Talk:James VI and I

Template:Vital article

Reredundanancy

Is there a contest to see how many times the words James, England, Scotland and Ireland can appear in the first paragraph? Srnec (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

No there isn't but it is distinctly disruptive to specifically remove the title assigned to this article from the lede, particularly so when we've see a WP:RM that you opposed. It really does smack of WP:POINT. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I tried mixing up the verbiage in the first paragraph - see how you like it. Dohn joe (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

"James VI and I ... was ... James VI ... and ... James I" is stupid English. That's my point. Mentioning England/English and Scotland/Scots by name three sentences in a row is equally silly. The article didn't say "James I of England was ..." before. In fact, when it had that title by consensus the lede started off with the current title! Srnec (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

We're getting into the common trap of "try to squash to whole article into the first sentence", I think. How about a rethink? Replace the first paragraph as follows:

James VI and I (19 June 1566 – 27 March 1625) was a Scottish monarch whose Union of the Crowns in 1603 made him King of Scotland, King of England and Ireland. The states of England and Scotland retained their individual sovereignty, with their own parliaments, judiciary, and laws, though both were ruled by James. As King of Scots he was known as James VI and as King of England and Ireland as James I.

Thoughts? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I like the sound of it Chris. Mugginsx (talk) 10:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't "his" Union of the Crowns. "He was known as James VI as King of Scots, and James I as King of England and Ireland." is one less "as". DrKiernan (talk) 11:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we can escape the redundancy without loss of meaning or explanation. DrKiernan (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If we say that he was James VI as King of Scotland and James I as King of England, does it really need to be explained why the article is titled James VI and I? Srnec (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on that personally, but Wee Curry Monster complained about removing the double version. DrKiernan (talk) 10:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe it does need to be explained - and I have no problem with the text that is being suggested. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Why does Wee Curry's complaint carry more weight than mine? His argument is based on the title of the article, but the lede in dispute existed before the article had its current title. My argument is based on good English and not assuming our readers are stupid. (As an aside, how is this a good title if readers can't be expected to know why it is used when told that he was James VI of Scotland and James I of England?) Srnec (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The existing version (including James VI and I) has precedence because it's the long standing version. Typically, the previous consensus holds until there is consensus for a change. DrKiernan (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

James VI and I (19 June 1566 – 27 March 1625) was King of Scots as James VI from 24 July 1567 and King of England and Ireland as James I from the union of the English and Scottish crowns on 24 March 1603. The kingdoms of England and Scotland were individual sovereign states, with their own parliaments, judiciary, and laws, though both were ruled by James in personal union.

He became King of Scotland at the age of thirteen months, succeeding his mother Mary, Queen of Scots, who had been compelled to abdicate in his favour. Four different regents governed during his minority, which ended officially in 1578, though he did not gain full control of his government until 1583. In 1603, he succeeded the last Tudor monarch of England...etc.

Sounds fine to me. Dohn joe (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Me too. Brendandh (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I will defer to Wee and the rest who agreed here. It sounds right to me. Mugginsx (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of mere fact, the article began with James VI and I because it wasn't the title; it was compensatory weight for a verifiable name which wasn't at the top of the page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC) — in-appropriate, objectionable and possibly trolling comment by a now blocked user (for abusive use of account and for suspected sockpuppetry).

What is the plantation of America?

What does this sentence mean?: "James began the Plantation of Ulster and of North America." Nitpyck (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

See here, Plantation (settlement or colony) and here, Plantation of Ulster. It's just an alternative word for colonisation. Brendandh (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"The term "plantation" transferred to the large farms that were the economical basis of many of the 17th-century American colonies." By the time James died it had been replaced by colonization and should also be replaced in this article. Nitpyck (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Words can have several meanings. Brendandh and you are both correct. Mugginsx (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Plantation of Ulster is used much more frequently than colonisation of Ulster so the usage is absolutely correct here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Grand Master Mason

King James I was a member of the Society of Freemasonry and was a Grand Master Mason (GMM) <ref] http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/james_vi/james_vi.html </ref]. I'll find some other resources as well. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's another: <ref]The Secret Founding of America - The Real Story of Freemasons, Puritans, & the Battle for the New World p. 34 by Nicholas Hagger (Watkins, 2009)</ref]. I'll check other pages in this book and other books. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow! 13:34 EDT and someone with an agenda has already removed the info from the article even though I have two very reliable sources. I'll gather others and post it again later. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no published evidence of any society of non-operative masons in Britain during the lifetime of James I of any kind. There is evidence for the existence of stonework craft organisations, which may have had an element of ritual in their proceedings, and had their origins in medieval stone-cutting lodges at castles and cathedrals. A good book is The Origins of Freemasonry: Scotland's Story, David Stevenson, Cambridge (1988), which identifies earlier mason-craft organisation recognised by William Schaw in the 1590s in Scotland, and explores the beginnings of later 17th-century societies which appear to be 'masonic' in character.Unoquha (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Your source freemasonry.bcy.ca also has this: http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/james_vi/agreement.html saying that "Edward Macbean claims that the initiation of James VI, King of Scotland, is apocryphal, and it must be noted that there is no primary source documentation". This is the most likely option, since proper Freemasonry didn't really exist before the 18th century. Grand Lodge of England was established in 1717. 94.101.2.145 (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Sexuality

Others argue that the relationships were not sexual. James's Basilikon Doron lists sodomy among crimes "ye are bound in conscience never to forgive", and James's wife Anne gave birth to seven live children, as well as suffering two stillbirths and at least three other miscarriages.

I understand that James having written against sodomy is evidence against his relationships with men being sexual. But I don't understand why the number of children borne by his wife is relevant at all. Can someone explain? Marnanel (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Restoration of Apethorpe Hall, undertaken in 2004–08, revealed a previously unknown passage linking the bedchambers of James and Villiers.[129]

The article cited doesn't say anything at all about bedchambers or secret passages. Is this the wrong article or has the 'discovery' since been reassessed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.203.100.26 (talk • contribs) 06:06 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It says "Workers uncovered a passage connecting the pair's bedchambers during the recent renovations." DrKiernan (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

James writing against sodomy is hardly evidence of heterosexuality. Christians, even today, preach one thing and do another. This entire page is blatantly biased to protect the image of the bearer of Christianity's beloved King James. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.105.187 (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

This wiki reads like it was written by a Public Relations staffer.

This wiki needs a full NPV overhaul. It is ridiculously biased towards the official narrative, even though James's Homosexuality is, according to the wiki itself, generally agreed-upon.

There isn't even a criticism section, but don't add one.

This article needs a *full revision* that has NPV and evaluates the accuracy of the many claims made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.169.152 (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems fine to me on both neutrality and verifiability. DrKiernan (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely. How anyone can call this article neutral is beyond me. A full NPV overhaul is indeed needed.

James' religion in Infobox - Church of Scotland; Church of England

This article (along with those of most other monarchs) uses "Template: Infobox royalty", which has a line for "Religion". My first two tries to add a religion for James was reversed without appropriate comment. My third try was changed to simply "Church of Scotland"; "Church of England", without any comment. My edits were intended to indicate that James was brought up in the Church of Scotland, and subsequently became head of the Church of England only as a title upon inheriting the throne of England. Thus, "| religion = Church of Scotland; titular Defender of the Faith of the Church of England upon accession to the English throne". Could other editors comment, especially those with expertise in this portion of history? Thanks! Facts707 (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Both reverts were accompanied by full and explanatory edit summaries. So, the statement that they were "reversed without appropriate comment" is false. As indicated in the edit summaries, infoboxes are for basic facts; they are not designed for nuance or complexity. Secondly, he was not Presbyterian. It should not be implied in the infobox that he was.

On the new issue, all British monarchs are titular Defenders of the Faith of the Church of England upon accession to the throne. The infobox should relate to James personally, not the monarchy. The parameter is optional and can be removed. DrKiernan (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Like all subsequent monarchs, James was Presbyterian when in Scotland and Anglican when in England. I think the evidence is clear that he was happier as the latter. He was also presumably baptised as a Catholic, but removed from his mother's care before that could have made much impact. I agree the infobox should not attempt to say anything, except perhaps "Protestant" which is the key point (and, like his contemporaries, James would have failed to understand modern Anglicans who reject that term). Johnbod (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments like "James was Presbyterian when in Scotland" and "presumably baptised as a Catholic" when the Scottish church was episcopalian for most of his lifetime and the article clearly states he was baptised in a Catholic ceremony merely demonstrate that comments are being made by people who have neither read the article nor are familiar with the history. "Protestant" is correct. DrKiernan (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Not recently, no. I should have said Calvinist Episcopalian perhaps. "Protestant" in the infobox would fulfill a useful purpose. Johnbod (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)