![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I took out the bit about Lady Jane Grey, because I don't think that Henry VIII's will, which specifically named his children as his heirs in the order Edward-Mary-Elizabeth, could possibly have been used as a way of dispossessing his own daughter. In fact, it was Edward VI who named Lady Jane Grey as his heir, ignoring his father's wishes. Deb
Actually, the facts as I understand them, are that the dying Edward VI was pressured by Northumberland into making Jane the next Queen. Henry's will had helped to make that possible. The Greys were next in line for the throne after the Stuarts, as they were descended from Henry's younger sister Mary.
Arno
No, you didn't explain it clearly enough. I, for one, don't understand whom you mean by "anyone" in "how anyone could say that Henry's will . . ." If you mean you can't see how Lady Jane's supporters could say that at the time, so what? They did say it, and enough people (including Edward VI) did see how they could say it to get her onto the throne, albeit briefly. If you mean you can't see how the Wikipedia can say now that that was one of the legal bases they asserted then, why not? The historical record shows they did, and the 'pedia reports historical facts. If you mean you don't see the logic of the legal argument made then, that's no reason to take the historical fact out of this article and so keep readers from learning that that argument was used to justify usurping the throne, whether they are capable of "seeing" its logic or not. That's censorship, plain and simple, and you don't even have a good excuse for it. --
isis 20:45 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)
I agree with you that "Deb meant no harm." I believe she never does. But you're just as injured whether you're run over accidentally or on purpose, so good intentions don't excuse bad outcomes. (Does anybody care whether Hitler "meant no harm," for example?) No, I won't "leave her alone." She has already shown me she is trying to improve the quality of the articles she works on, and she has a lot of potential, so I intend to keep challenging her to fulfill it. If you valued her contributions as much as I do, you'd help her, too, instead of abandoning her. -- isis 08:51 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)
I'm sure I meant no harm. Why don't you just leave me alone? -- isis 20:49 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're talking about, except for the last sentence. Yes, the difference between those crimes is intent, but no, the intent doesn't excuse the bad outcome of having someone dead. The one responsible for the death is still civilly liable even if it was an accident. -- isis 21:22 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)
It's not Lochleven, it's Loch Leven, I live within 60 miles of it so I should know. Lochleven might be the name of a town on the loch -- if there was one -- but not the name of the loch itself. And Mary miscarried while she was imprisoned in Loch Leven Castle, not after she escaped -- unless she had the world's first 12 month pregnancy. I'm changing this part of the article back to the way it was. -- Derek Ross
The castle is called Loch Leven Castle. Leven is about 10-12 miles east of Loch Leven and doesn't have a castle. -- Derek Ross
Why is the title of this page, Mary I of Scotland? This, I believe is quite wrong. Mary never ruled Scotland (the land), she ruled over the people, nothing more. That's why she was given the title Mary, Queen of Scots. If you check the Official site of the British Monarchy you'll find it recorded as such. http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page134.asp Additionally, when Queen Elizabeth opened the Scottish Parliament, she was addressed by the then Presiding Officer, David Steel, very publicly, as Queen Elizabeth, Queen as Scots, in keeping with Scottish tradition. Dduck 21:07, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Of course Mary I of Scotland isn't her title -- it's the title of the article. Please don't confuse the two. I started using this naming scheme because there were too many Alexander articles on Wikipedia and we needed to be able to differentiate simply between Alexander I from Scotland and Alexander I from Macedonia, etc., not because I wanted to give the articles the official titles of the people they were discussing. The correct titles for the people should appear in the article. If they don't -- fix them (with a reference if there's some disagreement). But there's no need to change the article's title. Mary I of Scotland just means that she was a Mary and she was the first from Scotland, no more, no less. -- Derek Ross
Oh, and the point about an electronic encyclopedia being able to handle disambiguation ? Honestly, it can handle it no bother. The trouble is that the editors can find it difficult to handle if they have to know as much as an expert before they can even guess the title of the article for use as a link. That's why we should be using the KISS principle for disambiguating article titles. It's also one of the reasons why Mary I of Scotland and Mary, Queen of Scots both exist as article titles despite the fact that neither is her full official title. -- Derek Ross
Thanks for the reply Derek. Yes, there are two entries for Mary. So why are we using Mary I of Scotland instead of MQoS? As someone already mentioned in another talk page, next to nobody calls her Mary I. Would it not be easier for readers and editors to have the article under MQoS and use Mary I as a redirect page? Would this minor change have any impact on the functioning of this encyclopedia? Dduck 18:27, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
It is perfectly simple. It was agreed with royal titles that the main page which fits as part of the series would be where the article would be found. Alternative titles not part of a series would serve as the redirect. [[name ordinal of state]] forms the series. King/Queen of Scots is not, so it serves as the redirect. That was discussed in exhausting depth and that was the consensus reached on wikipedia. FearÉIREANN 19:20, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
It's fair to say that retitling wouldn't have a big impact on the functioning of the encyclopedia. The trouble is that it would have a small impact and small impacts made by hundreds of articles add up. A difficult but important thing to achieve on Wikipedia is consistency. We don't currently have enough of it. Without it you end up with duplicate articles on subjects. For instance there used to be a Mary I of Scotland article and a Mary Queen of Scots article. There have even been duplicate articles, one with a singular title, the other with the same title but plural. To avoid this waste of effort we want to make it easy to guess what the title of an article should be even if it doesn't exist. Hence, if you want to link to Jim the III, Emperor of the Outlanders, you can make the link Jim III of Outland in the reasonable certainty that this will be the article title even if it hasn't been written yet and even if you were wrong about what his actual title is (it's really King of the Outlanders).
So what are the consequences of the foregoing for this article? Well, if we rename the Mary I of Scotland article to Mary, Queen of Scots,it becomes yet another small exception to remember since even the other Scots monarchs will still be So-and-so of Scotland, which means that links to her article would tend to be redirected more often than they are with the status quo.
That's why I'd prefer that we worked on more articles on Scotland in general rather than discussing changes to what is, by and large, quite a reasonable article. There aren't many of us Scots working on Wikipedia and unfortunately it shows in the patchiness of the Scottish coverage, whether historical, geographical, linguistic, scientific, you-name-it. Things are getting better but it's a slow process. Cheers -- Derek Ross 19:18, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Thanks once again, Derek for your reply. I enjoy reading your thoughts. I understand it's part of our human nature to compartmentalise everything that lives, breathes, crawls, walks, runs, or just can't be bothered to move all that much. But life doesn't always follow these neat little patterns - the naming of MQoS, being a prime example. Life, thankfully, is full of wonderful variety. So far, the arguments against change have been 1) decisions are final, and 2) if we make this one small change it will open the flood gates. When it comes to writing an encyclopedia which do you think should carry more weight: historical fact or ease of implementation? Which are we applying here? Dduck 20:10, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
We are writing an encylopædia here, not a history book. Encyclopædias use commonly understood references that will allow a reader to find a text in a search. History books aim to use 100% accurate references because they cover a far tighter number of topics and can go into them in far more depth than an encyclopædia. Encyclopædias have have to provide a chain link of comprehension which regularly means compromising somewhat in titles to ease usability. So all European monarchies from the Middle Ages to the present day on wikipedia go by the one format, and that format is [[name ordinal of state]], nothing else, with non-chain titles used as redirects, not the main page. It could not be clearer and simpler and is followed by hundreds of wikipedians who have written about monarchs and monarchies from Spain and Belgium, to Russia and the Baltic, Commonwealth Realms to mediæval monarchies. The system has worked well. The issue of Scotland was debated in detail by a large numbers of wikipedians. The solution applied here is the consensus that was agreed by a large group of people, which included mediæval historians, political scientists, copy editors, experts on monarchical titles, a librarian, people who have worked on mainstream encyclopædias and ordinary wikipedians. And among those consulted was a man from Burke's Peerage, an advisor to HM the Queen, a senior aide to HRH the Prince of Wales, the press offices of the King of the Belgians and the King of Spain and information supplied by royal courts in Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, as well as a copy editor who works the Macmillan-Palgrave. No-one is questioning that the King/Queen of Scots is technically the more correct. But all agreed that the appendage of Scotland is the better one to use in an encyclopædic context. FearÉIREANN 21:01, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)</nowiki>
Agreed with the above but to answer your points more directly. Yes, life, thankfully, is full of wonderful variety. In fact it's so full of wonderful variety that it's all most of us can do to compartmentalise a small part of it. Every little bit of order that helps us to understand more, we should use because life is much bigger than all of us put together and if that means some compartmentalising, so be it.
I'm not going to defend decisions are final because I don't believe they ever are and because I don't believe that JTD was arguing that anyway. More like It took a lot of discussion and evidence to reach the current decision and it'll take at least as much to change it so let's not. Likewise the open the flood gates description doesn't really describe the situation. Believe me, the floodgates started out wiiiide open and we've been trying to close them a bit over the years. It's not easy against the flood of new text which keeps pouring into the Wikipedia and we haven't managed to close them very far. That's why we're a bit leery about even one small reversal in the process. It feels like we're moving backwards. In any case there's little doubt that it's a question of balance. Too much variety leads to a disorganised mixture of fact and fiction, too little leads to organised pure fiction. At the moment the Wikipedia weighting lies towards the chaotic end of the spectrum. We need more regularity, not less.
As for your question on historical fact or ease of implementation, I would say that you can have each in their place. The historical fact belongs in the content of the article whereas the ease of implementation applies to the title of the article. In other words change the first paragraph to give Mary's proper title and leave the article title as is. -- Derek Ross 21:26, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Dduck: Eveyr King of Scotland before 1603 was known as "King of Scots", rather than "King of Scotland". The title King of Scotland was first used in 1603 by James VI, after he ascended the English throne, so as to make his titles more regular (he also called himself "King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland"). At any rate, point is, every monarch of Scotland before 1603 was "of Scots" not "of Scotland." So you can't just do it to Mary and leave the others as is. john 21:44, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Deb, Hi. It is not incorrect to call her that, but as already has been mentioned next to nobody calls her that. This lead to one of my earlier points: it would easier for readers to find her in this encyclopedia if she were correctly identified. Readers, seem to be an afterthought. Dduck 21:47, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hello John. I've mentioned the official website of the royal family. The link is posted above. I trust, if you take the time to look you'll find that they do indeed treat Mary, Queen of Scots differently from the rest of the rabble. If you have a reference of equal standing - not many come more definite than the royal family, then I'll see the matter closed. Dduck 21:53, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Odd how George III was the first George to rule the United Kingdom, William IV the first William, and Edward VII the first Edward (and that William IV was only the third William to rule Scotland, and Edward VII the first, and yet those numerals continued to be used there - or, for that matter, that Victor Emmanuel II was the first King of Italy, or Friedrich III the only German Emperor named Friedrich. Things like this don't always work how we might want them to work)...The official rule on that count is that the monarch takes whatever the higher ordinal would be between how high the ordinals reached in either Scotland or England before 1707, and then including numbers in Great Britain and the UK since. Thus, if there were to be another King James, he would be James VIII. A Robert would be Robert IV. And a Henry would be Henry IX. All this despite the fact that there have been no kings of these names of the UK, and only 2 James's and no Roberts in England, and no Henrys (besides Darnley, who, as a consort, doesn't count) in Scotland.
As far as the royal site - they are definitely not trustworthy about a lot of stuff - especially I wouldn't trust them on historical matters. The website also claims that the Queen is Duke of Normandy with respect to the channel islands, when her predecessor Henry III gave up the right to claim such a title in the 13th century, and it has never been claimed since. As far as sourcing, it might be noted that http://heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html, the British faq for alt.talk.royalty, refers to them as "Kings of Scots," throughout, and many of that newsgroup's regulars are pedantic and knowledgeable enough to have corrected it by now if this were wrong. If you look up "King of Scots" in google, you will find numerous entries. One might also note, from the [ Prince of Wales' official website], re: the title of Duke of Rothesay: "When The Prince of Wales is in Scotland, he is known by this title of the Scottish peerage, first conferred by Robert III, King of Scots, on his son David in 1398." john 22:16, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
If you use Mary's Queen of Scots title, you will then have people saying "oh, so lets change Baudouin of Belgium to [[Baudouin of the Belgians]], George I of Greece to [[George I of the Hellenes]], President of Greece to [[President of the Hellenic Republic]], Pope Pius X to [[Pope St. Pius X]], Mother Teresa to [[Blessed Teresa of Calcutta]], Charles, Prince of Wales to [[Prince of Wales]] or [[The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay]], Wilhelm II of Germany to [[Wilhelm II, German Emperor]], Prime Minister of Spain to [[President of the Government of Spain]]."
The truth is that we have been there. We had people, for example, insisting on not using royal titles at all, putting Charles, Prince of Wales as Charles Windsor. We had a mish-mash of titles that were impossible to follow, that made links complicated (and usually broken), that saw constant renaming battles. The name ordinal of state format was the agreed compromise that organised the mess and made it easy to follow royal titles.
As to EB, I know EB very well from personal experience and their approach to royalty is different and can be different to wikipedia for two reasons;
I don't doubt your desire for accuracy (that is something I believe passionately in myself) but what you are proposing is simply unworkable. It was tried and failed miserably, provoking edit wars over titles all over the place, and people whose correct title completely puzzled people who know less about the topic than you, Derek or I, because they could not follow how the King of 'x' could be succeeded by a king with a different title (eg, why was Otto of Greece suceeded by George I of the Hellenes?) when it changed, why it changed, where it changed, etc. Keeping one simple format for title links allowed people to deal with accuracy issues in the article where there was space to explain it. (Some months ago a Japanese user tried to rename Japanese emperors in correct Japanese format, rather than x of Japan which he said was completely wrong. After a month of chaos, which Japanese users themselves admitting what they had done was a complete mess, he began reverting his own changes and returning to the easy to follow but technically incorrect x of Japan format. Though at this stage, so many changes have been made and so many links broken that many Japanese emperors not can't be found on wikipedia because unless you already know the information, you have no idea where to look to find the information.)
Mary I of Scotland gives all the key necessary information, that it is about the first Queen Mary, and she reigned in Scotland. Mary, Queen of Scots gives less information and is the odd one out in the chain of Scottish monarchs. If the article's title was Mary I, Queen of Scotland then you would have genuine cause for complaint but it deliberately does not say so. If you went for the MQoS format, it would not end there but would lead to the renaming of hosts of other articles by others who thought "if she gets her real title, so should the <fill in name> <king/queen/president/prime minister> too". And as we experienced in the past (most recently over Japanese emperors) the result would be terminology that only the experts who already know the information could follow.
What we have is a simple, workable, almost universally applicable format that simply answers the key questions who and of where. BTW re the Buckingham Palace web site, there is a major dispute within BP over its many inaccuracies. But all it deals with are English, Scottish, Great British and United Kingdom monarchs, so it has far more leeway to cover unique titles than we have, given that we cover hundreds of monarchs and monarchies and have to do so in a straightforward manner, comprehensible to readers worldwide who may have no personal information knowledge to guide them, and don't have the luxury of a paper index like EB. That is why MQoS is at this page. FearÉIREANN 22:32, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I hate to raise what seems to be a settled argument, but this article is incorrectly titled. Even if we accept that she should be called "Queen Mary of Scotland" rather than "Mary Queen of Scots", she can't be called "Mary I" because there was never a Mary II of Scotland (or Scots). I presume this arises because people think Mary of Orange reigned as Mary II of England and Scotland, but this is incorrect. She and her husband reigned as a single legal person called William and Mary. He did not become William III until after she died, and she was never Mary II. Ergo, this Mary should not be called Mary I. She should either be Mary Queen of Scots of Mary of Scotland. I would vote for the former because that's what everyone knows her as. Adam 14:32, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Well the Royals are wrong. I think feminist correctitude has ruled that Mary of Orange must be treated as a Queen regnant in her own right, but she was not so regarded at the time, which is surely what must count. I never saw refered to as Mary II until about ten years ago. Adam 23:08, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I must disagree with Dr Carr. Some sources that use Mary II:
Another source to note is The ABC's news story. In January of this year, The Queen named a new ocean liner Queen Mary II. It would therefore seem that the King and Queen did not rule as "William and Mary"; rather, they appear to have ruled as "William III and Mary II". -- Emsworth 01:03, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
We have tons of articles that don't refer to a person by their contemporary title - for example, every Roman (and Byzantine) emperor, and I'm sure there are many many others if I thought about it. I don't know about Mary II (as in William and Mary) also being Mary II of Scotland, but I don't think there's a rule that we must refer to people with the titles used in their own times. Adam Bishop 01:17, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Mary II certainly was and is known as that. BTW, here's the text in the Bill of Rights of 1689 that settles the crown upon them:
I see no reason to see this as showing that they are somehow considered to be a single joint entity. john 01:43, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[sigh] All married couples were a single legal entity in the 17th century, so there was no reason to state it. This was the principal objection before the reign of Mary Tudor to the idea of having a queen regnant at all - that she would legally be under the authority of her husband. This was the basis of Philip of Spain's claim to the English throne (that he had been Mary Tudor's husband). The document you cite in fact makes it clear that Mary of Orange was a legal nullity during their reign. The only reason she was given the title Queen was that she had a better hereditary claim than William's. I very much doubt that you will find a contemporary reference to Mary of Orange as Mary II. Adam 02:09, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Let me restate this once again. Mary I of Scotland is the correct title of a Wikipedia article. It is not and does not pretend to be the correct title of any ruler of Scotland or anywhere else. Wikipedia contributors have used this John N of SomeCountry format as a standard Wikipedian method of referring to rulers of countries, no matter what the official title of the ruler concerned might be in order to give a standard type of link for any ruler. Where the ruler concerned is widely known by some nickname, honorific, or even by their correct title, it has been (or should be) added as a redirect, as has already been done for Mary, Queen of Scots. This system has worked well since its introduction. On the one occasion when someone seriously disagreed with it and implemented a "formally correct" system (for the Japanese emperors), information about the emperors became practically impossible to find unless one already knew the exact legal title of the emperor concerned. Given this, I would want to see a seriously good reason for changing, or making exceptions, to a successful system. I haven't seen one yet -- Derek Ross 03:38, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Alright, I'll admit that the Bill of Rights does not give any particular support to the case for "Mary II". I was simply quoting it as the relevant document, for completeness sake. But, nevertheless, what's your point? Do you have any source that you can show that says that William only became "William III" in 1694? Clearly they were jointly King and Queen (to a much greater extent than Mary I and Philip were), but I don't see what that has to do with the ordinal. (It might also be noted that the idea of husband and wife automatically being one entity fell apart so long after the revolution as 1702, when Anne's husband did not become King) In any event, it's completely irrelevant, even if you do find some sort of positive evidence to prove your point, as opposed to bare assertion. Because it absolutely doesn't matter whether or not Mary was referred to as "Mary II" at the time. There are no contemporary references to, say King William I, but yet we have
William I of England. Certainly there are no contemporary references to
Ptolemy III. The references cited repeatedly here certainly show that Mary is normally called "Mary II" by many, many sources, and given that she was Queen of England, Scotland, and Ireland in her own right (or, rather, jointly with her husband - basic point, she's not simply a queen consort), I see no reason to think this designation of her is incorrect. I'd note that Complete Peerage, from the beginning of the last century, certainly refers to "William III" in the period before 1694. I can't at the moment find any references to Mary II, but I've not looked very scientifically, and only have one volume of the book.
john 03:48, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The reason we have an article on William I is that there was indisputably a William II, but I don't need to repeat myself on this point. I accept the argument that the ordinals we use in article titles don't necessarily correspond to their historical usage. I will add some material to the articles on "Mary I", "Mary II" and William and Mary to clarify the historical question.
You do raise an interesting point as to why there was no question of Prince George styling himelf King during the reign of Anne. There may have been specific legislation to resolve this point, or it may just have been that George was a modest man who made no claims. But this does not alter the fact that William and Mary reigned as a single entity and not as two separate people - a constitutional impossibility. I think you'll find that any list of the Kings and Queens published before about 25 years ago calls Mary Tudor simply "Mary" and does not describe Mary of Orange as "Mary II." Adam 03:59, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I am glad that you accept the argument for entitling articles in the way that Wikipedia does. As further evidence, if John had referred to Ptolemy III using the Wikipedia standard title, Ptolemy III of Egypt, the link would have been live without having to guess at his official Egyptian title.
Note that further discussion about Mary II/Mary of Orange or about Anne would be better to be moved to the talk pages for their articles -- Derek Ross 04:10, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'll add my vote to those who argue that this page should be renamed Mary, Queen of Scots. Arno 07:18, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The caption to Image:Maryscot.JPG reads Another image of Mary, dressed in mourning white following the then recent death of her first husband.. However, the image page says the image shows a sketch of mary, queen of scots, at age 16 having just become queen of france. So...which is correct? If we're wrong with the attribution of the image, we should at least be consistently wrong in both places :p -- Ferkelparade 11:37, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There are some excellent pictures of Mary at different times in her life on this website. It mentions a picture of 'Mary Queen of Scots in White Mourning', although it doesn't show it. As the site points out Mary had a lot to mourn about between 1560 and 1561-- Derek Ross | Talk 18:18, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)
Although there are a lot of arguments above regarding whether to refer to her as Mary I of Scotland is correct or not (I personally feel it is incorrect), I made a small adjustment to the introduction to say that Mary I of Scotland is "better known as" (not "also known as" which has some people upset) to acknowledge her more popular title. No one in the general public refers to her as Mary I of Scotland. "Mary of Scotland", yes, on rare occasions (usually due to the Kate Hepburn movie), but my Scottish relatives would turn me into haggis if I ever called her Mary I! 23skidoo 04:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Don't mind saying she's better known as Mary, Queen of Scots. This was also how she was known at the time. But Mary I of Scotland is no more incorrect than James V of Scotland, James IV of Scotland, James III of Scotland, James II of Scotland, James I of Scotland, Robert III of Scotland, Robert II of Scotland, David II of Scotland, Robert I of Scotland - you get the idea. There was another Mary who was Queen of Scots/Scotland, so the "I" is appropriate, and unless we move all of these articles to James V, King of Scots, James IV, King of Scots, and so forth, I don't see what justification there is for moving this one on the basis of accuracy. john k 07:04, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Am I right in thinking it IS correct to refer to her as Mary I because the second queen regnant of Scotland was Mary II of England (and therefore also Mary II of Scotland)?
I wish to point out that in Scotland monarchs were commonly referred to as "of Scots" and not 'of Scotland". Mary, Queen of Scots is her commonly known name. However, with the later William & Mary, she was Mary II, Quen of Scots. Therefore Mary is Mary I. ( Peter Martin1891 16:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC))
Someone wrote that she was a "religious maniac" and was nicknamed "Bloody Mary", so I took out this rubbish, as it was Mary I (Mary Tudor) who earned this name.-- Codenamecuckoo 19:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
User:4.154.102.134 has changed the text from:
to:
Is this sourced? Which version is correct?-- Mais oui! 21:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
The second is less wrong, though I don't know of relics. But the first is cobblers.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint) 22:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
The Catholic Encyclopedia: "There can be no question that she died with the charity and magnanimity of a martyr; as also that her execution was due, on the part of her enemies, to hatred of the Faith. Pope Benedict XIV gives it as his opinion that on these two heads no requisite seems wanting for a formal declaration of martyrdom, if only the charges connected with the names of Darnley and Bothwell could be entirely eliminated ("Opera omnia", Prato, 1840, III, c.xiii, s. 10)." - Nunh-huh 21:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "Stuart" the correct form of Mary's royal House? On the actualy article, it is written as "Stewart" (the French form?). The information page for her House also lists its name as Stuart: House of Stuart. I'd change it if I was positive, so if any of you are, please change it to Stuart. -- KEB
Stewart and Stuart are both acceptable. Stewart is earlier. Stuart was the French form adopted by Mary and her successors. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Both are correct. Stewart before Mary, and Stuart after Mary ( the French version). Incidentally, I believe the name was orginally Steward, as that was the capcitiy the family acted in to monarchs of Scotland before they intermarried and had a claim to throne themselves. Kevin Q.
Recall that Mary had only just returned to Scotland on 19 August, 1561. The main text here seems to imply that Mary sent William Maitland to Elizabeth before December 1561 (see the next paragraph below). In other words, within months of returning to Scotland, Mary was already pressing her case for successorship to the English throne. Therefore, she acted quite quickly in trying to butress the Catholic position of Rome in Scotland.
Recall again that Mary was in Catholic France until August 1561. Therefore, when "In July, Elizabeth sent Sir Henry Sidney to call off" their first scheduled meeting, Sir Henry Sidney must have been sent to France. The impression is given that when Mary realized her August/September meeting had fallen through, she hurredly returned to Scotland that August (less than a month after Sidney's coming to France) and immediately petitioned Elizabeth for a resheduling (in December). -- (comments by an anonymous reader which originally appeared in the article and have been moved here by Derek Ross | Talk 06:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC))
If Mary had not produced an heir, who would have inherited England and Scotland (which may be two different questions)?
Jackiespeel 13:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd say Arbella Stuart had the next best claim of those who remained alive after Elizabeth's death. Deb 22:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Other contenders would have been Lord Beauchamp, the son of Catherine Grey and the Earl of Hertford, as the heir of Frances Brandon, elder daughter of Mary Tudor; and Lady Anne Stanley, heiress of Eleanor Brandon, younger daughter of Mary Tudor. Beauchamp's legitimacy was questionable because Elizabeth had never recognized her parents' marriage as legitimate. But either he or Lady Anne would have been the heir under the terms of Henry VIII's will. Another possibility would have been the Earl of Huntingdon, who was the heir to George, Duke of Clarence, younger brother of Edward IV. john k 05:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
That's for England. The heir to Scotland was quite clear - James Hamilton, 2nd Earl of Arran was definitely next in line to the Scottish throne in the early years of James VI. At the time of Mary's death, his crazy son, James Hamilton, 3rd Earl of Arran, was next in line. john k 06:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I think there are two pages (or more?) on Wikipedia that are devoted to "Mary I, Queen of Scot". The first one is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_1%2C_Queen_of_Scotland and the second is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Mary_I_of_Scotland. However, the content *appears* to be the same. Sunil 20:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The article reads: "However, according to the Catholic religion, Elizabeth was illegitimate, making Mary the true heir." But what does this mean, "according to the Catholic religion"? How does the Catholic religion have anything to do with declaring monarchs legitimate or not? It seems a rather poor statement (perhaps trying to suggest that the Catholics in England were not great fans of Elizabeth I, who after all, spent quite alot of time cutting their heads off?) but I do not wish to simply erase it, unless there is truly no more thorough explanation than this. Zerobot 04:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
By Catholic rules, Henry was still married to Catherine of Aragon at the time of both Henry's marriage to Ann Boleyn and Elizabeth's birth, and thus Elizabeth was illegitimate under canon law. That is to say, she was an illegitimate child, not an illegitimate monarch. That said, that doesn't mean that Elizabeth was not the rightful heir. Under the laws of England as passed by Henry VIII at the time of Ann Boleyn's execution in 1536, and never repealed by Edward or Mary, Elizabeth was also considered to be illegitimate. Henry VIII's will, which was the statutory document defining the Tudor succession, considered Elizabeth to be illegitimate, and thus put any daughters Henry might have by Catherine Parr ahead of both Mary and Elizabeth in the order of succession. So Elizabeth was given a place in the succession not through normal primogeniture, but through the instrument of Henry's will, which made her the heir after Edward VI, hypothetical children of Henry VIII and Catherine Parr, and Mary Tudor. This same statutory instrument excluded the descendants of Henry's sister Margaret from the throne, passing them over in favor of descendants of Henry's younger sister Mary. Mary Stuart, as a descendant of Margaret Tudor, thus made her claims based on pure primogeniture, which was not clearly the succession law of England in Tudor times.
The Catholic view (before Elizabeth was excommunicated in 1570, at least) was generally not that Elizabeth was not the legitimate queen. The official view, as I understand it, was that properly ordained monarchs, even if they were bastards, and even if they were heretics, were still rightful monarchs, and demanded obedience. This was also the attitude of Philip II as of 1558, as he certainly didn't want a personal union of France and England, which would have been the apparent result of Mary Stuart's succession to the English throne at that time. It took many years before either Pope or King of Spain began to embrace more radical theories that would have made Mary Stuart the rightful queen - initially, at least, Elizabeth was an annointed monarch, and thus legitimate. john k 05:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
There was a comment that "Mary herself" had signed the bond of assosiation, but should this actually be "Elizabeth herself" ?
folks, this article needs some real editorial help. I'd refrain from adding anything until some major problems can be address Dschroder 06:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it quite wrong to state that Elizabeth was illegitimate 'according to the Catholic religon.' She was illegitimate in both canon and statute law. Many Catholics would, of course, not accept the annulment of Henry VIII's marriage to Catherine of Aragon, and his marriage to Anne Boleyn. Elizabeth's questionable legitimacy was then compounded by the subsequent annulment of Henry's second marriage, when she lost the title of princess. Although her place in the English succession was restored by the 1544 Act of Succession, she was still technically illegitimate.
I was tempted to remove the highly questionable reference to 'some Jacobites' referring to Mary of Scotland as 'Mary II', because Elizabeth was not considered to be the rightful queen. I hold this in abeyance until some reliable reference is provided (beyond, that is, the arcane meanderings down the by-ways of history by neo-Jacobite eccentrics!) Rcpaterson 01:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Was Mary ever canonized, I see no reason why not? -- Jim Bart
She liked to eat pizza on the weekend and on tuesdays! citation needed
Of course it's a joke. Was pizza even created back then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.238.235 ( talk) 17:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Of Mary's return to Scotland, the article says:
Despite her talents, Mary's upbringing had not given her the judgment to cope with the dangerous and complex political situation in the Scotland of the time.
I wonder if this is an objective comment, or a wise-after-the-event comment. I believe there's a case for saying that she handled Scottish ploitics very well during her first four years back. Perhaps it was her husbands who messed things up for her.
Whatever her later mistakes, I'm not sure you can blame her upbringing, which was exquisite. She was given a highly sophisticated education. John Guy says that among her set texts were Cicero's On Duties, Plato's Laws, Aristotle's Politics and Rhetoric, and Quintillian's Training fo an Orator. She also studied L'institution du Prince by Guillaume Budé, an advice manual for rulers based on a distillation of the works of ancient authors. -- qp10qp 01:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
This article has become highly disjointed. There are simply too many headings and sub-headings, some containing no more than a single sentence. The content box now looks absurdly complicated-for goodness sake, look at the amount of space it takes up! In short, the whole thing has been madly over-edited. It is in desperate need of major reorganisation. Rcpaterson 05:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
"She was beheaded at Fotheringhay Castle, Northamptonshire on February 8, 1587. She spent the remaining hours of her life in prayer and also writing letters and her will." Surprised she could see to write her will with no head...
I have moved this article to what it should be. Britannica and Encarta, two proper online encyclopedias, list her under Mary I, Queen of Scots. She was not Queen of Scotland, but Queen of the people of Scotland. Rather like how the present day Belgian monarch is known as King of the Belgians, and the last French monarch Louis-Philippe was not King of France, but King of the French. Queen of Scotland is wrong and misleading, and there is no debate about it. James VI, for example, was NEVER King of Scotland, only ever King of Scots. James5555 22:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
wow wow do you guys even know what your talking about??? she was a great influential figure -- Anon who didn't sign
I find it rather strange that everyone regards Mary Stuart as Elizabeth Tudor's cousin. If Henry VII's daughter Margaret Tudor was married to James IV, then surely Henry VIII (Henry VII's son) was James IV's brother-in-law. James IV's son James V was surely first cousin of Elizabeth Tudor, Mary Tudor and Edward Tudor (Henry VIII's children). So therefore, surely Mary Stuart, daughter of James V and Mary of Guise, is niece of Elizabeth Tudor, Mary Tudor and Edward Tudor (Henry VIII's children)? Could answer my question please, (and amend the article accordingly if required)? -- 195.229.242.88 14:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused about her succession. Not all other male lines of the royal house had become extinct before the death of Mary's father, since James Stewart, 1st Lord Doune, a male-line descendant of Robert II was alive at the time. Why was he ignored as a potential successor? /FrinkMan
Under the above heading, it says that Mary returned to Scotland after her husband's death. Should this be her father's death?
Sardaka 04:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Moved question to List of Scottish monarchs. TharkunColl ( talk) 18:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:Hats Production of Mary, Queen of Scots Got Her Head Chopped Off.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 06:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
She became pregnant with twins, which she later miscarried while imprisoned.
How did they know (in 16th century) that she was pregnant with twins when she miscarried them? 87.250.116.18 ( talk) 14:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
What was Mary I's title from 1578 (James Hepburn's death) until 1587 (her own death)? I suppose that she was styled Countess of Bothwell from 1567 (when she ceased to be Queen of Scots) until 1578 (when the Earl of Bothwell died). Maybe Lady Mary Stuart or Dowager Countess of Bothwell? Surtsicna ( talk) 12:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
My understanding - and this is just my opinion/interpretation of events - is that technically, she never lost her title. When she was forced to abdicate, she did so only because Lindsay threatened to cut her throat if she did not sign them. She had miscarried only several days earlier, and had lost a great deal of blood, leaving her in a very delicate state health-wise. The two points are important, because they are the foundations for the argument that she signed the document under extreme duress, and would therefore be invalid when held up to any kind of scrutiny. Throckmorton actively encouraged this line of thinking and reasoning to Mary at the time. e So, if one holds that the document were signed under genuine duress, then they are invalidated and unenforceable.
In any case, even if she HAD lawfully and legally given up her throne, my understanding is that she would still have a regal title, as she was born royalty. #REDIRECT Edward VIII abdication crisis indicates that after his abdication, Edward was known as 'His Royal Highness,' Duke of... I don't know what all of her other titles would be offhand. Probably a lot of French titles mixed in as well.
(My sources for the above were Rosalind Marshall and Nau, Mary's personal advisor/assistant. Colemic ( talk) 23:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no physical description of Mary in the article.It doesn't mention,for instance her extraordinary height (5"11),nor any details of her colouring,features,etc.Antonia Fraser devotes several pages to her physical attributes;considering the capacity she had for attracting men. jeanne ( talk) 14:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to add this in, although I don't think it would need more than a paragraph. If you have a copy of this book, it would be reat if you could add in some references. There are some but I think some sections need more. Perhaps then we could get rid of this: 'This article or section is missing citations or needs footnotes. Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (May 2008)' at the top of the page. Boleyn ( talk) 18:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Her height is already mentioned in the article. Deb ( talk) 11:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Mary used a "nomenclature" cipher to encrypt messages sent to and from Anthony Babington. Walsingham (Secretary to Queen Elizabeth) intercepted many of these coded messages. Thomas Phelippes (a linguist and cryptanalyst) was employed (by Walsingham) to break this cipher and by statistical analysis of the frequency of the symbols he was able to discover the key, and thereby decode the cipher. Mary's confidence in the privacy that her cipher provided, made her bold enough to communicate her consent to the Babington Plot (to assassinate Queen Elizabeth). Much more detail is available "The Code Book" by Simon Singh 1999 ISBN:0-385-49532-3. 72.73.92.107 ( talk) 03:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.92.107 ( talk) 03:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The section "Childhood in France" uses both Henry II and Henri II, and Henry/Henri. It appears to me that this should be edited for consistency and that Henri II would be the correct choice. Thank you for your kind review. Ellendare ( talk) 21:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Done.
Colemic (
talk) 04:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:MaryStuartPlay.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
why was she beheaded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.159.157 ( talk) 19:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that in the references section, the entry for Richard Oram's book has a year lisintg of 200, but when I go to edit it, it is already listed as 2004... Does anyone have any idea why it doesn't show up correctly? Colemic ( talk) 08:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
What is this grossneck thing "a long, graceful small grossneck" in the physical description in the "Childhood in France section"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.111.33 ( talk) 15:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Is this true Mary's body was embalmed and left unburied at her place of execution for a year after her death. Her remains were placed in a secure lead coffin (thought to be further signs of fear of relic hunting). She was initially buried at Peterborough Cathedral in 1588, but her body was exhumed in 1612 when her son, King James I of England, ordered she be reinterred in Westminster Abbey. It remains there, along with at least 40 other descendants, in a chapel on the other side of the Abbey from the grave of her father's cousin Elizabeth I. In the 1800s her tomb and that of Elizabeth were opened to try to ascertain where James I was buried; he was ultimately found buried with Henry VII.
I can't reference to it in any of the other articles mentioned.
81.159.216.103 (
talk) 17:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Can this article be protected? Someone is persistantly vandalising it.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 17:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Recently the file File:Landing of Mary Queen of Scots (Mary, Queen of Scots) from NPG borderless.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 21:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Recently the file File:Mary, Queen of Scots being led to execution by William Luson Thomas.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. It is a late-19th century artist's impression of Mary, Queen of Scots being led to her execution. Dcoetzee 06:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
she miscarried her twins while in custody, but in the chapter descendany it says:"Mary also bore her third husband twins while in Elizabeth I's captivity, they died soon after birth." bplease correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lillelaboe ( talk • contribs) 14:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Good catch. Please, in the future, feel free to make small corrections yourself. Colemic ( talk) 08:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Another error (soz, don't know how to create a new section) The "Regency" section about when Mary was too young to rule says that her mother, Mary of Guise, was regent until her death in 1560, but Mary of Guise's own page says that she, being Catholic, was deposed by Scottish Protestants in 1559. I'm guessing the second one's right, as it's on Mary of Guise's page, but in that case shouldn't this page be updated, and who was regent from 1559 to 1560? I don't want to edit anything myself because I'm no expert... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.45.185 ( talk) 08:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't he be more appropriately titled king consort rather than suggesting that his was a courtesy title? PatrickLMT ( talk) 01:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
-- Mais oui! ( talk) 09:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The section "Childhood and early reign" has the following text with typing errors:
Mary was born on 8 December 1542 at Linlithgow Palace, Linlithgow, Scotland to King James V of Scotland and his French w[missing text]birth to a daughter, ruefull "It came with a lass, it will [text missing]The House of Stewart
I don't know exactly what the missing text is, but assume it was deleted in a recent edit.
Can someone more experienced please unpick and correct this? Thanks.
195.33.116.49 ( talk) 13:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I have added the 2 citations needed to remove the "citations needed" label at the top, but I don't know how to do that... and I rewrote the paragraph at James V's prophecy to reflect the source. Please feel free to amend it as necessary but I think it reflects fairly on the issue. I *think* I added the citations correctly.
Lastly... Under "Heritage, Birth, and Coronation," it says that John Stewart would have succeeded before Mary had he not died in 1536... what is dubious about that? Is it not correct?
Thanks,
Colemic ( talk) 04:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
'Mary, who had previously claimed Elizabeth's throne as her own' I think you need a citation for this. Didn't Mary simply say she was the heir to Elisabeth's throne Tarzanlordofthejungle ( talk) 22:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Can someone produce a source for the claim about a law during the reign of Robert II having created a "semi-Salic" succession in Scotland. I have not seen this claimed anywhere except Wikipedia, and for a few reasons I find this a bit implausible, although I could be proved wrong. Unless someone responds in a couple of days I propose to delete this. PatGallacher ( talk) 22:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Also... the below link is the Records of the Parliament of Scotland website, it is an unbelievable treasure trove! A spectacular source, plus it has translations as well. It validated Donaldson's version, the title of the relevant section being 'Legislation: statute, ordinance and declaration entailing the Crown on the sons of Robert II.' It is listed as an act of Parliament on 4 April 1373.
http://www.rps.ac.uk 139.153.13.68 ( talk) 22:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
It is often said that Mary Queen of Scots and Elizabeth I were cousins. Elizabeth I was Mary Tudor's half-sister (they shared father but not mother), and Mary QoS was her niece, not her cousin. According to several sources - Wikipedia included - Mary QoS was the granddaughter of Henry VIII's sister. This does not make her Elizabeth's cousin. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
190.246.7.153 (
talk) 21:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
They were first cousins thru Mary’s mother and Elizabeth’s father being sister and brother. Margaret Tudor was the eldest daughter of Henry VII of England and Elizabeth of York, and she was the elder sister of Henry VIII who was Elizabeth I father. See the respective family trees under their profiles on this site. Azegarelli ( talk) 16:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)A.Stephenson 15:55, 14 Jan 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azegarelli ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I just rechecked everything and your right. I don't know why/how I got myself confused. I must have had a few too many windows up at the time (so many Mary's and all). Thank you for the correction. Azegarelli ( talk) 13:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The newest infobox image is a much better-and far more flattering- portrait of Mary than the previous one. Also it's a contemporary one by Clouet and therefore should stay.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 17:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
"During the 15th-century reign of Robert III of Scotland, it had been confirmed that the Scottish Crown would only be inherited by males in the line of Robert's children ... with the demise of ... James V, Robert II had no remaining direct male descendants of unquestionably legitimate origins." The item begins with Robert III, but ends with Robert II. Is one of them a typo, or are both correct? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 17:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved per NCROY#2 SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 14:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Support Mary I of Scotland → Mary, Queen of Scots — She is usually known as "Mary, Queen of Scots", e.g. [4] [5] [6] DrKiernan ( talk) 13:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
gscholar hits: 7 for "Mary I of Scotland" v. 16,200 for "Mary, Queen of Scots"
Cavila ( talk) 13:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Nothing entitled Mary I of Scotland, although that title is patently correct. The common name for Mary Stuart is overwhelmingly Mary, Queen of Scots, and the article's name needs to conform to popular usage.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 15:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
It's been a week now & I don't see a consensus to change the title. Shall we close? GoodDay ( talk) 17:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Please all remember that this is not a vote — Wikipedia doesn't work that way, and 10 people to 5 doesn't equate to 10 good ideas to 5. Consensus is based on ideas, not numbers. We don't seem to have agreed about the importance of one "policy" over one "guideline" (and remember the overarching "rule" of WP:IGNORE!). 81.178.67.229 ( talk) 22:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
It's been 8 days since the move was proposed, an administrator needs to decide whether or not there's consnsus to move the article and close this discuusion.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 19:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The Clouet portrait of Mary was more flattering as well as contemporary; whereas this portrait was done after her death. I think we should revert back to the youthful Clouet portrait.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 16:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Dear all,
This is obviously an important article for the many Wikiprojects it is part of, and Mary is undoubtedly one of Britain's most infamous monarchs. It is a well-developed article, and I was thinking it might be good to get it to featured quality so it can appear on the main page. I have the Antonia Fraser book listed in the references so I can help, probably in earnest in about a week's time when my work load dies down. Would anyone with experience in doing such things like to help out? Aiken ♫ 18:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Surtsicna, your explanation in the lead looks fine; I agree we need to acknowledge that she was, in the list of Scottish monarchs, Mary I of Scotland, despite being better known by the article's new title.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 17:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
No probs with me. GoodDay ( talk) 17:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I don't think I was clear enough. I am talking about this situation and similar situations (such as James V of Scotland succession box):
I believe it should be either (preferably):
or:
James VI's predecessor was Mary I; James I's predecessor was Elizabeth I. He is mentioned as both James I and James VI in the succession box and it is clear that the Mary I who preceded him as King of Scots was Queen of Scots (and that consequently, she was Mary, Queen of Scots). Some people might not be aware that Mary, Queen of Scots, is recognized as Mary the First but Wikipedia is supposed to inform them, not to ignore or avoid every fact that is not part of common knowledge. Mousing over [[Mary, Queen of Scots|Mary I]] will reveal that we are referring to Mary, Queen of Scots, and so will clicking on [[Mary, Queen of Scots|Mary I]]. Surtsicna ( talk) 14:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
So, what have we concluded? Surtsicna ( talk) 22:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Would anybody mind if we have Queen regnant in the introduction? We don't want anybody thinking she 'might be' a Queen-consort (which she was in France). GoodDay ( talk) 16:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah well, it's happened. I guessed it would happen one day. I wonder what will happen in a few months time when the debate re-starts? Deb ( talk) 10:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello all,
I have a concern with part of the introductory sentence, '...was Scottish queen regnant from 14 December ...' Although I know regnant means, and you all probably know what it means, I feel that there is a pretty strong chance that the average user will not, especially when 'regnant' is a link to a list of Scottish monarchs, and even Wikipedia page for 'regnant automatically redirects to monarch, in which regnant is buried over half the way down the page. As I am American, I don't know if it is a word in common usage in the UK or or English-speaking locales, it is not common here. Any thoughts/suggestions? Colemic ( talk) 01:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Especially here, the use of "Queen Regnant" ought to be avoided - as it is not even correct. First Scotland was ruled by Regent Arran, "Regent Regnant", then by her mother, "Regent Regnant", until her death in 1560. It is maybe a useful idea after Mary's abdication, when she was still called the Scottish Queen, but not Queen Regnant. I suppose the term may have some currency and application in apposition Queen Regnant/Queen Consort. Unoquha ( talk) 14:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I was studying Marie Antoinette's family tree and I noticed that she is a direct descendant of Mary.
Mary, Queen of Scots m. Henry, Lord, Darnley > James VI of Scotland/James I of England m. Anne of Denmark > Elizabeth m. Frederick V, Elector Palatine > Charles I Louis, Elector m. Charlotte of Hesse-Kassel > Elizabeth Charlotte of the Palatinate (Liselotte) m. Philippe de France, Duke of Orléans (Louis XIV's brother) > Elisabeth Charlotte d'Orléans m. Leopold, Duke of Lorraine > Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor m. Maria Theresa of Austria > Marie Antoinette.
Should this be noted? They were both Queen of France and were both beheaded, albeit for different reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.255.28 ( talk) 22:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Well Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette's husband, was also a direct descendant of Mary and Charles I and he also shared their fate. I just think it is interesting that the two French monarchs who were beheaded are descendants of the Scottish/English monarchs who were beheaded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.255.28 ( talk) 22:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
All I am saying is that all four monarchs were related and all four shared the same fate, which is rather interesting.
Mary, Queen of Scots I James I (VI), King of England and Scotland I Charles I, King of England I Henrietta Anne of England, Duchess of Orleans I Anne Marie of Orleans, Duchess of Savoy I Marie Adélaide of Savoy, Duchess of Burgundy then Dauphine of France I Louis XV, King of France I Louis Ferdinand, Dauphin of France I Louis XVI
I did not mean abdicated monarchs or even monarchs who were executed or assassinated, I mean the fact that they all four were beheaded. It is also interesting how Mary and Antoinette were the only two Queens of France to be beheaded, and the fact that Antoinette was one of her direct descendants is very interesting indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.62.194 ( talk) 06:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I have a booklet "Mary Queen of Scots" published by "Pitkin Pictorials" 1973, with beautiful colour reproductions of paintings and contemporary drawings.
Quote, p.21: The house, at Kirk o'Field in Edinburgh, in which he was resident on the night of 9-10 February 1567, was totally destroyed by an explosion at 2am, but Darnley's body was found in a garden on the other side of the town wall, strangled!
There is reproduced in the booklet a contemporary sketch with combines scenes of the events. Caption: ...the explosion... left the house in a heap of rubble. The bodies of Darnley and his servant were found under a tree just outside the city walls; they had been strangled while excaping from the house before the gunpowder exploded. A group of guards and bystanders watch Darnley's body borne to the new provost's lodgings... The drawing shows the rubble remains of the house, and shows two bodies in a garden outside the wall, semi-naked, with the clothes and what looks like a dagger nearby. The drawing must have been reproduced in publications other than the one I found.
In the section "Marriage to Lord Darnley":
(a) It says Darnley was found dead in the garden - without saying which garden, implying that it was the garden of the destroyed house, when his body was actually found outside the city wall.
(b) I wonder on what grounds it was claimed by researcher Alison Weir that Darnley died of post-explosion suffocation - bearing in mind what is shown in the contemporary drawing, the apparent distance of the location of the bodies and the coincidence that Darnley and his servant were depicted together. No citation is given for this claim.
(c) Perhaps the date of the explosion could be included rather than "one night in February 1567".
There is also a little too much detail about Darnley's murder in the lead, and a more satisfactory explanation of the circumstances in the article Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley.
P0mbal ( talk) 11:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
P0mbal ( talk) 11:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I think it's interesting and would be suitable to add to the article under the section Marriage to Lord Darnley.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 12:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
We have a user on the Commons who has been able to vectorize a great many royal monograms of Monarchs and members of the Royal families of several countries. They have been added to the personal page of all those whose monograms we have in SVG, as a common format. DrKiernan keeps removing it, but unless he can give a good reason why it shouldn't be on the page of the person it represents, then I ask he stop removing it. Fry1989 ( talk) 22:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Can we change "In the eyes of many Catholics, Elizabeth was illegitimate, thus making Mary the true heir as Mary II of England." to "In the eyes of many Catholics, Elizabeth was illegitimate, thus making Mary the rightful queen of England."? DrKiernan ( talk) 16:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that the page be protected if the 108... IP continues to change the page without edit summaries or discussion.
Of the opening lines so far suggested I prefer the formulations which avoid as many repetitions of the words "Mary" and "Queen" as possible. DrKiernan ( talk) 08:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there any alternative to the name used in the infobox? Currently, "Mary, Queen of Scots" appears in the title, the lead sentence and the infobox. She is called "Mary, Queen of Scots" right above the portrait and "Queen of Scots" right below the portrait. Is it not possible to name her "Mary I" or at least "Mary" in the infobox? Surtsicna ( talk) 15:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I was hoping that such a well-known figure would attract attention at the Good Article page, but she seems to be languishing there unloved. Do you think we should try Featured Article? Are there any objections or any willing accomplices? DrKiernan ( talk) 17:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
"At her execution, on 8 February 1587, the executioners (one of whom was named Bull) knelt before her and asked forgiveness." This there any reference to the fact that one of the Executioners names is "Bull"? I have found very little reference to this name in any other text, however if this is true then it is of great interest to me. Unfortunately it looks like someone may have simply added this in brackets to the Wikipedia page, without it ever being ratified. Any insight into this inclusion would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.217.193.138 ( talk) 04:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The lead executioner was called, "Bull, the common hangman of London," and this is a well referenced detail, try searching on googlebooks; e.g., CSP Scotland, vol. 9 (1915), p.275, an account which has Mary saying of Bull and his varlet, "I never had two such grooms waiting on me before." Unoquha ( talk) 13:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
This article should be titled Mary I, Queen of Scots. There were *two* Queens regnant of Scotland named Mary: The first Mary Stewart (later, Stuart - the French spelling), who was Mary I, Queen of Scots, 1542 - 1567; and her great-great-granddaughter, Mary Stuart, who was Mary II, Queen of England, Queen of Scots and Queen of Ireland, 1689 - 1694. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.3.38 ( talk) 06:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
On a quick read-through, and without getting into minutiae, this article has a definite slant that doesn't feel like neutral POV, but rather feels "pro-Mary". Specifically, the total glossing over of the Babington plot, the implication that her execution was intentionally cruel (the two strikes thing), etc. I'm fairly well-read on the era, but this isn't something I'm going to dig in and fight over, just thought I'd mention my initial impression. I believe it should be possible to present the balance of facts (as we are able to know them at this point) without coming across as either "pro-Mary" or "pro-Elizabeth".-- 24.148.236.234 ( talk) 05:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, on the whole bias note, the paragraph "Portraits of Mary show that she had a small, well-shaped head, a long, graceful neck, bright auburn hair, hazel-brown eyes, under heavy lowered eyelids and finely arched brows, smooth lustrous skin, a high forehead, and regular, firm features. While not a beauty in the classical sense, she was an extremely pretty child who would become a strikingly attractive woman. In fact, her effect on the men with whom she later came into contact was certainly that of a beautiful woman. [1]
Well-shaped? Graceful? Finely arched? These aren't words I'd expect to see on an encyclopedia. Plus, the later bits seem very biased.
Perhaps some of this is valid, but it seems quite biased more like something from a historical fiction novel than an encyclopedia.
96.243.206.236 ( talk) 14:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but does it need to be taken straight to an encyclopedia without being checked for bias? 96.243.206.236 ( talk) 15:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
References
Do we really need a list of men who were in her Privy Council? I have never seen one in any other article. Not even featured articles, such as those about her son or cousin Elizabeth, contain the list, nor do they link to such a list. I propose removing it. Surtsicna ( talk) 19:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The list of privy councillors would be a good illustration to a section discussing Mary's brief personal reign, its achievements and failures. Mary returned to Scotland unexpectedly, to govern a country that had recently changed religion after open rebellion against her mother's rule, lead in part by her own half-brother. A list of her supporters in an administration that was challenged on her marriage to Darnley, and overthrown on her marriage to Bothwell ought to be useful. Perhaps we should await the supply of a more detailed political analysis of the personal reign, and its instability, perhaps from Jenny Wormald (1987), to give the list the required context. Unoquha ( talk) 10:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I've put a bit in about MacGill of Nether Rankeillour actually handing over the the casket and letters. Similarly, it's interesting that his colleague was no less than George Buchanan. I think the slight associated changes make this section easier to follow - to reiterate the letters (forged or not) are about her relationship with Bothwell and Darnley's murder. Unoquha ( talk) 12:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The Privy Council was quite significant, for it underpinned the timbre of her reign. She was given credence because she pulled advice from a broader base than expected when she first arrived at Scotland. I'll mine John Guy's Queen of Scots for more, but for now take a look specifically at pp. 113-127 for the reasoning behind her choices and the impact on later developments. LTC (Ret.) David J. Cormier ( talk) 15:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Hy, how are you ,about the article Mary Queen of Scots, I think the article is very good in general but the period dealing with her captivity is very short, there is a focus on the letters, than a quick overview of her 19 years captivity, her last jailer Paulet is barely mentioned, her relation with her son in captivity which are mentioned in all her biographies is also very short ,her daily life is mentioned in a few lines, her health problems etc.... ,I was trying to make the reader focus on some articles on her captivity, either that or a person should edit a few paragraphs on that period. Thank you.==tsamn== — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasmn ( talk • contribs) 14:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Wasn't Mary, Queen of Scots a pretender to the English throne as well as the Scottish Queen, and shouldn't she therefore have a box of pretence similar to how modern French or German pretenders have one? After all, Catholics considered her Queen of England, and I think she herself considered herself Queen as well, which is a lot more than can be said about some other examples which still have the box of pretence. Of course, confusion would emerge if one were to add that succession box to her son, James I and VI (as pretender of England and Ireland from 1587 to 1603), as it might cause readers to think that his elevation to the throne in 1603 was because of him being the Catholic pretender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.176.118.47 ( talk) 20:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
A Protestant monarch is a rather poor example of a "Catholic pretender". As for the claims, notice in the "Claim to the English throne" that it was Henry II of France who proclaimed Mary a Queen of England, and added the royal arms of England to her heraldic arms. Dimadick ( talk) 07:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I suppose it would be simpler to think of Mary as a "pretended heir" to Elizabeth, even thinking of her use of the English royal heraldry in France in 1559, (because her grandmother was a Tudor.) That would be fair, and would not be the same as a "pretender" intending to displace a monarch, and so not require a box. This also allows opinion to remain open minded about her trial in England. After her death her son James VI was Elizabeth's heir, though this succession was not publicly proclaimed. Hope this helps,
Unoquha (
talk) 08:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Tasmn: Hy I wanted to create an article on the captivity of Mary Queen OF Scots but it was deleted because there is an article about Mary queen of scots but the article was described as already very big on this page,I think that Mary captivity which covered 20 years of her life is not given enough space ,so what is the solution to open a new article,to add some paragraphs to Mary Queen of Scots or to do nothing , thank you.
Tasmn (
talk) 13:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I think this, and other related articles, have her relation to Darnley wrong. In the Ancestry diagram featured in the article, she is linked by marriage to Darnley. Darnley's parents are Matthew Stuart, 4th Earl of Lennox and Margaret Douglas. Neither of her parents are brother or sister to Mary, Queen of Scots' parents, who were Mary of Guise and James V of Scotland. However her father's father, James IV of Scotland, was sister to Margaret Tudor, who was the mother of Margaret Douglas, who was mother of Darnley. That is to say, he was her second cousin, not her first cousin, because her grandfather and his grandmother were brother and sister making them second cousins, rather than first. I've had a look at the relations of all parents involved, and there doesn't seem to be any reason to call them first cousins. Blockyblock567 ( talk) 13:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we can use http://www.crackedhistory.com/cracked-history-presents-10-things-history-got-wrong-women/ as a source for how she didn't actually meet with Elizabeth I? -- 173.241.225.165 ( talk) 18:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
There is indeed more than one version of what James V said on his deathbed but I know of no source which claims it to be "It came with a lass, it will pass with a lass!", what's more anachronistically in modern standard English. The footnote claims this to be the version of Robert Lindsay of Pitscottie and this is plain false as his quote, understandably in contemporary Scots, is "Fairweill, it cam with ane las, it will pas with ane las.". The version used in the article should be a notable version of the quote, such as Lindsay's, and should not be altered, misquoted or misattributed, as it is in the current version. At the very least a linked reference to Lindsay's text, as I provided, should be given. Personally, I am more familiar with the "It cam wi a lass and it will gang wi a lass" version and think it more widespread in use as a quote but am not sure of its origin and Lindsay's version is near contemporary and notable so am happy with it, if correctly quoted and attributed. If we really must translate it into modern English, of doubtful necessity as the Scots and English in this instance are arguably close enough for comprehensibility, we should say we have done so, provide the translation in brackets after the verbatim quote or provide it in the footnote. The use of the apologetic apostrophe, per the "gang" version in the footnote, is anachronistic for the 16th century and is long deprecated in modern Scots. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 09:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
References
Fairweill, it cam with ane las, it will pas with ane las:
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I took out the bit about Lady Jane Grey, because I don't think that Henry VIII's will, which specifically named his children as his heirs in the order Edward-Mary-Elizabeth, could possibly have been used as a way of dispossessing his own daughter. In fact, it was Edward VI who named Lady Jane Grey as his heir, ignoring his father's wishes. Deb
Actually, the facts as I understand them, are that the dying Edward VI was pressured by Northumberland into making Jane the next Queen. Henry's will had helped to make that possible. The Greys were next in line for the throne after the Stuarts, as they were descended from Henry's younger sister Mary.
Arno
No, you didn't explain it clearly enough. I, for one, don't understand whom you mean by "anyone" in "how anyone could say that Henry's will . . ." If you mean you can't see how Lady Jane's supporters could say that at the time, so what? They did say it, and enough people (including Edward VI) did see how they could say it to get her onto the throne, albeit briefly. If you mean you can't see how the Wikipedia can say now that that was one of the legal bases they asserted then, why not? The historical record shows they did, and the 'pedia reports historical facts. If you mean you don't see the logic of the legal argument made then, that's no reason to take the historical fact out of this article and so keep readers from learning that that argument was used to justify usurping the throne, whether they are capable of "seeing" its logic or not. That's censorship, plain and simple, and you don't even have a good excuse for it. --
isis 20:45 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)
I agree with you that "Deb meant no harm." I believe she never does. But you're just as injured whether you're run over accidentally or on purpose, so good intentions don't excuse bad outcomes. (Does anybody care whether Hitler "meant no harm," for example?) No, I won't "leave her alone." She has already shown me she is trying to improve the quality of the articles she works on, and she has a lot of potential, so I intend to keep challenging her to fulfill it. If you valued her contributions as much as I do, you'd help her, too, instead of abandoning her. -- isis 08:51 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)
I'm sure I meant no harm. Why don't you just leave me alone? -- isis 20:49 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're talking about, except for the last sentence. Yes, the difference between those crimes is intent, but no, the intent doesn't excuse the bad outcome of having someone dead. The one responsible for the death is still civilly liable even if it was an accident. -- isis 21:22 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)
It's not Lochleven, it's Loch Leven, I live within 60 miles of it so I should know. Lochleven might be the name of a town on the loch -- if there was one -- but not the name of the loch itself. And Mary miscarried while she was imprisoned in Loch Leven Castle, not after she escaped -- unless she had the world's first 12 month pregnancy. I'm changing this part of the article back to the way it was. -- Derek Ross
The castle is called Loch Leven Castle. Leven is about 10-12 miles east of Loch Leven and doesn't have a castle. -- Derek Ross
Why is the title of this page, Mary I of Scotland? This, I believe is quite wrong. Mary never ruled Scotland (the land), she ruled over the people, nothing more. That's why she was given the title Mary, Queen of Scots. If you check the Official site of the British Monarchy you'll find it recorded as such. http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page134.asp Additionally, when Queen Elizabeth opened the Scottish Parliament, she was addressed by the then Presiding Officer, David Steel, very publicly, as Queen Elizabeth, Queen as Scots, in keeping with Scottish tradition. Dduck 21:07, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Of course Mary I of Scotland isn't her title -- it's the title of the article. Please don't confuse the two. I started using this naming scheme because there were too many Alexander articles on Wikipedia and we needed to be able to differentiate simply between Alexander I from Scotland and Alexander I from Macedonia, etc., not because I wanted to give the articles the official titles of the people they were discussing. The correct titles for the people should appear in the article. If they don't -- fix them (with a reference if there's some disagreement). But there's no need to change the article's title. Mary I of Scotland just means that she was a Mary and she was the first from Scotland, no more, no less. -- Derek Ross
Oh, and the point about an electronic encyclopedia being able to handle disambiguation ? Honestly, it can handle it no bother. The trouble is that the editors can find it difficult to handle if they have to know as much as an expert before they can even guess the title of the article for use as a link. That's why we should be using the KISS principle for disambiguating article titles. It's also one of the reasons why Mary I of Scotland and Mary, Queen of Scots both exist as article titles despite the fact that neither is her full official title. -- Derek Ross
Thanks for the reply Derek. Yes, there are two entries for Mary. So why are we using Mary I of Scotland instead of MQoS? As someone already mentioned in another talk page, next to nobody calls her Mary I. Would it not be easier for readers and editors to have the article under MQoS and use Mary I as a redirect page? Would this minor change have any impact on the functioning of this encyclopedia? Dduck 18:27, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
It is perfectly simple. It was agreed with royal titles that the main page which fits as part of the series would be where the article would be found. Alternative titles not part of a series would serve as the redirect. [[name ordinal of state]] forms the series. King/Queen of Scots is not, so it serves as the redirect. That was discussed in exhausting depth and that was the consensus reached on wikipedia. FearÉIREANN 19:20, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
It's fair to say that retitling wouldn't have a big impact on the functioning of the encyclopedia. The trouble is that it would have a small impact and small impacts made by hundreds of articles add up. A difficult but important thing to achieve on Wikipedia is consistency. We don't currently have enough of it. Without it you end up with duplicate articles on subjects. For instance there used to be a Mary I of Scotland article and a Mary Queen of Scots article. There have even been duplicate articles, one with a singular title, the other with the same title but plural. To avoid this waste of effort we want to make it easy to guess what the title of an article should be even if it doesn't exist. Hence, if you want to link to Jim the III, Emperor of the Outlanders, you can make the link Jim III of Outland in the reasonable certainty that this will be the article title even if it hasn't been written yet and even if you were wrong about what his actual title is (it's really King of the Outlanders).
So what are the consequences of the foregoing for this article? Well, if we rename the Mary I of Scotland article to Mary, Queen of Scots,it becomes yet another small exception to remember since even the other Scots monarchs will still be So-and-so of Scotland, which means that links to her article would tend to be redirected more often than they are with the status quo.
That's why I'd prefer that we worked on more articles on Scotland in general rather than discussing changes to what is, by and large, quite a reasonable article. There aren't many of us Scots working on Wikipedia and unfortunately it shows in the patchiness of the Scottish coverage, whether historical, geographical, linguistic, scientific, you-name-it. Things are getting better but it's a slow process. Cheers -- Derek Ross 19:18, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Thanks once again, Derek for your reply. I enjoy reading your thoughts. I understand it's part of our human nature to compartmentalise everything that lives, breathes, crawls, walks, runs, or just can't be bothered to move all that much. But life doesn't always follow these neat little patterns - the naming of MQoS, being a prime example. Life, thankfully, is full of wonderful variety. So far, the arguments against change have been 1) decisions are final, and 2) if we make this one small change it will open the flood gates. When it comes to writing an encyclopedia which do you think should carry more weight: historical fact or ease of implementation? Which are we applying here? Dduck 20:10, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
We are writing an encylopædia here, not a history book. Encyclopædias use commonly understood references that will allow a reader to find a text in a search. History books aim to use 100% accurate references because they cover a far tighter number of topics and can go into them in far more depth than an encyclopædia. Encyclopædias have have to provide a chain link of comprehension which regularly means compromising somewhat in titles to ease usability. So all European monarchies from the Middle Ages to the present day on wikipedia go by the one format, and that format is [[name ordinal of state]], nothing else, with non-chain titles used as redirects, not the main page. It could not be clearer and simpler and is followed by hundreds of wikipedians who have written about monarchs and monarchies from Spain and Belgium, to Russia and the Baltic, Commonwealth Realms to mediæval monarchies. The system has worked well. The issue of Scotland was debated in detail by a large numbers of wikipedians. The solution applied here is the consensus that was agreed by a large group of people, which included mediæval historians, political scientists, copy editors, experts on monarchical titles, a librarian, people who have worked on mainstream encyclopædias and ordinary wikipedians. And among those consulted was a man from Burke's Peerage, an advisor to HM the Queen, a senior aide to HRH the Prince of Wales, the press offices of the King of the Belgians and the King of Spain and information supplied by royal courts in Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, as well as a copy editor who works the Macmillan-Palgrave. No-one is questioning that the King/Queen of Scots is technically the more correct. But all agreed that the appendage of Scotland is the better one to use in an encyclopædic context. FearÉIREANN 21:01, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)</nowiki>
Agreed with the above but to answer your points more directly. Yes, life, thankfully, is full of wonderful variety. In fact it's so full of wonderful variety that it's all most of us can do to compartmentalise a small part of it. Every little bit of order that helps us to understand more, we should use because life is much bigger than all of us put together and if that means some compartmentalising, so be it.
I'm not going to defend decisions are final because I don't believe they ever are and because I don't believe that JTD was arguing that anyway. More like It took a lot of discussion and evidence to reach the current decision and it'll take at least as much to change it so let's not. Likewise the open the flood gates description doesn't really describe the situation. Believe me, the floodgates started out wiiiide open and we've been trying to close them a bit over the years. It's not easy against the flood of new text which keeps pouring into the Wikipedia and we haven't managed to close them very far. That's why we're a bit leery about even one small reversal in the process. It feels like we're moving backwards. In any case there's little doubt that it's a question of balance. Too much variety leads to a disorganised mixture of fact and fiction, too little leads to organised pure fiction. At the moment the Wikipedia weighting lies towards the chaotic end of the spectrum. We need more regularity, not less.
As for your question on historical fact or ease of implementation, I would say that you can have each in their place. The historical fact belongs in the content of the article whereas the ease of implementation applies to the title of the article. In other words change the first paragraph to give Mary's proper title and leave the article title as is. -- Derek Ross 21:26, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Dduck: Eveyr King of Scotland before 1603 was known as "King of Scots", rather than "King of Scotland". The title King of Scotland was first used in 1603 by James VI, after he ascended the English throne, so as to make his titles more regular (he also called himself "King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland"). At any rate, point is, every monarch of Scotland before 1603 was "of Scots" not "of Scotland." So you can't just do it to Mary and leave the others as is. john 21:44, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Deb, Hi. It is not incorrect to call her that, but as already has been mentioned next to nobody calls her that. This lead to one of my earlier points: it would easier for readers to find her in this encyclopedia if she were correctly identified. Readers, seem to be an afterthought. Dduck 21:47, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hello John. I've mentioned the official website of the royal family. The link is posted above. I trust, if you take the time to look you'll find that they do indeed treat Mary, Queen of Scots differently from the rest of the rabble. If you have a reference of equal standing - not many come more definite than the royal family, then I'll see the matter closed. Dduck 21:53, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Odd how George III was the first George to rule the United Kingdom, William IV the first William, and Edward VII the first Edward (and that William IV was only the third William to rule Scotland, and Edward VII the first, and yet those numerals continued to be used there - or, for that matter, that Victor Emmanuel II was the first King of Italy, or Friedrich III the only German Emperor named Friedrich. Things like this don't always work how we might want them to work)...The official rule on that count is that the monarch takes whatever the higher ordinal would be between how high the ordinals reached in either Scotland or England before 1707, and then including numbers in Great Britain and the UK since. Thus, if there were to be another King James, he would be James VIII. A Robert would be Robert IV. And a Henry would be Henry IX. All this despite the fact that there have been no kings of these names of the UK, and only 2 James's and no Roberts in England, and no Henrys (besides Darnley, who, as a consort, doesn't count) in Scotland.
As far as the royal site - they are definitely not trustworthy about a lot of stuff - especially I wouldn't trust them on historical matters. The website also claims that the Queen is Duke of Normandy with respect to the channel islands, when her predecessor Henry III gave up the right to claim such a title in the 13th century, and it has never been claimed since. As far as sourcing, it might be noted that http://heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html, the British faq for alt.talk.royalty, refers to them as "Kings of Scots," throughout, and many of that newsgroup's regulars are pedantic and knowledgeable enough to have corrected it by now if this were wrong. If you look up "King of Scots" in google, you will find numerous entries. One might also note, from the [ Prince of Wales' official website], re: the title of Duke of Rothesay: "When The Prince of Wales is in Scotland, he is known by this title of the Scottish peerage, first conferred by Robert III, King of Scots, on his son David in 1398." john 22:16, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
If you use Mary's Queen of Scots title, you will then have people saying "oh, so lets change Baudouin of Belgium to [[Baudouin of the Belgians]], George I of Greece to [[George I of the Hellenes]], President of Greece to [[President of the Hellenic Republic]], Pope Pius X to [[Pope St. Pius X]], Mother Teresa to [[Blessed Teresa of Calcutta]], Charles, Prince of Wales to [[Prince of Wales]] or [[The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay]], Wilhelm II of Germany to [[Wilhelm II, German Emperor]], Prime Minister of Spain to [[President of the Government of Spain]]."
The truth is that we have been there. We had people, for example, insisting on not using royal titles at all, putting Charles, Prince of Wales as Charles Windsor. We had a mish-mash of titles that were impossible to follow, that made links complicated (and usually broken), that saw constant renaming battles. The name ordinal of state format was the agreed compromise that organised the mess and made it easy to follow royal titles.
As to EB, I know EB very well from personal experience and their approach to royalty is different and can be different to wikipedia for two reasons;
I don't doubt your desire for accuracy (that is something I believe passionately in myself) but what you are proposing is simply unworkable. It was tried and failed miserably, provoking edit wars over titles all over the place, and people whose correct title completely puzzled people who know less about the topic than you, Derek or I, because they could not follow how the King of 'x' could be succeeded by a king with a different title (eg, why was Otto of Greece suceeded by George I of the Hellenes?) when it changed, why it changed, where it changed, etc. Keeping one simple format for title links allowed people to deal with accuracy issues in the article where there was space to explain it. (Some months ago a Japanese user tried to rename Japanese emperors in correct Japanese format, rather than x of Japan which he said was completely wrong. After a month of chaos, which Japanese users themselves admitting what they had done was a complete mess, he began reverting his own changes and returning to the easy to follow but technically incorrect x of Japan format. Though at this stage, so many changes have been made and so many links broken that many Japanese emperors not can't be found on wikipedia because unless you already know the information, you have no idea where to look to find the information.)
Mary I of Scotland gives all the key necessary information, that it is about the first Queen Mary, and she reigned in Scotland. Mary, Queen of Scots gives less information and is the odd one out in the chain of Scottish monarchs. If the article's title was Mary I, Queen of Scotland then you would have genuine cause for complaint but it deliberately does not say so. If you went for the MQoS format, it would not end there but would lead to the renaming of hosts of other articles by others who thought "if she gets her real title, so should the <fill in name> <king/queen/president/prime minister> too". And as we experienced in the past (most recently over Japanese emperors) the result would be terminology that only the experts who already know the information could follow.
What we have is a simple, workable, almost universally applicable format that simply answers the key questions who and of where. BTW re the Buckingham Palace web site, there is a major dispute within BP over its many inaccuracies. But all it deals with are English, Scottish, Great British and United Kingdom monarchs, so it has far more leeway to cover unique titles than we have, given that we cover hundreds of monarchs and monarchies and have to do so in a straightforward manner, comprehensible to readers worldwide who may have no personal information knowledge to guide them, and don't have the luxury of a paper index like EB. That is why MQoS is at this page. FearÉIREANN 22:32, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I hate to raise what seems to be a settled argument, but this article is incorrectly titled. Even if we accept that she should be called "Queen Mary of Scotland" rather than "Mary Queen of Scots", she can't be called "Mary I" because there was never a Mary II of Scotland (or Scots). I presume this arises because people think Mary of Orange reigned as Mary II of England and Scotland, but this is incorrect. She and her husband reigned as a single legal person called William and Mary. He did not become William III until after she died, and she was never Mary II. Ergo, this Mary should not be called Mary I. She should either be Mary Queen of Scots of Mary of Scotland. I would vote for the former because that's what everyone knows her as. Adam 14:32, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Well the Royals are wrong. I think feminist correctitude has ruled that Mary of Orange must be treated as a Queen regnant in her own right, but she was not so regarded at the time, which is surely what must count. I never saw refered to as Mary II until about ten years ago. Adam 23:08, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I must disagree with Dr Carr. Some sources that use Mary II:
Another source to note is The ABC's news story. In January of this year, The Queen named a new ocean liner Queen Mary II. It would therefore seem that the King and Queen did not rule as "William and Mary"; rather, they appear to have ruled as "William III and Mary II". -- Emsworth 01:03, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
We have tons of articles that don't refer to a person by their contemporary title - for example, every Roman (and Byzantine) emperor, and I'm sure there are many many others if I thought about it. I don't know about Mary II (as in William and Mary) also being Mary II of Scotland, but I don't think there's a rule that we must refer to people with the titles used in their own times. Adam Bishop 01:17, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Mary II certainly was and is known as that. BTW, here's the text in the Bill of Rights of 1689 that settles the crown upon them:
I see no reason to see this as showing that they are somehow considered to be a single joint entity. john 01:43, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[sigh] All married couples were a single legal entity in the 17th century, so there was no reason to state it. This was the principal objection before the reign of Mary Tudor to the idea of having a queen regnant at all - that she would legally be under the authority of her husband. This was the basis of Philip of Spain's claim to the English throne (that he had been Mary Tudor's husband). The document you cite in fact makes it clear that Mary of Orange was a legal nullity during their reign. The only reason she was given the title Queen was that she had a better hereditary claim than William's. I very much doubt that you will find a contemporary reference to Mary of Orange as Mary II. Adam 02:09, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Let me restate this once again. Mary I of Scotland is the correct title of a Wikipedia article. It is not and does not pretend to be the correct title of any ruler of Scotland or anywhere else. Wikipedia contributors have used this John N of SomeCountry format as a standard Wikipedian method of referring to rulers of countries, no matter what the official title of the ruler concerned might be in order to give a standard type of link for any ruler. Where the ruler concerned is widely known by some nickname, honorific, or even by their correct title, it has been (or should be) added as a redirect, as has already been done for Mary, Queen of Scots. This system has worked well since its introduction. On the one occasion when someone seriously disagreed with it and implemented a "formally correct" system (for the Japanese emperors), information about the emperors became practically impossible to find unless one already knew the exact legal title of the emperor concerned. Given this, I would want to see a seriously good reason for changing, or making exceptions, to a successful system. I haven't seen one yet -- Derek Ross 03:38, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Alright, I'll admit that the Bill of Rights does not give any particular support to the case for "Mary II". I was simply quoting it as the relevant document, for completeness sake. But, nevertheless, what's your point? Do you have any source that you can show that says that William only became "William III" in 1694? Clearly they were jointly King and Queen (to a much greater extent than Mary I and Philip were), but I don't see what that has to do with the ordinal. (It might also be noted that the idea of husband and wife automatically being one entity fell apart so long after the revolution as 1702, when Anne's husband did not become King) In any event, it's completely irrelevant, even if you do find some sort of positive evidence to prove your point, as opposed to bare assertion. Because it absolutely doesn't matter whether or not Mary was referred to as "Mary II" at the time. There are no contemporary references to, say King William I, but yet we have
William I of England. Certainly there are no contemporary references to
Ptolemy III. The references cited repeatedly here certainly show that Mary is normally called "Mary II" by many, many sources, and given that she was Queen of England, Scotland, and Ireland in her own right (or, rather, jointly with her husband - basic point, she's not simply a queen consort), I see no reason to think this designation of her is incorrect. I'd note that Complete Peerage, from the beginning of the last century, certainly refers to "William III" in the period before 1694. I can't at the moment find any references to Mary II, but I've not looked very scientifically, and only have one volume of the book.
john 03:48, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The reason we have an article on William I is that there was indisputably a William II, but I don't need to repeat myself on this point. I accept the argument that the ordinals we use in article titles don't necessarily correspond to their historical usage. I will add some material to the articles on "Mary I", "Mary II" and William and Mary to clarify the historical question.
You do raise an interesting point as to why there was no question of Prince George styling himelf King during the reign of Anne. There may have been specific legislation to resolve this point, or it may just have been that George was a modest man who made no claims. But this does not alter the fact that William and Mary reigned as a single entity and not as two separate people - a constitutional impossibility. I think you'll find that any list of the Kings and Queens published before about 25 years ago calls Mary Tudor simply "Mary" and does not describe Mary of Orange as "Mary II." Adam 03:59, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I am glad that you accept the argument for entitling articles in the way that Wikipedia does. As further evidence, if John had referred to Ptolemy III using the Wikipedia standard title, Ptolemy III of Egypt, the link would have been live without having to guess at his official Egyptian title.
Note that further discussion about Mary II/Mary of Orange or about Anne would be better to be moved to the talk pages for their articles -- Derek Ross 04:10, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'll add my vote to those who argue that this page should be renamed Mary, Queen of Scots. Arno 07:18, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The caption to Image:Maryscot.JPG reads Another image of Mary, dressed in mourning white following the then recent death of her first husband.. However, the image page says the image shows a sketch of mary, queen of scots, at age 16 having just become queen of france. So...which is correct? If we're wrong with the attribution of the image, we should at least be consistently wrong in both places :p -- Ferkelparade 11:37, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There are some excellent pictures of Mary at different times in her life on this website. It mentions a picture of 'Mary Queen of Scots in White Mourning', although it doesn't show it. As the site points out Mary had a lot to mourn about between 1560 and 1561-- Derek Ross | Talk 18:18, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)
Although there are a lot of arguments above regarding whether to refer to her as Mary I of Scotland is correct or not (I personally feel it is incorrect), I made a small adjustment to the introduction to say that Mary I of Scotland is "better known as" (not "also known as" which has some people upset) to acknowledge her more popular title. No one in the general public refers to her as Mary I of Scotland. "Mary of Scotland", yes, on rare occasions (usually due to the Kate Hepburn movie), but my Scottish relatives would turn me into haggis if I ever called her Mary I! 23skidoo 04:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Don't mind saying she's better known as Mary, Queen of Scots. This was also how she was known at the time. But Mary I of Scotland is no more incorrect than James V of Scotland, James IV of Scotland, James III of Scotland, James II of Scotland, James I of Scotland, Robert III of Scotland, Robert II of Scotland, David II of Scotland, Robert I of Scotland - you get the idea. There was another Mary who was Queen of Scots/Scotland, so the "I" is appropriate, and unless we move all of these articles to James V, King of Scots, James IV, King of Scots, and so forth, I don't see what justification there is for moving this one on the basis of accuracy. john k 07:04, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Am I right in thinking it IS correct to refer to her as Mary I because the second queen regnant of Scotland was Mary II of England (and therefore also Mary II of Scotland)?
I wish to point out that in Scotland monarchs were commonly referred to as "of Scots" and not 'of Scotland". Mary, Queen of Scots is her commonly known name. However, with the later William & Mary, she was Mary II, Quen of Scots. Therefore Mary is Mary I. ( Peter Martin1891 16:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC))
Someone wrote that she was a "religious maniac" and was nicknamed "Bloody Mary", so I took out this rubbish, as it was Mary I (Mary Tudor) who earned this name.-- Codenamecuckoo 19:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
User:4.154.102.134 has changed the text from:
to:
Is this sourced? Which version is correct?-- Mais oui! 21:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
The second is less wrong, though I don't know of relics. But the first is cobblers.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint) 22:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
The Catholic Encyclopedia: "There can be no question that she died with the charity and magnanimity of a martyr; as also that her execution was due, on the part of her enemies, to hatred of the Faith. Pope Benedict XIV gives it as his opinion that on these two heads no requisite seems wanting for a formal declaration of martyrdom, if only the charges connected with the names of Darnley and Bothwell could be entirely eliminated ("Opera omnia", Prato, 1840, III, c.xiii, s. 10)." - Nunh-huh 21:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "Stuart" the correct form of Mary's royal House? On the actualy article, it is written as "Stewart" (the French form?). The information page for her House also lists its name as Stuart: House of Stuart. I'd change it if I was positive, so if any of you are, please change it to Stuart. -- KEB
Stewart and Stuart are both acceptable. Stewart is earlier. Stuart was the French form adopted by Mary and her successors. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Both are correct. Stewart before Mary, and Stuart after Mary ( the French version). Incidentally, I believe the name was orginally Steward, as that was the capcitiy the family acted in to monarchs of Scotland before they intermarried and had a claim to throne themselves. Kevin Q.
Recall that Mary had only just returned to Scotland on 19 August, 1561. The main text here seems to imply that Mary sent William Maitland to Elizabeth before December 1561 (see the next paragraph below). In other words, within months of returning to Scotland, Mary was already pressing her case for successorship to the English throne. Therefore, she acted quite quickly in trying to butress the Catholic position of Rome in Scotland.
Recall again that Mary was in Catholic France until August 1561. Therefore, when "In July, Elizabeth sent Sir Henry Sidney to call off" their first scheduled meeting, Sir Henry Sidney must have been sent to France. The impression is given that when Mary realized her August/September meeting had fallen through, she hurredly returned to Scotland that August (less than a month after Sidney's coming to France) and immediately petitioned Elizabeth for a resheduling (in December). -- (comments by an anonymous reader which originally appeared in the article and have been moved here by Derek Ross | Talk 06:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC))
If Mary had not produced an heir, who would have inherited England and Scotland (which may be two different questions)?
Jackiespeel 13:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd say Arbella Stuart had the next best claim of those who remained alive after Elizabeth's death. Deb 22:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Other contenders would have been Lord Beauchamp, the son of Catherine Grey and the Earl of Hertford, as the heir of Frances Brandon, elder daughter of Mary Tudor; and Lady Anne Stanley, heiress of Eleanor Brandon, younger daughter of Mary Tudor. Beauchamp's legitimacy was questionable because Elizabeth had never recognized her parents' marriage as legitimate. But either he or Lady Anne would have been the heir under the terms of Henry VIII's will. Another possibility would have been the Earl of Huntingdon, who was the heir to George, Duke of Clarence, younger brother of Edward IV. john k 05:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
That's for England. The heir to Scotland was quite clear - James Hamilton, 2nd Earl of Arran was definitely next in line to the Scottish throne in the early years of James VI. At the time of Mary's death, his crazy son, James Hamilton, 3rd Earl of Arran, was next in line. john k 06:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I think there are two pages (or more?) on Wikipedia that are devoted to "Mary I, Queen of Scot". The first one is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_1%2C_Queen_of_Scotland and the second is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Mary_I_of_Scotland. However, the content *appears* to be the same. Sunil 20:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The article reads: "However, according to the Catholic religion, Elizabeth was illegitimate, making Mary the true heir." But what does this mean, "according to the Catholic religion"? How does the Catholic religion have anything to do with declaring monarchs legitimate or not? It seems a rather poor statement (perhaps trying to suggest that the Catholics in England were not great fans of Elizabeth I, who after all, spent quite alot of time cutting their heads off?) but I do not wish to simply erase it, unless there is truly no more thorough explanation than this. Zerobot 04:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
By Catholic rules, Henry was still married to Catherine of Aragon at the time of both Henry's marriage to Ann Boleyn and Elizabeth's birth, and thus Elizabeth was illegitimate under canon law. That is to say, she was an illegitimate child, not an illegitimate monarch. That said, that doesn't mean that Elizabeth was not the rightful heir. Under the laws of England as passed by Henry VIII at the time of Ann Boleyn's execution in 1536, and never repealed by Edward or Mary, Elizabeth was also considered to be illegitimate. Henry VIII's will, which was the statutory document defining the Tudor succession, considered Elizabeth to be illegitimate, and thus put any daughters Henry might have by Catherine Parr ahead of both Mary and Elizabeth in the order of succession. So Elizabeth was given a place in the succession not through normal primogeniture, but through the instrument of Henry's will, which made her the heir after Edward VI, hypothetical children of Henry VIII and Catherine Parr, and Mary Tudor. This same statutory instrument excluded the descendants of Henry's sister Margaret from the throne, passing them over in favor of descendants of Henry's younger sister Mary. Mary Stuart, as a descendant of Margaret Tudor, thus made her claims based on pure primogeniture, which was not clearly the succession law of England in Tudor times.
The Catholic view (before Elizabeth was excommunicated in 1570, at least) was generally not that Elizabeth was not the legitimate queen. The official view, as I understand it, was that properly ordained monarchs, even if they were bastards, and even if they were heretics, were still rightful monarchs, and demanded obedience. This was also the attitude of Philip II as of 1558, as he certainly didn't want a personal union of France and England, which would have been the apparent result of Mary Stuart's succession to the English throne at that time. It took many years before either Pope or King of Spain began to embrace more radical theories that would have made Mary Stuart the rightful queen - initially, at least, Elizabeth was an annointed monarch, and thus legitimate. john k 05:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
There was a comment that "Mary herself" had signed the bond of assosiation, but should this actually be "Elizabeth herself" ?
folks, this article needs some real editorial help. I'd refrain from adding anything until some major problems can be address Dschroder 06:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it quite wrong to state that Elizabeth was illegitimate 'according to the Catholic religon.' She was illegitimate in both canon and statute law. Many Catholics would, of course, not accept the annulment of Henry VIII's marriage to Catherine of Aragon, and his marriage to Anne Boleyn. Elizabeth's questionable legitimacy was then compounded by the subsequent annulment of Henry's second marriage, when she lost the title of princess. Although her place in the English succession was restored by the 1544 Act of Succession, she was still technically illegitimate.
I was tempted to remove the highly questionable reference to 'some Jacobites' referring to Mary of Scotland as 'Mary II', because Elizabeth was not considered to be the rightful queen. I hold this in abeyance until some reliable reference is provided (beyond, that is, the arcane meanderings down the by-ways of history by neo-Jacobite eccentrics!) Rcpaterson 01:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Was Mary ever canonized, I see no reason why not? -- Jim Bart
She liked to eat pizza on the weekend and on tuesdays! citation needed
Of course it's a joke. Was pizza even created back then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.238.235 ( talk) 17:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Of Mary's return to Scotland, the article says:
Despite her talents, Mary's upbringing had not given her the judgment to cope with the dangerous and complex political situation in the Scotland of the time.
I wonder if this is an objective comment, or a wise-after-the-event comment. I believe there's a case for saying that she handled Scottish ploitics very well during her first four years back. Perhaps it was her husbands who messed things up for her.
Whatever her later mistakes, I'm not sure you can blame her upbringing, which was exquisite. She was given a highly sophisticated education. John Guy says that among her set texts were Cicero's On Duties, Plato's Laws, Aristotle's Politics and Rhetoric, and Quintillian's Training fo an Orator. She also studied L'institution du Prince by Guillaume Budé, an advice manual for rulers based on a distillation of the works of ancient authors. -- qp10qp 01:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
This article has become highly disjointed. There are simply too many headings and sub-headings, some containing no more than a single sentence. The content box now looks absurdly complicated-for goodness sake, look at the amount of space it takes up! In short, the whole thing has been madly over-edited. It is in desperate need of major reorganisation. Rcpaterson 05:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
"She was beheaded at Fotheringhay Castle, Northamptonshire on February 8, 1587. She spent the remaining hours of her life in prayer and also writing letters and her will." Surprised she could see to write her will with no head...
I have moved this article to what it should be. Britannica and Encarta, two proper online encyclopedias, list her under Mary I, Queen of Scots. She was not Queen of Scotland, but Queen of the people of Scotland. Rather like how the present day Belgian monarch is known as King of the Belgians, and the last French monarch Louis-Philippe was not King of France, but King of the French. Queen of Scotland is wrong and misleading, and there is no debate about it. James VI, for example, was NEVER King of Scotland, only ever King of Scots. James5555 22:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
wow wow do you guys even know what your talking about??? she was a great influential figure -- Anon who didn't sign
I find it rather strange that everyone regards Mary Stuart as Elizabeth Tudor's cousin. If Henry VII's daughter Margaret Tudor was married to James IV, then surely Henry VIII (Henry VII's son) was James IV's brother-in-law. James IV's son James V was surely first cousin of Elizabeth Tudor, Mary Tudor and Edward Tudor (Henry VIII's children). So therefore, surely Mary Stuart, daughter of James V and Mary of Guise, is niece of Elizabeth Tudor, Mary Tudor and Edward Tudor (Henry VIII's children)? Could answer my question please, (and amend the article accordingly if required)? -- 195.229.242.88 14:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused about her succession. Not all other male lines of the royal house had become extinct before the death of Mary's father, since James Stewart, 1st Lord Doune, a male-line descendant of Robert II was alive at the time. Why was he ignored as a potential successor? /FrinkMan
Under the above heading, it says that Mary returned to Scotland after her husband's death. Should this be her father's death?
Sardaka 04:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Moved question to List of Scottish monarchs. TharkunColl ( talk) 18:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:Hats Production of Mary, Queen of Scots Got Her Head Chopped Off.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 06:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
She became pregnant with twins, which she later miscarried while imprisoned.
How did they know (in 16th century) that she was pregnant with twins when she miscarried them? 87.250.116.18 ( talk) 14:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
What was Mary I's title from 1578 (James Hepburn's death) until 1587 (her own death)? I suppose that she was styled Countess of Bothwell from 1567 (when she ceased to be Queen of Scots) until 1578 (when the Earl of Bothwell died). Maybe Lady Mary Stuart or Dowager Countess of Bothwell? Surtsicna ( talk) 12:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
My understanding - and this is just my opinion/interpretation of events - is that technically, she never lost her title. When she was forced to abdicate, she did so only because Lindsay threatened to cut her throat if she did not sign them. She had miscarried only several days earlier, and had lost a great deal of blood, leaving her in a very delicate state health-wise. The two points are important, because they are the foundations for the argument that she signed the document under extreme duress, and would therefore be invalid when held up to any kind of scrutiny. Throckmorton actively encouraged this line of thinking and reasoning to Mary at the time. e So, if one holds that the document were signed under genuine duress, then they are invalidated and unenforceable.
In any case, even if she HAD lawfully and legally given up her throne, my understanding is that she would still have a regal title, as she was born royalty. #REDIRECT Edward VIII abdication crisis indicates that after his abdication, Edward was known as 'His Royal Highness,' Duke of... I don't know what all of her other titles would be offhand. Probably a lot of French titles mixed in as well.
(My sources for the above were Rosalind Marshall and Nau, Mary's personal advisor/assistant. Colemic ( talk) 23:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no physical description of Mary in the article.It doesn't mention,for instance her extraordinary height (5"11),nor any details of her colouring,features,etc.Antonia Fraser devotes several pages to her physical attributes;considering the capacity she had for attracting men. jeanne ( talk) 14:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to add this in, although I don't think it would need more than a paragraph. If you have a copy of this book, it would be reat if you could add in some references. There are some but I think some sections need more. Perhaps then we could get rid of this: 'This article or section is missing citations or needs footnotes. Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (May 2008)' at the top of the page. Boleyn ( talk) 18:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Her height is already mentioned in the article. Deb ( talk) 11:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Mary used a "nomenclature" cipher to encrypt messages sent to and from Anthony Babington. Walsingham (Secretary to Queen Elizabeth) intercepted many of these coded messages. Thomas Phelippes (a linguist and cryptanalyst) was employed (by Walsingham) to break this cipher and by statistical analysis of the frequency of the symbols he was able to discover the key, and thereby decode the cipher. Mary's confidence in the privacy that her cipher provided, made her bold enough to communicate her consent to the Babington Plot (to assassinate Queen Elizabeth). Much more detail is available "The Code Book" by Simon Singh 1999 ISBN:0-385-49532-3. 72.73.92.107 ( talk) 03:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.92.107 ( talk) 03:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The section "Childhood in France" uses both Henry II and Henri II, and Henry/Henri. It appears to me that this should be edited for consistency and that Henri II would be the correct choice. Thank you for your kind review. Ellendare ( talk) 21:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Done.
Colemic (
talk) 04:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:MaryStuartPlay.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
why was she beheaded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.159.157 ( talk) 19:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that in the references section, the entry for Richard Oram's book has a year lisintg of 200, but when I go to edit it, it is already listed as 2004... Does anyone have any idea why it doesn't show up correctly? Colemic ( talk) 08:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
What is this grossneck thing "a long, graceful small grossneck" in the physical description in the "Childhood in France section"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.111.33 ( talk) 15:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Is this true Mary's body was embalmed and left unburied at her place of execution for a year after her death. Her remains were placed in a secure lead coffin (thought to be further signs of fear of relic hunting). She was initially buried at Peterborough Cathedral in 1588, but her body was exhumed in 1612 when her son, King James I of England, ordered she be reinterred in Westminster Abbey. It remains there, along with at least 40 other descendants, in a chapel on the other side of the Abbey from the grave of her father's cousin Elizabeth I. In the 1800s her tomb and that of Elizabeth were opened to try to ascertain where James I was buried; he was ultimately found buried with Henry VII.
I can't reference to it in any of the other articles mentioned.
81.159.216.103 (
talk) 17:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Can this article be protected? Someone is persistantly vandalising it.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 17:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Recently the file File:Landing of Mary Queen of Scots (Mary, Queen of Scots) from NPG borderless.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 21:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Recently the file File:Mary, Queen of Scots being led to execution by William Luson Thomas.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. It is a late-19th century artist's impression of Mary, Queen of Scots being led to her execution. Dcoetzee 06:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
she miscarried her twins while in custody, but in the chapter descendany it says:"Mary also bore her third husband twins while in Elizabeth I's captivity, they died soon after birth." bplease correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lillelaboe ( talk • contribs) 14:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Good catch. Please, in the future, feel free to make small corrections yourself. Colemic ( talk) 08:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Another error (soz, don't know how to create a new section) The "Regency" section about when Mary was too young to rule says that her mother, Mary of Guise, was regent until her death in 1560, but Mary of Guise's own page says that she, being Catholic, was deposed by Scottish Protestants in 1559. I'm guessing the second one's right, as it's on Mary of Guise's page, but in that case shouldn't this page be updated, and who was regent from 1559 to 1560? I don't want to edit anything myself because I'm no expert... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.45.185 ( talk) 08:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't he be more appropriately titled king consort rather than suggesting that his was a courtesy title? PatrickLMT ( talk) 01:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
-- Mais oui! ( talk) 09:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The section "Childhood and early reign" has the following text with typing errors:
Mary was born on 8 December 1542 at Linlithgow Palace, Linlithgow, Scotland to King James V of Scotland and his French w[missing text]birth to a daughter, ruefull "It came with a lass, it will [text missing]The House of Stewart
I don't know exactly what the missing text is, but assume it was deleted in a recent edit.
Can someone more experienced please unpick and correct this? Thanks.
195.33.116.49 ( talk) 13:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I have added the 2 citations needed to remove the "citations needed" label at the top, but I don't know how to do that... and I rewrote the paragraph at James V's prophecy to reflect the source. Please feel free to amend it as necessary but I think it reflects fairly on the issue. I *think* I added the citations correctly.
Lastly... Under "Heritage, Birth, and Coronation," it says that John Stewart would have succeeded before Mary had he not died in 1536... what is dubious about that? Is it not correct?
Thanks,
Colemic ( talk) 04:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
'Mary, who had previously claimed Elizabeth's throne as her own' I think you need a citation for this. Didn't Mary simply say she was the heir to Elisabeth's throne Tarzanlordofthejungle ( talk) 22:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Can someone produce a source for the claim about a law during the reign of Robert II having created a "semi-Salic" succession in Scotland. I have not seen this claimed anywhere except Wikipedia, and for a few reasons I find this a bit implausible, although I could be proved wrong. Unless someone responds in a couple of days I propose to delete this. PatGallacher ( talk) 22:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Also... the below link is the Records of the Parliament of Scotland website, it is an unbelievable treasure trove! A spectacular source, plus it has translations as well. It validated Donaldson's version, the title of the relevant section being 'Legislation: statute, ordinance and declaration entailing the Crown on the sons of Robert II.' It is listed as an act of Parliament on 4 April 1373.
http://www.rps.ac.uk 139.153.13.68 ( talk) 22:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
It is often said that Mary Queen of Scots and Elizabeth I were cousins. Elizabeth I was Mary Tudor's half-sister (they shared father but not mother), and Mary QoS was her niece, not her cousin. According to several sources - Wikipedia included - Mary QoS was the granddaughter of Henry VIII's sister. This does not make her Elizabeth's cousin. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
190.246.7.153 (
talk) 21:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
They were first cousins thru Mary’s mother and Elizabeth’s father being sister and brother. Margaret Tudor was the eldest daughter of Henry VII of England and Elizabeth of York, and she was the elder sister of Henry VIII who was Elizabeth I father. See the respective family trees under their profiles on this site. Azegarelli ( talk) 16:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)A.Stephenson 15:55, 14 Jan 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azegarelli ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I just rechecked everything and your right. I don't know why/how I got myself confused. I must have had a few too many windows up at the time (so many Mary's and all). Thank you for the correction. Azegarelli ( talk) 13:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The newest infobox image is a much better-and far more flattering- portrait of Mary than the previous one. Also it's a contemporary one by Clouet and therefore should stay.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 17:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
"During the 15th-century reign of Robert III of Scotland, it had been confirmed that the Scottish Crown would only be inherited by males in the line of Robert's children ... with the demise of ... James V, Robert II had no remaining direct male descendants of unquestionably legitimate origins." The item begins with Robert III, but ends with Robert II. Is one of them a typo, or are both correct? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 17:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved per NCROY#2 SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 14:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Support Mary I of Scotland → Mary, Queen of Scots — She is usually known as "Mary, Queen of Scots", e.g. [4] [5] [6] DrKiernan ( talk) 13:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
gscholar hits: 7 for "Mary I of Scotland" v. 16,200 for "Mary, Queen of Scots"
Cavila ( talk) 13:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Nothing entitled Mary I of Scotland, although that title is patently correct. The common name for Mary Stuart is overwhelmingly Mary, Queen of Scots, and the article's name needs to conform to popular usage.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 15:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
It's been a week now & I don't see a consensus to change the title. Shall we close? GoodDay ( talk) 17:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Please all remember that this is not a vote — Wikipedia doesn't work that way, and 10 people to 5 doesn't equate to 10 good ideas to 5. Consensus is based on ideas, not numbers. We don't seem to have agreed about the importance of one "policy" over one "guideline" (and remember the overarching "rule" of WP:IGNORE!). 81.178.67.229 ( talk) 22:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
It's been 8 days since the move was proposed, an administrator needs to decide whether or not there's consnsus to move the article and close this discuusion.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 19:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The Clouet portrait of Mary was more flattering as well as contemporary; whereas this portrait was done after her death. I think we should revert back to the youthful Clouet portrait.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 16:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Dear all,
This is obviously an important article for the many Wikiprojects it is part of, and Mary is undoubtedly one of Britain's most infamous monarchs. It is a well-developed article, and I was thinking it might be good to get it to featured quality so it can appear on the main page. I have the Antonia Fraser book listed in the references so I can help, probably in earnest in about a week's time when my work load dies down. Would anyone with experience in doing such things like to help out? Aiken ♫ 18:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Surtsicna, your explanation in the lead looks fine; I agree we need to acknowledge that she was, in the list of Scottish monarchs, Mary I of Scotland, despite being better known by the article's new title.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 17:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
No probs with me. GoodDay ( talk) 17:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I don't think I was clear enough. I am talking about this situation and similar situations (such as James V of Scotland succession box):
I believe it should be either (preferably):
or:
James VI's predecessor was Mary I; James I's predecessor was Elizabeth I. He is mentioned as both James I and James VI in the succession box and it is clear that the Mary I who preceded him as King of Scots was Queen of Scots (and that consequently, she was Mary, Queen of Scots). Some people might not be aware that Mary, Queen of Scots, is recognized as Mary the First but Wikipedia is supposed to inform them, not to ignore or avoid every fact that is not part of common knowledge. Mousing over [[Mary, Queen of Scots|Mary I]] will reveal that we are referring to Mary, Queen of Scots, and so will clicking on [[Mary, Queen of Scots|Mary I]]. Surtsicna ( talk) 14:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
So, what have we concluded? Surtsicna ( talk) 22:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Would anybody mind if we have Queen regnant in the introduction? We don't want anybody thinking she 'might be' a Queen-consort (which she was in France). GoodDay ( talk) 16:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah well, it's happened. I guessed it would happen one day. I wonder what will happen in a few months time when the debate re-starts? Deb ( talk) 10:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello all,
I have a concern with part of the introductory sentence, '...was Scottish queen regnant from 14 December ...' Although I know regnant means, and you all probably know what it means, I feel that there is a pretty strong chance that the average user will not, especially when 'regnant' is a link to a list of Scottish monarchs, and even Wikipedia page for 'regnant automatically redirects to monarch, in which regnant is buried over half the way down the page. As I am American, I don't know if it is a word in common usage in the UK or or English-speaking locales, it is not common here. Any thoughts/suggestions? Colemic ( talk) 01:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Especially here, the use of "Queen Regnant" ought to be avoided - as it is not even correct. First Scotland was ruled by Regent Arran, "Regent Regnant", then by her mother, "Regent Regnant", until her death in 1560. It is maybe a useful idea after Mary's abdication, when she was still called the Scottish Queen, but not Queen Regnant. I suppose the term may have some currency and application in apposition Queen Regnant/Queen Consort. Unoquha ( talk) 14:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I was studying Marie Antoinette's family tree and I noticed that she is a direct descendant of Mary.
Mary, Queen of Scots m. Henry, Lord, Darnley > James VI of Scotland/James I of England m. Anne of Denmark > Elizabeth m. Frederick V, Elector Palatine > Charles I Louis, Elector m. Charlotte of Hesse-Kassel > Elizabeth Charlotte of the Palatinate (Liselotte) m. Philippe de France, Duke of Orléans (Louis XIV's brother) > Elisabeth Charlotte d'Orléans m. Leopold, Duke of Lorraine > Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor m. Maria Theresa of Austria > Marie Antoinette.
Should this be noted? They were both Queen of France and were both beheaded, albeit for different reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.255.28 ( talk) 22:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Well Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette's husband, was also a direct descendant of Mary and Charles I and he also shared their fate. I just think it is interesting that the two French monarchs who were beheaded are descendants of the Scottish/English monarchs who were beheaded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.255.28 ( talk) 22:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
All I am saying is that all four monarchs were related and all four shared the same fate, which is rather interesting.
Mary, Queen of Scots I James I (VI), King of England and Scotland I Charles I, King of England I Henrietta Anne of England, Duchess of Orleans I Anne Marie of Orleans, Duchess of Savoy I Marie Adélaide of Savoy, Duchess of Burgundy then Dauphine of France I Louis XV, King of France I Louis Ferdinand, Dauphin of France I Louis XVI
I did not mean abdicated monarchs or even monarchs who were executed or assassinated, I mean the fact that they all four were beheaded. It is also interesting how Mary and Antoinette were the only two Queens of France to be beheaded, and the fact that Antoinette was one of her direct descendants is very interesting indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.62.194 ( talk) 06:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I have a booklet "Mary Queen of Scots" published by "Pitkin Pictorials" 1973, with beautiful colour reproductions of paintings and contemporary drawings.
Quote, p.21: The house, at Kirk o'Field in Edinburgh, in which he was resident on the night of 9-10 February 1567, was totally destroyed by an explosion at 2am, but Darnley's body was found in a garden on the other side of the town wall, strangled!
There is reproduced in the booklet a contemporary sketch with combines scenes of the events. Caption: ...the explosion... left the house in a heap of rubble. The bodies of Darnley and his servant were found under a tree just outside the city walls; they had been strangled while excaping from the house before the gunpowder exploded. A group of guards and bystanders watch Darnley's body borne to the new provost's lodgings... The drawing shows the rubble remains of the house, and shows two bodies in a garden outside the wall, semi-naked, with the clothes and what looks like a dagger nearby. The drawing must have been reproduced in publications other than the one I found.
In the section "Marriage to Lord Darnley":
(a) It says Darnley was found dead in the garden - without saying which garden, implying that it was the garden of the destroyed house, when his body was actually found outside the city wall.
(b) I wonder on what grounds it was claimed by researcher Alison Weir that Darnley died of post-explosion suffocation - bearing in mind what is shown in the contemporary drawing, the apparent distance of the location of the bodies and the coincidence that Darnley and his servant were depicted together. No citation is given for this claim.
(c) Perhaps the date of the explosion could be included rather than "one night in February 1567".
There is also a little too much detail about Darnley's murder in the lead, and a more satisfactory explanation of the circumstances in the article Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley.
P0mbal ( talk) 11:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
P0mbal ( talk) 11:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I think it's interesting and would be suitable to add to the article under the section Marriage to Lord Darnley.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 12:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
We have a user on the Commons who has been able to vectorize a great many royal monograms of Monarchs and members of the Royal families of several countries. They have been added to the personal page of all those whose monograms we have in SVG, as a common format. DrKiernan keeps removing it, but unless he can give a good reason why it shouldn't be on the page of the person it represents, then I ask he stop removing it. Fry1989 ( talk) 22:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Can we change "In the eyes of many Catholics, Elizabeth was illegitimate, thus making Mary the true heir as Mary II of England." to "In the eyes of many Catholics, Elizabeth was illegitimate, thus making Mary the rightful queen of England."? DrKiernan ( talk) 16:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that the page be protected if the 108... IP continues to change the page without edit summaries or discussion.
Of the opening lines so far suggested I prefer the formulations which avoid as many repetitions of the words "Mary" and "Queen" as possible. DrKiernan ( talk) 08:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there any alternative to the name used in the infobox? Currently, "Mary, Queen of Scots" appears in the title, the lead sentence and the infobox. She is called "Mary, Queen of Scots" right above the portrait and "Queen of Scots" right below the portrait. Is it not possible to name her "Mary I" or at least "Mary" in the infobox? Surtsicna ( talk) 15:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I was hoping that such a well-known figure would attract attention at the Good Article page, but she seems to be languishing there unloved. Do you think we should try Featured Article? Are there any objections or any willing accomplices? DrKiernan ( talk) 17:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
"At her execution, on 8 February 1587, the executioners (one of whom was named Bull) knelt before her and asked forgiveness." This there any reference to the fact that one of the Executioners names is "Bull"? I have found very little reference to this name in any other text, however if this is true then it is of great interest to me. Unfortunately it looks like someone may have simply added this in brackets to the Wikipedia page, without it ever being ratified. Any insight into this inclusion would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.217.193.138 ( talk) 04:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The lead executioner was called, "Bull, the common hangman of London," and this is a well referenced detail, try searching on googlebooks; e.g., CSP Scotland, vol. 9 (1915), p.275, an account which has Mary saying of Bull and his varlet, "I never had two such grooms waiting on me before." Unoquha ( talk) 13:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
This article should be titled Mary I, Queen of Scots. There were *two* Queens regnant of Scotland named Mary: The first Mary Stewart (later, Stuart - the French spelling), who was Mary I, Queen of Scots, 1542 - 1567; and her great-great-granddaughter, Mary Stuart, who was Mary II, Queen of England, Queen of Scots and Queen of Ireland, 1689 - 1694. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.3.38 ( talk) 06:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
On a quick read-through, and without getting into minutiae, this article has a definite slant that doesn't feel like neutral POV, but rather feels "pro-Mary". Specifically, the total glossing over of the Babington plot, the implication that her execution was intentionally cruel (the two strikes thing), etc. I'm fairly well-read on the era, but this isn't something I'm going to dig in and fight over, just thought I'd mention my initial impression. I believe it should be possible to present the balance of facts (as we are able to know them at this point) without coming across as either "pro-Mary" or "pro-Elizabeth".-- 24.148.236.234 ( talk) 05:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, on the whole bias note, the paragraph "Portraits of Mary show that she had a small, well-shaped head, a long, graceful neck, bright auburn hair, hazel-brown eyes, under heavy lowered eyelids and finely arched brows, smooth lustrous skin, a high forehead, and regular, firm features. While not a beauty in the classical sense, she was an extremely pretty child who would become a strikingly attractive woman. In fact, her effect on the men with whom she later came into contact was certainly that of a beautiful woman. [1]
Well-shaped? Graceful? Finely arched? These aren't words I'd expect to see on an encyclopedia. Plus, the later bits seem very biased.
Perhaps some of this is valid, but it seems quite biased more like something from a historical fiction novel than an encyclopedia.
96.243.206.236 ( talk) 14:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but does it need to be taken straight to an encyclopedia without being checked for bias? 96.243.206.236 ( talk) 15:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
References
Do we really need a list of men who were in her Privy Council? I have never seen one in any other article. Not even featured articles, such as those about her son or cousin Elizabeth, contain the list, nor do they link to such a list. I propose removing it. Surtsicna ( talk) 19:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The list of privy councillors would be a good illustration to a section discussing Mary's brief personal reign, its achievements and failures. Mary returned to Scotland unexpectedly, to govern a country that had recently changed religion after open rebellion against her mother's rule, lead in part by her own half-brother. A list of her supporters in an administration that was challenged on her marriage to Darnley, and overthrown on her marriage to Bothwell ought to be useful. Perhaps we should await the supply of a more detailed political analysis of the personal reign, and its instability, perhaps from Jenny Wormald (1987), to give the list the required context. Unoquha ( talk) 10:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I've put a bit in about MacGill of Nether Rankeillour actually handing over the the casket and letters. Similarly, it's interesting that his colleague was no less than George Buchanan. I think the slight associated changes make this section easier to follow - to reiterate the letters (forged or not) are about her relationship with Bothwell and Darnley's murder. Unoquha ( talk) 12:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The Privy Council was quite significant, for it underpinned the timbre of her reign. She was given credence because she pulled advice from a broader base than expected when she first arrived at Scotland. I'll mine John Guy's Queen of Scots for more, but for now take a look specifically at pp. 113-127 for the reasoning behind her choices and the impact on later developments. LTC (Ret.) David J. Cormier ( talk) 15:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Hy, how are you ,about the article Mary Queen of Scots, I think the article is very good in general but the period dealing with her captivity is very short, there is a focus on the letters, than a quick overview of her 19 years captivity, her last jailer Paulet is barely mentioned, her relation with her son in captivity which are mentioned in all her biographies is also very short ,her daily life is mentioned in a few lines, her health problems etc.... ,I was trying to make the reader focus on some articles on her captivity, either that or a person should edit a few paragraphs on that period. Thank you.==tsamn== — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasmn ( talk • contribs) 14:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Wasn't Mary, Queen of Scots a pretender to the English throne as well as the Scottish Queen, and shouldn't she therefore have a box of pretence similar to how modern French or German pretenders have one? After all, Catholics considered her Queen of England, and I think she herself considered herself Queen as well, which is a lot more than can be said about some other examples which still have the box of pretence. Of course, confusion would emerge if one were to add that succession box to her son, James I and VI (as pretender of England and Ireland from 1587 to 1603), as it might cause readers to think that his elevation to the throne in 1603 was because of him being the Catholic pretender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.176.118.47 ( talk) 20:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
A Protestant monarch is a rather poor example of a "Catholic pretender". As for the claims, notice in the "Claim to the English throne" that it was Henry II of France who proclaimed Mary a Queen of England, and added the royal arms of England to her heraldic arms. Dimadick ( talk) 07:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I suppose it would be simpler to think of Mary as a "pretended heir" to Elizabeth, even thinking of her use of the English royal heraldry in France in 1559, (because her grandmother was a Tudor.) That would be fair, and would not be the same as a "pretender" intending to displace a monarch, and so not require a box. This also allows opinion to remain open minded about her trial in England. After her death her son James VI was Elizabeth's heir, though this succession was not publicly proclaimed. Hope this helps,
Unoquha (
talk) 08:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Tasmn: Hy I wanted to create an article on the captivity of Mary Queen OF Scots but it was deleted because there is an article about Mary queen of scots but the article was described as already very big on this page,I think that Mary captivity which covered 20 years of her life is not given enough space ,so what is the solution to open a new article,to add some paragraphs to Mary Queen of Scots or to do nothing , thank you.
Tasmn (
talk) 13:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I think this, and other related articles, have her relation to Darnley wrong. In the Ancestry diagram featured in the article, she is linked by marriage to Darnley. Darnley's parents are Matthew Stuart, 4th Earl of Lennox and Margaret Douglas. Neither of her parents are brother or sister to Mary, Queen of Scots' parents, who were Mary of Guise and James V of Scotland. However her father's father, James IV of Scotland, was sister to Margaret Tudor, who was the mother of Margaret Douglas, who was mother of Darnley. That is to say, he was her second cousin, not her first cousin, because her grandfather and his grandmother were brother and sister making them second cousins, rather than first. I've had a look at the relations of all parents involved, and there doesn't seem to be any reason to call them first cousins. Blockyblock567 ( talk) 13:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we can use http://www.crackedhistory.com/cracked-history-presents-10-things-history-got-wrong-women/ as a source for how she didn't actually meet with Elizabeth I? -- 173.241.225.165 ( talk) 18:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
There is indeed more than one version of what James V said on his deathbed but I know of no source which claims it to be "It came with a lass, it will pass with a lass!", what's more anachronistically in modern standard English. The footnote claims this to be the version of Robert Lindsay of Pitscottie and this is plain false as his quote, understandably in contemporary Scots, is "Fairweill, it cam with ane las, it will pas with ane las.". The version used in the article should be a notable version of the quote, such as Lindsay's, and should not be altered, misquoted or misattributed, as it is in the current version. At the very least a linked reference to Lindsay's text, as I provided, should be given. Personally, I am more familiar with the "It cam wi a lass and it will gang wi a lass" version and think it more widespread in use as a quote but am not sure of its origin and Lindsay's version is near contemporary and notable so am happy with it, if correctly quoted and attributed. If we really must translate it into modern English, of doubtful necessity as the Scots and English in this instance are arguably close enough for comprehensibility, we should say we have done so, provide the translation in brackets after the verbatim quote or provide it in the footnote. The use of the apologetic apostrophe, per the "gang" version in the footnote, is anachronistic for the 16th century and is long deprecated in modern Scots. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 09:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
References
Fairweill, it cam with ane las, it will pas with ane las: