Talk:Competitors for the Crown of Scotland

Scotland High‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medieval Scotland Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medieval Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Medieval Scotland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Medieval ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandMedieval Scotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I have made a couple of minor corrections; essentially that Edward was not empowered to choose from the candidates, but to administer the process of the court; the decision was down to the jurors. Chris Brown.

Edward's claim

While the Competitors article was good, it was mistaken when it said King Edward I of England had no claim on the Scots throne, in fact, his claim was superior to that of John the Black Comyn, He descending from King Malcolm III`s daughter Edith, wife of King Henry I of England, their daughter Maud was the mother of Henry II, grandmother of John, Great Grandmother of Henry III, and 2nd Great Grandmother of Edward I.

Lack of Summary

The article lacks any kind of synopsis, and instead has, as an introduction, something that approximates a "Hollywood" teaser trailer. The introductory two paragraphs should condense the essential elements of the article.50n0m4 01:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is not your average Wiki article as it defies the standard layout. I hope to amend in the near future if I have time in my busy life. Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the fathers' names from the claimants section

Recently, User:Surtsicna has removed the names of all the fathers of the claimants to the throne of Scotland. I found this to be an odd move, not only because patrilineal descent was so important to making claims to birthright and property in the medieval world, but also because it would be odd to list only one of their parents and not the other. In fact, both matrilineal and patrilineal lines were used by medieval rulers and nobles to make arguments about birthrights to feudal lands and properties. It wouldn't take one long to realize this after merely reading this article, let alone making a thorough examination of the historical record.

I invite Surtsicna to make a rebuttal, but I would ask that this issue be discussed first before making another radical cutting of arguably relevant information from the article.Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would first like to ask why you reverted all of my edits, including improvements of grammar, style and orthography? Now, the fact that one of Floris V of Holland's great-great-grandfathers was Floris III of Holland has absolutely nothing to do with Floris V's claim to the crown of Scotland. Absolutely nothing. The fact that one of his ancestresses was Ada of Scotland is relevant, though. The fact that she was the wife of Floris III of Holland is again irrelevant. If you take a closer look, you will see that:

I did not "remove the names of all the fathers of the claimants to the throne of Scotland." That would have been absurd. Floris V's father is there, as are the fathers of 6 other claimants. They are there because the claimants derived their claim through their paternal family.
In many cases listed here, patrilineal descent is clearly irrelevant. Nicholas de Soules (#8) claimed the crown as a purely matrilineal descendant, while many others traced their royal descent through at least one woman.
None of these men used "both matrilineal and patrilineal lines" to claim Scotland. Each one derived their claim through one specific line, often neither patrilineal nor matrilineal but cognatic. That one line should be explained. Other lines are irrelevant. The fact that one of Floris V of Holland's great-great-grandfathers was Floris III of Holland is as relevant as the fact that another of his great-great-grandfathers was Valdemar I of Denmark.
The claimants did not have both their parents/grandparents listed. They only had their fathers and grandfathers listed, unless they derived their claim through their mother or grandmother, in which case both were listed. That is absurd, lest I say sexist. Why list one person's irrelevant grandfather but omit another's irrelevant mother? Surtsicna (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted all of your edits because your improvements to the article's grammar were nonetheless tied up with your edits that removed names from the article. It was impossible to divorce the two. That said, your argument is fairly sound and I think you've convinced me here until I can find a reason otherwise to include the omitted names. Cheers. Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford

For Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford the article says "He didnt make a claim for the throne as it would be a conflict of interest but had the strongest claim after John Balliol." How does that make any sense? He was a descendant of David of Scotland, Earl of Huntingdon's sister Margaret, so Bruce, Balliol and Hastings would have had a better claim than him because they descend directly from David. Even if one is to argue proximity of blood, Humphrey is one of the farthest down in the line since so many generations separate him from his Scottish ancestors.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This never received sufficient discussion. Humphrey de Bohun was added into the list by an IP without explanation, with the statement that though he had this descent, he did not make a claim for political reasons. When the fact that he didn't make a claim for the specific reason given was challenged for want of a source it was removed, thereby portraying him as an actual 'competitor' who put a claim forward, which he was not. This page is not a genealogical entry, where editors decide who all had descents that would qualify them to have made a claim - it is a political-historical page listing those who actually came forward. One could easily go through the genealogies of the time and identify others who had such descents, but that is not what this is about. Historical accounts of the Competitors that I have seen give 13 names (in addition to Edward), in some cases explicitly calling the group the Thirteen Competitors, with Humphrey de Bohun not among then. I am going to remove him, pending the provision of a source that lists him along with the others as a competitor. Agricolae (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

Current article name feels rather ambiguous and would be better changed to something like Succession of Margaret, Maid of Norway? FlagSteward (talk) 12:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It could be renamed 'The Great Cause', as that is indeed what this article is describing. The article is otherwise difficult to locate, and the current name could seemingly refer to many things. It is very vague. 2001:8003:2817:6800:7D47:25AB:A599:C94B (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]