Wikipedia

Talk:House of Stuart/Archive 1

< Talk:House of Stuart
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Arglebargle79 in topic Elizabeth?
Archive 1

Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

What sort of social rank would one have to bear in their family, in order to be a descendent of either? How far up the totem pole, would you say? This is intended to have broad answers and based on gradients of time and population, not going into specifics about exact descendents. About how common is their descent in the English or British genepool today? I've noticed that American Presidents don't descend from either king, but the most common recent royal ancestor shared by many of us is Edward III. How common is it for anybody in the English or British genepool, to have a Protestant royal ancestor? There is a general cutoff, isn't there? Is it because of fratricide in the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors' "new men", or the Union of the Crowns, or the parliamentary union under Queen Anne (I can't think of any non-royal family descent from the Hanoverians within the UK)?

I'm thinking that there is a big difference between Plantagenet and Tudor descents, that the commons in all likelihood have the former and the latter is held by the lords. (just generally speaking) Then again, Tudor descent in the Welsh must be higher in general. I am further curious about pre-Royal Tudor blood in Anglo-British people today, since the status and/or concept of Welsh royalty/nobility is rather hazy in my mind. I found the Blevins aka Ap Bleddyn family of Powys in my ancestry, but have no real idea on what to make of it--or any other Welsh "native aristocracy". I might be able to find Stewart descent somewhere, from way back when. What percentage of Hanoverian background do you think that German colonists had in America? On the British side, I have to go as far back as Welf himself...but any recent genetic relationship with the Hanoverians or the counts of Nassau are completely obscure. How does one research those other colonial people, such as the Hessians? UK genealogy is relatively easy when focusing on English (and French) ancestries. What would a "national person" of Jerusalem (or Antioch, for example) in Crusader times be known as? We say "American" for those Founders, but was there such a nationality-term for the Crusaders in their own domains? I guess the term is supposed to be Levantine/Outremer, or "Crusader" as our national heritage says "Colonist"... IP Address 12:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite get what the point of this passage is. There is a very strong trace of Edward III's blood in nearly all people who can claim descent back to the 1700s in Britain. He had many sons and many daughters and nearly all of them surprisingly survived to adulthood. Also, Edward I provided a number of surviving adults who intermarried to English and French courts. This is why there is such a strong tint of Plantagenet blood in English families.
Pre-royal Stewart blood is also very prominent but after James VI's ascension to the English throne, virtually none of his descendents intermixed with other families and the line died out after 100 years. Similarly, the Tudor family only has surviving lines through the ancient Welsh ancestors. The only royal that has descendents is Henry VII and that is primarily through the Stuart line. Most English royalty since the Hanovarian take-over have wed their children to other royals or nobles thus few non-noble descendents exist except voluntarily.
Regarding your question to the number of descendents, I read once that over 300,000 surviving descendents of Edward III exist today, but that guess was highly underrated according to the author (who I don't remember). The War of the Roses seems to have had little influence over surviving children. Even a line of the Plantagenet family exists today through the Somerset line (though it is a bastard line). Most British people are descended from Protestants, only a small portion of Catholics exist.
Finally, Crusaders would identify themselves with their kingdom most likely. That is the kingdom they came from or the Outremer Kingdom depending on their birth and allegiance. The concept of national identity was foreign in the middle ages and people generally oriented themselves toward villages, cities, towns, or kingdoms. Therefore a knight from Jerusalem would be known as a Knight of Jerusalem or of his order and nothing more. His name could be Arthur of Jerusalem or David of Bethlehem.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 21:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The point of this is, that I am doing a basic canvassing-research because...I am turned off by "Anglo-Saxonists" who deny post-1066 heritage and pretend they are being oppressed--I am looking for the holistic sense of English and Simon Schama's perceptions of the Plantagenets I do share. I am further dismayed at the results of the Protestant Reformation, but I take it as a side-affect to the Black Death and failure of the Crusades. I know about Edward III, but am curious about Edward IV's blood descendents. I take it by your wording, that Henry Tudor's descent is still pretty much exclusive/aristocratic? When I refer to Catholic/Protestant, I am sure there is some overall displacement between having royal descent from reigning Catholics or reigning Protestants. Thanks for wrapping up my Crusader question, although I remember "Maltese", "Rhodesian" and "Cypriot" as ethnicities. IP Address 23:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Edward IV didn't have very many blood descendents that I know of. His daughter Catherine married the Earl of Devon and they had some descendents. Elizabeth married Henry Tudor. Besides that, there really isn't much I know of. Check Leo's Genealogics for more on that family. His site is really well researched and sourced and has most of the bastard lines listed as well.
Most of Henry Tudor's descent is exclusive. Once again, check the above site. He did have a little bit of a line from Mary, his daughter, whom Lady Jane Gray was a descendent. But that was aristocratic too.
The reigning Catholic families in Britain were exiled or forced to convert. James II's family was sent into exile except the Protestant part. I am not sure about any of their cousins, but all the remaining ones were bastards or children of James I.
Finally, Maltese refers to citizens of Malta, a state still existing in the Mediterranean Sea. During the Crusades, it was a refuge for various Knights Orders Rhodesian is a term referring to Greeks on Rhodesia, not Crusaders. And Cypriot is the term referring to Cyprus citizens, both Greek and Turkish (still in use).
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 04:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the most comprehensive information. I am sure that it will help others as well. IP Address 11:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I do not concur that "most of us" can trace back to King Edward III. Because of the sheer size of the population in England down through the ages, and the fact that class barriers were fairly rigid until the 17th century, at least, this seems unlikely. What I normally say to people who say this is "prove it". Most cannot. So it's just gossip. As for the Tudors, I commend you to The Blood Royal of Britain being a Roll of the living descendants of Edward IV and Henry VII (Tudor Roll) by the Marquis de Ruvigny and Raineval, London, 1903. This has been reprinted by the Genealogical publishing Co., in Baltimore (1994) and has an ISBN 0-8063-1431-1 Regards, David Lauder 19:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Dates

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I edited this page to correct a misconception about dates. I assumed no explanation would be required, but clearly it is. I know that the author meant to convey that the separate kingdoms of England and Scotland came to an end in 1707, but the way it was phrased implied that the house of Hanover came to the throne, in succession to the Stewarts/Stuarts, in that same year. Queen Anne, of course, stayed on the throne until her death in 1714. Rcpaterson 01:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I've had to amend this yet again because people with no knowledge of the subject would have been led into the mistaken impression that Stuart rule ended in 1707. The new wording will, I hope, be seen to cover all angles. Rcpaterson 07:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your amendments are certainly clearer. One thing though, my understanding is that the “Kingdom of Great Britain” predates the 1707 Act of Union, as James I / VI styled himself “King of Great Britain” when the crowns of England and Scotland were unified in 1603. Queen Anne would technically not have been the first monarch of Great Britain, therefore, but the first to rule over a politically unified England and Scotland. I have raised the same point in the article on the Monument to the Royal Stuarts and one contributor is evidently in possession of a set of Stuart coins in which the kings style themselves “MAG BR FRA ET HIB REX”.

If I am correct, then perhaps the introduction should be amended accordingly.Rumblingthunder 18:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at the Union of the Crowns which touches on this very subject. Though James used the style 'King of Great Britain etc.' this was a purely personal assumption, and in terms of constitutional law the individual kingdoms had no 'corporate identity', so to speak. Anne was indeed the first monarch of a unified state of Great Britain.

Rcpaterson 07:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I think the introduction now reflects that. It’s not an easy situation to express concisely without causing either confusion or pedants like me to but in. Rumblingthunder 09:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ancestry

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Walter the Steward and Banquo

Walter the Steward (d 1177) was the first of the Stewarts. It is now generally held that he did indeed descend from Banquo in the direct male line. Walter's father was Alan of Lochaber, (d.1153) who married Adelina of Oswestry, daughter of Alan FitzFlaald de Hesdin (d. circa 1122), grandson of Alan Seneschal of Dol, Britanny (d after 1045) Alan of Lochaber's father, Walter, Thane of Lochaber (d. 1093), married Emma, a granddaughter of the Alan Seneschal of Dol above. Walter of Lochaber was the son of Fleance, son of Banquo. Thus there were two Breton links. There has long been controversy in the origin of the Stewarts, mainly due perhaps to Walter the Steward having been "Fitzalan" due to his father and being born to a mother whose maiden name was also Fitzalan. A further confusion was between the names Fleance, son of Banquo, and Flaald, son of the above Alan Seneschal of Dol. Fleance and Flaald were the same generation

I would like to agree with this version of their genealogy, as I'm pretty sure Stewarts were aware of their own origins in a period when such tracing would be much more important than a future era in which lineage was less important and their heritage was revised by somebody else. It would explain their support in the Irish/Gaelic community, like the British/Brythonic adherents of Tudors. 68.110.8.21 00:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Direct Ancestors of Flaald

Who were the direct ancestors of Flaald? This has been a big mystery to me since he is my direct ancestor.--Kylests 04:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Kyle Mackenzie Street

If you mean Flaad fitz Alan, Flaad was the son of the Dapifer, or Steward, of Dol, in Britanny, his father's name being a further giveaway of their origin. The name Alan, as opposed to Alain, was common in Britanny, regardless of the origin of the person bearing it (Briton, Frank, Armorican, even Norman), and originated from the settlement of a large number of the Alani in Armorica after the defeat of Attila the Hun. The Alans were a tribe of Sarmatian origin. The Stewarts/Stuarts further claimed to be descended from one Banquo, Lord of Lochaber, who fled to Britanny in the 900's CE after a local dynastic conflict (which is why Shakespeare included the character Banquo in his woefully inaccurate play "Macbeth"). Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Flaald II??

According to these two websites, [ 1 & 2 ] There's no such person named Flaald, wondering if any wrong here??--JéRRy.雨雨.talk.hk 17:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Father of James I

Is it absolutely certain, beyond doubt that Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley was the father of James I rather than the Italian courtier David Rizzio? Henry IV of France joked that James "hoped he was not David the fiddler's son". What roused my curiosity was that a portrait of Rizzio I just found looks exactly like Charles I. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  •  
    David Rizzio
  •  
    Charles I
Haha. They do look the same!--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Observation

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Has anybody else noticed that from the reign of Mary Queen of Scots, the House of Stuart tends to have gone from a 'clever king' to a 'silly stuart'? Mary Queen of Scots was quite daft, compared to James VI who was clever, and Charles I who was daft, and Charles II who was clever, and James II who was daft, and William III who was clever and Queen Anne who was daft? I know this isn't very encyclopedic, but I just wondered if anybody else had noticed this? --MC 19:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Charles II got robbed while visiting a brothel one evening, the robber taking even his clothes, and the only thing that saved his life was the fact that he WAS the king and England had had enough regicides for one century. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

James II's replacement

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

James II of England was replaced by his daughter and son-in-law, not sister and brother-in-law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NevarMaor (talk • contribs) 20:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The "country" section in the infobox

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think this section is supposed to mean countries where the House are currently in power rather than "country they originated from". Because the "ethnicity" section covers that already. I may be wrong, what does anyone think? - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Compare with the House of Bourbon where this section of the infobox gives the main thrones held by the dynasty. Which means the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Ireland should also be added to the Stuarts. Dimadick (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Duchess of Albany

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Charlotte Stuart had children who had decendents. So could her decendets claim the Jacobite succesion.--Croix 129 (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Depends on whose yardstick you use. In the High Middle Ages, no, since Charlotte was never legitimized. Among the Irish, even the Scots, no problem; for example, the current chief of Clan Bruce is descended from the "illegimate" son of Edward Bruce, although why not one of Robert's extramarital sons is beyond me. William the Conqueror himself was a bastard, in more ways than one. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Dundonald and Ayrshire

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just noticed that my references to the Stewart origins were removed and then replaced. A request for sources or references was made. I see that the article has no sources or references whatsoever. I will of course supply some references for my own addition, but really the article should be improved. The Stewarts will be one of the most common search terms. The article should reflect this. TheTraveller2 (talk) 09:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic bias

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm not sure where to raise this but there are some THOROUGHLY anti-Catholic comments in this article--that the Stewarts lost the throne of England because Catholics were not "nationalist" enough and had somehow inferior politics. VERY biased comments. I'm going to remove them.

If someone wants to replace them then please do so without the terrible religious bias that is now in the comments. And to clarify I am not Catholic but I recognize bias when it smacks me in the face. The lost of the throne was because he had offended the Anglican establishment not because Catholics are or were politically inferior. JScotia (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Name

Latest comment: 9 years ago83 comments32 people in discussion

Stuart, not Stewart

It is the House of Stuart, not Stewart, there is no problem with the spelling. Proper research is all that is required. Stewart is normally a Christain name these days. Are we allowed to say "Christain"? History (British) is, unfortunatley, not taught is schools these days in case we offend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.137.2 (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Are we allowed to say "Christain"?
No, but we are allowed to say Christian. Orthography (Standard English) is, unfortunately, not taught in schools these days, either Nuttyskin (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Mary Queen of Scots and name

OK, I never thought of this before, but shouldn't the dynasty name have changed after Mary Queen of Scots? (Her being a woman and all...) Well, apparently the surname of her husband (Henry, Lord Darnley) was 'Stuart'; so in fact the dynasty did change — but by a coincidence, the new name was the same as the old! (With a minor difference in spelling.) Is this accurate? Was there really a house of Stewart, followed by a house of Stuart? (I realize that spelling was more fluid then --- so the spelling difference is perhaps artificial; but convenient for us nonetheless.)

Both Mary's father and Darnley had an an unbroken line of male descent from Alexander Stewart (fourth High Steward of Scotland, died 1283), so effectively they were part of the same house. Darnley's grandfather, the 3rd Earl of Lennox, was born a Stewart, but I don't know when the spelling was changed to Stuart. I'll put this in the article. -- Gregg 05:29, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
From www.royal.gov.uk "Kings and Queens of Scotland page on MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS (r. 1542-67):
Undeterred, the Scots in 1548 betrothed Mary to the French King Henri II's heir, the Dauphin Francis, and sent her to be brought up at the French Court. It is said that the spelling of the royal family name of Stewart changed to Stuart at that time, to suit French conventional spelling.'
So an authoritative source doesn't give definitive grounds for the change, but does locate the time shortly before MQS's reign. ---- Charles Stewart 12:36, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Consistency

_A lesson in opportunity cost_ I would suggest sticking with one version of the name [ie either Stuart or Stewart] throughout the whole article. Whereas is it good to show that both spellings are correct, I think an encyclopaedia article should be coherent and stick to one spelling instead of alternating. In the article both spellings are used. Thus whereas the title of the article reads House of Stuart, a subtitle reads Stewart. Also in the article itself both versions are used interchangeably, seemingly at random, and whereas this is no mistake, it is unsightly. I hope I do not sound too pedantic, but just enough.

I've been working on an essay involving Mary Queen of Scots and want to clarify the issue. The early Stewarts spelled their name as such (those descended from a Celt-Anglo-Norman ancestry). Mary was sent to France when she wed the dauphin and while there, her family under the leadership of the Guises, changed the surname from the English word Stewart to the French version, Stuart. Technically, this did not also affect the rest of the family but as the family head and sovereign of all Scotland, it appears the majority of the extended family sided with the French spelling including her second husband and father of her son, Lord Darnley (her paternal cousin and maternal first cousin). The dynasty kept the same surname through Anne, despite the minor rule of the House of Orange under William III. Stuart should only appear in this article during the reign of Mary I and Stewart should likewise be discontinued at that point.
—Whaleyland 23:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Nope. See WP:ENGLISH WP:COMMONNAME for more. You're welcome to split off the minor members of the house if you feel that strongly about their variant spelling, but this article is about the royal dynasty and that was and is spelt Stuart. — LlywelynII 04:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
a) That has nothing to do with opportunity cost. [Heading emended] b) No, that's pedantic. It's nice to be consistent but here doing so would be inaccurate and you obviously have a very vocal minority of Scotsmen who want their name to be spelt 'correctly'. Hence, the need to use "Stuart" in the general running text and treatment of the British monarchs but also use the historically-accurate "Stewart" to talk about the minor branches of the house. — LlywelynII 04:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

House of Stuart?

Surely this article should be titled "House of Stewart" and the first line "The House of Stewart or Stuart(anglicised)" given that the great majority of this house and its kings used to Scottish version? I dont see why the later anglicised form from the really rather brief period of joint Scottish-English kingship should be given primacy.siarach 08:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Stuart is not 'anglicised'; it is 'frenchified'. Mary Stewart went to France in 1548, and came back twelve years later as Mary Stuart. From that point forward she and her successors used the French spelling, both in Scotland and England. In England, from the reign of James I onwards, the dynasty was Stuart, and they were never known by any other name. This is the correct form, and this is how it should remain. Rcpaterson 23:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to come in so late on this subject but whilst Mary may have adopted the French spelling - Stuart - there is no decisive evidence that any of the other members of the non-Royal Stewart family did so for centuries if at all. I am inclined to agree with User:An Siarach that if it is to be called anything as a primary heading then it should be the House of Stewart, which was in use far longer, and overwhelmingly more than Stuart. David Lauder 21:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree and also believe (although am not positive) that most current members of the House of Steward (through older cadet branches and illegitimate lines) regard themselves as Stewarts, not Stuarts. Through research, I have found that only the descendants of Mary I of Scotland used that spelling. Sure her husband (a Stewart) adopted it, but that was because he was married to the queen regnant.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 21:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
We Scots are STUARTS and not STEWARTS. The Stewarts are ENGLISH, not Scots. We repudiate the Stewart spelling for that reason. Anon.
nonsense. The Royal house was called Stewart right up until the mid-16th century when Mary changed it purely so the French knew how to pronounce it. The Clan uses Stewart, not Stuart. It makes me cringe to see Charles Edward Stuart in reference to BPC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.128.28 (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Well thats the way the Scots spelt it until almost the 17th century so which Scots do you represent? David Lauder 19:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Not only that, but surely Stewart represents the Scottish pronunciation of the word currently spelled steward in English, so it's at least as Scottish as it is English. Lindsay 10:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Walter Stewart would have been surprised to know he was English one rather thinks JScotia (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
We may look at how it can be written in Gaelic: as Stíubhard. However since English, and not French, is the predominant language of Scotland it is spelled Stewart. The repudiation of the anonymous poster is misinformed since, like 95.145.128.28 said, Stuart was only used by those Stewarts who went to France with Mary and decided to change the spelling to accommodate the French. The Stewarts and Stuarts are all Scots, at the vary least in the sense that we can all trace back through the different branches and clans to the High Stewards of Scotland. As our name came from Steward the closest spelling is presumably correct, and what JScotia said about Walter Stewart being incredulous at being English is highly likely. Furthermore, what the clans and branches of the House use referring to themselves can certainly be considered authoritative, as we are talking about ourselves, are we not? Despite part of the Royal House revising our name to Stuart to accomodate the French, the surviving noble families do not necessarily use Stuart. For example, my family's branch from Galloway uses Stewart[1], while the Scottish royal house is known as Stewart.[2][3][4] MrMonday1 | talk
Surely you jest. You're welcome to split off an article with some treatment of the minor members of the dynasty, though. — LlywelynII 04:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earls_of_Galloway
  2. ^ http://www.britroyals.com/stewart.htm
  3. ^ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/569802/House-of-Stuart
  4. ^ http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/stewart_11.htm

Let's go with Stewart

Stuart is French. Since we're talking about Scotland, let's use the English language version of the name: Stewart. We don't refer to the house of Bruce as the house of Brus or the house of Brix (fill in any other spellings....). 71.203.171.248 13:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. See my comment above under House of Stuart? David Lauder 20:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
And see mine as well - the French were still Catholic as were the Scots and they were allies, often providing safe haven for those wanted by the English crown. We Scots repudiate the English spelling. Anon.
Some allies. They just used the Scots. What did the Scots ever gain from that stupid alliance?? By Mary, Queen of Scots time the Reformation had arrived in Scotland. Catholics were being burnt. By Scots. Someone with such little knowledge of Scottish history should not purport to speak for "we Scots", even anonymously. David Lauder 19:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The most common usage in English publications is 'Stuart' (even though it's French). We should leave it as 'Stuart'. GoodDay 22:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The Clan itself uses Stewart, but the Royal Family uses Stuart. 68.110.8.21 01:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
What is the most common in SCOTTISH publications? -JScotia (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The house changed their name to Stuart, the best known monarchs of the house were known as Stuarts, so that is the correct title of the article. End. From what I have been able to gather the royal and noble branches, including cadet branches who genelogically originate from way before Mary, later changed their name to Stuart too. Prime Minister John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute (who descends from Robert II of Scotland) is a good example. Common people seem to use the name Stewart instead, such as Rod Stewart. This isn't gnatpedia by the way, sources don't have to come from one area. - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree entirely. Despite part of the Royal House revising our name to Stuart to accomodate the French, the surviving noble families do not necessarily use Stuart. For example, my family's branch from Galloway uses Stewart,[1] while the Scottish royal house is known as Stewart.[2][3] MrMonday1 | talk —Preceding undated comment added 03:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, you're wrong. The article is about the royal dynasty. If you want to split off a separate page about their less successful and less interesting kinfolk, go ahead, but the title and primary topic of this page are the Stuarts. — LlywelynII 03:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Let's not. — LlywelynII 04:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earls_of_Galloway
  2. ^ http://www.britroyals.com/stewart.htm
  3. ^ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/569802/House-of-Stuart

Brendandh's move: Stuarts, not Stewarts

They are more commonly known as Stuarts, rather than Stewarts. This seems to have been motivated by an ill-advised Professional Scotsmanism judging by the other edits, putting Scottish regal name before English for the later monarchs. The royal house changed their name to Stuart during the time of Mary. Organisations such as the Royal Stuart Society use that also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.164.38 (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

That is because that is the name of the Scots dynasty, descended from the pre-conquest of England Seneschal of the Bishop of Dol who assumed the empty throne of England following the failure of all of their Royal lines. Royal officials taking the purple by virtue of marriage into the Royal House, much as in the Byzantine empire, is not a rare thing and it happened to the 7th High Steward of Scotland who had spent 44 years in the post before being crowned Robert II of Scotland. Stuart is a Gallicisation of the English word Steward, pronounced in Scots Stewart [1].
Until the time of Queen Mary this was the name of the House, and the spelling only diverged because of the time spent by her own time in France as a child, and her first husband's family connections with Aubigny sur Nere. The reason being that the French couldn't pronounce the 'w'. Earlier versions of the name Stewart into French renders odd names like Stuyers etc. Cf Antoine d'Arces, Sieur de la Bastie's treatment in contemporary Scots and English sources. In Scotland he was known variously as Batty, Labatie or Bawty, in England he was known as Darcy or Arse! Spelling being irregular during the 16th c., prove to me that this was a conscious change of the ilk of that of the 1914/15 Saxe Coburg Gotha to Windsor affair? The RSS was founded in 1926, a thousand years after the dynasty and used a variant of the name. Furthermore, Prince Charles has as one of his titles that of Great Steward of Scotland. To finish, yes there is professional Scotsmanism here, and that is until blatant Anglocentricity is removed from Wikipedia, this is not an "English" (as in the preserve of the English) encyclopaedia, but one that uses the English language, there is a difference. Brendandh (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
PS, please would you sign your posts? Brendandh (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Move the article back

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: moved to House of Stuart. Clear consensus to revert recent renaming. The possible of splitting the article should be the topic of a separate discussion. Favonian (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

House of Stewart → House of Stuart – "House of Stuart" is the long-standing stable title of this article -- no surprise, that, since it's the spelling that the vast majority of English-language sources use. Whatever the merits of the "Stewart" spelling, it is not our place to decide which has become standard among historians. The recent move should be reverted until such time as a consensus is obtained in its favor. Powers T 16:54, 24 October 2011 (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.

Lede

Given the results of the move request, I don't think it makes sense to list the "Stewart" spelling first in the lede. Powers T 20:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, in reference to the search results, the reason for the disparity appears to be that Google finds "Stuart" results (such as http://www.royalstuartsociety.com/) when searching for "House of Stewart". That hardly constitutes evidence in favor of "Stewart". Powers T 20:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
A wee point, I do notice that you are using American English spelling in the above, so will use European English here! Different spelling between societies and nations being what it is, such as one finds with the retired Monarch of Bulgaria, Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, as oppposed to Simeon Saxecoburgotski , as he is known in Bulgaria, is common. A descendant of 19thc. Germany. Why is the above royal house of this monarch not at Saxecoburgotski? Why should the descendants of Alan fitzFlaald be any different? Brendandh (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Apologies, but I have no idea what your point is here. Are you agreeing with me that your Google results are flawed? Powers T 13:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Simple, we do not call the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Saxecoburgotski, although that is the common name for the dynasty in Bulgaria, we call them Windsor now in Britain (although they are now Battenbergs c/o Prince Philip). So why should the Stewart Kings of Scots have the Frenchified version of their name as the title to this page, when it was only adopted by John Stewart of Darnley (Queen Mary's second husband's ancestor and very much a cadet of the main House) at a time when spelling was, at best, fluid. Brendandh (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Because while English has not incorporated the Bulgarian version of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's name, English has incorporated the "Frenchified" version of the House of Stewart's name. "Stuart" may be "Frenchified", but it's now English and has been for centuries. Powers T 13:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Aye, there's the rub! It ain't an English name, it's a Scots one, or would that be disputed too? Brendandh (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
"Stewart", you mean? Of course it's of Scots origin, and I'd fully expect the article in the Scots Wikipedia to be titled "House of Stewart". But this is the English Wikipedia, and in English, both forms of the name are used for various purposes; in the case of the royal house, it's almost always "Stuart". Powers T 18:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Quite, this IS English wikipedia. Old English of which Scots is a descendant language does have its peccadilloes (ie "D" becomes "T" in Scots). Would you suggest that we rename the House of Romanov to the House of Romanoff (emphasis ther of the ending) as that is how it appears in most 19th c. refs and sources, mostly from France. As for the "Royal House of Stewart" and putting that to Scots WP there were 200 years of Scottish monarchs and 200 years prior to that when they were fulfilling the description of their cognomen? Brendandh (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but again, I'm not sure what your point is. "Romanov" is how the name of the Russian house has come to be known in English, so that's the spelling we use. Your last sentence appears to be a question but I'm not sure what it is. Powers T 22:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Not just "doesn't make sense": Per WP:LEADSENTENCE, it's just wrong. Fixed. — LlywelynII 04:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

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. Feal free to discuss a division of the article. 00:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

House of Stuart → House of Stewart – 778k for this and 227 for Stuart on a quick google. Gallicisation of the name, lasted for only the last 150 years of an 800 year old dynasty. Brendandh (talk) 01:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

James VI and Mary I did not belong to the same royal house?! How extraordinary! --Bill Reid | (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Quite if we are going down the agnatic route, therefore all descendants of Sir John Stewart of Darnley, Lord of Evreux and Concressault, who was the first to use the Frenchified version of the name should be included in House of Stuart rather than Stewart of Darnley. The main line that started with Walter fitz Alan and his occupational surname, and died with Queen Mary should be at House of Stewart. Brendandh (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
He should certainly be mentioned. But do you want to call the Earls of Lennox Stuarts? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Except he was wrong. He was forgetting that the Robert II entail specifically allowed for a lass's succession if the male heirs died out. In this case the female heir carried on the House of Stewart/Stuart line - just as QE II will continue the Windsor line thru Prince Charles in due course. --Bill Reid | (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
By that argument, this article would include the House of Windsor, at least as a branch; it would also subsume Robert I, and the House of Dunkeld before that, for their sucession is as legitimate as James VI's. At that point it would be redundant with King of Scotland - and a target for deletion. The only reason to have this article at all is that its limits are not coterminous with the Scottish succession. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Then are you saying that the Robert II entail is not the reason for Mary' succession and then by virtue of that James IV's succession? Quotes attributed to medieval monarchs on their death beds are almost certainly invented and become sort of worthless in trying to make a valid point. As regards the QE II bit, it is given as an example of the continuation of a Royal House beyond a marriage to someone outwith that house. --Bill Reid | (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
No, I am saying that the rightfulness of either female succession is irrelevant to the limits of this article. We could write an article about the rightful succession of the Scottish crown; in fact, we have. This is not it. We don't need two articles on the same subject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I have to say I have difficulty in following your meaning but maybe that's just me. Yet you say we don't need two articles on the same subject but that is precisely what you want with this article by dividing the House of Stuart into two. OK, I've tried to explain why this is incorrect but I'll only say this: WP doesn't lead, it follows, ie it depends on secondary sources and not OR which it appears you are doing. Just list your sources and the project can move on. I go off-shore today and won't be back for 10 days so will be unable to respond until then. --Bill Reid | (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose artificial divide - John Stewart, Duke of Albany was for all of his life heir to James V. On Albany's death as the last male heir, Mary Stewart was then made heir to her father per the Robert II entail. She only changed her name as an expedient when she moved to France. She therefore became queen as the legal descendant of Robert II and as the latest within the Stewart dynasty. The Stewart dynasty did not cease to exist because of a spelling change. The House of Stewart and the House of Stuart are one and the same and the British Monarchy web site agrees[2]. --Bill Reid | (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Nobody disputes that. However, the fact is that Mary I and James VI did not belong to the same royal house, as James VI's father (Mary I's husband) was not descended from any Stewart king in male line. The website does not contradict it either and even if it did, I would hardly call a website that writes about "United Kingdom Monarchs (1603 - present)" a reliable source. Surtsicna (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, James VI was Mary's heir, and so heir of James V; but he belonged to a different patrilineal family. In much the same way, Robert II was heir to David II and Robert I. But that was also a change of family; that's pretty much the only reason to have this article at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
      • For Surtsicna. That's the second time you've stated that Mary I and James VI did not belong to the same royal house. If James VI did not belong to the Royal House of Stewart, then which royal house did he come from, bearing in mind that James VI father was not royal at all? Regarding the British Monarchy web site, it is maintained by the British government which carries some weight. The reference is obviously to the Union of the Crowns and then the later unification in 1707 but that bit needs to be tidied up.
For PMAnderson. James IV may have had a father from the lesser nobility but he certainly didn't derive his right to the throne from him but from his mother and therfore the House of Stewart. Robert II's right to the throne was confirmed by Bruce's parliament as the son of Bruce's daughter so the blood of the Bruces was also in Robert II. His position was re-confirmed by David II's parliament, as David's nearest relative. So the positions of Robert II and James VI are entirely different ie Robert II became king by entail as closest relative, while James VI became king as son of the queen regnant of the House of Stewart and for no other reason. --Bill Reid | (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Billreid, this is the second time you dismiss my reasoning without any reasoning. The first time was when you said: "James VI and Mary I did not belong to the same royal house?! How extraordinary!" Of course, I did not feel obliged to respond to such remark, mostly because I had already explained how and why. Pmanderson has done the same. James VI belonged to his Mary I's dynasty as much as he belonged to Marjorie's and so on. Surtsicna (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Surtsicna, you haven't given any reasoning as far as I can see--you've certainly given statements. I haven't seen any good references that say that James IV wasn't part of the same Stewart dynasty as Mary I was but would ask you to provide them so we can make up our minds. Your last statement is puzzeling. You say James VI belonged to his Mary I's dynasty as much as he belonged to Marjorie's and so on—what are you inferring there? Mary I didn't produce a dynasty, she was one of the many monarchs of the Stewart/Stuart dynasty. The later Stuarts merely had spelling change. --Bill Reid | (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
You keep mentioning James IV though neither Pmanderson nor me ever said anything about him. It is James VI we're discussing. Anyway, you do not seem to understand what Pmanderson and I are saying. We do not claim that Mary I produced a new dynasty; we are trying to explain that her son could not have been a member of the royal house founded by Robert II just like Henry Hugh Tudor was not a member of the royal house founded by Henry VII. Lord Darnley was not a member of the royal House of Stewart, therefore his patrilineal descendants were not either. If that were not so, James VI would have been a Tudor, a Bruce, a Stewart, and what not. Surtsicna (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
It is James VI we're discussing. Well, well who'da guessed it! This Henry Hugh Tudor thing you keep bringing up seems to me a complete red herring. Is anyone making any claims that he was related to the Tudors? And I agree that Darnley is in no way connected with the Stewart dynasty (excepting the common ancestor to both Stewart lines). No argument with you on the patrilineal descent of James VI, that is well documented, however please point me in the direction of the evidence that suggests that Darnley was the founder of a new royal house. Going away for 10 days but will catch up when I return. --Bill Reid | (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
This seems to make clear what the problem is: Bill Reid has decided that this proposal involves making claims which nobody has any intention of making. In ten days we should be able to show him that this has nothing to do with the legitimacy of Queen Elizabeth's reign in Scotland, and we will not mention her, any more than the article does now. The proposal here is simply to note that (to quote Sir Iain Moncreiffe of that ilk): there were two separable dynasties in Scotland, of common origin but whom it is convenient to call the Stewarts and the Stuarts; it still is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Moncreiffe was a significant expert on such matters. Moonraker (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Why his name is worth dropping, all six parts of it. ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:17, 5 November 2011 (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.

Please fix the name

Equating Stuart with Stewart is patently offensive to all living Stewarts. I have read the discussion here, and none of it addresses the historical accuracy of the Stewart spelling although the consensus is that the Stewart spelling is correct. I tried to correct this on my own, and Wikipedia editors changed it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewritewing (talk • contribs) 20:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

As your comment progresses, you say manage to say that the equation of Stuart with Stewart is (a) wrong and offensive, (b) historically uncertain, and then (c) correct. You do understand that "offensive" doesn't make any sense ("don't yew call me distantly-related to long-dead royals, ye'bastard!") and the rest is even less clear. What are you trying to say? — LlywelynII 02:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Am I the only one here who is skeptical about "Duke Brian Stuart of Jersey Shore"? Graham Rule (talk) 07:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. Well spotted, it's been there about 2 months. Dougweller (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If a living person is mentioned, BLP applies

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The House_of_Stuart#Present-day section of this article mentions a living person Prince William. Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons section Wikipedia:BLPTALK#Where_BLP_does_and_does_not_apply, "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia,...." Please either delete that sentence, or source it and update the templates with code BLP=yes.98.71.195.229 (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Patrilineal descent

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can anyone explain what the statement that precedes the list of patrilineal desendants — " Patrilineal descent, descent from father to son, is the principle behind membership in royal houses, as it can be traced back through the generations – which means that the historically accurate royal house of the Stuart monarchs was the House of Stuart. " — actually means? Is the statement trying to imply that the House of Stuart is in fact the cadet line of Stewarts going back to a common ancestor? Mary I came to the throne by virtue of her Stewart father , James V. Her son James VI and I was the 6th great-grandson of Robert II, the first of the Stewarts. James' relationship to King Robert via his own father was 2nd cousin 9 times removed. So, if this section has any value—and I think it does—then the preceding sentence needs to be re-written to make clear that the House of Stewart/Stuart is the direct line ot Robert II. --Bill Reid | (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Henry IX?

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

The Cardinal Duke of York adopted the style 'Henry IX' on the death of his brother, Charles, but purely as a matter of form. He never made any attempt to claim the throne. Not even the most rabid Jacobite believed that the British people would accept an elderly cardinal in the Roman church as their king. Rcpaterson 23:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've read that the Vatican struck a medal commemorating the accession of Henry IX to the thrones of England, Scotland, and Ireland; if I can determine the copyright status this weekend, I'll post it to the article on Henry, and perhaps add some information here. Argyriou 20:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you; that would be most interesting. I was under the impression that the last Stuart to be accorded official recognition by the Vatican was James Francis Edward up to his death in 1766. The Pope certainly refused to recognize his son as 'Charles III'. I have no idea what the attitude was to Henry; but I suspect this medal would have been honorary and unofficial. Rcpaterson 22:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Moreover, "The Vatican" was not an independent State until 1929, unless you're referring to the Papal States. It seems highly unlikely that a State anywhere would officially press a medal which was frowned upon by the Head of State, especially at that time. David Lauder 19:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Two points here: 1. The Popes of the time were sovereigns had not relinquished the claim to make and unmake emperors and kings. The concept of "The Vatican" did not exist: it was simply "The Pope". 2. The Pope(s) recognized the crown only in James III. The Monument to the Royal Stuarts in Saint Peter's Basilica is a fairly clear statement of the recognition given by the Popes to the last of the Stuarts. Awroma 08:48, 10 February 2013‎ (UTC)
After the English Reformation, some Popes certainly did try to use their influence to change the owners of the English and Scottish thrones, with a view to bringing the three kingdoms back to Rome, but for all practical purposes they were impotent, apart from the threat of military intervention by Spain or France, which at times was a very real threat. Awroma is correct that the Popes did not formally recognize a Jacobite claimant beyond James III, and the Monument to the Royal Stuarts is indeed a good reference, but of course they did give Charles Edward Stuart some financial support in Rome. If Prince Harry should become king, and if he decides to take the regnal name of "Henry", then he will be Henry IX. It seems to me very unlikely that anyone else will ever have the chance of rising to that name. Moonraker (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

What is a Stewart anyway?

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The whole entry barely gives a description of a Stewart. Does it mean the monarchs lost power? Gained power? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.148.195.36 (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

A Stewart is a Scottish Stuart. See above. — LlywelynII 04:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

About the Fizt-James Stuart

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sorry, i have no experience editing wikipedia, i regret if i´m wrong with lot of thing with my edition and talks. I wrote a edition including the recently deceased Duchess of Alba as one of the main illegitimate descendant of King James II, with his mistress Arabella Churchill. I have seen that it has beed undone. I can understand it. Reasons "Unsourced and undue". "Undue" can´t be a good reason, because she was a direct patrilineal descendant of James II, not a faker. Even main british newspapers accepted Cayetana Fizt-James Stuart as a descendant. "Unsourced". It´s true, i didn´t write sources of my edition. But i thought that someone more experienced than me could read my edition and find sources, writting it in the right way. I have read many wikipedia articles with an advice saying that it needs sources, not denying new contributions directly. What do i need?, do i need a british genealogical book describing the genealogical tree of the Fizt-James Stuart House?, maybe it isn´t acceptable an spanish text...i don´t know. Also legal texts of the assignment of her forty-two peerages, including the jacobite Duchy of Berwick? I don´t want to bother anyone, buy maybe i had thought that someone could be constructive with my contribution, helping with the sources. Well, thanks a lot.[1][2]Gronchi (talk) 09:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I was the one that reverted your addition. The main problem was that you included a huge paragraph which listed her titles (40 of them?) That was undue. I've added a more general couple of sentences on the FitzJames descendants, which I based on the House of FitzJames article. I'll look for sources to add. DeCausa (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.theguardian.com/global/2014/nov/20/duchess-of-alba
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cayetana_Fitz-James_Stuart,_18th_Duchess_of_Alba

Coat of arms

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Anne's? or the House's?

Should we use the Coat of Arms that was used for the majority of the House of Stuart instead of this this Coat of Arms which was only used during part of Queen Anne's reign?

If there is still a pretender out there, we should use his as the 'current' one. Else, we should use the primary one with link or additional images regarding its development. — LlywelynII 03:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Harp?

I notice that the depiction of the coat of arms uses, for Ireland, a precise and accurate depiction of the Brian Boru harp. Is this particular way of depicting the Harp of Ireland contemporary, or is this a modern rendering of the original coat of arms? I am trying to determine when heraldic Irish Harps began to be modelled after the one kept in Trinity College, especially as I've seen a number of devices using a "winged goddess" harp, with the body and head constituting the pillar, and bridge fashioned (or rather depicted) as wings. --Svartalf 17:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Scottish lions?

Is he coat of arms only valid in England? and in Scotland should it not have 2 rampant lions? i.e. show both?

Ireland

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could we have the periods of the House of Stuarts Reign in the Kingdom of Ireland defined and distinguished from the reign in Scotland and England please? This is of importance to the present as Ireland remained loyal during the Commonwealth resisting the English Republican Army for as long as possible, and also as Ireland did not follow the Orange Prince's Revolution also resisting it in arms till the Unimplemented Treaty and also[more difficult to argue] took no part in the 1688 Whig Conspiracy. CusaM2@aol.com

We could distinguish it if the years are different. If the years are the same, there's no need to. — LlywelynII 03:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"...backwards country..."??

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Am I the only person who finds the line "...Scotland developed from a poor and backwards country into a more prosperous one." from the third paragraph dangerously (for an encyclopedia) fanciful and just a bit ignorant? I mean Scotland certainly never had the, relative, wealth England had but you need only to look at the Norman influence alone, hundreds of years previous, (and the famous reign of David I of Scotland) as proof that by the 14th and certainly 17th centuries Scotland was definately not in such a poor state as that line seems to suggest...nay? ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ) 16:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yrtnuoc is a backwards country. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
No, Scotland was a backwards country; Afghanistan is a backwards country; and yrtnuoc is backwards country. That said, if the POVy phrase isn't reliably sourced, it may be accurate but you can still feel free to remove or replace it. — LlywelynII 04:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Descent of Queen Elizabeth in the female line

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Not quite accurate.

House of Stuart

House of Stuart JAMES CHARLES STUART REX Elizabeth Stuart

House of Pfalz

Electress Sophia

House of Hanover

GEORGE I HANOVER REX GEORGE II HANOVER REX Frederick Louis Hanover, Prince of Wales GEORGE III HANOVER REX Edward Augustus Hanover, 1st Duke of Kent VICTORIA HANOVER REGINA

House of Saxe Coburg Gotha

Edward VI Rex George V Rex George VI Rex Elizabeth II Regina

Queen Elizabeth is technically a cadet branch of the Stuart dynasty, going through Elizabeth Stuart, daughter of James VI/I. The senior line of Stuarts descend through Charles I's daughter Henrietta Anne Stuart.

The important figure is James VI/I

JAMES VI/I REX

-CHARLES I REX --CHARLES II REX (extinct)

--JAMES II REX (extinct) ---JAMES FRANCIS EDWARD (extinct) -> OLD PRETENDER

CHARLES FRANCIS EDWARD (extinct) -> YOUNG PRETENDER
HENRY BENEDICT STUART (extinct) With his death, Stuart main line became extinct.


---MARY II REGINA (extinct) -> Her claim goes through James II, as the oldest daughter

---ANNE I REGINA (extinct) -> Same as her sister. With her death, the succession went to Empress Sophia.


--HENRY STUART (extinct)

--MARY OF ORANGE (extinct) ---WILLIAM OF ORANGE (extinct) -> Mary's husband's claim, through Charles I, and a younger sister to Charles II, and James II.


--HENRIETTA ANNE STUART (ORLEANIST BRANCH of STUARTS)


-Elizabeth of Bohemia (COUNT PALATINE BRANCH of STUARTS) --CHARLES II of the Palatinate

--EDWARD of Simmern

--SOPHIA OF HANOVER ---GEORGE I REX

Technically, Queen Elizabeth is in the Count Palatine - Hanoverian - Saxe Coburg Gotha Cadet Branch of the Royal House of Stuart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.55.137 (talk) 04:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

er, no; she's a member of the house of windsor, regardless of her descent from the stuarts. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Eh, nah. She's a member of both houses, but not really considered a Stuart for historical political reasons. — LlywelynII 04:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Multi-tag and issues

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There is a multi-tag with no discussion(s). While tags are meant to lead to article improvements, and some tags are self-evident, "fly-by" tags; being tags placed that are vague and not pointing out specifics, not only serve "no purpose" they are a distraction, and concerning an article that is contentious (or having contentious areas) an editor could see them as some sort of battling weapon.
While I have seen many tags placed that have sound reasoning and substance I have also seen many that are what I consider the "badge of shame". I place any tag(s) that are just dropped on a page as a "fly-by" if there is no discussion or the tag(s) are not self-evident. Some may argue but sound reasoning is that a future editor will have no idea what the placing editor has in mind without some reasoning, without researching to see if there is a valid edit summary, approaching the placing editor (involves researching), initiating a discussion on the talk page, or boldly removing a vague tag with a discussion or edit summary to see if a reversion or discussion will result. All of these are just actually silly and sometimes results in a career tag(s).

Tags

Since the start of the tag states "This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.", tagged since May and August of 2015 and this being December, this could use discussion, This article is covered by seven WikiProjects and surely one or two are active. It is apparent that collaboration has been overlooked after all the projects signed onto the article. I will attempt to find reasoning that will inevitably reflect article improvements and tag removal.

Issues

The article certainly has issues. There are section reference tags and surely there available references, the controversy over the spelling, and other problems, like the severe lack of references. This seems strange on such an article. The Etymology section, that is suppose to cover the origin and the developing history, is not referenced just showing a file of the lineal descent, and very poorly "drops in" mention of the alternate spelling. This could be, and according to the controversy of past discussions and page moves should be, an expanded sub-section.
  • This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards.
  • This article needs attention from an expert on the subject.
  • This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biasedor unverifiable information.
The above tags need discussing. Otr500 (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

US Persons Family Tree Picture

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The inclusion of the family tree of a US descendant is not only improper, it is also factually wrong. Insofar as original research may indicate that James IV had a son with mistress Margaret Drummond, the image for said son on the tree seems to be of James III, if not James IV himself. Also said son's year of birth makes him born two years before his father, and the grandson not only has a year of birth 28 years after his supposed father's death, his image is of James V. Please remove the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.182.24.242 (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth?

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The Tudor dynasty article says that the House of Stuart got started due to Elizabeth I being childless. This and precise circumstances of the start of the House of Stuart's ascension to the throne should be related in the article. Also, why is this page called ‘House of X’ while the Tudor article is called ‘X dynasty’? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, it didn't 'get started' because it had already been reigning in Scotland since 1371 and had existed as a noble house before that. To be honest, 'House of Tudor' would be a better article name for the 'Tudor dynasty' article. The royal Houses of Windsor, Saxe-Coburg & Gotha, Hanover and Normandy are all listed as such.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The Stuart dynasty in England certainly got started that way and that's the PRIMARYTOPIC of this article. All the same, as long as the Scottish Stewarts are also being hosted here, we should phrase the article to reflect that. — LlywelynII 04:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, here's the deal. When say, Ivanka Trump got married, she became Mrs. Jared Kushner. She is a member of the House of Trump, while her children are of the "house of Kushner" and have that last name. Had any of Queen Anne's children lived to succeed her, they would have been members of the "House of Denmark," not Stuart. The only reason James VI and I was a Stuart is because his mother married her cousin who had the same last name. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

1315

Technically didn't the Stuart (or Bruce family) have a short reign in pre-British Ireland under the rule of Robert the Bruce's younger brother Edward Bruce. Who was crowned by the O'Neill clan and recognized by all of Ireland's noble clans as King Edward 1st of Ireland from 1315; until his death in 1318. Should he be included? (Chris Gilmore)

Clan Maxwell revert

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There seems to be someone with the idea that Clan Maxwell is not only related to the Royal Stewarts, but a minor house, whatever that is? The basis for this does not seem to be from any sourced article, but from the 4th lord maxwell's marriage to an illegitimate daughter of the 1st Earl of Buchan. Although named Stewart, the Earl was James II's half brother on their mother's side. This doesn't make the Earl of Buchan, nor the Maxwells Royal Stewarts. In fact, the 4th Lord Maxwell's wife, had also married two other scots nobleman, yet their clans aren't linked. Relations between the clan chiefs and the scottish royal families is very common. So why should clan maxwell be considered specially related to the house of stewart? 71.194.44.209 (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Patrilineal descent

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I noticed that the Patrilineal descent doesn't include all the Stewart Kings of Scots. This is because the house is really two, so there should be another list added, perhaps there is a better way to display it, because two lists would be quite a lot. 71.194.44.209 (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:House_of_Stuart/Archive_1&oldid=1075133400"