Talk:James VI and I

LBGT?

So what is that in plain English? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.28.194 (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

First man in history?

As far as I'm aware, James is the first man in recorded history to reign over the entire British Isles. 1) is this correct? 2) should it point this out explicity so in the intro. - Yorkshirian (talk) 10:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

He was the first to reign over them by general agreement and it might well be worth mentioning that in the intro. However you could also make a case for Edward Longshanks who reigned over them for part of his life by force of arms, if not by general agreement. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think some of the small Gaelic kingdoms in Ireland were still outside the control of Longshanks. Although the Lordship of Ireland was technically given to the Plantagenets, the whole island wasn't conquered until the Tudor period. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

True enough. It depends upon whether you are prepared to accept nominal control or effective control as the gold standard. I would choose James myself. I just wanted to point out that Edward came very close. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ofcourse James was more efficient than Edward. The treatment subjected to William "Balliol is my King" Wallace, King James found 5 traitors for the same type of Sunday entertainment. That happened 300 years (+ 2,5 months) later. As for Wales, easy match already then (1270s), and a mere part of England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.28.194 (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Change of article title to James VI and I

Since this monarch was the ruler of two kingdoms, each held under different titles (James VI of Scotland and James I of England). The monarch in question had more than one title, and a search for James VI of Scotland should not really return James I of England, even if they are one and the same person (it would be just as indelicate to have a search for James I of England returning an article titled James VII of Scotland). I maintain that it would be more delicate to respect the fact he was the monarch of two separate kingdoms with two separate titles, and for the article title to reflect that. By redirecting no change is being made to the content - for which I have no complaint - it would simply mean that searches for James I of England or for James VI of Scotland would both return James VI and I, which was his actual title. I believe serious consideration should be given the change I proposed, since it does not introduce any error, it is more culturally sensitive and it actually conforms to the spirit of the law as decided in the case of MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1953. Lusobrandane (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article should not be James I of England. This is very misleading, at the very least it should be James VI of Scotland. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It originally was titled James VI of Scotland but it was agreed to change it to the current title many years ago. This is really an issue which should be solved technically by allowing Wikipedia articles to have multiple titles (which might also help with such long running issues as the gasoline/petrol debate). It might happen one day. In the meantime redirects are the best we can do... -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If not for the current method for naming European monarch titles (X of country)? I'd support James VI & I. However under the current rules, James VI of Scotland and I of England, would be too long. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Without my having to search through the archives, can anyone tell me why James I of England was chosen over James VI of Scotland, when he was the Scottish King long before he reigned over both countries? Jack forbes (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

To keep it consistant with Charles I of England, Charles II of England, James II of England, William III of England & Mary II of England. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

None of whom were kings of Scotland alone. No big deal, but it seems strange that all those articles favour of England over Scotland or Ireland. Are those articles the common name for these Kings and Queens? Personally, I always think of James as James VI of Scotland. No matter. Jack forbes (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose, common usage tips them in favour of of England. Wrongly (IMHO), the English Throne was seen as 'above' the Scottish Throne. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, they were two seperate thrones. The English certainly saw their throne as 'above' the Scottish one, but then, they would wouldn't they. The people of Scotland didn't think that way. Jack forbes (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The common name is certainly James I. When he inherted the Tudors territories, he decided to come down to England (not without attempts to "blow him back to his Scottish mountains" as Guy Fawkes put it, but non the less). Though he claimed to be King of Great Britain personally, this wasn't recognised in law. His coins said "ANG SCO FRA ET HIB" in 1603 with England first (bit harsh to put Ireland behind a titular claim to France, but anyway), then the next year it said "BRI FRA ET HIB".[1] - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep as James I of England because that crown was considered more prominent than his Scottish crown after 1603, when he succeeded to the English crown as James I. He has been referred to variously as James VI, James VI & I, James I & VI, James I, and if we were using his full title, it would be, after 1603: King James I of England, France and Ireland, King James VI of Scots, etc. They were, however, still two separate kingdoms, with a single monarch. The other variants are redirects to this article title, and the lede says: James VI & I. Also for consistency with other dual monarchs and per naming convention for monarchs. He apparently never returned to Scotland, which kinda diminished the importance he apparently placed on that crown. This suggestion should go into this article's Wikipedia:Perennial proposals. — Becksguy (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

He did, in fact, return to Scotland in 1617 see here :[2]. This article's title is just plain wrong. The man was a direct male line descendant of the Great Stewards of Scotland, by route of the Earls of Lennox and the Stewarts of Bonkyll, prior to them gaining the Scots throne. His reign in Scotland was longer than that of his reign in England, furthermore he continued to speak Scots, rather than English, once he had suceeded in England.

This article should be titled James VI of Scotland and I of England or even James I of England and VI of Scotland if that would satisfy the anglophiles. In much the same way that his grandson James VII and II should be treated.

It is patent historical jingoism to infer that the sovereignty of one nation is superior to that of any other. Brendandh (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a very convincing argument IMO. For example, Philip II of Spain was King of Naples and even King of England before he was ever King of Spain. Whether x nation is superior to x isn't really the question, but whether holding sovereignty of one was generally considered more prestigious contemporary to the era. On the coins James decided to have "Ang" first and made his court in England once he inherted all thrones, even though he was born and bred in Scotland. Encyclopedia Britannica titles the article on him as simply "James I".[3] IMO the best compromise is if we have for the Stuarts, ______of Great Britain, since that is the title they themselves prefered after the Union of the Crowns.- Yorkshirian (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I would be against putting "of Great Britain" for the monarchs before the acts of union to avoid confusion with those who were actually legally defined as King / Queen of Great Britain. I really do think this article should be James VI of Scotland, that was his original realm and the one he spent most of his life as monarch of. He just gained a larger realm later on in life but it should not take primacy in the article title. He was of Scotland, not of England and the article title should reflect that. Sadly too often people gloss over the fact that it was a Scotsman who laid the foundations for our union. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Stuart contribution to the creation of Great Britain is largely downplayed due to the myth of 1688 and the scandalous usurpation (even though James designed the Union Flag!). But that is another story. The official Royal website isn't much help on the issue, since it lists their number in separate sections for Scotland and the UK as well.[4] - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Oliver Cromwell stood in the way. At first we did not like his son that was a leftfoot. The we had a closetcase Kingdom, which Cromwell insisted was a republic. Then we discovered we did not like Cromwell. I must admit I am confused to how James I could be so lethaly efficient, while his two sons (King Charles I was infact the Duke of York until 1612)were more stupid than King James' own parents. The Union Law came in 1707, so even with King James in charge, it still took it's time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.28.194 (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

!!!The common name is only James I in England!!! In Scotland he is always referred to as James VI. I do not understand why it has not been changed yet. This is the 21st Century!!! This is an extremely sensitive subject and it is obvious that the Scottish title should come first, as he was the Scottish king first - and Scottish! Please inform me how it is possible to declare that the "common name" is James I. James I is the English name. Anglophiles should realise that the world does not revolve around England.!!!

Then Glasgow peole must stop ramming through the mortal sin #1. Let's understand that the nuLabour party does not evolve around their city. "OOH. Leabour teakes me fer granted". And even if Edinburgh is better than Glasgow (just check out Channel 4), King James VI still chose to shove of to London. Being number one is stell be'er than being number sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.28.194 (talk) 08:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well let's see how some of his contemporaries in a similar situation are handled. Henry III of Navarre (1572-1610) or Henry IV of France (1589-1610) or Henry III of Navarre and IV of France? Of France. Philip I of Naples (1554-1598) or Philip II of Spain (1556-1598) or Philip I of Portugal (1581-1598) or Philip I of Naples and II of Spain and I of Portugal? Of Spain. And the contemporary Holy Roman Emperors are all listed by that title, not Austria or one of their other crowns. And this is much the case for just about every other personal union monarch, even those like James, Henry and Philip who inherited thrones at different times. What makes James an exceptional case? Timrollpickering (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

To those that say that Ang appeared on his coins before Sco I think I should point out you are looking at English pounds, the pound Scots did not put England first. 30 January 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.10.235.175 (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• The trouble is that "James VI and I", with no kingdoms named, gives no context at all to those not familiar with British history, which includes most WP readers, and will just confuse them. Johnbod (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Scottish witch craze?

There is a big oversight in this article. No article on James Stuart can really be complete if it neglects to mention the fact that this ruler was the instigator of the Witch Craze of Scotland which lasted for a century. In 1590, James claimed a group of Witches had attempted to assassinate him by summoning a storm while on a voyage to Denmark. The North Berwick witch trials were the first major witch trial of 16th Century Britain.

In fact, if I am not mistaken James even wrote a book on the topic of witchcraft Inchiquin (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Surnames..please!!

James VI was of the house of Stewart/Stuart, but as King of Scots, then England, and a priori as Duke of Rothesay he did not possess a surname. Like his mother, 'Marie Stuart' and his son 'Charles Stuart', his sovereignty was belittled by the adding of the surname, as if he were a commoner, by a later zeitgeist. Do you ever hear of Queen Anne Stuart? or Queen Victoria Saxe-Coburg-Gotha? Brendandh (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What a tragedy, getting mistaken for a 'commoner'. Get real, anyone half interested in British history has a pretty good idea who you are talking about when you use the name James Stuart: if it belittles his sovereignty then so be it. No modern person speaks English exactly as it was spoken in the time of Shakespeare, language changes if you like it or not regardless.

Inchiquin (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I am here to find out about the truth about my family line of the Phelps family - Teweksbury of England. We were once seated on the Throne of England. I know this because I HAVE THE FAMILY SEAL STAMP OF THE TEWEKSBURY. I HAVE THE OFFICAL DOCUMENTATION OF THE ROYAL HOUSE OF SEALS THAT IT IS THE ORIGINAL ONE THAT WAS USED DURING THE TIME OF WHEN WE RULED ENGLAND!!!!

SO PEOPLE START ARGUING AND TELL ME THE TRUTH... VERITAS SINE TIMORE - Truth without Fear...So when did we, by who, what name, and how long....Also I know that we come from German Royality of Wuelf and Itailian Royality of Guelf which is the Surname to Phelps.

So please can someone clarify my family history...I am doing major serious ancestrial work here and documentation for my cousins and such.

Thank you...