Talk:Henry IV of France

comment 2

He was crowned in 1594, and proclaimed the edict of Nantes in 1598. It would also be worth noting that his future mother in law attempted to assasinate him in 1572 at the St. Bartholomew's day massacre.

Guards

Where there no Guards to protect his majesty from such attacks?Philippe Auguste (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

He had The forty-five guards. They didn't have a great track record though. qp10qp (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

comment

"While the rest of France marks the end of monarchist rule each year on Bastille Day, in Henri's birthplace of Pau, his reign as king of France is celebrated."

I find this sentence questionable... Traditionally Henry IV is one of the most respected King by the Republicans for at least two reasons : - he ended a civil war, - he instaured religious tolerance.

Ericd 19:51, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I once read that Henry IV liked to wander around Paris with a basket of puppies hung around his neck. For obvious reasons I haven't included this in the article but I thought might be interested to hear it. --Roisterer 07:19, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Then there's his joke about the three great mysteries of European royalty -- Elizabeth I's virginity, Maurice of Orange's valor (he had never been in a battle), and Henry's own religion... AnonMoos 18:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"Paris is worth a mass"

I think it really is conjecture whether he actually said this. Would it not be more accurate to say that Henri was a man of limited religious conviction to whom the conversion mattered little?

That Henry was reputed to say it is a fact, and should be reported, even if he did not in fact say it. To say that "Henry was a man of limited religious conviction to whom the conversion mattered little," would disagree with the consensus of recent historians, who feel this view of Henry is an anachronistic back-reading based on Enlightenment ideals. (They may be wrong about this - it seems that the current consensus is to read everybody as a devout follower of whatever religion they may have, which seems questionable to me - but that is certainly what just about every book from the last 20 years which I've ever read on the subject says. john k 04:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I have amended this (as it is very unlikely that he actually said it) and added a note to a modern short history of France which claims that his calvinist critics coined the phraseWaysider1925 (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Editing

To the anonymous editor that I reverted, if the "next part of the article is wrong", correct it and integrate it into the article in a readable and scholarly fashion. Please, do not in bold type, tell us its wrong, and then not make changes to the article itself. Seem fair? Or better yet, get on the discussion page and tell us your opinion, so we can all weigh in and help. Dr. Dan 02:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Julich Cleves.

there is no discussion of the Julich-Cleves affair in 1609-1610 that nearly resulted in a major war that could have severely damaged his reputation. Historian Knecht commented that the fact that Henry was killed before he could escalate the conflict probably saved his reputation.

I'll try to write this section myself, but if anyone else could, would be an important addition to the article.

descendants

Wikipedia is inconsistent between two web topics dealing with the same point - descendants of Louis I, Duke of Bourbon. On the topic page for "Henry IV of France" much is made of the possible title claim by the Bourbon-Busset line from Peter I, Duke of Bourbon, oldest son of Louis I, Duke of Bourbon. The line by which Henry IV descends, Bourbon-Vendome, comes from Jaques (b. 1315). However, when you go to the topic page for "Louis I, Duke of Bourbon," "Jaques" (b. 1315) is " James I" (b. 1319). it is the same individual as shown by date of death and title. There should be consistent dating and name referencing or, alternatively, some type of disclaimer in the body of the article as to questions of the date of death. There is no explanation for the name differences except Angloization. Angloization is obvious by the use of "Peter" in both articles instead of "Pierre." It should be "Pierre" instead of "Peter" and "Jacques" instead of "James." After all, in the Henry IV article you would not think of using "Frank" in place of "Francois" or "Anthony" instead of "Antoine."

    --> Well, then, it should be Henri, and not Henry. Sebastien 8/6/06

Oy. I wish there were a simple and consistent answer to this issue -- this is an easy one, because the two are almost identical. The issue it's also complicated by the fact that many medieval and early modern royals frequently ruled or held court in countries not of their birth, and by the prevalence of international languages like Latin, and that's without even bringing numbering and modern translations into it. The Scottish king "Seumas VI" is the English "James I" and he's "Jacobus" in a lot of contemporary documents and depictions. If I were writing about in Irish I'd call him "Seamus". Which would be "right"? The man known almost universally in English as the Holy Roman Emperor "Charles V" was never called "Charles", was he? My choice here would be "Henri IV of France and III of Navarre" as the title and "Henri" throughout, but many other conventions are just as valid in an English-language article. Ben-w 03:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

We do use "Francis" instead of François (c.f. Francis II of France, e.g.), and I've seen sources that use Anthony instead of Antoine. BTW, James VI of Scotland ruled over a mostly Inglis speaking country, so calling him "Seumas" is a bit misleading. Charles V was certainly called Charles - he grew up in the Netherlands, and his first language was probably French. In terms of old Jacques/James of La Marche, I don't think it particularly matters, and the birth year is probably uncertain, as it often is for medieval nobility. I'd somewhat prefer "Jacques," but I speak French, and am perhaps not the best person to decide. We should look at what sources use, if possible. john k 12:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Poule au Pot

The precise quote we have for on this is "Si Dieu me prête vie, je ferai qu’il n’y aura point de laboureur en mon royaume qui n’ait les moyens d’avoir le dimanche une poule dans son pot!" This quote, if at all accurate, makes a nonsense of Greengrass's interpretation -- it's far too specific to be an analogy. I will see that every labourer will, at the very least, have his world put to rights every Sunday? That doesn't make sense.

Henri IV: images d’un roi entre realite et mythe talks of fanciful depictions and mythmaking -- but the article doesn't claim that the King successfully fulfilled this pledge, still less made visits to individual families to deliver chickens, or that it was his favorite dish, or knew recipes for it, or any of the other things that have been proposed -- just that he was rare among French kings in actually considering the basic well-being of the poor, and that he expressed this in his usual earthy, straightforward manner. Ben-w 23:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Very well put! Dr. Dan 03:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Readability

Good article - but the genealogy section at the beginning should be relegated to the end, and the Life section should be divided up under suitable headings.--Shtove 15:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Navarre

Maybe it would be useful noting that he was not only Henry IV of France, but also Henry III of Navarre? Lemmy Kilmister 08:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Fiction

Alexandre Dumas has a magnificent and immensely readable group of fiction surrounding the kingship of Henry of Navarrave. We are given to a world of religious strife, bigotry, plotting, and assassination attempts at the highest level. The villian of the entire piece is Catherine De Medici. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.96.80.15 (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Henry/Henri

I know there was some discussion about this earlier, but if you look at the article now, it seems to be about 50-50 "Henry" and "Henri" all mixed up, sometimes alternating, sometimes different in the same paragraph! I suppose this is one way of deciding not to decide, but it is pretty disconcerting to the reader. Bigmac31 20:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Heir-general

As the senior Salic claimant to the throne of France, Henri IV was indeed the rightful claimant after the death of Henri III. However, I think it is important to add that Henri IV was also the heir-general of the senior line of the House of Capet, through his mother, the Queen of Navarre. If France was not under Salic Law, Henri IV would have been the King in the direct line, through his mother.

And he was also the heir-general of Charles VII and the direct Valois, through Magdalena of Valois. However, it's debatable how much anyone apart from him and his family would really have cared, given that France was under the Salic law. Michael Sanders 15:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

He was the heir of Madeleine de Valois, but Madeleine's older sister Yolande, duchess of Savoy, had living descendants in 1589, so Henry was not, in fact, the heir-general of Charles VII. I'm not sure who would have been - Yolande had two daughters who had issue, and I'm not sure which of them was older. In 1589, Charles VII's heir-general was, I believe, either Claude de la Trémouille, 2ème duc de Thouars, or else Henri I d'Orléans, duc de Longueville. john k (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Vert galant

The literal translation of "vert galant" as green gallant makes no sense and really should be changed. When translating from French into English, one cannot make literal translations since this is not how language works. The term "vert galant" is an idiomatic phrase and can be translated in several ways, as alluded to below. Personally, I think the term "old charmer" is probably best. My favorite example illustrating how literal translation from French is not useful is the expression "haut comme trois pommes" or literally " as tall as three apples". What does that idiom really mean in English? It means "knee high to a grasshopper", indicating a time when someone is very young. Translating "vert galant" as green gallant. to me, has the same flavor as translating "haut comme trois pommes" as "as tall as three apples" - it makes no common sense. So, let's change the translation of "vert galant" to its idiomatic meaning, OK?

Petefm (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ It was my impression that "vert galant" referred to the statue of Henri on downstream tip of Île de la Cité in Paris. Made of bronze, it has acquired a green patina. --70.51.91.237 (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Andrew

"Vert galant" may transliterate as "gallant green," but in 17th-century France it was a colloquial expression of respect and affection. It's difficult to come up with an exact English equivalent (see below), but "old charmer" or "old rascal" would come close. Think Robin Hood combined with Casanova.

According to Littré (Dictionnaire de la Langue Française, 1877):

Verts galants: sorte de bandits du XVe siècle, ainsi nommés à cause qu'ils se tenaient dans les bois, et qui n'eurent pas trop mauvaise réputation, parce qu'ils s'attaquaient souvent aux seigneurs et aux riches.

Fig. Vert galant (par souvenir des verts galants et de leurs exploits), homme vif, alerte, vigoureux, et, particulièrement, homme empressé auprès des femmes.

---

[Verts galants: A kind of 15th-century bandits, so called because they hid out in the woods, and didn't have a particularly bad reputation because they often attacked the rich and powerful.]

[Figurative (in remembrance of the "verts galants" and their exploits), a lively, alert, vigorous man, especially one who enjoys the company of women.]

---

The term "vert" literally means "green," but can also be used to denote youth or inexperience, as in English greenhorn, green behind the ears, etc. In this sense "vert" is also applied to an older man who retains his youthful vigor. See Littré, entry for "vert," #6.

So, "old charmer," "old rascal." The more puritanical might say "old lech," or "dirty old man" (and Henri IV did have more than his share of bastards), but it's really a term of affection.

--Mycroft0212 17:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Basque

Did Henri speak Basque? Was it the language of government in Navarre? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahassan05 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The court was at Pau, in the Gascon speaking area. He probably was able to speak Gascon, although French was of course the language of the court at Pau. I doubt he spoke Basque. Perhaps he knew a few words. Godefroy (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Her mother spoke Basque and made the Bible translated into Basque. It was probably one of the first texts to be written in Euskera (Basque). She did it because she was a protestant. It is likely that Henry also spoke Euskera. However, I think it has to be remarked that when talking about "King of Navarre" it is referred to the "Low Navarre" and not the "High Navarre" (the Spanish part). The kingdom of Navarre was partitioned from 1512-1522 when the High Navarre (the Spanish part) was conquered by the Kingdom of Aragon. In any case, both in Low and High Navarre, the major spoken languages were French, Castillian, Aragonese, Gascon (a dialect from Occitan) and Euskera (Basque). I hope you will find this useful. If you think it is interesting, please include it in the article. Otherwise, I can do it myself. Achaya (talk) 15:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Lists, templates, tables

The lists, templates, and tables outweigh the text. I've moved the long genealogical list out of the article (where it was inserted high up, in the middle of a section) into a new article Henry IV of France's succession, which I hope provides all the genealogical information anyone could require. Looking at the article now, I see the need for a rationalization of all the listing. For example, in the lengthy infobox, we have a detailed list of Henry's children, with dates; three paragraphs below this, we have an enormous Bourbon template which lists the children all over again, along with grandchildren, great grandchildren, and the children of these children. At the foot of the article, we then have several detailed tables of his children and various illegitimate children. There is finally an assembly of succession boxes. One might assume that Henry's children were the most important thing about him, but the bounder did not have a legitimate child until he was well over forty.

I propose to remove the huge House of Bourbon box that presses the text to the left (if anyone knows how to reduce the template to just the shield, it would be fine to keep that: these things are much less of a problem with a "hide" mechanism). Anyone who wants to read about the House of Bourbon can click the link in the yellow section above the succession boxes or go to the House of Bourbon article; but I don't think most people who read an article about Henry IV are keen to read en passant about the children of Louis XIV, for example. I also think the dates of the children can be removed from the infobox, which needs shortening. Also that the jumble of titular stuff above the portrait can be removed; clicking "more" there is not really what most people are going to want to do at the beginning of an article, and so this rather specialist link can go in "See also", no? I also believe that the space-consuming listing of all the illegitimate children of Henry IV is surplus to requirement in this article. However, Henry's love and sex life is a fascinating business, so I propose to start an article about that, into which these tables can go. I will seek to reference them in the process, because at a glance they look riddled with inaccuracy. I can add material to the new article that will give context to lists that are really rather useless on their own.

I'd be interested in any responses to these proposals. My long-term aim is to start a number of new articles that will relieve the pressure on this page to act as a ragbag for peripheral information about Henry. Once these various main articles are in place, this article can then summarise them proportionately. qp10qp (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've now moved the table of mistresses and illegitimate children into a new (substantial) article: Henry IV of France's wives and mistresses.qp10qp (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Vermilion Phantom

Quote from The Book of Lists (1977, "10 Ghastly Ghosts", p. 272-275):

• THE VERMILION PHANTOM: The ghost has appeared at various critical junctures in the history of France. A tall well-built figure, wrapped in a red cape, with a beard also of a red hue, he appeared to Henry IV on May 13, 1610, in the king's bedchamber, and predicted, "Tomorrow you will die". Henry sent for his counselors immediately, and discussed with them the manifestation and the message. Within 12 hours the king was assassinated by Francois Ravaillac, a Catholic visionary who believed that Henry's conversion to Catholicism was politically motivated. The vermilion phantom appeared four times to Napoleon Bonaparte. On the third occasion, in January 1814, Count Mole-Nieuval was a witness to the tall red apparition. Dr. Antomarchi [sic] saw the figure at Napoleon's bedside on May 5, 1821 - the fourth visitation - on the day of Napoleon's death.

The author of this section of the book was Philip Cunliffe-Jones. The web produces no corroboration of this story, or maybe I've been looking in the wrong places. Is there any truth to it whatsoever? -- JackofOz (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have just read several books about Henry IV, and I have not seen it mentioned. But I was reading scholarly books. France at the time of Henry seethed with ferocious pamphlet wars and superstitious rumour-mongering, and so I expect the story arose from that. Or else it was made up later by the likes of Dumas. qp10qp (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Corination

If anyone could help with clarification that Henry IV was actually crowned at Charters and not Rheims.Thank you.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Predecessor in infobox

In the Navarre section in infobox, the name of his predecessor (Henri's mother) is given as Joan III, which directs to us to her article under the title Jeanne III of Navarre.

In her article, the first words of the introduction are: Jeanne III or Joan III, known as Jeanne d'Albret.

Now, if the name Jeanne III is given first, why have in the infobox of her son the name Joan III?

Frania W. (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I put Joan III when I added the infobox. The reason is consistency, for his name is given as Henry. I wouldn't object to the change. Surtsicna (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Surtsicna: By not objecting to the change, you mean from Joan III to Jeanne III?

As for my spelling of Henri, you must forgive me as I always think of him in French, although he, personally, often referred to himself as "Henry".

Regards, Frania W. (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do not object to the change from Joan III to Jeanne III. Surtsicna (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. You do it? I do it? Frania W. (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I did it ;) Surtsicna (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Merci! (not Mercy!) Frania W. (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Henry IV & III

While reverting a vandal, I noticed title at top of infobox: Henry IV & III: that is weird, specially since he succeeded Henry III of France. It should be Henry IV of France & Henry III of Navarre or only Henry IV of France. Frania W. (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Below his photo it shows King of France and then King of Navarre, SO I guess we should show Henri IV of France and Henri III of Navarre. If we left it Henri IV, then someone might think he was Henri IV of Navarre.....?? Maybe? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, then I should undo what I did a few minutes ago when I changed to Henry IV, which was silly on my part since I had put the question here. However, my reason for putting only Henry IV is that the article is on "Henry IV king of France", with "Henry III king of Navarre" of secondary importance as the article is in the series of "kings of France" and not of "kings of Navarre".

Consequently, leaving "Henry IV" as is instead of going back & forth, until you give further advice. Frania W. (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to pull a Montjoy/DanyMountbatten and edit war using unpublished sources. I'm fine with the change. Nice to have you back, Frania! :-D --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Then leaving it as is. Merci for the welcome back; however, for same reasons, will be doing "disappearing acts" throughout the "season". |♫♫♫♫♫♫| Frania W. (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Idealised portrait of the king

My personal opinion is that this article gives us an idealised portrait of king Henry. Statements like: "...and demonstrates how well he understood the plight of the French worker or peasant farmer. Never before had a French ruler even considered the importance of a chicken or the burden of taxation on his subjects, nor would one again until the French Revolution." appear silly and naive to me.

It's impossible to know if the French kings before and after him have or haven't considered "...the importance of a chicken or the burden of taxation on his subjects..." It makes Henry to look like the most concerned with public welfare French king ever. But are there any examples of his welfare policy? This article gives none but claims him a leftist saint.

Isidoros47 (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Penile Girth? Really?

Does the first paragraph of this article actually say that Henry was a popular king because he had a large penis which he shared freely? Is that vandalism or is somebody serious about that?

66.112.86.189 (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I did a double-take on that one too. Hehe... might need a little verification on that reference! Jonalexdeval (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Image

Should we add an image of his mummified head? There are many other pictures of mummies on Wikipedia, so it wouldn't be that offensive... EDIT: And it is big news (the discovery of his head)...--BluWik (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

weird word

...after revolutionaries ransacked the Basilica of St Denis and desecrated his grave...

'desecrated' doesn't belong; it means to violate the sanctity of, etc. the notion of sanctity is inconsistent with godlessness, now the universal state of play.

it should be 'vandalized' or 'ransacked', etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.120.197 (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

mtDNA and descendants

I'm in the process of editing this sentence:

"The team was not able to recover uncontaminated mitochondrial DNA sequences from the head, so no comparison was possible with other remains from the king and his descendants"

as our reliable source has let us down: men don't pass down their mtDNA, so comparison with descendants would be worthless. Given that neither his mother nor grandmother have any known full female-line descendants, the only thing they could realistically compare him with would be his own remains (or those of his siblings, mother, or grandmother, if they still exist). --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Healing powers

I've read somewhere that he healed a large number of people afflicted with scrofula, the King's bane. Could someone confirm this, and could this be added to the article?Emerson 07 (talk) 07:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Vert galant - A look at the dictionaries

A citation has been requested for the explanation in this article of the phrase Vert Galant and this has caused me to consult the many French dictionaries in the London Library in order to try to find out what the phrase really means to a Frenchman. There are almost as many different explanations as there are dictionaries and it is evident that no short English translation is possible. Doubtless for this reason the phrase is usually left in French.

First, it has to be appreciated that Galant as a substantive is obsolete. It is used as an adjective but not as a noun in modern French. It was formerly used of a polished and courteous man, an honourable man, a gentleman, who set out to please women and knew how this should be done. Littré in his dictionary published by Hachette in 1863 defined un galant as un homme qui a de l'elégance, de l'habileté à plaire. Vert is used in the special sense of youthful and vigorous in appearance, sometimes translated as spry or sprightly, which may imply that it is used of an elderly man whose vigour belies his years, but this is not essential to the meaning.

The earliest dictionary which I have seen is the Dictionnaire de l'Academie Française published by the Institut de France (6th edition. 1835) which said: 'C'est un vert galant' se dit d'un homme vif, alerte, qui aime beacoup les femmes et qui s'empresse à leur plaire.

Next is É.Littré's Dictionnaire Française, published by Hachette in 1863, which defined Vert galant as: Homme vif, alerte, vigoreux et particulièrement homme empressé auprès de femmes.

In more modern times both the Grand Larousse de la Langue Française (Paris. 1973) and the Dictionnaire Historique de la Langue Française (Alain Rey ed. 2010.) define Vert Galant as 'Homme entreprenant avec les femmes.'

The Grand Larousse cites two illustrative quotations, both from Moliere:-

1) Galant. Tous ces galants de cour, dont les femmes sont folles,......

2) Vert galant. et nous étions, ma foi, tous deux de verts galants

The Dictionnaire du français classique (Jean Dubois et al. Larousse.c2001) defines vert galant as jeune homme entreprenant auprès des femmes and supplies another quotation (from La Fonbtaine: Contes II 7):-

Belle servante et mari vert galant

French-English dictionaries attempt short translations which only serve to show that the phrase cannot be adequately translated in a few words.-

Harrap (1934): Lusty young (or elderly) man; gay spark; gallant.

Bellows (1951 edn): Ladies man.

Harrap (1940): Ladies man.

Collins Robert (1973) does not include the phrase.

Harrap (2001): An ageing beau (surely the worst attempt at translation)

To my mind the old dictionaries did it best and I have amended the text of the article to try and include most of the nuances of meaning which they suggest. It is apparent that the phrase is affectionate rather than pejorative (as is noted above) and that 'womaniser' which appeared in an earlier version of the article is inappropriate.

Waysider1925 (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Henriade

This article should mention Voltaire's epic poem about Henry, whom he considered the pattern of an ideal monarch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.14.28 (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Odd sentence

What is this supposed to mean?
"On April 1610 his liutenant Les Diguieres sign an alliance with Charles Emmanuel I, Duke of Savoy against Spain: the Treaty of Bruzolo, upside down after Henry's death by Marie de' Medici just crowned queen, with rapprochement to Spain."

• Source does not mention a "Les Diguieres".
• Source does not mention "upside down after Henry's death", what ever that means.
  

An explanation would be helpful, since this appears to be broken English and one of the sources is not even in English. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

number of assassination attempts

In the lede it says, "Henry became target of at least 12 assassination attempts." Then, in the section on assassination it says he was killed at the third attempt. Unless there were nine assassination attempts after his death that will need the attention of an editor because as written it makes no sense.

The usual practice at Wikipedia is for the lede to summarise what the article says, and for that reason it should not normally have sources. The relevant comment in this lede, however, has a source, which is a book I do not have access to published in a language I don't speak. So I'm afraid that I can't even confirm that the source says what the article claims. Some one else will need to sort it out. Cottonshirtτ 17:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I dont have privlages to fix this article but to to respond to your point. The assain in the 12th attempt had a long struggle with the kings valets and henri. I think thats what they ment by the third attempt. If your looking for a book in English that talks about the assassination in detail the only one o can think of of the tip of my head is the Red Sphinx by Alexandre Dumas. It is a foction book but although dumas has a political agenda he is pretty good with historical accuracy. One of the main characters in the novel is the valet who captured the assassin Ryssikora94 (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Missing head?

Mummified head, acquired by the antiques dealer Joseph-Émile Bourdais in 1919 in Paris, claimed by some to be the head of Henry IV

On the French wikipedia, in the equivalent article and a companion article there is a lengthy discussion concerning the head of Henry IV following the desecration of his tomb during the French revolution. His severed head was retrieved subsequently and in 2010, with the permission of Nicolas Sarkozy, was analysed by two separate groups of scientists; one group, led by Philippe Charlier, concluded that it was Henry IV's head; the second group refuted this finding. The sources are available in the French articles and the content could be briefly summarised in this article. Here is the longer one: fr:Controverse autour de la tête d'Henri IV. An account of this controversy was included in this article from 2010 as part of the section on "Legacy". It was blanked without discussion by an IP from Kansas in 2015.[1] Mathsci (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a very late response but I am just seeing it, it never received a response, and it may come up again - the problem is that later DNA work on documented descendants of Henry IV didn't match that of the head, so it is now generally agreed that it is not, in fact, Henry's head. (They did do DNA work when they originally studied it, but they only compared it with another source of dubious provenance, a blood-stained handkerchief said to have been a momento of Louis XVI's execution, but not traceable before the 20th century.) This conclusion makes it a lot less worth mentioning in the article that a head that did not belong to Henry was once attributed to him. Agricolae (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2020 (UTCO)

Please have a look at PMID 23283403; PMID 24105374; also: 'La tête momifiée d’Henri IV est-elle bien celle du roi de France?', forum Futura Science, 11/X/2013,- Par Janlou Chaput. The most plausible origin for the 'genetic mismatch' between those claiming today being Bourbon, descendants of Henri IV, and genetic data from the head of 'Henri IV', the blood of son of 'Louis XVI'; is that they are not Bourbon by male line, come not from Henri IV, but guess where do they all belong, where do they all come from. Blessings +

If I remember correctly, this head has at least one mutation on 7 STR with the "handkrechief with Louis XVI blood". Having a mutation on such a small number of STR tested between relatives in just 7 generations is considered very UNlikely. Haplogroup G2a is not a rare haplogroup in France and Italy. The R-S263 of the several living Bourbons, on the other hand, is quite rare in France and Southern European countries, where these Bourbons ruled. Instead, it is typical for Benelux, from where the both the Robertians and Salian Franks came.

Henry versus Henri

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Henry III of France#Why the anglicized "Henry"?
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hagiographic article

This article is really naively written as it sings the praises of the good king Henry the fourth when his popularity was pretty much posthumous and manufactured by the likes of Voltaire. Take a look at the french article which is much more nuanced and critical.SenseiSam (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

So fix it. Agricolae (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Expression 'baptized as catholic' is a mistake

There has been a lot of controversies about repeating baptism of somebody who received it from a different church. As the roman church statement has always been that anyone, even an atheist, a worshiper of Shiva, the destroyer, the destroyer of love, the destroyer of worlds, could administer a valid and efficacious baptism, as long as the formula: 'I baptize you in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit' is used. The requirement of using an specially blessed water can be dispensed from circumstances.

So, no need to repeat baptism for those who were baptized, let's say, in the british church, or other churches recognized by the World Council of Churches, to receive other sacraments inside the roman catholic church. Bill Clinton had Holy Communion from a catholic prest, while he is a Lutheran, he had no opposition to having the sacrament from a catholic, neither the priest opposed to Clinton waiting with other to receive it. British politicians, however, always feared one of their 'royalités' had, by mistake or inadvertently, communion from a roman catholic priest.

This was the object of final decisions in roman church councils long before any schism inside the church.

What marks ascription to any Christian church is the ceremonies the baptized attends, eg. the Sunday celebrations, the other sacraments the believer receives, the religious instruction, catechesis,...

For roman catholics, in places where no catholic temple is found, Sacraments, Holy Mass,... from Orthodox churches are considered a fully valid choice.

Marriage as sacrament existed before Abrahan went out of Ur of Caldea, and it is not the priest who administers the sacrament of wedding, they are the spouses who give the sacrament one another, the priest gives special blessings, attests the bond in front of other parish members, and in many countries, provides with state marriage documents, recording wedding for legal purposes.

The wording in many wedding ceremonies may establish an spurious, unnecessary and untoward bondage of new spouses respect officiants and their organization, not in the religious issues, but the type of bond of employees to higher rank company individuals, this is a lasting bond.

Same applies to anybody officially allowed to receive a new couple: judges, notaires, city council officers, and so on, they do not 'marry the guys', but attest the new married did marry.

Thus, it is not necessary, in case of mixed weddings, eg. a catholic and a Greek Orthodox, making two ceremonies, each for one confession.

Blessings + — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.109.243 (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2022

chhange the heading of coronation and recognition(1594-95) to coronation and recognition (1594-1595) 2603:8080:500:37:2C7B:7A62:1A0C:3308 (talk) 08:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2022

Please add the following template to the article.

{{Dukes of Vendôme}} 2601:241:300:B610:0:0:0:ED64 (talk) 05:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Happy Editing--IAmChaos 10:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistent Naming of wife of Henry IV

The article starts off with "Henry was the son of Jeanne III of Navarre". Subsequently it states His parents were "Queen Joan III of Navarre (Jeanne d'Albret)". So is it Jeanne or Joan? This is confusing. Now because the actual Wikipage is in fact Jeanne d'Albret and nowhere on that page does it mention the Anglicized form of ¨Joan", this article should be consistent with how Wikipedia names the person on their home page. Why was the Anglicization used in the first place? 88.207.159.108 (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Changed Joan(found ?3? times) to Jeanne. If I missed any let me know. Not sure why there were two different spellings of her name. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Wife's relationship to Queen Elizabeth I of England?

The opening section contains the line, "He formed a strategic alliance with England through his marriage to the cousin of Queen Elizabeth I."

However, this cousin isn't named. There are two spouses listed, Margaret of Valois and Marie de' Medici; neither of those pages have the name "Elizabeth" on it. They do contain the name "Elisabeth", but in all cases they appear to not be referring to Queen Elizabeth of England. And neither Margaret nor Marie appear to be on the wiki page of Elizabeth I.

I think that if there is a cousin relationship between one of Henry's wives and Elizabeth I, it should be noted on the wife's page. I suppose the other possibility is that this line is inaccurate. 23.84.252.204 (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for raising this, I believe the article is inaccurate as it stands. Neither Marguerite nor Marie share any grandparents with Elizabeth and therefore cannot be cousins.

Nor is there any text in the article body that explains what might have been meant by this line. sovietblobfish (talk) 05:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Best link I could find was between another of Henry VIII's wives (who was not the mother of Elizabeth) and Marie.

Marie -> Giovanna -> Ferdinand -> Juana -> Fernando II/Isabel

Elizabeth -/-> Catherine -> Fernando II/Isabel

Anyway, I have removed the passage for now. sovietblobfish (talk) 06:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)