademe de Rabaud and was given a republican education by Antoine Simon and proclaimed by the royalists in favour of the dynamic line as Louis XVII(off course in pretence).What I Dont get is the actual difference between prince du royal and the title dauphine or are they the same?I thought of asking you since you are an expert on these things.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 17:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Bringing discussion with Henry on his talk page:
Sorry Frania,I never knew there was an actual French political movement to have him viewed as Symbol for abused children.I knew the horrible things Antoine Simon did to him like making him sing le Mairlesailes while drunk.sleeping with prostitutes in which he contracted disiease from,Simon Antoine also taught him to curse and be rude and was in fact given a poor republic education.Again sorry I hadent a clue you were very sensitive on this matter.Apoligies.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 19:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
needs references given within text. Frania W. ( talk) 17:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I was born in Cork city, and I still live there.( Jack1755 ( talk) 22:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC))
P.S. Are you intrested in the Irish revolotion with Wolf Tone,the American Revelotion or The French Revolotion. C'YA.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND
Hmm .. I'm not too sure. I guess I watch the Fox News Channel alot. wbu ? ( Jack1755 ( talk) 16:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC))
I'm working on fixing my botched edits. I see you are working on the Dual Monarchy of England and France. How is that going ? U got msn ? ( Jack1755 ( talk) 21:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC))
Hey, How are you ?? ( Jack1755 ( talk) 03:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC))
HENRY, was this a statement or a question? FW
HENRY V OF ENGLAND: Should I ever lose my merry *atituide*, the mere sight of *ye olde Englische* would revive it. Have you finished the Dual-Monarchy or are we going to have to put you on the grill to get it done? Frania W. ( talk) 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey Frania lets have another disscution on some french kings.lol.I thnk that tag on Louis XVIII article regarding it as confusing should be deleted.It is a bit but not that much.Goodbye-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 17:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes Frania I agree Henry VI was King of France lol(Just Jokin but really Henry was King of France)--
HENRY V OF ENGLAND (
talk) 16:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll never except Harry as a King of France. GoodDay ( talk) 23:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll never, never except Henry VI of England as having been King of France. GoodDay ( talk) 19:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't have (nor do I intend to dig up) the historians who oppose Louis XIX & Henry V's claims as King of France. But trust me, there are such historians. GoodDay ( talk) 20:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Frania.Is Louis Phillipa I Duke of Orleans King of France a usurper.The legitimists under the duke of Chambond or Henry V of France was recognized by some loyalists and ruled for 7 days.The succestion went from the Comte'd Artois(Charles X) abdicaited in 1824 in favour of his son Louis-Antoine Duke of Angoulemia(Louis XIX) whom ruled for 20 mins and so it went To Louis-Antoine's nephew Henri duke of Chambond or Henry V.How did Louise Phillipa I prince du sang(Orleoans) take the throne.Or did the Chambers ratify the succestion of Louis Phillipa I Duke of Orleons SOMEHOW? Henry V should be given a template in the French Monarchs List Like Le Roi Henry VI of England since he had de facto soveriegnty for 7 days.Thats much better Then his uncle's rule for 20 mins which could hardly be described as a de facto rule.Hello Frania-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 06:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Frania?????-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 14:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Frania.I have to semi-retire today since I am going on Holidays tommorow.I wont be active as much.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 16:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you going anywhere nice Henry, I'll be off on holiday soon but I'm only going to Yorkshire. Goodbye for now-- David ( talk) 17:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Bye Henry! Have a great vacation. Hope to see you again soon ( Jack1755 ( talk) 17:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC))
On your question on archer numbers, I'd float in on the talk page. In an army of 6-8000, 500 probably a touch on the low side but with this level of inaccuracy on numbers who knows? I'd float it on the article talk page, as I know that the army numbers figures on the info box are quite tightly monitored and you might get a straight revert. Best wishes Monstrelet ( talk) 09:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
As Barbour's Chronicle is dated 1375, he couldn't have been at the battle himself. It is recognised he used probably eye witness accounts in lost sources, though (e.g. A life of Robert I produced perhaps in the 1330's). On archers, the fullest account is the Lanercost Chronicle, which has a shoot out between the English and Scots archers - the Scots lose and fall back. Chris Brown's Bannockburn reprints the main sources, if you want to follow it up. Monstrelet ( talk) 12:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the links - I do have a copy of it - I think Pete Armstrong talks good sense on Scots military topics (hence my encouragement to in-line cite him on the archer numbers question). Monstrelet ( talk) 16:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Henry we haven't heard from you in a while. Are you still on your holiday? Get in touch soon, I have a little problem with another one of these medieval women and I need your help. Thanks-- David ( talk) 16:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Henry. I undestand your opinions and I respect your sources, but the problem is that these are English sources, and they are completely different from French sources (and quite different from the sources of third-party countries). The French position is that the king of France received his power by God (Deo gratia), so neither the king could change what God had stated. The thesis of the adoption is absurde: even if we would not consider the fact that there are no adoption of sons by the kings during all French history (we are not speaking about the Roman Empire!), you know that hereditary European monarchies had a patrimonialistic conception of their States: if you are adopted by a man, it means that or your natural father is dead, or that he lost his patria potestas: in every case, you cannot have two fathers, and you can't inheredite from two fathers, because this fact isn't accepted in (Christian) European culture. If Henry would have become the legal king of France, this fact would mean that he had lost the Kingdom of England, fact that is evidently absurde.
Generally speaking, the problem is that wikipedia must mantain an international vision of facts. We have an English position, we have a French position (generally accepted worldwide, but we can also forget this fact), we must show both two, without chosing. We can't hide the fact that there was an incoronation of a king of France in Paris, we can't forget that this incoronation is in contrast with all the rest of the hereditary history of the French throne (remember that, differently from the "livened" history of England, in France there is a regular male inhereditance of the throne from 987 to 1830, without exceptions, so much that Louis XVIII took that numeral because he considered decided by God the throne of Louis XVII). We are not judges, we must only give more informations as possible. :-) -- Cusio ( talk) 13:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Please go to French monarchs talkpage for my reply.Thank You very much.--
HENRY V OF ENGLAND (
talk) 13:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok! -- Cusio ( talk) 14:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello Henry welcome back to wikipedia, have you been doing anything nice over the holidays?-- David ( talk) 19:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm good, just I'm back at school and it is sort of boring, though it is my birthday next friday so that is something to look forward to-- David ( talk) 08:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Henry. How are you? Did you have a nice Summer? Tell all! -- Jack1755 ( talk) 13:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Henry I hope everything is well with you as you haven't edited for quite a long time. Your Dual Monarchy article still has not been completed. I hope you reconsider coming back to edit as we (Frania, GoodDay, David, Jack1755 and myself) miss you. Take care.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 09:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
It's been over a year since we last heard from you, Henry. I hope you are well. Do consider returning to Wikipedia!-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 16:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
File:Tour eiffel feu artifice.jpg
Bonne Année 2011 ! -- Frania W. ( talk) 22:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)