Talk:Henry V of England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Old posts[edit]

Henry V, (August 9?September 16, 1387 - August 31, 1422)

What does the "?" mean? I daren't remove it in case it's historical! -- Tarquin 22:20 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"Initial text adapted from a 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica article"

I thought the idea was not to copy other encyclopedias in wiki!

See: Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica Ausir 21:40, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why the heck is Henry V referred to as "Hal" in this article?-----hal is his childhood/teenage affectionate nickname User:Skyshadow

Blame Shakespeare. —Anville 20:49, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone know the context of Clarence in this article? I went to disambig it, thinking it meant Clarence, England - but it looks like it is referring to a person?? --Chuq 02:12, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's Henry's brother, the Duke of Clarence. See 1421. I've corrected the link. Eugene van der Pijll 08:03, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I notice this article only contains one fleeting reference to Shakespeare and even then it doesn't really say that he wrote a very famous play based on Henry V's life. Perhaps the play and the notable cinematic versions of said play should be mentioned somewhere as they are, in a way, part of Henry's lasting influence. --Lairor 05:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

does anyone else think this suffers from POV problems a little bit? if its just me i'll shut up--Alhutch 23:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not just you. The original source was the Encyclopedia Britannica, not the "Encyclopedia Gallia," which would have had a somewhat different POV. Bigturtle

"Final words and legacy"[edit]

The vast majority of this section is in quotation marks, but no source is given. Is it the Encyclopaedia Britannica, or something else? - dharmabum (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't find an actual quote of his last words in this article. Am I just missing them? McGehee 01:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Miracles of Henry V[edit]

I remember years ago being told by a priest that some miracles of Henry V had been recognised by the Vatican and that his beatification had started. Can anyone shed any light on this?

Wow. I hope that's true, because then he might be the first English King to be made a saint since St Edward the Confessor.

Burial Place of Henry V[edit]

Does anyone know where he is buried? Is his wife Catherine of Valois buried with him?

No she is not buried with him. I think he is buried in either Westminster or Canterbury

Wild Inaccuracy[edit]

The article states "Henry V was also a very open homosexual and had sex with William Shakspeare and Kathy Ariano." This is remarkable since Henry V died 142 years before Shakespeare was born. A search on Kathy Ariano finds no relevant information. This needs editing. 13:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


Desmond Seward's The Hundred Years War. The English in France 1337-1453 portrays Henry V as an alternating very pious and very brutal man, nigh obsessed with his "rights" for the French throne (ironic given his "right" to the English one). None of this is reflected in this article. 23:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Too many pictures?[edit]

I've just re-arranged the images where they seemed to be breaking and overlying the text—I hope this works on all browsers. However two of them, the imagined one from "Cassell" and the mid-distance statue, may not add a great deal to the understanding of the subject and his context in history. What do other editors think? --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Illegitimate children?[edit]

Does anyone have any sources which say that he fathered illegitimate children? I find it odd that he is not credited with at least one out-of-wedlock child or a mistress or two.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Henry V is not the only British monarch whose private life was scandal-free from start to finish. The 'bad-Prince-turned-good-King' stuff in Shakespeare's plays is a myth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No need for Heir-apparent Nav & Infobox stuff[edit]

We should stick with just the Kings & Dukes info. For example, we don't have the British royalty articles with Prince of Wales in their Infoboxes & Navboxes. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Motive for the invasion[edit]

The article makes no mention of the official reason for Henry's invasion of France -- he had resurrected a claim to the French throne originally made, and withdrawn, by his great-grandfather Edward III. By modern standards this was a feeble excuse for a brutal invasion, and the real hero of the war was Joan Darc, fighting in defense of her country. His claim was particularly absurd because he was not even Edward III's next of kin. Amazingly, English monarchs continued to add "King of France" to their titles long after the French kicked them out; I believe it was James I who finally dropped the title.

– I believe that Henry's claim to be King of France is less of a screamer than we see it as from our point of view. With the Norman invasion in 1066, William set up a monarchy that spanned the channel, encompassing parts of Britain and France. Fast forward over 100 years and the King of England is married to Eleanor of Aquitaine who brings w/ her much of the southwest of France and a previous marriage to Louis. However tenuous the claim, it was not created from whole cloth. There is considerable precedent for a cross channel claim. Heck, one of the titles of the current monarch is Defender of the Faith, given by the pope to Henry VIII just before he reformed the CE and broke from the RC.Jude17 (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)Jude17

Henry's reputation has been inflated in English-speaking countries by Shakespeare's play, which makes him look more heroic and less barbaric than he really was. CharlesTheBold (talk) 04:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

[i]fighting in defense of her country[/i] - She was fighting in defense of someone else's country in a quarrel of royal dynasties: she came from what was still at the time a German duchy - Lorraine. 19th century heroic narratives and Mila Jovovich showcases aren't acceptable bases. Oh, and it was only dropped under the Hanoverians, long after any possibility that the claim was legitimate had evaporated (same as with the claims to the duchy of Normandy, they would lie in a side branch of the Bourbons if you follow kinship). (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Your declarations are quite hard to follow, but surely you don't expect anyone to take seriously your claim that Joan of Arc was not French!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Joan of Arc was from Domrémy-la-Pucelle, which was in the Duchy of Bar. At the time, the Duchy of Bar was apparently half in the Holy Roman Empire and half in the Kingdom of France. As far as I can tell from Google Earth, Domrémy was in the French half of the duchy, on the west side of the Meuse. Moreover, the Duchy of Bar was, as a whole closely connected to France - its duke at the time of Joan's activities was René of Anjou, Charles VII's brother-in-law and one of the main figures at his court. So she was French. At any rate, do we really need to have nationalistic arguments about medieval western European history? I thought we only got this kind of nonsense when we went east of the Elbe. john k (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that according to Wikipedia's article on Joan, she signed her name in German-style spelling: Johanne. Make of this what you will.CharlesTheBold (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


As i read the sources, there is some doubt about his date of birth, between four possible dates in August & September 1386 and '87, with none of them to be especially preferred. That being the case, i just reverted a bold edit which seemed to lay emphasis on one particular date, and tried to offer all four. Discussion? Cheers, LindsayHi 10:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Good move, Lindsay. For what it's worth, I support the 9 August 1387 birthdate rather than 16 September; but you are right that the article should not favour one over the others.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I've always read that it was 1387. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Authoritative reference from ODNB supporting the current version reinstated. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


This article contains many historical events that nobody is sure how they really occured, with differing points of view(of course with English historians glorifying Henry the fifth and twisting the truths and facts to satisfy their vanity, and French and other historians doing the same but with an opposing view), but most claims in this article are written from the point of view of English historians, so I took the liberty of making very minor changes. The source was the Discovery Civilization Channel, and I can't really make a reference to my TV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Propaganda328 (talkcontribs) 10:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

So that other contributors can help improve the article, can you identify points in the text where "English historians...twisting the truths and facts to satisfy their vanity" appear? --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Try seeing how it was written. They said that Henry was 'forced' to execute the prisoners when news of a third attack came, and then he ordered the executions to stop when it didn't(I don't exactly remember what was written). Others of Henry's fans make another claim that French Cavalry had taken over Henry's personal bodyguard in the rear and he feared the prisoners might join them. Everyone makes an excuse about it, but I believe I was watching a respectable unbiased Channel when I saw the documentary on TV, which said nothing of any third attack, or cavalry in the rear, but just that he did not deal in ransoms, so he just slaughtered them. How would you react if a Neo-Nazi German user came on to the Holocaust page and edited it to put that Hitler was 'forced' to kill the jews after the Russian campaign drained Germany of resources that would be needed to transport 6 million people to Madagascar, and he later regretted it?
Oh and sorry about the 'Most Historians' part, you can remove it if you want. Propaganda328 (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It might well be valid: I'd rather leave it in but with a reliable source that says specifically this. Equally, the "excuses" for Henry don't have a source either, and they should: the {{cn}} request should be read as applying to the whole paragraph. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


The battle of Agincourt is observed by scouts of a high tech alien society in the science fiction novel "Out of the Dark" by David Weber.

I have no idea how or even if this information would be included in the article.

Dfmclean (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be more relevant to include it in the main Battle of Agincourt article rather than Henry V's.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Walsingham and the Lollards[edit]

The article claims that Thomas Walsingham attributed the "disappointment of Lollards" as the source of tales of the prince's change from a roisterer to a sober, puritan, king. I couldn't find this detail in Walsingham's Chronica Maiora (Preest translation, 2005). It seems true that Henry eventually gave up on his Lollard former companion John Oldcastle after he was captured and tried, but this was probably for pressing political reasons rather than as quoted. Considering removing this, subject to other editors' views. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Marginally covered by a new ref: stet. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"Harri V"[edit]

Why is this in the lead when there's already an interwiki link to Harri V? It's not impossible that Henry spoke a little Welsh, given his assimilation of Welsh fighters into his armies, but I can't see any justification for having this in the lead. If we were to have anything like that it should be a reflection of something in the body text, but it isn't. I propose a deletion. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No objections? OK, implementing. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"Political reference in 2012"[edit]

Is this new section relevant? It reports a random remark from a talk-show host. I propose a deletion, based on WP:RECENT. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree; it's irrelevant. If it belongs anywhere, which it doesn't, it would be better placed in Henry V (play) than here. Cheers, LindsayHello 08:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, all done? Implementing. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Henry v daughter[edit]

didn't henry v have a daughter Mary who married sir William Aldrich ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plantagenet v (talkcontribs) 15:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Henry V of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Early Life[edit]

Early life "Henry was born in the tower above the gatehouse of Monmouth Castle, Monmouth, Principality of Wales (and for that reason was sometimes called Henry of Monmouth)."

The principality of Wales only refers to the territories of the House of Aberffraw. Monmouth was never part of the 'principality' of Wales.

It should just say Monmouth, Wales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henry V of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

this article needs more references[edit]

There are lot of paragraphs throughout the article that do not have a single citation. howcheng {chat} 07:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Shot in face at Shrewsbury[edit]

The article on John Bradmore says that the ″arrow penetrated on the left side below the eye and beside the nose of the young prince″ (attributed to Stephen Cooper’s Agincourt, Myth and Reality). This is also the description given by Juliet Barker in her Agincourt, p 29. Barker goes on to surmise that the scar that this wound must have left explains why the only surviving portrait of Henry (the one from the National Portrait Gallery shown in the article) shows him in profile instead of the normal three-quarter face. However, the portrait shows the left profile of Henry, with no scar. The picture has not been printed back-to-front. Could it be that the arrow entered the right side of his face? Or it is just artistic license to omit the scar and Barker’s surmise is erroneous? Exbrum (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

It's as likely that the event never occurred, of course. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 15:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to change reign dates[edit]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_English_Royalty#Reign_dates Jhood1 (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Here are some sources for Henry V reign dates being (21 March 1413 - 31 Aug 1422):

  • Handbook of British Chronology (Fryde et al) p.41
  • Handbook of Dates (Cheney) p. 36

Jhood1 (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Agincourt[edit]

Should this article mention that Henry V won the Battle of Agincourt earlier than it does?Vorbee (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Vorbee: How mean ye? It mentions it in the lead, and then again when the chronology reaches 1415. Although I agree it's a crappy enough article that I was half expecting it not to mention it at all :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Henry V cannot have been born in 1387[edit]

Though his birth date is cited as either 9 August or 16 September of either 1386 or 1387, both sources for it in the lead categorically point to 16 September 1386. One of them is Ian Mortimer's Fears of Henry IV, and the other is Henry V's entry on the ODNB (which is apparently free to read). I looked into Mortimer's book and some of the sources he uses for his assertions, and was able to gather the following:

  • Thomas, Duke of Clarence, was born in the autumn of 1387 (as indicated by payments for his nurse), so it is impossible for Henry to have been born around that time.
  • Henry IV's household was at Monmouth (Henry V's place of birth) in September 1386 but not in August 1387.
  • A number of contemporaries pointed out that Henry V was born in the feast of st. Edith (16 September), and the date 16 September 1386 appears to have featured in contemporary accounts (unlike the other dates), according to Christopher Allmand in his 1992 biography of Henry V.
  • Henry was either aged 26 or was in his 26th year (aged 25) when he was crowned in April 1413. Allmand states the latter, but in J. H. Wylie's 1896 biography of Henry IV (which is cited by both Allmand and Mortimer) the former is presented as true. <source (p. 324, footnote)> This confusing outlook is the only evidence I found that might support the assertion that he was born in 1387.
  • 9 August seems to have originated as a misprint for his coronation day (9 April 1413) and probably has no justification. Very few original sources seem to give August as his month of birth. <source (p. 323, footnote)>
  • Payments made by Henry in Maundy Thursday (c. March~April) 1403 indicate that he was in his 17th year, and so could not have been born in August/September 1387.
  • Statements that he was in his 36th year when he died support the notion that he was born on 16 Sep 1386.

Given these assertions, wouldn't it be logical to use 16 September 1386 as his birth date? Mortimer states that, given this, Henry V's date of birth is "as certain as of that of any late medieval king". Any of the 1387 dates are wrong, while August 1386 is highly unlikely. Frac6 (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I've read the citations too. They don't say it is the date. They say it is the likely date. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Both Mortimer's book and the ODNB entry actually say that it is. The former is particularly emphatic about it, and both present it as the only alternative. Perhaps you saw an outdated version of his ODNB entry, which indeed gives more than one date, but the most recent one shows 16 Sep 1386. Mortimer says his birthday is "as certain as of that of any late medieval king, and the references to his birth in 1387 are incorrect".Frac6 (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Interestingly, the last editor to be so emphatic over this was one User:Nevlos; now blocked, I see. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
The citations are free for anyone to see, and they're in the lead for maximum visibility, no less. What is your comment even supposed to mean? Frac6 (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

A number of different dates are given in 19th and early 20th century works. Allmand (1992) refers to this in his biography and says that 16 September 1386 is probable but uncertain. However, the academic consensus has clearly changed since 1992 as modern scholarly works simply give 16 September 1386 as fact. These include:

  • Allmand's ODNB entry (2010)
  • Anne Curry Henry V Penguin (2015) p. 3
  • Christopher Given-Wilson Henry IV Yale (2016) p.40
  • Ian Mortimer The Fears of Henry IV (2007) Appendix 3

Jhood1 (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Should the date be changed then? The facts are there. Frac6 (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

It is clear that before 2007 the academic consensus was that the birthdate was uncertain, after the 2007 publication of The Fears of Henry IV the academic consensus has changed to be certain of 16 September 1386 as the birthdate. In addition to the sources listed above this date is given in:

  • A J Pollard Henry V: Pocket Giants (2013)
  • John Matusiak Henry V Routledge (2012) p.21
  • Gwilym Dodd ed. Henry V New Interpretations York Medieval Press (2013) ("There has been debate on Henry’s date of birth but 16 September 1386 is now accepted" p.11)
  • A. L. Brown and Henry Summerson ODNB Henry IV (2010) (The change was from "was most likely born in September 1386" in 2004 version to "was born in September 1386" in 2010 version.)

Given the evidence listed above I think it would be appropriate to give reasons backed up by sources why there is not such an academic consensus before making reverts. Jhood1 (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I reverted because the only change was to the date in the info box with no change to the article text. I was fine with the edit that actually made the article text support the new date. Ealdgyth - Talk 10:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
@Jhood1: I agree that you've made a policy-based argument in favour of the change, and that those who object should meet it with similar arguments. However, per WP:ONUS, once it becomes clear that someone objects to your bold edit, the burden is on you to gain consensus before making the change. I'll note, however, that at the very least it appears the available sources support an extended discussion of the dating of his birth (a separate section vs. a sentence or two), including the historiography: and that's often a more productive and nuanced discussion to have than two sides arguing about a single binary datum in the article's lede. --Xover (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
So the edit that I made included a preliminary attempt to discuss the dating of the birth in the article body. If you think a more detailed historiographical discussion is interesting/notable enough for the article then you are welcome to expand upon it. I think that would be more productive than reverting back and forwards. However, if you want a different date in lede or a "contested see below", then you would need to find sources to support that. Given the high-quality of sources above and the way the use the date as uncontroversial I find that unlikely. As regards consensus my understanding is that includes the quality of the arguments, and when I made the edit I felt I had address Celia Homeford's concerns about what the sources actually said by noting that there was a different pre/post 2007 academic consensus. Jhood1 (talk) 07:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

This contemporary document also gives that same birth date. Frac6 (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

While the sources cited above are fine to make an argument, the mediæval manuscript cited here is original research and has no bearing on the discussion. I also find the addition of the {{failed verification}} tag in the lede to be POINTy and tendentious: it may be technically accurate, but only because the cite is to a previous version of the ODNB entry (which is still available, no less). I would encourage self-reverting that. --Xover (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
The {{failed verification}} also applies to the immediately preceding reference to Mortimer's book, which also gives the same birth date and is the main source for the statement (and is conveniently accessible as well). It's not POINTy (and not tendentious) as to be classified as a policy violation: I did not write anything which could be classified as making an explicit point; I made use of a template whose purpose is to highlight inconsistencies between text and source, which is the case here. What do you think about the date change itself, though? I don't want this to drag on forever with constant mention to side issues like this. There has been no significant objection to the idea itself so far. Frac6 (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I have nevertheless removed the tag as per your request, but I'll again ask you to think this through. Frac6 (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Jhood1: I note that you do not have a consensus from this discussion to change that material to that which you favour. I suggest you self-revert until a consensus is apparent; otherwise, you are verging on edit-warring (as I have just notified you). Instead of advising people to "join the discussion" here, you would be far better off not pushing your personal pet theories whilst a discussion is ongoing. Many thanks. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
If discussion is ongoing then I will self-revert. However, that discussion must be about what the reliable sources say. I have presented extensive evidence above from high quality sources. If another editor disputes that my edit reflects RSs then I would expect them to make that case here. However, since Celia Homeford contribution on 30 August regarding Christopher Allmand's 1997 biography no argument has been made against the proposal that mentions sources. I believe I have shown above that there was a change in the sources in 2007. But if the opposition to the change does not justify itself in terms of sources then it seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and that cannot be used to say there is no consensus. Jhood1 (talk) 11:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thomas Morstede[edit]


I have just added a couple of sentences to the page regarding John Bradmore having recorded his treatment of Henry at the Battle of Shrewsbury in a Latin manuscript named 'Philomena'. The account which is recorded here is very similar to one which has been recorded in Thomas Morstede's 1446 manuscript. Let me know what you think!

ChocolateOrange1 (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

"King Henry V" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information icon A discussion is taking place to address the redirect King Henry V. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 4#King Henry V until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Certes (talk) 12:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

English language vs ?[edit]

"Starting in August 1417, Henry promoted the use of the English language in government"

As opposed to what? French? This could be clearer. (talk) 10:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)