Talk:James VI and I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article James VI and I is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic star James VI and I is part of the Gunpowder Plot series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 19, 2005.


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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View[edit]

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 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


The citations are at the moment a mess. I propose to homogenise them as was done for the articles Charles I of England and Charles II of England. -- PBS (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


I think it not correct to say: 'In Scotland, James was "James the sixth, King of Scotland", until 1604.' His title would have been Rex Scotorum - "King of Scots" rather than "Rex Scotiae" - king of Scotland. Likewise his mother, Mary, Queen of Scots, was Regina Scotorum rather than Regina Scotiae. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

They were used interchangeably, though the form rex Scotorum was more common in Latin especially in the early medieval period when rex Anglorum, rex Francorum, etc., were also commonly used in Latin documents. DrKay (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Mary I versus Mary in InfoBox and Succession Box[edit]

For the pas two days, the InfoBox and Succession Box has been jumping back and forth between using Mary I and simply Mary to refer to Mary, Queen of Scots. While I do not have any problem using just Mary to refer to the queen within the article itself, the purpose of the succession section of InfoBoxes and Succession Boxes is to show the succession, and James was preceded by Mary I, not by Mary. There is another Mary in Scotland, Mary II, who reigned from 1689 to 1694. Yes, I am aware that some people may be confused because Mary I of England and Mary, Queen of Scots reigned concurrently, but that problem does not belong in the succession boxes. European monarchs as a whole are not very creative with names and two people reigning in two neighbouring countries who happen to have the same name is not that unusual. Just see the War of the Two Pedros. The succession lists need to use Mary I to refer to Mary I of Scotland since that is her regnal name. What the rest of the article uses to refer to her can be her popular attribution, but the purpose of the succession lists is to show continuity, and that requires the use of ordinals.  – Whaleyland (Talk • Contributions) 23:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It's too confusing, and unusual, and that is shown by the fact that it keeps being changed or challenged. Last night, an IP tried to change it within 20 minutes of your edit because they were confused. It is a disservice to the target readership if they are confused rather than educated by the article. I don't see how it can be her "regnal name" either. Surely she was just called "Mary" during her reign? Celia Homeford (talk) 08:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)