Talk:Mary, Queen of Scots

She liked to eat pizza on the weekend and on tuesdays!

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)

Lady Jane Grey

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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

---

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)

---

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

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 File:Icons-flag-wales.png 11:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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)