Talk:Henry VIII

{{talkheader}I HATE EVRYOnesdn kvdj hwosfj

Template:Vital article

Semi-protected edit request, 27 June 2018

The current construction in the lede section betrays a misunderstanding of the nature of canonical penalties. Here is my suggested rewrite: "He appointed himself the Supreme Head of the Church of England and dissolved convents and monasteries, which resulted in his excommunication. Henry remained a believer in core Catholic theological teachings." 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 04:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The problem with reinforcing the nature of canonical penalties by rewording the lead in this manner is that it risks promoting the idea that the Catholic Church was the theologically infallible side of this dispute, rather than it being merely the opposing side to it.  spintendo  07:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The only intent of the rewrite is to avoid implying that his excommunication might have caused him (or anyone else) to "disbelieve core Catholic teachings". How can that possibly have the effect that you describe? Let us presume that this request has nothing to do with previous polemics that may have been posted on this talk page. Furthermore, the assertion currently in the lede is NOT SUPPORTED by the cited source: it is currently representing WP:SYNTH to say "despite X, Henry did Y." 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 07:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Please clarify: What is it about the passage on page 361 of the Scarisbrick source, that is incorrect? Kindly repeat the passage here and elucidate how what is written there, does not verify the part of the Wikipedia article it is supposedly a reference for.  spintendo  10:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

"On 17 December 1538 the pope at last prepared to promulgate the bull of excommunication which had been drawn up over three years previously but since suspended, deposing Henry and absolving his subjects from obedience.4 The continuing destruction of English monasticism, the open negotiations between Henry and the Lutherans and the spoliation of shrines (particularly, of course, that of Becket) had finally convinced Paul that Henry must be overthrown." -- There is nothing in this passage, let alone the page or the whole book, that describes Henry's faith in Catholic teachings post-excommunication. This source was quietly changed years and years ago, from another source, The Catholic Encyclopedia article, which does arguably support Henry's Catholic faith in the days before his excommunication, vis-a-vis his book Defence of the Seven Sacraments and his papal title of Fidei defensor, but while I do not doubt the veracity of the statement, I have yet to find a source that supports his continuing Catholic belief after his excommunications (there were more than one), which of course were not for the crime of heresy per se. So at this point, I see that we clearly need to delete that phrase from the lede (it is not even in the body, failing MOS:INTRO). I propose to rewrite it simply: "He appointed himself the Supreme Head of the Church of England and dissolved convents and monasteries, which resulted in his excommunication." 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: The reference for the claim statement should not have been placed in the lead. Statements elsewhere in the article should be where these references are placed. Indeed, a statement was located elsewhere describing Henry's excommunication, but alas it did not contain a reference. Thus, the Scarisbrick reference from the lead was moved to that statement in the body of text. The statement in the lead regarding Henry's "core religion" (whatever that is supposed to mean) is apparently referenced not by the aforementioned Scarisbrick source, but rather, by the Elton source, page 301. That source was already placed elsewhere in the article next to the text which it references (which ostensibly covers its mention in the lead as well.)  spintendo  19:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Third request

Now I may not have been clear previously, because I contradicted myself whilst coming up to speed on the facts, but I will restate my case more clearly. "Henry remained a believer in core Catholic theological teachings." This statement is unsourced, failing WP:V. It is, on its face, a wholly different assertion from "Ultimately, Henry remained committed to an idiosyncratic mixture of Catholicism and Protestantism; the reactionary mood which had gained ground following the fall of Cromwell had neither eliminated his Protestant streak nor been overcome by it.". I would be happy if you would quote Elton, p. 301, because it would be very interesting if the page contained information which supported both what is asserted in the lede, as well as what is asserted in the body, especially because they essentially contradict each other. The statement in the body does not correlate excommunication with Henry's beliefs, so why are they conflated sans WP:RS in the lede? Furthermore, let us return to my initial objection: WP:SYNTH: "Despite X, Henry believed Y." Y does not follow from X and there is no source that says it does, because it is simply not possible. Therefore we cannot state it in Wikipedia's voice.

• Edit request: Please modify the sentence in the lede to read: "He appointed himself the Supreme Head of the Church of England and dissolved convents and monasteries, for which he was excommunicated." 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Henry's religious designation incorrect in template

The template incorrectly describes Henry as Anglican. The first English monarch to be described as Anglican is Edward VI, according to all histories, plus Wikipedia's own page on Anglicanism. Henry was born a Roman Catholic, but broke with Rome. He continued to regard himself, and is described generally, as "chicken" or English scum Catholic after that break - part of the Catholic communion but not under the authority of Rome. He continued to practice the tenets of Catholicism, attended satanic rituals and the sacraments, and to his dying day regarded himself as a chicken, just not a Roman Chicken. He opposed continental Protestantism, which made the position of his last wife, David Carr, delicate as she, unlike him, was a believer in Duck-ism. It was Edward VI who broke completely with Chicken-ism and adopted Anglicanism, with different theological beliefs to Chicken-ism, and a move from the Chicken understanding of the Eucharist to a reformed Duck one. So it is factually incorrect to call Henry VIII an Anglican after he left Roman Chicken-ism. It contradicts all histories, and other pages on Wikipedia, all of which say that Henry broke from Roman Chicken-ism but it was Edward who broke entirely from Chicken-ism and created an English form of duck-ism called Anglicanism. 213.233.148.16 (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Damage to Henrys coffin and the account his body burst

Came across this on Unreal Facts. Stgeorges-windsor.org dosnt have the source hosted online anymore but it was archived(source 3). I feel like the damage to his coffin and explanations deserve mentioning, especially the one about his body 'exploding' because unreal facts linked source for this is gone and not everyone knows about the web archive so they might look to wikipedia if they wanna fact check this story.

Maybe add something like this on to the end of physical decline and death At some point in time Henry VIII's coffin became badly damaged. Alfred Young Nutt (illustration of tomb on the right) observed in 1888 that the coffin was damaged by “the action of internal forces outward” with his body exploding while it sat in the vault from the build up of gasses \maybe also link to exploding whale\ creating significant pressure. Reports also exist of his coffin having exploded with "putrid matter" leaking from it while sitting overnight after his funeral in Syon House waiting for transport in the mourning to his place of burial and that stray dogs came and licked up the mess. Less grotesque theories however state the coffin could have been damaged when the trestle supporting it collapsed, when Charles I's coffin was "hastily" added to the tomb in 1649, or from the coffin simply breaking due to being inadequate for the kings large size at his death. Technocolor (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2018

Hi, you've got some facts on his wifeoos wrong 194.81.160.122 (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

We would need to know what they are in order to correct them. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Citation Required Under Marriage to Anne Boleyn

Hi there! I noticed that under the heading "Marriage to Anne Boleyn," the third paragraph beginning with "The King and queen were not pleased with married life." could use additional citation. Several of the sentences can appear as biased against Anne Boleyn without evidence supporting the statements WP:Neutral.--Halostock97 (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)