Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:44, 25 February 2010

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Scotland High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Scottish Royalty High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scottish Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scottish Royalty on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Scottish RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject Scottish RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject Scottish RoyaltyScottish royalty High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Textile arts Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Textile arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of textile arts on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Textile artsWikipedia:WikiProject Textile artsTemplate:WikiProject Textile artsTextile arts Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. London This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on May 19, 2004, February 8, 2005, February 8, 2006, February 8, 2007, February 8, 2008, February 8, 2009, July 24, 2009, and February 8, 2010.

Talk:Mary I of Scotland/archive 1

Neutrality

On a quick read-through, and without getting into minutiae, this article has a definite slant that doesn't feel like neutral POV, but rather feels "pro-Mary". Specifically, the total glossing over of the Babington plot, the implication that her execution was intentionally cruel (the two strikes thing), etc. I'm fairly well-read on the era, but this isn't something I'm going to dig in and fight over, just thought I'd mention my initial impression. I believe it should be possible to present the balance of facts (as we are able to know them at this point) without coming across as either "pro-Mary" or "pro-Elizabeth".--24.148.236.234 (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. It is open to every contributor, including yourself, to make appropriate amendments to improve the tone, and I encourage you to do so. Deb (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for saying the above! Re: the Casket Letters: I'd just like to add, that they are not really important as to Mary's guilt, too much importance is given them (kind of red-herring), as e.g. Caroline Bingham points out in her boigraphy of Darnley (Constable 1995). However, I see it's not easy to incorporate such an overriding aspect; perhaps in a footnote? Perhaps I'll try sometime - without hurting feelings, and with exact references etc.

Buchraeumer (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, on the whole bias note, the paragraph "Portraits of Mary show that she had a small, well-shaped head, a long, graceful neck, bright auburn hair, hazel-brown eyes, under heavy lowered eyelids and finely arched brows, smooth lustrous skin, a high forehead, and regular, firm features. While not a beauty in the classical sense, she was an extremely pretty child who would become a strikingly attractive woman. In fact, her effect on the men with whom she later came into contact was certainly that of a beautiful woman.

Well-shaped? Graceful? Finely arched? These aren't words I'd expect to see on an encyclopedia. Plus, the later bits seem very biased.

Perhaps some of this is valid, but it seems quite biased more like something from a historical fiction novel than an encyclopedia.

96.243.206.236 (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The description comes from Antonia Fraser's 1969 biography Mary, Queen of Scots, which is not romantic fiction.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but does it need to be taken straight to an encyclopedia without being checked for bias? 96.243.206.236 (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do her portraits contradict the description provided by Fraser, who obviously based her detailed description of Mary on the available portraits of the Scottish queen? I don't see where there's bias, seeing as the portraits do show that Mary possessed the physical attributes listed by Fraser.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hats Production of Mary, Queen of Scots Got Her Head Chopped Off.jpg

Image:Hats Production of Mary, Queen of Scots Got Her Head Chopped Off.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Mary I's titles

What was Mary I's title from 1578 (James Hepburn's death) until 1587 (her own death)? I suppose that she was styled Countess of Bothwell from 1567 (when she ceased to be Queen of Scots) until 1578 (when the Earl of Bothwell died). Maybe Lady Mary Stuart or Dowager Countess of Bothwell? Surtsicna (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding - and this is just my opinion/interpretation of events - is that technically, she never lost her title. When she was forced to abdicate, she did so only because Lindsay threatened to cut her throat if she did not sign them. She had miscarried only several days earlier, and had lost a great deal of blood, leaving her in a very delicate state health-wise. The two points are important, because they are the foundations for the argument that she signed the document under extreme duress, and would therefore be invalid when held up to any kind of scrutiny. Throckmorton actively encouraged this line of thinking and reasoning to Mary at the time. e So, if one holds that the document were signed under genuine duress, then they are invalidated and unenforceable.

In any case, even if she HAD lawfully and legally given up her throne, my understanding is that she would still have a regal title, as she was born royalty. #REDIRECT Edward VIII abdication crisis indicates that after his abdication, Edward was known as 'His Royal Highness,' Duke of... I don't know what all of her other titles would be offhand. Probably a lot of French titles mixed in as well.

(My sources for the above were Rosalind Marshall and Nau, Mary's personal advisor/assistant. Colemic (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Twins?

She became pregnant with twins, which she later miscarried while imprisoned.

How did they know (in 16th century) that she was pregnant with twins when she miscarried them? 87.250.116.18 (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's simple. When she miscarried them, people could see the two little body of the babies ---- (Kaho Mitsuki) 00:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Line of Succession

Can someone produce a source for the claim about a law during the reign of Robert II having created a "semi-Salic" succession in Scotland. I have not seen this claimed anywhere except Misplaced Pages, and for a few reasons I find this a bit implausible, although I could be proved wrong. Unless someone responds in a couple of days I propose to delete this. PatGallacher (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite right too. Deb (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Gordon Donaldson's 'Kings of Scotland' (p. 34-35) says that it was an official act of Parliament:

"Almost exactly two years later, in a parliament held at Scone on 4 April 1373, a much more elaborate act of sucession, amounting to an entail of the crown, was passed with the consent of 'the prelates, earls, barons and the rest of the chief men and nobles of all others of the three estates or communities of the whole realm there asembled.' The crown was now destined to pass successively to John, Earl of Carrick, and his heirs male, whom failing to the King's second son, Robert, Earl of Fife and Menteith, and his heirs male, whom failing to Alexander, Lord of Badenoch, the King's third son, and his heirs male, whom failing to David, Earl of Strathearn, the King's fourth son, and his heirs male, whom failing to Walter, youngest of the King, and his heirs male, 'and the foresaid five brothers and thir heirs male decending from them happening finally and wholly to fail (which God forbid), the true an lawful heirs of the royal blood and kin shall thenceforward succeed to the kingdom and the right of reigning.' It is curious, and significant of the force attached to statute rather than blood, that, although the crown had come to the Stewarts through a female, it was now laid down that it was not to be transmitted through a female, except possiby on the extinction of all the male lines decended from Robert II. In fact, as will appear, the male line of the first five sons coninued in unbroken, though tenuous, succession until the death of James V in 1542. But at that point (when, as it happened, the male lines of all the other sons of Robert II had long died out), the crown went not to any man but to the late King's infant daughter, Mary, Queen of Scots."

Hope that helps. Colemic (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Also... the below link is the Records of the Parliament of Scotland website, it is an unbelievable treasure trove! A spectacular source, plus it has translations as well. It validated Donaldson's version, the title of the relevant section being 'Legislation: statute, ordinance and declaration entailing the Crown on the sons of Robert II.' It is listed as an act of Parliament on 4 April 1373.

http://www.rps.ac.uk 139.153.13.68 (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like it answers the point. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It is often said that Mary Queen of Scots and Elizabeth I were cousins. Elizabeth I was Mary Tudor's half-sister (they shared father but not mother), and Mary QoS was her niece, not her cousin. According to several sources - Misplaced Pages included - Mary QoS was the granddaughter of Henry VIII's sister. This does not make her Elizabeth's cousin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.246.7.153 (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

First cousin once removed, I think (or maybe second cousin once removed). But the word "cousin" used to be a general term for any relation. Deb (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

They were first cousins thru Mary’s mother and Elizabeth’s father being sister and brother. Margaret Tudor was the eldest daughter of Henry VII of England and Elizabeth of York, and she was the elder sister of Henry VIII who was Elizabeth I father. See the respective family trees under their profiles on this site. Azegarelli (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)A.Stephenson 15:55, 14 Jan 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azegarelli (talk • contribs) 15:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Margaret Tudor was not Mary's mother, she was her paternal grandmother. Mary's mother was Mary of Guise, therefore she and Elizabeth were not first cousins.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. And as Deb said, the technical term for their family relationship is "first cousins, once removed". Mary's father, James V, was Elizabeth's first cousin, and if Elizabeth had had a child, that child would have been Mary's second cousin. Mary's child, James VI, was Elizabeth's first cousin, twice removed. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I just rechecked everything and your right. I don't know why/how I got myself confused. I must have had a few too many windows up at the time (so many Mary's and all). Thank you for the correction. Azegarelli (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Physical Description

There is no physical description of Mary in the article.It doesn't mention,for instance her extraordinary height (5"11),nor any details of her colouring,features,etc.Antonia Fraser devotes several pages to her physical attributes;considering the capacity she had for attracting men.jeanne (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add this in, although I don't think it would need more than a paragraph. If you have a copy of this book, it would be reat if you could add in some references. There are some but I think some sections need more. Perhaps then we could get rid of this: 'This article or section is missing citations or needs footnotes. Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (May 2008)' at the top of the page. Boleyn (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Her height is already mentioned in the article. Deb (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Coded messages, decrypted

Mary used a "nomenclature" cipher to encrypt messages sent to and from Anthony Babington. Walsingham (Secretary to Queen Elizabeth) intercepted many of these coded messages. Thomas Phelippes (a linguist and cryptanalyst) was employed (by Walsingham) to break this cipher and by statistical analysis of the frequency of the symbols he was able to discover the key, and thereby decode the cipher. Mary's confidence in the privacy that her cipher provided, made her bold enough to communicate her consent to the Babington Plot (to assassinate Queen Elizabeth). Much more detail is available "The Code Book" by Simon Singh 1999 ISBN:0-385-49532-3. 72.73.92.107 (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.92.107 (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistent Naming

The section "Childhood in France" uses both Henry II and Henri II, and Henry/Henri. It appears to me that this should be edited for consistency and that Henri II would be the correct choice. Thank you for your kind review. Ellendare (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Colemic (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Citations Added

I have added the 2 citations needed to remove the "citations needed" label at the top, but I don't know how to do that... and I rewrote the paragraph at James V's prophecy to reflect the source. Please feel free to amend it as necessary but I think it reflects fairly on the issue. I *think* I added the citations correctly.

Lastly... Under "Heritage, Birth, and Coronation," it says that John Stewart would have succeeded before Mary had he not died in 1536... what is dubious about that? Is it not correct?

Thanks,

Colemic (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Had John Stewart tried to claim the throne he would have most likely ignited civil war in Scotland. Mary was the legitimate child of James V and there would have been many people to back up her claim with armed intervention. And remember Mary had powerful relations in France-namely the Guises.--jeanne (talk) 06:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

'Mary, who had previously claimed Elizabeth's throne as her own' I think you need a citation for this. Ddin't Mary simply say she was the heir to Elisabeth's throne Tarzanlordofthejungle (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:MaryStuartPlay.jpg

The image Image:MaryStuartPlay.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --02:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Lady Jane Grey

why was she beheaded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.159.157 (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Because she would not admit to Mary Tudor that she was not the rightful heir to the throne. She was put there because she was a Protestant, and Mary Tudor was a Catholic married to the Spanish King. She was the Queen for a little while, but the English were not Protestants in general, they followed what Henry VIII had established, which was the Church of England. When her general support diminished, Mary Tudor came, and wanted her to apologise and admit that she had been a usurper of the throne. When she didn't, she was beheaded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.246.7.153 (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, while she was alive she could be a rallying point for all Protestants (or non-Catholics) against the Catholic Queen Mary. She was a threat. Mary's little half-sister Elizabeth was, too. But she was at the Palace and was loyal to her sister Mary (at least for the purpose of staying alive, she was.) Bigmac31 (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

error

she miscarried her twins while in custody, but in the chapter descendany it says:"Mary also bore her third husband twins while in Elizabeth I's captivity, they died soon after birth." bplease correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lillelaboe (talk • contribs) 14:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. Please, in the future, feel free to make small corrections yourself. Colemic (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Another error (soz, don't know how to create a new section) The "Regency" section about when Mary was too young to rule says that her mother, Mary of Guise, was regent until her death in 1560, but Mary of Guise's own page says that she, being Catholic, was deposed by Scottish Protestants in 1559. I'm guessing the second one's right, as it's on Mary of Guise's page, but in that case shouldn't this page be updated, and who was regent from 1559 to 1560? I don't want to edit anything myself because I'm no expert... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.45.185 (talk) 08:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Problems editing

I noticed that in the references section, the entry for Richard Oram's book has a year lisintg of 200, but when I go to edit it, it is already listed as 2004... Does anyone have any idea why it doesn't show up correctly? Colemic (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

A typo?

What is this grossneck thing "a long, graceful small grossneck" in the physical description in the "Childhood in France section"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.111.33 (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

burial

Is this true Mary's body was embalmed and left unburied at her place of execution for a year after her death. Her remains were placed in a secure lead coffin (thought to be further signs of fear of relic hunting). She was initially buried at Peterborough Cathedral in 1588, but her body was exhumed in 1612 when her son, King James I of England, ordered she be reinterred in Westminster Abbey. It remains there, along with at least 40 other descendants, in a chapel on the other side of the Abbey from the grave of her father's cousin Elizabeth I. In the 1800s her tomb and that of Elizabeth were opened to try to ascertain where James I was buried; he was ultimately found buried with Henry VII.

I can't reference to it in any of the other articles mentioned. 81.159.216.103 (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Protection needed

Can this article be protected? Someone is persistantly vandalising it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've temporarily protected the page so it can only be edited by registered users. Deb (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

New file File:Landing of Mary Queen of Scots (Mary, Queen of Scots) from NPG borderless.jpg

Recently the file File:Landing of Mary Queen of Scots (Mary, Queen of Scots) from NPG borderless.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 21:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

New file File:Mary, Queen of Scots being led to execution by William Luson Thomas.jpg

Recently the file File:Mary, Queen of Scots being led to execution by William Luson Thomas.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. It is a late-19th century artist's impression of Mary, Queen of Scots being led to her execution. Dcoetzee 06:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Question About Darnley

Wouldn't he be more appropriately titled king consort rather than suggesting that his was a courtesy title? PatrickLMT (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Last letter of Mary Queen of Scots to go on display

• Queen wrote she had God-given right to English crown before execution, The Times

--Mais oui! (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The section "Childhood and early reign" has the following text with typing errors:

Mary was born on 8 December 1542 at Linlithgow Palace, Linlithgow, Scotland to King James V of Scotland and his French wbirth to a daughter, ruefull "It came with a lass, it will The House of Stewart

I don't know exactly what the missing text is, but assume it was deleted in a recent edit.

Can someone more experienced please unpick and correct this? Thanks.

195.33.116.49 (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, as it was overlooked by subsequent edits made to the article. Unfortunately, Mary I of Scotland gets vandalised on a regular basis. I'm glad you noticed the chunk of missing text.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

New Image

The newest infobox image is a much better-and far more flattering- portrait of Mary than the previous one. Also it's a contemporary one by Clouet and therefore should stay.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Heritage

"During the 15th-century reign of Robert III of Scotland, it had been confirmed that the Scottish Crown would only be inherited by males in the line of Robert's children ... with the demise of ... James V, Robert II had no remaining direct male descendants of unquestionably legitimate origins." The item begins with Robert III, but ends with Robert II. Is one of them a typo, or are both correct? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been corrected to Robert III.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed 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.

The result of the proposal was no concensus after 15 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Support Mary I of Scotland → Mary, Queen of Scots — She is usually known as "Mary, Queen of Scots", e.g. DrKiernan (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

gscholar hits: 7 for "Mary I of Scotland" v. 16,200 for "Mary, Queen of Scots"

• Strongly support. I agree it should be moved to Mary, Queen of Scots, for the main reason that she is normally known by this name rather than Mary I of Scotland, which is actually a misnomer as there was no Mary II of Scotland. Virtually every biography on Mary Stuart is titled Mary, Queen of Scots, never Mary I of Scotland. In point of fact, a reader would most likely be confused when confronted by the latter name.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, Mary II of England was also Mary II of Scotland, and Google Scholar yields a few hits for that name. That does not diminish your more important argument, that Mary, Queen of Scots, is the much more commonly used name. Ucucha 18:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support I think in this case WP:COMMONNAME is is more appropriate than following the guidelines of WP:NCROY.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I was surprised to see this title. SlimVirgin 16:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support per all, especially Ladattblueboy & Jeanne B, although WP:NCROY is clear (see the opening section) that it does not aspire to overide WP:COMMON. This is a perennial issue - see the talk page archive. Johnbod (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support although as a general rule I am cautious about abandoning the naming convention for monarchs, I think this is one case where the common name is just so common we have to accept it. Not allowing the odd exception like this is the sort of thing which can bring consistent naming standards for monarchs into disrepute. PatGallacher (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as ...of Scotland is used by her Scottish predecessors. It's Monarch name Ordinal & country, there's no such country as 'Scots'. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The people of Scotland are called Scots, hence Mary, Queen of Scots. The reason most editors support the proposed move is due to the fact that she is better known by the name Mary, Queen of Scots than Mary I of Scotland.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind it in the content. But the title must remain, see (for example) Robert II of Scotland, James V of Scotland, David I of Scotland, etc. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - She is not the only Mary who was Queen of Scots. There were four other Scottish queens called Mary, three of which also used the title 'Queen of Scots'. That (and possible inconsistency) concerns me a bit even though "Mary Queen of Scots" usually refers to this Queen Mary. Surtsicna (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There is already a hatnote link to Mary, Queen of Scots (disambiguation), which also has the films etc. Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose — common usage should not be parroted when it adds ambiguity or confusion, and as is mentioned above this is more of a role - a job title if you like - than a name. – Kieran T 20:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support — for almost all ordinary readers this will be clearer and less confusing. Obviously there should still be a hatnote directing people to the less important queens of the Scots called Mary. Grafen (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - interesting to see use of "queen of THE Scots" above. Highlights the inadequacy of the phrase. What is meant by "the Scots"? She wasn't some sort of campaign idol, queen of the Scottish diaspora. She was queen of a nation-state, Scotland, and that word, Scotland, is what should be in the page title. 81.178.67.229 (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - this comes up for Mary every couple of years. However the introduction of this "replace-the-Misplaced Pages-standard-with-some-other-name" concept has not proved beneficial in the two cases where it has been tried -- the Polish and the Japanese monarchies. In fact there it led to confusion when it was tried a few years ago as a result of the deviation from the standard Misplaced Pages naming convention. As "Mary, Queen of Scots" already exists as a redirect and typing "Mary Queen of Scots" into Google leads directly to this article as #1 result, this proposal will have no benefit other than to make a few Wikipedians feel more comfortable. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the titling of Polish monarchs has become a mess (although I wasn't aware of any problem with Japan) but that doesn't mean that we can't allow the odd exception for a very well-known figure who is overwhelmingly known by a particular name. PatGallacher (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That is what redirects are for. And we do use them for this article. Japan may have been sorted out now but a few years ago you needed to know the death name (as opposed to the reigning name) before you could find our Japanese emperor articles owing to the efforts of an enthusiastic Japanese monarchist. This was Not A Good Thing... -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - clear-cut open-and-shut case of WP:COMMONNAME. Regardless of anyone else that might have used the title, invariably when people refer to "Mary, Queen of Scots", they mean this one. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If one were to walk into a bookshop or library and ask for a biography on Mary I of Scotland, he or she would most likely receive blank looks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

All the more reason to educate people! ;-) 78.141.29.200 (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Jean Plaidy was wrong to call her book, "Royal Road to Fotheringhay", then. It must confuse many people who end up with Antonia Fraser's book instead. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I understand the reasoning, but it is simply not true that the title Mary I of Scotland is not commonly used. Therefore there is no reason to break the convention. Deb (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The proposed title appears to be overwhelmingly more common in reliable sources, as the link given by the nominator indicate. Misplaced Pages ought to follow those sources. Ucucha 21:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The proposed title is undoubtedly the commonest title of the Queen. However we are talking about the title of an article about the Queen here, not about the Queen herself. And the commonest form for titles of articles about monarchs in Misplaced Pages is "Name n of Country", not "Name, Queen of People", or even "Commonest Name of Monarch". The reliable sources that you mention use the title for the Queen, not for the Misplaced Pages article on the Queen. And we are talking here about renaming the article, not the Queen. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name for the subject of the article." Ucucha 12:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we are going to cite policy, let's cite the specific policy on Royalty rather than the generic policy on toothpicks, star signs and Pokemon characters. The specific policy on Royalty gives the rules which govern the title of this article. In particular the specific policy contains a statement, "use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem". It then follows with a list of rules which cover everything applicable to this article. There is no specific problem. In short this article is currently at the title prescribed by Misplaced Pages policy. The proposed move would be against Misplaced Pages policy. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Our naming policies don't work like that. If anything, WP:COMMONNAME would overrule the royalty convention. It is clearly not in dispute that this person is by far most commonly referred to as "Mary, Queen of Scots", and by far the person most commonly known by that name. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, "use the common name" is an incredibly powerful rule in that this one rule allows us to decide on the article titles for toothpicks, star signs, Pokemon characters, and Queens of Scots. Ucucha 05:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Then why on earth do we bother having so many other rules on article titles? There would appear to be no reason to have specific policy on Royal article titles (or any other specialist titles) if we are just going to ignore it and use commonest name. Since there is specific policy -- and has been since 2002 -- it suggests that commonest name is not the best answer in all cases. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The naming rules aren't prescriptive, and they're not to be applied in a legalistic fashion. This is what I think you fail to understand here. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

So if you realise that rules are not to be applied in a legalistic fashion why do you appear to be so determined to apply the "commonest name" rule as if it overruled all others? That's what I really fail to understand. I've been working on these Royalty articles since 2001 and I know why we have these rules because I've experienced the problems that occurred when we didn't and when we have strayed from them. My reason for supporting the status quo is that it works better than the alternative in my experience; not because it is some God-given rule in policy. In fact since I evaluate all actions in terms of whether they are good for the encyclopedia or not, I don't really care whether there is an actual policy rule on it but since you and others raised the policy argument as the primary reason for your opinion, I thought it only sensible to address the issue in those terms. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support "Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name" Flamarande (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Implying "rareness" which really isn't the case with "Mary I" which isn't rare, merely less common in colloquial publications; the opposite is true (i.e. "Mary I" is more common) in formal histories and academic texts that I've ever used, where frankly "Mary" is the commonest abbreviation or simplification used — and yet I trust nobody will suggest renaming this article to "Mary". This discussion shows only that there's no consensus for change. 81.178.67.229 (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see why Mary should be excluded from naming rules used for every Scottish monarch. Dimadick (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's very easy. No other Scottish monarch has a more common name in a different format. See the policy. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, a point could be made that Robert I is equally known as Robert the Bruce, and there is also William the Lion; this however, doesn't change my support for the proposed move.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"Equally known as" in the sense of "recognised equally well using the other name..." or "equally frequently renamed as..."? Because like Mary, he's much more commonly known by the colloquial name in colloquial references, but that doesn't make it right to rename his article, because it's not an official title, merely a popular one. What about England's Richard the Lionheart? This could be never-ending and would lead to confusion for anyone navigating through the monarchs over time. 81.178.67.229 (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support, obviously, per "common usage in reliable sources". Our guidelines for naming royalty are simply meant to guide editors, not to overrule policy.
  • Retha M. Warnicke, Mary Queen of Scots (2006)
  • Jane E.A. Dawson, The politics of religion in the age of Mary, Queen of Scots (2002)
  • Gordon Donaldson, The first trial of Mary, Queen of Scots (1983)
  • Gordon Donaldson, Mary, Queen of Scots (1974)

Cavila (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There is also:

• Antonia Fraser, Mary, Queen of Scots, 1969
• Stefan Zweig, Mary, Queen of Scotland and the Isles or alternatively Queen of Scots

Nothing entitled Mary I of Scotland, although that title is patently correct. The common name for Mary Stuart is overwhelmingly Mary, Queen of Scots, and the article's name needs to conform to popular usage.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment — These book titles are irrelevant. They are populist titles, designed to attract the reader to a commercial product. (Please note, I'm not disparaging the quality of any of the books.) Thankfully, Misplaced Pages does not need to be populist. We don't need to attract readers to an article. They will come if they are interested. And as has been said, there is a perfectly functional redirect in place. It ain't broke, so don't "fix" it. – Kieran T 15:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Common use and common names are NEVER irrelevant. I thought that Misplaced Pages was meant to be used by average readers (who will use common names). Kieran made it clear that I was mistaken: "Misplaced Pages does not need to be populist. We don't need to attract readers to an article. They will come if they are interested." Welcome to the elitist wiki. Here we blindly obey the rules and disregard common names. Welcome to Napoleon I of France and Victoria of the United Kingdom. English names? Ohh you poor ignorant fool. This the technical language wiki. Flamarande (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I consider those remarks to be deeply patronising to the readership. Correctness and accuracy are not élitist. However, not wishing to get into a flame war, I shall say no more on the subject! Happy editing to all :-) – Kieran T 17:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The gscholar results clearly show that "Mary, Queen of Scots" is the norm in academic literature. It is "Mary I of Scotland" that is the non-academic title chosen on the basis of a wikipedia rule. This is one of the reasons it is a bad choice: wikipedia looks amateurish if it uses a name that hardly anyone else in the field uses. We should follow the same practice as reliable sources, and that practice is "Mary, Queen of Scots". DrKiernan (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not the normal usage in encyclopaedias. Deb (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Collier's (1967), the New Standard (1932), the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004), and Ashley's "Mammoth Book of British Kings & Queens" (1998) all use it. DrKiernan (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been a week now & I don't see a consensus to change the title. Shall we close? GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, there is consensus to move. Not only is there a majority to do so, but the reliable sources overwhelmingly support a move. You've provided virtually no sources, if any, in support of the current title and your arguments are weak. DrKiernan (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DrKiernan. There are no sources provided which show Mary as Mary I of Scotland-except in the current article at Misplaced Pages. I think we have consensus to move it to Mary,Queen of Scots.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

10 - 5 in favour of a move, isn't overly convincing (and such a move would violate the current naming conventions). I reckon it's up to the closing administrator, to decide the results. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You keep claiming that "such a move would violate the current naming conventions", but this is what the policy section on "sovereigns" actually says: "If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion, Skanderbeg, etc...". But there must be consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet; and the name must actually be unambiguous." It is obvious to a clear majority of those commenting here that these conditions are met. Arguments based on "the conventions" which do not produce any evidence are essentially circular, and fail when it is clear that the nomination is in fact in agreement with the conventions. Johnbod (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a consitancy buff. If we move this article? it'll come out of line with the other Scottish monarch articles' titles. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's 11-5 in favor of a move, and the arguments should also be taken into account when judging consensus. Anyway, the move isn't even against the conventions: you keep forgetting that they are only guidelines which allow exceptions, particularly where there is an overwhelmingly used commonname. DrKiernan (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Correct, I forgot to count the nominator. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The current title is actually against WP:UCN, which is policy. WP:NCROY is merely a guideline and can't override policy, and as Johnbod argues, the proposed move isn't even against NCROY. And let's leave the determination of consensus to the closing admin. Ucucha 17:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Please all remember that this is not a vote — Misplaced Pages doesn't work that way, and 10 people to 5 doesn't equate to 10 good ideas to 5. Consensus is based on ideas, not numbers. We don't seem to have agreed about the importance of one "policy" over one "guideline" (and remember the overarching "rule" of WP:IGNORE!). 81.178.67.229 (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support move per above arguments that it is the most common way to reference this person. Propaniac (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been 8 days since the move was proposed, an administrator needs to decide whether or not there's consnsus to move the article and close this discuusion.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested moves is often backlogged; there's actually another request that has been open since January 22. We should just be patient. Ucucha 19:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving the article is gonna be a mistake. It'll be out of line with the other Scottish monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I for one would support moving Robert the Bruce to keep her company, if that's any help! Johnbod (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a consistancy buff. The current conventions call for Monarch # of coutnry, this is how all monarchial titles should be until/if the conventions are changed. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's called a convention, not a rule. Unconventional is not the same thing as incorrect. Propaniac (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support per WP:common name Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support I agree with the others, it's by far the more common name. I think this should be done for more monarch titles too, e.g. Richard I, William I, William II etc. Convention is all very well, but why make things difficult? Aiken ♫ 23:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  • • It's been 2-weeks people. Time for an adminstrator to review & close this. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Hear hear.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
• Records of her time call her "Mary Queen of Scots" or similar..."; but since then the Mary of William and Mary became Queen Mary II of England and of Scotland; same as Queen Elizabeth of England became Queen Elizabeth I when Queen Elizabeth II came to the throne. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That's true for any King or Queen of Scotland. Their official title is "James, King of Scots" or "Robert, King of Scots", or whatever. So it's not surprising that records of her time call her that. When Charles II was crowned in Scotland, he too, became Charles, King of Scots. But the argument here is not about the Queen's title,: everyone agrees what that was; it's about the article title: should it be the same as the Queen's title or should it be in the same form as the title of the other Royalty articles on Misplaced Pages. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

She is still called "Mary, Queen of Scots", as clearly shown by the sources given. The later Marys have had very little impact on what this Mary is called. The same disambiguation that was used to distinguish her from Queen Mary of England is used today. DrKiernan (talk) 16:57, 24 February 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.

Infobox image

The Clouet portrait of Mary was more flattering as well as contemporary; whereas this portrait was done after her death. I think we should revert back to the youthful Clouet portrait.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Antonia Fraser "Mary, Queen of Scots",pages 88-90

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Scotland articles
• High-importance Scotland articles
• All WikiProject Scotland pages
• B-Class Scottish royalty articles
• High-importance Scottish royalty articles
• WikiProject Scottish Royalty articles
• B-Class Textile arts articles
• Low-importance Textile arts articles
• WikiProject Textile arts articles
• Unassessed London-related articles
• Unknown-importance London-related articles
• Selected anniversaries (May 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (July 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2010)