Talk:James VI and I/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Religion

The practice of baptism is considered a Christian sacrament of admission and adoption, and a child baptized into the Christian faith is reasonably considered to be of the baptismal denomination until having converted to another religion. James being separated from his mother involuntarily and coerced into Protestantism by opportunistic noblemen hardly validates conversion until his beliefs are affirmed upon achieving his majority, which he did. Thus the child was born, received into the Catholic faith, and later converted to Protestantism. His mother, Mary, Queen of Scots, thought to be a Catholic martyr, and her husband both consented to the baptism. - Conservatrix (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any citations that say he converted at the age of majority. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

In this case James clearly cannot be "reasonably considered" to have remained Catholic at all, since he and everybody else thought him a Protestant. The proposition you make is very dubious in any case, I'd have thought. Please stop wasting editor's time with this nonsense. Johnbod (talk) 11:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Attributing religion to infants is preposterous and I strongly oppose such fundamentalism on Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Ping Celia Homeford, Johnbod, Surtsicna: To have remained Catholic? Yes, the child was Catholic and later converted to Protestantism. I merely seek to account for his intial reception into the Church of Rome. - Conservatrix (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

No, at no point in his life did James consider himself a Roman Catholic. Surtsicna (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a debate of whether religion is conferred or self-recognized. Shall I change the religion of Charles II of England for his death-bed conversion? - Conservatrix (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

No, since it was probably conferred on him without his knowledge or consent. DrKay (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Charles swore his intended conversion to Louis XIV of France, though possible this was a ploy to engage France in the Third Anglo-Dutch War. I happen to respect DrKay and will await the input of other users before pressing the issue.
- Conservatrix (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll add my voice to those saying the addition of Catholic to the infobox was inappropriate, misleading, and unnecessary. DrKay (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Mary I versus Mary in InfoBox and Succession Box

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

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

Reverted at Monarchy of Canada, reverted at infobox at William the Conqueror, reverted at infobox at Mary, Queen of Scots, all within hours. This just isn't my day. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

IMHO, we should be showing his predecessor's name as Mary I, since there's also a Mary II. -- GoodDay (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

None of the sources in the article use this form, which is much less common than the usual form (as shown in the requested move). Disambiguation from Mary II is unnecessary because Mary II is not mentioned anywhere in the article, and people don't get them confused (unlike Mary Tudor who is constantly mixed up with the Queen of Scots). DrKay (talk) 08:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Marriage

James I was the first married man to ascend to the throne of England since Richard III 130 years ago. Is this worth a mention somewhere? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

No. See comment at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caroline_of_Ansbach&diff=prev&oldid=847910457: unsourced material should not be added, even if correct. DrKay (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Stature

Is there any definitive source for James' height? I have seen him variously described as "short" and of "medium height". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

King of Israel

The page on British Israelism has this line, "Anglo-Israelism has also been attributed to Francis Drake and James VI and I,[6] who believed he was the King of Israel.[1]"

However, there is no mention of this belief on this page. Could someone look at these sources and then add this information here? Also, since the Authorized Version is so commonly known as the King James Version, there should also be some explanation of his thoughts on this translation. Was it something he wanted? Did it help him in any way? Did it suit a political purpose? That information would belong here.

188.239.0.177 (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The sources for British Israelism are these:

Fine, Jonathan (2015). Political Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: From Holy War to Modern Terror. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9781442247567. Retrieved 9 April 2017., and

Brackney, William H. Historical Dictionary of Radical Christianity. Scarecrow Press. pp. 61–62. ISBN 9780810873650. Retrieved 9 April 2017.

These seem perfectly reliable. But I'm not sure James' belief in this is regarded as a particularly important fact about him. Regarding the Bible, the article already says this: "As a result of the Hampton Court Conference of 1604, a new translation and compilation of approved books of the Bible was commissioned to resolve discrepancies among different translations then being used. The Authorized King James Version, as it came to be known, was completed in 1611 and is considered a masterpiece of Jacobean prose." And there is also a whole article on James VI and I and religious issues? I'm not sure what else should be added here. Any ideas? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

"upon her death without issue"

This phrase is ambiguous. Is it supposed to mean "she died without having had any children", or "he assumed the throne without any problems"? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I changed it[1]. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 7 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

---

James VI and I → James I and VI – I suggest the article should be re-named "James I and VI", as the greater title is that of the greater kingdom, namely England Great Britain, by population size, world power, prestige, etc. This is the usual way titles are shown for nobility, i.e., a baron who is created an earl, becomes known by his greater title (earl) first, with lesser titles following.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Use the commoner name, per ngram. DrKay (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose As per DrKay we should be using the common name. In any event, he was James VI of Scotland before he became James I of England, which is why he is widely known in modern circumstances as James VI and I. WCM_email 19:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Any duke is first created a baron, surely the order of creation is not relevant, it is the importance of the titles that should determine the order in which they are quoted. For example any Holy Roman Emperor is named that, not his underlying dukedom or title of a lesser ruler.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per DRKay. Dimadick (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. No objection to the above "opposes". That seems to be the way to stay. But I was going to ask "so, what did he call himself?" Looking at the "Titles and styles" sub-section, it seems that, after 24 March 1603, when he was proclaimed "James the first, King of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith", Scotland was rather forgotten about. Is this borne out in official documents? Whichever way he was officially described, after 24 March 1603, during his lifetime, perhaps the article should clarify? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Coin of King James I of Great Britain

Perhaps the way he describes himself on his coins might be helpful? He calls himself "King of Great Britain, France and Ireland". He was King James I of Great Britain.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per previous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:F8D2:1EE7:484D:EC37 (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
• Better James I that's how he's known by everyone, even in Scotland sometimes. WP:COMMONNAME isn't always right, far from it, but this one howls. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• All the books cited in this article, which use both titles, have "VI and I" and not "I and VI"? A quick Google Book search suggests this is part of a much lager pattern. Do book titles, whether by academics or nor, not count towards WP:COMMONNAME? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment The OP appears to be unaware that the United Kingdom of Great Britain did not exist until 1 May 1707 . It was never united under James VI of Scotland. WCM_email 18:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. The proposed new name has been marked as a misspelling or typographical error {{r from misspelling}} since August 2014. If this form is not wrong then the misspelling tag should be removed. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Corrected. DrKay (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Birthplace

I see an editor changed the birthplace. See [2]. WCM_email 18:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 20 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

---

James VI and I → King James – King James is massively used due to the King James bible and thanks to the fact that both Scotland and England were Kingdoms. At no point in his life James was known as "James VI and I". He was known as James VI from 1567 to 1603 and as James I from 1603 to 1623 (because England had precedence in the styling of his name). Also the name of this article goes against the Wiki policy to avoid double names, since they weren't used historically at the same time. In this case we can go just with King James, like Napoleon or Maria Theresa. For me it's a simple issue to solve honestly. Barjimoa (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too many other kings called James. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I think your arguments are quite valid, but are outweighed by Celia's trump card. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not the only King James. And he is very often referred to as James VI and I (or I and VI). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The more famous "king James" is James II of England, the founding figure of Jacobitism. A fairly obscure bible translation does not add to James I's importance. Dimadick (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• "fairly obscure bible translation"?? lolness. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Actually, I would have said James I is the more famous of the two. But he's still not the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The ambiguity is really not warranted. A vast majority of biographies cited in this article have an ordinal number next to his name in the title. Surtsicna (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Any historian talking or writing about him would use ordinals to make it clear which James they are talking about. I don't see any point in discussing which king is the more famous - they're both famous, neither is the primary topic, the ordinals are necessary (and, of the different options for arranging the ordinals, I think VI and I is the right choice in terms of how modern sources refer to him.) GirthSummit _(blether) 16:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME, James VI and I is the more common use. Indeed, the majority of references and sources cited in the article use this format. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Too ambiguous to be the title, due to the many other King James's and that the general reference to this one is by the current title, and one can easily find their way here if they're looking for this James. Vermont (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Think we might be looking at a rapid snow close here? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose There must be seven King Jameses in the history of the British Isles, and several Spanish King Jameses too. Why move to an ambiguous name? - Frans Fowler (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Afterthought - There were also two King Jameses in U.S. history before the American Revolution. - Frans Fowler (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Um, everyone opposed. But the outcome was "no consensus"? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, Yes, strange the wiki ways are --Cactus.man ✍ 15:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Surely there was unanimous consensus to not move? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

There, I've updated my previous closure to "not moved". Jerm (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hoorah! Thanks so much. I'm sure James in no longer spinning in his Westminster Abbey grave. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

IP user (and a new account) posting OR and conspiracy theories

An IP user, followed by a new account (User:Ghilliethegod) have been adding unsourced text to the article. It's happened three times so far and has been reverted. If it happens again, I'm going to request temporary semiprotection for the page. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 18:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

King James VI and I bias

Hi, so ive been reading the King James wiki and i find that in the personal relationships section, it is very misleading and onesided. Most of the information is claiming he was a homosexual, when there is absolutely no legitimate historical evidence to indicate that he was. Here is a link to my sources <https://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/james-h.html> (Redacted) Ghilliethegod (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research (see WP:OR). For the most part, statements like "modern homosexual authors with a clear agenda to promote", "join an unholy lot", and accusations against the Roman Catholic Church are not acceptable here unless quoted from many reliable sources (see WP:RS). — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 19:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding on to what UncleBubba said:

Ghilliethegod, I've removed much of your comment because it was a copyright violation. We're certainly able to copy and paste short sections of text in order to discuss if and/or how to incorporate them into the article. But it's not appropriate to paste long sections of text—indeed, virtually the entire page—anywhere on Wikipedia. Anyone interested in reading your source can click the link.

As for your statement that "Most of the information is claiming he was a homosexual", I'm not seeing it after a cursory look at the article. In the Personal relationships section, there are 2 sentences introducing the dispute, and a single paragraph of three sentences stating that biographers concluded that he had gay relationships. The paragraphs above and below it provide some counter-evidence. Am I missing something? All of these claims—on both sides—are cited to well-regarded publishers. I'm afraid that we can't delete a section simply because the source of your source—a book that appears to have been written by a non-expert and then self-published—says that there's no historical evidence and that's that.

Our role as editors is to summarize what reliable sources say about the subject. That nearly always means experts in their fields. We're also expected to accurately and neutrally summarize them without adding our own interpretations or balancing them against amateur opinions. Many experts have researched James's relationships and a summary of that research is exactly what you'd expect to find in an encyclopedia. Woodroar (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

What calendar

This article has Great Britain before 1752, so are these dates Julian, and was New Year's in March? These issues are dealt with in the article about King Charles I of England. Carlm0404 (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

"Personal relationships" section needs to be reworked

I feel like this section ("Personal relationships") is all over the place, especially with regards to James VI and I's sexuality. It appears (from cited sources) that historians agree he was either homosexual or bisexual; the first sentence ("James's sexuality is a matter of dispute") should be clarified to reflect this (the dispute appears to be whether he is gay vs bi, not straight vs gay/bi). The sentence "James being bisexual is also a possibility" would not be needed later if it was addressed earlier.

His relationships with women are scattered throughout this section in an unconstructive way. "James's wife Anne gave birth to seven live children, as well as suffering two stillbirths and at least three other miscarriages" seems like a really odd fact to put where it is now (and it has nothing to do with his sexuality - historical figures often married and had children regardless of their orientation, and as a king, that would be the expectation). "Live children" is strange wording as well.

"Some biographers of James argue that the relationships were not sexual" cites a 1990s source and no others. It seems this opinion is more of a minority, and the overall feeling of the section kind of feels like it's leaning towards a bias of "explain the gay away" if that makes sense?

The last 3 paragraphs in "Personal relationships" also feels out of place with the rest of the theme here (From "When the earl..." to "the government by 1619").

I recommend a new (sub)header under personal relationships specifically discussing his relationship with the the Duke of Buckingham (since it is the most prominent one), one for his other relationships with men, and one for his relationships with women/his wife/his children. I would be happy to take a shot at restructuring it. Strawberry-Oatmeal (talk) 06:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Titles, styles, honours, and arms

It is incorrect to designate any such king as "King of Scotland". The correct designation si "King of the Scots". Note the distinction between king of the People and king of the Land. As of the Declaration of Arbroath, the Scots, the People of Scotland, were ENTITLED to withdraw their support for any King that betrayed them to the English.

The box for Royal styles of James I, King of England uses the wrong arms. The ones used are the France and England arms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Royal_Arms_of_England_(1399-1603).svg which exclude Scotland.

The correct version for 1603-1707 is here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Royal_Arms_of_England_%281603-1707%29.svg/200px-Royal_Arms_of_England_%281603-1707%29.svg.png

Could someone who knows how please update the article to use the correct arms? Geofpick (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Mary, Queen of Scots

The article says: "Both Mary and Darnley were great great-grandchildren of Henry VII of England", but Mary's article says this: "Mary was born on 8 December 1542 at Linlithgow Palace, Scotland, to King James V and his French second wife, Mary of Guise ... She was the grand-niece of King Henry VIII of England.? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Both are true. Think about it. Isn't "great niece" more usual though? Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I did think about it. I came to the conclusion that a niece (or nephew) is not the same as a child. Perhaps it would be beneficial to spell out the descent of Mary from Henry VII, step-by-step? I'd agree that "great niece" is the correct term. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Amazingly, the section that does just that has not been deleted, like so many others. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, that makes it totally clear. A hyper link to that very diagram would have been immensely helpful. Perhaps the wording at Mary's article could be slightly expanded/improved. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Please check this and does it help. Mary Queen of Scots Ma. Henry Stuart Pa. Margaret Douglas Paternal Grand Ma. Matthew Stuart Paternal Grand Pa. Mary of Guise Maternal Grand Ma. James V of Scotland Maternal Grand Pa. James IV of Scotland Maternal and Paternal Great Grand Pa. Margaret Tudor Maternal and Paternal Great, Grand Ma. James II of Scotland Maternal and Paternal Great, Great Grand Pa. Henry VII Maternal and Paternal Great, Great Grand Pa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruskin (talk • contribs) 06:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Article title

Perhaps we should consider 'moving' the article title back to James I of England. Yes, I know his Scottish reign was much longer, but he's mainly know for being the English monarch. Indeed, his son, grandsons & granddaughter are titled Charles I of England, Charles II of England, James II of England, William III of England & Mary II of England. GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe. I agree that article titles should be consistent, and the English/British/UK monarch's article's titles are becoming a veritable hotbed of inconsistency and messy page moves, but I'm not sure about moving this article. I have no strong feelings either way, but I would comment that he is famously the first Scottish monarch to be king of England, and there would likely be some nationalist quarrels from Scotland if it were to be moved (given the ever-so-fragile situation that they're in at the moment), which is why I have a bit of a reservation about it. I think a more permanent solution would be to create a guideline or policy on specifically British monarchs, which would be achieved via community consensus (WP:NCRAN does, admittedly, do quite a good job in general). Even an essay would be fine, as long as it is given some respect by the community (similar to WP:BRSG). It's just slightly irritating to see the article titles for British monarchs become increasingly, increasingly inconsistent.

Cordially, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The lead: “James himself was a talented writer”

Was he? I can’t trace that assertion to any sourced text in the body of the article as would be required by WP:LEAD and there’s no specific citation against that sentence. If someone can attribute it to a sourced statement in the article, then that’s fine, otherwise it should be removed. “Prolific” writer - maybe. But describing him as a “talented writer” seems unlikely given that his writings are famously known for their pedantic style and content. DeCausa (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I’ve amended lead with this. Per Sharpe, in the Introduction to the cited book (p.16): he earned no place in the canon of eminent writers (Fischlin, Daniel; Fortier, Mark, eds. (2002), Royal Subjects: Essays on the Writings of James VI and I, Wayne State University Press, ISBN 978-0-8143-2877-4) but James was prolific in a variety of genres (per Fischlin’s and Fortier’s own essay at p. 39 of that collection). DeCausa (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Compulsively, I tracked back to when that text about James being a “talented” writer (originally “talented” scholar) was added: the origins are here, by a drive-by IP in 2003. It survived, totally unsourced, for nearly 20 years! DeCausa (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

What a talented drive-by IP! Let's hope he wasn't also prolific. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Those that miss the good ole days when the true faith of the real WP burned brightly might like to look at that diff. A section headed Queen James and apparently “King James is considered to have been one of the most intellectual and learned individuals ever to sit on any English, Scottish or British throne”. Marvellous. DeCausa (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

How very inspiring. Sounds almost like musical thrones. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Mary, Queen of Scots

The article says: "Both Mary and Darnley were great great-grandchildren of Henry VII of England", but Mary's article says this: "Mary was born on 8 December 1542 at Linlithgow Palace, Scotland, to King James V and his French second wife, Mary of Guise ... She was the grand-niece of King Henry VIII of England.? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Both are true. Think about it. Isn't "great niece" more usual though? Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I did think about it. I came to the conclusion that a niece (or nephew) is not the same as a child. Perhaps it would be beneficial to spell out the descent of Mary from Henry VII, step-by-step? I'd agree that "great niece" is the correct term. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Amazingly, the section that does just that has not been deleted, like so many others. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, that makes it totally clear. A hyper link to that very diagram would have been immensely helpful. Perhaps the wording at Mary's article could be slightly expanded/improved. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Please check this and does it help. Mary Queen of Scots Ma. Henry Stuart Pa. Margaret Douglas Paternal Grand Ma. Matthew Stuart Paternal Grand Pa. Mary of Guise Maternal Grand Ma. James V of Scotland Maternal Grand Pa. James IV of Scotland Maternal and Paternal Great Grand Pa. Margaret Tudor Maternal and Paternal Great, Grand Ma. James II of Scotland Maternal and Paternal Great, Great Grand Pa. Henry VII Maternal and Paternal Great, Great Grand Pa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruskin (talk • contribs) 06:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The lead: “James himself was a talented writer”

Was he? I can’t trace that assertion to any sourced text in the body of the article as would be required by WP:LEAD and there’s no specific citation against that sentence. If someone can attribute it to a sourced statement in the article, then that’s fine, otherwise it should be removed. “Prolific” writer - maybe. But describing him as a “talented writer” seems unlikely given that his writings are famously known for their pedantic style and content. DeCausa (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I’ve amended lead with this. Per Sharpe, in the Introduction to the cited book (p.16): he earned no place in the canon of eminent writers (Fischlin, Daniel; Fortier, Mark, eds. (2002), Royal Subjects: Essays on the Writings of James VI and I, Wayne State University Press, ISBN 978-0-8143-2877-4) but James was prolific in a variety of genres (per Fischlin’s and Fortier’s own essay at p. 39 of that collection). DeCausa (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Compulsively, I tracked back to when that text about James being a “talented” writer (originally “talented” scholar) was added: the origins are here, by a drive-by IP in 2003. It survived, totally unsourced, for nearly 20 years! DeCausa (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

What a talented drive-by IP! Let's hope he wasn't also prolific. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Those that miss the good ole days when the true faith of the real WP burned brightly might like to look at that diff. A section headed Queen James and apparently “King James is considered to have been one of the most intellectual and learned individuals ever to sit on any English, Scottish or British throne”. Marvellous. DeCausa (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

How very inspiring. Sounds almost like musical thrones. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Move request notification

A move request has been created at Talk:James I (disambiguation)#Requested move 3 August 2022 but no notification was posted here by the requester, presumably due to the redirect from James I not being followed. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Article title

Perhaps we should consider 'moving' the article title back to James I of England. Yes, I know his Scottish reign was much longer, but he's mainly know for being the English monarch. Indeed, his son, grandsons & granddaughter are titled Charles I of England, Charles II of England, James II of England, William III of England & Mary II of England. GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe. I agree that article titles should be consistent, and the English/British/UK monarch's article's titles are becoming a veritable hotbed of inconsistency and messy page moves, but I'm not sure about moving this article. I have no strong feelings either way, but I would comment that he is famously the first Scottish monarch to be king of England, and there would likely be some nationalist quarrels from Scotland if it were to be moved (given the ever-so-fragile situation that they're in at the moment), which is why I have a bit of a reservation about it. I think a more permanent solution would be to create a guideline or policy on specifically British monarchs, which would be achieved via community consensus (WP:NCRAN does, admittedly, do quite a good job in general). Even an essay would be fine, as long as it is given some respect by the community (similar to WP:BRSG). It's just slightly irritating to see the article titles for British monarchs become increasingly, increasingly inconsistent.

Cordially, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Coat of Arms of Scotland (1603-1649).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Witch trials

Absolutely no mention of the North Berwick witch trials or any of the other persecution of (mostly) women he perpetrated. It’s a dark part of British history and a part of his legacy. 2001:1C02:2F03:F300:C2C:723C:1838:1640 (talk) 06:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely there is. There's a whole section on it. Maybe read the article first? DeCausa (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)