Talk:Henry the Young King

Untitled

Didn't think this was possible. My first thought was merely to criticise the entry. Instead I shall read more on this period and try to flesh out the sparse facts you present. Thanks C

Such is the power of Wikipedia. Welcome! --mav

I am sceptical about the starting of divorce proceedings, because this would have lost control of the Vexin for the Plantagenets. Is there any evidence Henry and Margaret parted because of divorce? Or is it more likely, as E.Hallam [The Plantagenet Chronicles] and A.Kelly [Eleanore and the Four Kings] state, that civil war made it too dangerous for her to remain accessible as a hostage? G.Duby [Guillaume le Mareshal] states that Wiiliam was exonerated from any taint of adultery and returned to Young Henry's side on campaign shortly before Henry died. Additionally none of the contemporary chroniclers gave the adultery story any credance. Trev.

Double check facts in this article with facts from the article on Marguerite... info on her pregnancies and marriages don't match up. It says she was married @ 2 years old but was more than likely only betrothed at that age.

Divisions

Dear Mr Sanders though you may think that the divisions were unnecessary your meddling while I was writing up one of the new sections casued me to lose a lot of text and waste half an hour of my time. Perhap you can wait till I have done it this time and then address your concerns David Skipper 12:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for that; however, there is generally the option of merging edit conflicted text into the saved version, and it is almost always copyable from the screen. Alternately, you can signal that you are in the middle of writing a large scale revision by sticking up a work in progress template (I don't know how to do that, but I'm sure someone else could tell you), or posting to that effect on the talk page. Personally, I always write up large scale edits on word - it keeps it safe. I'm sorry if I caused you any problems - however, it might be best if you indicate that you are not done next time (you gave no indication that you were doing anything other than introducing divisions into what was a short article). Michaelsanders 12:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, and the idea of working off screen is a good one. Work in progress sign - I must find out how to do that.David Skipper 13:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh ... and I intend to be revising this article pretty thoroughly over the next few days David Skipper 13:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Right then - I'll make sure I don't interfere with it (though I now know that the divisions are intended to be better filled, I might have tidied up a few words or something - so it's good you said it). Michaelsanders 13:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm so confused

"In June 1170 the fifteen-year-old Henry was crowned king during his father's lifetime" "Young Henry fell out with his father in 1173. Contemporary chroniclers allege that it was due to the young man's frustration that his father had given him no realm to rule..." What was he king of? If he was king of England how come he's not Henry III? Another sentence explaining what the 1170 coronation meant might clear up this confusion. Nitpyck (talk) 06:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible vandalism over links in Preceded/Succeeded template

Right. I know very little about this material but suspect there's possible very old vandalism.
The original template box looked like this (bottom of the page). The "French Nobility" section has Henry II pipe linked as Henry I. I assume this was intentional as it was specifically pipelinked in the original. (Henry I of France appears to be a different person though, so perhaps it was a typo).
Either way, this edit by 80.109.108.137 changed it to Henry II.

80.109.108.137's contributions to the matter have been somewhat questionable, hence my concern. Additionally, the same user made the same change (Henry I -> Henry II) to Eleanor of Aquitaine, with this edit. It was however reverted later on (somewhere, I don't have the exact change) to the article as it is currently, where it is listed as "Henry I (1152–1153)".

If someone more knowledgeable than me on this matter is able to clear this up, that would be great.
If this was vandalism, it's almost 3 years old and so the oldest vandalism I've helped clear up. Woohoo.
Either way, please drop me a message on my talkpage with the result. --BlueNovember (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Young King of the English

Was his title really the Young King of the English? The Young King is a nickname. Isn't the proper term junior king instead?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

He has been called the Young King in historical literature for many decades, perhaps longer. See, for example, the book The young king, Henry Plantagenet (1155-1183), in history, literature and tradition, by Olin H. Moore, published 1925. The label is like "Lionheart" or "the Great"--enshrined in historical literature, not a legitimate title or contemporary designation.DeAragon 21:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dearagon (talk • contribs)

Sorry I didn't mean the article title, that seems to be what you are thinking. I'm talking about his royal title as king was junior king of the English. I took the liberty to change that in the succession part of the infobox.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

His royal title was 'King'--not junior king. One of the reasons he resented his father's reluctance/resistance to relinquish real authority into young Henry's hands may have been that he had the title of king but not the real authority. That seems to have worked in France but not in England. 'The young king' was probably to distinguish young Henry as king from his father Henry, the "old" king. DeAragon 03:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dearagon (talk • contribs)

I think so too. In French, he is simply called Henri le Jeune, so Henry the Young, his real nickname. Maybe the nickname Henry the young king was another one, that had been given by the English speaking population. Nortmannus (talk) 11:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Some history missing?

Slightly perplexed by this article. In one paragraph it says Henry is, effectively, reconciled with his father Henry II, albeit it at the cost of any real power. In the death paragraph it says he died during a campaign against his father (and brother). What happened to make them fall out again? Villafancd (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Illegitimate children

Did Henry sire any known illegitimate children or was William his only recorded child?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Image

Is this image reliable? We don't know what it originally came from or what the larger picture is.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The image is from an Anglo-Norman verse account of The Life of Thomas Becket with large illustrations. It is dated to c.1220-40 so is more contemporary than the image from Matthew Paris' Historia Anglorum which is c.1250-59. I also think it is a better portrait and so should be used in preference to the current image from Matthew Paris.Jhood1 (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Something doesn't compute

So, if this person was "officially King of England", and gets a listing at List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign, why is he categorised in Category:Heirs to the English throne and Category: Heirs apparent who never acceded but NOT in Category: English monarchs? Huh? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

He was crowned king, but as he never reigned he was never the monarch. PhilomenaO'M (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

But at List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign, we're told he was co-ruler with Henry II from 14 June 1170 to 11 June 1183, a total of 4,745 days or 12 years, 362 days.

Either he did reign, or he didn't. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Titular King

What is this suppose to mean? And also "Henry the Young King was the only crowned titular King in the history of England."? The term titular king denotes a pretender --KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

"titular: In name only" - it means that while he was crowned, he had no power. The experiment was never repeated. Titular does NOT mean pretender. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think much sources refer to him as Titular King either. Edmund Crouchback was considered titular king of Sicily and John of Gaunt titular king of Castile. The confusion is still there. Calling him King "in name only" would be more appropriate. Anyway he probably isn't the only Titular King (by your definition since many more English king like Edward V ruled in name only). The source after the sentence in question in the intro use "asscociate king". I added another source stating he was first and last English king crown in lifetime of his fathern --KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

A titular king is not a pretender but a person who has the kingly title for some reason, but is not actually a reigning monarch. In medieval times that sometimes came about because actual rulers wanted to frame the succession in favour of their sons before their own actual reigns came to an end (in the case of Henry) and also in the case of the elected Kings of Germany. Other titular monarchs were (and in some countries still are) monarchs who have abdicated and keep their title. Or former traditional leaders whose title is still recognised by a republican government. Anyway, Henry was not a proper monarch of England. He wasn't the only one however...Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this is appropriate term to refer to him. I understand the custom of crowning heirs during father's lifetime but I am pretty sure these individuals were not called "titular kings". My question is what the sources say. Wikipedia should reflect what the sources say. I will look into it soon, but I'm already seeing plenty of sources calling him "junior king" and little calling him "titular king".--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Some sources may call him something or else. And perhaps something else than was used at the time. His father was the actual king of England. There was nothing like a joint reign. And whatever term may be used for a non reigning king in whatever circumstances or times, he remains just that. The terminology isn't really important. But I do think that "titular king" is clearer. It's been used in historiography for similar cases. What is a "junior king" anyway? Monarchs of England were acclaimed. He never was. "Titular king", while maybe not used either at the time or by some historians, is a plausible factual description of what he was. King by title, but not actually the reigning monarch. The article itself says elsewhere that he was not a reigning king, and other language in the article should not suggest that he was. Whatever the terminology. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Most historians in English call him the "Young King" if they describe him other than as Henry's son. Carpenter Struggle for Mastery only uses "young king" never "junior king" and goes to some trouble to stress he had no power at all. Huscroft in Ruling England does the same. Warren in Henry II does call him "joint-king" but only in the index, not in the body of the text where he is either "eldest son" or "the Young King". Bartlett in England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings says he was "joint-king" but again stresses the total lack of power or authority. Clanchy's England and it's Rulers calls him the "Young King". Barlow Feudal Kingdom of England calls him "titular king" and again points out the lack of lands or authority the Young King had. Note that the Handbook of British Chronology does not list the Young King as a separate entry as a ruler of England. And Hallam in the ODNB entry never calls him anything but Young King and stresses his lack of power or authority. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

If "titular king" is somehow objectionable, we can call him a "non reigning king" or a "king by title only", but it basically means the same thing. How many ways are there to describe a king by title who doesn't actually reign? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Just eavesdropping; of all suggestions made here "king by title only" seems the most accurate and descriptive; that would be to the non-specialist reader's benefit. Haploidavey (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I think focusing on the explanation is more important than the focus on the title. Could we not just call him King of England (in the infobox) with a note (similar to the one about Angevin and Plantaganet) following it explaining the situation? Calling him titular King does not help and expanding upon it more gives more context especially in the intro. Titular King still does not explain anything. Saying he was crown "King" (PERIOD) but never excercised policital power gives the reader more context. Why is there a need to qualify the title with an adjective. Just explain in the intro he had no political power.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, I'm going to revert the change to "Henry the Young King was the only" - that is not in the source (original or the one I added) following it and it is not a true statement given a few other kings afterward were also nominal. If you want to rewrite it please reflect what is actually in the sources. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

"Henry the Young King was the only nominal King of England since the Norman conquest to be crowned in the lifetime of his father." This suggests that there were other (non-nominal) kings of England who underwent such a ceremony, which is not true. The sentence is far more misleading with the adjective than without it. Calling him merely king but explaining the situation is definitely more helpful than insisting on "titular king" and leaving it at that. Surtsicna (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I see. I still think it's problematical to call him a "King of England" period, because he was not the reigning monarch at any given time, just a king by title, or (shall I say it again) a titular king. Remember that we are here to write what is in the sources, but we make our own text and there is nothing wrong with choosing our own words. Perhaps this will go better if we leave out "only" altogether. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

On reflection and given the context, actually the present text isn't all that objectionable, and while, I'm trying to think of a better way of putting it, I wouldn't know how at the moment, other than just making it "he was crowned during his father's lifetime", and leave the whole "only king of England" bit out. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 11:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

wrong picture?

The same portrait is on both this article and that for William FitzEmpress (his uncle). One must be wrong, no? 2601:642:C481:4640:6C04:CD9C:FC2D:7239 (talk) 06:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I see no duplicates. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)