Talk:Henry III of England

Map of King John's lands in France, c.1200

The exclusion of western territories from vassals of the king of France is misleading. They were all continental fiefs held in vassalage from the French crown. I suggest relabelling the green portion to "Other Vassals of the French King". A short and more accurate description can be found here. (Jouvencel (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC))

King John

King John wasn't infamous, he was famous! and great too! Susan Mason

I don't disagree with the fact that he was famous, but his incompetence has registered him as one of, if not the worst king of England ever.

King John was certainly famous but not incompetent. He faced the internal upheavals and external assaults with ability, but what placed him amongst the worst English kings was his cruelty, asserting character and arbitrary methods. John perceived himself to be the absolute monarch with power given from God, the sole authority to whom John justified his actions. All the other people in the kingdom had to get aware of it. Ourania 21:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)RaniaOurania 21:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Power from God? The belief was that those who won battles, and killed their opponents were given that power by the deity. Therefore, Pol Pot and Al Capone were chosen by God. Trial by ordeal used the same guiding principle. If God wanted it, then the accused would survive the 1000C bon fire. None ever did.220.240.252.173 (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Relinquished control in 1270???

How is it possible than Henry III "effectively gave up the reins of government to his son" when that son, Edward I of England, was out of the country from 1270 to 1274 on the Eighth Crusade and Ninth Crusade? If Henry wasn't regnant in 1270 until his death in 1272, who was? Certainly not his absent son. I'll give this a week or so, then I will change the language if nobody comes forward with an explanation and a source to back it up. - Bryan is Bantman 18:24, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I have edited the article and it no longer says that. User:Dark Lord of the Sith Revan

Re-write

I've split this page into many sub-categories and moved informatino about between them. Are there othr ways of improving this article? I am soon going to start finding more sources. 0L1 22:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The sub-categories seem to be ok, but they certainly need to be expanded.The paragraph about Henry III and Edward the Confessor, for example, could be developped as following: There is the other side of the coin; under the pretension of following Edward’s example in virtue, Henry served his own vested interests. Westminster, Edward’s residence, was incorporated with Henry’s into a single centre implying thus the centralized state of England. The English and French kings may have both ‘promoted monarchy by emphasizing its divinity’, but the evidence suggests that Henry was conspicuously pious whereas Louis IX truly believed in ‘godly ideals’. Moreover, Henry emphasised their common love of hunting in order to justify his own lack of prowess and manliness, elements which were required for every monarch. On the other hand, Matthew Paris dedicated the Estoire de Seint Edward le Rei to Henry’s queen Eleanor of Provence (if I am not wrong it was in the 1242s). Edward the Confessor played a major role in Matthew’s ideas of royal piety. His ‘reign was a paradigm of conciliatory kingship – the Edward of the Estoire was everything Paris wished for in Henry III’. To reflect this model of kingship, the monk tended to emphasize Edward’s adherence to his councils, his detest towards the foreigners and his deep devotion to God for he attended the Masses with contemplation and he enlarged Westminster as well. Moreover, Matthew laid emphasis on the fact that the Confessor avoided extravagance and he preferred to live humbly.

Sources Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 42 (Oxford, 2004), p. 625. W. M. Ormrod, Political life in medieval England, 1300-1450 (N. York, 1995), p. 66. C. Brooke, The Saxon and Norman Kings (London, 1967), pp. 62-65. P. Binski, Westminster Abbey and the Plantagenets (1995), p. 6. P. Binski, ‘Reflections on La Estoire de Seint Aedward le rei’, Journal of Medieval History, 16 (1990), p. 340 La Estoire de Seint Aedward le Rei: the Life of St. Edward the confessor, introd. M. R. James (Oxford, 1920), pp. 12-13 & 17.

Moreover, in the sub-category Criticisms, I suggest the addition of (1) Henry's countless money extortions and levying of heavy taxes which exhausted the kingdom (2) the king's collaboration with the papacy and his tolerance towards the pope's satellites; both caused the barons' and the english church's indignation. Ourania 16:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)RaniaOurania 16:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

An only child?

At the start of the article, it reads, "Henry III (1 October 1207 – 16 November 1272) was crowned King of England in 1216 despite only being a child."

Despite being an only child? This confuses me. I'm sure there's a logical explanation for this sentence but Henry III was clearly NOT an only child at the time he was crowned king. Also, I think the sentence is really grouping un-related thoughts (crowning and family status).

Thank you.

Sorry - I wrote that sentence. What I meant was, he was not an adult when he was crowned, he was only 9 years old. I meant that "he was only a child" not "he was an only child". I will rewrite it to make it more clear - sorry for the inconvenience. 0L1 20:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

:Henry wasn't the first child-monarch of England, what about Edward the Martyr? GoodDay 19:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

By the Face at Lucca!

It says, among entries under Henry III's 'Personal details', that 'His favourite oath was "By the face of Lucca", referring to the Volto Santo di Lucca'. I don't know about Henry III, but this was true of William II! I have taken the liberty of editing this information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volto_Santo_of_Lucca (q.v.), since the source (Schaff) previously cited in the relevant footnote there actually refers to William II, not Henry III; if, in my ignorance, Henry III also subscribed to this oath as his favourite, then prima facie there is every reason to suppose that he derived it from his forebear William II - though why this should be, I couldn't say; and, if the latter is true, then William II's oath is arguably of more historical interest with regard to the Volto Santo di Lucca itself, being earlier. I have also added a reference to a printed edition of a primary source for this English royal oath, in the relevant footnote at the above page for the Volto Santo of Lucca; and, in the same footnote, I have expanded the reference to Schaff by means of an external link. I'll try to remember to edit this information on Henry III's page also, if there has been no contrary response to this post in a week or so; and, there being no mention of this on William II (Rufus)'s page, I shall now do some editing there, too.

Nortonius (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Where does Nortonius' idea that this oath was connected with William Rufus come from? --Wetman (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wetman, did you see [1]? Nortonius (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

War in Wales

Just wondering whether the war between Henry III and Llywelyn ap Gruffydd of Wales that ocurred in the 1250s should be mentioned in the article? It was the war that started when Henry subjugated large amounts of Wales and then faced strong resistance from the Welsh until ultimately he was defeated. --81.151.114.179 (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Deleted spurious sentence by 63.254.243.42 under coronation concerning "absorption" of Henry II and supposed transformation into a chimera. Misopogon (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Eleanor (sister)

Which Eleanor of England was the sister of Henry III who married William Marshal, 2nd Earl of Pembroke. If anyone can identify the correct one, a wikilink in the Sutton Valence article is needed. Mjroots (talk) 09:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I've found it - Eleanor of Leicester. Plz correct the Sutton Valence article if it is not correct. Mediaeval England is outside my comfort zone. Mjroots (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Saintonge War

I'm surprised that this article doesn't mention the Saintonge War (summer 1242) into Henry III was deeply involved and twice defeated. As for the war in Wales, the both wars he lost should be mentioned in this article.92.157.195.132 (talk) 09:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Question: Why the large section on Eleanor of Brittany

The large section on Eleanor of Brittany is not useful to this article

- While she died during Henry III's reign, her life story has little to do with it
- She was not a large influence on Henry III
- She has Wiki article of her own

I would argue (my opinion) that her death during Henry III's reign is not notable enough to merit a mention in his article, let alone a large section. Lizbetann (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Not only that, but the information is simply not correct. Of course, since the laws of succession had not been legally codified, and would not be for another four+ centuries, there was no way that Arthur, 12 years old at the death of Richard, would have become king, much less Eleanor, a woman, 3-4 years later...not with John around, and certainly not after Henry was born.

In any case, the practice was to designate the heir, so she wouldn't have been among those listed, again not with Richard, Arthur, John, and then Henry to choose from.

After all...the legitimate, in-what-would-become-law-in-later-centuries heir to the throne only 70 years prior, Matilda, had to fight the THIRD son of a younger DAUGHTER of William the C., until he died, only to see the throne pass to her son instead of her.

There simply was no way for Eleanor of Brittany to have ever inherited the throne, ever, or to ever have been considered a threat to John or Henry.

Who wrote this? Timber72 (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Since there are no objections, removing the section on Eleanor of Brittany. Lizbetann (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes, clearly it was me who had written all this. Don't you think the treatment of his cousin reflected his personality? If you have a relative with NO THREAT who you would usually like to treat generously, would you think of keeping her closely confined till her death?

When I wrote it, this article did not have so plentiful contents, so I thought such a section would make it more complete; now it has become long and complete enough, so the details of the Pearl seem of little necessity here? But, however little influence Eleanor had on the reign of Henry, as far as I have learned, the fall of Peter des Roches was related to her as a result of a so-called plan to ship her away. Above all, the death of Eleanor effectively ended the line of Geoffrey, making that of John indisputable. Without the Pearl, there would also be no place for those cases recorded in Lanercost Chronicle.——Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Expansion

I've taken a stab at an expansion of the article; I think that it now covers the literature on Henry, and everything should be fully referenced etc. I'm 100% certain that there a bunch of typos, etc. in here though, and it will need a decent copyedit. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

What a job! :) Are you planning on nominating it for DYK? By my calculation it's eligible. Ruby 2010/2013 22:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating, indeed! By my calculation, however, i's not eligible for DYK. It's now c. 67,945 characters long (including citation numbers, which are not normally counted), but it has to be longer than 77,000 characters - and those 10,000 need to be added today. Surtsicna (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... Using the DYK Checker, it was expanded from 11897 characters to 65836 characters, which is more than five times. Am I calculating something wrong? Ruby 2010/2013 01:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I am calculating it wrong. I was using Cut & Paste Character count. I have no idea how to use the other two. Anyway, I am going to nominate it and let someone else do the math :D Surtsicna (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Those DYK rules always confuse me! If it helps, in word terms, the page size tool has it up from 2016 to 10700 or so now, excluding foot notes etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Surtsicna. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks great! Ruby 2010/2013 16:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing it on the Main Page! Surtsicna (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Henry III of England/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Brigade Piron (talk · contribs) 18:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I'll review this if you don't have any problems with it. A disclaimer: I know absolutely nothing whatsoever about the subject, but at least I'll come at it from the perspective of the average reader. I've scanned it through and there are no obvious problems. I'll read it through properly and bring up the table in due course.Brigade Piron (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hi! I've gone through and made the changes. I've added some more bits on the Jewish policies in, but I can't go much further without getting into considerable detail on the Jewish bond policy, or alternatively straying a bit from Henry's role in the process. I'm a bit stuck on the lead paragraphs though (my usual weak spot) - I can't work out what to lose without it then failing to summarise the sections adequately. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Background and childhood The first two paragraphs of this section need clearer focus/reshuffling. At the moment, it goes from discussing Henry to discussing Britain, back to discussing Britain again in the next paragraph. The paragraph break seems quite arbitrary. Could you reshuffle it into paras with a common theme. "taught to ride, by probably Ralph of St Samson" -> ", probably by..."? Further on Types of penny - long cross and short cross are, I believe, technical terms so inverted commas or capitals.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Could the lead be cropped in any way? It's long and doesn't really allow the reader to dip into it. Not a major problem. This aspect is still an issue, and would be an obstacle if you want it to go for A-class, but not such a big issue here.Brigade Piron (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes, although it occurs to me that the section on the persecution of Jews could possibly do with being extended, given its importance. It is currently quite short.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Congratulations! I'm sorry it took so long to review & I wish you the best on your future contributions. Brigade Piron (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Image discussion...

Hi Hchc. I just changed the picture on the article for Henry III of England but you reverted that edit, stating that "Doesn't actually show King John's lands in 1200 though, but rather Henry II's empire". Firstly I'd like to mention that I should have said c. 1199 when John came to the throne, not c. 1200. Anyway, the point of that picture in the article is to show the lands that John controlled. John controlled the lands shown in "Angevin Empire.svg" when he came to throne, not the vaguely drawn lands shown in the picture that was previously there. The only difference that is worth mentioning is that the borders of Normandy are very slightly different and presumably show the loss of the Norman Vexin or something. I can't even work it out though because that map is so vague. "Angevin Empire.svg" allows the reader to see exact borders and lands owned by John in a way which is far more useful. If you could enlighten me onto the exact reason you prefer the map currently on the page, and how it helps the text more than the map I chose, then perhaps I could be persuaded to agree. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC) (NB:copied over from Hchc2009's talk page with consent of Sam)

Sam, my thinking is that what the typical reader needs in the background is a simple graphic to explain the continental situation around the time of Henry III's birth, with only the main provinces and cities mentioned in this article on it. The more detailed map, showing the Angevin Empire under Henry II, wasn't designed to show John's possessions in 1200; it was designed to illustrate Henry II's possessions and claims earlier in the 12th century (thus the colour ranges etc.). Being detailed, it doesn't really help a reader instantly see what Henry III's father owned, and indeed takes a bit of reading/analysis - it's a relatively busy graphic. At first glance you might think that the English King claimed/owned Toulouse for example - this would be accurate for Henry II, but not for John. The more detailed map also isn't cited as being accurate for 1200, unlike the simpler version, which uses data specifically referenced to that date. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, the map I put up was a busy graphic. I would say that it is useful however to show the difference in authority that John had over certain areas. His authority over Brittany was weaker than his authority over Normandy, for example. I think if the simpler map could be edited in some way, I'm not sure how exactly, but just to show that difference in authority, and show the borders within John's continental domains, then that would be far more useful to a reader in showing that John's power was not the same in all areas, and by showing province borders, will aid the reader in knowing what area of Western France the text is referring to. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The colour coding in the complex map doesn't reflect any cited differences in levels of local authority though - as I drew the map, I'm pretty confident of this! :) I suspect that the simpler map could be improved however. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I understand that the graphic I chose isn't suitable, I'm just saying the one that's currently up isn't either, that's all. I'm not proficient in editing graphics at all so I wouldn't feel comfortable attempting it, but perhaps you could edit the current map then to show at least the province borders, including Aquitaine, Brittany, Anjou, and Normandy's borders at least? I think that would be a great improvement! Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (NB: just to clarify, I think I chose the Duchy of Toulouse colouring with the idea of showing a weaker claim, but the other colours were chosen so as to make it easier to distinguish regions etc. The idea of using shading to show degrees of control is a clever one though, and if we could back it up with sources to avoid OR, it would be a neat way to approach a political map.) Hchc2009 (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Sam, I'll take a stab at it over the next day or so. Nice work on the Angevin Empire, btw! Hchc2009 (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I've been working on a draft here and see if I can try and do a big edit all at once rather than the tiny edits I've been doing this month one by one. I'd love for you to take a look at my draft when it's done, or edit the draft yourself if you see anything that can be improved. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

External Links

Sorry, I was in the process of placing the external links page in the proper "place" before I realized that someone else had undone my original edit.

I think it would be valuable if there were some external links added. I started with the henry3.com site because it is the newest site I have had the privilege of discovering. But I am sure that many relevant links can be added, including some that discuss Henry III's coinage. (I invite users Hchc2009 and Eadlgyth to comment.) Salsany (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I can see that the link would be relevant to an article on English coins, but it doesn't seem widely applicable to Henry III as a broader topic. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

External links should be to things that are relevant to the article subject. In terms of a featured article - you're going to want sites that expand on things that you just don't have room for. They should be limited in number and selected with care. There is no need to have any if they don't fit well. Generally, they would be things that are media-packed that bear directly on the subject. For example - William the Conqueror has just one link - to the National Gallery's selection of portraits of William. A privately produced site on the coins of Henry's reign just doesn't fit here. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

English v. British...

GoodDay, I've reverted the text back so that it marries up with the claim made in the ODNB. I'm keen that any notability points we make match up with those that appear in the higher quality histories of Henry - I think there's a risk of OR otherwise, not in terms of the factual length of the reign, which is obviously pretty certain, but the spin/interpretation/importance we give to it - and the one that I could find was the ODNB claim, which is specific to English history. Happy to discuss further! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree here - I was going to change it back also - the ODNB isn't saying the longest "English monarchs" but "in English history" - which is different than what you changed it to. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

What about Scottish history? Irish/Northern Irish history? Welsh history? Victoria & Elizabeth II aren't limited to English history. GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Henry III was the longest reigning monarch in English history. George III, Victoria & Elizabeth II aren't limited to English history. GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's discuss first and get consensus before deleting sources and material. The ODNB source, which is typically a pretty good, reliable source, states that his "fifty-six-year reign" was "the fourth longest in English history". I'm pretty sure its carefully worded that way, as it gets around the (to me at least!) often confusing distinction between English and British monarchs by referring to "English history". The existing phrase in this article accurately reflects the source. I personally don't read that as saying that Queen Victoria or Elizabeth didn't have anything to do with Scottish or Irish history, but equally they were certainly also involved in English history.

Could I suggest a compromise, in which we keep the sourced text, but remove the wikilink to the "List..." article, whose contents may be confusing the issue here? Hchc2009 (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

"English history" is a non-starter, as it disregards Scottish, Irish & Welsh history. The current wording erroneously suggests that England merely expanded into what's today the United Kingdom. It suggests that the UK is merely a larger England. BTW, why is being fourth so important to note? GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

(ec - and can you quit editing your comments so that I keep hitting edit conflicts???) I'm good with that. I'm also good with removing the claim - 4th isn't that incredible that it needs to be here either. But if it stays, it needs to stay true to the source, which does not say a thing about "British Isles" or "British history" - but merely "English history". English history is the exact phrase the ODNB uses - are you saying Oxford University Press is somehow biased here? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Oxford University seems to be suggesting that English flows into British, pushing aside Scottish (for example). Very much the way David Starkey did in his monarchs Tv series. Shall we have "third longest"... in "Scottish history" at James VI and I, which would equate what's in this article? GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I honestly don't care what is in James' article - because it's past my period of interest. But whatever IS in his article should adhere to the sources. Which is what we're saying here - don't go past what the sources state. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The source is unreliabe, as it pushing false information on this article. We should be going for accuracy here. At the very least, let's delete the entire sentence & source. Afterall (again), when was being fourth/fifth overly notable. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

GoodDay, I honestly think you're over-interpreting the political significance of the phrase "English history"; I think the Huw Ridgeway and the OUP are just trying to stress that he ruled for an unusually long period of time, and aren't trying to suggest that Ireland, Scotland or Wales aren't important. My views on James VI/I are pretty similar to Ealdgyth's; we should always be reflecting high quality, reliable sources. I can't see that it is inaccurate, and the fact is important enough to get into the first para of the ODNB entry, so personally I'd be inclined to leave it in. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The sentence is inaccurate & the source is un-reliable, per its apparent pro-England PoV. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I doubt if we're going to agree. It's not been a long discussion, but I'd read the discussion above to suggest that there is a consensus (2:1) that Huw Ridgeway and the OUP is a reliable source for the claim. In terms of how much the three of us care that the claim is included in the article though (regardless of that consensus about reliability), I feel sort of that it should remain (but aren't passionate), Ealdgyth isn't particularly fussed, and you'd strongly like to see it removed. How about we give it 24 hrs, give other editors a chance to comment, and then if the situation remains as is, remove it on the basis that that while it may be reliable, it isn't a vital statement to keep in? Hchc2009 (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

In agreement, deletion would be best. Let's give it 24hrs. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't it just make more sense to say that Henry is the fifth longest reigning monarch in British history, as per our page on the list of monarchs of British history by reign? Psunshine87 (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Because the source doesn't say "British history" but "English history". Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to say that it should remain. It's accurate, as only Victoria, Elizabeth II, and George III ruled longer in England than Henry. Furthermore, it's backed up by a reliable source. James VI did not rule in England longer than Henry. Therefore Henry is the fourth longest reigning monarch in English history. However I don't think it's that important to be included in the article; those who come fourth don't even get a medal. If GoodDay and other editors feel strongly that it should be removed due to being pretty irrelevant then I'd be inclined to agree. I don't mind either way. SamWilson989 (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

As per the consensus above, I've removed. To summarise where I think we ended up... There was a majority consensus that the source and claim was verifiable and reliable, but - as per WP:ONUS - verifiability does not mean that information has to be included in an article. The information was not felt to be critical to the narrative and the consensus was in favour of it being removed on that basis. Thanks for everyone's inputs! Hchc2009 (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

In agreement, per WP:ONUS :) GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Reign start date

I'm changing the start dates of the reigns of the Norman and Angevin kings to match with their coronations. My source for this is Bartlett (2000) England under the Norman and Angevin Kings which has a section on the Interregnal Period. "The Norman and Angevin kings did not claim to succeed to the royal title immediately upon the death of their predecessor, as was the case in later English history. It was coronation that made a king and kings dated their regnal years from the day of that ceremony" p.123 To use the earlier date therefore misses the particular significance of the coronation ceremony in this period even if in cases where the monarch is de facto king. Although Henry III may not be a proper Angevin king, Bartlett does consider his reign to start at coronation. --Jhood1 (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

For such a drastic change encompassing presumably eight articles, I'd recommend finding a second source that states the same thing. A single source is probably not enough to fend off the reverters. If this gets approved, you also need to fix dates in other places such as the succession boxes and the List of English monarchs page. Still, I would hold off on the wholesale change until you have a second source verifying the first.  – Whaleyland (Talk • Contributions) 20:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, there more discussion of this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject English Royalty --Jhood1 (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Birthdate

Adding details on the *original source* of his birth date (supposed) is completely relevant and necessary to this article. The aggressive hostility addressed toward my minor edit is outrageous behaviour. It's really quite over the top and must immediately cease. Wjhonson (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles on historical figures don't automatically cite the primary sources they rely on; they typically cite secondary sources. Much of the information about Henry comes from primary sources that are not mentioned in the article; giving those details would clutter the footnotes. Why would Roger of Wendover's description of Henry's birthdate be an exception? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

However there is no restriction on citing a primary source. Reverting my edit with "utterly irrelevant" to start an edit war is quite hostile for such an uncontroversial fact.Wjhonson (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources have to be used with caution, per WP:PRIMARY, but yes, they can be used. Chroniclers frequently made errors, though, and I would much rather cite such a fact from a modern secondary source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

There isn't any reason to cite the primary source. There is already a perfectly fine secondary source for the date, and one that most readers will understand. No modern reader is going to have a clue what the feast day of St. Remigius would be, so it is not helpful information. There was no hostility evinced - I stated that the information (which merely gives a minor saint's feast day) was irrelevant and I stand by that point. Besides the problems with primary sourcing and the fact that it doesn't tell the reader anything they have a hope of finding useful (We aren't medieval people, we don't date things by saint's days), it also wasn't actually sourced. This is a featured article - we need more than "Roger of Wendover's Flowers of History" as a source. If the feast day of his birth had meant anything about how he was named - that might be relevant. But it's not. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll note that the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry on Henry III does not mention anything about him being born on Remigius' feast day. Nor is this fact mentioned in Carpenter's Minority of Henry III or in either biography of his father I have on my shelves. When such a fact isn't mentioned in those works, it is obviously of not much interest to modern historians. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

We should be using high-quality, secondary sources for articles on medieval history - I agree with Ealgyth's wider comments. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Some readers might imagine that the dates, which would have been stated in the Julian calendar by primary sources, might have been converted to the Gregorian calendar by modern sources. This is not the case, but citing the primary sources would allow readers who are confused on this point to confirm the calendar for themselves. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Coronation and reign date

In this period a person did not become king until their coronation: "Until, apparently, the reign of Edward I, no English king assumed the royal style before his coronation" p.30 (Handbook of British Chronology E B Pryde)

No reliable source dates the reign of Henry III from the 19th October. These sources date the reign from the 28th October:

Handbook of British Chronology p.37

Handbook of Dates (Cheney) p.33

Oxford Dictionary of National Biography 1

Bartlett (2000) refers to this as an inter-regnal period. p.124 Does anyone know of another source? Jhood1 (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Attacks on Jews in the Second Baron's War

Hi there, this topic isn't well covered within the article. I'm hesitant to just go ahead and edit it as it is obviously stable and well-edited. Of course I can have a go but perhaps it is best to indicate what I think is missing first.

It seems to have been a deliberate matter of policy of the Barons to target Jewish communities in order to seize and destroy records of their debts to Jews. Their indebtedness seems to have been a particular grievance, no doubt exacerbated by the difficult economic conditions, and is leveraged by de Montfort in this policy in order to get the war going. So it starts with attacks in London, where 500 Jews die, and also Worcester, where large numbers of Jews also die. In each major attack that follows, a key ally of de Montfort, either his sons or a major Baron, is present at an incident where Jews are murdered while they seize the records of debts, and then taking the records off for (future) destruction.

It's not clear how much Montfort is restraining matters, sometimes he appears to intervene to stop the violence, but of course this is a major policy of the revolt. Finally, after the Battle of Lewes, Montfort ensures that debts to Jews are officially annulled.

By this point the violence has spun out of control; and it carries on until 1267, two years' after Montfort's death and the end of the war.

In terms of sources, these matters are covered in recent and older Jewish history texts but curiously omitted (rather than refuted) from many narratives. At the moment I've added the material to Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester; Second Barons' War, History of the Jews in England (1066–1290); and some mention on Worcester and London. Jim Killock (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

How about we work up some draft words on this talk page? The key point I guess I'd emphasise going in is that this particular article is about Henry III, as opposed to Simon de Montfort (or indeed the Second Barons' War etc.), so I think it's important that any additions focus on Henry III's specific role rather than the wider context (particularly since the article is already at 10,761 words!). Hchc2009 (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, fair point. The tactics from HIII's perspective were leverage against him, and then acts he was forced to comply with. So still relevant to him, ultimately. Also, note point 3a in the review above I'll draft somethig now. Jim Killock (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I think I will add something like:

The Barons aimed at annulling their debts to Jews by seizing the records of loans. Their campaign resulted in violence and killings in a number of cities.

and then, re London:

500 Jews died while Montfort's rebels participated in widespread violence and attempts to seize documents.

then:

After Lewes, with Henry's power diminished, de Montfort declared all debts to Jews annulled.

and finally, after de Montfort's death

Violence against Jews organised by the Baron's continued after de Montfort's death, with further seizures of debt records in *names of cities*. Henry however attempted to reverse all the annulments made during the war.

These changes are made, hope they are ok. Jim Killock (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I will also put a bit more detail into the section on Henry's Jewish policy so that doesn't end up covered twice. Jim Killock (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits

Thanks for the edits, User:Hchc2009. They seem mostly fine to me, however, there is still a thread through this relating the Henry III which is not apparent. Henry's policy c 1235-60 seems to have been to allow his entourage to use Jewish loans as leverage to acquire lands of others, by purchasing the loans and then waiting or causing loan defaults; this contributed significantly to the anti-semitism of the period. The Baron's war then reflects this discontent back at Henry, the relevance to Henry is that he is culpable in having exacerbated the tensions.

Worse, Henry of course agrees to anti-Jewish measures like the Statute of Jewry in order to placate the Barons and the church ("don't blame, me, blame the Jews"). Within this he endorses the Little St Hugh story (did he ever reject it? The sentence about this implies he does).

So to me, the violence (including the last acts of the rebels around Ely, where they continued to destroy records of Jewish debts) is something Henry III has significant responsibility for. In terms of Henry's legacy, by the end of his reign we are three years off the Statute of the Jewry which surely has to read as the result of Henry's policy failures. Jim Killock (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Just about to dash into town, so will try to reply properly later, but on one of the points he initially endorsed the anti-semitic Little St Hugh story, but then refused to have the community punished, giving the impression that he had changed his mind (if I remember it rights) - thereby, in classic Henry fashion, managing to upset just about everyone. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks :) It's important to remember that Henry's royal role in dealing with the culprits at the start is what gave the story its prominence and remembrance. England is often cited as the point where the blood libel story is really cemented into European medieval tradition, so we should make sure that Henry's pivotal role in that is made clear. Jim Killock (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I've read through Langmuir's excellent account of the Hugh incident (and edited that page with the main information). It seems very paradoxical: Henry III bequeaths history with a decisive boost to the blood libel, but does so through a combination of idiocy and failure to recognise the venality of the clerics around him. The problem this gives me of course is that his general policy towards Jews starts to look more like a a bad accident due to his lack of control over courtiers abusing Jewish bonds, combined probably with his own respect for clerics, who would have been pressing for anti-Jewish laws. So overall, incompetence rather than design, on his part. Jim Killock (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Point about child murders

In the Henry III of England#Jewish_policies section I think the detail is wrong here:

Anti-Jewish stories involving tales of child sacrifice flourished in the 1250s and, in response, Henry passed the Statute of Jewry in 1253, which attempted to segregate Jews and enforce the wearing of Jewish badges; it remains unclear to what extent this statute was actually implemented by Henry.

The main child sacrifice libel took place in 1255, so *after* the Statute of Jewry. Also, Jewish badges had been Church law in England since 1217 or thereabouts, reinforced at intervals but usually used an excuse to levy fines for the 'breach' of not wearing them.

I think I will check some sources and amend it. Jim Killock (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Grammar

In the sentence

He put the case to Henry that the Justiciar had squandered royal money and lands, and was responsible for a series of riots against foreign clerics.

it is grammatically ambiguous who the subject of the "was" is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.48.194 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic.

Was he really the last English/GB/UK King whose first two legitimate sons each had a legitimate son? Seem impossible, but this is what Wikipedia indicates. Another Wikipedia article used to indicate that monarchs typically pick their second son as Duke of York, and their sons theoretically can inherit the dukedom from them, but never do, because either the Duke's older brother (the Prince of Wales) has no legitimate children so the Duke of York becomes King and the dukedom merges into the crown, or because the Duke of York has no sons (daughter can't inherit dukedoms). [This has since been deleted from that article.] I started going through Wikipedia articles concerning future, present, and past monarchs of the United Kingdom, Great Britain, and England, looking for someone whose first two sons both had sons. In summary, here's what I found in existing Wikipedia articles: Queen Victoria was the last monarch whose first two sons both had sons. But she wasn't a King, because she was female. If we don't include sons or grandsons who are known to be illegitimate, then the last possible male example I can find is Henry III, but it seems implausible that there would be no one in over 700 years. If it really is so rare that it hasn't happened in over 700 years, then this would be something notable about him that should be mentioned in the article. (Prince Charles will probably be the next. He is likely to become King, and his two sons each have one or more sons.) If we include a King's illegitimate sons or the illegitimate sons of a King's legitimate sons, then it would be someone more recent, but I'm not sure whom. It's impossible to tell whether George IV qualifies (he had so many unconfirmed rumored or reported illegitimate sons that we can't tell who his first two illegitimate sons were). More research is needed to see George III does (Wikipedia didn't clearly state whether Prince Frederick had a son). If neither them qualifies, then it would probably be Henry IV, whose first son (Henry V) had a legitimate son and whose second son (Thomas) had an illegitimate son. Here's the details of what I've found so far from Wikipedia on past monarchs, starting from the present, initially including both genders, and later only males: Queen Elizabeth II's second son (Prince Andrew, the current Duke of York) has only daughters. George VI had only daughters. Edward VIII had no children. George V's first two sons (Edward VIII and George VI) had no daughters. Edward VII's first son (Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale) had no known children. So Queen Victoria (whose first two sons were Edward VII and Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) would be the last monarch of either gender. William IV had no surviving legitimate sons, one of his first two sons (both of whom were illegitimate) had no children (of either gender), and his only legitimate sons were all stillborn. George IV had no legitimate sons. I'm not sure which of his rumored or reported illegitimate sons were really his, so I can't tell who his first two illegitimate sons were. George III's sons (George IV and Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany) had no legitimate sons; one (George IV) probably had illegitimate sons; I'm not sure if the other (Prince Frederick) did. George II's second son (Prince George William) had no children. George I had only one son. William III (and Mary II) had none. James II's first four sons had no children. Charles II had no legitimate sons and his second illegitimate son was probably Charles FitzCharles, 1st Earl of Plymouth, who had no sons. Charles I's first son died the day it was born. James VI's first son (Henry Frederick) died without children. Henry VIII's first son died before the age of two months. Henry VII's first son (Prince Arthur) died without children. Richard III's son Edward died age 10. Edward V died about age 12. Edward IV's second son (Richard) died before age 1. Henry VI had only one son. Henry V had only one son. Henry IV's second son (Thomas) had only an illegitimate son. Richard II had no children. Edward III's second son died in infancy. Edward II's second son (John of Eltham, Earl of Cornwall) had no children. Edward I's first son (John) died age 5. Henry III's first two sons had sons.47.139.45.69 (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC) James II of Scotland reigned from 1437 to 1460. His eldest son James III had three sons, and his second son Alexander had four. Opera hat (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Henry III in popular culture.

The book World Historical Fiction: An Annotated Guide to Novels for Adults and Young Adults by Lynda G. Adamson (Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999, ISBN 9781573560665 (p.660) lists at least five historical novels featuring Henry III of England. They are The Queen from Provence (1979) by Jean Plaidy, The De Montfort Legacy (1973) by Pamela Bennetts, The Outlaw of Torn (1927) by Edgar Rice Burroughs, The Marriage of Meggotta (1979) by Edith Pargeter and Falls the Shadow (1988) by Sharon Kay Penman. These could be added to the main article about Henry III, or possibly a separate "Cultural Depictions of Henry III of England" section could be added to the "Cultural depictions of English and British monarchs" Template. 188.141.25.160 (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Magna Carta

Olef641 recently added (aka Magna Carta) after Great Charter of 1225 with [2]. I am doubtful about calling the 1225 version Magna Carta. However, I am no expert on post-Conquest nomenclature. Johnbod do you have a view on this? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello. In the book, Magna Carta, a scholarly treatise on the evolution of the document by leading authority on the history of that time and place, David Carpenter, the various versions of the Charter are discussed at length. On page 417 of the Penguin Classics edition of the book, the author calls it "The final and definitive Magna Carta of 1225". olef641 (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

OK but I would leave out "aka", which is an unnecessary colloquial abbreviation. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I've changed to "Henry promised to abide by the Great Charter of 1225, a later version of the 1215 Magna Carta,..." (rather a double link). Aka is certainly wrong. Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Shortened lede

In trying to shorten the lede, per some of the suggestions in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, I made a change, but it was subsequently reverted by a later editor, but I don't know why:

Henry III (1 October 1207 – 16 November 1272), also known as Henry of Winchester, was King of England, Lord of Ireland, and Duke of Aquitaine from 1216 until his death in 1272. The son of King John, Henry assumed the throne in the middle of the First Barons' War when he was only nine. Cardinal Guala declared the war against the rebel barons to be a religious crusade and Henry's forces, led by William Marshal, defeated the rebels at the battles of Lincoln and Sandwich. Henry promised to abide by the Great Charter of 1225, which limited royal power and protected the rights of the major barons. His early rule was dominated first by Hubert de Burgh and then Peter des Roches, who re-established royal authority after the war. The King unsuccessfully attempted to reconquer the provinces of France that had once belonged to his father.

Following a revolt led by William Marshal's son, Richard Marshal, Henry ruled England personally, rather than governing through senior ministers. He travelled less than previous monarchs, investing heavily in a handful of his favourite palaces and castles. He married Eleanor of Provence, with whom he had five children. Henry was known for his piety, holding lavish religious ceremonies and giving generously to charities; the King was particularly devoted to the figure of Edward the Confessor, whom he adopted as his patron saint. He extracted huge sums of money from the Jews in England, ultimately crippling their ability to do business, and as attitudes towards the Jews hardened, he introduced the Statute of Jewry, attempting to segregate the community. In a fresh attempt to reclaim his family's lands in France, he invaded Poitou. After the disastrous Battle of Taillebourg, Henry relied on diplomacy, cultivating an alliance with Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor. Henry supported his brother Richard of Cornwall in his bid to become King of the Romans, but was unable to place his own son Edmund Crouchback on the throne of Sicily. He planned to go on crusade, but was prevented from doing so by rebellions in Gascony.

Henry's rule grew increasingly unpopular, the result of the failure of his expensive foreign policies and the notoriety of his half-brothers, the Lusignans, as well as the role of his local officials in collecting taxes and debts. A coalition of barons, probably backed by Eleanor, seized power in a coup d'état and expelled the Poitevins from England, reforming the royal government through the Provisions of Oxford. Henry and the baronial government enacted a peace with France, under which Henry gave up his rights to his other lands in France in return for recognition of his rule over Gascony. The baronial regime collapsed but Henry could not reform a stable government and instability across England continued.

One of the more radical barons, Simon de Montfort, seized power in the Second Barons' War. Henry persuaded the French king to support his cause and mobilised an army. In the Battle of Lewes Henry was defeated and taken prisoner. His eldest son, Edward I, escaped to defeat de Montfort and freed his father. Henry initially enacted a harsh revenge on the remaining rebels, but was persuaded by the Church to mollify his policies through the Dictum of Kenilworth. Reconstruction was slow and Henry had to acquiesce to various measures, including further suppression of the Jews, to maintain baronial and popular support. Henry died and was buried in Westminster Abbey, which he had rebuilt, and was later moved to his current tomb.

I suggest we find an amenable compromise. —GoldRingChip 00:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I reverted. This is an WP:FA article, which has been reviewed and supported as of the highest standard. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Henry III of England/archive1. Major changes should not be made without discussion here on the talk page. I also think the original version was better. For example, some of the changes were deletions of dates, which are important for context. I do not see any reason for shortening the lead. Of course it can no doubt be improved and specific proposals for changes can be discussed here as you say. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)