Talk:Henry II of England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
Core This article is listed on this Project's core biographies page.
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This History article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Henry II of England article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Comments without headings

All comments left at the top of this page without headings or sections have been placed in this section. Please avoid your comment being moved here by making a new section: you can click here or click the + to the right of 'Edit Page' on the tabs above. ~ Veledan • Talk 19:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Very nicely written, but "subverting feudal legislation" has to go -- it doesn't really make sense. If there was such a thing (whole different topic -- I don't think it's a valid expression), then baronial courts would have epitomized it, I'd have thought. The Barons were just abusing the hell out of their power, which had incresed dramatically as a result of the war between Stephen and Matilda. JHK

The point is that feudal legislation was the legislation of the time, ad hoc and rough justice that it was; I agree that the phrase is somewhat oxymoronic but what was going on here was a major shift in power between State (in the form of the King) and the Barony, and this is characterised in reversal by the radical reforms which Henry II introduced. This is a watershed phase in English history. The barons weren't just abusing their power, they were refocussing power to their own ends, a quiet revolution. Henry wasn't going to have that... But if you feel you have to rephrase it, please do. I couldn't think of a better way of explaining a fairly complex phenomenon without the aforementioned oxymoron... sjc

The point I'm trying to make is that I don't think there is such a thing as "feudal" legislation. There's just whatever existed at the time. Feudal implies something having to do with personal allegiance and oaths, but some of the people who benefited from Henry's changes wouldn't have had much to do with that. Plus, I'm pretty sure that, if you look at English vs. French vs. Imperial legislative and judicial systems (which many people would call feudal), you'd find that they were all dramatically different. <sigh> I'll sleep on it and see what I can come up with ... <the Carolingianist sighed again, wishing the Middle Ages weren't such a pain in the arse>. It's times like these that I just want to do bios on the Arsenal back four JHK

The Arsenal back four are certainly less complicated: but some of Eeyore's tackles are positively mediaeval in their lateness... :-) sjc

Hey <she said, chuckling mightily> -- Eeyore is one of my heroes! Anyway, it looks like Mr Campbell is getting set to inherit the nickname... and a certain other person who wears bright red boots seems to be making up for age and lack of speed with a Chelsea-like aggressiveness...JHK

Is it "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest" or "troublesome priest"? I thought the latter, but bouncing both of Google (a legitimate form of historical research, as I'm sure you all know) produces more of the former. Only by a margin of about 2:1, though. Come to think, it's rather remarkable that Henry II spoke modern English.

So what did he say? -- Paul Drye
Probably neither since Henry II's first language was French... sjc
Perhaps "turbulent" and "troublesome" are the same word in French?
According to Simon Schama in A History of Britain, the actual quote was "What a parcel of fools and bastards have I nourished in my house that not one of them will avenge me of this one upstart clerk!". As Simon says, it was a roar of Plantagenet anger. - bruzie 10:14, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
According to Alison Weir in her book, Eleanor of Aquitaine. These were words were never recorded by a contemporary source, and have merely been attributed to him by future historians. hdstubbs

---

The article says that Henry had his son Henry the Young King be crowned king in 1170, yet it also states that he continued to reign himself until 1189. So what is going on? Were they co-kings, did they govern different areas, or what?

They were sort of co-kings. It was an attempt to make sure that Henry's heir would suceed him, something he had no guarantee of when he was young. RickK 01:56, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Who were the five sons of Henry and Eleanor? I can only find four: Henry, Richard, Geoffrey, and John. Daughters were Matilda and Eleanor. RickK 01:56, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The 5th son was their eldest, William. He died at age 3, and therefore played little importance in the history of England.

Shouldn't then William be listed under "issue" on the right panel , regardless of how long he lived? 68.71.35.93 11:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Some kings had loads of kids. Edward I had 18, and that's only the legitimate ones. The infobox would be simply unmanageable if all the children should be included, so only the most important ones are there. Eixo 13:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC) ---

the following was posted in the Eleanor of Aquitaine discussion area: Italic textI am very dubious about the link concerning the tapestry designs from the Dame à la Licorne series. The formatting of the web page is a huge hindrance to readability. As I am not one to judge French visual puns I cannot make comment on the first half of the page where deciphering of the tapestries is described. However towards the end of the page the author begins to go off on a tangent concerning the ?sang réal", that is the myth that Christ bore heirs and that the ?blood? of Christ ran through the reigning houses of Europe. This coupled with a virtually Gnostic theory of history of the Italians leads me to doubt much of anything the author says about these tapestries. - Frank BurdettItalic text Someone with a bit more knowledge than I actually removed the link there, should it not also be removed here? --Frank Burdett 03:19, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

--- This is the new link to the abovementioned site for those interested in scholarship and not just conservatism ...

http://home.iprimus.com.au/ian_ison/Y%20Is%20I%20Web/la%20Dame%20à%20la%20Licorne%20Tapestries.html


---

I was under the impression that Beckett more likely *fled* england? -as

Er...when? When he left in 1164? Or do you mean was actually not killed but instead fled? Adam Bishop 15:24, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] William Marshal

There is an error here about William Marshal. It said during the rebellion that he stood by the side of Henry II, this is not true. He sided with Henry the Young King. In reply to the question above, "William" was the first child of Henry and Eleanor. Died around the age of 3 however. Henry(the young king), Matilda, Richard(coeur de lion), Geoffrey, Eleanor, Joan, and John(Lackland) were the following children, in order. -THM

Agreed, Marshal was the protector of the Young King and stood by the Young King, against Henry. Imagine haveing to choose sides, the father or the son: "Cursed be the day when the traitors schemed to embroil the father and the son" (William Marshal). --Stbalbach 20:07, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Assize of Northampton

I've created an article on the Assize of Northampton and added a reference to it on this page, I hope it fits in ok. I was just wondering really, when you've created a new page do I need to index it or something, or add it to a list, because it doesn't appear when I search for it. Thannks. --SFO 08:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No need to index it anywhere, it will show up in the search page eventually. Adding links to it from other articles is the best way to make it visible. Adam Bishop 15:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1171 Invasion of Ireland

Can't quite see how to make this fit in. In 1171 he set sail to invade Ireland from Newnham on Severn: "One account of this event stated that Henry's invasion force consisted or 400 ships and some 5,000 men" (according to this).

[edit] Map Request

This article would be better with a map of the Angevin Empire. I am new to wikipedia. Does anyone know how to make this request? hdstubbs

[edit] Arms

This article appears to indicate the incorrect arms for Henry II. According to Burke's General Armory, Henry II had: "Gules, two lions passant gardant or" until he acquired Aquitaine then it became "Gules, three lions passant gardant or" which of course ultimately became part of the royal arms we see today.

[edit] Accession to the throne.

Unless I’m missing it somewhere this article needs a section on how Henry came to sit on the throne as it is my understanding it wasn’t a straight forward father to son accession. Dwp13 16:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right - this is barely dealt with. Henry's mother Matilda and her cousin Stephen had fought a long dispute over who was to occupy the English throne after the death of Matilda's father Henry I in 1135. Eventually, Stephen was largely successful in holding England (after a serious scare in 1141), but Normandy was conquered by Matilda's husband Geoffrey of Anjou. Geoffrey gave Normandy to his and Matilda's son Henry in 1150 (iirc), then died the next year, leaving his son Anjou and Maine. Henry's marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine the next year got him Aquitaine. Stephen was already feeling threatened by this immense acquisition of power on the part of his rival, but the key fact was that in 1153 his elder son, Eustace, died. Although Stephen still had another son, William, who was alive, he decided it was best to cut his losses and recognized Henry as his heir. He died the next year, and Henry succeeded without incident. john k 17:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the section needs writing. For many years before Henry's adoption neither side had had the military might to inflict defeat on the other: the civil war had fizzled out with lots of barons simply refusing to fight any more for either side. Some of the most interesting episodes of Henry's early life come from the period leading up to his being adopted as the heir: I'm thinking of his capture of some of Stephen's castles using mercenaries he couldn't pay for when he was only 14 years old and his subsequent cheeky appeal to Stephen to pay off those mercenaries after his mother the Empress and Robert of Gloucester had both refused to bail him out of the sticky situation! (Stephen did pay them off and sent Henry back to France); and his crowning in Carlisle 2 years later, followed by his escapes from Eustace's assassination attempts on his way back South ~ Veledan • Talk 20:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference citations

The article would very much benefit from the inclusion of some reference citations. Badbilltucker 15:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In my article on the Angevin Empire you'll find a lot of citations on his reign, if you aren't lazy just pick a look for I won't work on Henry II's page myself. Matthieu 20:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural depictions of Henry II of England

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/e/n/Talk%7EHenry_II_of_England_c800.html"