Talk:Henry, Duke of Cornwall

Untitled
I don't think this is a good article. Is it about the first of Henry VIII's sons, all of them called Henry, or all his children who died in infancy? "Henry, Duke of Cornwall" could refer to a lot of people who held this title for a time: Henry V, VI and VIII, and the son of James I.

I suggest that with some editing we transform this article into an article on "Children of Henry VIII of England", but deal with the 4 who survived infancy very briefly and refer people to their main articles. Any comments? PatGallacher (talk) 12:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel it's made clear in the first line: it's about the two sons of Henry VIII, both called Henry, duke of Cornwall, who died young. It makes mention of their siblings, but the majority of the article is clearly about the two sons. Boleyn (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

As the article mentions, Henry VIII actually had three sons called Henry, Duke of Cornwall who died in infancy, two by Catherine of Aragon and one by Anne Boleyn. I doubt if any of these are notable enough to merit an article on their own, given their extremely short lives. It is somewhat artifical to make an article about 2 or 3 of Henry's children, and not all of them, just because they happened to have the same name, and in fact the article does make significant mention of his other children. PatGallacher (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

He did not have a son by Anne Boleyn, except a miscarriage, which is thought to have been a boy, but was not named. That should definitely be deleted from the article. I don't think the other children are dealt with more than would be appropriate here. I think this article is valid, but I can easily understand why their notability might be questioned. People might enjoy an article on all Henry VIII's children, although personally I don't think that would mean that this one needs to be deleted. Boleyn (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If his alleged son by Anne Boleyn was really just a miscarriage then maybe you can deal with this under Henry Tudor (II). PatGallacher (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If the second Henry was a stillbirth then we should not include him and this article requires a significant rewrite. There are a lot of books on Henry and his wives, what do the sources say? PatGallacher (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Loades' work given as a reference makes it clear that the second so-called Henry was a stillbirth. It would be unusual to give a name to a stillbirth. PatGallacher (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Is the photo actually Henry, Duke of Cornwall?
Looking up the photos, the picture on the right is evidently Catherine of Aragon, but I can't appear to find anything about the picture on the left on the DIA website, nor on the Berlin one, aside from it being that of the Virgin Mary and her child. The women in the two images look similar enough, but that's pretty much it, and even if it does represent Catherine, it's from before her marriage to Henry and therefore before Henry, Duke of Cornwall's birth, according to this post here https://www.flickr.com/photos/menesje/6561989759. Unless were going for a "representation" of Henry VIII's first child, then the image should perhaps be removed, for its inaccuracy? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Why children who died in infancy shouldn't have their own Wikipedia articles
I agree on how the fact that infants who died young should never have their own Wikipedia articles, and it's simply just because it is a violation of WP:NCROY. 76.186.92.171 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a ploicy about naming convention. This only mattery how the article should be named, not if it should exist. For that, the notability guildlines are relevant. And apperently, there is significant coverage of this person in reliable sources (see the sources given in the article), so this person meets the general notability guidlines. Gial Ackbar (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Except I am not entirely convinced that is the case. The only one I can see has just three sentences directly about the subject. The context gets more coverage than the actual person. This is not what I would call 'significant' coverage, but I am also aware that other editors view that term differently than I do. Agricolae (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)