Talk:Children of Henry VIII

Future of page...

...starting a section for the debate. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Not every aspect of Henry VIII's life can be examined fully in Henry VIII's article, nor should it, or it would become unwieldy. There is a lot of interest in the heirs (and lack thereof) of Henry VIII, and this article gives the reader that information clearly and concisely - I can see nothing of use to the reader in deleting this/leaving it as a redirect. As a topic, it has been the subject of books by two very well-known historians. If you think the article needs improving, please do so or leave it - but having it means that readers can see all information on this notable topic together clearly. Boleyn (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Quick comments from me, since I was asked for a third opinion:

I'm not an expert on Henry VIII, but I imagine there is probably a fair bit of detail that could go into an article on his children that might not fit well in the main article on Henry, given the academic work into infertility etc. As it stands, it is a bit minimalist though. I tend to find myself on the "inclusionist" side of the argument in cases like this; personally, I wouldn't have created the article anew as it is, but since it's here, I wouldn't push for it to be deleted either. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

merger from "illegitimate children of Henry VIII"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge MartinZ02 (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Propose moving all the children from "illegitimate children" to the "children of ..." page. To the extent that the offspring are "alleged" or controversial, then they can have a separate subheading, or an asterisk.

Here's some reasons: (1) The content can easily fit on one page, and that's where it seems best to belong. (2) The titles of the two articles are misleading as to the contents -- this page, for instance, already has one illegitimate child (Henry FitzRoy), who is therefore on both pages. Plus, "illegitimate children" are also, of course, children. (3) Besides "illegitimate" actually being a subcategory of "children", there's not really a good reason to separate on the basis of legitimacy. "Heirs to the throne" is one thing; "heirs" to properties is another (FitzRoy inherited, right?); acknowledged is another. And legitimacy is certainly questionable, right? I mean, Elizabeth was described as a bastard, and there's a plausible legal argument to be made that she was.

In short, the separation isn't necessary, and isn't helpful.

--Lquilter (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support merge. Boleyn (talk) 08:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"No issue"

@Boleyn: I saw that you undid my edit removing "No issue" from the illegitimate children section. I trust that you are more familiar with this topic than I am, so I do not want to contest your revert, but the reason I removed it was that it was not clear to me what it meant. At first I thought maybe someone had put a fact tag and the "No issue" was another user's way of contesting it. But now I see that maybe it is just saying that Henry's illegitimate child was married and granted dukedom with no issue stemming from his illegitimacy. If this is the case, I think it might be good to clarify, as I think the current state is a bit ambiguous. Let me know what you think. Boomur [☎] 22:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

It clearly is intending to convey that Henry and his wife were childless, but it is concise to the point of confusion. Agricolae (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

What is the confusion? "No issue" means that the person had no known children of his/her own. See Cambridge Dictionary on the term without issue: "If someone dies without issue, they have no children." Dimadick (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Boomur already indicated that it had confused them, because 'issue' can also refer to, "a subject or problem that people are thinking and talking about" as well as a few other things. See the Cambridge Dictionary on the the word issue. Yes, 'no issue' is routinely used among genealogists and biographers as an abbreviated way of saying that a union produced no children, but our readership goes beyond just those familiar with such jargon. Having a two word sentence in which both the verb and the subject are left implicit opens the door for misinterpretation if not everyone is on the same page. Agricolae (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I have been studying historical genealogies as a hobby since I was 12. Before that I was fascinated with Hesiod's Theogony (genealogy of the gods). I have trouble relating to people who have never studied genealogy at all. Dimadick (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Tragically, I have minimal familiarity with historical genealogy, so although I see now what was meant, I don't think it would be clear to an average reader. I initially did a cursory google search of "'no issue' meaning" and while I see now that one of the later results on the first page gives the "no children" meaning, most of them are about "no issue" meaning "no problem". That said, I also recognize that it is a common phrasing within the field, and that in the table on the page a link is given to issue (albeit one that is easy to miss if the entire table is not thoroughly perused). I would still lean toward just writing "no children" in the table and "He had no children" in the prose section, but since this would be unconventional I also understand why it might be preferred to leave it as is. Boomur [☎] 14:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I would support such a change. We are writing for the general public, so if the conventions understood within a field are confusing to those not in the know, we go with more general comprehension. Agricolae (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Ancestry results indicted royal descent

My ancestry dna results said i was related to king henry VIII and the Boylyns 2603:7081:339:4DDE:AD5B:3F19:7E18:2242 (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Cool Anara2812 (talk) 07:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

You do realize that Mary Boleyn has several known descendants, right? Dimadick (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Catherine Howard is my 7th cousin as well as Anne Boleyn and I’m related to Jane Seymour and Katherine part (and Henry) too

What it said. Anara2812 (talk) 07:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Related to one, your related to all. Jane Seymours brother married Catherine Parr, Cath A and Anne B Where Cousins, same with Anne C. 2607:FEA8:D562:4E00:854E:35BE:C13F:F97 (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)