Talk:Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley

Stewart or Stuart

Surely the name should be 'Stewart', as in The Complete Peerage and the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography? As stated below, 'Stuart' is the French version so it would apply to Mary and was adopted by their descendants... but Darnley was a Stewart, no? Roryharrow (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The citations in the article seem to prefer Stuart. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Some do, some don't. This https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Stuart argues for Stuart, so happy to go along with that. But I might try to find out why DNB goes for Stewart. Roryharrow (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

What is "technically incorrect" about the spelling Stuart? I have read somewhere that few members of the Stuart family used that spelling prior to the Jacobian period, but the spelling Stuart is used elsewhere in Wikipedia for all sorts of people before then (e.g. see Earl of Moray). --Saforrest 13:04, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I believe "Stewart" would actually be correct for Lord Darnley. This is the historical Scottish spelling, and it was Mary who changed it when she married the King of France, as French has no "w".

How exactly was Darnley second-in-line to the throne after Mary? I don't feel qualified to edit articles myself, but it might be worth mentioning in the article that Darnley was a Stewart due to his descent from the pre-royal Alexander, 4th High Steward of Scotland (it was the 7th High Steward who inherited the throne as Robert II), but that's some 10 generations back (www.thepeerage.com has good info on that). He was also close to Mary in line for the English throne due to their common grandmother Margaret Tudor. But Darnley's grandfather was Margaret's second husband, not James IV. I've been trying to find out who really was the next Stewart heir after Mary; it would have to be through a female line, I think, and I don't know that it isn't Darnley (if so, that would be the third blood connection between him and Mary), but Google-driven Internet searches have not turned up the answer. Anyway, I am interested to know if the author of this article has further detail on that statement. --BlueMoonlet 22:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, what the heck. I put in a bit about the origin of Darnley's surname. --BlueMoonlet 03:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They mean third in line to the English throne! Mary was James V's only legitimate child, and James V was James IV's only legitimate child. James V was Margaret's first-born, and thus Mary was first in line to the English throne. In line to the Scottish throne (after the future James VI) was the Earl of Arran. Darnley's mother was Margaret Tudor's daughter (also only child) from her second marriage. Hence Darnley's mother was actually second in line to the English throne (she was alive when Darnley died). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.1.70.193 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 24 Mar 2006

Henry Darnley, Duke of Albany

Darnley was not the first Duke of Albany, but the sixth in a creation dating back to 1398, when the title was bestowed upon Robert Stewart, earl of Fife, the brother of Robert III. The second duke was Robert's son Murdoch, who lost the title, along with his life, in 1425. James III's brother, Alexander, received the title in 1458 which passed on his death to his son, John. The title was created once more in 1541 for Prince Arthur, one of the sons of James V, who died in infancy. All of this information can be found elsewhere in Wikipedia, so there is really no excuse for this error. Rcpaterson 23:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand how peerage numbering works. The numbering starts again when a new creation is made. Proteus (Talk) 08:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that; but it is still misleading, especially for those unfamiliar with the whole process. Describing Darnley as the first duke of Albany would create confusion when earlier dukes with the same title are discovered. First duke of the fourth creation is technically correct but clumsy; so best just leave it as duke of Albany. Rcpaterson 20:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how it's misleading. He's hardly the only person in history to have held a title previously held by someone else, and the way it is done here (and everywhere else in Wikipedia) merely reflects universal practice in the description of peerages. Proteus (Talk) 21:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I really can not make this any simpler: there were dukes of Albany BEFORE Darnley. To describe him as the first duke is wrong, just as it would be to describe Prince Charles as first duke of Cornwall. But I really have no desire to waste any more time over this. My changes were intended to clarify the position for the uninitiated. You've reverted back-fine. I've made my point-let it stand. Rcpaterson 22:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, you are correct there were Dukes of Albany before Darnley, and if you look here, you will see that there have been two Dukes of Albany after Darnley; the son and grandson of Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom, respectively. The peerage system of the United Kingdom works as such, for each creation, holders of the title are number sequentially. If a title ever goes extinct or merges back into the crown, it is eligible for re-creation. If such a re-creation happens, the new holder of the title starts with the 1st Duke/Earl whatever. If you want some more information on this, check out Peerage. Hope this helps. Prsgoddess187 22:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The peerage numbering is a later innovation which was not in use in Middle Ages. To put such to medieval persons is anachronistic. Only a very unralistical and formal person would go to such-century-dukes to change all that into "perfect system", i.e numbered. That is actually not pedantry, as pedantic persons make things extremely correct, whereas such numbering for medievals is NOT contemporaneously correct. If those numberings are put into the article, there should be an explanation that it is a later numbering, and those in their own age did not use it. Waimea 21:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the complaints against "1st". It's a later invention, and misleads about the nature of peerage in medieval Scotland. Once the Duchy of Albany was brought into existence at the end of the 14th century, it always existed, used or not, and was not a new creation. The system is English in any case, and as applied to Scotland is grossly cumbersome. Numbering any of the pre-13th century earls like this is stupid, since we do not know the names of many earls before David I. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Should that be, the "dukedom" of Albany, or the "duchy" of Albany ? I think duchy is incorrect.Eregli bob (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What an odd argument. Darnley was, rather obviously, not a pre-13th century Earl. And it's both universal practice and Wikipedia policy to number peers, Scottish or otherwise. Proteus (Talk) 21:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Darnley was not, but the argument has implications. I mean, I don't mind it when there is a living "peer" calling himself 22nd or something Earl of X, etc, and the numbers can be traced back confidently. However, it certainly is not universal practice to do this to historical "peers", as it's only in use for "peers" from the British Isles; moreover, it is just as if not more common to omit the ordinal. Absolutely no point called Darnley "1st Duke of Albany", as no other by that name every held the Duchy and to most people Robert Stewart was the "1st Duke of Albany". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As I say, it's our policy to use numerals for all hereditary peers. If you don't like that policy, go here and suggest it's changed. Simply ignoring it because you don't like it is not on. Proteus (Talk) 22:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, sorry, that isn't how wiki works. These would be guidelines, not law. Anyways, that page only concerns later peers and is not relevant to this. BTW, I'm sure you are aware of Wikipedia:Administrators#Reverting; you'll see the guide to what the purpose of the roll-back function is, i.e. not to help you in revert wars.Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That page quite clearly refers to all peers and says as much. Wiki relies on forming general policy specifically to stop everyone doing things differently. Other than you personal opinion I don't see anything above that amounts to a good reson to break with the way we treat every other peer from England/Ireland/Britain or Scotland. If we altered every article to reflect the minor changes and usage of styles and titles of peers the whole system would turn into farce. You could argue that earl in the C14 should have 'the right mighty Prince' in their styles where those of c16 should be alered to 'most Noble and Potent Lord' and those of the C18 onwards just 'Rt Hon'. Alci12 23:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say 16th century for Scotland. Anyways, that page does not refer clearly to "all hereditary peers". If it's so clear, would you mind pointing out where and what? Yeah, I agree Henry isn't a great magnate like the Lord of the Isles, the 14C and 15C Dukes of Albany and Earls of Douglas, but nevertheless there is absolutely no point called Darnley "1st Duke of Albany", as no other by that name every held the Duchy and to most people Robert Stewart was the "1st Duke of Albany". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"This WikiProject primarily aims to standardise pages about peerages and baronetcies in the United Kingdom and Ireland (including the former states of England, Scotland, and Great Britain), and their holders." Most people have never heard of Darnley outside Scotland or GB. You might as well argue that as James I was never called James I in his life we shouldn't add that to his page. It's all about standard forms and trying to be consistent. Breaking something that applies over so many articles on whim just isn't a good enough reason. Alci12 14:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I see guidelines on that page for "peers" of a later era, but you are mistaken to say that these cover this era. As I previoulsy said, there is absolutely no point calling Darnley "1st Duke of Albany", as no other by that name every held the Duchy and to most people Robert Stewart was the "1st Duke of Albany". And Proteus, if you keep using roll-back I'm going to report you. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Report me for what? I suggest in future you actually read the relevant policy before threatening people. (In this case: If you use the rollback feature for anything other than vandalism or for reverting yourself, be sure to leave an explanation on the article talk page, or on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted.) And I suppose there's an easy way to tell if Alci's "mistaken" as to what the policy means — we could ask the person who wrote it. Oh. Proteus (Talk) 21:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You haven't been leaving messages on talk pages. You're not even engaging in debate, just citing a Project page which you yourself wrote which you're trying to make me believe is somehow enforcable as policy. Not on. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing on that page says peers of a later era only. It obviously includes all peers or it woulnd't break down the peerage by type but would just break them down by whatever arbitrary date you seem to have in mind. Your personal preference is not a good reason to ignore a format used on thousands of articles both for peers and monarchs. Few people have heard of D outside GB (either you are assuming this article is for the sole use/understanding of GB users or you believe the world as a whole knows D.) With regard to any peer almost no one can tell you which duke/earl (holder #) of almost any title (including the most famous) yet we carefully record such things because we try to be accurate. Alci12 01:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I will keep to the point. As I previoulsy said, there is absolutely no point calling Darnley "1st Duke of Albany", as no other by that name every held the Duchy and to most people Robert Stewart was the "1st Duke of Albany". Accuracy you say? Doesn't look like it. Please stop going on about that page too, it is not "policy", and provides non-authoritive guidelines only for later "peers". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Standarisation is wonderful and all, but only when it applies. It would be an anachronism to apply modern peerage rules to this person from the late middle ages. The Lord Darnley was indeed Duke of Albany, but he was not the first of such. I understand your peerage numbering, so don't bother trying to explain it again. However, it simply doesn't apply here. Darnley never used the title, not one ever referred to him as such (outside of documents designed for reading by those particularly interested in peerage). As pointed out by Rcpaterson, first duke of the fourth creation is technically correct, but quite clumsy. I'll refute your claim that few people have heard about Lord Darnley outside of the British Isles. The story of the Queen of Scots is one of the most popular for those interested in Scottish history over here (in the US), as well as elsewhere. It's even been made into several books, and stories, all of which refer to this man as Lord Darnley. So if you must use Duke of Albany, just use Duke of Albany.

On a related note, I'd advise all of you folks over at WP Peerage to re-examine yourselves. You're not special, you're simply a group of WP editors, like the rest of us. There's no such thing as Law on Wikipedia, and even Offical Policies are only guidelines. This is a Wiki. That means anything goes. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 23:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Expanding and references

The article is missing some key points, not least the fact that Darnley requested the "Crown Matrimonial" before his murder, and that he found support among the great and the good who signed a bond promising him their support in return for his protection of the reformed religion. Whatever the reality of the matter, Darnley was seen as a defender of the protestants, unlike his wife, who had Italian priests creeping into her bedchamber. And perhaps the references could be improved by the removal of Weir and the addition of some reliable sources. I suppose, under the circumstances, we should be grateful that there are any references mentioned. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition, neither Rizzio nor Morton are introduced before suddenly appearing in the article. Background for these individuals should be provided. User:PalusSomni (Talk) 17:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Birthplace

I'm really not sure that Temple Newsam could be considered part of the Yorkshire dales. Today, the site is situated well within the city of Leeds' urban boundaries (to the east of the city centre). I understand the geographical location known as the 'Yorkshire Dales' is not well defined, and I understand that Leeds' boundaries would not have encompassed the site in Darnley's day, but this area would at no point in history have been considered part of the 'Yorkshire Dales'.

Iure uxoris

The first note: "Iure uxoris" or "Jure uxoris" is Latin expression means "by right of so's wife". This expression is used without a preposition, so the preposition "de" is not needed in front of it. In some occasion bare Ablative can take place, so the category "De jure uxoris kings" is a wrong form! The second note: "Iure uxoris king" is the synonyme of the king consort, so Henry Stuart, who was King of Scotland by right of his wife, is the most suitable member of this category as the first husband of Mary the Queen of Scots, Francis II King of France.Borgatya (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to correct the categories and create a new one. (Category:Iure uxoris kings?) If you need help with replacing de jure uxoris with iure uxoris in articles, I'll help. I disagree, however, that iure uxoris king is the synonyme of the king consort. The former is a monarch who reigns during his spouse's lifetime and has a monarchical odrinal. The latter is an equivalent of queen consort and therefore king consort is not a monarch, but merely the queen's consort who holds the title of king and has no monarchical ordinal. The subject of this article is not known as Henry of Scotland. he is known by his premarital name and title, which implies that he was a king consort. Surtsicna (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You say that you know Latin so you must know perfectly that the English word consort comes from Latin word consors gen.: consortis which means spouse, uxor gen.: uxoris means wife, so rex consors and rex iure uxoris is the same. And you confuse de iure with iure uxoris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borgatya (talk • contribs) 18:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I know the basics of Latin (1 on the scale 1 to 5, as I claim on my user page). It means the same, but it's not used in the same context. In English language, king consort is used to describe a queen's husband who doesn't reign alongside his wife. Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley is one example. A man described as iure uxoris king reigns with his wife and he is considered to be co-monarch. Sigismund of Luxembourg is one example. Surtsicna (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with you because e.g. Ferdinand II is considered as King of Portugal with receiving a numbering (second) but he was only king consort (rei consorte), a king iure uxoris which means he is a king until his wife's death, his wife's lifetime, see Ferdinand V of Aragon in Castile, or his father John II of Aragon, who usurped the Navarrese thron after his wife Blanche, or Martin the Young of Sicily was reelected as king of Sicily after his wife's death or Sigismund in Hungary and Jogaila in Poland, too etc.Borgatya (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand. All your examples confirm what I said above. Ferdinand II was king during his wife's lifetime and Ferdinand V was king of Castile during his wife's lifetime - therefore they were iure uxoris king. They obviously ceased to be kings upon their first wife's death, since their second wives didn't get the title of queen. As for John II of Navarre, he is considered an usurper from Blanche I's death until his own death. Martin and the others were iure uxoris kings during their wife's lifetime and elected kings from their wife's death until their death. These men are considered monarchs, while Henry is always put among the royal consorts. Surtsicna (talk) 10:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

This paragraph reads as though it were copied & pasted from elsewhere in the article. It might be a good idea for someone so inclined to clean it up so it doesn't read as though prefacing information has been removed.

As Queen Elizabeth I of England resented the fact that one of her (former) subjects had been promoted in this manner and refused to recognize his Scots titles, many of the contemporary narratives describing his life and death (those written by English agents) refer to him as Lord Darnley, his title as heir apparent to the Earldom of Lennox, and it is by this appellation that he is now generally known.[1]

Jedikaiti (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The Conspircy Theories section is seriously biased: a forthright assertion that Mary had no link whatsoever to Darnley's murder, rather than an impartial assesment of the evidence or an objective summary of other, widely-held viewpoints. It really needs a NPOV tag until this can be addressed. Gregory dj (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

William Cobbett in his "Protestant Reformation" states that it was followers of John Knox that were responsible for the explosion and subsequent murder of Henry Stuart. He takes as his source material Whitaker's "Mary, Queen of Scots Vindicated" edition 1787. He uses it (along with other Protestant atrocities of a similar nature) to set the "Gunpowder Plot" into context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.133.78 (talk) 00:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Henry-stuart-darnley.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Henry-stuart-darnley.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 9 March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Henry-stuart-darnley.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Revising

Hello. I will be editing this page for a project for my college class. If you have any concerns, please contact the editor redcknight. Thank you very much. -Shansen56 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shansen56 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Lord Darnley an English title?

The Lordship of Darnley is a Scottish title, why is it listed as English? 71.194.44.209 (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody watch this page?

On the 16th March a new editor came along and added a great deal of material, with some references and then went off into the sunset.

They left behind this statement:

Darnley's father had been declared guilty of treason for his part in the ‘rough wooing’, and his Scottish estates were forfeited in 1545.[2]

Now admittedly, it's referenced. But no casual reader on this planet could possibly know what the "rough wooing" was, unless they already knew quite a lot about English/Scottish relations of the 16th century. Can someone with an interest in this article go through it and fix it for possibly obscurities?

Amandajm (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I noticed, the text, mostly in the section "Lennox Crisis" is a summary of this article, Macauley, Sarah. 'The Lennox Crisis', 1558-1563.', Northern History 41.2 (2004). I can't tell if this text a good summary of that article, or if that article is useful from this summary.Unoquha (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The editor was talking about The Rough Wooing, of course. I happened upon this article today and could barely make heads or tails of the Lennox Crisis section. I'm working on it, but Wikipedia hasn't been a priority of mine for a while and it may take me a couple of days. Be patient, all - I'll get it. :-) KrakatoaKatie 21:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I did my best with the Lennox Crisis section, then I moved on to the marriage section, which was awful. As an admin, I'm ashamed that we had contradictory and redundant information in that section for I-don't-want-to-look-at-the-history-to-see how long. One referenced section said the marriage was on Monday 9 July, while another referenced section said it was on 29 July. Since 29 July is the most common date, and since 9 July 1565 wasn't a Monday (it was a Friday), I went with 29 July and condensed the remaining redundant text into one graph. I hate to remove referenced content - it's like drawing sandpaper down a chalkboard to me - but I can't access the reference and the material is a big outlier. Of course, if someone can do better or has corrections, be bold. I think I'll go down the rest of the article and repair as necessary, after I have a stiff drink to brace myself for more embarrassment. ;-) KrakatoaKatie 23:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

He was a King of Scotland for a short while, can we not find an image of his coat of arms, or at least the matrimonial coat of arms of he and his wife, Mary Queen of Scots? - Glenstuart

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley. 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/20140204015143/http://www.nationaltrustcollections.org.uk/object/1129218 to http://www.nationaltrustcollections.org.uk/object/1129218

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) 05:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Spelling Error

The first sentence in the second paragraph says that Mary "acceded" the thrown but it should be "ascended" the throne. Wallabyjoe (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of spelling errors, it's "throne", not "thrown". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"Acceded" and "ascended" are both accurate; "succeeded" would be as well. J S Ayer (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Possible bias?

This sentence, "Mary's private secretary, David Rizzio, was stabbed 56 times on 9 March 1566 by Darnley and his confederates, Protestant Scottish nobles, in the presence of the queen, who was six months pregnant," seems to my rather ignorant gaze, to rate something more than a secondary paragraph under a section heading of, "Estrangement". 60.241.23.96 (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

A coat of arms is captioned as Darnley's before his marriage. The file describes it as the coat of arms of his father, Matthew Stewart, 4th Earl of Lennox. Since Dad outlived young Henry, and two men cannot use the same arms at the same time, this cannot have also been Darnley's coat of arms. This coat of arms does not appear in the article on the 4th earl, and the blazon contains a small discrepancy: it says the saltire in the inescutcheon is engrailed, while the illustration shows it straight-edged. I hope someone with detailed knowledge of Scottish heraldry will mend this. J S Ayer (talk) 02:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)