Talk:List of Scottish monarchs/Archive 1

Styles

Isn't the stylling of the Scottish Monarch King/Queen of Scots? There seems to be no reference to this in the article simply a redirect. {—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.77.99.73 (talk • contribs).

The Styles section in the article points to Style of the monarchs of Scotland where the various attested styles are listed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Stewart or Stuart?

As this article is in specific reference to Scotland is it really necessary to include the English spelling of Stewart?

Stuart is the French spelling of the English, Stewart. Neither are the Scottish Gaelic spelling which is Stiubhart.
–Whaleyland 07:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

And what is the Scots spelling? --Xyzzyva 12:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the dynastic name be Stuart from 1567 onwards, as James VI inherited his father's name, which was spelt "Stuart"? Wasn't that why the spelling altered? TharkunColl (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've often wondered about this as well. When did the 'House of Stewart' become the 'House of Stuart'? I've often thought the latter version was only used after James succeeded the English throne. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have read two versions - one that Mary Stewart's name was Gallicised to Stuart upon her arrival in France, because the French couldn't get their heads around the Scottish spelling; the other, that Lord Darnley's family had gone native in France, and changed their spelling then, and that Darnley passed it on to his son. Both are probably true. Michael Sanders 18:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and considering that there is - in effect - a change of dynasty in 1567, this seems to be the best place to reflect the change, at least as far as Scotland is concerned. England doesn't have the same problem of course as it was always "Stuart". TharkunColl (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarify please: Did Stewart become Stuart during Mary I's reign (1542-67) or upon James VI's succession in 1567? GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Mary might have respelt her name when she moved to France, or adopted her husband's name - spelt Stuart - upon marriage. But she was born a "Stewart", and like Victoria who was born a Hanover, that's the dynasty into which she is placed, regardless of later marriages. TharkunColl (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense, House of Stuart begins with James VI. The irony of it, 'Stewart' is English. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is quite ironic. As is the fact that Mary Queen of Scots spoke with a very pronounced French accent, since she had spent most of her life there. TharkunColl (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

In agreement then, the Heading for the monarchs James VI to Anne should be Stuart. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. TharkunColl (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I read an essay on this subject years ago, and also consulted David Simpson's work of 1713, The Genealogical and Chronological History of the Stuarts. It evolved from Steward (Black, George, Surnames of Scotland) and Simpson suggests that the first to use it as a distinct surname was Walter FitzAlan of Dundonald, High Steward of Scotland (1173 - 1241). King Robert III, who had been baptised John, was still referred to as John the Steward before his accession to the throne in 1390. (Maxwell, Sir Herbert, A History of the House of Douglas, London, 1902, vol.1, p.236). The earliest spelling I could locate of this surname as Stuart was in the Armorial de Gelre (c.1370-88) but that was written on the continent, in French. I cannot recall where I saw when the spelling in the UK mainland changed to Stuart but it was probably almost certainly with Mary. I'll look further. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In Antonia Fraser's biogaphy on Mary, Queen of Scots, she states that Mary always signed her surname Stuart, therefore this spelling began with her, not her son James.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The question is somewhat academic, and the choice of answer inevitably somewhat arbitary. Before the 18th century there was no standard spelling of any English word - folk just spelled as they thought fit. Hence Shakespeare never spelled his name the same way twice. Steward/Stuart/Stewart and perhaps other variants may exist and have coexisted at almost any point in time - the adoption of Stuart as the preferred conventional spelling probably didn't happen at a single moment in time. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.115.224 (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Alpin and Dunkeld

The division between Alpin and Dunkeld are rather silly. These dynasties do not exist in contemporary sources. Cenél Loairn and Cenél nGabráin would be much more accurate. All kings of Scots from Malcolm III until the Great Cause had Gaelic genealogies read out to them on "coronation" tracing their descent to "Kenneth MacAlpin", and so are just as much "Alpin" as "Dunkeld". But as "Duncan" I was born of Crinan, Abbot of Dunkeld, the Dunkeld dynasty would start with him; it's arbitrary to start with "Malcolm" III. (See Mormaer_of_Moray#Comparative_Moravian_and_Scottish_Genealogies). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calgacus (talk • contribs) .

That's true, but royalty fans like that sort of stuff, although they'd usually change the dynasty at Mary's death, and again on the ascension of William & Mary. So it's neither one thing nor the other as it is now. It gives no indication that Macbeth and Duncan had equally good claims, both being Uí Cináeda, Uí Ailpín and Uí Fergusa. That goes past the "Wars of Independence" as well, or so that James VI quote you found about being "sprung from Fergus's race" would lead me to believe. It also says Margaret was Queen, and Archie Duncan says not. Some of the Irish dynasties have a family tree thing - Uí Néill, Connachta, and so on - that might be better. Angus McLellan 00:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Having tried editing some of those family trees, no it wouldn't be a good plan. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Stuart-Lennox

It is reasonable to distinguish between the Stewarts and Stuarts. The Stuarts came from the junior line of Lennox, which is just as notable as Capet-Valois etc and especially due to the nature differentiating the old Stewarts of Scotland and the new Stuarts at the Union of the Crowns. SEE HERE IP Address 22:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The different spelling (Stewart/Stuart) should be enough. /FrinkMan

Coronated

Surely a monarch is crowned at their coronation? Conornated is a new one on me, and even if it is a word, it certainly isn't the usual form. Dainamo 13:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Scots

Would it be possible to get the Scots language forms of the names, considering that Scots was the official language of Scotland from the 14th century until the Acts of Union? --Lemmy Kilmister-- 06/06/06, roughly 17:00

You mean 15th. Well, as Scots is a form of English, the names are the same. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite right! No Maucoms, Andras, Raberts and Dauvits here please.

84.135.230.75 17:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The notion that 'Scots' was the official language of Scotland in some distant past is an idea that surfaced only in relatively recent times. The contemporary historical archives of the Scottish Parliament are explicit that its language was English and that it was the same language as that used in England. Cassandra Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Amlaíb of Scotland

I was quite surprised to see this person in the list, never heard of him before. A solitary reference in the Annals of Ulster seems scant ground for regarding him as a king of Scots. See the dispute over Margaret of Scotland. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PatGallacher (talk • contribs) .

Well, that's the Annals of Ulster and the Annals of Tigernach and the Chronicon Scotorum and the Annals of Clonmacnoise. However, if it were merely the primary sources, that would be WP:OR and a Bad Thing. As noted in the article, Warlords and Holy Men and Kingship of the Scots both include him as a king (or co-king for W&HM). What The Making of the Kingdom says I have no idea. I believe he's mentioned in the Biographical Dictionary of Dark-Age Britain. Compared to Eochaid of Scotland, say, or the "invented history" of Cináed I's forefathers, Amlaíb/Olafr is pretty solid. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Direct descent from Fergus Mór to Elizabeth II

Do we have the relevant info and know-how to create a matching article to this English one?

• Direct descent from William I to Elizabeth II

Could we do:

• Direct descent from Kenneth I to Elizabeth II

or even better:

• Direct descent from Fergus Mór to Elizabeth II

This, of course, raises the obvious question: is there a direct line of descent from the first Kings of Scots to the current UK monarch? (I think I read somewhere that there is.) --Mais oui! 10:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Direct descent from Kenneth I to Elizabeth II is easy and uncontroversial. Direct descent from Fergus Mór to Elizabeth II isn't. Accepting medieval claims as true, yes, there is a genealogy here (at &para 1696), and there are other ones, all of which tell roughly the same story. Unfortunately, anything befire Cináed mac Ailpín is at best dubious and at worst completely fabricated. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That's great. So, what are the bona fide sources for our new Direct descent from Kenneth I to Elizabeth II article? I note that Direct descent from William I to Elizabeth II is currently {{unsourced}} (We can mention the, probably bogus, claims of descent back to Fergus as a footnote.) --Mais oui! 12:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Dauvit Broun's Irish Identity of the Kingdom of the Scots, Archie Duncan's Kingship of the Scots and the Oxford Companion to Scottish History to start with. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[Kicks self really hard] Of course there would be the implicit assumption that the verifiable line is the most direct one, and that some more direct line of which we know nothing does not exist. None of the sources make any claims about the directness of the known descent. Hmm. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "direct"?

It is very verifiable that the primogeniture descent starts from Robert Bruce as an earliest point. Over him and his descent, there exists at least the very verifiable more primogenitural descent of Balliols. Additionally, Robert II's marriages form a shit for true uncontested legitimacy of that directness (it is approximately same as the Beaufort problem of the Lancaster descent in England). And, Act of Settlement 1701 diverted the succession from primogeniture as is all too well known. Suedois 12:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely the descent is not via primogeniture, but lineal (both could be termed 'direct'). Well researched descents exist from Malcolm III of Scotland, and The Scottish Genealogist carried two good articles (in two separate editions), with source materiéls, on some English descendants. So presumably it is a matter of tracing back from Malcolm - may not be easily verifiable, I am unsure. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Rename

I propose to move this article to Monarch of Scotland. The current "List" title is a misnomer, since it isn't just a list. And the content of the opening sections can be expanded further. There is a lot more to say about the history of the monarchy of Scotland as an institution. The "List of monarchs" can be a section of this article. Any comments?--JW1805 (Talk) 00:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree, some information is already at British monarch, but I am sure more can be provided- lists of monarchs are already adequately covered. Astrotrain 10:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose move. This is a very good list. Check out featured lists for other lists like this. Rmhermen 03:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Format

I agree with the opposition to the renaming proposal above. However, if this article is to continue in the form of a list could someone with the relevant know-how possibly try formatting it to match : List of English monarchs. If not I'll have a play in the sandbox and try to do so myself at a future date, assuming there are no objections to the adoption of that style. Antisthenes 15:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Idi Amin

Can someone please explain Idi Amin's claim?

He has no claim. He simply granted himself the title like he granted himself the Victoria Cross. He was simply

Idi Amin was for some reason obsessed with Scotland, viewing it as a nation long persecuted by the "British" (which, of course, includes Scotland, but no one ever said Idi Amin was intelligent). Idi Amin apparently had already self-appointed himself as a champion of peoples he saw as victimized by Britain (at the same time he was also awarding himself British military decorations!), and announced he was "King of Scotland," a title that never actually existed. In case this is not clear, he had no valid claim to be "King of Scotland," or King of Scots, or even King of Rockall. Idi Amin was nuts, and that's all there was to this. Jsc1973 (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Gaelic Names

Why is this article using transparent, recognisable English forms of the monarchs' names, only providing the geeky nerd, opaque, unrecognisable native Goidelic forms in brackets? Surely this article should respect Calgacus's (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) fetish for all things Goidelic and conform with Template:Scottish Monarchs. 84.135.197.245 19:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't joke about such things. john k 19:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Few people can speak that "language"- a seperate wiki exists for its usage. Astrotrain 20:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Dont you just love the misuse of speech marks? Cant get "enough" of it. siarach 16:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Er, yeah, wait a sec. Is Astrotrain actually saying that Gaelic isn't a language? I thought that kind of condescension was reserved for Scots. john k 14:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A damn fine template. I can find ang:Hēafodsīde, and la:Pagina prima - but no luck with http://sga.wikipedia.org or http://mga.wikipedia.org - so Astrotrain seems to be mistaken. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The monarchs of Scotland spoke French and English from around James I onwards. By the time Mary, Queen of Scots became monarch, the Kings and Queens of Scotland were no longer speaking Gaelic, hence the adoption of the French "Stuart" to replace Stewart/Stiubhart. As far as I was aware the Stewarts never used "Stiubhart".

Stewart is a name of English origin. The family was originally French, borrowed the word into French, and became English or Gaelic speakers or both depending on the individual branch. E.g. most Stewart kings used English/Scots as their first language, but its pretty clear that Robert II and his bastard children (e.g. Duke of Albany, Earl of Buchan, etc) spoke Gaelic as their first language, as did the Stewarts of Lorne and Atholl. They used their name untranslated in whatever language they spoke after the 13th cent., and the spelling of that name certainly wasn't fixed in the middle ages. Illustration of this is an entry an Irish annals of probable Scottish derivation:

Ri Alban .i. Muireadhach Stiuard, & a mhac .i. Ualtar Stiuard, & Murmóir Lemhna do mharbhadh le Righ Alban .i. mac An Righ Bhacaigh, & mac ele an Righ .i. Sémus Stiuard & Clann Murmoir Lemhna da ionnarbadh-somh ind Erinn

''The Duke of Albany, Murdoch Stewart, and his son Walter Stewart, and the Mormaer of Lennox, were murdered by the King of Scotland, that is, by the son of the lame king [Robert III]; the Duke's other son, James Stewart, and the children of the Mormaer of ::: Lennox fled into Ireland

English, French and Gaelic orthographies weren't standardised in the middle ages. The Stewart vs Stuart is an early modern thing that arose when spellings had been gradually standardised. Spellings are just superficial; e.g. James had the e pronounced in the middle ages, but who's going to know that from the spelling. In short, don't dwell too much on spellings as far as this era is concerned. Anyways, late medieval kings of Scots ruled a bilingual kingdom, and independent of their personal anglophone or francophone cultural preferences (they used English from the late 14th cent. until 1603, and were using Gaelic until at least the reign of James IV), their names should be given in both the languages of their kingdom. Early modern Russian emperors were using French, some English monarchs German, doesn't mean Russian and English names should not be given for these monarchs. Hope that helps. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Union of the Crowns

James VI succeeded to the English throne on 24 March. Why is the date given here as 25 July? TharkunColl 23:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the date. Someone was trying to be funny. GoodDay 00:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That;s the date given in the article of James VI of Scotland. If it's wrong, you need to go there and change it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I did fix it (changed it to March 24, 1603). I'm the fixer not the trickster. GoodDay 17:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's still on the James I of England article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the 'succession boxe dates' at that article. GoodDay 18:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I now understand where the error has come from - that was the date of his coronation (List of coronations of British monarchs). TharkunColl 18:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

James' English coronation was 11 July 1603. I've corrected that edit as well. GoodDay 18:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

See List of English monarchs

This article (like that article) should include the British monarchs (George I to Elizabeth II). Since the Scottish monarchy merged with the English monarchy, to become the British monarchy. GoodDay 01:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The List of monarchs in the British Isles provides the combined list right through to the present while both the English and Scottish monarch lists should only include monarchs up to the 1707 version of the United Kingdom. The list of English monarchs article is quite plainly wrong in including post 1707 monarchs. --Bill Reid | Talk 09:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree - List of English monarchs is wrong. But I've ran into resistance, trying to 'fix' it. GoodDay 14:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand at all what's the point of this entry. This article is the list of Scottish monarchs which is kings and queens of Scotland. English or British monarchs have nothing do do with this list since Scotland existed as a kingdom until 1707.

ICE77 (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

This list starts far too early

Why does this list include people who never ruled over the whole of Scotland? This whole article will need an overhaul when it is brought into line with List of English monarchs, and the first thing to do will be to start the list only with the unification of Scotland. TharkunColl 15:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, all those pre-Scottish monarchs can be listed at List of monarchs in the British Isles. This list deals with the Kings/Queens of the Scots/Scotland, it should begin with Malcolm II, just like the List of English monarchs should begin with Athelstan. GoodDay 16:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, Malcolm II might be too harsh. Here's a question - who was 'undisputely' the first King of Scotland, who first reigned over all of Scotland? Who ever it is, should be the 'first' lists. GoodDay 16:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No no no. There was no "Scotland" to be united other than the territory controlled and by definition already united under the Kings of the Picts/Scots/Alba, a Kingdom whose territorial integrity appears from all the evidence to have been largely the same conceptually (from Caithness to the Forth) from the ages of Bede and Adomnán (its first opportunity to get documented) to the reigns of Alexander II and III. Most of "Scotland" was under the control of the kings of the Kingdom known as Pictavia, Alba (in English, Scotland) between the 7th and 8th centuries. If anything, the list should start earlier. That "Scotland" came to include areas south of the Forth did not begin to be realised until the mid-13th century, a product of territorial aggrandizement which cannot be precisely dated to any Scottish monarch before 1124. Alba is just one of more than a dozen insular kingdoms that happened to survive beyond the English Norman age; its kings should not be shifted into a picture which promotes encyclopedic fictions or ahistorical grand marches towards a beloved and hence inevitable United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. List of English monarchs is its own page, and certainly isn't a good or even a decent basis for writing a list of Scottish monarchs. And for instance Athelstan and Máel Coluim II, while both extremely successful monarchs, cannot really both be seen as founders of their kingdoms. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

James III, but by the same arbitrary rule the first King of England might well be William Rufus.

I doubt that there is a published list of supposed rulers of Scotland, or even two or more lists, which correspond(s) with the one you've created, whereas the previous version corresponded with published material (discrepancies between this list and the more common form found in Lynch's Companion, for example, are on the strength of Duncan's Kingship of the Scots and, to a lesser degree, Smyth's Warlords and Holy Men). Your theory may be that the list should start with so-and-so, but unless there is a reliable source, that's hardly acceptable. Rightly or wrongly, published lists begin in 843. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Then I recommend adding 'sub-titles' in the article - like Strathclyde monarchs, Pictish monarchs, Alba monarchs & finnally Scottish monarchs; something to signify the gradual amalgamation of those 'little kingdoms' into the Kingdom of Scotland. GoodDay 16:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Alba and Scotland are the same thing. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

(Except when they aren't) This list was 25k long, the Pictish list is 20k, the Dál Riata one is 17k, and the Strathclyde one 9k. Apart from the impracticality of one huge list, I might as well ask why all the Welsh lists aren't consolidated, or all the Anglo-Saxon ones rolled into the English list. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and why not add the Rhinns (3 11th century kings of that province), Galloway, the Isles, etc. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

So, do we 'truncate' the article OR add 'sub-titles' to explain the 'amalgamation'? GoodDay 16:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine as it is to me as it is, save only beginning at Cinaed mac Ailpin, who is the first king on most published lists from the 20th century. The 2nd paragraph explains roughly how this should be understood. Details of the territory's expansion to include territory which increased its size by less than a third are unnecessary for this article, though a note about moving away from dating from Cinaed mac Ailpin might be good. Also, as one will see by reading pre-20th century material, numerals in the past tended to date from Fergus Mor rather than Cinaed (I think Donald II 20th century is Donald V pre-20th century [1]). Both are equally fictional. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that this list needs to be standardised with the English list, so the same criteria must be applied to determine the "first" king. Whoever it was, it certainly wasn't Kenneth, who never ruled Strathclyde or the south-east. Even this article admits that he was only ever king of the Picts, and that was how he was known to contemporaries. TharkunColl 18:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tharky, both English and Scottish articles should have the same criteria (for listing monarchs). Afterall both these monarchies 'merge' to become the British monarchy. GoodDay 18:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The key things the two lists need to have in common is that they should both verifiably present a neutral point of view, and not someone's personal hobby-horse or {{original research}}. Everything else follows from that. Of all the candidates, I find Domnall mac Causantín the least plausible. For sheer volume of ink Causantín mac Áeda has to be the favourite, while I personally think Giric has a lot to recommend him, not least his bizarre late medieval reputation. Well, we're all entitled to our opinion, but the conventional wisdom, as picking up a random Scottish history book will show, is that Kenneth is counted the first king. Easy enough to prove, or not, on Google books or a big library. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As long as both articles have the same criteria. We'll start the English with -Egbert of Wessex-. GoodDay 18:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The English and Scottish kings are two different articles. No reason why they should be standardised together at the expense of facts. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

::::I sense a 'Scottish vs English' atmosphere to these disputes; I hope I'm wrong. GoodDay 19:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the citations obviously back Kenneth I. Therefore, the English list should start with Egbert of Wessex. GoodDay 19:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is the English language. Historically the name 'Scotland' has been used in English for two distinct entities. Firstly for the ancient gaelic kingdom of Alba and secondly for the later kingdom comprising the whole of modern Scotland. Confusing one with the other is a bit like conflating the kingdom of England with the kingdom of Wessex. The wikipage on Alba says it persisted until 1286 - so that arguably the 'kingdom of Scotland' in modern usage didn't exist until 1287. Arguably too there were no 'kings of the Scots' (except in the English language) until then - they had previously all been Rìgh na h-Alba or Kings of the Albanach. Translating the name of today's Scotland into the gaelic name Alba is equally confusingly modern usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.38.110 (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Page Movement

Should we move this article to List of Scottish monarchs so as it matches with its English counterpart List of English monarchs? GoodDay 16:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No. The current article title is fine. If anything "Scottish monarchs" is more ambiguous and would lead to more problems. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Why was the English one moved? James I and William III, to pick just two, were non-English monarchs of England. Which is more confusing, using Scotland to refer to something other than "2007 Scotland", when the same is done in dozens of articles on France, Germany, Poland, &c, or seeming to call Scotsmen, Danes, Normans, Dutchmen, Frenchmen and Germans English? Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well then we'll change List of English monarchs to List of monarchs of England. As for 1603-1707 (James VI/I to Anne), those monarchs were concurrently monarch of Scotland and monarch of England. GoodDay 17:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Part of the reason for my request of moving this page? The current title has 'too many' ofs. GoodDay 17:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The idea is to have 3 closely related articles:

• List of English monarchs
• List of Scottish monarchs
• List of British monarchs (i.e. after 1707)

But, if we have the titles in the following format instead, we run into problems with the third one:

• List of monarchs of England
• List of monarchs of Scotland
• List of monarchs of Great Britain (from 1707 to... 1801?)

Necessetating a fourth article:

• List of monarchs of the United Kingdom

Since the term "British" perfectly correctly covers both the KofGB and the UK, we only need one article rather than two. TharkunColl 17:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Succession to the British Throne

This relating article is seriously inaccurate. It makes no mention of the Scottish succession - gives the erroneous impression England became Britain & Scotland became exstinct. GoodDay 18:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Correction, make very little mention of the Scottish succession (pre-1603). GoodDay 18:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The British monarchs

A proposal was made at List of English monarchs to re-add the British monarchs to that page. Since this has the potential to change preceptions on this page, what's everbodies opinon here? Shall we add British monarchs here, too? GoodDay 23:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The proposal has been tabled again, with the suggestion of changing the 'English list' to List of English and British monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be canvassing support, GoodDay - I think this is very underhand. TharkunColl (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing support? It's only a straw poll. I would think the Scottish editors should have a say, as much as the English editors. Don't you Tharky? GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

My proposal does not affect this list in any way, and I would not presume to edit it since I'm not Scottish. TharkunColl (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that one has to be of a nationality to edit a page about its history? john k (talk) 06:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the things that GoodDay agreed to when he forced a split in the English and British lists is that the Scottish list would be brought into line with them - same formatting, same style, same arrangement of info etc. And yet he has done nothing whatsoever to bring this about. TharkunColl (talk) 09:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be any major clash between this list and the other two. Michael Sanders 16:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If the British monarchs were added to the English list? The editors here, might wish to add the British monarchs to this list. As for canvassing? I didn't ask editors here to support or oppose Tharky's ideas - plus, there isn't any 'voting' being held. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits by Michael Sanders

I see no reason for the changes Michael is trying to conduct here. The info is geared and presented here by era as appropriate. What is wrong with that? The crude edits have, for instance, left an entire section with a blank column, while more appropriate and relevant information for various early periods has been crushed in and rendered meaningless. All for what? I await an answer. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The 'blank column' you refer to is for dates of coronations - which, so I hear, was very important to the assumption of kingship (vide Margaret, Maid of Norway). You could, perhaps, help out by researching what coronation dates are known? Michael Sanders 18:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The dates not there aren't known. Neither are many that have been inserted. It'd help out most if you self-reverted and explained what your intentions are. It appears very clumsy at the moment, unacceptably so. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The dates are certainly known for the later ones, and probably isolated earlier ones as well. What's wrong with putting more info in the list, rather than less? TharkunColl (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The lists were already filled out. Now the actual important information for the early kings has been omitted, cramped or made meaningless for the sake of ... wait for it ... nothing. How does that make sense? Such considerations are why the article was divided into sections. Relevant names or alternate names are standard in European monarch lists. So that info should be there for all monarchs. For the early kings, the contemporary forms of the name are important. Coronation dates, accession dates and death dates are mostly not known. You see how the edits make no sense? I've still no idea why you're doing this? What is the benefit? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How fascinating. I am so pleased to see that some other editors feel as I do that Wikipedia articles should reflect commonly known and used names which appear in printed encyclopaedias and all established history books, not academic and obscure ones. For instance I cannot think of one relatively learned individual (even a Scottish one) who would look for Malcolm Canmore under any other heading than that (or at a stretch Malcom III). Regards, David Lauder (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Why the fuss anyways, those Gaelic names are in the bio articles. They don't need to be on this list. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any connection between these sentiments and this issue. What is it? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone answer: was not the crowning at Scone very important in the assumption of power by Scottish kings (more so than English coronations)? Michael Sanders 18:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Doesn't mean we need to omit important information for blank columns. A reign column covers it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Err what's the dispute over 'exactly', I seem in over my head. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly. Two users wish to omit, cramp or confuse important information for some blank columns. I'm guessing from the edit summaries that it has something to do "standardization" for the sake of it with the English and British monarch articles. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

also, any user with any knowledge of this article's history or who has read this talk page will know the Gaelic names have been deemed necessary. This is also standard practice in virtually all European monarch lists. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The blank column you object to is the coronation column. Coronations are important, particularly in Scotland. The Gaelic names are also there. Michael Sanders 18:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

So are names, more so in fact. Well, even if you disagree with that all you're arguing for is blank columns at the expense of other things for no reason. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have to say that the "improved" version looks terrible with monobook at 1024x768 resolution, most of the info in the early part is stuffed into the first column. Adding columns for dates which can never be supplied such as birth and coronation (sic.) is a complete waste of space for many of the sections. It only invites well-meaning editors to add unverifiable dates as happens all the time. On the whole, it seems rather odd that a format chosen for another list should be imposed by fiat on this one. Still, it'll be a featured list in no time I'm sure, just like the English one. Well done! Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, it's more informative than the previous. Michael Sanders 18:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am right about empty columns and made-up dates. I think I counted three already. That's not progress and even if I remove them now they'll come back. Better for columns to be omitted in the sections where they can never be filled in. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not unless it is certain that they can't be filled in. Kings have been crowned at Scone since God-knows when, so it's feasible that the information is out there; since the column has only been there a short time, it should stay until it's clear that the information can't be supplied. Michael Sanders 19:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"Prove the information can't be found". That would be a negative proof, wouldn't it? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that would be "wait a while to see if any information turns up, and if it doesn't then remove it." Michael Sanders 21:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Again (doubtlessly I'll get all the common accusations of arrogance) you need to get a better awareness of some of the basic issues in this field of study before you start editing so bombastically against people who know much more. The evidence for these kings is not exhaustive. You can fit the evidence for all the Scottish kings between 800 and 1100 into into a few pages. This is not like 19th century where a visit to an archive can tell you what barber the throne cleaning guy visited the morning before the coronation. As Angus will tell you, all the information about these kings can be found in a few sources widely available. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the original format of the list of kings up until the wars of independence. The info in the column with modern Gaelic names can go under the English names of the kings, as with the rest of the article; that is not something I'd object to in view of this search for compromise. Their medieval names and nicknames and titles are extremely important though for these monarchs, and should not be omitted or rendered incomprehensible for blank columns or columns which take up unnecessary space. Since we have given you time, give me a few hours and I will try to edit in a balance to these kings. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've reverted you. There is more space for actually relevant information in the system as laid out now; your system wastes space on an excess of Gaelic (why do you need to give the modern form of Kenneth MacAlpin in Gaelic? Is that relevant?) and the title forms which are much more effectively dealt with in the styles section (instead of a columnn endlessly repeating "ri Alban", "rex Scottorum"). Michael Sanders 13:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The info I inserted was more relevant than the blank and inappropriate columns you left. Like it or not, the titles are important as it allows the reader to quickly understand the development of the Scottish monarchy as an institution. They become repetitive in the last section as it becomes standardized, but it isn't standardized by the beginning. The contemporary names are important, as these will how these monarchs are referred to in most serious modern works. The modern names ... well, they are unintrusive under the English name. It is standard to list alternative names in a kingdom's different languages, here English and Gaelic; moreover, failing to distinguish the medieval and modern forms indicates there is no difference between them, which is not true. You can omit the modern Gaelic forms if you like, but what will happen is that other users will come along and insert them, either over the contemporary forms (thinking they are correcting) or even additionally. I'm sorry you wish to make no effort to compromise. Talk can only go so far if no-one compromises, and the current version is untolerable. I spent half an hour working a compromise, only to get another slap in the face full-scale revert. How will that help? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, keep your disputes here & stop 'reverting' each other until you've worked things out. Will this page have to be locked? GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, as Michael Sanders and his friend won't even try, there's little more I can do. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

1649 to 1660

Err, where's the Commonwealth? Oliver Cromwell? Richard Cromwell? and why is Charles II's reign being shown as 1651-85 (instead of 1660-85)? Clarify people please. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, they weren't Scottish monarchs. If this was about rulers, we could ask the same question of Robert and Murdoch Stewart, Dukes of Albany, rulers of Scotland between 1406 and 1424. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Legally, Charles was declared King of Scots in 1649 by the Scottish Parliament; Scotland was then invaded by England and suppressed until 1660. Michael Sanders 21:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, now to the List of English monarchs who currently list the Commonwealth & Cromwells. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The English Parliament was in control of England, so abolished the (English) monarchy. The Cromwells are slightly dubious, but they were pseudo-monarchical, so it's understandable. Michael Sanders 21:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

We should at least have Charles II's reign as 1660-1685, also we need something to explain the lack of monarchy during that period 1649-1660. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll get onto it. Michael Sanders 22:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps place Commonwealth between Charles I & Charles II? will do here & at the English list. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Charles II's rule in Scotland was continouous from the death of his father until the illegal actions of Cromwell came to an end with the Purged Parliament in May 1659. It declared that all legislation enacted during the Protectorate including the Tender of Union of 1652 was illegal and held no validity. This meant in Scotland that Charles was the king (in exile) of Scotland during the Cromwellian occupation of Scotland. Now will some of you cheeky chappies please restore this page to its correct state. Thank you. -Bill Reid | Talk 15:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In England too Charles II was supposedly king, from 1649, as was declared after the restoration in 1660. These lists should reflect contemporary reality, not a later re-writing of history by the victorious royal establishment. TharkunColl (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The Tender of Union was presented to the Westminster Parliament in March 1652. At the time, Scotland was an occupied country and the Scots were neither consulted about nor agreed to the union (a union has to be be an agreement of two parties, not an imposition). It was simply declared in Edinburgh on 21 April 1652. To emphasise that Scotland was not part of the Union, the Convention Parliament refused to let Scottish representatives into this parliament. Only after Charles accepted the terms of this parliament did they declare that Charles II was indeed the king from the death of his father i.e. if Charles was going to be difficult, then it was a no go. Relatively few Scots outside of the Cromwell appointees regarded the Cromwell occupation as legitimate. All that the Scottish article needs is a footnote to the period of illegal occupation. Bill Reid | Talk 16:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then, feel free to add it. Michael Sanders 16:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we make Charles II's Scottish reign as 1660 to 1685? adding a de jure for 1649-60 (as done at Charles II of England)? By having it as 1649-60 or 1651-60 only, is not entirely accurate. The monarchy of both countries were abolshed upon Charles I's execution. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could also make a case that Parliament imposed the Commonwealth on England illegally. Charles I maintained that a parliament without its king is no parliament? So was Charles II the lawful ruler of England from 1649 as well? And was 'Louis XVII' and his 'successors' kings of France after the execution of his father? Should we then wipe out the Directory, Consulate, Napoleon, etc? If we go into the validity of leaders' claims, we get into politics and that's not what Wikipedians should be about.--Gazzster (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

But that's how it's done at Charles II of England article? Anyways, it's something to consider. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I might have a problem with that too. Let's pop over there now!--Gazzster (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow. As the list is laid out, Charles is shown as reigning in Scotland from 1649 (when he was declared such by the Scots Parliament) to 1651, when he was driven into exile on the continent; and then again from the restoration in 1660. Since, as far as I can make out (although since the Civil War isn't a subject I know much about, I could easily be wrong), Scotland wasn't ruled by England between 1649 and 1651, but by Charles II (with varying degrees of efficiency). Is that wrong? Michael Sanders 22:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought the English & Scottish monarchies wer non-existant from 1649 to 1660. But like Gazz says, perhaps a visit at Charles II's article is needed. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In this case, historiographical opinion is most important. The case in England is complex - I think that legally, Parliament had the authority to affect the succession (for example in the case of Henry VIII, and his barring of the Stuarts from the throne through the means of Parliament - which was then overridden in 1603, although I don't know what Parliament did about that), so whilst they were on shaky ground with the fact that without the approval of the king, they didn't have the power to abolish the monarchy, they probably had a strong case. In Scotland, it would look as if the annexation was just illegal, pure and simple, since the English occupied the country, and then the English parliament declared Scotland united with England. So in legal terms, Charles II probably has a good case for being de jure monarch of Scotland from 1651 to 1660; but in de facto terms, I doubt historical opinion would consider him actually king during that time. I don't know what historical opinion says of Scotland from 1649 to 1651, but his article (hardly an impeachable source, but I have no others on this at the moment) suggests that he was de facto (if absentee at first) as well as de jure monarch of Scotland from 1649 to 1651. Michael Sanders 23:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Gazz has made some changes at Charles II of England, take a peek, see how it looks. GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

They're all interesting points, and in other circumstances it would be great to discuss them. But in the end it doesn't really matter, because the Parliament of England declared itself to be the supreme authority in the British Isles, and acted as such. So for all intents and purposes, it was. And it was dealt with as if it was; not only in Britain itself, but by foreign powers as well.--Gazzster (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The case of Charles's reign in Scotland is quite distinct from that in England. It was the English parliament which executed Charles over the strong objections of Argyll and the Covenanters who were then ruling Scotland. It was also the English parliament which passed a law making it illegal to proclaim Charles's son as king. Scotland had nothing to do with any of this, and nobody at the time, so far as I can tell, believed that the English parliament had the authority to abolish the Scottish monarchy. Argyll and the Covenanters (who were the most anti-royalist elements in Scotland at the time) recognized Charles II as immediately successor to his father, although they forced him to sign onto the Covenant before they'd let him return to Scotland and crown him. Which is to say - the de facto authorities in Scotland in 1649 recognized Charles II as king. They were not defeated and overthrown until after Charles's defeat at Worcester in October 1651, at which point Scotland was annexed to England. Charles was undoubtedly the de facto king of Scotland until Worcester, I think. john k (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Stuart coronations

Were the Stuarts from Charles I (excluding Charles II) onward crowned in Scotland? If so, when? Michael Sanders 22:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, no coronations took place in Scotland after Charles II at Scone in 1651 - itself during a civil war. TharkunColl (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The old pretender may have been crowned at Scone in 1716. He was certainly planning it, but thre's no documentation to show it happened. Peter jackson (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Periods of English fuedal overlordship

Should this article indicate those periods in Scottish history when it was not a sovereign state but accepted the English king as its feudal overlord? TharkunColl (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but what would be fun is to see you attempt to provide a list of those periods. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In what way would it be "fun"? I can think of two straight off - under Athelstan and under Edward I. There are certainly more. TharkunColl (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

'Sovereignty' is debatable. From 1292-1296 Scotland was a sovereign state, but the King of England was (grudgingly) accepted as the King of Scots' feudal overlord. And before that, the issue is hazy - the English claimed overlordship of Scotland, which the Scots refused to give; the English typically demanded the homage of a new king of Scots, which he would refuse to give for Scotland; but he would give it for the Huntingdon estates (basically like the English in Aquitaine etc), so the English still had rights over the Scots... Michael Sanders 16:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

For how long were the Scottish kings part of the English peerage, as Earls of Huntingdon? I know they attended sessions of the English House of Lords. TharkunColl (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know exactly...they inherited the rights from David I's wife, but his son was Earl of Huntingdon after her death rather than David himself, and the title passed to his youngest son, David of Huntingdon (and his son John the Scot)...but I think the Honour of Huntingdon might have been separated from the Earldom. Michael Sanders 16:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The question of "sovereignty" in the Middle Ages is rather fraught - I don't know that applying the concept, which is really a modern one, makes much sense. john k (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(cancel indent) Henry I of England arranged the marriage between David and Matilda de Senlis, the countess of Northampton-Huntingdon, and David became earl of Huntingdon. Matilda was grand-niece of William the Conqueror and so a very important person. Even though she had children by her first marriage, it was David's son who was given precedency over the earldom. When Henry died, David invaded England in support of Henry's daughter as the true heir and also to secure what he regarded as his own and his son's lands in northern England. The usurper, King Stephen marched against David but instead of fighting they negotiated with each other and entered into an agreement that was much more favourable to David. In order for David's son Henry to gain this territory, David allowed Henry to pay homage to Stephen, as an English vassal for these English lands, but did not pay homage to Stephen himself. Bill Reid | Talk 18:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly Alexander III gave homage for Huntingdon (possibly not the Earldom)...I don't know about Alexander II. In a week, I'll be back at university and will be able to check up. Michael Sanders 18:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

::IMHO, Charles II's reign as King of Scotland (like his reign as King of England and Ireland) was 1660 to 1685. Yes staunch monarchist will declare it 1649 to 1685 - so let's use the de facto & de jure signs (which are used at Charles II of England) shall we? GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the references to England, in particular in connection to the Houses of Balliol and Bruce, is enough. We ought to be a careful of phrases like, 'Scotland was not a sovereign state.' In the medieval period, the word sovereignty wasn't used in the same way we use it. In the Middle Ages it would have been said that the King of England (during the periods in question) was the Scottish king's suzerain, as opposed to the Scottish kingdom's sovereign.--Gazzster (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Scotland was a sovereign state, its throne was vacant 1290-92, 1296-1306, 1649-60 & 1688-89. At least that's a certainty. GoodDay (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Scotland was annexed by England on 2 February 1652 under the Tender of Union and given 30 seats in parliament. This was not reversed until all acts of the Commonwealth were annulled in 1660. TharkunColl (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, Scotland lost its independance from 1652-60. GoodDay (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, what happened was almost identical to what happened in 1707, except that I think Scotland only got 25 seats at Westminster on that occasion. TharkunColl (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The throne was not vacant between 1649 and 1651, at least. Charles II was accepted as king by all factions in Scotland after his father's death, and was actually crowned and such in 1651. john k (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

True, but the original question was 'Should this article indicate those periods in Scottish history when it was not a sovereign state but accepted the English king as its feudal overlord?' The answer, I believe, is that you can't talk about sovereign states in a feudal context. There was, in general, no concept of a sovereign nation in Europe until modern times. There were times when the King of England was the suzerain of the King of Scotland. And that is sufficiently noted.--Gazzster (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll go with that reasoning. As for the 1707 topic? nice try Tharky, but I'm still not convinced. GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, we're on dangerous ground talking about "Sovereign states", a point already made. Four other points. 1) The English monarchy always aspired and claimed for superiority over the Scottish monarchy, though for most of history it didn't have the power to enforce it. 2) There are two periods when both the Scots and the English kings recognized the superiority over Scotland of the English crown: the period between the Treaty of Falaise and the Quitclaim of Canterbury and the period of the Balliol monarchy. 3) Since the reign ... no ... accession of Etgar mac Mail Choluim until the end of the 13th cent., with a few interruptions, the Scottish monarch controlled territory to which it owed homage to the English crown; at first Lothian was taken, and then after the accession of Earl David, the estates of Waltheof. 4) To be fair, including such information for the Scottish article, its only fair to mention in the English article that Richard Coeur de Lion became the vassal of Heinrich VI, King of Germany, for England; like the Treaty of Falaise, this was a result of being captured. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Go easy on the non-English translations, Richard I of England, Henry VI of Germany & Edgar are easier to read. GoodDay (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, one write what one chooses on talk pages, and obviously it was understood who I was referring to. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you're suppose to post in English on the talk pages. The Etgar mac... , had me scratching my head. GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

So, what language was I writing in then? I mean, we're talking proper names here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I noticed the use of "Etgar" there, which is supremely ironic as Edgar is an English name and that particular king was named after his uncle, Edgar the Atheling, the deposed king of England. TharkunColl (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Etgar is indeed an English name, but one can't have Eadgar mac Mail Choluim unless one wishes to confuse everyone. Likewise, John isn't an English or a French name, but a Hebrew name, and we can't write Yôḥānnān fils de Henri to describe John of England. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

So like GoodDay said. Use the English forms that everyone recognises. 'Proper names' are never such for monarchs - they're always subject to the whims of translation. Michael Sanders 14:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah ... you might want to bring that point up at Umberto II of Italy. Who's Umberto they all ask? As soon as you say Humbert, they all get it. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Deacon can use whatever forms he wants on the talk page. Everyone knew who he was talking about. john k (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I said "use the English forms that everyone recognises". People don't recognise Umberto as Humbert. People do recognise "Henry VI of Germany", "Edgar of Scotland", and "King John". Michael Sanders 14:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I do, as do all the sources that use Humbert. This is just petty arguing now. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Incredibly petty, indeed. john k (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

OK folks, let's end this linguistic dispute (which I started). This discussion is suppos to be about 'English feudal overlordship'. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The entire question of feudal overlordship is exceptionally hazy regarding Scotland. It was affected by so-called "disputed lands" on either side of the Border, but also because of the later introduction of the formalised feudal system into Scotland. More complications were the extensive estates (not just Huntingdon) held in England by the Scots' Royal Families and aristocracy which surely compromised their positions. Then there are the various marriages which give rise to the same sort of 'ownership' scenarios we see right up to this day in Testaments (Wills). Malcolm Canmore is doubtless a good example because he spent over 14 years at the English Court and eventually married a member of the English (Saxon) Royal House. My family were overwhelmed with relief in 1707. It meant no more of the endless wars and squabbling, all of which are now being re-enacted on Wikidepia! Regards, David Lauder (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"Malcolm Canmore is doubtless a good example because he spent over 14 years at the English Court". Really? If you can provide a reliable source for that statement, we could add it to our article. Indeed, if you can provide one for him being "Malcolm Canmore", we can add that too. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I had given you more credit than that, Angus. My point is proven. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

John Hill Burton (The History of Scotland, New Edition, 8 vols, Edinburgh 1876, vol.1, p.350) states: "Malcolm the son of Duncan is known as Malcolm III., but still better perhaps by his characteristic name of Canmore, said to come from the Celtic 'Caenmohr', meaning 'great head'". David Lauder (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Canmore is surely at least as appropriate for Mael Coluim mac Donnchada as "The Black Prince" is for Edward of Woodstock. If someone is known as something for centuries, it makes little difference if they were known as that in their lifetime. john k (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I neglected to say when I first commented in this section that E.L.G. Stones (Professor of Mediaeval History at Glasgow University) comments on the English overlordship in his book Anglo-Scottish Relations 1174-1328 (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1965/1970, p.xiv-xxi). He cites William Rufus lending military support to Duncan II and Edgar in 1094 and 1097, and says "it was an understandable, though not a necessary, conclusion for an English observer to draw that Rufus was acting as their feudal superior." In 1126 the Archbishop of York assured the Pope that "The king of Scots was the king of England's man for Scotland". Stones states that William The Lion admitted the feudal overlordship of England (although a prisoner when he admitted the claim) and that the Pope urged Alexander II of Scotland to fulfil his undertakings as a vassal of King Henry III of England. Stones then mentions Edward I's demand for recognition of his rights as overlord of Scotland, and the English defence of those rights is given in his book as are the Scottish counter-claims. All writers admit this is a contentious issue especially as Scottish charters and records for that period are wanting. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes,yes. But the problem here, Wikipedians, is that we are interpreting history. It is one thing to report a historical fact- we do that rather well- another to infer a fact. The David Starky's of this world spend their dinner parties and whiskey evenings at the club discussing the minutiae of English/Scottish history. And half the time they end up disagreeing. So will we. Better to leave the feudal overlordship issue alone. The same goes for the discussion below, about who was or was not the first King of the Scots.--Gazzster (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, largely agreed. Interpretation is the crux of the matter. Old MSS is brought out. Three different people look at it, translate it - they differ. Who then, is right? Regards, David Lauder (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Numbering of kings

Does anyone know when the Scottish kings from Kenneth onwards were given their current numbers? They were definitely not contemporary. Was it done by the Stewarts? In the English case no king was numbered until after the Norman Conquest, and even then they only tended to have a number attached to their name after they died. I believe that Henry VIII was the first king to regularly give himself a number, and ironically given modern convention he tended to use an Arabic numeral, i.e. "Henry 8". But in Scotland's case, who was the first king to actually be numbered either in his own lifetime or directly after it? TharkunColl (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

18th century to early 20th century I think. They were certainly using different numbering in the 17th, and different numbering residually occurred until quite recently. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Didn't they sometimes number themselves from Fergus, founder of Dalriada? (i.e. not from the Pictish kings). TharkunColl (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

From the C15th to C19th kings were numbered "from Fergus, founder of Dalriada", and that's not Fergus Mór. But kings did not "number themselves" in this way since by the time the numbers were made up there was no similarity in names. Kings were called David, Robert and James, not Fergus, "Eocha", "Selvach", Donald or Kenneth, so imaginary kings didn't matter in numberings, unlike, for example, in Sweden (Eric XIV?). By the middle of the C19th, an element of realism appears and Kings are usually numbered from "Kenneth I". Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the interesting question is "What sort of person edit-wars over an article when they admit to knowing fuck all about the subject?" Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Angus. WP:AGF and WP:Be Civil. Regnal numbering is hardly the be-all and end-all of the subject. Michael Sanders 15:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Angus, hold off on the foul language. What are you upset over & who are you upset with? GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel you Angus. One is forced to spend half one's day giving history lessons in order to avoid being accused and punished for edit warring, and all you get for it is ingratitude, repetition, and accusations of arrogance and rudeness. Guess what guys, this is a project that values historical accuracy over petty egos! It's not a personal attack to call ignorance ignorance! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's all be pals & work things out on the discussion pages, everybody. Follow my example (hold off on the revert button as much as possible) & break bread with fellow Wikipedians. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Sanders and TharkunColl more usually than not don't have a clue what they're talking about in these matters, but what's worse confidently edit on them, inserting numerous misleading and false facts. On talk pages every second thing they say is not true; yeah you can point this out to them for a while, but it gets tiresome, esp. when they accuse you of point of view pushing and rewriting history when ... guess what ... they haven't read a thing in a decent source, don't have the foggiest about the details and problems, and know as much as my dog about what historians say!!! They think Junior Pears Encyclopaedia, crummy websites and such are decent sources, and have read nothing beyond these. Sadly, dark age monarchs is where the badly informed peerage and royal folk and demanding historical knowledge and skill meet, and it isn't a pleasant sight! More sadly, as everyone has the same revert power, many articles have to be abandoned to decline. A flaw of wikipedia ... but a flaw everyone knows about. There's absolutely noting wrong with not knowing anything about obscure topics like this ... what's wrong is editing on them. Doubtless my comments will be interpreted and portrayed as arrogance, but they are made with the interests of this project at heart. Ignorance affects this project! When you get Angus, the most relaxed and laid back guy in the world expressing his frustration ... there is seriously, seriously something wrong. Seriously! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I clearly know more about the subject than you, if you seriously believe the Pictish kings should be added to the Scottish list. Assuming your motives are not distorted by any sort of nationalism, that is. TharkunColl (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you've got me. It's all nationalism. Free Pictland (Pictish: fdwsahfhewjfhrew hjhfkas)! I hope I can attend your classes on the Picts when you run them. Clearly years of reading and 2 years of studying and researching them full time hasn't got me up to anywhere near your level. I'll order my Pears Junior Encyclopedia now in preparation. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And I suggest that after you've ordered it, you keep hold of it. You appear to be in serious need of it. TharkunColl (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, Deacon wants Pictish monarchs added to the Scottish list, meanwhile Tharky wants British monarchs added to the List of English monarchs article. Similiar wants? GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps somewhat similar. Tharky has a snow ball's chance in hell of getting it though; that's were he will encounter actual nationalists, along with many more non-nationalists who'll agree with the nationalists. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for at least admitting that the opposition is at least partially based on nationalism. In fact, you even agreed with my contention that England annexed Scotland, and yet will thwart this for nationalist reasons. Well so much for objectivity eh? TharkunColl (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As usual Tharky, you've misunderstood what I've said and got me wrong. I couldn't give a flying f.... if the British monarchs were on the English list, nor really about the political status of any modern country. In fact, your suggestion is something that ... if pushed ... I'd prolly agree with, as I hate historico-legal fictions such as pretending England and Britain were meaningfully different states ... I'm just telling you the realities of wikipedia. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well I hope GoodDay takes note of your somewhat begrudging agreement with my proposal, despite you being obviously a pro-Scottish sort of person if I may use that term. TharkunColl (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Deacon, if you've got anything to add to the discussion at List of English monarchs? feel free to express your views. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Along with having to deal with these two users on this page and the template, I have a Use English discussion to do and bishop article to write. Far too busy. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, just letting you know. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Unreliable sources and disputed claims

There are some extremely improbable statements added to this article lately. When references were requested here, the statements in question were referenced here to a book called Lines of Succession. This appears to be a tertiary source of doubtful reliability. The claims in question are:

• "Through war and deception, he [i.e. "Kenneth MacAlpin"] succeeded in uniting the Picts, the Celts, the Angles, and the Irish immigrants known as the Scots, of whom he was himself a member"
  • Traditional claims of "uniting the Picts and Scots" (and only these) are rejected by, e.g., Woolf, Pictland to Alba, Broun, "Dunkeld and the origins of Scottish identity", Herbert, "Ri Éirenn, Ri Alban", Downham, Viking Kings, and many more. However, the item in question goes far beyond the claims of "king of Picts and Scots" of tradition, which was once the conventional wisdom, and adds Angles and "Celts". What are these Celts? What Anglians are these? No reliable source, not even Bannerman or Smyth, claimed that "Kenneth MacAlpin" ruled over Strathclyde or any part of Northumbria. Claims that the Dál Riata of Britain were Irish immigrants are hardly uncontroversial (e.g. Campbell's arguments to the contrary in Antiquity), nor are claims that "Kenneth MacAlpin" was a "Gael" (whatever that might be intended to mean in this context).
• "On his death [i.e. "Kenneth MacAlpin"], the kingship of this realm, known as Alba ..."
  • "Alba is in origin the Gaelic word for the island of Britain. However, from about 900 its usage in the Gaelic world was narrowed to describe the area of North Britain ruled by the descendants of Cináed mac Ailpín." [Downham, Viking Kings, p. 137] "Until about 900 they [i.e. the descendants of "Kenneth MacAlpin"] were called kings of the Picts, but then the name Alba (nowadays Gaelic for 'Scotland' but originally meaning 'Albion' or Britain) came into use, denoting the creation of a Gaelic kingdom focused on the power bases of the southern Picts (who were essentially Britons) in the basin of the River Tay and the east midland plain ..." [Grant, "Construction of the Early Scottish State" in Maddicott & Palliser, The Medieval State, p. 49]

The opinions of academic experts such as Broun, Downham, Grant, Herbert and Woolf, among others, are, according to WP:V, of central importance: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science". Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It is POV as to whether a historical writer is an expert, something always disputed by opponents for centuries. The post Second World War generation have increasingly fallen into the trap of thinking themselves totally superior in historical research to everyone who came before them. This is not accepted by all of us. Whilst we are all naturally prepared to read as much as we possibly can on the latest historical research, the one thing Wikipedia does not proclaim is that it has, like the Soviets and Nazis, approved authors. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

History is a field where we prefer "academic and peer-reviewed" works. If you don't like what WP:V says, I suggest you get it changed so that it suits your purposes. As an aside, are you familiar with Godwin's Law? I suppose not. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats very offensive Angus. I am disappointed in you. Just because we do not all agree does not mean you should attack others. There are hundreds of thousands of "academics" and you know it. All peddle different lines for different reasons. Moreover, you yourself have commented elsewhere on the flaws of Wikipedia's consensus system. I put it to you that WP:V currently suits you for certain purposes. But there are countless other Wikipedia rules which may not, as you indicate. Wikipedia states categorically that "anyone can edit". That means lots of people might edit articles which you (or I or anyone else) have edited or even written most of. If they make an edit which is blatantly untrue we have a duty to correct that. However, if edits are made and properly sourced according to WP:reliable sources, it is not for you or the Deacon to come crashing in with your personal POVs about which academics should be used and which should not and telling us all that we are academic morons because we do not toe a certain line. Try and observe WP:CIVIL. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for Angus, but I'm sure all three of us would agree that article quality is primary, WP guidelines secondary. But as it happens, wikipedia guidelines now and then agree, and we have Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. e.g. ... In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. ... Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. ... Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criterion are usually considered reliable. However, they may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative scholarly explanations. ... Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are preferred.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Pictish and Wessex monarchs

Seeing as we've got a wiki-link at the botton of this list mentiong the List of British monarchs, the wiki-link of Pictish monarchs at the top should be explained in simliar manner as the British monarchs are explained. Also, if we have Pictish here, we'll have to add the 'Norman Dukes' in similar fasion at List of English monarchs. Basically, what we do here, we do at the English list (and vise versa), as both list eventually merge. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually it would be the entire list of kings of Wessex at English monarchs, because there is no discernable difference between the West Saxon state and the English state. TharkunColl (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There's but one thing to do: If we keep the pre-English monarchs at the English list, then we add (in similiar fashion) the pre-Scottish monarchs at this list. Or better yet we make pre-English monarchs simple wiki-links, as is done for pre-Scottish monarchs here. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well currently no one has tried to add the Pictish kings to this list, so there is no need to change either list at present. If someone does, we would have to add all the West Saxon kings from Cerdic onwards to the English list. However, we will have to add the West Saxon kings to the English template, if they force the Pictish kings to remain on the Scottish template. TharkunColl (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As this list begins with Kenneth I (which in IMHO is correct), then the English list should begin with Athelstan. We must have consistancy on these related articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Athelstan would be the equivalent of whichever Scottish king took over Strathclyde. The lists are already more or less consistent. TharkunColl (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You would be after David I of Scotland then. But why Strathclyde? What about Galloway, which is nearly the same size and Strathclyde and wasn't incorporated until the 1230s? Are we gonna start the list with Alexander II of Scotland? Why stop there ... Orkney and Shetland didn't come into the kingdom formally until the the reign of James III of Scotland in 1472. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The Question is: When did the Kingdoms of Scotland & England come into being. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The truth is that there are no single answers to those questions. TharkunColl (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Scotland never really came to being. It just grew out of the Pictish kingdom of Fortriu. It is Fortriu that is comparable with Wessex, not Pictland/Alba. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, we know that Scotland & England each, used to be a bunch of little Kingdoms. Theoretically, if we include Pictland & Wessex, we'd have to include all those other kingdoms. A task I'm not willing to take on. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The idea is that one of those little kingdoms expanded to incorporate the others, so that's the only one we'd have to include. From Cerdic, first king of Wessex around AD 500, and whoever people think is the first (real) king of the Picts. TharkunColl (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? I've already pointed out to you in several places that Pictland was not a sub-kingdom. It is exactly the same thing as Scotland/Alba. It's just an illusion of nomenclature. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that that is simply not true. TharkunColl (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, because it is. :p Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Unforunately that's just your POV I'm afraid, even if you don't realise it. TharkunColl (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's my POV. Why wouldn't it be? I am a fan of facts and modern scholarship, not the pursuit of freak and outdated historical distortions in a sysiphean quest to tie in knots English and Scottish history with parallel models just for the sake of it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the article Scotland & yes Alba is simply Scotland in gaelic (according to the article). My suggestion still stands - The Pictish & Wessex monarchs should be treated the same at their respective Scottish & English lists. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

MY suggestion goes either way - simplfy the Wessex or expand the Pictish. Both articles eventually merge (in 1707), thus they should be similiar. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The current West Saxon kings on the English list are okay because they are part of the traditional list, and ruled England. I was referring to the earlier kings of Wessex, from Cerdic onwards, who reigned about 500 BC. The official British monarchy website begins the Scottish list with Kenneth, and the English list with Offa then Egbert, exactly how we do in both articles. TharkunColl (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I just go by the Wiki royal biographies gentlemen. The articles Kenneth I of Scotland says he's the first 'King of Scots' and Athelstan says he's the first 'King of England'. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No Wikipedia article can be used to back up another. Athelstan was the first king to rule Northumbria directly and not by a proxy (and some of his successors lost it again briefly anyway). The current lists, after much discussion, attempt to apply precisely the same criteria, and coincidentally are backed up by official royal sources. TharkunColl (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You think that "according to national myth, first king of Scots" means "first king of Scots"? Being "fifth last of the Pictish kings rather than the first Scottish king" isn't a hint that he's, well, a Pictish king? Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Kenneth ruled Pictland (whatever his own ethnicity). It was only his successors who created Scotland when they annexed Strathclyde and other places. He is first king of Scotland by tradition only. TharkunColl (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

But why Strathclyde? What about Galloway, which is nearly the same size and Strathclyde and wasn't incorporated until the 1230s? Are we gonna start the list with Alexander II of Scotland? Why stop there ... Orkney and Shetland didn't come into the kingdom formally until the the reign of James III of Scotland in 1472. So, essentially, there was no Scotland until 1472? That's original, I gotta hand it to you. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No! I said I'm happy to start the list with Kenneth because that's his traditional role. Strathclyde was more significant politically and economically and Carlisle was even used as a capital by David I believe. TharkunColl (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

My final word on this topic - begin the lists with Kenneth I & Athelstan. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No. That's applying two different criteria. TharkunColl (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Why does there have to be any relationship at all, so long as they both end in the same monarch? Horses for courses! The emergence of Scotland is more like Denmark and England more like Spain; they aren't really like each other. TBH, I think you're trying to put a square peg in a round hole. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It was an attempt to apply the same criteria precisely because they end with the same monarch - we can't just throw our hands up and say its impossible. Besides, the royal website agrees. TharkunColl (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Horses for courses! This page starts with Cinaed mac Ailpin, with the other Pictish kings linked ... I don't see anyone changing that (the style article and template have different issues) ... so the only thing to be discussed should be done on the English page. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the English list begins - likewise - with the first traditional kings, in this case two, Offa and Egbert, as listed on the royal website and countless other reference sources. TharkunColl (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

So what's there to discuss then? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing much I don't think, since no one has suggested adding the Pictish kings to this list. TharkunColl (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are at least five Pictish kings on the list. Here it comes across as just convenient, without misleading implications ... which is why it was structured like that in the first place. Anyways, where now are you gonna focus your abundant energy? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean those of course! Hmmmm, well since I'm a Mercian perhaps I'll go and impose my nationalist POV on that article and claim that we really took over Wessex and not the other way round. TharkunColl (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the story here? The lists should just start with the first monarch to be given in traditional lists, with the texts explaining why that monarch was chosen. For English monarchs, that's Egbert. For Scottish monarchs, it's Kenneth I. That the reason for each being usually given first is somewhat different seems irrelevant to me. Also irrelevant is the issue of who the "actual" first king is - obviously Kenneth's distinction is largely to entirely artificial, and Egbert's is rather artificial as well. But that's for the text to explain. john k (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure scholars can debate about who was the first King of Scotland (or England for that matter). I imagine it becomes confusing especially since styles and titles were not fixed. Best to start with the 'traditional' monarchs. --Gazzster (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not what Wikipedia:Lists#List content seems to say. It's not what WP:V says either. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't see much problem with including the pictish monarchs, if that's what people want to do. I was mostly arguing against the "start the English monarchs with Athelstan" business, which just seems silly. Also don't like the "start the Scottish list with David I" business much, either. john k (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

'The verifiability policy states that if material is challenged or likely to be challenged, it is the responsibility of the editor who adds or restores the material to an article to cite sources for that material. Inclusion of material on a list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying.'

By all means, we can discuss the issue here. But the last phrase I've italicised is the most pertinent point however.--Gazzster (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Deacon

How about you stop tossing out details that are actually relevant and replacing them with Gaelic names you yourself have stated are never used, and endless repetitions of ri Alban/rex Scottorum? Michael Sanders 15:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Those names don't actually take up any "space", and are there because of a merge vote; as for the titles, I suggested you do that, cause you are the one unhappy. If I were to do that, what info would you consider the most important? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge or not, if the Gaelic is never used it is unnecessary to the article. We don't give the name forms of the Roman Emperors in modern Italian, do we? So what's the point in tossing out coronation and birth-dates of people who have them for that? Michael Sanders 16:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You might wanna answer the question ... I'm not psychic. Anyways, the old Gaelic forms are used; the new ones, no. But they are under the English names in every other column, and are in the article as a result of a vote a wee while ago when there used to be an article with the names of Scottish kings in Gaelic - the result was a merge with this article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No the style in every other section is to use the form they used at the time, on the basis that that might actually be relevant (although I think that's doubtful in the case of the post-James VI Stuarts). But the others: there's no point. They serve no purpose that cannot be supplied by Gaelic Wikipedia. This is not Gaelic wikipedia. There is no point in supplying name-forms that are never and would never have been used in a general list. Michael Sanders 16:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No actually; and in the first column, not until you removed them a couple of mins ago. I don't care much about the modern forms, but I don;t see what problem you have with them where they are located. Anyways, I suppose I'll have to guess what info you think is particularly important ... since I asked you twice and you didn't answer. Certainly the birth column is completely unnecessary for the second column, as only I think the last two kings there have "births" that can be dated (despite the fictional dates in there). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Dispute & Misleading Tags

The Misleading tag is debatable, but the Disupte tag should be applied to this article. The very fact that there's a dispute about applying the 'Dispute Tag' makes the application necessary. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If fighting over content continues & efforts to stop it has failed? Remember folks, seek an Administrator to help mediate. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Dispute

Deacon, kindly stop reverting simply for the hell of it. The facts you wanted sourced are now sourced, and there is no point restoring the House of Dunkeld to usage of the old format - we don't need their names in modern Gaelic, nor their titles - the former is irrelevant, the latter already dealt with in the relevant section. Whereas, they do have material regnal dates, coronation dates, birthdates, etc. So that data is actually relevant to the subject. So stop thinking that because you have been editing these articles for longer that that gives you control of their content. Read WP:OWN. Michael Sanders 13:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you think you've said to convince me, but the stuff you're inserting into the article - cited now using unreliable sources - is plain nonsense; and I see you cooly removed my unreliable source tag too. As for the names and titles, they as I demonstrated above are more valuable for these kings that the unhelpful birth category. I suggested you make an effort to compromise, as I have done already to my exhaustion. But it looks like it's Michael's way or the highway. My last compromise you just reverted, so I don't really have an option but to continually restore quality to the article. I have no aspirations of ownership . And ... crickey ... as a well established revert warrior you've got quite a cheek to tell me stop reverting simply for the hell of it, esp. when I've already made my reasons quite clear and as I've wasted so much of my time trying to explain things to you already. You're just revealing yourself to more and more people that you are a bad faith and (in this case badly informed) tendentious editor with little concept of good faith or community. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A source is not unreliable simply because you say it is. You failed to demonstrate the value of the titles. They barely change during the period, meaning that the changes that do occur can be far more effectively illustrated in the "styles" section than by endless repeats of the same title down the rows. The same Kings have birthdates as well. Birthdates are standard in wikipedia lists of this form, there's no reason for this to be different when dates can be given.

I made a compromise. I agreed to let the first section be restored, because there wasn't much solid data apart from that already provided to give. You took an inch as a mile, and tried to apply the same to the Dunkelds, even though they are not in the same position.

So stop. You are being nothing but a nuisance. You do not own this article. You do not, through any expertise you may have in this subject, have the right to imagine that that grants you ownership of the Scottish articles. It doesn't. I suggest you learn to live with it, or, as you advised me, go away and write a book where you can make whatever claims you want and insult those you consider inferior to yourself with impugnity. Here, however, use of sources carries the day. So. DO NOT REMOVED SOURCED INFORMATION. And do not remove relevant information. Michael Sanders 19:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. You have a funny idea of compromise ... 99% of what you're after is apparently the min. That aside, I'm gonna (later) make another effort to compromise with you. Whether I'm here or not, the text you've got in the "House of Alpin" section ain't gonna last, neither will your omission of the modern Gaelic forms (which overturns the decision of an earlier RfD). I can see your point about the styles ... esp. as that article is stable ... though you twice refused to answer what info you believe to me most important. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Compromises should be made on the basis of what wikipedia can afford to tolerate, not according to the personal hobby-horses of the participants. Birth, regnal, coronation, etc, dates are standard and acceptable in wikipedia. Endless repetitions of the same title, and usage of purely theoretical names that have no place in wikipedia, are not. I have already answered what is most important. Facts relevant to the monarch. Birth, ascension, coronation, end of reign, death. That is important. Your little obsession with declaring any source you disagree with as unreliable will not work. The information is reliable. Consequently, it will stay.

The modern Gaelic forms are purely notional. Even you have not claimed that they are used. Consequently, they are of no value to a list of general reference - it's one thing to have them in the articles, where there is plenty of space to do so, it's another thing to put them here, which is meant to be a quick reference guide, and consequently shows only what is relevant - and modern Gaelic is to these monarchs as Italian is to the Roman emperors. If you're that concerned about the preservation in English language wikipedia of Gaelic names never used in English, I advise you to recreate the article. Michael Sanders 19:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I really need to say anything now. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I highly recommend the both of you takes these disputes to Mediation, or you both might get blocked for 'edit wars'. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael has some points, but he's tying his good points to his unacceptably bad ones. I'll try once more to find an acceptable compromise for him (this will involve me pouring through citations though ... and I'm currently busy). Mediation is not the place to take such disputes to btw, there'd have to be Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request_comment_on_articles first. If Michael continues his behaviour even after my third attempted compromise, I'll have no option but to go there. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth realm?

Drat! I've been away for a few days and I've missed it. Scotland has gained its independence and is now a member of the Commonwealth – but not only that but its now officially a Commonwealth realm rubbing shoulders with Australia and New Zealand no less. (See above – {{Template:WikiProject Commonwealth realms}}). Now can someone tell us how on earth is a list of Scottish Monarchs anything remotely to do with Commonwealth realms? Bill Reid | Talk 19:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just notice that! I guess the reasoning is that Scotland is part of the UK, or a co-member of the UK, if I can invent that word (Act of Union, an all that). Still seems odd tho.--Gazzster (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This list ceases long before the UK became a Commonwealth realm; so, no, the template doesn't belong here. --G2bambino (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

How does one remove the tag? Do we need an Admin?--Gazzster (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

G2's removed it & I've removed it from List of English monarchs. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Bon. Another page saved from the octopus clutch of Commonwealth realm.--Gazzster (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Coronation oath

Is this correctly worded? They were never crowned as Scottish monarchs. Should it read "to be"? Peter jackson (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Gaelic names

Isn't it a bit odd to put 1 Gaelic form with the English & another separately? Peter jackson (talk) 10:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Anglocentrism

Come on, Scots, wake up! Don't leave it to us English to correct the Anglocentrism & ensure fair play for Scotland (it has been said that fair play is a specifically English idea as the Celts are so heavily outnumbered they can't afford it). I've had to

• add Charles II's 1st reign, 1649-51, to the table (it was already in the text; same as the royal website)
• add Charles I's Scottish coronation
• correct the date for the end of James VII's reign from that decreed by the English Parliament to the date when the Scottish Parliament declared he'd forfeited the throne (at least that's the date given in his own article, which is at least about right); the royal website says he was still constitutionally king, & records of the Scottish Parliament in the intervening months refer to him as such

Peter jackson (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

'Och', said the Scot of the diaspora. Very interesting. Aye, correct it, as long as ye cite a wee source, mon.--Gazzster (talk) 11:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Which do you want a source for? I might point out that there are lots of unsourced statements in the article. Peter jackson (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

For the dates.--Gazzster (talk) 00:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Kenneth McAlpin Doubts

The first paragraph says "According to tradition, the first King of Scots was Kenneth MacAlpin (Cináed mac Ailpín), who founded the state in 843, although this is no longer taken seriously by historians." but the doubt about this tradition is then not alluded too anywhere else in the article, and Kenneth starts off the King list. That just seems a bit confusing to me. Hituro (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Charles II's first reign, 1649 to 1651?

The Kingdom of Scotland was abolished in 1652 (later restored). Therefore, shouldn't Charles II's first reign be 1649 to 1652? GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Dalriada

The article says "According to tradition, the first King of Scots was Kenneth MacAlpin (Cináed mac Ailpín), who founded the state in 843, although this is no longer taken seriously by historians[who?]. The distinction between the Kingdom of Alba/Scotland and the Kingdom of the Picts is rather the product of later medieval myth and confusion from a change in nomenclature, i.e. Rex Pictorum (King of the Picts) becomes ri Alban (King of Alba) under Donald II when annals switched from Latin to vernacular around the end of the 9th century, by which time the word Alba in Gaelic had come to refer to the Kingdom of the Picts rather than Britain (its older meaning).[citation needed]

The Kingdom of the Picts just became known as Kingdom of Alba in Gaelic, which later became known in English as Scotland"

It's always been my understanding that the Kingdom of the Picts and the (Gaelic) Kingdom of Dalriada were in a tanistry personal union for some time and they fused in 843 to form the Kingdom of Alba, later known as the Kingdom of Scots. The distinction between the Kingdom of Alba/Scotland and the Kingdom of the Picts was due to the addition of Dalriada. Not to any medieval myth. When mentioning that the Kingdom of the Picts became known as Alba in Gaelic, it should also be mentioned that the Picts didn't speak Gaelic. That was the language of Dalriada. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The Pictish kingdom was abolished by the Scots of Dalriada, who took it over. The later Scottish rulers traced their lineage back to Dalriada and not the Picts. The Pictish language was extinguished. This was a conquest by foreign (in this case Irish) outsiders. ðarkuncoll 23:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Rex Scotorum/Scottorum

This article gives two forms of this title: Rex Scotorum and Rex Scottorum. Though only a single letter different, surely one is correct and the other wrong. Or are both acceptable forms? In which case, could we decide on an uniform spelling throughout? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.54.253 (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

King of Scots or King of the Scots?

I've noticed that some articles use King of Scots while others use King of the Scots. I've also noticed that more sources use King of the Scots. Also, among the sources published after 1990, there are significantly more sources using King of the Scots. So, what is correct and what should be used? Surtsicna (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The New Cambridge Medieval History uses "king of Scots" it seems, so, more certainly, do the "New Edinburgh History" (Brown, Wars of Scotland), the "New History" (Barrow, Kingship and Unity) and the "Edinburgh History" (Duncan, Making of the Kingdom). I'm not sure what William Croft Dickinson does in the earlier "A New History" (the indexer of volume II uses "king of Scots" of James V, but that proves nothing much), but Agnes Mure Mackenzie's popular multi-volume history uses "king of Scots". Then there's the case of Mary (I), always known as "Queen of Scots". But "king of Scotland" is popular too. And consistency is over-rated anyway. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

To me, "King of the Scots" is preferable to "King of Scots". The latter is decent Scottish English, but sounds awkward in normal English: do we say Louis King of French, Henry King of English? Cnut King of Danes? No. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Slightly confused here. With Cnut, Louis the Fat and an English Henry as the exemplars, I'd have expected "king of Scotland" to get your non-vote. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It's simpler just to take the land, but if it's a choice between having a "the" and not having one, I'd take the "the". I'd prefer "King of Scotland-north-of-the-Forth" most of all, since that's what ri Alban and rex Scotiae mean before the 13th cent.; but I suppose that given "rex Scottorum" in the also really means "king of the Gaelic-speakers who live north of the Forth" in this period, accuracy is not really attainable. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the King of English or King of French is comparable. Somebody is a Scot if they are from Scotland like someone is an Englishman if from England. Therefore the equivalent for Henry would be "Henry, King of Englishmen" or "Elizabeth, Queen of Brits". Scroggie (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If you think more thoroughly, you'll see they are comparable, the difference not extending to use in the relevant general form. A Scot is a Scot, but all the Scots are "the Scots", just like all the English are "the English", and its all the nation which is used in the king title; a person knowledgeable in English but not aware of this idiom (if he thought about it) would probably assume that "King of Scots" meant "king of some Scots". Certainly the form "King of Scots" is normally not good English (c/f King of Germans, where all usage is like "Scot"). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

William III of England

Why has William III of England been placed under the House of Stuart ? QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Because he was ruling jure uxoris (latterly de jure), and Queen Mary was a Stewart. Brendandh (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No; he wasn't, he reigned in his own right (hence the reason he remained King after Mary II's death.) Also; he was a member of the Orange branch of the House of Nassau; and should be listed as such. 92.3.131.153 (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

King of Scots and King of Scotland

There seem to be two titles here: King of Scots and King of Scotland. And with two meanings, though the difference is not anywhere made clear. I rather suspect that there is, or was, a very important difference at some point in time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.2.68 (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference but it's not easy to tease out. One is the king of a people, the other king of a geographical area. Being 'tribal' early British kings seem to have seen themselves as kings of a people rather than a country, hence 'King of the Scots' or 'King of the English'.

Either of these early titles become problematic when one recalls that the inhabitants of most of what became lowland 'Scotland' were not Scots but English, and not living in 'Scot-land' but rather, and only eventually, within the enlarged Kingdom of Scotland. At some point land rather than tribe seems to have become more important when it came to a title; but one suspects that even back then, almost as much as now, few folk understood the nuances involved. Cassandra. Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC).

Elizabeth I or II?

Why isn't the present Queen considered Queen Elizabeth I in Scotland rather than Queen Elizabeth II? Freedom1968 (talk) 09:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

MacCormick v Lord Advocate, unfair, but there you have it...Still will be interesting to see whether it is enforced upon the Duke of Cambridge's accession! Brendandh (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why it's unfair. She was preceded by Edward VIII, Edward VII and William IV. Calling her Elizabeth I all of a sudden would've made the whole thing annoyingly inconsistent. Besides, the whole numbering thing is used to distinguish Queen Elizabeth from Queen Elizabeth. The present solution makes a lot of sense. I do hope, though, that the Duke of Cambridge will name his firstborn Alexander, Robert or David if male, so that he can reign as Alexander IV, Robert IV or David III. Surtsicna (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

A new monarch will always be given the higher number, in a case where the regnal number would be different, based on past English and Scottish monarchs. If there was a King Alexander, Robert, or David, he'd be numbered based on the Scottish lineage. We've already seen this with William IV. Scotland only had two King Williams, while England had three, meaning no "King William III" ever ruled in Scotland. 174.99.95.218 (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Wonder what she would call herself in the event of an independent Scotland, after all Alex Salmond has stated she would be still be Queen of Scotland? Would he insist on a Regal Renumbering? Ho ho! Freedom1968 (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

That wouldn't be such a problem. She'd probably become Elizabeth I. The real problem would be if Scotland became independent after her death. Would a future monarch named Elizabeth be Elizabeth III or Elizabeth II or Elizabeth I? Would a future monarch named Edward be Edward IX, Edward III, Edward II or Edward I? Surtsicna (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Based on past precedent, she would then become Elizabeth I of Scotland. Independent Scotland never had a King Edward, so a future King Edward would presumably become Edward IX of England and Edward I of Scotland. Alternatively, they could count the two Edwards who ruled Great Britain, and he would thus be Edward III in Scotland. 174.99.95.218 (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Re numbering of the Edwards, if you included Edward I (Longshanks) and his son Edward II as Kings of Scotland then the numbering of the Edwards would be Edward I (1296-1307), Edward II (1307-1327), Edward III (1327-1329), Edward IV (VII of England) (1901-1910), and Edward V (VIII of England) (1936). As William III of England was known in Scotland as William II, William IV of England (1830-1937) would be William III. Then as you say Elizabeth II would be Elizabeth I. Of course the above numbering of the Edwards would be most reluctantly accepted by Nationalists, who refute the suggestion that Longshanks and his family conquered and ruled Scotland during the period 1296-1329. Can't see the renumbering would be problem as there are continental precedents (i.e Hapsburg hereditary lands). That said this is just still a remote scenario as the result of the Scottish Referendum is still a guessing game and who is say that the Scots won't want to declare a republic in the future? In which case all this talk of renumbering would be academic.. Freedom1968 (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Um 1296-1329? Don't think so, Bannockburn was 1314, Pretty much every other battle of the first war of independence took place in England. Anyhow, talk of future political independence for Scotland (and by default the putative rump-UK) really has nothing to do with the monarch reigning as the head of state of both realms. Brendandh (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

She disambiguated using the family naming policy, long before we got the idea. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The policy (since 1952) is that the Kings and Queens of the UK take the highest number available for either Scotland or England. For the present monarch that means Elizabeth II. If there is ever a King James, he will be James VIII throughout the UK. Not James III. Charles will be Charles III, George will be George VII and William will be William V. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Malcolm II

Is there any particular reason why Malcolm II is listed as a grandson of Malcolm I, and not as a son of Kenneth II? Rojomoke (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

None, changed now. Brendandh (talk) 10:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Propose move — Monarch of Scotland

This article is far more than a list, especially with how Wikipedia defines naming of lists. This article is clearly Monarch of Scotland (and not the plural as it is about the role, not all the people. This is especially becoming relevant with Wikidata now collating data, and as the article name "Monarch of Scotland" redirects here there is no ability to assign the "office held" parameter to the various Kings and Queens of Scotland, as the position is not the "List of ..." — billinghurst sDrewth 00:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Canute - High King of Scotland?

Given that Canute was (a) the King of an England which then included what later became south east Scotland ,and that (b) King Malcolm of the Scots submitted to him, shouldn't Canute be listed as a High King of Scotland? Cassandra

Not unless a reliable source says so (Wikipedia:No original research).--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Here are a couple of sources:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Canute-I "In England, peace was broken only by Canute’s expedition to Scotland in 1027, by which he secured recognition from three of the Scottish kings."

AND

https://englishhistory.net/vikings/king-canute-the-great/ "Malcolm II, King of Scots, recognised the Canute was an overlord and peace with Scotland was established for the remained of Canute’s reign". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.6.92 (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

House of Moray

Shouldn't be the kings Lulach and Macbeth in a distinct table of the House of Moray from which they were? --Daduxing (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Having to scroll down through supplementary information to get to the list

It's called "list of Scottish Monarchs" A list, A QUICK REFERENCE for dates is what I want. Instead, the article is headed by long paragraphs of the contents of the coronation oaths of later medieval/Renaissance reigns. This should be in footnotes, it should not occupy the first few thousand words of the article. And then you have to scroll past heraldry: this belongs in a different article altogether, not a king-list.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.164.240 (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified I

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Scottish monarchs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081015044930/http://www.parliament.uk/actofunion/ to http://www.parliament.uk/actofunion/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified II

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Scottish monarchs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111213024630/http://www.royalblood.co.uk/D161/I161809.html to http://www.royalblood.co.uk/D161/I161809.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments and questions

I read this article with interest. It's very useful and I made some improvements. However, I think more work is needed and I would like to list a few things I believe should be done.

1. The tables for the House of Ailpin and the House of Dunkeld are inconsistent in terms of structure when compared with the rest of the tables. They should be modified to mirror the tables that follow with the same sequence of columns (name, portrait, birth, marriages, death, dynastic status). Also, Medieval Gaelic should always appear before modern Gaelic. Languages varied over the centuries and only the language in use at the time should be listed. Some of the tables do not even spell out what languages are used for a specific monarch, particularly starting from the House of Balliol (many cannot tell the difference between Medieval and modern Gaelic - myself included). I do not believe the House of Stewart ever used Gaelic names. I would like to avoid linguistic anachronism.

2. Giric does not have a title. He should have one and it should be consistent with the article on him.

3. Kenneth II should be listed before Amlaíb since he reigned first.

4. Malcolm III was "Scottorum basileus" and Duncan II was "Rex Scottorum". The titles should be followed by an English translation just like for Kenneth MacAlpin I.

5. "The Scots Parliament, after some deliberation, broke their links with England".

Should it really be "Scots" or would "Scottish" be more appropriate? Scots is a language and a people, therefore a noun. Its current use is not grammatically correct.

6. "With the Scottish Restoration, the Stuarts became Kings of Scotland once more".

This should be followed by a (brief) explanation of how Charles II came back to the throne.

7. "Both national parliaments agreed to this (the Scots albeit reluctantly, motivated primarily by the national finances), and some subterfuge as a total majority of signatories was needed to ratify the Scottish parliament's assent, bribes and payments."

This sentence sounds messy. It should be rewritten.

8. "After 1807, the Jacobite claims passed first to the House of Savoy (1807–1840), then to the Modenese branch of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine (1840–1919), and finally to the House of Wittelsbach (since 1919). The current heir is Franz, Duke of Bavaria. Neither he nor any of his predecessors since 1807 have pursued their claim."

How could all of the above pretend to rule over Scotland if they were completely unrelated to it?

9. The timeline of Scottish monarchs has a problem around 1300 and in the mid 1600s where text is overlapping and unreadable.

ICE77 (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

8. They are not unrelated to it. They are all descendants of the House of Stuart.

Charles Emmanuel IV of Sardinia, the first of the Savoy claimants, was a son of Victor Amadeus III of Sardinia, grandson of Charles Emmanuel III of Sardinia, great-grandson of Anne Marie d'Orléans, great-great-grandson of Henrietta of England, and great-great-great-grandson of Charles I of England. Dimadick (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

8. Dimadick, thanks for the observation. I did not know that. That's interesting. ICE77 (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Family tree

I spent over a month working on a family tree for the sole purpose of adding it to this article—not that you would care, but if you insist on killing it—I'd want to hear a far better argument than:

I can't read that, even after clicking on it. And we already have Scottish monarchs' family tree.

Are you certain that you don't suffer from old cache? An earlier version had some problems.

The argument that it shouldn't be a part of this article because there is already an article about a family tree is irrational. There is also an article about Coat of arms of Scotland, thus shouldn't the Heraldry section be deleted? Go-Chlodio (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

It isn't a cache problem. The text is unreadable, both when the file is embedded in the article and also after you've clicked on it. There's no point in including something that can't be seen. Celia Homeford (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

So, to you, this isn't showing as this? But the svg shows fine? Go-Chlodio (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The first two of those are too small to be read. The third is readable. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I can see thin point; come to think of it, it was something I struggled with its predecessor, I solved it by increasing the font-size of monarchs and decreasing the size of consorts. I'll seek to adjust it accordingly. Go-Chlodio (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, after much revision, the names of monarchs should be readable and the people want to see consorts can double click. I want to thank you for your criticism, without it I wouldn't have found several mistakes and improved the graphics overall. Go-Chlodio (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that looks worse. In addition, Anne is spelt wrong, and you have 3 people on it after 1707 who weren't monarchs. The tree should end in 1707 not 1807. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? How does it look worse? Does its predecessor look bad as well?
These three people are the Jacobite pretenders; they are listed in this article, albeit I should probably remove the regnal number of Henry. Their reign is inside of square brackets, instead of round ones, but I suppose I could make it clearer by exchanging boldness for underline. Go-Chlodio (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The French predecessor is too small. The text can't be read. The Scottish one is too dark and there is a black smudge obscuring the title. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what tell you if you have a problem with the French one; it has been a part of the French Monarchs article since November and has been added to foreign articles by other people.
It's dark because the background has an opacity of 33%, thus it will be a lot brighter with the white background of the article. The " black smudge" is gradient and I don't see how it obscures the title for it isn't black but light grey.
I made an attempt to increase the font size just a bit and change the font for better readability. Go-Chlodio (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Improvements to tables

I made a considerable amount of improvements to the tables so they are more consistent with each other and reading them is easier and more pleasant.

ICE77 (talk) 07:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)