![]() | Margaret, Maid of Norway has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
February 12, 2020. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the child queen
Margaret, Maid of Norway, died before reaching Scotland, so her place in the list of Scottish monarchs is in dispute? |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article already existed at Saint Margaret of Scotland...one of them should redirect to the other. Adam Bishop 02:08, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
If Professors Duncan, Macdougall, Oram, and Penman can't bring themselves to describe Margaret as Queen, or say that she wasn't, then she wasn't Queen. That's not POV or OR, that's citing reliable sources as required. POV would be saying that she was Queen on the basis of unreliable and/or obsolete sources. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I could quote other sources, Whitaker's Almanack, Junior Pear's Encyclopedia, John Prebble's The Lion in The North, and that's just off the top of my head. If the sources are divided, we ought to reflect this, although I note you seem to be only quoting Duncan. Macdougall's point may be true but is not relevant to this argument. PatGallacher 13:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Margaret was never inaugurated and was more properly styled 'lady of Scotland'. (Oram, 107) Duncan says
Modern works without exception call her 'queen', including reference books which give the date of her accession as 19 March 1286 (Alexander III's death); they are victims of Edward I's determined hustling.
A list of Scottish rulers must surely be based upon the law and custom of Scotland, which called her'lady and heir' in 1284 and still in 1290 when she was about to cross to Scotland. In the three years following Alexander III's death she is not mentioned in any record, and the Guardians never describe themselves as holding office for her, though on 17 March 1289 in letters that will be discussed shortly, they did describe the common seal as that 'used in the name of our aforesaid lady'; the phrase does not recur. Her titles appear in 1289 for the first time, when Eric II's and Edward I's clerks called her 'queen', but after her death this was abandoned as quickly as it had been adopted. Never inaugurated, she was never queen of Scots. (Duncan, 181-182)
If these historians say that she is "traditionally styled 'queen'" and "Modern works without exception call her 'queen', including reference books which give the date of her accession as 19 March 1286" then this deserves recognition in the article, these historians are entitled to their POV, but it is only a POV. There can be a grey area about who is included in lists of monarchs, with e.g. Lady Jane Grey, sometimes included but usually not. Edward V of England and Edward VIII of the United Kingdom are always counted even though they were never crowned. Edward Balliol was crowned, he is usually not included but sometimes is. In her case (and others) an argument in her favour is that nobody else was claiming to be monarch during her putative reign. References to the law and custom of Scotland do not solve the problem since it was unprecedented in Scotland for the successor to the monarch to be outside the country and not available to be inaugurated. The only time anything like this happened again was during the imprisonment of James I of Scotland, contemporary Scottish documents describe him as heir not king, but most reference works date the start of his reign from the death of his father in 1406 not his coronation in 1424. Charles I had a Scottish coronation only a few years after his English coronation, and James VII, William of Orange, Mary II, and Anne never had a Scottish coronation or even visited Scotland during their reign, but they were monarchs of a separate kingdom of Scotland. "Lady of Scotland" is a peculiar title (has it ever been used for anybody else?) if Eric and Edward described her as queen they cannot have been wildly at variance with contemporary opinion, and off the top of my head I believe the Treaty of Salisbury, which did have Scottish signatories, described her as "lady, queen, and heir". She may indeed have been airbrushed out of history after her death, but what does that prove? Robert the Bruce's first parliament in St. Andrews ruled that his grandfather had been the been the legal heir to Alexander III, implying that she had never even been heir (and also implying that some sort of "semi-Salic" law applied in Scotland, which casts doubt on the succession of Mary Queen of Scots). In a few cases people have been given titles by the judgement of later historians e.g. King of England, Emperor of Rome. The idea that "magic Discworld kingons transmitted the succession infallibly and instantaneously" is actually the current view, which is why they say "The king is dead - long live the king". PatGallacher 15:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Six years is, surprisingly enough, the interregnum between Alexander III and John. As for Eric and Edward, it never hurts to remember the wise words of Mandy Rice-Davies; they did have a vested interest in portraying Margaret as queen, just as Duncan notes. The same is true of Parliaments under Robert I; Robert Bruce was always the rightful king and Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.Quhen Alexanderthe king wes deid
That Scotland haid to steyr and leid;
The land sex yere, and mayr perfay,
Lay desolat eftyr his day;
Till that the barnage at the last
Assemblyt thaim, and fayndyt fast
To cheis a king that land to ster ...(The Brus, 37-43, quoted by Wyntoun)
I have never claimed that this is not a grey area, I am interested to see that 2 important historians, Barrow and Barrell, do regard her as queen. Barbour was writing poetry, not history, and his words are open to interpretation. I recognise that there is an argument that in mediaeval society some would have said that you only became monarch once you were crowned or inaugurated, but if you grant that approach you would have to delete Edward V from the kings of England, or say that the Scottish throne was vacant during 1406-24, which might have been the view of some contemporaries but is not the view of most historians. I'm not sure this is what is meant by presentism (read the article) but if that's your understanding of "presentism" then I would say it's difficult to avoid in some contexts. For example, we would have to avoid referring to William I or William the Conqueror, since nobody called him that in his own day, but call him William the Bastard or William the Great. Read the article on Roman Emperor for another example, this title has been retrospectively awarded on people by historians, there are similar problems with the question of at exactly what point the kings of Wessex become the kings of England. "False anti-presentism" could lead to you not referring to the pre-Columbian inhabitants of America as Indians or Native Americans, since nobody called them that at the time. PatGallacher 18:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I would agree that every difficult case needs to be taken on its merits. However Robert Curthose is completely different, William Rufus was generally recognised as heir to the throne of England, even Robert himself didn't dispute this. As for Edward V, I have heard it claimed by a partisan of Richard III that "the king is dead long live the king" isn't how things worked then, this idea only came in during the Tudor period. Similarly this wasn't necessarily how things worked in Scotland during 1406-24, James I was just described in official documents as the heir, and the Regent Albany minted coins in his own name. PatGallacher 00:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
As Scotland did not have a written constitution this is a matter of interpretation or POV not "simple fact". If, as you say, the "political elite of Scotland" thought that she was queen, as well as Edward and Eric, then the bulk of contemporary opinion thought that she was (we don't know what the peasants thought). It can be ahistorical to project current practices onto an earlier period, but it can also be ahistorical to claim that there was well-established custom and practice in what was, at the time, an unprecedented situation. PatGallacher 11:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Article revised to suit both points of view. However, starting articles with a paraphrase of "Soandso (X–Y), child of Suchandsuch, is traditionally considered high-muckety-muck of Z, but this is wrong because ..." is turning into a habit; I think my last edit here made this the tenth or eleventh such. The alternatives are ruled out by it being demonstrably false or disputed on the one hand and inertia (or pandering to the lowest common denominator if you prefer) on the other. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I know I am four years late, but I just wanted to tell you how I saw things. I believe she was a monarch but not a queen. How? Well, it's a fact that the Scots called her "Lady and Heiress of Scotland" during her reign and that she was not crowned. Similarly, Enmpress Matilda called herself Lady of the English and planned to assume the title of queen upon her coronation. Richard I of England also called himself Lord of the English between his father's death and his own coronation yet his reign is thought to have begun the moment his father died. Can Margaret's case be compared to the 12th century English practice? Is it possible that she reigned as Lady of Scotland? The Spy Who Came in from the Cold ( talk) 13:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
We are running into a problem with Wikipedia naming conventions. According to these conventions, if she was a queen regnant then she should be Margaret of Scotland, but so should 2 Scottish women who married foreign royals, and that's before we get to the Queens consort of Scotland. I propose treating "Margaret of Scotland" as a disambiguation page and moving this page to "Margaret of Scotland (Maid of Norway)" on the grounds that she is not substantially more important or better known than the other Margarets. PatGallacher 17:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I have raised this on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). PatGallacher 00:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
As nobody else has objected over the last couple of days I am now re-organising as proposed. PatGallacher 23:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), exception 4: If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country.
It seems to me that Margaret, whose status as a Queen of Scotland seems, at any rate, highly questionable to begin with, is overwhelmingly known as the Maid of Norway. Thus Margaret, Maid of Norway, seems the thing to do. And Jane Grey is not only universally known as "Lady Jane Grey" rather than "Queen Jane," her actual status as even de facto queen seems doubtful - she was certainly never recognized as such throughout the Kingdom, just in Westminster, and only for a couple of days, and only by a minority of Edward VI's council, as far as I am aware. What purpose, precisely, is served by articles at Jane of England and Margaret of Scotland, which are a) unrecognizable, and b) assert a particular questionable POV? john k 18:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty certain that moving articles via a cut and paste move is not acceptable, so I reverted the attempt to turn this into a redirect. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
As far as I am aware cutting and pasting is the only way of moving an article to an alternative name which already exists as a redirect. If you know of a better way of doing this, let me know. PatGallacher 13:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The analogy with James I is not quite as close as the revision suggests. When Alexander III died, the heir was not Margaret but his unborn child by Queen Yolande, as discussed by Duncan, Kingship of the Scots. As far as the Guardians declaring Margaret to be Queen, that doesn't date from March or November 1286, but from the treaty of November 1289, a treaty written by Edward I. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm still kind of new to trying to improve Wikipedia, so I can't cite some guideline or anything, but I feel like naming one of the sections "Was She a Queen?" seems rather un-encyclopedic. Maybe something like "Title Controversy", or "Queenship Controversy", or something? I mean, not that it's a HUGE deal or anything, but... Cowsrhot ( talk) 21:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Are the translations of her names into contemporary Norwegian Bokmål really relevant? It would have been very alien to Norwegians of her era. If anything is to be included shouldn't it be the Old Norwegian (Old Norse) names? -- Nidator T / C 16:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The article was assessed C-class, for lack of in-line citations. Boneyard90 ( talk) 14:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
"Jomfruen av Norge" is a Norwegian translation of her English nickname "Maid of Norway", and it doesn't make any sense to have a (different) translation back to English in the article. I'm removing that double translation and the hidden note left by an editor as well. Regards, Finn Rindahl ( talk) 11:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible that she died of seasickness? I know that people who are sea sick feel like death, but they do not die from it. Royalcourtier ( talk) 07:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
References
Best to have a note pointing out the dispute of whether Margaret was queen of Scotland. Using designate suggested she wasn't, but was going to be. Also queen-designate appears to be a recently invented term. GoodDay ( talk) 18:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I'll accept the usage of queen-designate in the lead, if that's what others want. GoodDay ( talk) 22:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Another work of reference calling Margaret queen-designate is the Biographical Dictionary of Scottish Women, citing Norman H. Reid, who argues that Margaret was a queen whose "reign never started". That's not from the 13th century either, lest anyone should frown. Surtsicna ( talk) 00:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I have consulted Peter Traquairs "Freedoms Sword". The index describes her as "Margaret, Maid of Norway, queen of Scots", the few pages which deal with her short reign usually describe her as "the Maid", but it says near the end "The poor little queen never set foot in her realm." PatGallacher ( talk) 18:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I sense a consensus that we should go back to just describing her as queen. PatGallacher ( talk) 11:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs) 14:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I'll get to this in a day or two. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for such a rapid review, Ealdgyth! I had to intersperse my comments with yours. I hope you can make heads or tails of it all. Surtsicna ( talk) 02:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
There's still this 'unsettled' status about whether Margaret was ever Queen of Scotland. GoodDay ( talk) 18:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
With the review underway, reluctant to change anything, but on checking Duncan (p. 179), he says that Fraser only may have met Edward. Here is some alternative wording for you to look at: William Fraser, Bishop of St Andrews, one of the guardians of Scotland, was out of the country in early August and it is possible that this was for a meeting with Edward. Nevertheless, Margaret was still with her father and the Scots could only observe the negotiations between the two kings. -- Bill Reid | ( talk) 17:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
As she was the de jure Queen of Scots, her name in languages of Scotland should be shown, alongside her name in Old Norse, Bokmal and Nynorsk, the languages of Norway, her homeland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.64.242.247 ( talk) 14:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, how come the family tree is restricted to UK royalty, and not including the family tree of her father? 84.208.65.62 ( talk) 01:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Margaret, Maid of Norway has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
February 12, 2020. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the child queen
Margaret, Maid of Norway, died before reaching Scotland, so her place in the list of Scottish monarchs is in dispute? |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article already existed at Saint Margaret of Scotland...one of them should redirect to the other. Adam Bishop 02:08, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
If Professors Duncan, Macdougall, Oram, and Penman can't bring themselves to describe Margaret as Queen, or say that she wasn't, then she wasn't Queen. That's not POV or OR, that's citing reliable sources as required. POV would be saying that she was Queen on the basis of unreliable and/or obsolete sources. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I could quote other sources, Whitaker's Almanack, Junior Pear's Encyclopedia, John Prebble's The Lion in The North, and that's just off the top of my head. If the sources are divided, we ought to reflect this, although I note you seem to be only quoting Duncan. Macdougall's point may be true but is not relevant to this argument. PatGallacher 13:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Margaret was never inaugurated and was more properly styled 'lady of Scotland'. (Oram, 107) Duncan says
Modern works without exception call her 'queen', including reference books which give the date of her accession as 19 March 1286 (Alexander III's death); they are victims of Edward I's determined hustling.
A list of Scottish rulers must surely be based upon the law and custom of Scotland, which called her'lady and heir' in 1284 and still in 1290 when she was about to cross to Scotland. In the three years following Alexander III's death she is not mentioned in any record, and the Guardians never describe themselves as holding office for her, though on 17 March 1289 in letters that will be discussed shortly, they did describe the common seal as that 'used in the name of our aforesaid lady'; the phrase does not recur. Her titles appear in 1289 for the first time, when Eric II's and Edward I's clerks called her 'queen', but after her death this was abandoned as quickly as it had been adopted. Never inaugurated, she was never queen of Scots. (Duncan, 181-182)
If these historians say that she is "traditionally styled 'queen'" and "Modern works without exception call her 'queen', including reference books which give the date of her accession as 19 March 1286" then this deserves recognition in the article, these historians are entitled to their POV, but it is only a POV. There can be a grey area about who is included in lists of monarchs, with e.g. Lady Jane Grey, sometimes included but usually not. Edward V of England and Edward VIII of the United Kingdom are always counted even though they were never crowned. Edward Balliol was crowned, he is usually not included but sometimes is. In her case (and others) an argument in her favour is that nobody else was claiming to be monarch during her putative reign. References to the law and custom of Scotland do not solve the problem since it was unprecedented in Scotland for the successor to the monarch to be outside the country and not available to be inaugurated. The only time anything like this happened again was during the imprisonment of James I of Scotland, contemporary Scottish documents describe him as heir not king, but most reference works date the start of his reign from the death of his father in 1406 not his coronation in 1424. Charles I had a Scottish coronation only a few years after his English coronation, and James VII, William of Orange, Mary II, and Anne never had a Scottish coronation or even visited Scotland during their reign, but they were monarchs of a separate kingdom of Scotland. "Lady of Scotland" is a peculiar title (has it ever been used for anybody else?) if Eric and Edward described her as queen they cannot have been wildly at variance with contemporary opinion, and off the top of my head I believe the Treaty of Salisbury, which did have Scottish signatories, described her as "lady, queen, and heir". She may indeed have been airbrushed out of history after her death, but what does that prove? Robert the Bruce's first parliament in St. Andrews ruled that his grandfather had been the been the legal heir to Alexander III, implying that she had never even been heir (and also implying that some sort of "semi-Salic" law applied in Scotland, which casts doubt on the succession of Mary Queen of Scots). In a few cases people have been given titles by the judgement of later historians e.g. King of England, Emperor of Rome. The idea that "magic Discworld kingons transmitted the succession infallibly and instantaneously" is actually the current view, which is why they say "The king is dead - long live the king". PatGallacher 15:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Six years is, surprisingly enough, the interregnum between Alexander III and John. As for Eric and Edward, it never hurts to remember the wise words of Mandy Rice-Davies; they did have a vested interest in portraying Margaret as queen, just as Duncan notes. The same is true of Parliaments under Robert I; Robert Bruce was always the rightful king and Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.Quhen Alexanderthe king wes deid
That Scotland haid to steyr and leid;
The land sex yere, and mayr perfay,
Lay desolat eftyr his day;
Till that the barnage at the last
Assemblyt thaim, and fayndyt fast
To cheis a king that land to ster ...(The Brus, 37-43, quoted by Wyntoun)
I have never claimed that this is not a grey area, I am interested to see that 2 important historians, Barrow and Barrell, do regard her as queen. Barbour was writing poetry, not history, and his words are open to interpretation. I recognise that there is an argument that in mediaeval society some would have said that you only became monarch once you were crowned or inaugurated, but if you grant that approach you would have to delete Edward V from the kings of England, or say that the Scottish throne was vacant during 1406-24, which might have been the view of some contemporaries but is not the view of most historians. I'm not sure this is what is meant by presentism (read the article) but if that's your understanding of "presentism" then I would say it's difficult to avoid in some contexts. For example, we would have to avoid referring to William I or William the Conqueror, since nobody called him that in his own day, but call him William the Bastard or William the Great. Read the article on Roman Emperor for another example, this title has been retrospectively awarded on people by historians, there are similar problems with the question of at exactly what point the kings of Wessex become the kings of England. "False anti-presentism" could lead to you not referring to the pre-Columbian inhabitants of America as Indians or Native Americans, since nobody called them that at the time. PatGallacher 18:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I would agree that every difficult case needs to be taken on its merits. However Robert Curthose is completely different, William Rufus was generally recognised as heir to the throne of England, even Robert himself didn't dispute this. As for Edward V, I have heard it claimed by a partisan of Richard III that "the king is dead long live the king" isn't how things worked then, this idea only came in during the Tudor period. Similarly this wasn't necessarily how things worked in Scotland during 1406-24, James I was just described in official documents as the heir, and the Regent Albany minted coins in his own name. PatGallacher 00:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
As Scotland did not have a written constitution this is a matter of interpretation or POV not "simple fact". If, as you say, the "political elite of Scotland" thought that she was queen, as well as Edward and Eric, then the bulk of contemporary opinion thought that she was (we don't know what the peasants thought). It can be ahistorical to project current practices onto an earlier period, but it can also be ahistorical to claim that there was well-established custom and practice in what was, at the time, an unprecedented situation. PatGallacher 11:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Article revised to suit both points of view. However, starting articles with a paraphrase of "Soandso (X–Y), child of Suchandsuch, is traditionally considered high-muckety-muck of Z, but this is wrong because ..." is turning into a habit; I think my last edit here made this the tenth or eleventh such. The alternatives are ruled out by it being demonstrably false or disputed on the one hand and inertia (or pandering to the lowest common denominator if you prefer) on the other. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I know I am four years late, but I just wanted to tell you how I saw things. I believe she was a monarch but not a queen. How? Well, it's a fact that the Scots called her "Lady and Heiress of Scotland" during her reign and that she was not crowned. Similarly, Enmpress Matilda called herself Lady of the English and planned to assume the title of queen upon her coronation. Richard I of England also called himself Lord of the English between his father's death and his own coronation yet his reign is thought to have begun the moment his father died. Can Margaret's case be compared to the 12th century English practice? Is it possible that she reigned as Lady of Scotland? The Spy Who Came in from the Cold ( talk) 13:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
We are running into a problem with Wikipedia naming conventions. According to these conventions, if she was a queen regnant then she should be Margaret of Scotland, but so should 2 Scottish women who married foreign royals, and that's before we get to the Queens consort of Scotland. I propose treating "Margaret of Scotland" as a disambiguation page and moving this page to "Margaret of Scotland (Maid of Norway)" on the grounds that she is not substantially more important or better known than the other Margarets. PatGallacher 17:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I have raised this on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). PatGallacher 00:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
As nobody else has objected over the last couple of days I am now re-organising as proposed. PatGallacher 23:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), exception 4: If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country.
It seems to me that Margaret, whose status as a Queen of Scotland seems, at any rate, highly questionable to begin with, is overwhelmingly known as the Maid of Norway. Thus Margaret, Maid of Norway, seems the thing to do. And Jane Grey is not only universally known as "Lady Jane Grey" rather than "Queen Jane," her actual status as even de facto queen seems doubtful - she was certainly never recognized as such throughout the Kingdom, just in Westminster, and only for a couple of days, and only by a minority of Edward VI's council, as far as I am aware. What purpose, precisely, is served by articles at Jane of England and Margaret of Scotland, which are a) unrecognizable, and b) assert a particular questionable POV? john k 18:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty certain that moving articles via a cut and paste move is not acceptable, so I reverted the attempt to turn this into a redirect. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
As far as I am aware cutting and pasting is the only way of moving an article to an alternative name which already exists as a redirect. If you know of a better way of doing this, let me know. PatGallacher 13:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The analogy with James I is not quite as close as the revision suggests. When Alexander III died, the heir was not Margaret but his unborn child by Queen Yolande, as discussed by Duncan, Kingship of the Scots. As far as the Guardians declaring Margaret to be Queen, that doesn't date from March or November 1286, but from the treaty of November 1289, a treaty written by Edward I. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm still kind of new to trying to improve Wikipedia, so I can't cite some guideline or anything, but I feel like naming one of the sections "Was She a Queen?" seems rather un-encyclopedic. Maybe something like "Title Controversy", or "Queenship Controversy", or something? I mean, not that it's a HUGE deal or anything, but... Cowsrhot ( talk) 21:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Are the translations of her names into contemporary Norwegian Bokmål really relevant? It would have been very alien to Norwegians of her era. If anything is to be included shouldn't it be the Old Norwegian (Old Norse) names? -- Nidator T / C 16:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The article was assessed C-class, for lack of in-line citations. Boneyard90 ( talk) 14:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
"Jomfruen av Norge" is a Norwegian translation of her English nickname "Maid of Norway", and it doesn't make any sense to have a (different) translation back to English in the article. I'm removing that double translation and the hidden note left by an editor as well. Regards, Finn Rindahl ( talk) 11:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible that she died of seasickness? I know that people who are sea sick feel like death, but they do not die from it. Royalcourtier ( talk) 07:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
References
Best to have a note pointing out the dispute of whether Margaret was queen of Scotland. Using designate suggested she wasn't, but was going to be. Also queen-designate appears to be a recently invented term. GoodDay ( talk) 18:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I'll accept the usage of queen-designate in the lead, if that's what others want. GoodDay ( talk) 22:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Another work of reference calling Margaret queen-designate is the Biographical Dictionary of Scottish Women, citing Norman H. Reid, who argues that Margaret was a queen whose "reign never started". That's not from the 13th century either, lest anyone should frown. Surtsicna ( talk) 00:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I have consulted Peter Traquairs "Freedoms Sword". The index describes her as "Margaret, Maid of Norway, queen of Scots", the few pages which deal with her short reign usually describe her as "the Maid", but it says near the end "The poor little queen never set foot in her realm." PatGallacher ( talk) 18:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I sense a consensus that we should go back to just describing her as queen. PatGallacher ( talk) 11:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs) 14:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I'll get to this in a day or two. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for such a rapid review, Ealdgyth! I had to intersperse my comments with yours. I hope you can make heads or tails of it all. Surtsicna ( talk) 02:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
There's still this 'unsettled' status about whether Margaret was ever Queen of Scotland. GoodDay ( talk) 18:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
With the review underway, reluctant to change anything, but on checking Duncan (p. 179), he says that Fraser only may have met Edward. Here is some alternative wording for you to look at: William Fraser, Bishop of St Andrews, one of the guardians of Scotland, was out of the country in early August and it is possible that this was for a meeting with Edward. Nevertheless, Margaret was still with her father and the Scots could only observe the negotiations between the two kings. -- Bill Reid | ( talk) 17:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
As she was the de jure Queen of Scots, her name in languages of Scotland should be shown, alongside her name in Old Norse, Bokmal and Nynorsk, the languages of Norway, her homeland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.64.242.247 ( talk) 14:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, how come the family tree is restricted to UK royalty, and not including the family tree of her father? 84.208.65.62 ( talk) 01:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)