Talk:Wives of Henry VIII/Archive 1

Dates question
It says that Anne Boleyn survived from 1501-1536 but it says she was beheaded at 28. One set of numbers is wrong, but I do not have the information to say which one it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.71.36 (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Questions about her birth year will probably never be solved. The two best guesses are 1501 and 1507, hence the two ages. -- Secisek (talk) 07:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard annulled?
Henry had his marriage to Anne Boleyn annulled a few days before she was killed. There is some controversy about Catherine Howard - if she had a legitimate pre-contract with Dereham then she was not really married to Henry. the BBC says her marriage to Henry was annulled - http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A2666216, http://www.themakeupgallery.info/period/c16/henry/index.htm Richardson mcphillips1 03:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't remember where I read it, but I though this was a 'proper' marriage, if it wasn't the adultery charge is contradicatory, I'll see if I can find the source. Bevo74 (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Henry had four of his marriages annulled, including that to Catherine Howard. It made the adultery charges a nonsense in the case of both Catherine and Anne Boleyn. By the law of the time, it was a grey area whether discussing plans for marriage and having sexual relations counted as making you already married; it was a valid reason for annulment, certainly the most valid of the four. Boleyn (talk) 11:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I found the book I thought suggested otherwise, you were right, it says the number of true marriages depends on your view on religion but Catherine Howard wasn't included either way. Bevo74 (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Mistresses section removal
I removed the following text from the Mistresses section:

''Seymours and Howards didn't get along at all. Madge was Anne Shelton's daugter and Anne beat Princess Mary up horribly.They were, no doubt, rivals. Jane was either played by her little and big brother who'dboth be executed during her son's reign, just did what the king wanted, or she ( like what Anne & I believe) knew exactly what she was doing and thought of ways to get his attention. Jane was loyal to Catalina/ Catherine and Mary. Jane restored daughter Mary to Henry's favor and even tried to convince him to make her a princess again. Henry and his big ego declared that because Mary's was someone else's daughter, it'd be a no. The two were talking about marriage and sons even before Anne got the chop, thus wedding eleven days later in dazzingly white. She, too, refused to be his mistress. There were also others between 1510 and 1527, when he fell in love with Anne Boleyn.''

It seems fairly nonsensical; if anyone can find legitimate information in this section or can clean it up and add it back in, please be my guest. --biriwilg 02:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Was Anne Boleyn really born in 1501? I don't believe it. Then she would already have been 32 when she gave birth to Elizabeth - quite old for a first child - about the same age when Catherine of Aragon had her last child (stillbirth). There's another year (1504) in the article about Anne Boleyn.


 * The article about Anne Boleyn actually says 1501/1507. If this article is going to say 1501, she was not 28 when she died, but 35. Richardson mcphillips1 02:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Anne's year of birth is a mystery that is unlikely to be solved. 1501 and 1507 are the most popular dates, but guesses range between 1500 and 1512. I personally side with the 1507 side of the argument; if it's not the right date, I'd say that it's closer to it than 1501. The statement that Anne was 28 at the time of her death stems, in part, from a statement by Jane Dormer, lady-in-waiting to Mary I, that Anne was nearly 29 when she was executed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.42.32 (talk) 08:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Good move 'biriwilg,' that paragraph was terrible, keep it out. It also expresses thought, rather than fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.82.117.132 (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Related Queens
The 'trivia' section says that all the Queens were related in some way...was Anne of Cleves related to any except in that she was served by Catherine Howard? Confirmation requested.

Yes as they were all the decendants of Edward I —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.97.168 (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Table of Wives with cause of separation, death and such
Most people who visit this page will come to it in order to get a clean, fast list of Henry VII's wives, dates, and such. Particularly what was the final fate of each wife. THAT is what most people (who are not scholars on the matter and do not want to be) will come looking for, since it is commonplace in the world to say that "Henry the eighth beheaded all of his eight wives". I hesitate to add it because I think I had seen it here and it is gone now (presumably for a reason) and because of my profound ignorance on this matter (I imagine there are people who know this and would like to contribute). Something like: (| class="wikitable" |- ! No. !! Name !! Wife from - through !! Fate Marriage !! Fate Wife |- | 4 || Anne Of Cleeves || 6 January 1540 – 9 July 1540 || Annulled || Died possibly of Cancer in 16 July 1557 |- )


 * Henry had six wives, not eight. I don't think we need a box, as the article clearly states the fate of each wife.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead
The article's lead needs to be improved.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is still no improvement. I suggest that the names of the wives be given in prose rather than as a list.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Annulled or divorced
In some part of the article is says that the marriages to Catherine of Aragon and Ann of Cleves were annulled, in others it says they were divorced. Which is it?--94.2.195.20 (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Table
Perhaps this page is the appropriate place for the table on the Wives of Henry VIII which is now on the Talk:Henry_VIII_of_England page?

Catherine of Aragon, only royal wife
I have removed this as Anne of Cleves was also royal. If anyone ants to keep in a version of this, perhaps it could be reworded. Boleyn (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... wasn't Anne of Cleves ducal before her marriage? Surtsicna (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2008

She was the daughter/sister of a duke, however she did have royal blood. I believe all of them did, certainly the Seymours, but Katherine of Aragon was the only one styled Infanta (or appropriate title). 87.194.214.89 (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As the daughter of a duke, Anne of Cleves was noble but not royal.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Err, no. You're confusing the noble title of duke with the sovereign title of duke.  The distinction is mentioned in the opening sentence of the duke article. The Dukes of Cleves were sovereigns, and their daughters were royal, not noble.  Those ruling houses that required their sons to enter into equal marriages in order to remain into the line of succession would have accepted marriage to Anne of Cleves as an equal marriage, whereas they would not have accepted a marriage to the daughter of, say, the Duke of Wellington as such. Binabik80 (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction with the article "Anne Boleyn"
This article says that the six wives are "queen consorts". But the article on Anne Boleyn says that she was the last "queen consort" in England. One of these statements, therefore, is false, since other partners to Henry VIII followed Anne. Please fix. Sorry for any violation of Wikipedia editing/contribution protocol as I'm quite ignorant of the correct process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.29.210 (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

No violation, you're very welcome to edit. All six were wives of the king, and thus queen consorts, as were many after them. The Anne Boleyn article says: 'She was the last Queen Consort of England to be crowned separately from her husband.' This is true, all others have either not had a coronation (including the last 4 of Henry VIII's wives) or been crowned alongside their husbands. I hope that clears it up. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

"Roman Catholic interpretation" section
This section cites no sources whatsoever and reeks of original research. At least two of its assertions are openly speculative ("hypothetically might have been annulled by Rome" and "if one takes the view that"), and I suspect that all the rest of it is just as unsubstantiated. It's also factually incorrect, talking about Henry being free to marry Jane Seymour and Anne of Cleves when he was nothing of the sort, because, rather famously, he was excommunicate at the time, therefore rendering the concluding sentence ("In short, Henry was married to only Catherine of Aragon, Jane Seymour and Anne of Cleves in the interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church.") hogwash. Besides all which, it's irrelevant, since the Roman Catholic Church ceased having any say in Henry's marital status shortly after his second wedding. Removing it. Binabik80 (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You are an arrogant and rude individual, Binabik80 Mark.hamid (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

PBS 2017 Worsley 3-part series BBC 2016
‘Secrets of the Six Wives’ Review: Divorced, Beheaded, Died; Divorced, Beheaded, Survived On PBS, Lucy Worsley leads viewers through the scandalous, bloodstained history of Henry VIII’s spouses. By John Anderson  Jan. 19, 2017
 * www.wsj.com/articles/secrets-of-the-six-wives-review-divorced-beheaded-died-divorced-beheaded-survived-1484867599

PBS played a three-episode Lucy Worsley (Joint Chief Curator at Historic Royal Palaces) series in January 2017 (BBC 2016), entirely devoted to this subject: Perhaps worthy of mention or listing in the article. -71.174.184.127 (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * divorced
 * beheaded, died
 * divorced, beheaded, survived

Requested move 13 January 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

List of wives of King Henry VIII → Wives of King Henry VIII – This article has developed past the point of being considered a simple list. It includes information about the mnemonics, ancestry, crests, and more. The wives are often discussed and documented as a group. -- Netoholic @ 19:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting.  bd2412  T 21:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Inclined to oppose; lists don't need to be simple, do they? Dekimasu よ! 20:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - the article as it is today is in primarily in the summary style, rather than list/table format. That's why it shouldn't be named this way. -- Netoholic @ 13:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose it is still a list even if it is not a simple one עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  Weak support. “List of” is redundant. There is no need to restrict this page from expanding beyond a mere list. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd have the same response to this as above: we don't need to think of lists as somehow less than other articles. Also, if "List of..." were redundant, then it would be redundant for all articles called lists. One thing calling something a list does is harmonize its title with the underlying instruction of WP:SINGULAR. Dekimasu よ! 23:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think all these rationales are weak. CONCISE versus a simple descriptor, desirability for the list to be expanded into prose, the lack of angst that many "list of" articles contain a list of sequentially related topics all with some prose.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per nom,, WP:NATURAL and WP:CONCISE. This article does not even look like a typical "List of" article; it serves no purpose at best, and is misleading at worst. --В²C ☎ 01:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose (weakly). This is still a list even if a bit wordy.  Each of the entries has her own article and much (most?) of the info in this list duplicated those articles.  If anything, this list needs paring, not expanding.  (NB Other "List of..." articles [e.g. List of Governors of Pennsylvania] have quite a bit of running text but are still lists.)  —  AjaxSmack  03:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support because, as the proposer says, " The wives are often discussed and documented as a group". This article does so, in the lede, Overview, and Ancestry sections, although the individual sections might be too long. I have three or four biographies treating the six wives as a group, which is perhaps to say they are more histories of Henry VIII's life and times than of his wives'. Similarly we talk of "The Tudors" (House of Tudor), etc. 62.165.227.102 (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Surely the lede of any list article discusses it's subject as a whole? PC78 (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. This is not a list, it is an article with a list in it. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also inclined to oppose as per others. However wordy, the article is still fundamentally set out as a list. PC78 (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. The wives are often described as a group (unlike for example the List of Governors of Pennsylvania article given above). People looking for a list will still be able to reach this article by searching "List of wives of King Henry VIII" as a redirect will be created. feminist (talk) 08:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Katherine or Catherine of Aragon
Having noted that Catherine spelled her name with a K, the article throughout jumps between C and K for the initial. Please can we get consensus which one to use, per MOS:CONSISTENCY? It is very jarring for the reader to have a continual change of spelling. MoS says "use the subject's own spelling" but whether that shoud be C of A's spelling (with a K) or the article Catherine of Aragon's spelling (C except in direct references etc), I don't know. 62.165.227.102 (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe that it reflects actual interchangeability during her lifetime. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In modern sources, “Catherine” is more common, but not exclusively.
 * In primary documents, eg her own letters, “Katherine” dominates.
 * It is said that English spelling highly variable, was “pick and choose whatever you like”, until Shakespeare standardised spelling for his subwriters. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's all fine, but the discussion on that belongs on the Catherine of Aragon page, with a requested move if you think there is a case for calling her Katherine. Having some articles call her one thing while others use another is just confusing for readers though, and we should maintain consistency unless there is a good reason not to. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 23 May 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move page. (non-admin closure) —  Young Forever (talk)   22:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Wives of King Henry VIII → Wives of Henry VIII – This was discussed several times, most notably here, here, here and here. The community believed that per WP:CONCISE, the words "king" and "queen" must be omitted from the titles. There was also a strong argument based on WP:CONSISTENCY, mentioning that these secondary articles need to be consistent with the main articles about the monarchs (e.g. Henry VIII of England, not King Henry VIII of England). This logic has now been used for naming several articles, including Coronation of Elizabeth I, Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II, Descendants of George V and Mary of Teck, etc. Thus, the title for this article needs to change as well. Keivan.f Talk 22:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. An emperor /// Ave 02:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support move per nom.  O.N.R.  (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support move "King" is redundant Dimadick (talk) 10:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Nobody says "wives of King Henry VIII," according to this ngram. Roman numerals are used this way only in royal names, so "king" is redundant. Allan Rice (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - more concise title. Interstellarity (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)