Talk:Prince Henry the Navigator/Archive 1

Archive 1

Legacy Section

I think that a legacy section would be more than appropriate for this article. Prince Henry the Navigator has become one of the most recognizable historic figures to come out of Portugal. The Legacy section might include the Portuguese tradition for economic expansion and for empire, made possible by Prince Henry's president in establishing institutions to oversee trade and taxation. Another section might be one on Prince Henry's role in pop culture. Finally, another section might be dedicated to debunking certain myths commonly associated with Prince Henry. I think this would greatly increase the value of the article. Any suggestions or input is greatly appreciated. Alexion (talk)

I would also suggest at least a line or two about Henry's death. I'm not sure that it would best fit into a legacy section, but the fact that his death was from a mysterious illness with little record makes it noteworthy, in my opinion. Mattbaker55 (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The point about debunking myths is important. Without any argument on the topic of his legacy, we can make him out to be a large and more influential figure than he really was. Albeit, he was enormously important in the scope of Portuguese and Spanish exploration. A common point of argument is that he founded an academy of navigation and observatory at Sagres. However, the counter is that evidence suggests it was far more rudimentary and consisted of a small number of academics and professionals invited there specifically by Henry. Casini1 (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC) --Casini1 (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Typo cant fix

I recently noticed while looking at the article that there is a misspelling under the House of Aviz box to the right of the screen. And being that I'm new to Wikipedia I don't know how to fix it the error is something like Navigaotr as opposed to Navigator. Just trying to let someone know..

Typo corrected. Thanks. By the way, welcome to Wikipedia. You can read this to learn more about it. Joaopais 21:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I would also think about rewording part of the introductory section where Henry's parents are listed. It gets a little confusing because of the number of commas in the sentence, so I think it should perhaps end with "John of Gaunt's daughter." Mattbaker55 (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Asia etc.

Henry had no idea of going to what we know as Asia. If you read Russell, and I fear most here have not, it is clear that references at the time to "the Indies" (which is what has given people the idea he wanted to go to Asia) was understood by him to be further south in Africa. Hence the only useful map would be one of the bulge of Africa.

Agreed, his understanding of the world's geography, at most, extended to the southern coast of Africa. The majority of the expeditions he took part in, or launched, were reserved to exploration relatively close to home port. The canary islands in particular were of interest to the government of Portugal, if not Henry himself. Casini1 (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality

I think the mention of homosexuality should be removed, or posed as an hypothesis. It is based on a single article, that (apparently) has never been submitted to a peer reviewed journal. Also, the objective of the article seems more of a political nature than of scientific one. pibizza 16:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I assume there is consensus in removing the reference to Henry homosexuality ? pibizza 10:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, I am quite surprised by the tone of this article. While I don't dispute any of what is said, as I haven't read those last two books added to the bibliography, one gets the notion this article was written to change people's views on the person and not as an encyclopedia entry. By reading the article, I mostly got the the idea Henry, the Navigator was i) into enslaving; ii) greedy; iii) gay. Were it not for previous readings on this subject, this is what I would retain. I mean, this guy promoted the exploration of half the West African coast and ultimately he was among the people who were most responsible for the 1400s age of discoveries. Furthermore, I had never heard of such accounts on Henry's life. The user responsible for these edits (85.241.31.250) single contribution besides the ones in this article was made under the Sebastian_of_Portugal entry, where he claimed i) the king "contracted gonorrhea at age ten, most likely through sexual abuse by his tutor and confessor"; ii) that he died of said sexual diesase and not in the Alcacer Qibir battle in North Africa where he was last seen; iii) that he was gay. He bases his changes on one of the articles he added here. Perhaps this article should be reverted to its previous form until someone with further knowledge on the field should check these... it's an entire article based on two single books that present new and apparently very disputed theories.

It is a LIE that the article outlining his probable homosexuality was not published in a peer-reviewed journal. It was published in Portuguese in "Textos de Historia", published by the History Department of the University of Brasilia. Further it is authored by an acknowledged authority on Portuguese history at a major US university. Do Johnson's nay-sayers know more than he? If so what are their credentials? It is time for Americans to give up homophobic prejudices. Being gay is no disgrace except to those who are prejudiced. Henry was an important person; he was also probably homosexual. Can you prove that he was NOT? If so, please do so.

I agree, this article is lacking NPOV, and makes many questionable claims. Homosexuality is the least of it, while I neither know nor care whether Enrique was gay, mocking the self proclaimed celibacy of the Grandmaster of a monastic military order the Order of Christ (Portugal). and the attribution of ONLY the basest motives for his life's work seem very biased. Would I be wrong to request a NPOV tag at the least. Catholic Encyclopedia entry is far superior in almost every way to this current entry. Moheroy 10:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC) HIS PROBABLE HOMOSEXUALITY IS HARDLY A "BASE MOTIVE" FOR HIS LIFE'S WORK. HIS ATTEMPT TO CREATE A LARGE SEMI-KINGDOM OF ISLANDS THAT MIGHT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN HIS ULTIMATE GOAL HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH HIS PROBABLE HOMOSEXUALITY. YOU SEEM VERY CONFUSED. HIS HOMOSEXUALITY WOULD MERELY EXPLAIN HIS LACK OF HEIRS. AND HIS PENCHANT FOR CONCEALMENT ABOUT HIS PERSONAL MATTERS AND INTIMATE LIFE.

Agree, a NPOV tag would seem in place. I don't care if he was gay or not either, I just feel the theory is presented in a far too proeminent and inadequate fashion. And the homosexuality question, as you say, is the least the current article. 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with a NPOV tag. pibizza 08:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

To the ignorant one who wrote the entry above: The study of Prince Henry contained in the book by Johnson WAS peer reviewed and published in the Brazilian historical journal, TEXTOS de HISTORIA, put out by the University of Brazilia. The reference is TEXTOS DE HISTORIA, vol. 11, No. 1/2 (2003), pp. 217-244. So you can ditch the idea that it has not been peer reviewed. In addition, it has not be challenged to my knowledge. Can you cite an article that challenges its hypotheses? There has been far too much laudatory nonsense written about Henry. Both Russell and Johnson have the courage to point out some of the real facts. In Johnson's case the opposition comes clearly from homophobia. It was criminal in Henry's day to be a homosexual. It is not so today. Before I removed a reference to a book by an established historian, I would read the book. You seem very unfamiliar with the issues. By the way, Johnson's study of Sebastian does NOT say he died of any disease. That is a complete fabrication. Johnson is clear that Sebastian died in battle in Morocco. How can you make such stupid, uninformed statements?

The debunking of Henry's previously exalted reputation, fostered by Portuguese fascist nationalists during the Salazar years, was done by Sir Peter Russell, the chaired Professor of Spanish at Oxford University. So the ignoramus who thinks he knows more than Russell will defy Russell great biography? What insolence, what intellectual insolence. I find it odd that people who have not read the latest and most important research on topics think themselves capable of accepting or rejecting the work of professional historians who know far far more than they do.

If said references exist, why aren't they included in the article. At the very least it deserves an NPOV tag O.M. Nash 17:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The article states: "He never married or had children although nothing would have prevented his doing so, and other aspects of his character that Johnson details in his study all tend to lend credence to the thesis that he was a closet homosexual." This hardly seems like an objective argument. Hundreds of historical figures never married or had children, were they all homosexuals? This was an especially religious era, it was not uncommon for many people to lead chaste lives. That doesn't imply homosexuality. This article seems like it's more concerned with painting Henry in a homosexual light, like it was the pinacle of his existence. The part about Portuguese nationalism only reinforces this. How many studies have been done about this? One? On the other hand there are probably hundreds that don't support this theory and yet they are simply being dismissed as homophobic portuguese nationalism? This is definitely not a neutral article and one that certainly doesn't do justice to the subject matter. 0cm 20:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC) HOMOSEXUALS ARE OFTEN IN THE CLOSET ESPECIALLY WHEN IT IS PUNISHABLE BY DEATH SO DON'T BE SO SURE THAT IF HENRY WERE GAY THERE WOULD BE A LOT OF EVIDENCE AROUND ABOUT IT. HE WAS SECRETIVE, AS CLOSETED GAYS ARE, AND TOOK EXTRAORDINARY STEPS TO CONTROL HIS PUBLIC IMAGE INCLUDING DESTROYING A PREVIOUS HISTORY ABOUT HIM THAT WE KNOW EXISTED BUT HAS NOT SURVIVED. WISE UP. WE DON'T HAVE A PHOTO OF HIM IN THE ACT, BUT WE HAVE A GOOD DEAL OF INDIRECT EVIDENCE. MANY CONVICTIONS IN LAW ARE BASED ON INDIRECT EVIDENCE YOU KNOW. HARDLY ANY VIRILE MAN OF THAT AGE, MARRIED OR NOT, FAILED TO HAVE OFFSPRING EXCEPT FOR SOME VERY UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE. HENRY WAS FIT TO MARRY AS IS PROVED BY HIS FATHER'S GETTING PERMISSION FROM THE PAPACY FOR HIM TO DO SO IN SPITE OF ANY CLERICAL ORDERS HE MIGHT BE IN. PRODUCING CHILDREN WAS A PRIME EXPECTATION OF MEN AT THE TIME, ESPECIALLY IN THE TOP ECHELONS OF SOCIETY.PLEASE NAME ANY OTHER ADULT MALE MEMBERS OF THE PORTUGUESE ROYAL FAMILY WHO HAD NO CHILDREN AND WHO MADE CONTEMPTUOUS COMMENTS ABOUT WOMEN IN GENERAL. YOU CAN'T OF COURSE.

I have read all of the books listed. The Russell biography lacks a lot of detail; THERE IS NO BOOK RE HENRY AS DETAILED AS RUSSELL. STOP SPREADING NONSENSE. It is the most recent proper biography, but it has many weaknesses. It doesn't matter what these authors think anyway, and whether or not the subject is peer reviewed. It is the original sources that matter. For proof of homosexuality you would have to provide evidence from the original sources. There simply isn't any. Claiming that something is true simply because it could be true has no validity. It is often claimed that Leonardo Da vinci was homosexual, merely because he was anonymously accused of it. There is even less evidence of that, in fact no actual evidence of that in the case of Henry the Navigator. --DavidLeslie 00:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And WHO, pray tell, Is David Leslie, to diss Sir Peter Russell, late of Oxford University?. The author, perhaps, of a book on "Part Time Faculty"? The idea that Russell's bio "lacks detail" is hilariously absurd given its length and depth and makes clear Leslie has not even read it. It is based on an exhaustive examination of the original sources. Likewise the same re Johnson's article about Henry's homosexuality. What does Leslie know about the original sources? What has he published in the field? Where did he get his Ph.D? Leslie appears to be no more than a phony historian with no credentials. Are these the kind of "authorities" who run Wikipedia? No wonder it has a dubious reputation. And Leslie is apparently a homophobe to boot. There is nothing wrong with being homosexual, David, or didn't you know? Henry most probably was. Face it. PS If David has "read all the books" he must be dyslexic in the extreme. Johnson is in Portuguese. Do you read Portuguese, David? Russell's bio was declared by a competent reviewer in the Guardian as the best historical biography of the year 2000. So you know more? What arrogant nonsense!

OCM: you appear not to have paid any attention to all the other arguments adduced by Johnson. If Henry was not homosexual, then prove to us that he was heterosexual. People are not sexless. You cannot possible prove he was heterosexual because he was not. You are very very naive. And likely homophobic. Homosexuality is not a sin or a disgrace, though you probably think that it is.

Wow, what a totally impolite and ignorant response (after reading the rest of the heated argument below, I'm not surprised). I am not saying that you can prove he was hetero/homosexual, just that the article seems to revolve about one author's theory about his sexuality and not the other infinitely more relevant (key) aspects of his life. A smarter editor should make mention of this theory (and that's all it is, unless you somehow traveled back in time to witness any homosexual encounters between Henry and other men or at least found any real documented evidence that he was homosexual) and try to expand the article in other directions. BTW, you are a very angry person, I think you should not interact with others without taking some kind of medication first ;) 0cm 17:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

cruzado

Cruzado link and definition looks incorrect.--Filll 16:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Its incredible.... lies lies lies.... amazing... at least my country wasn't conquered in single invasion... ;) do you believe in what you all right??? Prince Henry was gay, Alexander was gay, Aquiles was gay, julius Cesar too? speak's the country that "invented" gays's everybody is gay except Elton John, and Prince Charles.

Calm down, homophobe. You think major historical figures were never gay? How ridiculous.

School or no school

The article states that "The old view that Henry's court rapidly grew into the technological base for exploration, with a naval arsenal and an observatory, etc., has long ago been debunked. There was no observatory or "school" of navigation, although Henry did possess geographical curiosity and therefore employed cartographers." but the Vasco da Gama article states "From the early 15th century, the nautical school of Henry the Navigator had been extending Portuguese knowledge of the African coastline." and my high school history book (pub. 2001) says "he brought together mapmakers, mathematicians, and astronomers to study navigation". BJ^Talk 08:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Bjweeks: If you think a "high school book" is to be used for authoritative opinions on history you are a silly ass. People who get their history from "high school books" are just that---barely educated. Read the entry on Prince Henry in the Diccionario de Historia de Portugal. Read Magalhaes Godinho, the great Portuguese historian, on the matter. Read Oliveira Marques. Grow up and learn to use authoritative sources, not your little "high school book". What nonsense. Or can't you read Portuguese, or don't you have access to a university library? If so, what are you doing pretending to pronounce on matters re Portuguese history? In general the article is poor. It does not use the latest research on many matters and was apparently written by someone who is not an authority on Portuguese history and who may not even read Portuguese. It is in general full of outdated information and outdated ideas. Russell and Johnson's takes, however, should be the basis for a new rewrite of the article. But of course the Russell book is long and amateurs would find it hard going, and Johnson's ideas run up against widespread homophobia.

Precisely what "latest research" are you referring to, because beyond mere theories and ideas there is no significant new research. There hasn't been for a long time. Russell's book is full of inadequacies, really lacking in detail in many areas. Major's book although much older is actually far more thorough in many respects. If you put the two books side by side and compare the comparable sections in each book, such as those concerning the rediscovery of Madeira, this becomes very apparent. Johnson's claims of homosexuality are purely unproven speculation. It is not homopbobia to point out apparent facts. To base the article on Russell and Johnson would lead to an article lacking in detail that included baseless theories. --DavidLeslie 13:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

To prefer Major's antiquated book to Russell and or Johnson is ridiculous and prima facie evidence of a fool who knows nothing about the subject. What are the "apparent facts" to prove that Henry was heterosexual? Please provide them. In detail. Leslie has no credentials that I know of. Let him tell us what they are. What have you published on the topic, David?

69.9.30.236 Have you read Major's book ? If so, please quote three important facts that are in Russell's book that are not in Major's ? If you have not read the book or are unable to answer my question, then your response to DavidLeslie has no substance. Which facts prove that Henry the Navigator was homosexual ? As yet I see no evidence put forward on this discussion page despite it being asked for. Wikipedia rules require that facts be substantiated. The article does not claim that Prince Henry was heterosexual, so that does not have to be proven. --Dr Lisboa 17:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Right now you look precisely like the "prima facie fool" you describe. Your reasoning and lack of evidence is amateurish : asking where somebody did a Phd, claiming that a newspaper reviewer liked it therefore it must be good, comparing two books one of which you haven't even read, accusing people of homophobia solely for asking for evidence of Henry's homosexuality. You have dodged every question asked of you. All we have seen from you is rudeness and ignorance, and attempts to promote your homosexuality. Unless you start giving priority to evidence and facts rather than unsubstantiated claims and cowardly and anonymous rudeness, which you wouldn't have the courage to say to their face, then you have no purpose being here. All of the rubbish you ever add to this article will end up being completely deleted. --Dr Lisboa 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And Dr. Lisboa, who, pray tell are you? You identify yourself with nothing more than the emblem of the city of Lisbon. If you are Portuguese, it is clear you cannot be objective about the national icon, par excellence. Homosexuality is shameful in Portugal, although very common, and to admit to it unthinkable. Hence for most Portuguese, no king or important Portuguese could ever have been gay, much less the national icon. Further: do you think having a doctorate in history is meaningless and that not having one makes one a better historian? What nonsense. What questions have I dodged? Please be specific. The evidence of Henry's homosexuality is in Johnson's book. What "newspaper reviewer" praised it; or do you refer to Russell's biography? Please be specific. Johnson's book was not reviewed in a "newspaper." Calling me homosexual is stupid and a lie, something you seem to be a specialist at. I am not homosexual but I am likewise not a homophobe, as you appear to be, and your accusation is stupid. I think it clear you have never read Johnson (can you read Portuguese or can you not?) or Russell. Russell has so much more in every way than Major that it would take pages and pages to detail the differences; any sensible person reading the two books would see that immediately. Much of Russell's bio is based on documentation that was never available when Major wrote, something that has escaped you. Since people are not sexless, you need to put up evidence for Henry's heterosexuality to refute Johnson's detailed evidence of his homosexuality (it doesn't need to be put into this short article; it is all in his book). You cannot do this and thus you make yourself appear to be the ignoramus that you probably are. What historical research have you done? What have you published, other than a copy of the emblem of the city of Lisbon? Where are your authoritative articles on Prince Henry? Please inform us.

My questions were very clear :

1. Quote three important facts that are in Russell's book that are not in Major's ? Only three will do. If there are so many as you claim it should be easy for you. I don't think you've even read Major. You claim that much of Russell's bio is based on documentation that was never available when Major wrote. If that is true then answer my question. I can not think of even one document that was available to Russell that wasn't available to Major.

2. Which facts prove that Henry the Navigator was homosexual ? Wikipedia rules require that facts be substantiated. The article does not claim that Prince Henry was heterosexual, so that does not have to be proven. It's no good claiming that it's in Johnson's book. If he has arguments quote some. You can't come up with any.

You keep on dodging the questions because you can't answer them. You instead ask stupid questions and make cowardly insults of anyone that doesn't agree with you, which you would be scared shitless to say to their face. Question dodging and personal abuse from an Internet coward is always a sure sign of somebody who doesn't know what they are talking about. --Dr Lisboa 22:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Laughable. The multi-volume Monumenta Henricina (look it up) with virtually all the documents re Henry was not available to Major. Russell is the first historian to have used it extensively. It came out only in the 20th century. The facts re Henry's homosexuality are in Johnson, which you have not read. Why should I post pages and pages of argument from Johnson? Read it for yourself. Since you can't read Portuguese, I suspect Johnson is closed to you. You are ignorant, not a professional historian, and I regret to say very stupid to boot. You know nothing of the historical profession and nothing about this topic, aside, apparently from the antiquated bio of Major. Anyone who preferred Major to Russell would be laughed out of any respectable history department as a fool who knows nothing. You think Yale would publish a new bio of Henry that added nothing to Major? Only a fool like you would claim that. Sad that people like you swarm all over Wikipedia and make it so worthless. Get lost, dunce. PS: read the review by David Abulafia, the eminent professor of Cambridge University re Russell and learn something for a change. See http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Sea/reviews/abulafia.html

Homosexuality

I was looking at Monumenta Henricina again yesterday. Monumenta Henricina wasn't available in Major's time, but the documents in it were. You obviously didn't even know that ! So now answer the question I asked instead of continuously dodging it. Quote three important facts that are in Russell's book that are not in Major's ? Of course you haven't even read Major. You can't compare them because you have not even read it ! So stop making a fool of yourself by trying to compare the two books.

(You might be interested to know that the bibliography given in the Dicionario de Historia de Portugal re Prince Henry does not even mention Major's book, although it mentions others like Beazley. If Major was so definitive, I wonder why that is.)

Evidence of his homosexuality - haven't seen any yet. You can't provide any despite being challenged. Not being married evidence of homosexuality  ! Be serious - Casanova wasn't married. There is not a shred of evidence that he avoided women. He had a lot of contact with women.

( Please tell us about all the women with whom he had contact. That'll take you a couple of years of futile effort, I suspect. Wrong, he clearly said he avoided contact with women. Since you claim to know the documentation so well I will let you find it; if you can't, ask me and I will give you the reference.)

He had friendships with men, as many men do. Your Johnson has deceitfully tried to misrepresent any contact with any men as strong attachments, in a vain attempt to make out they were homosexual relationships.

(You obviously haven't read Johnson and his detailed argumentation; if you had you could not make these silly statements, as you do. Answer me this: have you read Johnson, yes or no?)

Claiming that Zurara was his contemporary biographer makes you look a complete idiot. It's AZURARA arsehole, and AZURARA was NOT his contemporary biographer.

(Another howler on your part. Zurara was born between 1410 and 1420 and died sometime between 1473 and 1474, according to the Dicionario de Historia de Portugal, IV, p. 358. Henry was born in 1394 and died in 1460. So they were not "contemporary?" Do you even know the meaning of contemporary? I would guess not. PS: the DHP gives his name as "Zurara, Gomes Eanes de". You of course know more than the authors of articles in the main dictionary of Portuguese history, don't you, wise guy?)

AZURARA wrote histories during the period that were not biographies of Prince Henry. I have a copy of Azurara, which, unlike you, I have read. There is not a single thing in it concerning bringing up boys in his bedchamber. Nobody can check P.361 because there is no P.361 in Azurara !!!

(Since you insult me, I will insult you, stupid. There are several editions of Zurara. I have consulted the one Johnson used, the edition by Jose de Braganca. There sure is a page 361 in that edition. So you're the fool, not I. I have read Zurara, very carefully. You apparently have not. What edition do you use, if you in fact use any? As for the rest, I am a retired historian who taught at a major US university including courses on Portuguese history. And you? Any degrees? Any professorships? Anything at all other than silly childish arrogance to cover your ignorance?)

You sound like a fresh out of college student to me. You certainly aren't any historian. You haven't even read the original sources. You're not fit to write anything. Unfortunately you're one of the keyboard cowards that the Internet breeds. You can't assert yourself in real life so you try to make up for your pathetic weakness by trying in vane to make up for it over the Internet. I challenge you to meet up face to face Internet coward ? I know from your IP address where you are. Face to face with me you'd wet your pants !

--Dr Lisboa 20:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You've been completely unable to answer my questions. No surprise there. When you grow up you might do as I do which is check out all biographies instead of merely the most recent or the first one you come across, and to make use of all useful books and not just one. Thank you for convincing me that Johnson's book is absolute crap. If a totally false quote from Azurara (or Zurara as you naively thought it to be) is the best he can come up with, then he clearly doesn't have a shred of convincing evidence. I have been comparing what Johnson claims on his web site concerning Prince Henry's sexuality with the writings of Azurara, which he uses for his key evidence. It is obvious that Johnson is lying about the evidence, because Azurara clearly does not make the statements that Johnson claims. Go and read Azurara and see for yourself.

Jesus wasn't married, didn't have children and always hung around with young men. So go try convincing the editors on the Jesus article that he was gay ! --Dr Lisboa 15:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

(Dead wrong amd ignorant and stupid in your denial of the facts. Major never looked at all the documents in the Monumenta; it took the editors of the volumes many years to dig them all out. Major did not begin to do any of that in the middle of the 19th century. What an absurd idea and so childish and silly. Russell makes clear that there were NO impediments to Henry's getting married. Henry would not have used the cover story of "chastity" if he has been legally unable to marry; he would have said he was following the rules of the Order. Henry was NOT a knight of the order; he was the ADMINISTATOR or GOVERNOR, not even the Master. He was thus not obligated to celibacy. Russell makes this clear in his book. You don't read very carefully. You are the kind of amateur historian who gives amateurism a very bad name. In fact Henry's father got a Papal dispensation to allow Henry to marry within normally prohibited relationships of consanguinity. If Henry had been legally unable to marry, why would he have done that? You simply don't know your stuff about the rules of the Order of Christ or Henry's position in it.

More indications of your ignorance: the name is Gomes Anes or Eanes da or de Zurara. Azurara is a common misreading of the name. Zurara makes exactly the statements I quoted on page 361 of the  Braganca edition: "...mancebos, que o Infante criara em sua camara..." "Young boys whom the Infante had brought up in his bedchamber." What lies? Your charge that Johnson lies is a lie itself.

Ignoramuses like you are what gives Wikipedia its bad name. Know-littles who pretend to know more than the experts. The kind of people who would have told Einstein he didn't understand physics. You would be well advised to read the review of Russell by David Abulafia of Cambridge University. You might learn some things, including the proper spelling of Zurara's name.) http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/paper/abulafiaD.html

«The article states: "He never married or had children although nothing would have prevented his doing so, and other aspects of his character that Johnson details in his study all tend to lend credence to the thesis that he was a closet homosexual." »

Henry was the governor of the Order of Christ and he would follow the rules of the order: one of them was chastity. The vows were like those of the Knights Templar.

Only at the end of the 15th century, Pope Alexander VI gives permission for the knights of the Order of Christ to get married. Of course Henry was already dead by this time and if he was alive he would be too old. But I am sure he would have fun if he could read all the nonsense that was written about his sex life. Saying that "nothing would have prevented his doing so" is obviously a joke.

(As Governor of the Order, Henry was not bound by any rules of chastity as Russell makes clear. You simply don't know whereof you speak.)

Some person connected with Wikipedia with authority needs to intervene here and get rid of the nonsense spewed by Dr. Lisboa. He doesn't know what he talks about in most cases, and is obviously an amateur historian without much experience in the subject. He makes assertions that are provably wrong time and again. And then continues to do so without shame. His involvement in the encyclopedia does it damage.

I'm still waiting for answers to my questions Mr Anonymous from Arizona. You simply can't answer them. The rest of what you have written is irrelevant :

1. Quote three important facts that are in Russell's book that are not in Major's ? Given that you haven't even read Major you wouldn't have a clue. Forget the Monumenta Henricina rubbish. You don't even know which documents Major used, so don't be deceitful by claiming that you do.

2. Which facts prove that Henry the Navigator was homosexual ? The only claim that would be of substance if it was true was that Henry brought up boys in his bedchamber (câmara). However, as Johnson points out on his web site, câmara could also mean household. People can be brought up in somebody's household. It does not make grammatical sense to claim that he brought them up solely in his bedchamber. This was also of course written by somebody who was never a witness to what took place in Henry's bedchamber.

You're just a cowardly has been lecturer, too frightened to even give his name, from some minor University, that you're too ashamed to even mention, who taught a bit of Portuguese history, as do thousands of junior school teachers in Portuguese speaking countries. Frustrated by your shallow knowledge of Portuguese history you have been going around Wikipedia abusing everyone in sight. You're useless to Wikipedia. Any alteration you make is being wiped out be just about everyone, because everybody dislikes you and disagrees with you. --Dr Lisboa 18:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What is especially heinous about Dr. Lisboa is that when his errors are exposed he simply repeats them, denying the facts. What he needs to do is tell us what facts are in Major that are not in Russell. Please name them all, with page references and the edition. You're the one that claims Major is useless. Go and prove your own contentions He has repeated been shown not to know the facts, but this does not phase him or stop his creating and spreading more, to be nice, "non-facts." Anyone who would call the Monumenta Henricina "rubbish" is a self confessed fool. Please tell me, Dr. Lisboa, what is on page 340 of volume III of the collection. That will tell us if you have ever seen it or read any of it.

So far you have been wrong about:

Zurara's name ITs' you that got the name wrong. You've not even read him anyway. The books' too old no doubt HAHA Whether the Administrator of the Order of Christ must be celibate. I never wrote that His claim that Zurara was not a contemporary of Henry. LIE - I wrote he was not a "contemporary biographer" of his His failure to state what edition of Zurara he is using. I don't need to His failure to explain why the Dicionario de Historia de Portugal does not even mention Major. Go ask them !

And defies common sense in claiming:

That a bio of Henry written about 150 years ago is superior to a very detailed modern bio by the world authority on Henry written seven years ago. I never claimed that. You've claimed it's useless without ever having read it. You don't even known what the book is like. That he has read Johnson, when in fact, he shows he knows little of the content of Johnson's work. His arguments are all laid out on his web site. I have a copy of the entire text of his reasoning

And indicates his immaturity with his use of childish insults about matters he cannot know. His kind is what really damages the Wikipedia. Know-littles who think they know lots that they don't know. YOu are the one that claims that he is a Professor of Portuguese history in a major University. Yet you then admit that it was some Portuguese history, that you are no longer even a lecturer, and are too ashamed to even mention the MINOR university you were at. I went to Oxford and Cambridge. Heard of them ? They ARE major Universities.

You still haven't been able to answer the two key questions that I've asked. You never can because the answers make a complete mockery of everything you have written. So out of frustration you instead keep trying to distract atention. You have been reported to the Administrators and your Internet Service Provider for your cowardly and widespread rudeness and disruption. --Dr Lisboa 19:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just checked through all of Azurara's use of the word "câmara". It is obvious when you check the context of his use of the word that he means household rather than bedchamber, which is what even Johnson suggests on his web site. Many people were brought up in Prince Henry's household. There is nothing in Azurara (the original source) that indicates that he had children in his bedchamber. The rest of the supposed "evidence" even Johnson describes as cicumstantial, such as unmarried, no children, male friendships. So your Prince Henry homosexuality claims don't have even one solid piece of evidence to stand on. As has been pointed out by another editor you are not able to give personal opinions. So your opinion of the various books is only of consequence to yourself - especially as you have only ever read one ! --Dr Lisboa 21:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

An Administrator has just given you a final warning 69.9.30.236. Next time you will be banned permanently. --Dr Lisboa 22:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr Lisboa's questions

Dr. Lisboa (LOL) you asked, as I recall, to name three things that are in Russell but not in Major.

1. Major has nothing on Henry's incessant attempts to conquer the Canary Islands and the problems this caused with Castile.

2. Major has nothing on Henry's horoscope, that had a strong psychological influence on him.

3. Major has nothing on Henry's will and testament.

And, to boot, your idea that Major consulted all the documents there are re Henry is sheer rubbish. Major's bibliography cites only "books" and NO documents. Take a look and learn.

Professor of a major University (LOL), how can you possibly comment on Major when you have never even read it ? According to you, it's antiquated and worthless as far as you're concerned. I checked the first item with a word search and find attacks in the Canary's within a second. Now go and read it and then make a proper attempt. And whilst you're at it, find for me in Russell the COMPLETE text of the Voyages of Diogo Gomes written by Gomes, which appears in Major in its entirety but which isn't in Russell. And also explain to me how, with the use of Russell you made such a blunder by claiming that Sierra Leone was discovered during Henry's time when it was Sintra who discovered Sierra Leone well after Henry had died. Reading only one book on Prince Henry as you have leaves you lacking in so many respects. I've read Major AND Russell AND Gomes AND Azurara (which is even more antiquated according to you) AND Cadamosto who described his voyages AND Sintra, whose voyages were described by Cadamosto. If you want to cover a biography properly you should check all of the biographies and read all of those that between them cover the subject. Unfortunately, rarely does one biography cover everything. Russell could have nullified all of the biographies that preceded him including Major, by incorporating everything of use in all preceding books, but he didn't. You should then read all of the available original sources. They never go out of date because they are the nearest we have to fist hand accounts. --Dr Lisboa 19:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Some friendly advise: No personal attacks

Regarding personal comments made in this page: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.

Some suggestions:

• Discuss the article, not the subject;
• Discuss the edit, not the editor;
• Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
• If you feel attacked, do not attack back.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel that your comments are a personal attack on the editors here !!! --Dr Lisboa 23:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Zurara's name

If Dr. Lisboa would bother to look he would see that Azurara is NOT used by the Library of Congress. If one types in Azurara one is redirected to Zurara. Zurara is the proper way to write his name and almost all edition of his chronicle use it. Azurara was first put into use by Santarem in 1841. We know better now than Santarem did in 1841 how to spell his name correctly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.9.29.176 (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

In Wikipedia its Azurara ! It's all academic anyway. I now know that Johnson's book is useless. The only significant claim, if it was true, was that Prince Henry suffered from Michael Jackson Syndrome. However, when you check all of Azurara's uses of câmara he obviously meant household not bedchamber. --Dr Lisboa 19:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Azurara is a village in Portugal, set on the southern bank of river Ave some 27 kilometers north of Porto (or Oporto). The small city of Vila do Conde is across the river, and up until the eighties there were shipyards on both banks, where wooden boats were being built, without interruption, from the time of Henry the Navigator and possibly earlier. I can't remember if it was in the late eighties or early nineties when the north bank operation was moved to Azurara, where it is today, somewhat modernized (of course they hadn't been building caravels there for a long time). In Azurara it is common knowledge among villagers that Gomes Eanes was born there. I don't know if it was so, but it is true that men from the city and surrounding villages manned some of the ships that were built there for the discoveries. It is also common that people get the name of the place they are from attached as a surname, as you all know. Also, note that both Gomes and Eanes are surnames, and not our man's name. I think he may have been soandso Gomes Eanes, de (from) Azurara, then de Azurara turned d'Azurara or de Zurara. but I really wonder wether there's anyone who cares, except for Dr. Lisboa and the other gentleman, who aren't around anylonger. Thamus (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)201.224.33.227 (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality of this article

Though I spend a good amount of time reading Wikipedia, I very rarely edit it. For the record, I would like to state that this is without a doubt the most poorly written article I have yet encountered. I tried to go through and correct the APPALLING number of misspellings and errors, as well as try to smooth over the many awkward constructions. The original writer was obviously not a native English speaker (given his/her propensity not to capitalize Portuguese, a dead giveaway of a native romance language speaker) and especially had some trouble with prepositions. Given all of this, however, the article remains quite redundant and poorly worded at certain parts. Timocrates 18:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's well bad that some peeple can't spel and right proper like what wee do. Incidentally, it would have been better if you had written the proper idiom "in certain parts" rather than "at certain parts" because you can not be at a part. Also, "although" is preferable to "though", because "though" is an abbreviation of "although". The proper idiom is "without doubt" rather than "without a doubt", which is what you have used, because doubt is not a numerically measurable term. "His or her" is preferable to "his/her", which is normally used when a deletion of one or the other is expected. "However" followed by a comma normally more properly begins a sentence. Also, it would have been better to follow "language speaker)" with a comma because you are introducing another statement, which may have been better in a sentence of its own. Otherwise, you did well. I'll give you 4 out of 10. Keep going to school and you are sure to improve. --Dr Lisboa 21:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, how dare you take that condescending tone and insult me? I will be making a complaint to an administrator, "Dr" Lisboa. Besides, many of your "corrections" are simply incorrect. Check your Fowler's. The other "corrections" seem to be stylistic or idiomatic, and either way, this is simply a comment. I was taking about serious errors in the article: misspellings and unequivocally incorrect grammar. I could care less about Portuguese history. If you are so interested in this article, why didn't you utilize your mastery of the English language to fix such blatant errors? Timocrates 19:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I would advise Dr. Lisboa to tone down his comments. There is no need to escalate these discussions and remaining civil is a necessity to conduct a debate. See this as a friendly warning. Continuing with personal remarks such as these are grounds for temporarily removing your editing privileges. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I advise you both to get a sense of humour ! Don't you know a joke when you see one ? The fact that you actually took me seriously makes it even funnier ! --Dr Lisboa 20:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Note from another reader: It the text has some spelling and grammar errors, why do not you help to correct them? It's so simple. 2nd, I also do not understand this advice for dr.Lisboa to tone down his comments. There has been people here coming up with insults without receiving any warnings. NO DOUBLE STANDARDS, PLEASE! Joao —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.99.70 (talk) 10:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Let me know if anyone objects to a week of semi-protection. There seems to have been a new burst of IP vandalism starting in the middle of April. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 日本語 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.119.181 (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The Icon

I read that the traditional appearance of H the N, as pictured in the article (as well as the monument to discoveries) is the one in the Panels of São Vicente de Fora and isn't the real one. This point seems to have been raised in the early 20th century, about the identification of people in the painting. Anyone? --Xyzt1234 (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I added a footnote to the image caption's to that effect. --Xyzt1234 (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Image of Henry is wrong

The image of Henry you have is the wrong one. It portraits his brother, King Duarte, who wore a moustache. This is the correct one: it matches the description of him made by Zurara: he was white-haired, tall, athletic and had an awe-inspiring look to him.Orlando F (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Your image comes from the Saint Vincent Panels like the one we have now, but it selects a different figure as being Henry. If we are going to change the image, it would be best to find a scholarly source which supports your image as being the correct one. EdJohnston (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Xyzt1234 has written more on this topic at User talk:EdJohnston/Archive11#Prince Henry. It sounds like some scholarly works may exist about the proper image of Henry, but somebody would have to dig them up. One problem with our current image is that Henry is wearing a Burgundian hat. The web site about the St. Vincent Panels at http://paineis.org/INDICE.htm discusses this matter, but I don't know if the site can be considered a reliable source. Peter Russell uses the mustached Burgundian image of Henry on the front cover of his book, but in the text notes that it is possibly wrong! ("..it seems quite possible that the famous portrait supposedly of Henry started life as a portrait of someone else."). EdJohnston (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The importance of this article.

Since this is the first time I write on Wikipedia, please allow me to express my heartfelt thanks to its founders and for all the contributors that have been making it possible. About this article, I must say I am extremely disappointed to see how little attention a character such as Henry the Navigator has attracted so far. Please note that I never mean to criticise the person or persons who wrote the present article, but I could have a bitter word for all those who might have something to contribute and are short sighted enough to keep it to themselves. I cannot contribute any information myself (I expected to find it here), but I hope the following commentary may be of some use.

I begin with a quotation from the Portuguese article:

“O Infante D. Henrique foi uma personagem muito intrigante, com um certo mistério e muitos segredos. Também os seus motivos e os objectivos das suas navegações têm sido amplamente discutidos e diferenciados, mas, sem dúvida, foi o grande condutor da expansão ultramarina portuguesa e europeia'.”

Which renders something like:

Prince Henry was a very intriguing character, with a certain mysterious aura and many secrets about him. Also, his motives and the objectives of his expeditions have been widely discussed and differentiated (?) (analysed, perhaps?) but, without doubt, he was the great leader of Portuguese and European maritime expansion.

Well, he certainly was not the leader of European maritime expansion, but there can’t be any doubt it wouldn’t have happened without him. When we think of the consequences of this expansion, it is a little strange that a character of this magnitude deserves no more than a few paragraphs here. Compare with the space allotted to the videogame Age of Empires. (Where Prince Henry has a role, Wikipedia assures me).

My proposition is simply that Henry begun a process, neatly closed (symbolically,I mean) about a century later by Magellan, a process that we could call the first step of modern times globalisation. A step that was the physical predecessor of contemporary globalisation (perhaps I ought to clarify that the proper meaning of globalisation lies more with global conscience than with cheap labour or immoral profit). That step was what caused our world to be represented as a globe in our minds. Idle to say, a step without which there would be no Internet, and no Wikipedia. Humans, as everyone knows, started globalisation possibly even before they were properly humans, as the first hominid climbed down from his tree to walk on the African savannah, and if Prince Henry hadn’t done what he did, someone else would, but that only means that we would be talking about that someone now.

You may say Magellan and everyone aboard his ships, just as Henry, and virtually everyone in between were looking for gold and fame rather than to impress meaning to the human adventure, but this is what they did, collectively, to a very important extent. And I believe that Henry the Navigator was less innocent of this than the rest. Back to the earlier quotation “Prince Henry was a very intriguing character, with a certain mysterious aura and many secrets about him. Also, his motives and the objectives of his expeditions have been widely discussed…” Think a minute. He was born a prince. He liked to live simply, without luxury. Yet, he was driven by profit. If he didn’t want it to spend on luxury, then, was he an avaricious hoarder? Or perhaps he had a project that necessitated funding? I wouldn’t like to start yet another conspiracy theory, but remember he was tutored by a templar, and later head of the knights templar in Portugal, and they gave him the money he needed to fund his first expeditions. The Temple may have had very prosaic, monetary motivations, or they may have had a secret project that later on carried to freemasons, as some postulate. That project may be alive and well today, expressed publicly in a number of ways. We can speculate about this ad aeternum, but such is the nature of secrets that we probably will never know.

Prince Henry was a secretive person, who apparently cared more about actually carrying out his designs than to make a place for himself in history, but I would like to know what those designs were, and I would like to see him credited with his proper place in history. Still, between here and there, this article might be easily improved with the knowledge that exists. Take the matter of the Sagres school. I refuse to believe there isn’t documentation enough on this issue, and that it can’t be properly referenced in Wikipedia. Thamus (talk) 04:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Questions

The first contacts with the African slave market were made by expeditions to ransom Portuguese subjects enslaved by pirate attacks on Portuguese ships or villages. Henry justified this on the grounds that he was converting these captives to Christianity.

I don't understand this paragraph. Does the first sentence mean that pirates attacked and enslaved Portuguese, who were moved to African slave markets, and then Henry sailed to the slave markets to purchase their freedom? If so, the second sentence doesn't make sense: why would these Portuguese subjects have to be converted to Christianity? Presumably they are already Christians. Also, if he just bought their freedom (the meaning of "ransom"), they wouldn't be captives anymore. What am I missing? Thanks, AxelBoldt (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I think it was this edit that introduced the strange logic. It made sense before. Should we undo this edit? 17:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a word about his "top secret" policy

Hi everyone.

I've not read a single line about the well documented "top secret" portuguese policy that covered to other countries the methods, maps, routes, discoverings, etc, made by the portuguese sailors under the Henry's men commands. Henry himself promoted a series of heavy laws in the Kingdom of Portugal against those who spread knowledge on the matter, that were asimilated as "traitors" to the kingdom. An uncertain number of people were chased and even silently killed when they left Henry's influence and crossed to Spain and other countries. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER FOR THIS. THE "POLICY OF SECRECY" WAS A CONCEPT INVENTED BY PORTUGUESE HISTORIANS (PRIMARILY JAIME CORTESAO) WHO WANTED TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT PORTUGAL DISCOVERED THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE BEFORE COLUMBUS AND THEREFORE IT SENT OUT "SECRET" VOYAGES TO DO SO. IT WAS A BEE IN THE BONNET OF THE BROTHERS CORTESAO THAT MOST SENSIBLE PORTUGUESE HISTORIANS HAVE DISCARDED. THE SECRECY IDEA ALLOWED PORTUGUESE HISTORIANS TO CLAIM THIS AND THAT AND THEN WHEN IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE FOR IT, THEIR RESPONSE WOULD BE THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS CONCEALED OR DESTROYED. SO USING "SECRECY" PORTUGAL COULD BE SAID TO HAVE DISCOVERED ALMOST EVERYTHING. IN SHORT THE VERY LACK OF EVIDENCE FOR A DISCOVERY WAS USED AS "PROOF" THAT THE DISCOVERY TOOK PLACE. A NEAT INTELLECTUAL TRICK THAT PLEASED PORTUGUESE NATIONALISTS. "Henry himself promoted a series of heavy laws in the Kingdom of Portugal against those who spread knowledge on the matter, that were asimilated as "traitors" to the kingdom. An uncertain number of people were chased and even silently killed when they left Henry's influence and crossed to Spain and other countries." ALL THIS IS THE PRODUCT OF A FEVERED IMAGINATION. AND SIMPLY UNTRUE. READ DAVID ABULAFIA, THE DISCOVERY OF MANKIND PAGE 269. ONLY PORTUGUESE NATIONALISTS CONTINUE WITH THE "SECRECY" NONSENSE. Also, no mention to the fact (also documented) that at Henry's dead, he left many debts. His incomes where never enough to fund his projects, and he usually sign loans that finally he could not pay. MEANINGLESS OBSERVATION. HE DIED POSSESSED OF VAST WEALTH IN LAND AND RIGHTS, ETC., THAT HE BEQUEATHED TO HIS NEPHEW, MAKING THE LATTER THE RICHEST PERSON IN PORTUGAL AFTER THE KING. HE NEVER LACKED FOR MONEY FOR WHAT HE WANTED TO DO. READ RUSSELL (p. 76) AND WISE UP. A GREAT PRINCE WAS ABOVE WORRYING ABOUT MONEY AND HIS DEBTS WERE ADMIRED, NOT CENSURED. HE COULD ALWAYS RAISE THE MONEY HE NEEDED FOR HIS SCHEMES. YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SOCIETY HE WAS IN. DON'T IMPORT CONTEMPORARY ATTITUDES INTO HISTORY WHERE THEY DON'T APPLY.

Do someone want to expand the article? My English is not very good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.158.159.26 (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2010 THE ARTICLE IS RIDICULOUSLY SHORT AND UNINFORMATIVE. SOMEONE SHOULD SIMPLY SUMMARIZE RUSSELL AND THAT WOULD MAKE A FINE ARTICLE. STUPID NOT TO HAVE RUSSELL IN THE BIBLIOGRAPHY. EARLIER BIOS COMPLETELY SUPERCEDED BY RUSSELL.

I was under the impression that Henry was a rather wealthy man throughout his life. Due to his posting as the head of the Order of Christ, coupled with his royal income and the trading rights granted to him by his brother, I would have thought his income sufficient. I would like to see the documented evidence of his debts because it completely debunks the "Income" section of this page. Casini1 (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Income is never sufficient. Then or now. ;) Henry had huge expenses. Spent lavishly & had lots of cronies on his payroll. Russell comments on this (Henry, debts of, p.60, 75-56, 358-60). Dinis Dias (Estudos Henriquinos, 1960 p.299ff) discusses it in more detail. Walrasiad (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC) HENRY ALWAYS GOT THE MONEY HE NEEDED WHEN HE WANTED IT. NOBODY CALLED IN HIS LOANS.

"Henry was the third child of King John I of Portugal, the founder of the Aviz dynasty, and of Philippa of Lancaster..."

Actually, he was 5th child, 4th son - see John I of Portugal#Marriages and descendants - Agassi1 (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Common misconception?

I've tagged the sentences beginning "It is a common miconception..." as they are un-cited, and directly contradicted in the "Vila do Infante", section further down. In any event, it would be better to say in the introduction what he did do, rather than what he didn't; something like ".. is widely regarded as the patron of Portuguese exploration..." and put the "misconception" paragraph further down. Something like "Traditionally….. though modern historians reject this view" (If anyone can come up with a modern historian who does, in fact, reject it). Thoughts? Moonraker12 (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The 'Vila do Infante' section should most likely be deleted. To see which facts are reliable about Henry, one can get an idea from the excellent article in the Encyclopedia Britannica, co-authored by the historian Felipe Fernandez-Armesto. That article does not mention Vila do Infante at all except as the place of Henry's death. In a short article like ours there is not really space to sort out the quasi-mythical stuff like Vila do Infante. The best full biography of Henry in English is probably the one by Peter Russell, included in our reference list. It is good but doesn't quite answer all the questions you would have. The reference list of Russell's book sends the reader to modern scholarly work in Portuguese that would surely be interesting. See the Google Books preview of Russell here. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The "citation needed" tag should be removed, as there is no modern historian defending the idea of a "school". The fact that the myth persisted for quite some time (up to the beginning of the 20th century, if I'm not wrong) doesn't make a truth of it. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not common knowledge. The existence of a school is still popularly believed and frequently restated. Moreover, Sagres remains a popular tourist site, with a plaque openly declaring there was a school there. People might be curious to follow up on why the article asserts there wasn't one. Walrasiad (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Just like the believe that Elvis is alive? ;-) Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat. Except far more widely & strongly (and with government & tourist agency encouragement). So it needs to be addressed. Walrasiad (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone propose some way to describe Vila do Infante in the article? We could just acknowledge the tourist element and the fact that the government promotes it as the actual place where he did his work and the 'school' was assembled. EdJohnston (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

My concern is still that having that paragraph where it is comes over as trying to make a point. I think it would be better to move it down, to juxtapose it with the Vila do Infante bit, and have the introduction say what he did do, rather than what he didn’t.

I’ve made a draft, here; it’s self-reverted for now, but if everyone is OK with it, I’d like to post it. Any thoughts? Moonraker12 (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

PS As for the "school of navigation" idea, I remember it from school days, so the idea was around in the second half of the last century at least.

Anyway, most institutions in the middle ages (university, hospital, parliament, law court) bore little resemblance to those of today. But if (for example) the boys were invited to the big house after they got back to tell the boss about the trip, and if he had the information collected and available for the next lot rather than let it be squirreled away as a trade secret, and if when someone came up with a bright idea but it might be a bit pricey, the man was there to say “well, we’ll give it a bash” rather than “leave the details with my secretary on the way out”, then maybe “school of navigation” is as good a description as any. Anyway, it’s just a thought… Moonraker12 (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I proposed making this change earlier, but got no feedback on it. If there are no objections, I'll go ahead. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the value of keeping this material if it has no source. (In your version, you've still got it marked with the {{cn}} template). We might as well remain silent about Vila do Infante until somebody can find a modern source that explains what is known. Try using the Gbooks search of Russell for Vila do Infante. You will find that Russell does not say much on that topic. He refers to it as "the elusive Vila do Infante near Sagres." In a quick search of the online copy of Zurara's chronicle I could find no mention of Vila do Infante. (There was nothing for Sagres, and only five hits on the Algarve). EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Zurara refers to it is Ch. 5 (p.21) & Ch. 18 (p.61). It is also implied in a royal letter of 1443 and quite explicit in Henry's own 1460 final will & testament. The major 16th C. chroniclers Barros (1552: p.20) and Damião de Góis (1567: p.14) both mentioned it explicitly. Unfortunately, its exact location is uncertain - it was abandoned & fell into ruins after Henry's death. The existence of a "school" at Sagres is the more contentious bit, particularly as it depends on how you define "school". The idea of a school was built up slowly, and was particularly popularized in the 19th C. (plaque was put up at Sagres c.1837, and the story of it spread esp. by the popular histories of R.H. Major and Oliveira Martins). Marques de Souza Holstein tried to debunk it as early 1877 who ruled out a "school" in the real sense, but not in the metaphorical sense. In the 20th C., Duarte Leite (1941) pronounced against a "school" (although there were also others who pronounced for it at the same time, Leite tends to have an outsized influence). You can find a summary of the issue in English in Diffie & Winius (1977: p.115), who conclude that a "school", both in the physical & metaphorical sense, did not exist (although I think they push the envelope a little too far in that direction, they seem to take some glee in depriving Henry of any and all the navigational accomplishments he is traditionally credited with - no school, no advisors, no scientific interest, no maps, no instruments, no ships, i.e. it was all there before Henry, or it was only invented after him, the man himself just an opportunistic, ignorant goon). Russell by and large avoids mentioning the issue - he has only one (rather poor) chapter on navigation. Personally, I don't consider the matter "settled". Historians have tended to rely too much on "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" to make their case against a Sagres School, real or metaphorical. But documentary evidence of anything and everything in Henry's life is so scanty, it is very hard to prove or disprove anything so particular. This much is somewhat certain: Henry did build a Vila do Infante, Henry did send out ships down the West African coast. What the exact connection (if any) there might be between the two is unknown. Walrasiad (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ed: The {{cn}} template I put in was for the assertion that the school story was untrue; I was questioning the categorical statement that there wasn’t an organized navigation centre.

But the change I wanted to make (in case it isn’t clear at first sight) is simply to move it to the Vila section; I haven’t attempted to argue whether it is true or not.

However it is true that there is a story it is so, and a lot of people of my generation are familiar with it, so having a big “fuck-off” notice in the first paragraphs of the article telling me I know nothing is not particukarly appreciated.

Hence my wanting to tone it down: So, is that a problem? Moonraker12 (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW: I’m assuming Henry’s relationship to exploration is similar to that of JFK and the Moon landings; a lot of work went on before, and a lot was done by those who came after him, but it is unlikely they would have got to the Moon when they did if Kennedy hadn’t taken the stance he took. (it's an opinion; I'm not insisting on it...) Moonraker12 (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I’ve gone ahead and done it. I trust everyone is OK with that. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Religion

Should there be more of an emphasis placed on the role that Christianity placed on Henry's oceanic endeavors? Russell stresses the religious motivations that Henry was inspired by, as well as Philippa's religious education she gave her sons. Mattbaker55 (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I think there needs to be at least a section on how religion drove him to do what he did. He was a man almost totally driven by religion as were most important men of his time. Knowing how religion affected his life is the key to knowing who he was. Leaving out such an important section is a bad idea even if Wikipedia is trying to remain secular. Religion affected all people in this time, the nobles more than most. Men like Prince Henry were brought up thinking that they had Gods backing and it was their duty to the people and more importantly God to do what was right. He was a very pious man due to this and I think that Russell really paints a clear picture of what kind of person he was. Henry was perpetually motivated by religion and this can be seen through his actions, most specifically his desire to fight the forces of the non-Christians and his dedication to the glory of God. To leave out such an important part of this man’s life really doesn’t allow for people to understand who he was or what motivated him. Voitik2 (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd be careful with that. Russell takes some very speculative liberties on this. The evidence he himself cites shows Henry did very little for religion, that he deployed it cynically and manipulatively for his personal profit, that he never advanced the faith abroad, indeed hardly ever lifed a finger to its benefit anywhere, and embezzled church property for himself whenever he could (e.g. Order of Christ, church tithes). If he was pious or religiously-motivated, he sure has a funny way of showing it. Zurara, who is hardly an impartial observer, does cite religion as one of Henry's five motives, but manages to come up with only one rather feeble example of it - that slave-raiding can be interpreted as some sort of "missionary work". By contrast, the Henrican captain Diogo Gomes bluntly asserts Henry had one and only one motive: greed, or as Gomes explains, Henry needed money to financially sustain his pretentiously large entourage of retainers and lackeys. Frankly, that seems to fit rather more neatly with Henry's actions, both at home and abroad. Not to say that it might not be worth mentioning, but Russell is going out on a limb with this religion angle. It is not necessarily shared by other historians, the topic should be treated cautiously. Walrasiad (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Infante = Junior Prince?

Dear users, Infante isn't a title to indicate "Junior princes". Infante is an old Iberian title that indicates the sons and the daughters of a monarch that aren't the heir to the throne. So, they could have 95 years or 10 years old and they'll continue being Infantes. And also they aren't fall of the Prince Royal of Portugal - the heir to the throne, they just are not the heir to the throne. So they're not "junior princes". This page has been blocked so I can't make this alteration by myself, so I ask you a favor: if someone could retire this denomination: (junior prince), please? Thank you. --Shristian (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I opened a discussion on this at Talk:Infante; I’ve copied your comment to that page and replied there. Moonraker12 (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Put in a map

put in a map of him going to Asia. --Cyberman 01:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC) A map would be nice, but not one of Prince Henry going to Asia, since he never went there. The farthest he ever sailed was to Morocco.

Prince Henry did not found a navigation school in Sagres. In fact, there are no historical evidences of such an institution in Sagres during the presence of Prince Henry. The School of Sagres is a later "production" from some authors Therefore, one must understand the idea of “School of Sagres”, not in the physical and sense, but as a to have the idea for it.

Note from another reader: I actually read somewhere that the navigation base was located in the neighbouring town of Lagos instead of Sagres. Lagos has a natural harbor, while Sages has a rough sea and no natural conditions for ships to dock. I really do not care about whether or not Henri was homosexual. It's an unimportant issue. Joao —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.99.70 (talk) 10:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Well, I am not so sure it is an unimportant issue. I never heard about it before, and I agree that true or false it shouldn't be an item when trying to weigh the historical importance of a character such as Henry the Navigator. However, allow me to remark that homosexuality is still very badly understood (since our tendency is to look away from it, making study difficult) and, more pertinently, that there is a very large list of historical figures that were homosexual, who have made huge contributions to science, the arts, and virtually every field of human evolution. In fact, I find this list to be so large that I wonder wether there is somewere a theory of acausal link between homosexuality and brilliancy... So perhaps it is important to know if Henry, Da Vinci or Thoreau were homosexual or not. I mean, for statiscs.Thamus (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

---

The recent Peter Russell book Prince Henry the Navigator: A Life presents good historical evidence that Henry was indeed instrumental in the conquest of Ceuta, and not simply part of the "operation". — Preceding unsigned comment added by XPTO (talk • contribs) 15:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 January 2012

Please change Fernando to remain in miserable captivity until his death eleven years later to Fernando to remain in miserable captivity until his death six years later because Fernado, The Saint Prince was taken hostage in 1437 and died on June 5 1943 at the age of 40, thus being captive for 6 years instead of 11.

Luis azpurua (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done By User:Walrasiad. Dru of Id (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Coat of Arms of the House of Aviz.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Coat of Arms of the House of Aviz.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Coat of Arms of the House of Aviz.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Preferred to let him die in captivity?

That's what is says on today's (23/10/2012) "Did you know..." but this article does not seem to support it. That article seems to say it was the preference of "[t]he Archbishop of Braga and the count of Arraiolos".

See Ferdinand the Holy Prince article for details. Henry didn't attend the Cortes of Leiria. His recommendations were by letter to his brothers, and private meetings after the Cortes dissolved. That said, decision didn't fall to the Cortes, nor was a decision made there. It was the king's decision. Cortes were only assembled for consultation. Arraiolos antics there simply prevented a collective recommendation. Walrasiad (talk) 10:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Portrait image

User:Luisvcorreia removed the frontispiece portrait of Henry the Navigator, on the assertion that this is likely not a portrait of Henry the Navigator. Since this is an issue that is likely to recur, I'd like to open up a discussion on the talk page.

While I personally agree with Luisvcorreia that there are grounds to believing that the portrait of the man with a moustache in the Burgundian chaperon (depicted in the frontispiece of the Chronica and the St. Vincent panels) is not a portrait of Henry the Navigator, but most likely a portrait of King Edward (Duarte) of Portugal, I also recognize it remains a conjectural theory that is far from proved, and not universally accepted. As a result, I don't believe there are sufficient grounds to remove it. This portrait has been associated with Henry the Navigator for a century and half, and remains the basis of practically all reproductions of Henry's image in numerous public portraits, books, statues, etc. The historical association is strong, and the portrait should be retained in the Wikipedia article. This does not mean we have to make a definite assertion that it is Henry. I think suggesting there is uncertainty is enough. I took care to ensure the wording of the frontispiece label was left ambiguous, identifying only Henry's motto, and not necessarily making an assertion about the portrait, and I included the likely alternative portrait of Henry from the St. Vincent panels as an addition, to alert Wikipedia readers to ambiguity over the image. But I think both portraits should be retained in the article, rather than requiring Wikipedia editors to pronounce definitively on something which historians themselves don't agree upon. Thoughts? Walrasiad (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it seems reasonable to keep both the possibly-Duarte picture and the alternative picture from the St. Vincent panels. The frontispiece from Zurara appears to be a (reversed) copy of the possibly-Duarte picture and may not be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, the Zurara frontispiece is historically important, as it is the basis of the identification. There was no notion of Henry's likeness until the Zurara manuscript was discovered in the 1830s. Its frontispiece depicted that portrait above Henry's motto. This is what led to the assumption that the man-with-the-moustache-and-hat was Henry. It is from here that it all stems (and remains the great annoying obstacle to the Duarte theory). I'd opt to retain it. Walrasiad (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

instead of a citation

In Portuguese, even in modern times, it is uncommon to call him by this epithet; the preferred use is "Infante D. Henrique".[citation needed]

portuguese WP popularmente conhecido como Infante de Sagres ou O Navegador.--91.34.202.134 (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I've almost always read and heard him referred to in English as "Prince Henry the Navigator", Infante and Dom being largely foreign (though not completely unknown) to English usage. When did he lose his prefix in English -- or is that a Wikipedia-driven neologism? FactStraight (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Fifth child of John, not the third

Recently the claim has been added that Henry was the third child of John. In my opinion this should be reverted. Henry was the *fifth* child according to John I of Portugal#Marriages and descendants, which lists all the royal birthdates. He was the third *son* to survive to adulthood. (One of his older brothers, Afonso, died at age 10). EdJohnston (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2015

tenure as duke started 1415.--92.230.32.96 (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC) 92.230.32.96 (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Done Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)