Talk:Henry I of England

Charter of Liberties

To omit mention of King Henry's landmark "Charter of Liberties" of 1100 is absurd. It's the forerunner to, and almost as important as, the Magna Carta. It promises justice and lawfulness to all, and is a seminal moment in human legal history. KyZan (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)KyZan

There is a lot of academic work on this, but I don't think it supports that position. Worth reading through Hollister's or Green's analysis of the charter; the references and page numbers are cited in the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

Loren - I have revert your correction as regards Richard and William. I agree that the evidence for Richard is very slender ( it pretty much consists of a reference to Richard, the son of Queen Matilda, in her will) but it is there. The slenderness of his existance is noted in the article. Arno 07:35, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC) There is a factual discrepancy between this article and White Ship: this article describes Richard as legitimate while the other says the opposite. I don't know which one is correct, so I don't think I should change it myself. - rsutphin 00:50, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article to remove the contradiction. Thanks for pointing it out. Arno 05:16, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

William of Malmesbury frankly states that Richard (who drowned on the White Ship) was born to King Henry before his marriage, the son of a woman of low birth. The only reference to a legitimate son named Richard is from Gervase of Canterbury, an early but not contemporary chronicler. Gervase describes the births of Empress Maud and William Adelin, then writes "Alium quoque habuit filium Ricardum, et cessavit parere" (Another son, Richard, was had, and then no more [children]). If this son Richard existed, then he must've died in infancy. Hermann of Tournai says King Henry had "duos filios et unam filiam genuit" (Two sons and one daughter were born to him) but this is probably a mistake for Henry's illegitimate son Richard. Hermann of Tournai is so error-prone it's hard to accept anything he says. Missi 08:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--- I've written parts of the article to smooth out some of the paragraphs, specifically to put things in a more orderly time sequence. I also included:

• a boldface Beauclerk and a mentioning origin of term
• brief synopsis of major accomplishments of his reign in opening paragraph
• discussion of how William divided up his kingdom, leading to eventual succession issues.
• mentioning of Charter of Liberties (arguably most important thing in his reign)
• mentioning of Treaty of Alton
• clarification of events leading up to Battle of Tinchebray
• clarification of succession issues with Mathilda and Stephen
• inclusion of references and external sites

I think there's a lot more to be done and fleshed out. I didn't touch the paragraphs about his marriages and children. I am not at all sure about that "holding the record for illegitimate children." I would like to see a source on that. I also avoided the verb "usurp" (which I think was in the article previously) which although is probably technically true, has a perjorative ring about it, especially considering that up through Anglo-Saxon times, the designation of an heir by an existing king still had to be ratified by the witan. The article as it stands is basically a discussion of how he achieved the throne and kept it, and well as the mess of passing it on to an heir. I'm planning in the near future to expand the section on his governmental reforms, which I think are the most important features of his reign. Most of the material I've added is from Cross' history, which is nice and detailed. Decumanus 04:49, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC) I've been using Alison Weir's researches on the matter of Henry's illegitimate children , Decumanus. I daresay a google search will come up with something as well. Also, what word would you use in place of usurp? Henry didn't exactly acquire the throne by anyone's agreement. Arno 05:05, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC) Further to this, your factual additions are certainly appreciated. But why the occasional use of bold type for Henry's name. Also , isn't beauclerc spelt with a c? Arno 05:09, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC) Allison Weir. I just looked the name up. The feminist writer? It sounds interesting. Boldface--well I've been evolving a wiki style. I'm perfectly willing to remove that. As far the spelling of Beaucler(c/k), I am perhaps in error about that.Decumanus 05:12, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• The Royal Bastards of Medieval England, Chris Given-Wilson and Alice Curteis, 1984, Chapter 4, "Henry I's Bastards", p. 60: "He fathered, by various mistresses, at least twenty royal bastards, more than any other king in English history." The Complete Peerage, vol. XI, Appendix D, is devoted to Henry's bastards, listing 20-21 of them. These are also shown in Walter Lee Sheppard, Jr., ?Royal Bye-Blows: The Illegitimate Children of the English Kings from William I to Edward III,? New England Historical and Genealogical Register, vol. 119, April 1965, pp. 94-102. - Binky 05:16, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
• Now that's a darn good quote. Decumanus 05:18, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The Weir reference is Weir, Alison, "Britain's Royal Families" (1996 Edition), Random House:London. The Henry I stuff on his offspring, both legitimate and illegitimate, comes from pages 47-50 of that volume. The bibliography includes the first two books listed above by Binky. Arno 07:35, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Further to bolding - I've taken the liberty of taking it out. No offence, but the bolding that you've used is not used elsewhere and it look plain untidy. I've also removed some unnecessary links - you should ideally only have one link to a related article. HOWEVER - please do not let this prevent you from adding more to this article as stated above. You have made a good start. Arno 07:45, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hello, I am new to the wikipedia thing and was doing research on female rulership in the early middle ages and had this question:

Is there a reference as to what inspired Henry II to recall his daughter Maud, the dowager Empress of Holy Roman Empire, and install her as his single legitimate heir over other male canidates? As far as I can see, with the exception of a few Spanish Visgothic kingdoms there was no precident for designnating a female heir to rule as Queen Regnant in her own right. Eleanor of Aquataine is the next closest example and her father willed her the succession with an independant duchy. But this would not be for a few years yet.

This seems to be a huge problem with the article. It reads "and his controversial (although well-founded) decision to name his daughter as his heir." Neither Norman nor English law/custom allowed female succession so what's well founded about itAlci12 10:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I finally managed to find the description of Henry from William of Malmesbury. I confess I love the rare snippets of what medieval people looked like, how they dressed, etc. Both Henry and his brother William Rufus seem to have had a similar body type -- thickset and muscular, though William Rufus is blond while Henry is dark-haired. I don't suppose if anyone knows of a reference to what Robert Curthose looked like? Missi I believe Robert Curthose was short and fat with dark hair, like Henry. I will add this into the Robert Curthose article. User: Dark Lord of the Sith Revan

First Sentence

There's something wrong with the first sentence of this article, but I'm unsure what it's meant to say: "..was the fourth son of William I the Conqueror [of?] the first England"

Birthdate

The article notes that Henry was born between two dates. I assume this is because the only mention is in passing, ie, he was mentioned to be alive at some date after this? Or is it that two different dates are given in texts? I am curious as to the source of this "range" and think that it might be worth a footnote Maury 12:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

See Warren Hollister's Henry I for a full examination of Henry's possible birthdate. Let's see if I can briefly summarize the evidence, with my copy a thousand miles away. The chroniclers report that Henry was born "within a year" of King William and Queen Matilda's crowning on Christmas 1066. This means he could've been born anytime between January 1066-January 1068. Missi 07:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

TINCHEBRAY- I've just read the Wikipedia page on the Battle of Tinchbray and I think someone should strike it off completely. To begin with, there's no castle on a hill at Tinchebray, the land is flat and cut with small valleys, 2) it was a running battle which lasted all day, 3)if you don't like my version take a trip there and see for yourself.

A number of souurces have him being born in September 1068. - JackofOz (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Imperial measures

Weren't units of measurement such as the yard, foot and so on first standardised by Henry I? Surely this is an important part of his legacy.

Unorthodox Monitary Policy

Henry I is the English King cited as the initiator of the "talley-stick" system in locations such as [1], but I can't seem to find any references that such as that which cite their sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AltiusBimm (talk • contribs) 05:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I get better results searching for "tally stick" (without the 'e') (or more precisely for "tally stick Henry I"). Try searching in google books or google scholar. I found a number of mentions of its use in Henry I's reign, but nothing that says it was an innovation, though I just skimmed a few of the search results. See for example in William Stubbs's classic The Constitutional History of England in Its Origin and Development, vol. 1 p. 429. Loren Rosen 06:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In looking through various book search results including The Constitutional History of England in Its Origin and Development, I don't seem to find references to tally sticks being used as money, but rather a form of record-keeping. That strikes me as having the possibility of being similar to how a LETSystem might be misunderstood as being not a form of money (in its "secondary commodity" sense). (E.g., see Number Words and Number Symbols: A Cultural History of Numbers 1992 by Karl Menninger, page 239.)—AltiusBimm (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Googling in 2010, there seem to be a number of sites heavily into the idea that tally-sticks were a way for the mediaeval English monarchy/state to go on its way unbeholden to 'the money-lenders' or 'the money-changers' - who I think one should understand to be Not Like Us - and that the modern US should do likewise. The account of the later development of tally sticks and their supposed successful funding of the British Empire is off-topic and of a piece with such polemic. Within topic, I can't see anything to support the proposition that in the reign of Henry I the tally stick was introduced, used as currency, or used to pay taxes, rather than record the farm of them being paid. If there is evidence that 'ironically' Henry introduced the tally-stick system as a means of printing his own money, rather than having to borrow from "International Capital"- if you catch my drift - then it should be cited. Failing some supporting evidence, the relevant article paragraph should be deleted Rjccumbria (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Henry's Legitimate Children

Noticing that my edits as to Henry's legitimate children were recently reverted (I have now re-reverted the information), I would like to state my sources for this information:

Britain's Royal Families, the Complete Genealogy, by Alison Weir (Pimlico, 2002) Kings and Queens of Britain, by David Williamson (Guild Publishing, London, 1986)

James David Harris (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Robert Curthose

I've never read anywhere that Henry had his brother Robert blinded. This definitely needs corroboration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.102.212 (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Henry agreed to pay Robert 3,000 marks after Robert invaded England upon his return from the First Crusade. However, this payment was discontinued after the two met in 1103. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.70.54.73 (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

First Post Norman Conquest King?

This is just a query about the statement in this article that relates, Henry I is the first king following the Norman Conquest of 1066. However, it was of my understanding that William Rufus, or William II, the third son of William the Conquerer, reigned prior to him--from 1087-1100.

That's right Pink Floyd 1966 (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

First Post Norman Conquest King?

This is just a query about the statement in this article that relates, Henry I is the first king following the Norman Conquest of 1066. However, it was of my understanding that William Rufus, or William II, the third son of William the Conquerer, reigned prior to him--from 1087-1100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.17.187 (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

First sentence suggestion

I think it should read:

Henry I (c. 1068/1069 – 1 December 1135) was the fourth son of William I the Conqueror, the first King of England born after the Norman Conquest of 1066

William I was the first King of England after the Norman Conquest of 1066. MartianBeerPig (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Surfeit of lampreys

The article notes Henry's death resulting from a "surfeit of lampreys". Could someone please tell me where this phrase originates? It's firmly ingrained in the English language in relation to this particular king; this wiki page is Google's first result on the phrase and if my memory serves me correctly it's included in "1066 And All That".

I note that the page on lampreys references a Time article when it used the phrase, but even that article merely provides an unsourced footnote. If there is a historical source, I would be keen to know it, and it may also be worthy of inclusion in the article. Worldbeing (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The overeating of lampreys comes from Henry of Huntingdon in his History of the English People (p. 64 in Greenway's translation). The translation I use doesn't have the exact phrase in it though. It should be noted that O,,,,,,,rderic Vitalis and William of Malmesbury do not say anything about lampreys. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The entry for Henry I in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, by C. Warren Hollister (who is also the author of two other works cited multiple times in this article), says that Henry "fell mortally ill on about 25 November after feasting on lampreys—a delicacy that his physician had forbidden him. The legend that Henry died of ‘a surfeit of lampreys’ has no basis in the historical record. It was not that he ate too many lampreys, but that his physician had advised him not to eat any at all." I have edited the article to this effect and added a citation to Hollister's ODNB article, but my Wikipedia skills (and spare time) are not up to the task of getting the Hollister ODNB article properly included in the Bibliography and referencing it with a tidy keyphrase. If someone else would like to do this, please go ahead! The DOI for the Hollister article is doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/12948. The online Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is subscription-only, but free to users of many public libraries and educational institutions; for instance, a free New York Public Library card gets you full online access to it from any computer. pnh (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Check out Hollister's footnote, though, in his main work on Henry on p.468, where he notes that "Henry of Huntingdon is the first to mention the famous 'surfeit of lamphreys'", although Hollister does note that this is from a single source and implies doubt about Henry's account. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not like Henry of Huntingdon is writing long after Henry's death - HH died around 1157 or so. I think the original wording is fine - it doesn't take HH's word as gospel but neither does it leave the story out, as the story has very wide currency. And if he had been told not to eat lampreys, surely eating any would have been "too many". Green's biography also mentions the story on page 6, as an aside. Barlow Feudal Kingdom of England p. 200 (4th ed.) says "... he [Henry I] died on 1 December in the forest of Lyons, not far from the battle field of Bremule, having feasted too well on lampreys after a hard day's hunting." Ealdgyth - Talk 13:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

New file File:King Henry I from NPG.jpg

Recently the file File:King Henry I from NPG.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 11:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually really annoyed by this picture since it is not a genuine portrait of Henry I - the first English King to have a portrait was Richard II who ruled in the 14th century. My late grandfather acquired a book of cigarette cards depicting English Kings many years ago. This looks like one of those pictures. Obviously the manufacturers had to commission artists to make up pictures of early Kings like Henry I that did not have portraits. I really do despair of W'pedia. This is not a genuine portrait of this King, so in the interests of historical accuracy it should be removed! The same applies to many other so-called portraits of early English kings appearing in W'pedia. Johnpretty010 (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Bibliographic niggle

Re the source cited as

Green, Judith A. "Henry I, King of England and Duke of Normandy" Cambridge University Press 2008:

The British Library catalogue at http://catalogue.bl.uk/F/KPSXLFYBGXKHH45MF45ICVRBRUY23DDQJNKEKNUUD2TRUU45MP-39721?f only lists the 2006 edition that I have just cited in referring to the 'blinding' (or not) of Robert Curthose.

MacAuslan (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

WorldCat shows two editions. Go ahead and correct the bottom to 2006, if that is the edition you're using. I do not yet have access to this work, so can't check it. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Tally sticks

I am certainly no expert, but I can't seem to find any reliable source supporting the claim that tally sticks were a "monetary system." It seems to me that it was rather a system of reckoning -- a proof of payment, or receipt. If someone can provide me with any more information on the tally stick system, I would be grateful. (For the time, I've put a citation tag next to the paragraph on tally sticks.) -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I would also make note that the original editor added some rather ominous mentions of the "Bank of England", which are not verified and feature no source. Considering the frequency with which Henry I is brought up in the context of monetary conspiracy theories, I think a re-write for this section may be needed. This edit should either provide legitimate historical sources that tie the Bank of England with the tally sticks or skips out of the ominous mentions if none can be provided. 68.222.51.30 (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

After doing some research, I personally edited the entry and added sources for the information.66.32.127.232 (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Burial of Henry I, 1136 by Harry Morley, painted in 1916.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Burial of Henry I, 1136 by Harry Morley, painted in 1916.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Illegitimate Children

I find this section confusing. Are all the individuals listed as children believed illegitimate of Henry I? I started with Sybil Corbet. Write-up says she married Herbert Fitzherbert. Then the article says the children are Sybil's which would always be the case. Is the point that the children are all from Henry I as dad and Herbert did not father them? Or Herbert fathered some and Henry I fathered the others? I don't know the answers unfortunately or I'd do edits myself. As written this section is not clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkhydema (talk • contribs) 18:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Children

I note that the existence of Euphemia is considered unlikely, but how is it even possible, given that the postulated birth month is less than 9 months before the birth of Matilda?

-Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.170.240.10 (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Consolidation of citation style...

A quick query in search of consensus. At the moment, the article uses a range of citation styles (some long, some short, and different styles of both). I'm proposing consolidating these into a single, consistent style. My proposal would to use the harvnb template for short citations throughout, combined with the cite book template in the bibliography. How would this seem to others? If the consensus is for consolidation in a different style, of course, I'll happily implement that instead. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Expansion...

I've gone through and given the article a thorough scrub. I think it is all now referenced, etc., and I've expanded it a bit in the process. I've used Henry's two main biographers, Green and Hollister for the bulk of the narrative, backed up by some specialist works on particular aspects. For Henry's illegitimate children, I've used Thompson, who's the current authority in this area, but noted in footnotes where her opinion varies from the older work by White. Stylistically, I've used William Rufus rather than William II in the text, to avoid an awkward transition between the two styles. It will need a decent copy-edit etc... Hchc2009 (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Henry I of England/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 04:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

I didn't make it very far in this one before needing to take a break, but here's a question before I forget it. (Here in the US, nobody tells us much that happened before the year 1776, so you may need to be patient with my questions throughout this review.)

• "William Rufus's plans for the invasion of England began to falter" -- I may be losing the thread here, but hasn't WR already crossed the channel and been crowned king? (i.e., should this be Robert who's planning to invade England?) -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• This has now been changed to Robert by another user. -- Khazar2 (talk) 09:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

More:

• "strengthened it additional central governmental institutions" -- is there a word missing in this phrase?
• "after around 1110" -- this can probably be written as "around 1110" or "after 1110", but I'm not sure both modifiers are needed.
• I've made various small copyedits as I went for both proofreading and style. Please feel free to revert any you disagree with, and double-check me to make sure I haven't accidentally done more harm than good.

The article appears excellent on this first pass: well written and well sourced, and comparing it to other websites about Henry I, appears to cover all essential points and then some. (Indeed, this is probably ready for a Featured Article candidacy after a little more proofreading.) Thanks for this terrific piece of work. -- Khazar2 (talk) 09:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Changes made, and the image tags should be correct now. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See minor questions above.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Henry I of England.jpg, File:Odo bayeux tapestry.png, File:Matylda zena.jpg, File:HenryI.jpg, File:Sceau de Louis VI.jpg, File:Henry I coins.jpg, File:Llyfr Coch Hergest 240-241.JPG all technically need US public domain tags, though all of them clearly are public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

Untitled 2

There is a problem in the last sentence of the first paragraph under Childhood and appearance, 1068-86. It says, "Henry's mother, Matilda, was the daughter of Robert II of France, and she probably named Henry after her nephew, King Henry I of France.[4]" Henry's mother Matilda was the daughter of Baldwin V, Count of Flanders and Adela of France who was the daughter of Robert II. So Matilda would have been a granddaughter of Robert II and cousin to Henry I of France, unless the other Wiki pages are wrong on relationship — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:2880:80:C053:B6FB:8E1A:5211 (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• fixed format and moved down for visibility GermanJoe (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Referencing

As this article is going through further reviews and improvements, some references could use minor cleanups:

• ref 2 Carpenter 2003 or 2004?
• ref 179 "Green Crouch" is corrupted, should be 2 separate references
• ref 193 Hollister 200(?)
• ref 230 see above, Carpenter 2003 or 2004?
• ref 327 Hollister & Baldwin 1978 - full biblio has 2003 as year.
• (if the article is planned to move towards FA, ISBN numbers should be consistent 13 digits and formatted for all ISBNs).

A nice and apparently comprehensive article, very interesting to read. GermanJoe (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, well spotted! - will sort later. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The refs should be sorted now; will find a script for the ISBN's. Thank again, Hchc2009 (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, images are OK copyright-wise (polished a few tags). GermanJoe (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Investiture controversy is mentioned twice, the first unlinked and the second to the relevant section of the article on Anselm. I am not clear about the rules on linking, but it might be helpful to link the first mention to the main article on the Investiture controversy.
• "Henry's mother, Matilda, was the daughter of Robert II of France, and she probably named Henry after her nephew, King Henry I of France." Matilda was the daughter of Adele of France, who was the daughter of Robert II and sister of Henry I of France, so Matilda was granddaughter of Robert and Henry was her uncle.
• "As a result of their age differences and Richard's early death" These are referred to as if they have already been mentioned and Richard's death in a hunting accident is mentioned below. I would prefer "Henry was much younger than his brothers and Richard died early in a hunting accident, so...", and the later mention of Richard's death could then be deleted.
• "Robert's rule of the Duchy was chaotic, and parts of Henry's lands became almost independent of central control from Rouen." I am not clear what this means. Was Rouen Robert's or Henry's base, and were not Henry's lands already effectively independent of Robert?
• "Odo, the Bishop of Bayeux, who regarded Henry as a potential competitor" - presumably for control of Normandy, but this could be spelled out.
• "In the aftermath, Robert forced Henry to leave Rouen, probably because Henry's role in the fighting had been more prominent than his own, and potentially because Henry had possibly asked to be formally reinstated as the count of the Contentin." This seems an excessive number of qualifiers. Perhaps "and possibly because Henry had asked to be formally reinstated as the count of the Contentin."
• "He left for Brittany and crossed over into France." Was not Brittany legally part of France even if the Duchy was effectively independent?
• Porphyrogeniture. This is a very unusual word. It is not in the online Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries. Perhaps link to Agnatic seniority?

• I've written a stub for an article on it, and wikilinked. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• "he promised to prevent royal abuses of the barons' property rights, and assured a return to the gentler customs of Edward the Confessor" This sounds a bit odd to me. How about "and to return to the customs of Edward the Confessor (linking Edward)? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Tenure

Is there a reason for the use of the word 'Tenure' in the info panel instead of 'Reign' which is used for both William II and Stephen? I'm no expert, but Reign the normal term when discussing an English/British monarch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.123.147.3 (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization of "King"

There is no consistency with regard to when "King" is, or is not, capitalized. It seems to me that, without exception, "King" should be capitalized every single time in an article about a King. --EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Worth having a look at the MOS on this, which gives clear guidelines about when it should be capitalised and when it should be iin lower case. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Henry's birthdate

Why is his birthdate just 1068? Pink Floyd 1966 (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Because it's not known when exactly he was born in 1068. We're lucky we know the year - his older brothers' birth years are unknown exactly. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

[Ealdgyth posted before I had a chance to...]
I just wanted to add, since your account is fairly new, that details about questions such as yours are often contained in the cited reference(s) or explained by a particular editor in the Notes section, as was done in #1 here. — DennisDallas (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

2016: Is Henry Ready for his Close-up? Is this article?

Following last summer's great publicity success, when Richard III was found under a car park, the spotlight has moved to Henry. Summer fun, great for tourism, and for us professors, a "teachable moment." Everybody wins. Since Henry, alas, isn't in Shakespeare, if they find Henry's bones, I think the media angle we'll hear most about will be "the King who fathered more royal bastards than any other in English history." That and the beautiful phrase, "a surfeit of lampreys." I would enjoy seeing a graph showing how many users came to this article before the story broke, and after. It would tell us something meaningful about the public's acceptance of Wikipedia. Is there any such feature? "We're ready for our close-up, Mr. de Mille!" Best to all, Profhum (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Reign Date

Article currently states that his reign began with the death of his predecessor as it does for William II of England , Richard I of England and John, King of England. However, the reigns of William the Conqueror, Stephen, King of England and Henry II of England begin with the coronation date. This seems inconsistent as the succession of William II and Henry I was disputed by Robert Curthose, John by Arthur of Brittany etc. It is also inconsistent with List of English monarchs which uses coronation dates. The more important political point however is that for Norman and Angevin kings it was the coronation ceremony itself that made the king not acclamation or male primogeniture as with the anglo-saxons or later Plantagenets. Hence, the rush to Westminster for coronation of Henry I, Stephen, King of England, William II of England. The arguments are set out more fully in this blog post [2]. Having the reigns of all norman and angevin kings starting with their coronations would therefore be consistent with how contemporaries viewed the English kingship and how kings dated their reigns.--Jhood1 (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Reigns began at death of the previous monarch - there isn't an "official" position. We wouldn't use either the wikipedia list article nor a blog post as a reference, so they aren't of any help here. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Further - the beginning of the reign for William the Conqueror isn't a good example - since (despite his claims) he won the throne by conquest. Nor is Stephen a good example because he basically stole the throne from the expected heiress. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, do you know of a source that says reigns are dated at the death of the predecessor in this period because I'm not aware of one? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by an official position but if you mean a scholarly consensus then I'm not sure that there would be a clear one on an issue such as this. I think that medieval charters dated from the years of the kings reign would "tick over" as it were on the anniversary of the coronation rather than the death of the predecessor. The easiest example I could find online was the translation of Magna Carta [3] which states that the regnal years at the end are dated from the anniversary of John's coronation rather than the death of Richard I. I guess my view is that the reign of a king is not a classification imposed in retrospect but something that the contemporaries of the Norman and angevin kings recognised as lasting from coronation until death. I'm not aware of a reliable source that disputes this.--Jhood1 (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

My point about William the Conqueror and Stephen, King of England was simply that they were examples where their coronations made them kings, William's reign is not dated from the Battle of Hastings. Also, Henry stole the throne from the heir Robert Curthose like Stephen --Jhood1 (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Further to the above, I've found Bartlett (2000) England under the Norman and Angevin Kings has a section on the Interregnal Period. "The Norman and Angevin kings did not claim to succeed to the royal title immediately upon the death of their predecessor, as was the case in later English history. It was coronation that made a king and kings dated their regnal years from the day of that ceremony" p.123 --Jhood1 (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

That says what the contemporaries might think - but it still doesn't address what other secondary sources state, especially modern historians. When do modern historians date a reign from starting? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Cheney's Handbook of Dates (RHS) gives Henry I's reign as 5 August 1100 – 1 December 1135. I would go with Cheney, unless it's been superseded. Nortonius (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

At the suggestion of Dweller I think this discussion would be better had a Wikipedia talk:WikiProject English Royalty Jhood1 (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Lineage

Is it necessary to mention that Henry was a descendant of Alfred the Great himself? In his mothers page you can find the following: Matilda’s principal attribute was her descent from Charlemagne and her many royal ancestors, her closest being Robert II of France. She was the niece of King Henry I of France, William's suzerain, and at his death in 1060, first cousin to his successor King Philip I of France. A member of the aristocracy she was closely related to most of the royal families of Europe. A marriage to a member of the (Carolingian) royal family was a means of upward mobility for a soldier or nobleman like William. Her descent from Alfred the Great (whose daughter Ælfthryth was the mother of Arnulf I, Count of Flanders, and great-great-great-great-grandmother of Matilda) also proved a legitimizing factor as queen of England. See: Hilton, Queen Consort (Pegasus, 2010), p. 17; Régine Le Jan, 'Continuity and Change in the Tenth-Century Nobility', Nobles and Nobility in Medieval Europe: Concepts, Origins, Transformations, ed. Anne J. Duggan (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2002), pp. 56, n. 14, 57; A. Wareham, Lords and Communities in Early Medieval East Anglia (Boydell Press, 2005), p. 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.46.97 (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems relevant to Matilda's page, but not really to Henry. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Reign and Coronation

In this period a person did not become king until their coronation: "Until, apparently, the reign of Edward I, no English king assumed the royal style before his coronation" p.30 Handbook of British Chronology E B Pryde

No reliable source dates the reign of Henry from the 2nd August. These sources date the reign from the 5th August:

Handbook of British Chronology p.35

Handbook of Dates (Cheney) p.32

Oxford Dictionary of National Biography 1

Hollister (2003) does not give a precise (reign start - reign end) but does refer to Henry as "king-elect" i.e. not yet king during the period 2-5 Aug. p.107-108. Does anyone know of another source? Jhood1 (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Name

What's the meaning of Beauclerc? --2A02:908:C33:A180:9871:CF94:39BE:E6CE (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Yep, presumably the "well-learnèd" or the "good clerk", but just came here to post that this needs to be covered. — LlywelynII 04:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)