Talk:James VI and I

Naked negroes

I've removed this section because it is poorly sourced. As Clare McManus [1] writes in Women on the Renaissance stage: Anna of Denmark and female masquing in the Stuart court (1590-1619):

Most contemporary and intriguing is an apocryphal incident in Norway during the Scottish marriage celebrations. Both Ethel Carleton Williams [in Anne of Denmark] and Kim F. Hall [in Things of Darkness] report an unsubstantiated incident in Oslo on the day of the wedding. Williams, in an unexamined expression on colonialist discourse, states that:

James arranged a curious spectacle for the entertainment of the people of Oslo. By his orders four young negroes danced naked in the snow in front of the royal carriage, but the cold was so intense that they died a little later of pneumonia.

Hall unpacks the racial assumptions of the description and performance, yet evidence for it remains purely anecdotal. Although the fact that this incident is mentioned by neither the Scottish nor Danish marriage accounts does not guarantee that it did not take place. I have been able to trace the incident only as far back as John Gade's 1927 Christian IV. Gade also offers no source for this information but makes a further, unsubstantiated, assertion that James brought the exploited black performers over to Denmark in his ships.

It becomes of further concern when examined in the light of "Moorish" or "Negro" performance in the late 1500s and early 1600s: such performers were not always black men, but were men blacked up, in the manner of Shakespeare's Othello. DrKiernan (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not that worried about the specific incident. It is related in the Collins Encyclopaedia of Scotland. Perhaps they got it from your 1927 source. What does concern me is that there is a 'dark side' to his character. Here I would include the personal supervision of the torture of witches. We should not 'whitewash' his life. - ClemMcGann (talk) 10:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm very curious to find an historical source for the Oslo incident mentioned above. David Stevenson, Scotland's Last Royal Wedding, John Donald (1997), 60, 109, prints the Danish Account as translated by Peter Graves. This mentions a troupe of blacked-up men in Edinburgh, whose role in the ceremony was crowd control. This was quite standard in Scottish civic royal receptions, but the Danish account insists their leader was a 'genuine blackamoor.' These performers wore shorts and ersatz gold chains. (And probably enjoyed themselves hugely like members of the present day Beltane Fire Society). I wonder if the Oslo story is not true, but as old as the 1640s. That might more interesting.Unoquha (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 1 (closed)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

James I of England → James VI of Scotland, James I of England — Per the above discussion, this seems the most neutral way of presenting the name of this monarch. Given that he was King of Scotland first and foremost, later becoming an English monarch. I have seen nothing in policy that would prevent this and assumed it was an uncontroversial move. Justin talk 19:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The proposed article title is much too long, and does not reflect how he is widely known either popularly or in academia. I would however support moving this article to James VI and I, which is widely used and neutral. The Celestial City (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Which I'd also support, its the non-neutral nature of the current I object to. Justin talk 20:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The only acceptable alternative title would be James VI and I. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Subverts a broken and inconsistently applied monarchist nomenclature guideline. Fix the guideline first. —what a crazy random happenstance 01:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose the above, but would support a move to James VI and I, there is no one else of this name in history so no confusion Brendandh (talk) 09:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
• I would accept James VI and I as concise, precise, natural, recognisable and neutral. Of course it can be argued that the current title reflects that historically "James I of England" is more common than "James VI of Scotland", but if you look at books from the last 5 years there have been 7,440 using VI of Scotland compared to 5,940 using I of England. I suspect most modern scholars use "VI" when discussion Scottish matters, "I" when they're discussing English matters and both when covering British aspects. This article covers both countries. I see no good reason to use a form which is considered by some to be non-neutral when a neutral unambiguous form that is used commonly by reliable sources is available. DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
• I'd be happy with "James VI and I" (certainly preferable to the double title originally proposed), although I suspect that, pragmatically, the present title remains the most widely recognizable.--Kotniski (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. He was not king of Scotland foremost, anymore than Henry IV of France was King of Navarre foremost. The only reason there's constant discussion of this article and not Henry IV's is because there's more Scottish wikipedians than French Navarrese ones. Concern about systemic bias points us towards ignoring Scotland, not accommodating it, in the same way that we ignore secondary realms for every single continental monarch without ever encountering any controversy. The title proposed is particularly awkward and forced. I will say that while I don't see a need for a move, James VI and I would be fine, as a name that is actually used in secondary literature. But I'd prefer leaving it where it is. john k (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it is only Scottish Wikipedians who feel this article should be moved. As an English editor, I support the "James VI and I" formulation because it is widely used, and ackowledges his primary historical role, that of establishing the Union of the Crowns, much better than the current title. The Celestial City (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily Scottish wikipedians. But, basically, Scotland is much more familiar to English language wikipedians than Portugal or Navarre or Naples or Hanover or Norway or what have you, and there's more wikipedians interested in Scottish history than the history of those places. So we get a constant drumbeat of people who want to include Scotland in James's title in some way, and absolutely nothing about the dozens of other personal unions that have existed over the last thousand years or so of European history. As I said, I don't particularly mind James VI and I, because it's used in sources. But I really hate it when people make arguments to support a move that are completely ignorant of precisely parallel situations that they don't care about. We should decide the location of the article based on the most commonly used name. James I and James VI and I are both commonly used by sources. The former is probably more prevalent in all sources, but the most recent sources tend to use the latter. The only question, imo, is how we weight those two factors. Neutrality does not come into it, unless it comes into all the other personal unions. If we view neutrality as the most important consideration, it demands that we treat Scotland in the same way we treat the Palatinate in Charles Theodore, Elector of Bavaria, Navarre in Henry IV of France, Bohemia in Vladislas II of Hungary, Norway in Charles XIV John of Sweden, Portugal in Philip III of Spain, Spain in Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, Naples in Philip II of Spain, Hungary in Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor, Castile in Ferdinand II of Aragon, and so forth. john k (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If it's the case, that, for example, Henry IV of France is also widely known by his title Henry III of Navarre and is often referred to by historians as "Henry III and IV", then I would support a move to that. But each situation is unique; Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and must follow primary and secondary sources rather than defining usage itself. The Celestial City (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a reasonable argument. As I said, I don't particularly oppose James VI and I, on the grounds that it (unlike the other examples) is used in sources. But I get incredibly sick of all these other extraneous arguments that get made. john k (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes but that presumes British literature is not anglo-centric doesn't it? And relying on an anglo-centric literature would of course produce a neutral article? In addition, dismissing opinions you happen to disagree with as "ignorant" is both patronising and offensive. Justin talk 20:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Article titles are to be based on usage in reliable sources in English. If reliable sources in English aren't neutral, that is too bad, but we don't get to make up our own titles that are more "neutral". "James VI and I" is a reasonable suggestion not because it is more neutral, but because recent sources often use that instead of "James I". On the other hand, "James II and VII" would be unreasonable because, while equally neutral, it is not how he is actually referred to. That this supposed concern with neutrality seems to stop at the Channel shows, in fact, that it is the opposite of neutral - it is special pleading. john k (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Which are the unanimous sources that you referring to? Furthermore, this is English Wikipedia, and last I heard both Scotland and England are still (officially) Anglophone nations. You mention Charles John of Sweden, yet he is referred to in Norwegian Wiki as Carl III Johan [2] and in Swedish as [3]. King Jamie Saxt is in a unique position in that he was the ruler of two countries which now share the same language. I think that in this instance, and for that of his grandson James VII and II, the manual of style should be the guide rather than the rule. Brendandh (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That is not unique, either. Castile and Aragon share the same language (more or less - I guess Aragonese is a different dialect from Castilian Spanish, and much of the former crownlands of Aragon speak Catalan); so do the Palatinate and Bavaria; Naples and Sicily; France and the part of Navarre ruled by Henry IV; Brazil and Portugal, and so forth. One can come up with examples of other language wikipedias not doing this - the Habsburg kings of Portugal are listed in the Portuguese wikipedia under their Spanish titles, for example. At any rate, I don't see what the point of this criterion is. What I hate about these discussions is that criteria are constantly cherry picked - you basically just select enough criteria so that no other comparison fits precisely, and then declare that James I (or Elizabeth II, or whoever) is unique. I don't care what other wikipedias do - this wikipedia has its own rules about how to title articles, and those rules don't differ depending on whether the subject was English-speaking or not. john k (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per others. Oh you "assumed it was an uncontroversial move" did you? Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did, if you wish to assume otherwise then thats your problem. Isn't it? Justin talk 20:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't questioning your good faith, but hinting at the extreme lazyness and stupidity of that assumption. In fact a few seconds of research would have shown that tens of thousands of words have been expended on this highly controversial natter since 2003, and it has been the subject of many formal proposals before. It is also an FA; how likely is it that any of those can be renamed uncontroversially? Now it is confirmed how little thought and effort goes into your nominations I will bear this in mind when I see them in future. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Really? You weren't questioning my good faith because sarcastic comments are such an effective means of communicating in text, they never ever raise tensions. In fact I advise everyone to adopt sarcasm as often as possible as a means of ensuring everyone gets along splendidly. I also advise calling others editors stupid and lazy because that is sure to defuse any prior annoyance an inadvertent spot of sarcasm has caused. Heaven forbid any thought that perhaps an editor might have a point, that the article title may need some work, seeing as it has been "controversial" since 2003, surely that can't be because it is titled in a manner designed to cause offence to Scottish people. No, best to label editors as lazy and stupid rather than ever concede they may have a point. Justin talk 20:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we all calm down and stick to the issue at hand please? When the proposal was posted the first thing that occurred to me was that the poor proposer didn't know what they were likely to be in for, thinking the move would be uncontroversial. I was sure it would turn unpleasant at some point and sadly I was right. I can sympathise with Scottish editors arriving newly to this sphere and being surprised to find a significant Scottish king being labelled solely by his English designation but, being familiar with the sphere myself, I'm aware of the reasoning of both sides and the heated debate that it engenders. A quick check to see if the issue had come up before would have been prudent but savaging a new entrant to the debate for supposed "lazyness and stupidity" is patently unfair and politely pointing them to the copious earlier debates would have been more constructive. Rising to the bait isn't going to further the debate either. Do you want us to "bear...in mind" the sniping above when we view your comments or the strength of your arguments? I only want to be exposed to the latter henceforth please. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

OK fair point, rising to the bait wasn't the best move. Justin talk 22:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need for assumptions at this point. It has been demonstrated to be a controversial move. john k (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• I would have supported this move but it looks like a different proposal has started so I'll add my comments there.--Ykraps (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Requested move 2 (closed)

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: no consensus Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

---

As suggested by the discussion above. Justin talk 20:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

James I of England → James VI and I To make it plain. Justin talk 20:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: Last time this perennial proposal was formally proposed: Talk:James_I_of_England/Archive_4#Please_move

Support as per above. Brendandh (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support per my above arguments; the terminology is not only neutral, but is widely used by historians. The Celestial City (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - King James I or VI (depending on where you come) was equally important to both nations; and as someone has already pointed out, he was king of Scotland first so I have no objection to his Scottish title coming first. I don't know how he was known outside the UK, After all the Scots and English aren't the only English speakers using this encyclopaedia. (thoughts?)--Ykraps (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral/Very Weak Oppose. I would very slightly prefer to keep the article where it is, but the suggested title is also perfectly acceptable, and I have no strong objection to it, as recent historical works seem to be trending in the direction of using it instead of James I. john k (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. John K makes sense, but I'd prefer we be behind the curve on this one. Srnec (talk) 04:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose but less strongly than the other. This one leaves no indication of the kingdom, which will puzzle many non-Brits or non-native Anglophones. Johnbod (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That is also the case with other British monarchy articles, such as Queen Victoria and Elizabeth II. As the information regarding which kingdoms James reigned over is given prominently in the lead of this article, I don't think that issue should be too problematic. The Celestial City (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I agree but what about James II of England and William III of England?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• James II would need to be moved to keep things consistent but I don't see the need to move William III because most people using this encyclopaedia are native English speakers. I think that Dutch users using the English speaking version of Wiki would reasonably expect to find William where he is.--Ykraps (talk) 07:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If this move goes ahead, I would suggest starting a move discussion for James II of England, who for consistency it would seem prudent to move to James II and VII (James II of England and Ireland; James VII of Scotland), and William III of England, who would be moved to William III and II (William III of Orange, England and Ireland; William II of Scotland). I think it would be advisable to complete this move first however, before contemplating moving others. The situation is somewhat different as both those kings assumed the thrones of England and Scotland at the same time. The Celestial City (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance, I was thinking William came after Anne (and the act of union), not the other way round. Tsk!--Ykraps (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

James II and William III are a lot more like Charles XIV John of Sweden than they are like James VI and I. Yes, he had a separate number in Scotland, but that number is virtually never used; I'd think "James II" and "William III" are probably even used in the context of Scottish history a fair amount of the time. One definitely actually encounters "James VI" or "James VI and I" in the literature fairly regularly. "James II and VII" and "William III and II" are basically pedantry. john k (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't be ridiculous? "that number is virtually never used" James VI is common usage in any post 1580s literature. James VII for his grandson is also used, William II ain't used as he was a consort King of Scots. No matter how the English take on it is in their kingdom, Mary was Queen Regnant in Scotland rather than her spouse, officially and her spouse did all in his power to disenfanchise his wife's northern kingdom by sabotaging the Company of Scotland. James of the fiery face was a great King of Scots, and I do disagree that any right thinking person would in the northern third of the British Island confuse him with Charles II's brother Brendandh (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant James VII and William II are virtually never used (and they really aren't). William II was not a king consort of Scotland, btw - just as in England, he was granted full sovereignty, as seen by the fact that he remained king after his wife's death in both countries. john k (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, I think the page is appropriately named as James I of England. If his designation in Scotland is to be included in the title it should be included with the place name. In my opinion, the numbers (VI and I) are less important than the place, as the numbers on their own have absolutely no significance if they aren't attached to a place. On their own they lack context. If however the argument is that this is the 'common name', since modern usage leans towards this naming, it shouldn't mean that any historical titles should be voided and overwritten. Also, I remain unconvinced that 'James VI and I' is in actuality the clear cut and indisputable common name. I would seek to argue (perhaps controversially) that it's usage in modern texts as 'James VI and I' is a constructed attempt by modern historian to avoid bias. I will point out that this neutrality doesn't make it any more of the common name. Furthermore, an encyclopedia, especially one of the hypertext sort, is very different from a book, say on the Stuarts. An article, unlike a chapter in a book, does not have a predefined context, and so must strive to establish one as effectively as possible in it's title. I feel this cannot be done without the inclusion of a place. -France3470 (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is a "constructed attempt by modern historian to avoid bias" (certainly the "James VI and I" formulation has only become widespread in the late 20th/early 21st centuries), Wikipedia still must follow historical conventions. I don't follow your point about the need to include a place; many Wikipedia articles on monarchs, such as Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, William the Conqueror, Peter the Great, Queen Victoria, Elizabeth II and Juan Carlos I don't include countries. The Celestial City (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was struggling to get the wording right. My point was simply that since one cannot irrefutably declare the common name "James VI and I", then we must ensure it includes the country to establish context. The other examples you give are named that way because they are the common name. I don't believe in this situation and at this time it is possible to determine whether "James I of England" or "James VI and I" is the common name. My point about modern usage wasn't to be controvensial but just to point out that pages shouldn't be named according to common trends. We should wait till a term has become fully established before making a large and complex move such as this. I hope that makes more sense,-France3470 (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No it makes no sense whatsoever, we should continue supporting an anglo-centric bias where the world revolves around England and sod whatever any other common English language term is used. This is the English wikipedia not the sole domain of England and the English view is not the be all and end all view of the world. James VI and I is in common use now, in part to redress centuries of English bias, its about time wikipedia followed suit. Justin talk 20:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we please steer clear of nationalistic sentiment? As I've tried to explain, Wikipedia, as an enclyopedia, should use the terminology in widest use ("James VI and I" in recent histories, which has the benefit of neutrality). Wikipedia's role should not be to correct percieved biases. The Celestial City (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly but some editors need to realise their own personal biases and set those aside in the interests of writing a neutral encyclopedia. That isn't served by insisting only an anglo-centric view of the world is the only acceptable outcome and calling editors stupid for having the temerity to suggest otherwise. Justin talk 22:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

[4] Well this shows the way that the royal incumbents of Buck House describe him. Furthermore if one were to go into the great hall of Edinburgh Castle there is a period cartouche above the mantelpiece describing him as Iacobus Primus Brittaniae Franciae et Hyberniae Rex. Failing the James VI and I headline, he should be described as James I of Great Britain, regardless of whether this was unofficial during his reign. Brendandh (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

And this [5] for his grandson Brendandh (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

He cannot be described as James I of Great Britain, not only because he was never actually King of Great Britain, but also because the numbering did not restart. William and Mary reigned as William III/II and Mary II, not as William I and Mary I; Victoria's uncle thus reigned as William IV (not William II). James I of Great Britain = a big no-no. He was King of Great Britain as much as he was King of France (only in title).Surtsicna (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Well quite! Should he be known as James VI of England (being only the first James to rule Lloegr)? In much the same way as Dear Lizzie is EIIR, even in Scotland? Brendandh (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No, as England and Scotland remained independent kingdoms throughout James' reign and beyond, until they were formally united under Queen Anne. As such, there were two different numbering systems in use. The Celestial City (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support The strength of feeling that is demonstrated in this discussion and previous ones indicates that the current title is not optimal and is considered insulting and bias by many readers who come here. I see no reason to insist on a title which causes offense when a common, concise, precise, natural and recognizable alternative that avoids this pitfall is available. It is cogently suggested above that "James VI and I" is a name recently constructed by historians to avoid bias, and that may be correct, but that is just why it should be used: it is a dispassionate and neutral name used by modern scholars. It is further argued that the proposed target does not include the country James ruled, but it can also be argued that neither does the current title! I do, of course, appreciate that "England" has meant "Britain and Ireland" in the past, and may still do in parts of the wider world, but in those and the neighboring islands now that is absolutely not the case. To most living in those islands today "England" incontrovertibly excludes two-thirds of James's dominions. It is further claimed that an encyclopedia must establish context in the article title since unlike a book there is no predefined context. I don't buy that argument; if you look in a written encyclopedia, the articles are most often simply titled "James I", "Charles I", "Henry I", etc. There is no need to include a country disambiguator in a print encyclopedia; it is only necessary to do so in an online encyclopedia because multiple kings with the same name cannot occupy the same page not because the article title must establish context. As I said above, I see no good reason to alienate readers with the current title, and sympathise with the wish to change it to a modern neutral alternative. DrKiernan (talk) 08:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, he was James VI of Scotland before he became James I of England. Also, he reigned over Scotland for 'bout 58yrs & England for 22yrs. GoodDay (talk) 11:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I see a good reason for moving (the present ignorance of his (longer) reign in Scotland) and do not see any good reason for keeping at its present location. The place disambiguator is only needed if there were another monarch named James who ruled over two kingdoms in that sequence, which is improbable. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia should reflect published scholarship. It shouldn't be leading a battle (or in the front lines) to use "a name recently constructed by historians to avoid bias". He is still commonly known as "James I of England". When, and if, published scholarship changes, Wikipedia should change the article title. Noel S McFerran (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• See the #Requested move (closed) section above. In the last five years, "James VI of Scotland" is more common in published scholarship. DrKiernan (talk) 21:29, 14 November 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.

Earl of Moray death date

Posting this here because I think there are more eyes on this. This article says that James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray was killed on 22 January 1570. However, the Earl of Moray's article says he died on 11 January. And James Hamilton (assassin) says that Hamilton killed the Earl on 23 January. All three articles have citation to an offline source. Can anyone confirm what the date should be? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 07:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Antonia Fraser in Mary, Queen of Scots, on page 486, says he died on 11 January 1570. This is a reliable source.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I have since corrected all the articles to read 11 January 1570. Thanks for pointing this out.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for checking up on that! howcheng {chat} 09:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad you noticed the discrepancy between the dates.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, Fraser's date is a just a mistake in her book, and I have linked refs to Spottiswood's History, which gives the date as 23 Jan 1569/70 o.s.Unoquha (talk) 09:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Duyat6, 17 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Title should read "James 1 of England and V1 of Scotland"

Duyat6 (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: per the discussion above about the name of the article which ended with no consensus, the name has to stay as it is until a decision can be reached by the editors at large. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 18:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

More famously remembered as James I Of England. But most people know he was a Scot. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2011 (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 Stuarts themselves saw the English throne as the more important one, as did every other power in Europe. Because, you know, it was. England was one of the more important states of western Europe, while Scotland was a backwater. john k (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2010 (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".[6] - 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)

Regardless of WHO considered WHAT crown more important, he never STOPPED being James VI, did he?82.0.25.104 (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Lance T.

He did, in fact, return to Scotland in 1617 see here :[7]. 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".[8] 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.[9] - 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)

For one thing, neither Navarre nor Naples exist as countries any more. That aside, maybe those page titles should be revisited, too. Sowelilitokiemu (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Um...I don't recall Scotland's UN membership going through anytime recently, either. Certainly Portugal is much more of a country than Scotland. john k (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well the same can be said for England's membership of the UN. Would you tell an Irishman, that his state doesn't exist, because it was in personal union with the English crown for 800 years or so? Brendandh (talk) 11:42, 13 July 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)

What about changing the article's name to; "James of England and Scotland" (purely alphabetical). I don't think the I and VI are actually that important. 82.1.157.16 (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

They're quite important, to distinguish from James VII and II. LRT24 (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that the equivalents of this article in a few of the other language wikis already use the full "James VI of Scotland and I of England" including the Spanish and Danish articles. Sowelilitokiemu (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide a few examples? It is hard to understand how a man who was King of Scotland for 35 years before the Union of the Crowns ends up with an article title as it is at present. Perhaps as part of the "respect" agenda it should be moved to "James I of Great Britain" - a title he claimed for himself according to the lead. Ben MacDui 17:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This should be at the Scottish title as you rightly point out he had that for 30+ years before becoming King of England. I would rather it not be moved to Great Britain which would be the same method used for monarchs of the Kingdom of Great Britain, something he was not although supportive of its establishment. Changing this to King James VI of Scotland makes the most sense. England simply having the bigger population does not mean it should have the article name by default. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Titling this "James VI of Scotland" doesn't make sense. As Timrollpickering notes above, other monarchs with multiple crowns are not known by the crown they held first but by the crown(s) they held most prominently, Philip II of Spain being a good example of this. In the case of James, historians never refer to him simply as "James VI of Scotland". They either refer to both titles or they refer to one or the other based on specific context. For this article, given that he is well known for both his Scottish and English crowns, I think it makes the most sense to title this, "James I of England and VI of Scotland", or vice versa. (I leave that discussion to others as I have no particular preference.) -- Hux (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I would have no problem with James I of England and VI of Scotland but i dont think that title would be accepted by the wikipedia naming police because it goes against "convention". I think it probably has to be either of England or of Scotland. It is true he is known for both crowns, but surely the crown he held for much longer (we aint just talking about a couple of years) should have priority in such a situation. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It's an awful title. If moving is to be done James VI and I would be much better (and I don't see why the title not providing context is even slightly important - titles don't need to provide context). But I generally think articles should ditch "of Country" unless it's absolutely necessary. As policy currently stands, there's absolutely nothing wrong with James I of England. john k (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

[[James VI and I ] is better yes, if we can get it past the wikipedia naming police. I do not accept that James I of England is fine, This guy was James VI of Scotland for much more of his life than he was "of England" and the title emplies he is from England by saying "of" which he was not. He is notable as the King of Scotland who became King of England and started the pushing for the unification of Great Britain. He is so notable because of the union of the crowns so that could help justify the James VI and I title. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Edard VII of the United Kingdom was Prince of Wales for much more of his life than he was King of the UK. Henry IV of France was Henry III of Navarre for much more of his life than he was King of France. And "of" implies nothing of the sort, unless you demand that we change Philip V of Spain or George I of Great Britain or Carol I of Romania. john k (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The point is this King is just as notable for being King of Scotland as he is for being King of England, there for to compare it to something like the King of France with "of Navarre" (where ever that is) clearly is a different situation. But lets just stick with the suggestion of moving this to James VI and I. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. Ben MacDui 17:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If that's the point, it's a pretty poor one. As I've said before, England was one of the most important states in western Europe; Scotland was a marginal backwater. I'd say that 22 years as King of England is pretty clearly more important than his 22 years of personal rule in Scotland prior to 1603 + 22 years as an absentee king of Scotland living in England. As king of Scotland, James is very important for Scottish history, mildly influential on English history, and of no importance whatever to European history as a whole; as king of England, he is a figure of the first importance in English history and of great importance in the broader history of the continent as a whole. I wonder what a comparison of the number of pages written by historians about his pre-1603 reign vs. his reign in England would turn up - I doubt it would be to the advantage of Scotland. john k (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Ben MacDui. Seumas VI/Jamie Saxt/James the Sixth, whichever later title he obtained, should be known by the longest reign that he had, and the one which formed his personality and ideas of Kingship. exempli gratia in Wikipedia, KJ's father,Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley is not known by his legal title of Duke of Albany, a title he held from his marriage to Queen Mary and before the explosion at Kirk o'Field. In this situation it is because Lord Darnley is the name he was commonly known as. All the above suggesting that KJ had more prominence as King of England, than King of Scots are biased and Anglocentric. King James VI and I, is the moniker that he was most commonly known as through the last few centuries by international historians, James VI of Scotland and I of England. This may be 'English' Wikipedia, but it is not the exclusive Wikipedia of England, but rather that of all Anglophone nations. Brendandh (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

George I's longest reign, and the one which formed his personality and ideas of kingship, was Hanover. Nobody ever gets upset about that one, though (even on the German wikipedia). john k (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

George I was not a "King" of Hanover, merely an Elector, the Kingdom of Hanover was not created until 1814 . And to your earlier point regarding Edward VII as Prince of Wales, that title is an honorific of the heir to the throne of England, much as the title Duke of Rothesay is to the Monarch of Scotland, neither are titles of sovreignty, as indeed neither was the position of Elector in the Holy Roman Empire, a vassal to the Emperor. As to your insinuation that Scotland was a marginal backwater during this time is just another example of the sort of faux history perpetuated by various English commentators, and is a racist slur that the Scots have endured ever since the union of the crowns. Furthermore, King Jamie did return to Scotland in 1617 in an attempt to harmonise the structures of the two very different churches within his realms, he also continued to speak in Braid Scots, . As to your point that as King of Scotland, King James had no influence in Europe, why was he given the hand of Anne of Denmark, daughter of one of the arguably most powerful monarchs in Northern Europe, Frederick II of Denmark? And to cap it off, a quick google search returned 118,000 for "James VI of Scotland", yet just 92,900 for "James I of England". Brendandh (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes George I was merely an elector. I don't see how that is particularly relevant. The King of England was universally granted higher precedence than the King of Scotland, so I'm not sure why that's irrelevant, but the precedence of elector vs. king is relevant. As to racist slurs, that's absurd and ridiculous. Even today, Scotland has about 10% of the population of England, and it's always been poorer, weaker, less populous, and less relevant to European international affairs. I don't see how this is even debatable. When Scotland did play a role in European affairs, it was pretty much always in context of relations with England - whether it would ally with England and relieve pressure on England's northern border, or harass England and distract it from its continental interests. As far as James's marriage proving his importance, Frederick II's other daughters married a Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, a Duke of Holstein-Gottorp, and an Elector of Saxony. Frederick II's sisters married an elector of Saxony and a duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg. Frederick I's daughters had married a Duke of Prussia, and several dukes of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, while Frederick III's daughters married an elector of Saxony, a duke of Holstein-Gottorp, an Elector Palatine, and a King of Sweden. That's one other royal marriage out of about a dozen over 150 years or so. So, no, James's marriage to a Danish princess says virtually nothing about his power and influence in Europe, save that it was probably about equivalent to an Elector of Saxony or a Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin. And your google search is meaningless. If I just search "James I" vs. "James VI," the former has about ten times as many hits as the latter, and the vast majority of them are about this James I. Not only that, I can't seem to replicate your results - I get 154,000 results for "James I of England." Basically, you're just throwing the kitchen sink at me and hoping some argument will stick. So, for example, you throw out utterly irrelevant nonsense like that James returned to Scotland once (George I and II went to Hanover many times), or that he continued to speak Scots (George I didn't even speak English at all; George II was a native German-speaker), and what not. I suppose it would be difficult to come up with monarchs who fit the exact circumstances of James, but the criteria you come up with that way or basically indefensible, because they're basically just excuses for a conclusion you've already determined a priori. john k (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Universally recognised as having a higher precendence? By whom? Universal recognition in my book generally means 'all' opinion, and this is certainly not the case. Come on then, back it up. With your "backwater" insinuations you are still, as per my earlier point, still very tidily in bed with the idea of denigrating Scotland, and in line with the Scotophobe commentators of the 17/19th centuries (and to a part those in Westminster at the dawn of the 21st). Brendandh (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe there was a court in Europe which would have given a Scottish ambassador precedence over an English one. Note François Velde's page on the subject, which notes two examples where the King of England was placed before the King of Scotland in diplomatic precedence. Beyond that, do you deny that Scotland was less economically developed, militarily weaker, and less populous than England in the 16th and 17th centuries? That England played a more prominent role in European affairs? Do the demands of 21st century Scottish nationalism mean that we have to pretend that these things aren't true, or that these things did not, effectively, make Scotland a backwater? You could write a a history of Europe without mentioning Scotland. You couldn't do the same thing without mentioning England. Further, a history of England that failed to mention Scotland would have some major omissions, but you'd still probably be able to get the main gist of the story. A history of Scotland that failed to mention England would be completely incomprehensible. Basically, you insist on an ahistorical equality between England and Scotland because your present-day politics demands it, not because it actually makes any sense when referring to sixteenth and seventeenth century history. Scotland was a legally separate kingdom from England, joined only by a personal union, certainly. But it is simply unquestionably the case that England was the more powerful and important of the two kingdoms. Your only counterargument so far is that anyone who says this is a "Scottophobe." That's hardly an argument. john k (talk) 02:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well for a start, France and Denmark-Norway. How could you write a history of England without including Alexander II's Scottish army reaching Dover in support of the English Barons against King John? Or the Battles of Neville's Cross, Homildon Hill, Halidon Hill, Stanhope Park, Chapter of Myton to name but a few? Or the Honour of Huntingdon, or David I who effectively ruled a realm that stretched north from the Mersey and Humber? Or as is pertinent here, how could one write a history of England, that didn't include the successive failure of its ruling dynasties, so that a Scotsman succeeded to its throne. Further, to write a history of Europe without including Scotland, as so many "main-stream" historians have, would be erroneous. From the Hundred years war to the Nine years war, Scottish Armies were involved in almost all major conflict in western Europe. Of course Scotland, had less economic clout and manpower during the 16th/17thc.s, as the greater part of her nobility and administrators had been massacred at Flodden Field in 1513, fighting to relieve the pressure on the French, caused by Henry VIII's belligerence in Northern France. An effective decapitation. Henry's brother-in-law, James IV's army was far more technologically advanced than the English one, but through ill-judgement they lost the day. The Scottish court at Stirling/Linlithgow/Falkland was as advanced and colourful as any in northern Europe. As to my politics, they are hardly relevant. But if you must know I'm a Unionist, and Scotophobe only has one 't'! Brendandh (talk) 09:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not denying that Scotland has played an important role in European history, and perhaps the heat of argument has led me to statements more extreme than I intend. I will say that I think a schoolchild's history of England could more or less avoid mentioning virtually all of that, except probably the succession of the subject of this article and maybe the Bishops' Wars (without which it becomes difficult to understand the origins of the English Civil War). A schoolchild's history of Scotland would have to speak of England at length throughout. At any rate, I'm not trying to deny anything to Scotland - certainly Flodden, the Jacobite rebellions, and so forth had important resonances for broader European history; the Bishops' War, and much else, had important repercussions on England. But I don't see how it can be denied that England was the more powerful and important state. john k (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is a perennial issue for this article since the first talk page in 2003, and second only to his sexuality. Here are most, if not all, of the threads on this subject. Although a few are short threads, many are thoughtful discussions on the issue. I have to agree with QP, and many of the previous arguments, that this title is the most appropriate Wikipedia title. Per WP:NCNT, it's the more common reference to him and the most consistent. James I is even listed as an example there. I have a lot of sympathy with those that argue for Scottish inclusion, but then we would have to include all of his titles, including that of Ireland, to read, at a bare minimum, "James VI of Scotland and James I of England and Ireland". And don't forget France. And whatever else. And change all the styles and titles of many other monarchs as well. And yes, I know he was King James IV longer than James I, but arguably he was more important as James I of England (not Great Britain, which actually didn't exist as a Kingdom until 1707, despite his sometime usage). See: Jacobean era as an indication of that importance. In addition, as James I, he ordered and commissioned the English translation into what was arguably the most famous, important, and influential English Bible for some 300 years. That Bible, the King James Version (KJV) of 1611 was named after him. So, yes, James I as a title is incomplete, but I believe it's actually less misleading, and works best here.

1. Talk:James I of England/Archive 1#King of France
2. Talk:James I of England/Archive 1#Naming Policy
3. Talk:James I of England/Archive 1#James I and IV?
4. Talk:James I of England/Archive 1#Amazed at Title
5. Talk:James I of England/Archive 2#Glaring Mistake
6. Talk:James I of England/Archive 2#Not just James 1 of England
7. Talk:James I of England/Archive 3#Was James, King of Great Britain and Ireland?
8. Talk:James I of England/Archive 3#Why not James I of Great Britain
9. Talk:James I of England/Archive 4#He was King of Scotland and England not just England
10. Talk:James I of England/Archive 4#King of England or Scotland
11. Talk:James I of England/Archive 4#JAMES VI
12. Talk:James I of England/Archive 4#Please move
13. Talk:James I of England/Archive 4#Intro

[This is mostly a repeat of a post listing the previous threads from the article talk archives on this subject, originally made on 5 June 2009.] — Becksguy (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well why has it not been sorted out yet then? Ireland was a dominion (supposedly) of England, France a pie in the sky (especially for a Stewart Monarch). Scotland was an independent state and deserves that recognition, and recognition of its last exclusive head of state. Brendandh (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that you are pretending that the personal union between England and Scotland from 1603 to 1707 is some kind of unique phenomenon, when in fact personal unions were the rule, not the exception, in early modern Europe, and we judge what was the "most important realm" in determining article titles all the time. The article title is to have a convenient, predictable place for articles to be located, not to give kingdoms which have not existed for over 300 years the "recognition" they "deserve." john k (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Kingdom of England has also not existed for over 300 years. Brendandh (talk) 09:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason we call the article James I of England is not to give the Kingdom of England "recognition". john k (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal unions weren't unique, but THIS ONE is important because it led to the formation of a united Great Britain. 4.243.47.251 (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually it has been effectively sorted out many times, in at least 14 threads starting in 2003, not that everyone was happy with the results. Even though there were good arguments on both sides of the issue, each time it came up, resultant consensus was that the article name not be changed, or it died out which is effectively no consensus, defaulting to status quo. Once, on 20 November 2009, an editor boldly changed the title (moved the article) from "James I of England" to "James VI and I". Twenty minutes later it was changed back with the edit summary: "drastic moves like this should not be taken without discussion." Correct summary. There was a rather lengthy discussion of more than 7K words over eight days (in which I participated), formatted like a WP:RFC, on moving the article in June 2009, seen here, also as #12 in my list above, but there just wasn't sufficient consensus to change the title. I don't believe anyone here deliberately intends to impart ethnic or nationalistic bias with title names, as a major consideration should be how Wikipedia names royalty articles using the naming conventions in the WP:NCROY guideline. It's "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". Further, from WP:NCROY #6: "Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ordinal and state. For example, Charles II of England, not Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland; Philip II of Spain, not Philip I of Portugal. It is proper and often desirable to give the other states compensating prominence in the introduction of the article. Create redirects from other possible article titles." I believe there are compelling reasons to not change the title in this case, but if consensus clearly changes, including ignoring WP:NCROY, so be it. — Becksguy (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason the subject is debated so often is presumably because the result is so unsatisfactory. I can only assume that those who voice the argument that "England is bigger than Scotland so we can safely ignore the latter" simply don't understand why. Now, NCROY says "Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ordinal and state" but in this case that's a little tricky. There is no difficulty with "King Billy" but I don't see any firm evidence that "James 1 of England" fits that bill. A very naughty thought occurs to me. Is there any policy that would prohibit there being two articles? We could have a small and inferior one dealing with his early life and reign, summarised in the much larger and better one dealing with his more important later life? :) Ben MacDui 08:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:POV fork? Surtsicna (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not like this article title but i wouldn't want two articles. Sadly it doesnt loo like there is going to be enough support to get this article moved. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is saying Scotland should be ignored, simply that it should not be included in the title. As it stands, there's ten paragraphs about his reign in Scotland, and the fact of his reign in Scotland is mentioned prominently in the introduction. I'm sure everyone would welcome it if someone wanted to expand that material. As Sutrsicna says, creating two articles would be a POV fork. john k (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the amount of info (or not) about his reign in Scotland should matter. What's important about calling him James VI & I (I'm American and this is what I've always seen, FWIW) is that it shows that he united the crowns of Great Britain, which is probably the most notable thing about him. 4.243.47.251 (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No matter what NCROY says, it shouldn't trump NPOV. And the current title clearly isn't neutral, and is probably downright offensive to the Scots, which is why people keep trying to change it. James VI & I is neutral and in common usage, and therefore a much more acceptable title. LRT24 (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

We could, I suppose, name him in order of ordinal number (I & VI). But it seems to me it's an insolvable problem if we want to please all parties. I can't see how any compromise is possible. The great majority of historians and historical literature acknowledge him as King of England first and Scotland after. If we want to break the mold and do it in reverse, however, I, as a descendant of a Glasgow emigrant, have no objection. We know the drill- take a poll, comment, and vote. The whole thing will no doubt be brought up again. But hey, that's Wikipedia. Gazzster (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Scots will have to be content with the knowledge it was a Scottish monarch who assumed the English throne and not the otherway around (heck knows previous English monarchs had tried). GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure it is a POV fork - or at least the idea is not anticipated in the policy. There is no dispute about the content of the article at all. Of course any such article on Jas VI would have to include significantly more information than presently exists in the article to make much sense. It would also have to avoid contradicting the existing article. However, as it exists, it seem fairly light on his policies within Scotland as monarch from 1578-1603 (which are what drew me here in the first place). Ben MacDui 08:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

We've already split off James I of England and the English Parliament, James I of England and religious issues, and Personal relationships of James I of England. If the sections dealing with his reign in Scotland were also split off, then I think it would be appropriate to use James VI in the title of those articles rather than James I. Though I still prefer "James VI and I" without a country disambiguator in all cases, because then there would be no perception of nationalist bias. DrKiernan (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Commenting on a split off article, the discussion looks like there would be two articles proposed, one titled James I of England and the other titled James VI of Scotland. But where would the all the content from 1603-1625, when he wore both crowns, be placed? Properly into both articles I would think, and that would be horribly duplicative, and would probably result in an WP:AFD for one of them. This biography is about a single person who had two crowns at the same time, although only one court in England. How can we split him in two? As to content disputes; there have been disputes about his sexuality. When that erupts again (which based on history and experience, it will eventually), it would flareup in two articles, rather than just in one. Also, how do you keep two articles in sync without content drifting between them. I can't see how two biographies about James would work. — Becksguy (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that whilst theoretically plausible, that particular game is not likely to be worth the candle. I am not an historian by any stretch of the imagination but I will have a look at what I have on his "national policy" whilst K o'Scots. If it eventually amounts to something worth creating a split off for, perhaps one or other of the redirects might go there. I continue to be in agreement with Dr K and others that, on balance, "James VI and I" would be the best. However I am under no illusions about our methods of obtaining "consensus" in such circumstances, involving as they do one much numerically larger group than the other. In the meantime I content myself with a Gedanken experiment:- At a time, far distant from now, the world will be one in which economic disparities between nations will be less. By sheer force of numbers English-speaking editors from South and East Asia will come to dominate proceedings here. WP:ENGVAR will be cheerfully ignored in favour of (say) Indian English. Articles titles will be changed to suit the preferences of these folk, who will justify themselves with outrageous remarks about "a majority of sources say", cheerfully ignoring the views of editors from small countries such as England and the USA. This article will be called "Jamez One of UK" or similar. Sadly perhaps, even smaller nations from the Celtic fringes will have ceased to exist save for a memory - but perhaps their ghostly chuckles will be heard on these pages long after we are gone. Ben MacDui 18:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Note that there are several redirects to this article, titled James I of England:

• James VI of Scotland and I of England
• James VI
• James VI and I
• James I and VI
• James VI of Scotland

However, James I of England and VI of Scotland does not exist (yet) and James I is a WP:DAB, since there were multiple people named James I. The redirects are easy ways to get to this article and don't require readers to have any knowledge of our naming conventions. It just works. — Becksguy (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There has been much discussion on here about the name of this article from both sides, but the only fair thing would be to rename it James VI of Scotland and I of England which would comply with the wiki naming rules, but if that is too long then just James VI and I should be sufficient as that is a unique enough title to not have to conform to the of x rule, just as in the article, Cuilén. Nocrowx (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

The fact that this discussion has gone on so long without agreement shows that the present title is not satisfactory otherwise it would have been laid to rest some time ago. 86.153.194.169 (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC) CM 11/3/11

After obtaining his majority, James' entire policy centred around keeping in the good books of Elizabeth I, so as to secure the English succession for himself. And once having done so, he set foot in Scotland - once, I believe. There is no doubt which of his kingdoms James considered the more important, a view shared by history. If any name change is desired for this article, it should be to James I & VI, his title in England. ðarkuncoll 00:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

There'll be no moving the article title for the foreseeable future. To do so, would mess up the consistancy of his Stuart successors. GoodDay (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It's inconsistent with his Stuart predecessors. DrKiernan (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

He had no Stuart predecessors. His predecessors on the throne of Scotland were Stewarts. He inherited the spelling "Stuart" from his father. ðarkuncoll 09:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

My point is - the surrounding articles (English monarchs & Scottish monarchs) are mostly Monarch # of country. If the whole 'pedia, were to adopt the Monarch style for these articles, then page movement would be more acceptable here. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Well that's just ludicrous pedantry. Spelling forms were a lot more fluid in the 16th century than now. Stuart, Stuyers were amongst the French forms, and even Stewart itself was a Scots form of the English Steward. To say that Jamie saxt wasn't a Stuart/Stewart is silly. (cf the 5th Earl of Douglas and Wigtown, known in France as Victon). Umm, and when does a father fail to be a predecessor, especially in a late feudal Europe full of agnatic succession etc? Quite agree though, with those above that this article should not be at this title, and should be at James VI and I, and to hell with Wikipedian convention. Brendandh (talk) 11:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

His father was Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley. He inherited the Scottish crown from his mother, Mary Queen of Scots, who was a Stewart by birth. That's the reason he's a Stuart, rather than Stewart. Of course, Henry Stuart's branch of the family may well have been influenced by French spelling conventions, but the immediate reason that James is a Stuart was simply because that was his name. ðarkuncoll 12:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It's the same family name, just a different spelling. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow. As an Englishman I find the title of this article frankly embarrassing to put it nicely, ludicrous to put it bluntly. Seriously. This just HAS to be reopened and looked at PROPERLY. Bods (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

As a Scotsman I find it grossly offensive, to put it nicely. I am not an ardent Scottish nationalist but I find the English hegemony keeping it at a non-neutral title to be utterly contrary to wikipedia's policy of a WP:NPOV. I have tried and failed before to have this addressed and was harangued for doing so. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I echo the sentiments of Wee Curry Monster. In Scotland, one does not refer to our last monarch as James the First of ENGLAND!!! That is not down to nationalistic jingoism, but because we are sick of the attitude put forward by many down south that UK and Engerland are synonymous. We have even had adverts where a song mentions a butter being "English too", while the characters wave UNION FLAGS. At any Engerland sporting events, the Union Flag is waved as opposed to St George's Cross or the Three Lions flag. In Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, you see the national flags or standards raised by those nationals. Even looking at the wikipedia article on succesion, there are about two or three lines in the article mentioning.."oh yeah, and the Stewarts ruled in Scotland for a wee while". By all means have an article on "James 1 of England", but why have "James VI of Scotland" redirecting instead of having its own article??82.0.25.104 (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Well, POV forks arent acceptable - you don't want two articles about the same person. Better just to rename this one. Frankly I can't believe that it wasn't renamed to James VI & I based on the archived discussion below, there wasn't any decent arguement made in favor of keeping the current name. LRT24 (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• There have been about 16 discussion threads, since the first talk page in 2003, on the subject of changing the title of this article. Almost all of them wanting to use James VI and/or James I in some combination, many as "James VI & I". Some of them were explicitly closed as No Consensus, and some just petered out, which is effectively the same thing. None of then developed sufficient consensus to change the title, therefore they all defaulted to status quo. Mostly the same arguments have been repeatedly expressed, both for and against. It's a perennial issue. — Becksguy (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I would beg to differ about the last time it was tried to change the name, there were a lot of comments that have no basis in policy and it is supposed to be about the strength of argument. There was no decent arguments to keep it the same and the fact it keeps being raised shows that it is problematic where it is now. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There were only two serious issues raised with the last proposal. 1, that it wasn't used by scholarship, which plain isn't true (although the form used tends to depend on whether you read histories of England, Scotland or Great Britain), and 2, that the location wouldn't be clear from the title, even though we have plenty of monarchs named this way already. It was ruled that there was no consensus, but it looks more like it was filibustered by one user. See WP:NOTUNANIMITY. LRT24 (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Quite. It is a perennial issue, because the title of this page is just so patently wrong, and a small mob of editors assume that if no consensus is reached then that is fine and dandy to carry on with the status quo. The amount of keyboard tapping about this should be indicative of a will to change this to something more suitable and non-contraversial. Although it may be WP's slightly fascist streamlining thing, I believe that rules are there for guidance rather than the "Word of God", and in unique situations, unique solutions are required. James VI & I is my preferred. More Admins here please? Brendandh (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything here that requires admin intervention. There is however nothing preventing you requesting a move - something that seems likely to continue to occur until a less egregiously insulting article name is agreed. Ben MacDui 13:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• The article should just be renamed James VI and I. It's short, it's understandable and it doesn't elevate any nation above that of another. I had a look through a few encyclopaedias and all of them have either used James VI and I or used both England and Scotland in the title. A lot of previous arguments about size and importance are entirely spurious - both England and Scotland were sovereign nations in the time of James and he had been King of Scotland for 35 years before he became King of England, which is why I think James VI and I is more appropriate because James I of England very clearly places more importance on one nation than another. Notorious Biggles (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Naming style, per the naming convention in WP:NCROY is {Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}. Which leads us to "James I of England", not "James VI of Scotland and James I of England, Ireland, and France", or even to "James VI and I". James (1566-1625) was 37 when he became James I in 1603, and he had been James VI of Scotland for 36 years (1567-1603). However, all but 19 of those years was as an infant, child or teenager and much of that was under a regent. So he was James VI in name for 36 years before 1603, but only in real power starting at age 15 for 22 years (1581-1603). He was both James I of England and James VI of Scotland for 22 years (1603-1625), about the same amount of time he had real power in Scotland before wearing both crowns. So using length of rule really doesn't apply in determining which of his titles is more important. I believe it is clear that he is better known for his rule as James I, and for continuing the Elizabethan period of cultural flowering into the Jacobean era, the literary, cultural, artistic and scientific era which was named after him. In addition, as James I, he ordered and commissioned the translation of the bible into what was arguably the greatest, most famous, important, and influential English Bible for some 300 years. That Bible, the King James Version (KJV) of 1611 was named after him. He did more as James I than as James VI. Despite ethnic and national pride issues, England was considered the more important and powerful crown, especially by him. He schemed to get the English crown, and as soon as he assumed it, he moved his court to England. And that's where he stayed, except for one visit. If the Scottish crown was so important, why didn't split his court between both kingdoms, or even visit Scotland more than once. And all that, in addition to Wikipedia naming conventions, WP:NCROY, is why the title of this article should stay as it is: James I of England. — Becksguy (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If were going to go into his accomplishments, surely we shouldn't forget about the most important one - unifying the crowns of England AND Scotland. Both should be in the name. LRT24 (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• WP:NCROY also states: "Some monarchs have a cognomen or other name by which they are clearly most commonly known (in English) and which identifies them unambiguously;". "VI and I" is an unusual "other name" but it is an epithet nonetheless and one which is both common and unambiguous. NCROY then goes on "Otherwise, kings, queens [etc.] who are known as "first name + ordinal" ... normally have article titles in [that] form". (My emphasis). So far as I can see there is no a priori reason for choosing to ignore the former option. Also, he did not stop being James VI when he became James I, so the idea that "He did more as James I than as James VI" does not seem possible to me. I think you must mean that he did more when he wore both crowns which may be fair. However, the issue is not what James himself did, intended or thought, or the obvious fact that England is larger than Scotland. It is that we are choosing to call a monarch, who ruled one country for very nearly sixty years by another name he also had for 22 years and which treats the former as irrelevant, when there is no need to do so. Ben MacDui 18:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• If we used "James VI & I", one of the more often suggested titles, the inevitable question would be "King of what"? Adding "of {country}" to that would result in "James VI of Scotland and I of England, France, and Ireland", which is unwieldy and overly long. Even leaving out the titular crown of France doesn't fix it. In identifying monarchs, the place is significantly more important and defining than is the ordinal. Same problem with his son and successor, as Charles I of England, although at least the ordinal is the same for all three crowns (Ireland, Scotland, England). James also styled himself as King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, by proclamation in 1604, except Great Britain didn't exist yet, until 1707. "James" has been used eleven times in naming monarchs, that I know of: James I-VII of Scotland, James I & II of England, and James I & II of Aragon. I disagree that "VI & I", or "I & VI" is common, or common enough for readers to know which James we are talking about. Elizabeth I may be such a designation, although even there, an Elizabeth of Russia also existed. I really don't know how to title this article in a way that responds to all of the concerns and makes everyone happy. Eight years of article history and copious discussions say keep the status quo. Of course, consensus can change. — Becksguy (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• The "inevitable question" you refer to applies to all the other monarchs with a cognomen or other name, yet NCROY makes it clear that the "first name + ordinal" is the second choice, so this argument would appear to have no basis. There is no need whatever for the title to include any "of {country}" and most of the rest of the information you offer is thus irrelevant. The "consensus" you refer to (which word Wiktionary defines as "widespread agreement among group members") seems to be rather closer to an imposition by a majority of something disputed strongly by a minority. This would not be called "consensus" elsewhere and I wonder if you have a proposal to end these copious discussions rather than re-iterate points in favour of a position that can only prolong them? Ben MacDui 09:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

I think the introduction should mention that he often styled himself as King James I of Great Britain and Ireland. (92.7.26.238 (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC))

It already does. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The title was King of Great Britain and Ireland. (92.7.26.238 (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC))

Blatant racism

James VI & I is how he is most commonly referred to. The reason for the title being James I of England is for no other reason than English nationalism prevalent throughout wikipedia. I doubt it will be changed but I just want a record that someone has called out the racism. Scotland is not less important than England; him being the King of Scotland was arguably his most notable feature as it led eventually to the union between Scotland and England (plus Wales); the reason it says James I of England is the same reason why British is never used as a nationality for people or even bands and the occasional TV programme or film where any Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish participation or funding is ignored. Racism pure and simple. 217.39.90.126 (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)