| content | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Talk:Mary I of Scotland/archive 1
Contents |
Lady Jane Grey
why was she beheaded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.159.157 (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Because she would not admit to Mary Tudor that she was not the rightful heir to the throne. She was put there because she was a Protestant, and Mary Tudor was a Catholic married to the Spanish King. She was the Queen for a little while, but the English were not Protestants in general, they followed what Henry VIII had established, which was the Church of England. When her general support diminished, Mary Tudor came, and wanted her to apologise and admit that she had been a usurper of the throne. When she didn't, she was beheaded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.246.7.153 (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Neutrality
On a quick read-through, and without getting into minutiae, this article has a definite slant that doesn't feel like neutral POV, but rather feels "pro-Mary". Specifically, the total glossing over of the Babington plot, the implication that her execution was intentionally cruel (the two strikes thing), etc. I'm fairly well-read on the era, but this isn't something I'm going to dig in and fight over, just thought I'd mention my initial impression. I believe it should be possible to present the balance of facts (as we are able to know them at this point) without coming across as either "pro-Mary" or "pro-Elizabeth".--24.148.236.234 (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you. It is open to every contributor, including yourself, to make appropriate amendments to improve the tone, and I encourage you to do so. Deb (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Hats Production of Mary, Queen of Scots Got Her Head Chopped Off.jpg
Image:Hats Production of Mary, Queen of Scots Got Her Head Chopped Off.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Mary I's titles
What was Mary I's title from 1578 (James Hepburn's death) until 1587 (her own death)? I suppose that she was styled Countess of Bothwell from 1567 (when she ceased to be Queen of Scots) until 1578 (when the Earl of Bothwell died). Maybe Lady Mary Stuart or Dowager Countess of Bothwell? Surtsicna (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
My understanding - and this is just my opinion/interpretation of events - is that technically, she never lost her title. When she was forced to abdicate, she did so only because Lindsay threatened to cut her throat if she did not sign them. She had miscarried only several days earlier, and had lost a great deal of blood, leaving her in a very delicate state health-wise. The two points are important, because they are the foundations for the argument that she signed the document under extreme duress, and would therefore be invalid when held up to any kind of scrutiny. Throckmorton actively encouraged this line of thinking and reasoning to Mary at the time. e So, if one holds that the document were signed under genuine duress, then they are invalidated and unenforceable.
In any case, even if she HAD lawfully and legally given up her throne, my understanding is that she would still have a regal title, as she was born royalty. #REDIRECT Edward VIII abdication crisis indicates that after his abdication, Edward was known as 'His Royal Highness,' Duke of... I don't know what all of her other titles would be offhand. Probably a lot of French titles mixed in as well.
(My sources for the above were Rosalind Marshall and Nau, Mary's personal advisor/assistant. Colemic (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Twins?
She became pregnant with twins, which she later miscarried while imprisoned.
How did they know (in 16th century) that she was pregnant with twins when she miscarried them? 87.250.116.18 (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's simple. When she miscarried them, people could see the two little body of the babies ---- (Kaho Mitsuki) 00:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Line of Succession
Can someone produce a source for the claim about a law during the reign of Robert II having created a "semi-Salic" succession in Scotland. I have not seen this claimed anywhere except Wikipedia, and for a few reasons I find this a bit implausible, although I could be proved wrong. Unless someone responds in a couple of days I propose to delete this. PatGallacher (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Gordon Donaldson's 'Kings of Scotland' (p. 34-35) says that it was an official act of Parliament:
-
- "Almost exactly two years later, in a parliament held at Scone on 4 April 1373, a much more elaborate act of sucession, amounting to an entail of the crown, was passed with the consent of 'the prelates, earls, barons and the rest of the chief men and nobles of all others of the three estates or communities of the whole realm there asembled.' The crown was now destined to pass successively to John, Earl of Carrick, and his heirs male, whom failing to the King's second son, Robert, Earl of Fife and Menteith, and his heirs male, whom failing to Alexander, Lord of Badenoch, the King's third son, and his heirs male, whom failing to David, Earl of Strathearn, the King's fourth son, and his heirs male, whom failing to Walter, youngest of the King, and his heirs male, 'and the foresaid five brothers and thir heirs male decending from them happening finally and wholly to fail (which God forbid), the true an lawful heirs of the royal blood and kin shall thenceforward succeed to the kingdom and the right of reigning.' It is curious, and significant of the force attached to statute rather than blood, that, although the crown had come to the Stewarts through a female, it was now laid down that it was not to be transmitted through a female, except possiby on the extinction of all the male lines decended from Robert II. In fact, as will appear, the male line of the first five sons coninued in unbroken, though tenuous, succession until the death of James V in 1542. But at that point (when, as it happened, the male lines of all the other sons of Robert II had long died out), the crown went not to any man but to the late King's infant daughter, Mary, Queen of Scots."
Also... the below link is the Records of the Parliament of Scotland website, it is an unbelievable treasure trove! A spectacular source, plus it has translations as well. It validated Donaldson's version, the title of the relevant section being 'Legislation: statute, ordinance and declaration entailing the Crown on the sons of Robert II.' It is listed as an act of Parliament on 4 April 1373.
http://www.rps.ac.uk 139.153.13.68 (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- That sounds like it answers the point. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It is often said that Mary Queen of Scots and Elizabeth I were cousins. Elizabeth I was Mary Tudor's half-sister (they shared father but not mother), and Mary QoS was her niece, not her cousin. According to several sources - Wikipedia included - Mary QoS was the granddaughter of Henry VIII's sister. This does not make her Elizabeth's cousin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.246.7.153 (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- First cousin once removed, I think (or maybe second cousin once removed). But the word "cousin" used to be a general term for any relation. Deb (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Physical Description
There is no physical description of Mary in the article.It doesn't mention,for instance her extraordinary height (5"11),nor any details of her colouring,features,etc.Antonia Fraser devotes several pages to her physical attributes;considering the capacity she had for attracting men.jeanne (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to add this in, although I don't think it would need more than a paragraph. If you have a copy of this book, it would be reat if you could add in some references. There are some but I think some sections need more. Perhaps then we could get rid of this: 'This article or section is missing citations or needs footnotes. Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (May 2008)' at the top of the page. Boleyn (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Her height is already mentioned in the article. Deb (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Coded messages, decrypted
Mary used a "nomenclature" cipher to encrypt messages sent to and from Anthony Babington. Walsingham (Secretary to Queen Elizabeth) intercepted many of these coded messages. Thomas Phelippes (a linguist and cryptanalyst) was employed (by Walsingham) to break this cipher and by statistical analysis of the frequency of the symbols he was able to discover the key, and thereby decode the cipher. Mary's confidence in the privacy that her cipher provided, made her bold enough to communicate her consent to the Babington Plot (to assassinate Queen Elizabeth). Much more detail is available "The Code Book" by Simon Singh 1999 ISBN:0-385-49532-3. 72.73.92.107 (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.92.107 (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Inconsistent Naming
The section "Childhood in France" uses both Henry II and Henri II, and Henry/Henri. It appears to me that this should be edited for consistency and that Henri II would be the correct choice. Thank you for your kind review. Ellendare (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. Colemic (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Citations Added
I have added the 2 citations needed to remove the "citations needed" label at the top, but I don't know how to do that... and I rewrote the paragraph at James V's prophecy to reflect the source. Please feel free to amend it as necessary but I think it reflects fairly on the issue. I *think* I added the citations correctly.
Lastly... Under "Heritage, Birth, and Coronation," it says that John Stewart would have succeeded before Mary had he not died in 1536... what is dubious about that? Is it not correct?
Thanks,
Colemic (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
