Talk:Mary, Queen of Scots

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hdgoble (article contribs).

RFC on Regnal Number in Infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The numbers are approximately equal so there is no consensus to include the regnal number at the top of the infobox. Gusfriend (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Should the regnal number I be included at the top of the infobox, so that the caption will be Mary I? GoodDay (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Enter Yes or No with a brief explanation in the Survey. Do not reply to other editors in the Survey. Back-and-forth discussion is permitted in the Discussion section.

Survey

• Yes - The associated regnal number “I” does not appear in the article’s infobox header, (despite 32 of 36 similar articles displaying such), which fails to alert readers to the fact that two individuals named “Mary Stuart” reigned as Queen regnant of the Kingdom of Scotland: Mary I (1542-1567) and Mary II (1689-1694). (Monarchs of separate kingdoms with identical regal names and numbers appear in infoboxes elsewhere, witness those concerning “Henry IV” of England, France, Castile and the Holy Roman Empire, without any apparent confusion). 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:A539:AFFD:4636:599B (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Yes - This is standard for monarchs, not only of Scotland but of other countries, e.g. Henry I of England, Mary I of England. Deb (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
• No, no, no per the other lengthy discussion. Johnbod (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
• No. Mary I of England and Mary I of Scotland are frequently confused[1][2][3]. It is useful to disambiguate them by using common names rather than unusual rare forms of their names that are not in general use. 'Mary I of Scotland' is about as common as 'Elizabeth I of Scotland' in gscholar searches: Mary I of ScotlandElizabeth I of Scotland. We wouldn't use 'Elizabeth I of Scotland' on wikipedia, despite it being in rare use elsewhere. Confusion will arise if we start to force the use of 'Elizabeth I of Scotland', as it did here. We should exclude unfamiliar, unnecessary and infrequent names for Mary, Queen of Scots, just as we exclude unfamiliar, unnecessary and infrequent names for Elizabeth I of Scotland. Just as at Kenneth, Donald, and Constantine we don't use numerals when they are not in widespread use. DrKay (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
• Yes -The sentence goes ahead and states 'also known as... Mary I of Scotland'. Mentioning it once should be enough.Mnair69 (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
• Yes - She was Mary I, because there was also Mary II of Scotland. The use of the regnal number will cause less confusion than its non-use. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
• Yes - Per the many above reasons for why to include "I" in the infobox. Also, she should be shown as "Mary I" in the infoboxes of her father's and son's articles, instead of just "Mary". If Scotland had a "Mary II"? then they obviously had a "Mary I". GoodDay (talk) 10:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
• Strong No. We don't apply numerals that are not generally in use. Furthermore, calling her Mary I in articles where there is another person called Mary I is frankly foolish obviously going to cause confusion. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC) and 15:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
• Strong No. She is not referred to as 'Mary I' in either common parlance nor in academia. A sense of propriety is not enough justification to use an alternate version that appears virtually nowhere else. Styx & Stones (talk) 07:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
• No – as the editors, who have researched the topic and written the article have noted, she is not known in the reliable sources as Mary I. Wikipedia follows the reliable sources which have been thoroughly researched in a feature article. --Guest2625 (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Yes - This is standard for monarchs, have a look at Henry I of England, Richard I of England, Edward I of England, Louis III of France, etc etc. SethWhales ^talk 21:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
• No, she's not generally referred to with a numeral, and using the numeral is likely to cause the reader confusion. Elemimele (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

  No, as other editors above have mentioned she generally is not referred to with a numeral so it is not necessary and may cause confusion for first time readers. Or from the actual policy WP:SOVEREIGN:

  If there is an overwhelmingly common name, use it: William the Conqueror, John Balliol, Peter the Great, Henry the Fowler, Mary, Queen of Scots, Gustavus Adolphus, Eric of Pomerania, Charlemagne. This is in line with WP:COMMONNAME. BogLogs (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  BogLogs We're already using it. This is not a survey about the title of the article, it's about what goes in the infobox. Deb (talk) 09:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for that information, I misunderstood and was indeed under the impression this was about how to refer to her throughout the article.

  Regarding just the infobox then, Of the names mentioned above in WP:SOVEREIGN all of them except for Peter I ( Peter the Great) seem to go by their common name in their respective infoboxes as well. BogLogs (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

User:DrKay… In recycling spurious comparisons with regal titles which never existed, are you deliberately trying to confuse matters in order to try to justify your opposition? As a participant in previous discussions, surely you are aware that online references to “Elizabeth I of Scotland” concern the unsuccessful nationalist campaign in the early years of Elizabeth II’s reign (and revived albeit briefly by Winnie Ewing), to prevent her from using the ordinal number “II” in Scotland. There was never an “Elizabeth I of Scotland” at any time in Scotland’s history, or can you provide reliable sources to the contrary? 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:57A:94E1:E11:2B29 (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I already did. DrKay (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Where? I must have missed the reliable source stating that Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor adopted “Elizabeth I of Scotland” amongst her various styles and titles. Perhaps you would be kind enough to repeat it below. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:57A:94E1:E11:2B29 (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Huh? You do know Mary, Queen of Scots, never in her lifetime adopted the numeral I among any of her titles and styles? It's an innovation by others, just like Elizabeth I. DrKay (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

So why is it okay to use it in retrospect for Elizabeth I and not for Mary I? And why is it okay to use it for Mary I of England (who didn't use that title in her lifetime) and not for Mary I of Scotland? Deb (talk) 11:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Already explained. Try reading instead of responding. DrKay (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I’m reluctant to mention the following for fear of prolonging this muddying of the waters, but just to point out that James VI & I actually used the regal numeral “I” during his lifetime. (Can I invite DrKay to consult ”Expectations of Adminship” before responding, thank you). 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:9537:FC6B:A8B3:1ECD (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

You are muddying the waters by introducing a straw man that is not contentious and raising a completely unrelated behavioural guideline. This RfC isn't about me or my behavior. You need to go to other venues for issues about contributors. DrKay (talk) 09:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Fret not re. “other venues”. On the subject of “straw men” and matters “not contentious”, I noted your recent edit to your objection/contribution at the now closed Straw Poll, where presumably in an effort to add weight to your argument you added articles to your list of those not having ordinal numbers in the infobox header by including articles of monarchs whose names only appear once at List of Scottish monarchs, and which in respect of modern regnal lists would not therefore have an associated ordinal number. Curious… 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:9537:FC6B:A8B3:1ECD (talk) 08:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

You are mistaken. My last substantive edit to the straw poll was on 10 October, more than a month ago, when it was still open [4]. It is unfortunate that at least two editors have sought to influence the debate by making incorrect statements about me. Statements about me do not belong in this discussion, even when they are true. They certainly do not belong when, as in this case, they are false. They should be struck out. DrKay (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Talking of matters requiring to be “struck out”, your survey contribution above continues to link to three sources which, presumably, are there to support your assertion that “Mary I of England and Mary I of Scotland are frequently confused”. As an admin who regularly edits history-related articles, particularly historical royals, taken at face value that’s a weighty contribution to make to the debate. However, as I pointed out at length below but which you have conveniently ignored, on closer inspection these links have nothing to do with confusion in respect of ordinal numbers, as your “Mary I of England and Mary I of Scotland are frequently confused” would suggest, but rather with “Mary Queen of Scots and Bloody Mary” - NOT THE TERMS WHICH YOU HAVE STATED “are frequently confused”. Yet here we are, and despite my pointing out your presumably unintended linking of articles which, on closer inspection, do not support your assertion, the assertion persists. Curious… 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:D9C4:151C:25F0:A87A (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

A valid point, but the reliable source for “Elizabeth of Scotland” as one of her late majesty’s styles and titles please. College of Arms, Lyon Court, Hansard? 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:57A:94E1:E11:2B29 (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

You mean apart from the ones you added, when you were still using your account?[5][6] DrKay (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

One line in a single speech by a politician? I was hoping you’d find something more substantive, but I think we both know that isn’t likely, because despite the best efforts of Sir David Steel, it’s not a title which she adopted, inherited, was granted, awarded or was used in any sense. One instance does not make a generality or a trend. Any others? 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:57A:94E1:E11:2B29 (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I've already linked to 39 above. Stop wasting everyone's time. DrKay (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I’ve seen your 39. Of those, did you check how many related to the failed campaign by the nationalists? You can judge their success by the numbers of pillar boxes in Scotland bearing the cypher “ER”, as opposed to “EIIR” - there are precisely zero, (of either), by the way. When he assumes the title William V, if I start an online campaign to have him be known as William IV in Scotland, will that make it so, simply because I and a few others may say it and a few dozen ghits turn up as a result? Of course not. As for “wasting everyone’s time”… one word… “Elizabeth”. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:57A:94E1:E11:2B29 (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Why is this RFC not taking place on the BLP's talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

User:GoodDay - Because you, GoodDay, tried to fix something that wasn't broken, not knowing what you were doing. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe you may be correct. I may have kicked the football, before it was put in place. GoodDay (talk) 06:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

User:DrKay and others, "Do not reply to other editors in the Survey" means do not reply to other editors in the Survey. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• @Mnair69: Please clarify whether mentioning it once in the lead is sufficient or whether it should also be repeated at the top of the infobox. DrKay (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

DrKay, in my summary proposing the change to the infobox header, I touched upon the issue of confusion, but couched my terms in a manner which I hope would not to give the impression of “fact” where I was unable to provide reliable sources to support such. Specifically I state “without any apparent confusion”. I would hope that the use of the term “apparent” would be sufficient to avoid any inference that there were reliable sources citing empirical research to support that statement. In your summary opposing the change to the infobox header, you also touch upon the issue of confusion, but your statement reads “Mary I of England and Mary I of Scotland are frequently confused”. In my opinion, that statement reads as fact, and links to three external sources:

• History with Henry This author states “Is Bloody Mary, Mary Queen of Scots? This is a question that I see all over the internet”. Firstly, and no disrespect to “Henry”, I’m not sure of his credentials as to a “reliable source”, therefore I can only take Henry’s opinion as opinion, not fact. Secondly, Henry’s argument does not appear to concern ordinals but rather the term “Bloody”, which having read his piece would suggest that the bloody execution by means of beheading of Mary, Queen of Scots, leads some, according to Henry, to think that the term “Bloody Mary” refers to Mary, Queen of Scots and not Mary Tudor, a.k.a Mary I of England. Henry does not touch upon any aspect of confusion over the ordinal number, therefore please feel free to remove the link to ‘History with Henry’ as it is not relevant to the ordinal.
• Quora: “Are Mary Queen of Scots and Bloody Mary the same?” A “global online platform for asking questions and providing answers”, Quora is a depository for any number of weird and wonderful queries, for example ”Do aliens really exist?, “Did the Mafia kill JFK, etc. Again, this doesn’t necessarily meet the criteria for “reliable”. Furthermore, the link again concerns apparent confusion over the term “Bloody”, (as per Henry’s website), and not the ordinal. Therefore once again, please feel to remove the link to “Quora” as it is not relevant to the ordinal.
• Elizabethan England Life is a website whose author, (Prasad Mahabal), has an M A in “Science and Technological Developments in Ancient Civilizations” and is a self confessed “anglophile who loves English history and culture and likes writing about it”. This website includes a statement by the author that “Mary I, Queen of England (Mary Tudor) is sometimes confused with Mary, Queen of Scots”, which is the opinion of the author. However, once again the author, as per Henry and Quora, takes us to “bloody’: “Why was Mary Queen of Scots called Bloody Mary? Are Mary Queen of Scots and Bloody Mary the same? No, they are different people. Queen Mary I of England is the bloody Mary.” So once again, the issue surrounds apparent confusion over the term “bloody”, and not the ordinals. Once again, please feel free etc. etc.

I cannot dispute anyone’s opinion that confusion may exist or sometimes exists between the two Marys, as I have no facts with which to refute such, but your statement, (together with the above links), reads as fact. Firstly, we should avoid presenting opinion as fact, and secondly the issue here surrounds the ordinal number and not confusion, whether actual or inferred, resulting from the term “Bloody Mary” being wrongly attributed to Mary, Queen of Scots. In my opinion, the inclusion of the ordinal number in the infobox header will have zero net effect over the confusion described by your links. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:9537:FC6B:A8B3:1ECD (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

(New comment)

Celia Homeford. Your comment above that “calling her Mary I in articles where there is another person called Mary I is frankly foolish” intrigues me. What do you suggest we do to resolve the “frankly foolish” situation whereby Henry IV of England, Henry IV of Castile, Henry IV of France and Henry IV of the Holy Roman Empire all refer to “Henry IV” despite three other articles existing where there is another person called “Henry IV”? (In addition to the main body of text, “Henry IV” appears in the infobox header, as per the proposal here for “Mary I”). Despite multiple separate individuals from separate kingdoms sharing the same regal name and ordinal number throughout history, why would it be “foolish” for “Mary I” to appear in the infobox header of just two articles, when “Henry IV” appears without apparent objection in the infobox header of four articles? 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:9537:FC6B:A8B3:1ECD (talk) 12:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

They should be disambiguated. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

By the way, it's really not necessary to bludgeon the debate, especially when you have numbers on your side. Give it a rest for a while. I for one am certainly not interested in a protracted discussion of a single digit. For that reason, I avoided the dispute resolution noticeboard. From hints in the discussion, I assume that this is about something deeper, a personal grudge arising from a previous account or a desire to move the article back to Mary I of Scotland. Going to these lengths (extensive discussion, straw poll, dispute resolution, RfC) for a single, unimportant digit is ... extreme. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

But it's probably not a good idea to label other people's opinions "foolish" if you don't want to prolong the debate. Deb (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Rest assured Celia Homeford I have no motive other than to improve the article, albeit as you say, by a single digit, and also find it incredible that editors will go to such lengths to prevent its inclusion. Had I been convinced by any of the arguments presented by those who oppose, then I certainly wouldn’t still be here. But here we are… because, as in the case of your “they should be disambiguated”, the reason given applies to article titles, not the infobox header, as is evident by articles concerning “Henry IV”, where there is no requirement to disambiguate an infobox header. Regards… 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:9537:FC6B:A8B3:1ECD (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

They should be disambiguated within the same article, so that it's clear which is being referred to at any point. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Surely, the article title would be self evidently sufficient in order to distinguish the individuals being referred to - as per the four articles concerning Henry IV? 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:8DAE:3FC5:6D46:993E (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

So, when I write "John of Gaunt was the great-grandfather of Henry IV" and later on in the same article "John of Gaunt was the great-grandfather of Henry VI", and later still "Henry VI's grandfather was Henry IV", you think that's all "self evident" and no further disambiguation is necessary? You really think no-one who reads those sentences will be confused? If I write, "In Scotland, James VI and I was preceded by Mary I, who was preceded by James V. While in England, James VI and I was preceded by Elizabeth I, who was preceded by Mary I." You really think no disambiguation within the article is necessary, because it's "self evident" to whom I refer? Disambiguation within the same article is obviously necessary. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

My point is simply if the four articles which concern Henry IV of England, Henry IV of Castile, Henry IV of France and Henry IV of the Holy Roman Empire can coexist, with “Henry IV” appearing in each infobox header and presumably sufficient disambiguation within each article’s title and content so as not to confuse the reader, why do you not agree that the same should be possible for Mary, Queen of Scots and Mary I of England were they also to show “Mary I” in the infobox header? What is so unique about Mary I versus Henry IV where the infobox header is concerned? (Again, I stress there is no desire to change any article title). 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:D9C4:151C:25F0:A87A (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

We don't apply numerals that are not generally in use. Perhaps you missed the last 3 times I said this?[7][8][9] No, of course you didn't, because you replied each time[10][11][12], just like you reply every time anyone posts anything. See Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

”Not generally in use” you say? Thanks to your kindly steering me around the intricacies of ghits and how to pin down a number, we established about 840 ghits for MQoS as “Mary I” and about 100 gscholar hits for the same, agreed? Therefore, given your not taking me up on explaining “what is so unique about Mary I versus Henry IV where the infobox is header is concerned”, can we discount confusion as the issue and concentrate instead upon “generally in use”. Where is the benchmark for “generally in use” which might, for example, explain where a term which shows about 840 ghits and about 100 gscholar hits falls short? (PS Sorry to be a pain… Having read the field guide to ‘bludgeoning’, I’ll leave you all to it…) 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:D9C4:151C:25F0:A87A (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't. You should always write "Mary I of Scotland" and "Mary I of England" where there is any likelihood of confusion. You should always write "Henry VI of England" and "Henry IV of England" - and that's how articles were titled until a group of people decided that English kings are immediately recognisable by their numeral. Deb (talk) 09:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

In an earlier discussion concerning the proposed inclusion of the ordinal number in the infobox header for MQoS, an editor informed me that my edit would be confusing as “she gets confused with Mary I quite a lot”. It simply never occurred to that editor that their “Mary I” was not the same individual as my “Mary I”. There appeared to be an assumption that any discussion of “Mary I” automatically defaults to Mary I of England / Mary Tudor / Bloody Mary and a lack of appreciation that other nationalities use this site who may not share the same history/historical perspective. The assumption on my part was that the “English” in “English Wikipedia” only referred to the language. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:D9C4:151C:25F0:A87A (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Posted for info, without comment:

• "Allinson, R. (2012). Silent Diplomacy: Queen Mary I of Scotland, 1559–1587. In: A Monarchy of Letters. Queenship and Power. Palgrave Macmillan, New York". Retrieved 19 November 2022.

• "Wild, Brian. Elizabeth I of England & Mary I of Scotland: A History of 16th Century Britain, Analyzed by Simon Schama and Jonathan W Zophy" (PDF). Retrieved 19 November 2022.

• "McInally, Tom. "2. Development of the Colleges–Networks and Political Involvement." The Sixth Scottish University. Brill, 2012. 6-61. "Queen Mary I of Scotland refused to ratify the treaty but remained in France". Retrieved 19 November 2022.

• "Maxson, Brian Jeffrey. "Secretaries and Statecraft in the Early Modern World". Brill, edited by Paul Dover. Journal of Early Modern History 22.3 (2018): 207-209. "William Maitland, secretary to Mary I of Scotland". Retrieved 19 November 2022.

• "Backerra, Charlotte. "Personal union, composite monarchy and 'multiple rule'. "The Routledge History of Monarchy". Routledge, 2019. 89-111. "Though born a Catholic as the son of Queen Mary I of Scotland, he was brought up a Protestant". Retrieved 19 November 2022.

• "Lysyanskaya, Anna. "How to keep secrets safe." Scientific American 299.3 (2008): 88-95. "Thomas Phelippes uses frequency analysis to decrypt messages between Mary I of Scotland and conspirators against Elizabeth I of England". Retrieved 19 November 2022.

• "Fielding, Henry. The Tragedy of Tragedies. Broadview Press, 2013. "Queen Mary I of Scotland was forced to abdicate the Scottish throne in 1567, and was later executed". Retrieved 19 November 2022.

• "Dillon, Anne. "Martyrdom and the Catholic Community." A Companion to Catholicism and Recusancy in Britain and Ireland. Brill, 2021. 451-506. "Mary I of Scotland, an anointed queen, was accused of treason by the English Privy Council". Retrieved 19 November 2022.

• "Szechi, Daniel. Dangerous Trade. Edinburgh University Press, 2012. "replace her on her throne with her cousin, the imprisoned Mary I of Scotland". Retrieved 19 November 2022.

• "Watkins, John. "Recent studies in the English renaissance." Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900 (2012): 207-260. "examines how three women - Mary I of Scotland, Elizabeth I". Retrieved 19 November 2022. Also at:"[pdf] academia.edu" (PDF). Retrieved 19 November 2022.

• "McKean, Charles. "A Scottish problem with castles." Historical Research 79.204 (2006): 166-198. "and then her daughter Mary I Queen of Scots". Retrieved 19 November 2022.

• "Sarti, Cathleen. "Losing an Unexpected Throne: Deposing Second Sons of the Stuart Dynasty." Unexpected Heirs in Early Modern Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2017. 159-178. "the forced abdication of his mother, Mary I, Queen of Scots, in 1567". Retrieved 19 November 2022.

• "National Records of Scotland "Mary Queen of Scots (1542-1587). Mary I (reigned 14 December 1542 to 24 July 1567)". Retrieved 19 November 2022.

I could go on… 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:D9C4:151C:25F0:A87A (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Name

"Mary" signed letters and documents as "Marie", later: "Marie R (R = Regina). Should this be noted somewhere? I can't find an example now, but I believe she also spelled it "Mari". E.g.: [13], [14] Presumably not not "reliable", but here is an example of "Mari R" signature: [15] 136.54.99.98 (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Marie is in a footnote. Mari is shown in the infobox. It doesn't deserve additional coverage. DrKay (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Scot(s|land), pt. 1 million

@Zacwill, sorry about that, hit the button without typing the summary. While I agree it should have a link/a proper summary of the consensus somewhere, it appears that the last part of the first archive of this talk page, as well as throughout the second archive contain the consensus referenced in the infobox comment. Cheers! Remsense留 12:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Remsense: can you be more specific? I did in fact look in the archives before I made my edit, and I found nothing that addressed the infobox question specifically (with the exception of this, which does not seem like much of a consensus). I note that articles on Queen Mary's predecessors use the phrase "King of Scots" in the same section of the infobox (though there is some inconsistency: see e.g. the article on James V). Zacwill (talk) 05:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it's more useful to use that parameter for the office and de facto position held. If it's for title only, then it will cause trouble and inconsistency across other articles, such as using titles for pretenders instead of their actual roles or overly long infoboxes for monarchs who held multiple titles but whose domains can be summarised in a simple unofficial phrase like 'Commonwealth realms'. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

While I understand it is helpful to put that there's consensus there, perhaps it would be helpful to state that consensus somewhere distinct, like in the "FAQ" section sometimes seen at the top of talk pages. Remsense留 21:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Once again, can you tell me where this consensus is to be found? It seems to me like it doesn't exist outside the mind of whoever put that note there. Zacwill (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I cannot tell you for certain since I am not a major contributor to this article—I will defer to those that might be. Remsense留 06:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

It's the editor who wishes to make a change who needs to show consensus not the other way about. DrKay (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Was that the case when the infobox was first changed back in 2017, by a single-purpose IP? Points in favour of "Queen of Scots" are that it was the title Mary herself used in both English and Latin. See her letters, seals, and coins. This is in common with other Scottish rulers. "Queen of Scotland" is not a great deviation from this, and is still intelligible to the reader, but I don't see a reason not to use the official title. Zacwill (talk) 11:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

In answer to the first question, yes. That's how consensus works: if someone changes it and no-one complains then that becomes the consensus position. The longer the time since the edit, the stronger the consensus becomes. Over six years since the change would count as strong longstanding consensus. DrKay (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The title king/queen of Scots resembles the idea of popular monarchy, where the monarch is thought to reign over a people/nation rather than a specific territory. Dimadick (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, "Queen of Scotland" should be used in the intro & infobox. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Arms: is the escutcheon right?

The blazon of the escutcheon is given as

Sable a lion rampant argent on a canton of the last a cross gules.

or, roughly, a white lion on a black background with a red cross on a white background in the top left.

But the image of the arms shows a red lion on a yellow background with a border.

Is the problem in the blazon, the arms, or my understanding? Molinari (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd already corrected one mistake but had missed that one. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

“of Scots” vs. “of Scotland”

Is there a reason in particular that requires “King/Queen of Scotland” to be used in the infobox succession section instead of the preferred style “King/Queen of Scots?” Louis Philippe I had King of the French instead of King of France and all Belgian monarchs use King of the Belgians instead of King of Belgium. Has this been discussed before? If not, is it possible to reconsider the title used in Scottish monarchical infoboxes? AKTC3 (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

See above [16]. DrKay (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)