Talk:Mary, Queen of Scots/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Old comments

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

Henry's will was not used as a way to disinherit his daughters. Edward VI was pressured by Dudley (Warwick) to disinherit his sisters and Henry's will was ignored by John Dudley. (said 70.109.145.176 at 16:43 on the 20th Dec, 2007 without using ~~~~ to sign the comment)

As he had every right to do -- as king, Edward had the same authority to determine the succession as Henry had had, and Henry surely knew that. His designation of the order Edward-Mary-Elizabeth was, therefore, a default option in case nothing happened in the meantime to change it. It is a fact that her father used Henry's having debarred his sister Margaret's issue from the throne to support Lady Jane's claim thru their younger sister Mary; why do you want to take that fact out? Your assessment of what Henry would have wanted, even if it were accurate, is beside the point that one legal basis asserted (on the record at the time) for Jane's claim was Henry's having disqualified the Stuarts. Your feeling about Mary's nurturing hopes -- and do you really believe she spent all those years thinking Elizabeth would name her instead of James? -- is romantic, but it ain't history. Could we please have the fact back? -- isis 21:09 Jan 8, 2003 (UTC)

No, Edward VI did not have the right to alter Henry's will. English kings have been limited in power since the Magna Carta. Edward needed parliament's consent to change the succession. I won't address the rest of the argument because it is poorly thought out and nearly incoherent. (said 70.109.145.176 at 16:43 on the 20th Dec, 2007 without using ~~~~ to sign the comment)

Edward did not have the right to alter the succesion except through an Act of Parliament. Henry passed acts of succesion to change the order of succesion. Edward did not. KQ Oct. 5, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.91.156 (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The Stuarts were not in line. Henry intentionally left Margaret's line out. One can make the argument that Henry's will did facilitate Dudley's attempted coup. (said 70.109.145.176 at 16:43 on the 20th Dec, 2007 without using ~~~~ to sign the comment)

Right. Please see the discussion at User talk:Someone else. -- isis 07:34 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

I thought I explained pretty clearly why I made the change. I still don't see how anyone could say that Henry's will, which stipulated that Mary Tudor was to be the next monarch after Edward, could be used as an excuse for disinheriting Mary Tudor in place of Jane Grey. Therefore I don't see how it was relevant to include that sentence in an article about Mary Stuart. Deb

I do not know what sentence you are referring, but you are pretty much spot on about the succession. Mary Tudor's line (the Greys) was a fall back if all of Henry's issues did not reproduce (which they did not). (said 70.109.145.176 at 16:43 on the 20th Dec, 2007 without using ~~~~ to sign the comment)

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)

Jane Grey's ascension to the throne was a coup. Read Alison Weir, David Starkey or H.F.M Prescott for clarification. As far as historical facts go, you need to get off the web and read well researched books about this subject. Deb's removal of Jane Grey in a Mary Stuart bio is not censorship, but tightening of the essay. (said 70.109.145.176 at 16:43 on the 20th Dec, 2007 without using ~~~~ to sign the comment)

Look, speaking as the (presumably) wronged and "censored" person here, who had his sentence about Lady Jane Grey taken out, I must say that I did not mind the change all that much. At all. My reason for including Lady Jane at all was to illustrate that Mary Queen of Scots'es claim to the English throne was not as unchallengable as the previous wording in that article clearly implied.

I'm sure that Deb meant no harm in changing the sentence, and I think far too much was read into her actions. Ises'es closing sentence above is a case in point here. Let's just leave her alone, shall we? - Arno

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)

Isis, Deb does not need your help. She is doing very well on her own. You, on the other hand, need to actually become familiar with the subject matter before commenting on it. (said 70.109.145.176 at 16:43 on the 20th Dec, 2007 without using ~~~~ to sign the comment)

In that very heartwarming case, I can only suggest that you "help" her in a more constructive fashion than you have so far. - Arno

I'm sure I meant no harm. Why don't you just leave me alone? -- isis 20:49 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)

(As a disinterested party, maybe we should put in what happened, and also mention the ludicrous nature of the events in question. I pause to note that good intentions often do excuse bad outcomes. Isn't that the difference between murder, manslaughter and accidental death? -- Tarquin 21:10 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

There seems to be a difference of opinion in the spelling of Loch Leven. Also, a normally reliable source seems to have failed me when it came to the year in which Mary lst those twins. Alternate sources seem to agree with 1567 being the year. So I'll leave the reversed changes the way they are... almost... Arno

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

Name debate (2003)

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)

The page listing is correct and would be wrong as Mary, Queen of Scots. Encylopædias cannot operate on the principle of 100% technical correctness in history because (a) often there is no such certainty on what is correct or (b) if there is, technical terms lack the recognition factor that are the basis of encyclopædias, ie people who don't already know the information won't know where to find it. (History books don't have the same problem to the same extent because a history book unlike an encyclopædia does not consist of thousands of titles. merely one title and a few chapter headings.) So Wikipedia, as with other similar sourcebooks, has to balance accuracy and the recognition factor. If two alternatives exist and one is 100% correct and one 100% incorrect, it goes with the former. But where ambiguity exists it goes with most common reference. Hence though technically there is no King of Belgium but instead a King of the Belgians, and where technically there was no King of Greece but King of the Hellenes, its entries are listed correctly under King of Belgium and King of Greece, as most people with recognise those designations, while only historians, political scientists and purists will recognise the alternatives.

Our policy on royal naming conventions places the monarchs of all states outside the far east from the middle ages on as [[(name) (ordinal if necessary) of (state)]]. Queen of Scots would break all relevant encyclopædic naming conventions and produce a far less well known title than using the standard, universally recognisable of (state). Yes it is less accurate, but so too is Charles, Prince of Wales, which we have to use because the alternatives Prince Charles and the Prince of Wales are two problematical; the former ceased to be his title in February 1952 (though it is regularly used) and also because there are others internationally of that name, while the latter is too ambiguous because it could refer to the title, the title holder or past holders of the title. BTW many experts were consulted in the process of drafting our naming conventions, including royal families and royal palaces themselves (including Buckingham Palace, which I consulted directly). Using King/Queen of Scotland offers the best balance between accuracy, recognitionability and universality. King/Queen of Scots, though somewhat more accurate but not by much does not, hence the use of the former terminology. FearÉIREANN 22:04, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. This comes up from time to time and it's important to remember that on Wikipedia we use Mary I of Scotland, not as her official title, but purely as a standard method of disambiguating her from Mary I of England and from Mary II of Scotland whose official title was also Mary, Queen of Scots. In any case Mary, Queen of Scots exists as a redirect to the best known Mary of that title. -- Derek Ross 06:25, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It appears, FearÉIREANN, that you misunderstand: it is not simply an inaccuracy to describe Mary as Queen of Scotland, it is plain wrong! Historically, and culturally. As I said she wasn't Queen of the country, only the people. Derek concedes that Mary I of Scotland wasn't her official title, but the article uses the phrase "also known as" - this I find offensive. Mary II of Scotland, was known as such, so I don't see any confusion arising there. You should, at least, change this to reflect the truth. Additionally, FearÉIREANN, you may have consulted many experts, but historically many experts have come out with complete rubbish. Indeed, democracies are created with checks and balances, because experts, those elite among us, are only human and thereby still fallible. Can I see some checks and balances here? I draw to your attention once more, it is plain from the official website of the royal family where they, history, and Scotland stands on this. Finally, as a matter of disambiguating problems, surely something as sophisticated as an electronic encyclopedia should be able to handle. Now, be honest. Dduck 09:54, 11 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>

It seems obvious to me that, if it's correct to call Mary II of Scotland by that title, then it can't be wrong to call Mary I of Scotland by that title. Deb 21:09, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, that's just wrong. From the time when James VI, King of Scots, ascended the English throne in 1603, the monarchs of Scotland began to use the title "King/Queen of Scotland", as in "Charles I, King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland." Previously, they had always been called "King/Queen of Scots". john 21:44, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

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)

FearÉIREANN, regarding your last point: I'd like to make it perfectly clear - I am not asking for all Kings and Queens of Scotland to be retitled as "of Scots". All I am complaining about is the treatment of Mary, Queen of Scots. She, unlike any other Scottish Monarch, was given that phrase, QoS, as part of her official title. I mention again the official site of the royal family. Please, do check. Derek mentioned earlier that Mary II of Scotland was also entitled to call herself Queen of Scots, but she is not recorded historically as such. I her no complaint concerning her entry.

Furthermore, I had a look at Britannica - I very much suppose that their problems, and experts, were the same as those you mention. However, their editors managed to describe Mary, Queen of Scots, accurately. I'm guessing Britannica considers historical integrity to be worth preserving. Dduck 21:32, 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)

Iain, that's why we have the redirect page. Even readers who are unaware of our naming policy will find her where they expect her, courtesy of the software redirection. -- Derek Ross

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)

Is that the same Royal family which thought our current Queen should be entitled Elizabeth II despite the fact that she is the first Elizabeth to rule the United Kingdom, or Scotland for that matter ? I can't say that I put a lot of trust in their grasp of historical fact when they can't even get the current Queen's legal title right for her coronation. -- Derek Ross

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.

(True, but that was only enacted in the UK after HM's coronation in order to rationalise her title after the controversy which it caused at the time. -- Derek Ross)

Ah, makes sense. On the other hand, the reason why "Elizabeth II" elicited such controversy where earlier titles had not had a lot more to do with the growth of Scottish nationalism than with the palace making "errors". john 22:53, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

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;

1. They don't cover all monarchs, merely a select few, so they can use Mary, Queen of Scots. We do cover all monarchs, with each monarch linked in a chain to their predecessors and successors. Our coverage of Scottish monarchs, for example, is far more extensive than EB.
2. As a paper encyclopædia they have the benefit of a standard index system which a reader can use. So Mary, Queen of Scots can be looked up easily as such. We don't have the benefit. We have search engines and links. We do not claim the article title is 100% accurate because if it was, we'd have Henry VIII as King of England, Ireland and France, for example, James VI/I as King of Great Brittaine, William IV as King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, King of Hanover. We have to compromise on title accuracy to allow ease of links and a clearly definiable chain linking monarchs.

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)

Ooh, see how long this page has got! What I really can't understand about this debate is why it is being suggested that everyone calls her "Mary, Queen of Scots" and nobody calls her Mary I of Scotland. In my experience, that simply isn't true. If she was the only Queen Mary that had ever ruled Scotland (or the Scots), there might be an argument for leaving the title she used at the time - but surely she became Mary I when a second one came along.

On the other hand, Mary II of Scotland is not usually know as such, since she is better known by her other title of Mary II of England. As such "Mary, Queen of Scots", is still relatively uniquely identifying, since Her Majesty Mary II, Queen of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland would not usually be called that. john 22:59, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to sign in there. Yes, that statement is true, but it doesn't really alter what I said above. Deb 23:02, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, John. Your comment nicely covers any suggestion that the Royal site is inaccurate in this area. Dduck 10:14, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Name debate (2004)

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)

I'm prepared to follow www.royal.gov.uk in the matter of "official" titles. [1] states that they were William III and Mary II (and note also [2] which uses "Mary I" for bloody Mary), and [3] uses "Mary, Queen of Scots". Mary I of Scotland should certainly exist as a redirect, though. Onebyone 16:16, 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:

• Encyclopedia Britannica
• Encarta
• Columbia Encyclopedia
• Burke's Peerage
• Royal.gov
• The BBC

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)

No, the ship is Queen Mary 2, not Queen Mary II. It's the second ship named Queen Mary, not a ship named for someone named Mary II. RickK 01:21, 9 Feb 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:

Having therefore an entire confidence that his said Highness the prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance so far advanced by him, and will still preserve them from the violation of their rights which they have here asserted, and from all other attempts upon their religion, rights and liberties, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster do resolve that William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, be and be declared king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the crown and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them, the said prince and princess, during their lives and the life of the survivor to them, and that the sole and full exercise of the regal power be only in and executed by the said prince of Orange in the names of the said prince and princess during their joint lives, and after their deceases the said crown and royal dignity of the same kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body of the said princess, and for default of such issue to the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of her body, and for default of such issue to the heirs of the body of the said prince of Orange. And the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do pray the said prince and princess to accept the same accordingly.

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)

I very much doubt that you will find a contemporary reference to Mary of Orange as Mary II. What does that have to do with anything? Henry Tudor wasn't referred to as Henry VII, at least not generally. However, historians generally choose to identify monarchs by name+number rather than by the inconsistent nicknames and styles that were used in their time. If we're going to work based solely on general comtemporary use, then most English monarchs will need to be moved from their current articles. If we're going to work based on a "historically authentic" system, then it should be a well-recognised system, not one that we construct ourselves based on a primary reading of contemporary texts. Failing that, we fall back to using a simple system which fits all countries but doesn't match the real titles of the rulers involved.

This was the basis of Philip of Spain's claim to the English throne. At what time? By the Armada of 1588, his claim was that the Pope had given him permission to invade England and place whomever he chose on the throne. Onebyone 11:05, 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)

Ooh, no, please let's not start up that debate again! Deb 20:25, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Image Caption

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)

Is it possible they could both be right? She wasn't Queen of France for long before her husband died... Deb 16:40, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, there's still a difference of about one year between the two events...maybe I'm just being picky here, but I think that a picture of someone in mourning is something quite different from a picture of someone on their coronation day. Does anybody know where the image in question comes from? -- Ferkelparade 17:13, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I checked back through the history of the article, and it was one of many images imported by Isis, who was a bit of a law unto herself (see some of the "Talk" above if you doubt me). Bearing that in mind, it could have come from anywhere. Deb 17:23, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oy. I'll try and do some research, maybe i can find the original image somewhere... -- Ferkelparade 17:38, 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)

Reviving the name debate (2006)

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)?

Yes, you are. Deb 19:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I was very surprised to type "Mary, Queen of Scots", the name by which Mary is best known, and come to a disambiguation page. Surely that should be renamed Mary, Queen of Scots (disambiguation), Mary, Queen of Scots redirected to the main article and a message along the lines of "Mary, Queen of Scots" redirects here. For other uses of the name, see Mary, Queen of Scots (disambiguation) put at the beginning of the main article? HAM 11:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It seems like a no-brainer. Deb 16:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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))

Bloody Mary

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)

Good. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Canonised?

User:4.154.102.134 has changed the text from:

"Mary Stuart was canonised, and placed among the martyrs at the urging of members of the Society of Jesus."

to:

"Though Mary Stuart has not been canonised by the Catholic Church, many consider her a martyr, and there are relics of her."

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)

Stewart/Stuart?

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.

Mary/Elizabeth meeting schedule

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))

Succession question

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)

two pages for single article

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)

Don't worry. There is only one page. The first one that you mention is what is known as a "redirect page" which makes your browser show this article. Wikipedia often does this when an article may have more than one sensible title. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Life In France Section

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)

Mary signed the Bond of Assosiation?

There was a comment that "Mary herself" had signed the bond of assosiation, but should this actually be "Elizabeth herself" ?

Seems redundant, since OBVIOUSLY Elizabeth would have signed if she wanted to use it persecute her enemies. Perhaps the original author of the paragraph in question meant to say that the Bond was used to incriminate and/or execute thousands? ThePedanticPrick 16:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Mary signed it. Deb 17:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Major continuity, refernence citations, grammar, all sorts of fun stuff.

folks, this article needs some real editorial help. I'd refrain from adding anything until some major problems can be addressDschroder 06:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Elizabeth's Legitimacy.

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)

saint?

Was Mary ever canonized, I see no reason why not? -- Jim Bart

No she wasn't canonised. The fact that she was widely believed by her contemporaries to have been involved in her second husband's assassination and to have been sleeping with the hitman may have had something to do with it. Still, you're right. Who are we to be judgmental about it? -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Pizza

She liked to eat pizza on the weekend and on tuesdays! ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

Citation needed?! The above comment looks more like a joke than a statement of fact, assumed or otherwise.  —- Anna Kucsma 19:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Mary's upbringing

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)

It's quite open to you to attempt re-wording of that section to make it more NPOV, and I tend to agree with you that it could be. The information in your contribution above might also be of value if added to the article. Deb 11:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Article Disjointed

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)

Agree. IMHO most of the third-level sub-headings can be safely removed without any loss of meaning. --John Seward 19:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Errrrr......

"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...

Title (Name lack of debate - 2006/7)

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)

I assume this anonymous comment is from User:James5555. Any move of this page should be made only after completion of the Requested Move procedure. The arguments put forward above are not new - they have been discussed many times and the page should not be moved simply because one person thinks it should. Deb 10:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Deb is quite correct. To summarise, Mary I of Scotland is the article's title not Mary's title. Please read the archives above for a longer discussion of the difference between correct titles of Wikipedia articles and correct titles of Scottish monarchs. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Geesh. I worry for the future of wikipedia if this is your reaction.

I worry about the future of Wikipedia too. Have done for years. Welcome to the club, <grin>. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:14, 12 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

Sure. We usually know what we're talking about, <grin>. We even know when to use "your" and when to use "you're" in a sentence. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Was Mary Stuart cousin of Elizabeth Tudor?

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)

By my calculations, that would make them second cousins once removed, not aunt and niece. Deb 12:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Cousin" seems to have been generically, both then and now, for first cousins, second cousins, and all sorts of extended relations.

Deb, I believe that Mary Stuart and Elizabeth Tudor are first cousins once removed, not second. Here's my understanding:

• The degree or number of a cousin depends on the closest common ancestor. I think of this as the G-rule: if you share a Grandparent (one G), you are first cousins. If you share a Great-Grandparent (two Gs), you are second cousins.

• Elizabeth Tudor and James V have a grandfather in common (Henry VII), and so they are first cousins.
• If Elizabeth had had a son Leicester, he and Mary Stuart would have had a great-grandparent in common (Henry VII) and so would be second cousins.

• Removal indicates different numbers of generations to the common ancestor.

• Two generations from Elizabeth Tudor to Henry VII.
• Three generations from Mary Stuart to Henry VII.

• The practice is to measure removal from the individual who is closer to the common ancestor.

• If you "raised" Mary to the same generation as Elizabeth, they would have a grandfather in common and be first cousins.
• Mary is one generation removed from Elizabeth, hence, they are first cousins once removed.

To the unnamed commentor: To be Elizabeth Tudor's niece, Mary Stuart would have to be the child of one of Elizabeth's siblings (Mary Tudor or Edward); that generation of Tudors was remarkably childless. (As daughter of Henry VIII, Elizabeth was the niece of her father's sister, Margaret Tudor; as son on Margaret Tudor, James V was nephew of his mother's brother, Margaret Tudor.)

— OtherDave 16:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll go along with that! Deb 17:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I should have added that since nieces and nephews are the children of siblings, they are also first cousins of one another -- e.g., all of my mother's nieces and nephews are my first cousins, since my mother's children and the children of my mother's siblings, are grandchildren of my mother's parents. — OtherDave 18:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Mary's succession

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

You'll need to give more details about the man. I suspect he was a descendant of one of the illegitimate sons of Walter, son of Murdoch of Albany. Michael Sanders 19:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. I looked it up on thepeerage.com (http://www.thepeerage.com/p10796.htm#i107959) and apparently Walter Stewart, Feudal Baron of Morphie was born illegitimately. Confusingly, he was legitimized when he was more than 50 years old! The question is, could one of his male-line descendants have claimed the throne when James V died or would that claimant have been considered as belonging to an illegitimate branch of the Stewarts despite the legitimization of Walter Stewart, Feudal Baron of Morphie? FrinkMan 20:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Legitimised descendants are rarely considered to be eligible for the succession, unless specifically stated as being so by the King or Parliament, because they don't derive from a lawful and/or consecrated marriage. In this case, it would appear (judging by the lack of any sort of inclusion of these Stewarts on family trees, and the Salic convention) that they were not regarded as part of the succession. Michael Sanders 21:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks! I'll add the following sentence to the article: "Mary ascended to the throne because all other unquestionably legitimate male heirs of the royal house had died before the death of her father James V". FrinkMan 21:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought Mary succeeded to throne because she had no surving brothers. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the article itself, Scotland had a semi-salic law in place - if there'd been any direct descendants of Robert II still living when James V died, they'd have inherited rather than Mary, supposedly. However, I'm reading The True Life of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots by John Guy, and he says nothing about any such salic convention. Needs investigating, I think. Michael Sanders 21:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Religious divide

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)

No. Deb 21:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Mary returned to Scotland less than a year after her husband's death and almost twenty years after her father's death. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Stewart or Stuart?

Moved question to List of Scottish monarchs. TharkunColl (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hats Production of Mary, Queen of Scots Got Her Head Chopped Off.jpg

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)

Twins?

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)

It's simple. When she miscarried them, people could see the two little bodies of the babies ---- (Kaho Mitsuki) 00:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Mary I's titles

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)

Physical Description

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)

Coded messages, decrypted

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)

Inconsistent Naming

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)

Image copyright problem with Image:MaryStuartPlay.jpg

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

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

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)

Lady Jane Grey

why was she beheaded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.159.157 (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Because she would not admit to Mary Tudor that she was not the rightful heir to the throne. She was put there because she was a Protestant, and Mary Tudor was a Catholic married to the Spanish King. She was the Queen for a little while, but the English were not Protestants in general, they followed what Henry VIII had established, which was the Church of England. When her general support diminished, Mary Tudor came, and wanted her to apologise and admit that she had been a usurper of the throne. When she didn't, she was beheaded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.246.7.153 (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, while she was alive she could be a rallying point for all Protestants (or non-Catholics) against the Catholic Queen Mary. She was a threat. Mary's little half-sister Elizabeth was, too. But she was at the Palace and was loyal to her sister Mary (at least for the purpose of staying alive, she was.) Bigmac31 (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Problems editing

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)

A typo?

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)

burial

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)

Protection needed

Can this article be protected? Someone is persistantly vandalising it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've temporarily protected the page so it can only be edited by registered users. Deb (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

New file File:Landing of Mary Queen of Scots (Mary, Queen of Scots) from NPG borderless.jpg

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)

New file File:Mary, Queen of Scots being led to execution by William Luson Thomas.jpg

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)

error

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)

Question About Darnley

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)

Last letter of Mary Queen of Scots to go on display

• Queen wrote she had God-given right to English crown before execution, The Times

--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)

Thanks for pointing that out, as it was overlooked by subsequent edits made to the article. Unfortunately, Mary I of Scotland gets vandalised on a regular basis. I'm glad you noticed the chunk of missing text.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Citations Added

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)

Had John Stewart tried to claim the throne he would have most likely ignited civil war in Scotland. Mary was the legitimate child of James V and there would have been many people to back up her claim with armed intervention. And remember Mary had powerful relations in France-namely the Guises.--jeanne (talk) 06:07, 20 September 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)

Line of Succession

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)

Quite right too. Deb (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Gordon Donaldson's 'Kings of Scotland' (p. 34-35) says that it was an official act of Parliament:

"Almost exactly two years later, in a parliament held at Scone on 4 April 1373, a much more elaborate act of sucession, amounting to an entail of the crown, was passed with the consent of 'the prelates, earls, barons and the rest of the chief men and nobles of all others of the three estates or communities of the whole realm there asembled.' The crown was now destined to pass successively to John, Earl of Carrick, and his heirs male, whom failing to the King's second son, Robert, Earl of Fife and Menteith, and his heirs male, whom failing to Alexander, Lord of Badenoch, the King's third son, and his heirs male, whom failing to David, Earl of Strathearn, the King's fourth son, and his heirs male, whom failing to Walter, youngest of the King, and his heirs male, 'and the foresaid five brothers and thir heirs male decending from them happening finally and wholly to fail (which God forbid), the true an lawful heirs of the royal blood and kin shall thenceforward succeed to the kingdom and the right of reigning.' It is curious, and significant of the force attached to statute rather than blood, that, although the crown had come to the Stewarts through a female, it was now laid down that it was not to be transmitted through a female, except possiby on the extinction of all the male lines decended from Robert II. In fact, as will appear, the male line of the first five sons coninued in unbroken, though tenuous, succession until the death of James V in 1542. But at that point (when, as it happened, the male lines of all the other sons of Robert II had long died out), the crown went not to any man but to the late King's infant daughter, Mary, Queen of Scots."

Hope that helps. Colemic (talk) 00:04, 21 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)

That sounds like it answers the point. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:10, 21 April 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)

First cousin once removed, I think (or maybe second cousin once removed). But the word "cousin" used to be a general term for any relation. Deb (talk) 22:12, 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)

Margaret Tudor was not Mary's mother, she was her paternal grandmother. Mary's mother was Mary of Guise, therefore she and Elizabeth were not first cousins.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. And as Deb said, the technical term for their family relationship is "first cousins, once removed". Mary's father, James V, was Elizabeth's first cousin, and if Elizabeth had had a child, that child would have been Mary's second cousin. Mary's child, James VI, was Elizabeth's first cousin, twice removed. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:30, 15 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)

No problem.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

New Image

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)

Heritage

"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)

It's been corrected to Robert III.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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"

• Strongly support. I agree it should be moved to Mary, Queen of Scots, for the main reason that she is normally known by this name rather than Mary I of Scotland, which is actually a misnomer as there was no Mary II of Scotland. Virtually every biography on Mary Stuart is titled Mary, Queen of Scots, never Mary I of Scotland. In point of fact, a reader would most likely be confused when confronted by the latter name.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, Mary II of England was also Mary II of Scotland, and Google Scholar yields a few hits for that name. That does not diminish your more important argument, that Mary, Queen of Scots, is the much more commonly used name. Ucucha 18:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support I think in this case WP:COMMONNAME is is more appropriate than following the guidelines of WP:NCROY.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I was surprised to see this title. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support per all, especially Ladattblueboy & Jeanne B, although WP:NCROY is clear (see the opening section) that it does not aspire to overide WP:COMMON. This is a perennial issue - see the talk page archive. Johnbod (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support although as a general rule I am cautious about abandoning the naming convention for monarchs, I think this is one case where the common name is just so common we have to accept it. Not allowing the odd exception like this is the sort of thing which can bring consistent naming standards for monarchs into disrepute. PatGallacher (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as ...of Scotland is used by her Scottish predecessors. It's Monarch name Ordinal & country, there's no such country as 'Scots'. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The people of Scotland are called Scots, hence Mary, Queen of Scots. The reason most editors support the proposed move is due to the fact that she is better known by the name Mary, Queen of Scots than Mary I of Scotland.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind it in the content. But the title must remain, see (for example) Robert II of Scotland, James V of Scotland, David I of Scotland, etc. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - She is not the only Mary who was Queen of Scots. There were four other Scottish queens called Mary, three of which also used the title 'Queen of Scots'. That (and possible inconsistency) concerns me a bit even though "Mary Queen of Scots" usually refers to this Queen Mary. Surtsicna (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There is already a hatnote link to Mary, Queen of Scots (disambiguation), which also has the films etc. Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose — common usage should not be parroted when it adds ambiguity or confusion, and as is mentioned above this is more of a role - a job title if you like - than a name. – Kieran T ^(talk) 20:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support — for almost all ordinary readers this will be clearer and less confusing. Obviously there should still be a hatnote directing people to the less important queens of the Scots called Mary. Grafen (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - interesting to see use of "queen of THE Scots" above. Highlights the inadequacy of the phrase. What is meant by "the Scots"? She wasn't some sort of campaign idol, queen of the Scottish diaspora. She was queen of a nation-state, Scotland, and that word, Scotland, is what should be in the page title. 81.178.67.229 (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - this comes up for Mary every couple of years. However the introduction of this "replace-the-Wikipedia-standard-with-some-other-name" concept has not proved beneficial in the two cases where it has been tried -- the Polish and the Japanese monarchies. In fact there it led to confusion when it was tried a few years ago as a result of the deviation from the standard Wikipedia naming convention. As "Mary, Queen of Scots" already exists as a redirect and typing "Mary Queen of Scots" into Google leads directly to this article as #1 result, this proposal will have no benefit other than to make a few Wikipedians feel more comfortable. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the titling of Polish monarchs has become a mess (although I wasn't aware of any problem with Japan) but that doesn't mean that we can't allow the odd exception for a very well-known figure who is overwhelmingly known by a particular name. PatGallacher (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That is what redirects are for. And we do use them for this article. Japan may have been sorted out now but a few years ago you needed to know the death name (as opposed to the reigning name) before you could find our Japanese emperor articles owing to the efforts of an enthusiastic Japanese monarchist. This was Not A Good Thing... -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - clear-cut open-and-shut case of WP:COMMONNAME. Regardless of anyone else that might have used the title, invariably when people refer to "Mary, Queen of Scots", they mean this one. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If one were to walk into a bookshop or library and ask for a biography on Mary I of Scotland, he or she would most likely receive blank looks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

All the more reason to educate people! ;-) 78.141.29.200 (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Jean Plaidy was wrong to call her book, "Royal Road to Fotheringhay", then. It must confuse many people who end up with Antonia Fraser's book instead. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I understand the reasoning, but it is simply not true that the title Mary I of Scotland is not commonly used. Therefore there is no reason to break the convention. Deb (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The proposed title appears to be overwhelmingly more common in reliable sources, as the link given by the nominator indicate. Wikipedia ought to follow those sources. Ucucha 21:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The proposed title is undoubtedly the commonest title of the Queen. However we are talking about the title of an article about the Queen here, not about the Queen herself. And the commonest form for titles of articles about monarchs in Wikipedia is "Name n of Country", not "Name, Queen of People", or even "Commonest Name of Monarch". The reliable sources that you mention use the title for the Queen, not for the Wikipedia article on the Queen. And we are talking here about renaming the article, not the Queen. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name for the subject of the article." Ucucha 12:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we are going to cite policy, let's cite the specific policy on Royalty rather than the generic policy on toothpicks, star signs and Pokemon characters. The specific policy on Royalty gives the rules which govern the title of this article. In particular the specific policy contains a statement, "use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem". It then follows with a list of rules which cover everything applicable to this article. There is no specific problem. In short this article is currently at the title prescribed by Wikipedia policy. The proposed move would be against Wikipedia policy. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Our naming policies don't work like that. If anything, WP:COMMONNAME would overrule the royalty convention. It is clearly not in dispute that this person is by far most commonly referred to as "Mary, Queen of Scots", and by far the person most commonly known by that name. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, "use the common name" is an incredibly powerful rule in that this one rule allows us to decide on the article titles for toothpicks, star signs, Pokemon characters, and Queens of Scots. Ucucha 05:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Then why on earth do we bother having so many other rules on article titles? There would appear to be no reason to have specific policy on Royal article titles (or any other specialist titles) if we are just going to ignore it and use commonest name. Since there is specific policy -- and has been since 2002 -- it suggests that commonest name is not the best answer in all cases. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The naming rules aren't prescriptive, and they're not to be applied in a legalistic fashion. This is what I think you fail to understand here. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

So if you realise that rules are not to be applied in a legalistic fashion why do you appear to be so determined to apply the "commonest name" rule as if it overruled all others? That's what I really fail to understand. I've been working on these Royalty articles since 2001 and I know why we have these rules because I've experienced the problems that occurred when we didn't and when we have strayed from them. My reason for supporting the status quo is that it works better than the alternative in my experience; not because it is some God-given rule in policy. In fact since I evaluate all actions in terms of whether they are good for the encyclopedia or not, I don't really care whether there is an actual policy rule on it but since you and others raised the policy argument as the primary reason for your opinion, I thought it only sensible to address the issue in those terms. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support "Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name" Flamarande (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Implying "rareness" which really isn't the case with "Mary I" which isn't rare, merely less common in colloquial publications; the opposite is true (i.e. "Mary I" is more common) in formal histories and academic texts that I've ever used, where frankly "Mary" is the commonest abbreviation or simplification used — and yet I trust nobody will suggest renaming this article to "Mary". This discussion shows only that there's no consensus for change. 81.178.67.229 (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see why Mary should be excluded from naming rules used for every Scottish monarch. Dimadick (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's very easy. No other Scottish monarch has a more common name in a different format. See the policy. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, a point could be made that Robert I is equally known as Robert the Bruce, and there is also William the Lion; this however, doesn't change my support for the proposed move.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"Equally known as" in the sense of "recognised equally well using the other name..." or "equally frequently renamed as..."? Because like Mary, he's much more commonly known by the colloquial name in colloquial references, but that doesn't make it right to rename his article, because it's not an official title, merely a popular one. What about England's Richard the Lionheart? This could be never-ending and would lead to confusion for anyone navigating through the monarchs over time. 81.178.67.229 (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support, obviously, per "common usage in reliable sources". Our guidelines for naming royalty are simply meant to guide editors, not to overrule policy.
  • Retha M. Warnicke, Mary Queen of Scots (2006)
  • Jane E.A. Dawson, The politics of religion in the age of Mary, Queen of Scots (2002)
  • Gordon Donaldson, The first trial of Mary, Queen of Scots (1983)
  • Gordon Donaldson, Mary, Queen of Scots (1974)

Cavila (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There is also:

• Antonia Fraser, Mary, Queen of Scots, 1969
• Stefan Zweig, Mary, Queen of Scotland and the Isles or alternatively Queen of Scots

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)

Comment — These book titles are irrelevant. They are populist titles, designed to attract the reader to a commercial product. (Please note, I'm not disparaging the quality of any of the books.) Thankfully, Wikipedia does not need to be populist. We don't need to attract readers to an article. They will come if they are interested. And as has been said, there is a perfectly functional redirect in place. It ain't broke, so don't "fix" it. – Kieran T ^(talk) 15:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Common use and common names are NEVER irrelevant. I thought that Wikipedia was meant to be used by average readers (who will use common names). Kieran made it clear that I was mistaken: "Wikipedia does not need to be populist. We don't need to attract readers to an article. They will come if they are interested." Welcome to the elitist wiki. Here we blindly obey the rules and disregard common names. Welcome to Napoleon I of France and Victoria of the United Kingdom. English names? Ohh you poor ignorant fool. This the technical language wiki. Flamarande (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I consider those remarks to be deeply patronising to the readership. Correctness and accuracy are not élitist. However, not wishing to get into a flame war, I shall say no more on the subject! Happy editing to all :-) – Kieran T ^(talk) 17:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The gscholar results clearly show that "Mary, Queen of Scots" is the norm in academic literature. It is "Mary I of Scotland" that is the non-academic title chosen on the basis of a wikipedia rule. This is one of the reasons it is a bad choice: wikipedia looks amateurish if it uses a name that hardly anyone else in the field uses. We should follow the same practice as reliable sources, and that practice is "Mary, Queen of Scots". DrKiernan (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not the normal usage in encyclopaedias. Deb (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Collier's (1967), the New Standard (1932), the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004), and Ashley's "Mammoth Book of British Kings & Queens" (1998) all use it. DrKiernan (talk) 18:52, 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)

On the contrary, there is consensus to move. Not only is there a majority to do so, but the reliable sources overwhelmingly support a move. You've provided virtually no sources, if any, in support of the current title and your arguments are weak. DrKiernan (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DrKiernan. There are no sources provided which show Mary as Mary I of Scotland-except in the current article at Wikipedia. I think we have consensus to move it to Mary,Queen of Scots.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

10 - 5 in favour of a move, isn't overly convincing (and such a move would violate the current naming conventions). I reckon it's up to the closing administrator, to decide the results. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You keep claiming that "such a move would violate the current naming conventions", but this is what the policy section on "sovereigns" actually says: "If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion, Skanderbeg, etc...". But there must be consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet; and the name must actually be unambiguous." It is obvious to a clear majority of those commenting here that these conditions are met. Arguments based on "the conventions" which do not produce any evidence are essentially circular, and fail when it is clear that the nomination is in fact in agreement with the conventions. Johnbod (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a consitancy buff. If we move this article? it'll come out of line with the other Scottish monarch articles' titles. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's 11-5 in favor of a move, and the arguments should also be taken into account when judging consensus. Anyway, the move isn't even against the conventions: you keep forgetting that they are only guidelines which allow exceptions, particularly where there is an overwhelmingly used commonname. DrKiernan (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Correct, I forgot to count the nominator. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The current title is actually against WP:UCN, which is policy. WP:NCROY is merely a guideline and can't override policy, and as Johnbod argues, the proposed move isn't even against NCROY. And let's leave the determination of consensus to the closing admin. Ucucha 17:47, 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)

• Support move per above arguments that it is the most common way to reference this person. Propaniac (talk) 16:58, 18 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)

Requested moves is often backlogged; there's actually another request that has been open since January 22. We should just be patient. Ucucha 19:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving the article is gonna be a mistake. It'll be out of line with the other Scottish monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I for one would support moving Robert the Bruce to keep her company, if that's any help! Johnbod (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a consistancy buff. The current conventions call for Monarch # of coutnry, this is how all monarchial titles should be until/if the conventions are changed. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's called a convention, not a rule. Unconventional is not the same thing as incorrect. Propaniac (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support per WP:common name Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support I agree with the others, it's by far the more common name. I think this should be done for more monarch titles too, e.g. Richard I, William I, William II etc. Convention is all very well, but why make things difficult? Aiken ♫ 23:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  • • It's been 2-weeks people. Time for an adminstrator to review & close this. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Hear hear.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
• Records of her time call her "Mary Queen of Scots" or similar..."; but since then the Mary of William and Mary became Queen Mary II of England and of Scotland; same as Queen Elizabeth of England became Queen Elizabeth I when Queen Elizabeth II came to the throne. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That's true for any King or Queen of Scotland. Their official title is "James, King of Scots" or "Robert, King of Scots", or whatever. So it's not surprising that records of her time call her that. When Charles II was crowned in Scotland, he too, became Charles, King of Scots. But the argument here is not about the Queen's title,: everyone agrees what that was; it's about the article title: should it be the same as the Queen's title or should it be in the same form as the title of the other Royalty articles on Wikipedia. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

She is still called "Mary, Queen of Scots", as clearly shown by the sources given. The later Marys have had very little impact on what this Mary is called. The same disambiguation that was used to distinguish her from Queen Mary of England is used today. DrKiernan (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support move it is what she's always called, and it is her proper Scottish title to boot.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support move per WP:COMMONNAME, etc. Wknight94 ^talk 12:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support move. Mary, Queen of Scots already redirects here so it appears to be the primary topic. As it is also the common name, I see no reason why it shouldn't be moved. Quantpole (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't see the logic there. When there's a redirect in place, it implies nothing about what the primary topic is, merely that somebody thought a redirect was a good idea. 81.178.67.229 (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• It's fairly obvious that there is overwhelming consensus to move the article, so could an administer please close the discussion before this section becomes longer than the talk page itself?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What's fairly obvious is that there are some very strong opinions; and (not said sarcastically) some people very attached to seeing this move done, and a.s.a.p. However, I still feel the point that needs to be resolved is about policies and guidelines. Some have said the common-use concept is more "standard" and "consistent" but I believe the more-specific royalty naming guideline is more relevant, and that's why it exists in the first place: for this kind of case. If we suddenly have out-of-sequence names for monarchs, it makes it slightly harder and less usable for people who don't know the nicknames (foreigners, perhaps) to follow the flow of history. Why would we injure our usability in that way? 81.178.67.229 (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a nickname. It's the name used by virtually all reliable sources. DrKiernan (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Infobox image

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)

Yes, I prefer it. DrKiernan (talk)

I reverted back to the Clouet's portrait.--Kaho Mitsuki (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Featured article

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)

Infamous ? Not at all. I think that most people have sympathy for her. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Introduction looks fine

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)

I'm glad we agree. I would also propose referring to her as [[Mary, Queen of Scots|Mary I]]:

1. whenever it is obvious that we are talking about a Scottish ruler (e.g. "James V was succeeded by his daughter, Mary I"),
2. in succession boxes (e.g. listing James VI's predecessor as "Mary I" rather than as "Mary, Queen of Scots" because it is obvious that the female predecessor of a King of Scots was Queen of Scots),
3. of course, in Template:Scottish monarchs and List of Scottish monarchs,
4. and whenever she is mentioned along with another Queen of Scots named Mary (in such circumstances [[Mary, Queen of Scots|Mary I, Queen of Scots]] would also be fine).

That way we would avoid undesirable redundancy and ambiguity. Surtsicna (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't work because she is too often mentioned in the same article as Mary I of England. Readers will assume that "Mary I" is Bloody Mary rather than Mary, Queen of Scots, or they will assume they are the same person, as in Mary II. Her mother can be disambiguated from her by using "Mary of Guise". DrKiernan (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I never said that she should always be referred to as "Mary I". Obviously, when mentioned in the same article as Mary I of England, she should be mentioned as "Mary, Queen of Scots". However, when mentioned as predecessor of James VI or as successor of James V, there is no need to refer to her as "Mary, Queen of Scots" because it is obvious that their female predecessor/successor was Queen of Scots. Her mother can be disambiguated from her by using "Mary of Guise" but Mary I can't be disambiguated from her mother (and great-great-grandmother and great-great-granddaughter) by using "Mary, Queen of Scots". I.e. all those women were also named Mary and titled Queen of Scots. I don't see how including the ordinal (such as [[Mary, Queen of Scots|Mary I, Queen of Scots]]) can hurt. Surtsicna (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"Mary II, Queen of Scots", should never be used.[7] She is Mary II. Mary of Guelders can be called just that to disambiguate from the other Scottish Queen Marys. You are trying to force the use of a term which is hardly ever used in reliable sources. She should be referred to as "Mary, Queen of Scots" whenever possible because that is the vastly predominant usage. DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Who mentioned Mary II, Queen of Scots? How can you say that I am trying to force anything when I am just discussing? Discussing can hardly be considered forcing. Anyway, do you believe that we should refer to her as "Mary, Queen of Scots" even in Template:Scottish monarchs and List of Scottish monarchs? Surtsicna (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely support Surtsicna in this view. Mary I of Scotland is very frequently referred to by this title. Just because some people find it hard to tell the difference between Mary Tudor and Mary Stuart without using the "common name", that is no reason to dumb down the whole article. Deb (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at the reliable sources, Deb. They do not use the term. Because people find it hard to tell the difference is exactly the reason why we should educate them by making the difference clear. DrKiernan (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I support referring her as "Mary, Queen of Scots" in circumstances other than those I mentioned above. However, I believe that mentioning the predecessor of James VI as "Mary, Queen of Scots" in the succession box of James I of England article is a bit pointless. It is obvious that the female predecessor of a King of Scots was Queen of Scots. Surtsicna (talk) 11:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it clear that James I's predecessor was Mary I? No, because his predecessor was not Mary I. It was Elizabeth I. Who was Elizabeth I's predecessor? Ah, I see it was Mary I. This is how confusion arises. Clearly, in general it is unnecessary to disambiguate successors/predecessors by country, because they are only succeeding in one country. However, in the unique case of James I it is best to use different terminology. DrKiernan (talk) 11:50, 28 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)

I don't think either of your alternatives helps readers. "Mary I" is ambiguous. "Elizabeth I" is not. I don't think hiding information behind piped links is helpful either. DrKiernan (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DrKiernan. Mary I in the succession box is confusing to readers. A mention of Mary I of Scotland in the introduction in the lead is sufficient, but the rest of the article needs to stick with Mary, Queen of Scots for consistancy's sake.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Have it appear as Mary I in the successions boxes. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's too confusing, GoodDay. People are bound to think Mary I means Mary Tudor. Remember just because you and I are familiar with 16th century Scottish and English history doesn't mean others are.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

But this will be in the Scottish monarchs succession box. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

We still need to be consistant with her name and title.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Nay; nobody seems to be confusing Henry VII, Holy Roman Emperor with Henry VII of England, in the succession boxes at Holy Roman Emperors Frederick II & Louis IV articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

But Henry VII of England had nothing to do with the Holy Roman Empire, whereas Mary Stuart was a queen regnant of Scotland with a strong claimant to the English throne and her son succeeded Elizabeth who in turn had succeeded Mary I of England. This is where confusion could arise. Mary, Queen of Scots eliminates the possibility.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Not if it's in the Scottish monarchs succession box. I'm sticking with using [Mary, Queen of Scots|Mary I]. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's just nonsense to suggest that no one knows what Mary I means, in the context of Scotland. I'm shocked that anyone would suggest that this is true. I can see a reason for trying to correct ignorance by pointing in the right direction, but absolutely no reason to pander to it. Deb (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I know what it means, GoodDay knows what it means, you know what it means, but not every reader would; therefore we do have to pander to those readers who are not as blessed as we are.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

But wouldn't it be obvious that the Mary I who predeceased James VI as King of Scots was Queen of Scots? Therefore, wouldn't it be obvious that she was Mary, Queen of Scots? It's like saying that, in the King of England-succession box, we should refer to the successor of Charles II as "James, King of England" instead of "James II" because somebody may confuse him with James II of Scotland, for both were James II and Kings of Scots. Surtsicna (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree. Deb (talk) 12:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

So, what have we concluded? Surtsicna (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we can conclude two things (1) that the Template and List you mention above in point 3 already show "Mary I" and that does not appear to be contested; and (2) that in most cases she should be called "Mary, Queen of Scots", in preference to other forms. The other points are inconclusive. Perhaps the best way forward on these is to settle them on an individual case-by-case basis on the talk pages of the articles concerned. So, if a change to the form used in James VI is contested, then the discussion of which form is to be used in the article should be settled at that article's talk page. DrKiernan (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Queen regnant

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)

I wouldn't mind as it's an undisputed fact. Go ahead and add it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought that "Mary, Queen of Scots, was Scottish monarch [...]" was a better sentence than "Mary, Queen of Scots, was Queen regnant of Scots [...]". A queen regnant is a monarch while a queen consort isn't. Thus, if we say that she was a Scottish monarch, nobody should think that she was a Scottish queen consort. On the other hand, we do not repeat the title "queen of Scots" as we do in the sentence: "Mary, Queen of Scots, was Queen regnant of Scots [...]" But I am not a native speaker so your opinion outranks mine. Surtsicna (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I was going by Margaret II of Denmark & Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom for examples. Perhaps, 'Queen regnant' is only used for current female monarchs, not sure. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Every female ruler of a kingdom is queen regnant. However, the article about (for example) Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom doesn't start with "Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom, is Queen regnant of the United Kingdom". But don't mind me if you disagree regarding this "problem". Surtsicna (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

My latest edit, Scottish Queen regnant seems to have solved things. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks fine, GoodDay.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Move

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)

It'll get moved back, so as to be consistant with the others. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

PS- Mary I (Scotland) would've been better. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That's even worse. Aiken ♫ 14:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

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)

I agree and have amended links accordingly. Deb (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I still believe that "Mary, Queen of Scots, was Scottish monarch..." is better than "Mary, Queen of Scots, was Scottish queen regnant..." We should avoid redundancy as much as possible. Surtsicna (talk) 11:49, 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)

A regent is not the same thing as "queen regnant". Mary was queen regnant from craddle until her abdication. The term "Regent Regnant" was never used. See the articles regent and queen regnant It's not incorrect to call Mary a queen regnant. It's simply repetitive, as she is already called "Mary, Queen of Scots". Surtsicna (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ancestor of Marie Antoinette

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)

That's interesting but also trivial, for one could argue that she had more in common with her closer descendant, Charles I of Scotland. Both were beheaded Scottish monarchs of the House of Stuart. Surtsicna (talk) 22:43, 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

Mary, Queen of Scots was also the ancestor of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia and his consort, Alexandra of Hesse; they were executed along with their children, who by extension were obviously descendants of Mary. Just to specify Marie Antoinette would look imcomplete and, as Surtsicna points out, rather trivial. We'd have to mention far too many people as we could then go on to include all her descendants who had been forced to abdicate and the article would become unwieldy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

Interesting, but not remarkable, seeing as European royalty is very intermarried, thereby giving Mary Stuart numerous direct descendants amongst nearly all of Europe's royal families. I can also use the example of the two wives of Henry VIII who were both beheaded for High Treason and adultery: Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard; these two unfortunate ladies happened to be first cousins. In fact, all of his wives had King Edward I of England as a common ancestor.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Darnley's murder

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)

You're putting a lot of faith in this "contemporary" sketch. It is likely that someone was actually present at the time, drawing Darnley as he lay dying? Deb (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for comments, Deb: Re comment 1. No, just focussing on it. Re Comment 2. Somewhat facetious, obviously no one present at the time drawing, hardly need say to you it was surely drawn from an account of what was found in the garden and reports of the other events, done pictorially for the benefit of those who could not read. P0mbal (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is it dated? I am not trying to pour cold water on your arguments, just wondering why the drawing should carry any weight. Deb (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible to scan the drawing onto your PC then upload it here, that way we can all see it and evaluate its importance?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

These drawings were made at the time to be sent by Thomas Randolph to the English government, and are retained by the UK Public Record Office. In addition to Kirk o'Field there is a coloured sketch of the Confederate Lord's banner at the Battle of Carberry Hill (in exact agreement with a contemporary description), and the ink drawing of the Mermaid & Hare device which Lady Antonia used as a chapter heading. Not exactly pro-Mary, but not anti-Marian either, and certainly contemporary documents.Unoquha (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC) And here is the drawing of the Battle of Carberry Hill itself,Unoquha (talk) 12:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see your reasoning, but of course there would be many eye-witnesses to a battle, whose experiences could be drawn on. Darnley's death would seem to be another matter. Deb (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is the drawing. It is in the article Kirk o'Field

1567 drawing of Kirk o' Field after the murder of Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley drawn for Cecil (William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley) shortly after the murder.

P0mbal (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for image, P0mbal, I put it on Darnley's page too. Imagine, there is a Kirk'o'field article! As the infant James VI recites the same motto as the Carberry drawing, I guess it dates nearer that battle than the murder, but I've not seen a serious critique of these drawings.Unoquha (talk) 20:07, 2 December 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)

There are already two images in the section. I have a suggestion. Why not create a subsection entitled Kirk o'Field? That way we could include the drawing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't know about that - it's already a very long article and that's possibly why Kirk o' Field was given its own separate article in the first place. Deb (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I have already broken the section up. What do you think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

More than enough room here, as there is so much incident the present article doesn't touch on. Stirling Baptism anyone?Unoquha (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Royal Monogram.

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)

There are three problems with it:

1. It's unsourced original research. Please provide a reference showing that Mary used the English colors rather than Scottish ones.
2. It's unnecessary. There is already a depiction of the monogram. It is unwise to load articles with images that duplicate information, both on the basis of aesthetics (clutters the page) and scholastics (adds no further information) but also on the basis of accessibility (not everyone lives in a first world country with a fast download time and a speedy computer - the more images an article has the more difficult it is for people using shaky connections or old computers to download the page).
3. It's trivial. Articles should not be a collection of miscellaneous information; images should be integrated with the text. The monogram isn't explained or detailed anywhere, and why should it? No other biography of Mary mentions it, except in the context of her embroidery or coinage. So, it would be better to show a real example as used or made by Mary.

Secondarily, there's a behavioral problem. You've done this before on other articles, where you edit war to include your artwork. Per WP:BRD and WP:Consensus, if someone reverts your edit, you should not revert the revert. You should go to discussion or seek a compromise. DrKiernan (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I do agree with Dr Kiernan that it is not appropriate to upload the monogram into an already crowded article. Why not create a separate article where all the monograms for British monarchs can appear in one place? Deb (talk) 12:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The colours arguement is the most trivial argument I've ever seen. I see no reason why the monogram shouldn't be on the page of the person it represents. Also, unsourced? It matches the coin, that DrKiernan keeps replacing it with, exactly, despite his claimed "original" in his first revert. A Monogram, just like a Coat of Arms or a Royal Standard, is a personal thing, unique to a single person. That is why it should be here. Lastly, my "behavour" is completely irrelevant to whether or not a certain picture or file should be on an article or not, and I don't appreciate you trying to blend them. Also note, this ISN'T my artwork, it was created by another user. Fry1989 (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that your behaviour isn't relevant. But you will agree that the article is crowded and there isn't really room for duplicate information? Deb (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. The page is heavily illustrated. But surely there is somewhere we can put it? Fry1989 (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I did make a suggestion above. Deb (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Deb's suggestion. A separate article on British monarchs' monograms sounds like an excellent idea.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with a seperate page, but I think it's silly not to have a person's monogram ontheir page. What are you gonna do? Have a seealso tag on every monarch's page leading to this master page just to see their monogram? That's rediculous. Fry1989 (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

There are some images on the page, apart from the subject of this discussion, which seem odd, and to me odder than the subject. A C19th illustration of Mary arriving in a row-boat at (I think) a deep-water haven, and a C19th video of her execution, and more relevant to this theme; her heraldry with supporters from 1559-1560 which has no source. Throwing any of these, or others, overboard might save bandwidth.Unoquha (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the point is that the monogram is already featured in the article. Deb (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

^^^Only because that coin was placed there by someone who appears to have a personal vendetta against vector monograms. As per this talk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_VI_of_the_United_Kingdom#Inclusion_of_Monogram, he even admits to a JPEG being correct, but is still against the vector OF that Jpeg. Fry1989 (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm only interested in this article (for the moment). I would say that the coin adds more to the article than the monogram. I also agree that some of the other pictorial additions need revisiting. Deb (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

My point is, the contradictions in his arguments invalidates them, and he should be ignored. Now, if you, and others feel that the coin is more appropriate, that's fine with me. You haven't contradicted yourself more times then I can count regarding this matter. Fry1989 (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't contradicted myself at any point. My view remains exactly what it was at the start. DrKiernan (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you have. By saying that a SVG monogram is wrong, then later admiting that an identical JPEG of it is right, that is a contradiction. And there are many others. Fry1989 (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The coin is correct. The svg image is wrong as you have introduced colors which are not there in the original. The svg and jpg images are not the same: one is correct and one is not. DrKiernan (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, since you clearly have problems paying attention to detail, let me make something clear to you. A: I didn't make the monogram, so stop saying it's mine. B: The monograms are identical, and if your issue is really the colour, that can easily be changed, and isn't reason to remove the vector all together. C: once again, you've admitted the coin is correct, which contradicts your second source of the embroidery book cover. It's one or the other, not both. Fry1989 (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

On B, they are not identical; one is color and the other is not. As I've already pointed out above, there are 2 other issues in addition to the problem of the color. DrKiernan (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you read? i said they're identical except in colour, I've said that many times. But you continue to ignore that vector colours can be easily changed. And in case you're wondering why I haven't changed it's colour to please you, it's because: if you're to lazy to politely engage in correcting the problem, by either asking the colours be changed, or the monogram be fixed in design, instead of this long song and dance of removing it, when besides those two issues, you've pretty much admitted it's correct, then I'm too lazy to fix it for you. Fry1989 (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can read. The current consensus here is to keep the coin and not add the monogram. DrKiernan (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has stated their consensus yet, you're jumping the boat. Fry1989 (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Mary II of England

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)

Yes, your version reads much better.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Opening line and protection

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)

I know there has been a lot of battling about what to call her, and I don't intend to engage in it. However, I do note that most article about monarchs start the first sentence with their name as a monarch, rather than their name and surname or dynastic name. Also, in most Wikipedia articles the bolded item at the beginning of the opening sentence matches the title of the article. For example, see Henry VIII of England which introduces him as Henry VIII, not Henry Tudor; James I of England which introduces him as James VI and I, not James Stuart; Elizabeth II which does not call her Elizabeth Windsor; etc. Based on that, it seems to me that the first sentence of this article should read as follows: "Mary, Queen of Scots (Mary Stuart, born as Mary Stewart, 8 December 1542 – 8 February 1587) was Queen regnant of Scotland from 14 December 1542 to 24 July 1567. In some lists of Scottish monarchs, she is recognised as Mary I." What do you think? --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It's unneccesarily verbose. It looks fine the way it is now.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you show me a single other Wikipedia article about a monarch which is done this way? If it's verbose, move the "Mary Stuart" "Mary Stewart" stuff to another section, but use her proper title (and the name of the article) in the first sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

All the other Scottish monarchs are of the form "Such-and-such was King/Queen of Scots from ...". If we were consistent within dynasties, this article would adopt the same format. The first sentence, would then be something like "Mary Stuart (or Stewart; 8 December 1542 – 8 February 1587) was Queen of Scots from 14 December 1542 until her forced abdication on 24 July 1567." It would match the style of John Balliol, although the reasons for the adoption of the style in each case are not exactly the same. DrKiernan (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are of that format, but the key is how that "such-and-such" reads. With the exception of John Balliol, whom the Scots called something else, the sentence always starts with their actual reigning title, not their given and dynastic names. "Also known as" (when appropriate) comes right after the reigning title. Examples:
"Edward I (17 June 1239 – 7 July 1307), also known as Edward Longshanks and the Hammer of the Scots, was King of England from 1272 to 1307."
"Robert I (11 July 1274 – 7 June 1329), often known as Robert the Bruce (Medieval Gaelic: Roibert a Briuis; modern Scottish Gaelic: Raibeart Bruis; Norman French: Robert de Brus or Robert de Bruys), was King of Scots from 1306 until his death in 1329."
If we want to follow those examples as being the usual Wikipedia style, the lead sentence would read "Mary I of Scotland (8 December 1542 – 8 February 1587), better known as Mary, Queen of Scots, was Queen regnant of Scotland from 14 December 1542 to 24 July 1567." Or possibly, "Mary I of Scotland (8 December 1542 – 8 February 1587), better known as Mary, Queen of Scots, was Queen regnant of Scotland from 14 December 1542 until her forced abdication on 24 July 1567." --MelanieN (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The lead is very short, and given her complicated career the first para should be a "lead of the lead" that includes that she was queen of France and deposed in Scotland before being imprisoned & executed in England. Stewart/Stuart and Mary I should go at the end of this para. The lead section should also end with a sentence on her iconic status as a tragic figure. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Could we agree to cut "born as Mary Stewart" from the lead? Wasn't she born "Princess Mary"? I'm not sure the story of Stuart being adopted in France is believed by everyone. The royal website, for example, says "It is said that ..."[8] indicating uncertainty over whether it's true. Other ways about it would be "Mary Stuart or Stewart" or putting "Otherwise spelled as Stewart" in a footnote. DrKiernan (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that she is decended from the Scottish Stewart line is significant. The introduction of the variant spelling Stuart, however it can be reliably explained, is also significant. But those points are already included elsewhere in the article; they do not need to be in the lead sentence. Your point is very well taken that she was born as "Princess Mary" and quickly became "Queen Mary". That was my point too: royals do not use a first and last name like commoners. I suspect that throughout her life she never signed a letter as "Mary Stuart"; I think it was always "Marie R." or equivalent. --MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, her letters are mostly signed 'Marie R.,' amongst her emboidery at Oxburgh Hall, monograms expand to 'MARIA STUART' and its near anagram, 'SA VIRTU MATIRE,' which shows her using that form of the name.Unoquha (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Mary Stuart needs to be in the opening setence, however, I agree with DrKeirnan that Mary Stewart can be dropped, with it being added as a footnote. Here in Italy, she's always referred to as Maria Stuarda'.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

"Mary, Queen of Scots"

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've tried repeatedly to get it to say "Mary Stuart". That was her name, the parameter is called "name", and her name is not given anywhere else in the infobox. DrKiernan (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

FA/GA status

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)

The article certainly could go to FA, given the quality, but of course there might be the same (puzzling) lack of interest there. If you do go for it, although I have mainly reverted vandalism on this article, I am willing to help fetch and carry with any formatting and source finding issues that come up.--SabreBD (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you should go for FA, Dr.Kiernan. It certainly looks like an FA quality article to me!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll create the nomination. A number of people have helped build this article, so anyone should feel free to add their name as a nominator. DrKiernan (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Executioner "Bull"

"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)

All bio I've ever read on Mary give the head executioner's name as Bull, although I have seen the alternative spelling of "Bulle".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Mary I, Queen of Scots

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)

The article was formerly located at Mary I of Scotland. Personally, I would have preferred to leave it there for the sake of consistency. However, the "common name"-ists won that particular debate, and it was moved relatively recently. Look at the talk page archive for further information about the arguments that were put forward on both sides. Deb (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

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)

I agree with you. It is open to every contributor, including yourself, to make appropriate amendments to improve the tone, and I encourage you to do so. Deb (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for saying the above! Re: the Casket Letters: I'd just like to add, that they are not really important as to Mary's guilt, too much importance is given them (kind of red-herring), as e.g. Caroline Bingham points out in her boigraphy of Darnley (Constable 1995). However, I see it's not easy to incorporate such an overriding aspect; perhaps in a footnote? Perhaps I'll try sometime - without hurting feelings, and with exact references etc.

Buchraeumer (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2009 (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.

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)

The description comes from Antonia Fraser's 1969 biography Mary, Queen of Scots, which is not romantic fiction.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:09, 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)

Why do her portraits contradict the description provided by Fraser, who obviously based her detailed description of Mary on the available portraits of the Scottish queen? I don't see where there's bias, seeing as the portraits do show that Mary possessed the physical attributes listed by Fraser.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The author's description of Mary's appearance involves a subjective (and, here, irrelevant) interpretation of her physical beauty. One could easily refute such claims based on individual standards--the author is an authority on Mary, Queen of Scots, not on what constitutes a "strikingly attractive woman". Indeed, based on individual standards of beauty, one may even develop an entirely different image of Mary than is accurate. Therefore, because this involves a very specific personal interpretation, if this depiction is to be included it should be cited in quotations. Journey2359 (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Standards of beauty are always matters of personal opinion. However that's where the Neutral Point Of View comes in. While Wikipedia shouldn't state that Mary was beautiful, it can certainly state that So-and-so said that she was beautiful since it is a matter of fact that So-and-so did (or didn't). If the matter of her beauty is controversial, then it can also state that Such-and-such thought that she was ugly. It matters not one whit that these are the subjective opinions of So-and-so and Such-and-such since Wikipedia is merely describing the factual matter of the existence of these opinions. All that matters is that Wikipedia authors can provide citations proving the existence of these opinions. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the article itself does not present this description as an author's opinion, as you suggest. And it matters several whits to whom an opinion is attributed (i.e., that it is the opinion of "so-and-so"), which is the very reason you cite it in the first place. A minor edit presenting the entire description as belonging to the author would clarify this. Only in the context of the author's perspective can we understand his concept of beauty. It seems you are in agreement about citing the source below, which is good; for the sake of clarity, there should be a mention that this is the author's point of view in the relevant paragraph as well. Journey2359 (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just added another of John Guy's books to the Further Reading list. He bears out the descriptions. While I doubt his objectivity about Mary, the descriptors are taken from period documents and reflect how the subject was perceived by her contemporaries. In the courts of the day, physical attributes did influence matters. Elizabeth I also was subject to such judgments based on looks. LTC (Ret.) David J. Cormier (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

References

Do we really need a list of men who were in her Privy Council?

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 personally find it useful.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If all of those men are notable enough to be mentioned in the article, then we should be able to explain why/how they were notable. We should be able to make a sentence which mentions both Mary and her privy councillor and which explains to the reader why the privy councillor is mentioned. This way the reader is simply left wondering what a James MacGill of Nether Rankeillour has to do with Mary.

Anyway, I don't see a list of privy councillors in any featured article; while there is no perfect article, a featured article would certainly include the list if such lists were needed. Surtsicna (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The article now gives an explanation. I think the list should be kept.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Well that's better! Surtsicna (talk) 19:06, 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)

It's already covered with due weight in my opinion. DrKiernan (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits -- transferred from Ian Rose's talk page

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)

Tks Tasmn, I've transferred this from my talk page so it gets a wider and more expert audience on the subject. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the article is already very long and we try to keep them to a manageable length for the sake of readability. The solution is to create additional articles on the particular topics that you think deserve to be covered - for example "Imprisonment of Mary, Queen of Scots". These can then be linked to the main article using the "main" template.Deb (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Queen of England

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 recommend you work on this in your userspace and then take it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation - but not until it meets quality standards. The article that was deleted had hardly anything in it and was incomprehensible. I think that's the real reason it was deleted.Deb (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Relation to Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley (Darnley for short) being her first or second cousin

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)

Henry's mother was Mary's father's half-sister. Henry and Mary's most recent common ancestor was their grandmother Margaret Tudor. Therefore, Henry and Mary were first cousins. Surtsicna (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

What Surtsicna said - James V and Margaret Douglas were half-siblings, sharing the same mother. john k (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Misconceptions

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)

Probably better to use a source whose author can at least master basic English. Deb (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? what is grammatically wrong in that article? If you notice any errors, you ought to drop the author a note in the comments section of the article. --173.241.225.165 (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

We aren't going to cite crackedhistory.com, regardless of how many times you spam it across Wikipedia - though we may well add it to our blacklist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

James V deathbed quote

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)

The version given in the body of the article is the version given by both Fraser and Wormald and Guy. DrKiernan (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Google searches easily demonstrate that the normal spelling is "It came with a lass", even by Lindsay. DrKiernan (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

That is evidently a 1728 translation into 18th century English. Per my edit and this untranslated edition, what Lindsay in fact said was:

"Fairweill, it cam with ane las, it will pas with ane las!"

If we are going to quote Lindsay we should make it plain we are quoting from a later translation, as the work cited in the current footnote actually is, or from a 1980s translation or from a 1990s one. Better still we can give it in Lindsay's original.

"It came with a lass" is certainly not the normal spelling. "It cam wi a lass and it will gang wi a lass" is overwhelmingly the version in use and even Betty's website doesn't go all pan loafy with the quote. As I said though, am happy to go with the correct rendition of Lindsay's version. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I made a mistake above which arose from reading my notes rather than the actual source. I have corrected it.

According to my notes, "It came with a lass" is given by Guy [which I no longer own] and Fraser [which I have confirmed by looking in the book], and "It cam wi' a lass" is given by Wormald [which I have confirmed by looking in the book] and by Weir [which I borrowed from a library and would have to consult after Easter if necessary as I do not have a copy myself]. "It came from a woman" is in Wormald [confirmed] and Guy and Weir [according to my notes]. As Wormald is the source used in the article, I have amended the article text to match what Wormald says. As the Knox version, "It came from a woman", is in 3 secondary sources, and is older than Lindsay, I think it should be included as a notable version. The "It cam with ane las" version is only found, as I far as I can tell, in the 1814 copy of Lindsay and so as it is not apparently used by any secondary or modern source and is rare, I think it inappropriate to use it here. My opinion on whether other versions or translations (such as "It came with a lass" or "pass wi a lass") should be included is not yet fixed. In the meantime, I have removed "It came with a lass". DrKiernan (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries. I would agree that the Lindsay quote is not well known, am not particualarly advocating it and was addressing it since the footnote claimed him to be the source of the anglicised "came" version then in the article. Unintentional in your recent edit I assume, the article's footnote now claims Lindsay to be the source of the "gang" version of the quote, so that will also need to be addressed. When you say that ""It cam wi' a lass" is given by Wormald"", that is the "...and it will gang wi a lass"" version now in the article I assume? Out of interest, does she indicate the original source of that? And does she use the accursed apologetic apostrophes (in which case she ought to know better I'd have thought)? Knox's version is unquestionably notable. I'm not surprised that he would phrase it in a more anglicised way, given his background, but believe his rendering was very slightly different, "The devill go with it! It will end as it begane: it came from a woman; and it will end in a woman." ("devill", "begane", "in" not "from" a woman). Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Wormald writes: "James's comment, when the news of her birth was brought to him, that 'it cam wi' a lass and it will gang wi' a lass' ... was first recorded by John Knox, in the version 'The devil go with it! It will end as it began: it came from a woman; and it will end in a woman'. This was the mid-1560s, when Mary was still in power ... it was then recast into the famous phrase by Protestant chronicler Robert Lindsay of Pitscottie, writing in the 1570s ..." DrKiernan (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems Lindsay recast it only part way to the familiar version though. I'll think about rewording the footnote to phrase it more accurately. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

References