Talk:Henry V of England

Shot in face at Shrewsbury

The article on John Bradmore says that the ″arrow penetrated on the left side below the eye and beside the nose of the young prince″ (attributed to Stephen Cooper’s Agincourt, Myth and Reality). This is also the description given by Juliet Barker in her Agincourt, p 29. Barker goes on to surmise that the scar that this wound must have left explains why the only surviving portrait of Henry (the one from the National Portrait Gallery shown in the article) shows him in profile instead of the normal three-quarter face. However, the portrait shows the left profile of Henry, with no scar. The picture has not been printed back-to-front. Could it be that the arrow entered the right side of his face? Or it is just artistic license to omit the scar and Barker’s surmise is erroneous? Exbrum (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

It's as likely that the event never occurred, of course. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's very unlikely that an arrow entering the left side of his face would have scarred the right side. But what does Lang (1992) say here? Registration or institution access is required, so I am unable to see the full pdf of that Social History of Medicine paper. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

In this article Lang quotes BL MS Sloane 2272, fol. 137r which probably is the same source that ultimately informed the other authors. The foliage says: "Et sciendum est quod (contigit) anno domini m° cccc° iij° Et anno regni Regis illustrissimi henrici quarti post conquestum (anglium) quarto in vigilia sancte marie magdalene contigit quod [henrici in margin] filius et heres dicti iamscripti illustrissimi Regis et princeps Wallie dux acquetanie et lancastrie apud bellum de Shrouesbury in facie iuxta nasum ex sinistra parte cum sagitta fuit percussus quaequidem sagitta intrauit ex transverso et capud dicte sagitte postquam sagitta fuit extracta stetit in posteriori parte ossis capiti secundum mensuram 6 uncharum."

Translation: "It is to be known that in the year of our Lord 1403, and in the fourth year of the reign of the most illustrious King Henry the Fourth after the conquest (of England), on the eve of St. Mary Magdalene, it happened that Henry, the son and heir of the said aforewritten most illustrious King, and Prince of Wales, Duke of Aquitaine and Lancaster, at the battle of Shrewsbury, was struck on the face near the nose on the left side by an arrow. The said arrow entered transversely and the head of the said arrow, after the arrow was extracted, remained in the back part of the bone of the head, measuring six inches." Certainty of Victory (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to change reign dates

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_English_Royalty#Reign_dates Jhood1 (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Here are some sources for Henry V reign dates being (21 March 1413 - 31 Aug 1422):

• Handbook of British Chronology (Fryde et al) p.41
• Handbook of Dates (Cheney) p. 36

Jhood1 (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Agincourt

Should this article mention that Henry V won the Battle of Agincourt earlier than it does?Vorbee (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Vorbee: How mean ye? It mentions it in the lead, and then again when the chronology reaches 1415. Although I agree it's a crappy enough article that I was half expecting it not to mention it at all  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Henry V cannot have been born in 1387

Though his birth date is cited as either 9 August or 16 September of either 1386 or 1387, both sources for it in the lead categorically point to 16 September 1386. One of them is Ian Mortimer's Fears of Henry IV, and the other is Henry V's entry on the ODNB (which is apparently free to read). I looked into Mortimer's book and some of the sources he uses for his assertions, and was able to gather the following:

• Thomas, Duke of Clarence, was born in the autumn of 1387 (as indicated by payments for his nurse), so it is impossible for Henry to have been born around that time.
• Henry IV's household was at Monmouth (Henry V's place of birth) in September 1386 but not in August 1387.
• A number of contemporaries pointed out that Henry V was born in the feast of st. Edith (16 September), and the date 16 September 1386 appears to have featured in contemporary accounts (unlike the other dates), according to Christopher Allmand in his 1992 biography of Henry V.
• Henry was either aged 26 or was in his 26th year (aged 25) when he was crowned in April 1413. Allmand states the latter, but in J. H. Wylie's 1896 biography of Henry IV (which is cited by both Allmand and Mortimer) the former is presented as true. <source (p. 324, footnote)> This confusing outlook is the only evidence I found that might support the assertion that he was born in 1387.
• 9 August seems to have originated as a misprint for his coronation day (9 April 1413) and probably has no justification. Very few original sources seem to give August as his month of birth. <source (p. 323, footnote)>
• Payments made by Henry in Maundy Thursday (c. March~April) 1403 indicate that he was in his 17th year, and so could not have been born in August/September 1387.
• Statements that he was in his 36th year when he died support the notion that he was born on 16 Sep 1386.

Given these assertions, wouldn't it be logical to use 16 September 1386 as his birth date? Mortimer states that, given this, Henry V's date of birth is "as certain as of that of any late medieval king". Any of the 1387 dates are wrong, while August 1386 is highly unlikely. Frac6 (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I've read the citations too. They don't say it is the date. They say it is the likely date. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Both Mortimer's book and the ODNB entry actually say that it is. The former is particularly emphatic about it, and both present it as the only alternative. Perhaps you saw an outdated version of his ODNB entry, which indeed gives more than one date, but the most recent one shows 16 Sep 1386. Mortimer says his birthday is "as certain as of that of any late medieval king, and the references to his birth in 1387 are incorrect".Frac6 (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly, the last editor to be so emphatic over this was one User:Nevlos; now blocked, I see. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The citations are free for anyone to see, and they're in the lead for maximum visibility, no less. What is your comment even supposed to mean? Frac6 (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

A number of different dates are given in 19th and early 20th century works. Allmand (1992) refers to this in his biography and says that 16 September 1386 is probable but uncertain. However, the academic consensus has clearly changed since 1992 as modern scholarly works simply give 16 September 1386 as fact. These include:

• Allmand's ODNB entry (2010)
• Anne Curry Henry V Penguin (2015) p. 3
• Christopher Given-Wilson Henry IV Yale (2016) p.40
• Ian Mortimer The Fears of Henry IV (2007) Appendix 3

Jhood1 (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Should the date be changed then? The facts are there. Frac6 (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

It is clear that before 2007 the academic consensus was that the birthdate was uncertain, after the 2007 publication of The Fears of Henry IV the academic consensus has changed to be certain of 16 September 1386 as the birthdate. In addition to the sources listed above this date is given in:

• A J Pollard Henry V: Pocket Giants (2013)
• John Matusiak Henry V Routledge (2012) p.21
• Gwilym Dodd ed. Henry V New Interpretations York Medieval Press (2013) ("There has been debate on Henry’s date of birth but 16 September 1386 is now accepted" p.11)
• A. L. Brown and Henry Summerson ODNB Henry IV (2010) (The change was from "was most likely born in September 1386" in 2004 version to "was born in September 1386" in 2010 version.)

Given the evidence listed above I think it would be appropriate to give reasons backed up by sources why there is not such an academic consensus before making reverts. Jhood1 (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I reverted because the only change was to the date in the info box with no change to the article text. I was fine with the edit that actually made the article text support the new date. Ealdgyth - Talk 10:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jhood1: I agree that you've made a policy-based argument in favour of the change, and that those who object should meet it with similar arguments. However, per WP:ONUS, once it becomes clear that someone objects to your bold edit, the burden is on you to gain consensus before making the change. I'll note, however, that at the very least it appears the available sources support an extended discussion of the dating of his birth (a separate section vs. a sentence or two), including the historiography: and that's often a more productive and nuanced discussion to have than two sides arguing about a single binary datum in the article's lede. --Xover (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

So the edit that I made included a preliminary attempt to discuss the dating of the birth in the article body. If you think a more detailed historiographical discussion is interesting/notable enough for the article then you are welcome to expand upon it. I think that would be more productive than reverting back and forwards. However, if you want a different date in lede or a "contested see below", then you would need to find sources to support that. Given the high-quality of sources above and the way the use the date as uncontroversial I find that unlikely. As regards consensus my understanding is that includes the quality of the arguments, and when I made the edit I felt I had address Celia Homeford's concerns about what the sources actually said by noting that there was a different pre/post 2007 academic consensus. Jhood1 (talk) 07:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

This contemporary document also gives that same birth date. Frac6 (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

While the sources cited above are fine to make an argument, the mediæval manuscript cited here is original research and has no bearing on the discussion. I also find the addition of the {{failed verification}} tag in the lede to be POINTy and tendentious: it may be technically accurate, but only because the cite is to a previous version of the ODNB entry (which is still available, no less). I would encourage self-reverting that. --Xover (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The {{failed verification}} also applies to the immediately preceding reference to Mortimer's book, which also gives the same birth date and is the main source for the statement (and is conveniently accessible as well). It's not POINTy (and not tendentious) as to be classified as a policy violation: I did not write anything which could be classified as making an explicit point; I made use of a template whose purpose is to highlight inconsistencies between text and source, which is the case here. What do you think about the date change itself, though? I don't want this to drag on forever with constant mention to side issues like this. There has been no significant objection to the idea itself so far. Frac6 (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I have nevertheless removed the tag as per your request, but I'll again ask you to think this through. Frac6 (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Jhood1: I note that you do not have a consensus from this discussion to change that material to that which you favour. I suggest you self-revert until a consensus is apparent; otherwise, you are verging on edit-warring (as I have just notified you). Instead of advising people to "join the discussion" here, you would be far better off not pushing your personal pet theories whilst a discussion is ongoing. Many thanks. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

If discussion is ongoing then I will self-revert. However, that discussion must be about what the reliable sources say. I have presented extensive evidence above from high quality sources. If another editor disputes that my edit reflects RSs then I would expect them to make that case here. However, since Celia Homeford contribution on 30 August regarding Christopher Allmand's 1997 biography no argument has been made against the proposal that mentions sources. I believe I have shown above that there was a change in the sources in 2007. But if the opposition to the change does not justify itself in terms of sources then it seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and that cannot be used to say there is no consensus. Jhood1 (talk) 11:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thomas Morstede

Hello!

I have just added a couple of sentences to the page regarding John Bradmore having recorded his treatment of Henry at the Battle of Shrewsbury in a Latin manuscript named 'Philomena'. The account which is recorded here is very similar to one which has been recorded in Thomas Morstede's 1446 manuscript. Let me know what you think!

ChocolateOrange1 (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

"King Henry V" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect King Henry V. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 4#King Henry V until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Certes (talk) 12:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

English language vs ?

"Starting in August 1417, Henry promoted the use of the English language in government"

As opposed to what? French? This could be clearer. 92.40.174.78 (talk) 10:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Henry V's image changed?

Regarding Dancingtudorqueen's image change, I personally prefer reverting the image back to the far more famous portrait of Henry instead of an obscure one that Dancingtudorqueen has done. Anyone's thoughts? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 06:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The "more famous" portrait was not done in his lifetime and is of much poorer quality. The miniature shows more of his face opposed to just a side perspective and it is contemporary. Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree; it's not "of much poorer quality" (but not entirely sure what you mean by "quality" anyway). I'd suggest that both images could be used somewhere in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but I think the miniature is probably best for the main image, as it shows his entire face opposed to one side - we could move the posthomous portrait somewhere in there. Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not convinced that the poorer quality entire face is better than the long-standing posthumous portrait. We have no way of knowing which is really the better likeness, in any case? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

One example is Henry IV of England - his miniature is being used despite it being less known. Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Why can't we use File:King Henry IV from NPG (2).jpg? Seems miles better. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The Henry IV portrait I've seen used in some books, probably some textbooks too, before, though the Henry V one from the same illustration is much more obscure compared to it. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh well, I guess images of other Henries exist. Here we just need to discuss Henry V. I don't see why we need to go for what's more familiar. Probably best to follow the image used most in scholarly works about him. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm more convinced the miniature image is awful. But happy to see an RfC, if that would settle things. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• I actually prefer the miniature, not least because it is unfamiliar, as well as contemporary. But both images should be in the article, rather than turnstiling just one (and forgetting to change the caption, Mr ip). Btw, the NPG actually say the oil portrait is "late 16th or early 17th century", so from at least 150 years after his death. These largely imaginary sets of the Kings of England were churned out for country houses by anonymous workshops and are indeed regarded as being pretty low in quality by art historians. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

[from unlogged user: Faust-Leaguer] Psychological and Political Explanation of Henry's title of being Lord of Ireland:

The English King's two titles, one of them being a Lord of Ireland, would have to be about subjugating the Irish, whom would board boats to land on the shores of the English, to raid and pillage. Meaning, the Irish, were like the neighbouring Vikingdom, instead of from the European continent themselves. Thus, to subjugate the Irish barbarians, to whom they share in barbarity of Vikings from the European continent, to defeat a larger and menacing force from the French Kingdom across the Channel, historically, especially since the Normans, whom have conquered to assume the English throne, would have to be conquered first, before being able to be tasked with any military expedition to ensure that the English realm wouldn't be spoiled, at all. Therefore, we can state that, by history, the Irish have always being invaders of the English realm, rather than, as today's conception with secular politics, the Irish are being held under tyranny of the English. Nothing seems to have changed between the relations of the Irish and those of England, it seems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.8.118.50 (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Wild speculation

The section connecting Henry V to the later rise of Britain and even English nationalism is unsubstantiated speculation. Makes the whole article look at propaganda. Should be deleted. 2001:BB6:AC63:5900:BC34:24A6:4B49:15B2 (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 21 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) The Night Watch (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

---

• Henry V of England → Henry V
• Henry V → Henry V (disambiguation)

– WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:CONCISE, WP:CONSISTENCY per User:Rreagan007 on Talk:William_IV#Requested_move_13_September_2020 Akalendos (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. No disambiguation is needed in this title as it is the primary topic, just like Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, Elizabeth II, George III, William IV, Edward VI, etc. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Obviously Henry V is a common name for Henry V of England, just as it would be for any other Henry V. There is an argument for primary topic as Henry V of England does get significantly more views than other Henry Vs. But, the argument for WP:CONSISTENCY is null as WP:NCROY dictates “X of Y” for monarchs, and most other English (ie. pre-Union) monarchs are titled that way. Obviously there are some exceptions such as William IV or Henry VIII, but this just simply doesn’t need to be one of them. NCROY, CONSITENCY AND COMMONNAME are always in conflict so perhaps there should be a review of those rules, but this is not the place. Estar8806 (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:NCROY does not dictate anything, as it is just a guideline which should be "treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". I would also say that it is also outdated in this area, as guidelines should reflect general consensus, and in the case of British and English monarchs that are the primary topic for their title, it does not accurately reflect the current consensus as reflected in multiple RM discussions on this question. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

This move request is based on exactly the fact that there is little consensus regarding article titling in royalty. The closest thing there is to consensus is NCROY. The “consensus” to which I believe your referring is monarchs of the UK and its ancestors dropping “of Y” from “X of Y” format. An RM regarding several monarchs here demonstrates that no such consensus exists. In my opinion, the most part, it is best to leave “X of Y” for monarchs of only one country. Elizabeth II (and every monarch since Edward VII), for example was Queen of many separate countries throughout her reign, as is Charles III. William IV and George IV were also Kings of Hanover, Henry VIII and Edward VI were Kings of England and Ireland, etc. Estar8806 (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Strongest oppose possible - Per my comments here and WP:NCRAN. The arbitrary consistency-unravelling parade marches on. No, no, and no. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

This just sounds childish. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Would you like to elaborate? Akalendos (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Adding superlatives to an "oppose" does not give it any more weight, and it sounds like something a child would do. And just saying "no" repeatedly also sounds like something a child would do. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

By this logic, when Margaret Thatcher made this response to the House of Commons in 1990 she was being childish. People use superlatives and comparatives all the time in RfCs: Strong support, etc., which you say is also a "child[ish]" thing to do because it "does not give [an opinion] any more weight". Where is this a fact? I'm baffled by how you think this is an at all appropriate argument to make on an RfC, and how little sense your reasons for making it are.

I suggest you drop this line of attack, because it is a.) completely irrelevant to this discussion on Henry V, and b.) gives the impression that you have nothing to rebut the counter-argument with, which I'm sure is not the case. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I was originally thinking about how "Henry V" wasn't going directly to this article, but I've since thought of another possibility; I decided to share, so take it or leave it.
• Henry V -move-> Henry V (disambiguation)
• Redirect Henry V -> Henry V of England

This would still keep the current name, but give a redirect for WP:primarytopic.

How would we feel? Akalendos (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

That would be fine by me. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I’d still have to oppose this.

There is simply too much inconsistency, I don’t know if there’s been an RfC on this recently (I’m sure there has) but I think its about time for one (@Tim O'Doherty I don’t know if you’d know more on this subject). Estar8806 (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there was an RfC at the village pump in January, written by me and GoodDay. The link is here. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Additional comment - This article seems to have been picked at random. Henry IV and Henry VI both lead to disambiguation pages, yet they've been left unmolested despite their short forms being the "COMMONNAME" for the English monarchs. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - As I'd rather we go back to the "Monarch # of country" form, for all monarch bios. That being said, it's debatable as to whether this King of England is the best known Henry V. There is (for example) Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, right: " Holy Roman Emperor (from 1111 to 1125)..."! But Shakespeare didn't write a play about him. How any films have been made about him? Johnbod (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Mainly just because I'm SICK TO DEATH of my watchlist being cluttered up with royalty move proposals. Just stop it please. If this succeeded, how long before a counter-proposal to return it? Not long I think. After 20+ years we have pretty much got these right (unlike many other things on wp), so let's stop this compulsive fiddling. Johnbod (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  Statusquoism? Akalendos (talk) 12:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with GoodDay, we should return to "Monarch # of country" form. Dimadick (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose, per perennial comments on attempts like this. "Monarch # of country" is the form. Walrasiad (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

There are many monarch articles that do not use that form. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

There are a handful of monarchs not using ‘Monarch # of country”, but the vast majority do. Those which are excepted have valid reasons. For Edward VII-Charles III it is because they reigned in several countries. For Carl XVI Gustaf and a few of his predecessors it is because they are primary topics without dispute. Most exceptions are based on [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. While Henry V may be the COMMONNAME of Henry V of England, he is not the sole notable Henry V. It is best to stick to the guidelines on this one. Estar8806 (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Most do. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that was the point I was trying to make. It seems I forgot to make that clear. Estar8806 (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

No, I was replying to Rreagan007. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - Words almost fail me. Deb (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose It astounds me how often this discussion arises on this site. It astounds me even more that some such discussions result in a page move. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per points raised above. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
• Moral support. Obviously, this move request will not succeed, but the quality of the opposes is extremely poor. This was a reasonable move to propose because the English king is the clear primary topic by page views[1]. However, he isn't the clear primary topic by google searches[2], which bring up the play and the film as frequently. However, it is possible to counter-argue that the play and the film are named after the king, and are therefore secondary. So, arguments for a move on the basis of primary topic are strong ones and deserve to be treated with greater respect and courtesy than they have been. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Goodday and consistent return to name/number/country. Not opposing per Tim O'Doherty. SN54129 14:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  Glad you clarified that. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 11:45, 28 February 2023 (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.

Dates incorrect

There are a number of incorrect dates stated at the start of the document. 82.5.148.176 (talk) 11:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Could you provide examples? Remsense聊 12:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Henry and Richard II

I feel like the relationship between Richard II and Henry should be expanded upon; Richard 2 believed that Henry was meant to be his successor. While Henry IV was in exile in France, Richard took in Henry V and even brought him to Ireland when he visited there. It's theorised that, while Henry IV's rebellion was starting, Richard II may have turned their familial relationship into more of a hostage situation. If Henry IV were to directly approach the castles and begin attacking, Henry V and Richard II would have mutually assured destruction. Richard and Henry V were certainly close, and Henry V seemed to have learned something from Richard. He, too, was a decisive leader, though he used that for military strategies instead of executing courtiers. Anthony, Rennaisance (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)