h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Henry VI - The Reign Of England's Weakest King - A87708964
Author: Bluebottle - U43530

An article about a king.

<BB<

Hi Bluebottle : Lovely entry - I'll read more in detail later.

~What a whoppa ! I'll have to go through later but good work.

A fascinating article relating to a period of especial interest to me, the era of the Wars of the Roses corresponding to the late pre-colonial era.

Its a curious point that the colonial race began as contest within the Lancastrian community, including the Portuguese, Spanish and French Lancastrians as well as those of England proper.

Prince Henry the Navigator was one of the Lancastrians, a descendant of John of Gaunt, as was Isabella of Castille.

There was an attempt in 1491 to organize a voyage of discovery across the Atlantic by the English and French Tudorians, Henry VII of England and Louis XII of France.

When this fell through for some reason, it allowed Isabella and Ferdinand of Spain to steal a march with the 1492 voyage of Columbus.

The English and the French were back again soon after with the 1495 voyage of John Cabot.

The next phase of the colonial contest came up when the Hapsburgs got control of the Lancastrian holdings in Spain and Portugal by means of marriages of state, representing a return of the Burgundians, all of this taken on a foundation of the expanded theater of the Wars of the Roses, including all of the European theaters.

The Age of Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire followed (not properly Roman any more and perhaps not very holy, but under Charles V, still very much an Empire. Charles V and the Conquistadores, including the total global scope of their campaigns, perhaps came a little closer to conquering the entire world than anyone else who ever tried.

The disfranchisement of the north European powers with respect to colonial ventures by a captive papacy serving the interest of the court of Charles V was one of the major issues stimulating the Protestant Reformation, the break of the national churches of most of the north European states with the papacy.

My own interest in the politics that led to the power struggles of the early colonial era was what for me stimulated an interest in the Wars of the Roses.

A strongly related thread is that of the history of the peasant uprisings that comprised a part of the backdrop of the Wars of the Roses, beginning with the one that came up over the Regency of John of Gaunt and continuing through the English Civil War and the American War of Independence.

The popular uprisings over the period strongly conditioned the dynastic politics of the age.

An excellent article with many important starting points I've yet to research.

A good read, if a long one

I have to confess I'm not sure how to solve this one:

You start the introduction with <> which picks up on the Entry title - a good thing.

You then start the next paragraph (the Henry V section) with <> which contrasts the weak with the strong - again a good thing.

It's just that the repetition of jars with me. Could you in some way combine them to avoid the repetition?

On the subject of repetition, could <> have one of the two uses of the word 'campaign' be changed - perhaps battles of Agincourt and Rouen?

In the England Power Struggle section:
<>
You can't be arrested for life, but you can be arrested and imprisoned for life. Is that what you mean?

Rise and Fall of Suffolk section:
is not a commonly used word in modern English. Unless it was the correct term in the 15th Century, could you change it to ? If it is the correct term, could you footnote the meaning.

Richard Neville section:
The Nevilles's --> The Nevilles

War of the Roses section:
<> Lancastrian's --> Lancastrians

Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain section:
harrassing --> harassing

War of the Roses: The Next Generation section:
father's heads --> fathers' heads

Edward IV Ruling Britain, Henry In Exile section:
<> Burgandy --> Burgundy (this mispelling also occurs in a few other places)

War with Warwick section:
The Neville's --> The Nevilles

<> alll --> all

I don't see the need for the 'Other Monarchs of England and Britain' section. The Entry is long enough as it is.

Some changes made, I'll finish more later.

<BB<

Changes made - thank you for your improvements.

Regarding the list of monarchs - there is not one place where all of England's monarchs are listed. The 'Life, The Universe & Everything' has them scattered all over the place, from 'Historical Figures' to 'Rulers & Dynasties' and everything in between. I wanted to create a list that included all of them in one place, and it also helps put Henry VI's reign in context with the other monarchs written about for the guide.

<BB<

Fascinating. I absolutely hated history at school, but 30 years later have realised that it was all about the teacher not the subject.

A few thoughts that occur as I read through the entry.

the quotes all come from Shakespeare, methinks? is it possible to note that, not everyone will know he wrote those plays - of course, if it's not Shakespeare I think I'll have to review my English Lit skills )

under the section The House of Lancaster I got very confused with all the sons either dying or being deposed, then granddaughters marrying grandsons or something. Do you know if there's a family tree anywhere that you could link to? (of course, if I wasn't terminally lazy I'd find one for myself )

same section
>>On her death it was discovered that she had in fact married again after the death of Henry V, to Henry's squire, Owen Tudor, and had in fact had four children<<
this is a bit of a clumsy sentence - how about something like:
'On her death it was discovered that after the death of Henry V she had married his squire, Owen Tudor, and had given birth to four children'

running on from that - you mention Owen Tudor being arrested and then retiring to Welsh lands, but in the sentence it's not completely clear if it's Owen Tudor or Henry retiring to Wales.

His rule about members of the Royal family not being allowed to marry without the Monarch's permission: is that still 'in force' today?

section: removal of right to vote
>>The vast majority of the population of England *had* lost the right to vote and Parliament became the preserve of the rich.<<
You don't need the *had* in there (I added * to identify it) because they lost it when he removed it, not previously to that. Unless they had lost it previously in which case you need a bit more clarification

section: key figures in Henry VI's reign
>>The chief culprit was the extremely ambitious Henry Beaufort, an illegitimate son of John of Gaunt, half-brother of King Henry V, Bedford and Gloucester and uncle to Henry VI.<<
not sure where Bedford and Gloucester belong there - was he a duke of those places or something?

Love that table - it's really clear and helps keep all those names straight. Of course it doesn't help that they are all caled Richard

section: war in France
not sure Joan of Arc defeated the English army all on her own...

same section
>>He had been a capable and popular leader in the war in France, where he was the King's Lieutenant, and had plunged himself deeply in debt, all but ruining himself, in order to pay for the war in France on Henry VI's behalf, never receiving financial support from the king.<<
I think this would be better in 2 shorter sentences - such as: 'He had been a capable and popular leader in France during the war where he served as the King's Lueutenant. But he had plunged himself deeply into debt, all but ruining himself, in order to pay for the war on Henry VI's behalf and never received finalcial support from the King.' Or something like that.

same section
>>was considered an enemy by Margaret, Henry's influential Queen<<
Is this Margaret of Anjou? Because you don't have him married to her until a couple of paragraphs later. If it's a different person you'll need to make that a bit clearer. If it's Anjou, perhaps you can re-arrange the paras so that he is married to her before she is mentioned as his influential Queen?

I'm going to stop there, and come back later with my thoughts about the rest.

This is a really interesting entry - I'm really glad I read it

oh eek - sorry, monster post

Thanks h5ringer and Sho both - the help you give here is really very useful and will save the eventual sub-editor a lot of time, if BB could fix a few of the grammar points and so on.

BB's Entries are always so well-researched, I've learned more English history from them than all my years at school put together.

Thank you for your suggestions, changes made to hopefully address them all.

I've not found a family tree that includes everyone, but among the more detailed are:
House of Lancaster: http://www.rotherhamweb.co.uk/genealogy/beaufort.htm
(Shows Beaufort family, but not the Dukes of Bedford and Gloucester, Henry V's brothers)
House of York: http://www.rotherhamweb.co.uk/h/el.htm
An overview of the houses of York and Lancaster can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_monarchs_family_tree#em2
I agree that including a family tree is useful, but I'm a bit reluctant to include them in the article as they are from unknown and/or untrusted websites. I'll keep looking for one.

Thanks for the complimentary, Lanzababy – that's the nicest thing anyone's said to me for quite a while. And to think that English Heritage wouldn't give me a job...

<BB<

I see what you mean about not wanting to link to unreliable sites - but thanks for looking out those trees for me, I'll be less confused (it is _very_ easy to confuse me!)

looking forward to reading the next part of the entry

Other sources:

http://www.luminarium.org/illumination.htm?domains=www.luminarium.org&q=The+Wars+of+the+Roses&sa=Search&sitesearch=www.luminarium.org&client=pub-6715033876432389&forid=1&channel=5884361349&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&safe=active&flav=0001&sig=DEweZ8VQMR6FcCD3&cof=GALT%3A%23AF8900%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23000000%3BVLC%3AA9501B%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3A000000%3BLBGC%3A000000%3BALC%3AF7DE8C%3BLC%3AF7DE8C%3BT%3ACEA865%3BGFNT%3ABDA976%3BGIMP%3ABDA976%3BLH%3A50%3BLW%3A187%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.luminarium.org%2Fluminus.jpg%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.luminarium.org%2Flumina.htm%3BFORID%3A11&hl=en

http://www.luminarium.org/illumination.htm?domains=www.luminarium.org&q=Geneologies%2C+House+of+Lancaster&sa=Search&sitesearch=www.luminarium.org&client=pub-6715033876432389&forid=1&channel=5884361349&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&safe=active&flav=0001&sig=DEweZ8VQMR6FcCD3&cof=GALT%3A%23AF8900%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23000000%3BVLC%3AA9501B%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3A000000%3BLBGC%3A000000%3BALC%3AF7DE8C%3BLC%3AF7DE8C%3BT%3ACEA865%3BGFNT%3ABDA976%3BGIMP%3ABDA976%3BLH%3A50%3BLW%3A187%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.luminarium.org%2Fluminus.jpg%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.luminarium.org%2Flumina.htm%3BFORID%3A11&hl=en

http://www.luminarium.org/illumination.htm?domains=www.luminarium.org&q=Geneologies%2C+House+of++York&sa=Search&sitesearch=www.luminarium.org&client=pub-6715033876432389&forid=1&channel=5884361349&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&safe=active&flav=0001&sig=DEweZ8VQMR6FcCD3&cof=GALT%3A%23AF8900%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23000000%3BVLC%3AA9501B%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3A000000%3BLBGC%3A000000%3BALC%3AF7DE8C%3BLC%3AF7DE8C%3BT%3ACEA865%3BGFNT%3ABDA976%3BGIMP%3ABDA976%3BLH%3A50%3BLW%3A187%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.luminarium.org%2Fluminus.jpg%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.luminarium.org%2Flumina.htm%3BFORID%3A11&hl=en

So you're looking for a genealogy that includes both Houses?

me? I was just trying to get my head straight with one paragraph. But I'm ok now.

I haven't time to read this at the moment, Bluebottle, but I see that the entry is 8,000 words long, and 3,000 of those are an account of the Wars of the Roses. We already have a series of entries on the Wars of the Roses, so it seems excessive to me to include that much detail about them in this entry, which is already excessively long.

Could the entry be brought down to a more manageable size by removing the section on the Wars of the Roses?

You can't write about the reign of King Henry VI without mentioning the War of the Roses, however I have edited that section and it is now shorter than before.

<BB<

Any other comments on this stream-lined, edited down article?

<BB<

I keep reading a few extra paragraphs, so I can concentrate on them better. One thing which seems really important is that under this King's reign the right to vote was lost by the majority of the population for centuries. Was there a reason, that you could briefly mention, for this?

Good point raised, Lanzababy. I've added a paragraph giving more information on that.

<BB<