Talk:James VI and I/Archive 5

First man in history?
As far as I'm aware, James is the first man in recorded history to reign over the entire British Isles. 1) is this correct? 2) should it point this out explicity so in the intro. - Yorkshirian (talk) 10:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * He was the first to reign over them by general agreement and it might well be worth mentioning that in the intro. However you could also make a case for Edward Longshanks who reigned over them for part of his life by force of arms, if not by general agreement. -- Derek Ross | Talk'' 18:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think some of the small Gaelic kingdoms in Ireland were still outside the control of Longshanks. Although the Lordship of Ireland was technically given to the Plantagenets, the whole island wasn't conquered until the Tudor period. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * True enough. It depends upon whether you are prepared to accept nominal control or effective control as the gold standard. I would choose James myself. I just wanted to point out that Edward came very close. -- Derek Ross | Talk'' 04:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ofcourse James was more efficient than Edward. The treatment subjected to William "Balliol is my King" Wallace, King James found 5 traitors for the same type of Sunday entertainment. That happened 300 years (+ 2,5 months) later. As for Wales, easy match already then (1270s), and a mere part of England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.28.194 (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Scottish witch craze?
There is a big oversight in this article. No article on James Stuart can really be complete if it neglects to mention the fact that this ruler was the instigator of the Witch Craze of Scotland which lasted for a century. In 1590, James claimed a group of Witches had attempted to assassinate him by summoning a storm while on a voyage to Denmark. The North Berwick witch trials were the first major witch trial of 16th Century Britain.

In fact, if I am not mistaken James even wrote a book on the topic of witchcraft Inchiquin (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Have put a section in regarding the trials, probably needs a tweak or two. The main article regarding them is also pretty sparse. No mention of Dr Fian or Gelis Duncan, both of whom were tried in person by King James. AND, no individual articles for them, or for the infamous tract, 'Newes from Scotland', the first account of witch-trials in Scottish history. I started the article on Agnes Sampson, as she lived less than a mile from me, although some 500 years prior. Need a little collaboration on this one as I don't have access to any of the documents, though this minithesis is quite a good one Brendandh (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've merged your section with one rescued from an old version of the article because the old version uses external hard-print scholarly sources, which I generally consider preferable to websites. DrKiernan (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Good work on this, I was going to add a section myself but got too busy. The stuff about the North Berwick Witch Trials is powerful antidote to the traditional view of James as a progressive 'Philosopher King'. Inchiquin (talk) 22:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

"his views may have become more sceptical ..."
"... as he wrote to his son, Prince Henry, to congratulate him on 'the discovery of yon little counterfeit wench. I pray God ye may be my heir in such discoveries'". I have no idea what is being said here. Much more context is needed. What wench? Why is the king writing to his 5-year-old son to congratulate him on the (king's?) discovery of a wench? What skepticism does this imply? 81.131.44.21 (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Surnames..please!!
James VI was of the house of Stewart/Stuart, but as King of Scots, then England, and a priori as Duke of Rothesay he did not possess a surname. Like his mother, 'Marie Stuart' and his son 'Charles Stuart', his sovereignty was belittled by the adding of the surname, as if he were a commoner, by a later zeitgeist. Do you ever hear of Queen Anne Stuart? or Queen Victoria Saxe-Coburg-Gotha? Brendandh (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What a tragedy, getting mistaken for a 'commoner'. Get real, anyone half interested in British history has a pretty good idea who you are talking about when you use the name James Stuart: if it belittles his sovereignty then so be it. No modern person speaks English exactly as it was spoken in the time of Shakespeare, language changes if you like it or not regardless.
 * Inchiquin (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Get real?? Really! This King James was the 6th of that name to hold the title King of Scots, and was followed by two more(if you have Jacobite leanings). So, when one talks about James Stewart/Stuart, there are eight to pick from. Furthermore, it was only during the commonwealth and the abolishment of the Monarchy, that surnames were introduced for the sovereign, and by later Hanoverian histories, to enhance their own rather tenuous legitimacy to the British throne, and belittle what went before. The form of English we use today being different from Jacobean English is not the point. Queen Elizabeth II, does not officially have a surname, neither did her father, or grandfather from the point that they ascended the throne. The same principle should apply to "Jamie Saxt" too. 07:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Brendandh (talk) 07:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I am here to find out about the truth about my family line of the Phelps family - Teweksbury of England. We were once seated on the Throne of England. I know this because I HAVE THE FAMILY SEAL STAMP OF THE TEWEKSBURY. I HAVE THE OFFICAL DOCUMENTATION OF THE ROYAL HOUSE OF SEALS THAT IT IS THE ORIGINAL ONE THAT WAS USED DURING THE TIME OF WHEN WE RULED ENGLAND!!!!

SO PEOPLE START ARGUING AND TELL ME THE TRUTH... VERITAS SINE TIMORE - Truth without Fear...So when did we, by who, what name, and how long....Also I know that we come from German Royality of Wuelf and Itailian Royality of Guelf which is the Surname to Phelps.

So please can someone clarify my family history...I am doing major serious ancestrial work here and documentation for my cousins and such.

Thank you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.107.45 (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Um?? Brendandh (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Only partial translation of the bible?
"A notable success of the Hampton Court Conference was the commissioning of a new translation and compilation of approved books of the Bible to confirm the divine right of kings to rule and to maintain the social hierarchy"

Does it mean not all of the books were translated? But eventually "King James Bible" came to contain all of the books?

Top.Squark (talk) 11:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No - it is the other way round. All the books ("of the seventy translators") were in the "King James Bible".  In the 1830s some of them ("apocrypha") were removed from most printed KJ bibles.  That sentence, which you quoted could be improved. ClemMcGann (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Where was James living in November 1605?
A question regarding the Guy Fawkes FAC. Fawkes was hauled in front of the King the night he was discovered, but I want to know where this was. Where was the King living? At the Palace of Westminster? Parrot of Doom 20:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but I expect the Palace of Whitehall just across the road. Westminster was already overrun with lawyers & politicians from Henry VIII's time on. Johnbod (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Changeling
The article doesn't seem to make any mention of the idea that "James I of England" (surely James I and VI?) may not have been who he claimed to be. It was widely believed at the time that Queen Mary's baby had died, and that the Earl of Mar's own son was substituted for the late Prince. In later life James showed no affection towards his mother(who he did not resemble physically at all), and was only too happy for her execution. A portrait of the Earl of mar had to be taken down as The King so closely resembled him. People who knew Mary and Darnley would remark how James did not resemble either of them, both physically and in behaviour. In the 19th Century a baby was found with the initials IR(Iacobus Rex) dating from around 1566. This was hushed-up by authorities and has been suppressed ever since. Even if someone regards this as "conspiracy theory" or somesuch, at least a mention of it should be made, as many people today do seriously believe that "James Stuart" was really James Erskine. Frederick T (talk) 11:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Any sources for that claim? Is there any source that claims that he may not have been the son of Mary I? Is there any source that claims that this rumour existed? Surtsicna (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious?

Here's just six weblinks....













A different page replicating one of the above, but with portraits of Mary, Darnley, The Earl of Mar, and "James Stuart"...



One might also want to check out The book(those big papery things) Scotland's Royal Line by Grant R. Francis. Frederick T (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * He's Jimmy Rex, now let's move on. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by that. How does your "Jimmy Rex" comment relate to improving the article? Frederick T (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Jimmy Rex is slang for James, King. Historians accept that James I/VI is the real James I/VI. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That's scarcely the point is it? The point was that since this idea has been around since the 16th century, and persists to this day, that, whether true or not, something along those lines should be included in the article. There can be a paragrpah headed something like "Changeling Rumour", with sources listing arguments both for and against it being true. Frederick T (talk) 08:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, if he were the Rightful King, then calling him "Jimmy Rex" would not be appropriate. You don't call the present monarch "Lizzy Regina" now do you? Frederick T (talk) 10:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never read of this before. Though I did read of such charges against James II/VII's only son 'the Old Pretender'. GoodDay (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your first, second, third and seventh sources do not meet the Verifiability policy. The first and seventh sources are from the same self-written website by a anonymous author and the second is a comment posted by an anonymous member of the public on a blog. The third is an exact duplication of the first site and is again an anonymous, self-published website. This could be rubbish written by anyone. The fifth and sixth sources are reliable but they do not support your contention: they state explicitly that it was a loose and unfounded rumor, and condemn it as nonsense. The fourth source is dubious but might be usable, but again it rubbishes the rumor as "dangerous" and "extreme" and says explicitly "nothing was proved".
 * Wikipedia's content must be from reliable sources and must not be biased towards fringe, unscholarly or unrepresentative viewpoints. DrKiernan (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Fringe? All the sources state that it is widespread and well-known. You also dismiss the websites, but make no mention of the book. Also, dismissing them "rubbish written by anyone" as you smugly dismiss it, wasn't the point. The point was that various sources(whether you regard them as reliable or not) mention it, and it is significant as regards the article. Likewise, whether the sources say that the "rumor" is true, or dismiss it as nonsense, the fact that the "rumor" exists at all, should make it worthy of inclusion in the article. It is certainly not a "fringe" "rumor". If you wish the article to state that is just a "rumor", then fair enough. u the fact that various sources exist, should make it worthy of inclusion, however the article refers to it. Frederick T (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no purpose in adding these rumors to the article. They shouldn't be added. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Author and historian Antonia Fraser dismisses the story in her 1969 biography, Mary, Queen of Scots. The rumours were not circulated in James' lifetime; they began in the 18th century when workmen discovered the skeleton of a baby behind a wall inside Edinburgh Castle. As she correctly points out: had there been the slightest chance that James was not the child of Mary, would the Hamiltons of Arran have meekly stood by and allowed a changeling to usurp the Scottish throne to which they would have been entitled, seeing as the Hamiltons were next in the line of succession following James?! The only rumour regarding James' parentage which was contemporary and indeed survives to this day is that David Rizzio was his biological father. This is also treated with scorn by Fraser.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It should also be added that the hereditary disease porphyria (see article) was said to have passed from Mary, Queen of Scots to her direct descendant George III. Another thing, you said the initials IR were found on the baby. Where on the baby were these intials found? Surely not tattooed on its skeleton?!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. No the baby was wrapped in very expensive cloth which had the initials. Likewise, various books state that the story was doing the rounds from the 17th century, and possibly earlier. it was most certainly not begun when the baby was found(which was in the 19th century btw). Frederick T (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And this expensive cloth (with the initials IR-James had nor yet acceeded to the throne so why these initials?) managed to survive all those intervening centuries? OK, I've got Fraser's book in hand. Yes, you are right about one thing, the skeleton was indeed found in the 19th century, 1830 to be exact; but wrapped in woolen cloth, not expensive stuff! She dismisses the whole story as ludicrous; for as she points out, the lack of privacy in the castle would have made such an act impossible (Oh dear, all those wagging tongues); besides, the Hamiltons wouldn't have meekly allowed a changeling to usurp the throne which would have gone to the Earl of Arran if Mary had died childless.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Gardner's book describes it as silk with gold embroidery, or something to that(not word-for-word). When Mary formally abdicated in 1567, James was still a baby, and became King of Scotland. Mary fled to England(the Darnley murder affair), and The Earl of Mar became both Regent, and Legal Guardian of the infant King. The same Earl of Mar who the sources above point to having switched his own son for the King. It is likely that the people only noticed the peculiarities about "James Stuart" after he had come of age, and could be King in fact as well as name. By this stage Mar had died, and there were two other Regents before James became King. The story that he was not the biological son of Mary and Darnley dates from the early 16th century, but it wasn't until the discovery of the baby in 1830 that something approaching proof could be put forward. Likewise, anyone in 1567-1625 questioning the King's Royal and Divine Bloodline would likely have suffered the same fate as other like George, Duke of Clarence(in 1478) or the former Lord Protector Dudley (in 1553) who questioned the legitimacy of Edward IV and Mary I of England respectively. People today question the legitimacy of Prince Harry, and it's just tabloid stuff. back then it would have got you a one-way ticket to the Tower, if you were lucky. Likewise, without the physical proof(the baby discovered in 1830) and with no knowledge of DNA or even blood types it could not be proved or disproved, even if the King had allowed it to be mentioned. Frederick T (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And the missing Mar baby? How did they account for his disappearance? Then we must ask ourselves why Mary would abdicate in favour of a changeling and remain quiet about it for the next 20 years?! Had the rumours been circulating, Elizabeth would not have named James as her successor.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the portrait you linked of the Earl of Mar is of Mary's illegitimate half-brother James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray, James' first regent who held the title Earl of Mar prior to being created Earl of Moray. So any resemblance can be explained by the fact that James was his nephew!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

James was born in 1566. Very soon afterwards, his father(Mary's husband), Lord Darnley was murdered, and all the evidence suggested that Mary herself had organised his death. She was forced to flee to England for her life and abdicate, leaving her son behind. Thus the baby James(in 1567) became King of Scotland. Mary would never see her son again, as she was held against her will by Queen Elizabeth I of England, before being murdered on Elizabeth's orders on trumped-up charges. Back in 1567, the infant King James was placed in the care of the Earl of Mar. Although King, being still a baby, he obviously had no authority. The country was run by the Protector. Since neither Mary Queen of Scots, nor Elizabeth Queen of England left England, nor saw the Boy King grow up, neither could have known anything firsthand. Mary was killed in 1587. It should be noted that James(now in his early 20's) showed no sorrow for his mother's execution. His only concern was that her death would not effect his own succession to the English throne after Elizabeth's death. However, both Scottish and English people who knew Mary and Darnley, as well as other Stuarts/Stewarts remarked on how unlike a Stuart/Stewart King James was, both in appearance and in behaviour. Neither Mary or Elizabeth could possibly have known of a switch. The boy King was guarded closely by Mar from 1567 until Mar's own death(when James was still young). Thus there was a period when the real James Stuart could easily have died, and Mar's own son put in his place. Possibly a bastard offspring, and thus never acknowledged. That is speculation. As James grew older, likewise, in his own time, people DID remark to his obvious similarities to Mar, both in appearance, and in behaviour. The latter could not be attributed to Mar's raising him, as Mar died when James was still very young. But he DID have total control over the boy for the first few years of his life, if the REAL King James ever had a few years of life.

Anyway, the point was not to turn this into a forum. The point was that the issue exists. Whether it is true, or just a hateful smear job is not the point. The fact that this issue has existed since James' own lifetime, seemingly got a boost in 1830, and persists to this very day, would suggest that something should be added to the article about it, wouldn't you think? Frederick T (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is your reliable source that states the rumour was circulating in James' own lifetime? BTW, there is no need to recap the history of Mary Stuart here. I have read many bios of Mary, neither of which (apart from Fraser's which totally debunks it) even alludes to this changeling tale. Your case for James having been switched at birth has more holes in it than the woolen cloth that poor wee skeleton was found wrapped in back in 1830, when the story first appeared. Oh, another thing, Moray's wife, Agnes Keith was close to Mary following the birth of James so she would have heard the rumours had they been around. Do you think she would have remained silent if a changeling had been substituted, when her own husband was Mary's half-brother, and could have tried for the throne himself?!!! And, I notice you have not answered my question as to the missing Mar baby. Wouldn't questions have been raised when no corpse was produced? There would have been no need to wall up Mary's baby, just bury it in the Mar family tomb. I rest my case.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)



Er, what case? Again, wikipedia is not a forum. he central point here is that the "rumor"(as someone above called it) has existed for centuries. And thus, something making note of its existence should be included in the article. Even your source that supposedly debunks it, still has to acknowledge its existence in the first place.

And who was next in line now? The Earl of Mar? The Hamiltons? Another wikipedia article states that the Douglas family were the next in line!(admittedly nothing to do with you here). Whether the "rumor" is true or not is not the point, the point is that this story exists, and has done so for centuries, thus making mention of it in the article seems appropriate. Again, in order to "Debunk" the story, there must first be a story to "Debunk" and that needs "debunking", no?

Oh, and you never debunked my story "full of holes" as you never even addressed the central issues. But again, that is not the point. The point to all of this is that it would seem necessary to mention this "rumor" (debunked or not), as even your sources mention that the story exists, and supposedly needs to be "Debunked". Frederick T (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You are still refusing to provide sources, so I consider this discussion closed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually I have provided various sources, and in fact, so have you! And the only thing that seems closed is your complete refusal to answer any valid question posed. So again, I have provided sources, YOU have provided sources. And some mention of the changeling theory should go in the article, regardless of whether the theory is true, simply because both my sources, and your sources acknowledge that the theory exists. Frederick T (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Rumors sumors. Almost every monarch has such rumors around him/her & their children. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the only English monarchs who have ever had such "rumors sumors" circulated about them to any degree of notability are Edward I, Edward IV and James I. Thus it is notable enough to include mention of this "rumors sumors" in the article. Frederick T (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just seen that that fourth source is an outrageous copyright violation. It is a direct word-for-word plagiarism from Mike Ashley's 1998 British Monarchs. So, it would count as a reliable source as long as you used Ashley as the source rather than the stolen copy. DrKiernan (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we simply dismiss remarks from someone who repeatedly, and after being corrected, refers to the earl of Moray as the earl of Mar? And who apparently is unaware that the Earl of Moray was Mary's half-brother and Darnley's first cousin? At any rate, if the rumor is getting mentioned in biographies, it's perhaps worth bringing up, but only if we can trace its origins via reliable sources. In particular, if the rumor didn't exist in the 16th century, we absolutely should not present it as a contemporary rumor. john k (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * According to author Antonia Fraser, the rumour was not around in the 16th century; in fact, it only began when the skeleton was found in the 19th century. The only rumour about James which circulated in the 16th century was that he was possibly fathered by Rizzio-a notion Fraser also dismisses as highly improbable.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems sensible. The Rizzio rumor I've heard of before - that was the joke behind calling James the new King Solomon, as I recall (David the Harpist's son).  It'd be nice if an academic, rather than a popular, history commented on this issue, but if Fraser's the best we can find, that's probably fine. john k (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Titles, styles, honours and arms
The James I of England section is completely unsourced and full of incorrect and rather dubious information. I have corrected his full style, which was never "His Majesty, James VI, by the Grace of God, King of England, France and Ireland, king of Scots, Defender of the Faith", as the section had claimed. Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that he was ever styled Prince James (other than in the phrase "The Most High and Mighty Prince", which was used during his reign anyway). Such a section is completely unbecoming for a featured article. Surtsicna (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Such a section has no placed when it is incorrect, to be sure. Surely, it is entirely becoming when it is correctly done (per the style guide for instance), is it not? DBD 23:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Abbey Raid
During the 1593 raid by Bothwell at Holyroodhouse, whereby he forced his way to the King's privy chamber. I seem to remeber being taught that King James was chased, and had to escape without his hose on. I do not have any documentary evidence for this other than here

Anybody have anything further on this? Brendandh (talk) 09:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Legacy
Umm, the section on his legacy is pretty weak. This man becoming King of England basically laid the foundations of the United Kingdom today. It was by his royal decree the original union flag was created that is one of the most recognised British symbols in the world and was displayed on countless flags across the British Empire, and still today. Oh and as mentioned by someone in a section above just a moment ago, his version of the bible was pretty important.. yet missing from the legacy section, it gets just a brief mention in the church section.

His successes seem to be glossed over a bit. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. Although the main thrust in my last post above was about the title of the article, I referenced the KJV Bible to support his importance and accomplishments as James I. His influence in creating a foundation for Great Britain and the United Kingdom, the union flag, the KJV Bible, the importance of the Jacobean era (after all, not all monarchs get an era named after them), and what's already in the section should be expanded. Any other suggestions? Or even better, why don't you take a stab at expanding the section. Be WP:BOLD. — Becksguy (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

H&I
Added a section on this subject as predicted above. I don't have the McKinlay book and the quote is lifted from the article. I've have done what I can to ensure the style, links etc fit in. Why is the section called "Personal" rule rather than just "Rule" in Scotland? Ben  Mac  Dui  07:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Naked negroes
I've removed this section because it is poorly sourced. As Clare McManus writes in ''Women on the Renaissance stage: Anna of Denmark and female masquing in the Stuart court (1590-1619):
 * Most contemporary and intriguing is an apocryphal incident in Norway during the Scottish marriage celebrations. Both Ethel Carleton Williams [in Anne of Denmark] and Kim F. Hall [in Things of Darkness] report an unsubstantiated incident in Oslo on the day of the wedding. Williams, in an unexamined expression on colonialist discourse, states that:
 * James arranged a curious spectacle for the entertainment of the people of Oslo. By his orders four young negroes danced naked in the snow in front of the royal carriage, but the cold was so intense that they died a little later of pneumonia.
 * Hall unpacks the racial assumptions of the description and performance, yet evidence for it remains purely anecdotal. Although the fact that this incident is mentioned by neither the Scottish nor Danish marriage accounts does not guarantee that it did not take place. I have been able to trace the incident only as far back as John Gade's 1927 Christian IV. Gade also offers no source for this information but makes a further, unsubstantiated, assertion that James brought the exploited black performers over to Denmark in his ships.

It becomes of further concern when examined in the light of "Moorish" or "Negro" performance in the late 1500s and early 1600s: such performers were not always black men, but were men blacked up, in the manner of Shakespeare's Othello. DrKiernan (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not that worried about the specific incident. It is related in the Collins Encyclopaedia of Scotland.  Perhaps they got it from your 1927 source.  What does concern me is that there is a 'dark side' to his character.  Here I would include the personal supervision of the torture of witches.  We should not 'whitewash' his life. - ClemMcGann (talk) 10:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm very curious to find an historical source for the Oslo incident mentioned above. David Stevenson, Scotland's Last Royal Wedding, John Donald (1997), 60, 109, prints the Danish Account as translated by Peter Graves. This mentions a troupe of blacked-up men in Edinburgh, whose role in the ceremony was crowd control. This was quite standard in Scottish civic royal receptions, but the Danish account insists their leader was a 'genuine blackamoor.' These performers wore shorts and ersatz gold chains. (And probably enjoyed themselves hugely like members of the present day Beltane Fire Society). I wonder if the Oslo story is not true, but as old as the 1640s. That might more interesting.Unoquha (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 1 (closed)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

James I of England → James VI of Scotland, James I of England — Per the above discussion, this seems the most neutral way of presenting the name of this monarch. Given that he was King of Scotland first and foremost, later becoming an English monarch. I have seen nothing in policy that would prevent this and assumed it was an uncontroversial move. Justin talk 19:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose The proposed article title is much too long, and does not reflect how he is widely known either popularly or in academia. I would however support moving this article to James VI and I, which is widely used and neutral. The Celestial City (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Which I'd also support, its the non-neutral nature of the current I object to. Justin talk 20:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose The only acceptable alternative title would be James VI and I. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Subverts a broken and inconsistently applied monarchist nomenclature guideline. Fix the guideline first. — what a crazy random happenstance 01:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose the above, but would support a move to James VI and I, there is no one else of this name in history so no confusion Brendandh (talk) 09:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would accept James VI and I as concise, precise, natural, recognisable and neutral. Of course it can be argued that the current title reflects that historically "James I of England" is more common than "James VI of Scotland", but if you look at books from the last 5 years there have been 7,440 using VI of Scotland compared to 5,940 using I of England. I suspect most modern scholars use "VI" when discussion Scottish matters, "I" when they're discussing English matters and both when covering British aspects. This article covers both countries. I see no good reason to use a form which is considered by some to be non-neutral when a neutral unambiguous form that is used commonly by reliable sources is available. DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with "James VI and I" (certainly preferable to the double title originally proposed), although I suspect that, pragmatically, the present title remains the most widely recognizable.--Kotniski (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. He was not king of Scotland foremost, anymore than Henry IV of France was King of Navarre foremost.  The only reason there's constant discussion of this article and not Henry IV's is because there's more Scottish wikipedians than French Navarrese ones.  Concern about systemic bias points us towards ignoring Scotland, not accommodating it, in the same way that we ignore secondary realms for every single continental monarch without ever encountering any controversy.  The title proposed is particularly awkward and forced.  I will say that while I don't see a need for a move, James VI and I would be fine, as a name that is actually used in secondary literature.  But I'd prefer leaving it where it is. john k (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say it is only Scottish Wikipedians who feel this article should be moved. As an English editor, I support the "James VI and I" formulation because it is widely used, and ackowledges his primary historical role, that of establishing the Union of the Crowns, much better than the current title. The Celestial City (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily Scottish wikipedians. But, basically, Scotland is much more familiar to English language wikipedians than Portugal or Navarre or Naples or Hanover or Norway or what have you, and there's more wikipedians interested in Scottish history than the history of those places.  So we get a constant drumbeat of people who want to include Scotland in James's title in some way, and absolutely nothing about the dozens of other personal unions that have existed over the last thousand years or so of European history.  As I said, I don't particularly mind James VI and I, because it's used in sources.  But I really hate it when people make arguments to support a move that are completely ignorant of precisely parallel situations that they don't care about.  We should decide the location of the article based on the most commonly used name.  James I and James VI and I are both commonly used by sources.  The former is probably more prevalent in all sources, but the most recent sources tend to use the latter.  The only question, imo, is how we weight those two factors.  Neutrality does not come into it, unless it comes into all the other personal unions.  If we view neutrality as the most important consideration, it demands that we treat Scotland in the same way we treat the Palatinate in Charles Theodore, Elector of Bavaria, Navarre in Henry IV of France, Bohemia in Vladislas II of Hungary, Norway in Charles XIV John of Sweden, Portugal in Philip III of Spain, Spain in Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, Naples in Philip II of Spain, Hungary in Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor, Castile in Ferdinand II of Aragon, and so forth. john k (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's the case, that, for example, Henry IV of France is also widely known by his title Henry III of Navarre and is often referred to by historians as "Henry III and IV", then I would support a move to that. But each situation is unique; Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and must follow primary and secondary sources rather than defining usage itself. The Celestial City (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a reasonable argument. As I said, I don't particularly oppose James VI and I, on the grounds that it (unlike the other examples) is used in sources.  But I get incredibly sick of all these other extraneous arguments that get made. john k (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes but that presumes British literature is not anglo-centric doesn't it? And relying on an anglo-centric literature would of course produce a neutral article?  In addition, dismissing opinions you happen to disagree with as "ignorant" is both patronising and offensive.  Justin talk 20:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Article titles are to be based on usage in reliable sources in English. If reliable sources in English aren't neutral, that is too bad, but we don't get to make up our own titles that are more "neutral".  "James VI and I" is a reasonable suggestion not because it is more neutral, but because recent sources often use that instead of "James I".  On the other hand, "James II and VII" would be unreasonable because, while equally neutral, it is not how he is actually referred to.  That this supposed concern with neutrality seems to stop at the Channel shows, in fact, that it is the opposite of neutral - it is special pleading. john k (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Which are the unanimous sources that you referring to? Furthermore, this is English Wikipedia, and last I heard both Scotland and England are still (officially) Anglophone nations.  You mention Charles John of Sweden, yet he is referred to in Norwegian Wiki as Carl III Johan  and in Swedish as . King Jamie Saxt is in a unique position in that he was the ruler of two countries which now share the same language. I think that in this instance, and for that of his grandson James VII and II, the manual of style should be the guide rather than the rule. Brendandh (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not unique, either. Castile and Aragon share the same language (more or less - I guess Aragonese is a different dialect from Castilian Spanish, and much of the former crownlands of Aragon speak Catalan); so do the Palatinate and Bavaria; Naples and Sicily; France and the part of Navarre ruled by Henry IV; Brazil and Portugal, and so forth.  One can come up with examples of other language wikipedias not doing this - the Habsburg kings of Portugal are listed in the Portuguese wikipedia under their Spanish titles, for example.  At any rate, I don't see what the point of this criterion is.  What I hate about these discussions is that criteria are constantly cherry picked - you basically just select enough criteria so that no other comparison fits precisely, and then declare that James I (or Elizabeth II, or whoever) is unique.  I don't care what other wikipedias do - this wikipedia has its own rules about how to title articles, and those rules don't differ depending on whether the subject was English-speaking or not. john k (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose per others. Oh you "assumed it was an uncontroversial move" did you? Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I did, if you wish to assume otherwise then thats your problem. Isn't it?  Justin talk 20:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't questioning your good faith, but hinting at the extreme lazyness and stupidity of that assumption. In fact a few seconds of research would have shown that tens of thousands of words have been expended on this highly controversial natter since 2003, and it has been the subject of many formal proposals before. It is also an FA; how likely is it that any of those can be renamed uncontroversially?  Now it is confirmed how little thought and effort goes into your nominations I will bear this in mind when I see them in future. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? You weren't questioning my good faith because sarcastic comments are such an effective means of communicating in text, they never ever raise tensions.  In fact I advise everyone to adopt sarcasm as often as possible as a means of ensuring everyone gets along splendidly.  I also advise calling others editors stupid and lazy because that is sure to defuse any prior annoyance an inadvertent spot of sarcasm has caused.  Heaven forbid any thought that perhaps an editor might have a point, that the article title may need some work, seeing as it has been "controversial" since 2003, surely that can't be because it is titled in a manner designed to cause offence to Scottish people.  No, best to label editors as lazy and stupid rather than ever concede they may have a point.  Justin talk 20:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we all calm down and stick to the issue at hand please? When the proposal was posted the first thing that occurred to me was that the poor proposer didn't know what they were likely to be in for, thinking the move would be uncontroversial. I was sure it would turn unpleasant at some point and sadly I was right. I can sympathise with Scottish editors arriving newly to this sphere and being surprised to find a significant Scottish king being labelled solely by his English designation but, being familiar with the sphere myself, I'm aware of the reasoning of both sides and the heated debate that it engenders. A quick check to see if the issue had come up before would have been prudent but savaging a new entrant to the debate for supposed "lazyness and stupidity" is patently unfair and politely pointing them to the copious earlier debates would have been more constructive. Rising to the bait isn't going to further the debate either. Do you want us to "bear...in mind" the sniping above when we view your comments or the strength of your arguments? I only want to be exposed to the latter henceforth please. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK fair point, rising to the bait wasn't the best move. Justin talk 22:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any need for assumptions at this point. It has been demonstrated to be a controversial move. john k (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I would have supported this move but it looks like a different proposal has started so I'll add my comments there.--Ykraps (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2 (closed)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 04:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

As suggested by the discussion above. Justin talk 20:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

James I of England → James VI and I To make it plain. Justin talk 20:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * NOTE: Last time this perennial proposal was formally proposed: Talk:James_I_of_England/Archive_4

Support as per above. Brendandh (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support per my above arguments; the terminology is not only neutral, but is widely used by historians. The Celestial City (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - King James I or VI (depending on where you come) was equally important to both nations; and as someone has already pointed out, he was king of Scotland first so I have no objection to his Scottish title coming first. I don't know how he was known outside the UK, After all the Scots and English aren't the only English speakers using this encyclopaedia. (thoughts?)--Ykraps (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Neutral/Very Weak Oppose. I would very slightly prefer to keep the article where it is, but the suggested title is also perfectly acceptable, and I have no strong objection to it, as recent historical works seem to be trending in the direction of using it instead of James I. john k (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. John K makes sense, but I'd prefer we be behind the curve on this one. Srnec (talk) 04:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose but less strongly than the other. This one leaves no indication of the kingdom, which will puzzle many non-Brits or non-native Anglophones. Johnbod (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That is also the case with other British monarchy articles, such as Queen Victoria and Elizabeth II. As the information regarding which kingdoms James reigned over is given prominently in the lead of this article, I don't think that issue should be too problematic. The Celestial City (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. I agree but what about James II of England and William III of England?--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 04:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * James II would need to be moved to keep things consistent but I don't see the need to move William III because most people using this encyclopaedia are native English speakers. I think that Dutch users using the English speaking version of Wiki would reasonably expect to find William where he is.--Ykraps (talk) 07:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If this move goes ahead, I would suggest starting a move discussion for James II of England, who for consistency it would seem prudent to move to James II and VII (James II of England and Ireland; James VII of Scotland), and William III of England, who would be moved to William III and II (William III of Orange, England and Ireland; William II of Scotland). I think it would be advisable to complete this move first however, before contemplating moving others. The situation is somewhat different as both those kings assumed the thrones of England and Scotland at the same time. The Celestial City (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse my ignorance, I was thinking William came after Anne (and the act of union), not the other way round. Tsk!--Ykraps (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * James II and William III are a lot more like Charles XIV John of Sweden than they are like James VI and I. Yes, he had a separate number in Scotland, but that number is virtually never used; I'd think "James II" and "William III" are probably even used in the context of Scottish history a fair amount of the time.  One definitely actually encounters "James VI" or "James VI and I" in the literature fairly regularly.  "James II and VII" and "William III and II" are basically pedantry. john k (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't be ridiculous? "that number is virtually never used" James VI is common usage in any post 1580s literature. James VII for his grandson is also used, William II ain't used as he was a consort King of Scots. No matter how the English take on it is in their kingdom, Mary was Queen Regnant in Scotland rather than her spouse, officially and her spouse did all in his power to disenfanchise his wife's northern kingdom by sabotaging the Company of Scotland. James of the fiery face was a great King of Scots, and I do disagree that any right thinking person would in the northern third of the British Island confuse him with Charles II's brother Brendandh (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant James VII and William II are virtually never used (and they really aren't). William II was not a king consort of Scotland, btw - just as in England, he was granted full sovereignty, as seen by the fact that he remained king after his wife's death in both countries. john k (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I think the page is appropriately named as James I of England. If his designation in Scotland is to be included in the title it should be included with the place name. In my opinion, the numbers (VI and I) are less important than the place, as the numbers on their own have absolutely no significance if they aren't attached to a place. On their own they lack context. If however the argument is that this is the 'common name', since modern usage leans towards this naming, it shouldn't mean that any historical titles should be voided and overwritten. Also, I remain unconvinced that 'James VI and I' is in actuality the clear cut and indisputable common name. I would seek to argue (perhaps controversially) that it's usage in modern texts as 'James VI and I' is a constructed attempt by modern historian to avoid bias. I will point out that this neutrality doesn't make it any more of the common name. Furthermore, an encyclopedia, especially one of the hypertext sort, is very different from a book, say on the Stuarts. An article, unlike a chapter in a book, does not have a predefined context, and so must strive to establish one as effectively as possible in it's title. I feel this cannot be done without the inclusion of a place. -France3470 (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether it is a "constructed attempt by modern historian to avoid bias" (certainly the "James VI and I" formulation has only become widespread in the late 20th/early 21st centuries), Wikipedia still must follow historical conventions. I don't follow your point about the need to include a place; many Wikipedia articles on monarchs, such as Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, William the Conqueror, Peter the Great, Queen Victoria, Elizabeth II and Juan Carlos I don't include countries. The Celestial City (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was struggling to get the wording right. My point was simply that since one cannot irrefutably declare the common name "James VI and I", then we must ensure it includes the country to establish context. The other examples you give are named that way because they are the common name. I don't believe in this situation and at this time it is possible to determine whether "James I of England" or "James VI and I" is the common name. My point about modern usage wasn't to be controvensial but just to point out that pages shouldn't be named according to common trends. We should wait till a term has become fully established before making a large and complex move such as this. I hope that makes more sense,-France3470 (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No it makes no sense whatsoever, we should continue supporting an anglo-centric bias where the world revolves around England and sod whatever any other common English language term is used. This is the English wikipedia not the sole domain of England and the English view is not the be all and end all view of the world.  James VI and I is in common use now, in part to redress centuries of English bias, its about time wikipedia followed suit.  Justin talk 20:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we please steer clear of nationalistic sentiment? As I've tried to explain, Wikipedia, as an enclyopedia, should use the terminology in widest use ("James VI and I" in recent histories, which has the benefit of neutrality). Wikipedia's role should not be to correct percieved biases. The Celestial City (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly but some editors need to realise their own personal biases and set those aside in the interests of writing a neutral encyclopedia. That isn't served by insisting only an anglo-centric view of the world is the only acceptable outcome and calling editors stupid for having the temerity to suggest otherwise.  Justin talk 22:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well this shows the way that the royal incumbents of Buck House describe him. Furthermore if one were to go into the great hall of Edinburgh Castle there is a period cartouche above the mantelpiece describing him as Iacobus Primus Brittaniae Franciae et Hyberniae Rex. Failing the James VI and I headline, he should be described as James I of Great Britain, regardless of whether this was unofficial during his reign. Brendandh (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * And this for his grandson Brendandh (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * He cannot be described as James I of Great Britain, not only because he was never actually King of Great Britain, but also because the numbering did not restart. William and Mary reigned as William III/II and Mary II, not as William I and Mary I; Victoria's uncle thus reigned as William IV (not William II). James I of Great Britain = a big no-no. He was King of Great Britain as much as he was King of France (only in title).Surtsicna (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well quite! Should he be known as James VI of England (being only the first James to rule Lloegr)? In much the same way as Dear Lizzie is EIIR, even in Scotland? Brendandh (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, as England and Scotland remained independent kingdoms throughout James' reign and beyond, until they were formally united under Queen Anne. As such, there were two different numbering systems in use. The Celestial City (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support The strength of feeling that is demonstrated in this discussion and previous ones indicates that the current title is not optimal and is considered insulting and bias by many readers who come here. I see no reason to insist on a title which causes offense when a common, concise, precise, natural and recognizable alternative that avoids this pitfall is available. It is cogently suggested above that "James VI and I" is a name recently constructed by historians to avoid bias, and that may be correct, but that is just why it should be used: it is a dispassionate and neutral name used by modern scholars. It is further argued that the proposed target does not include the country James ruled, but it can also be argued that neither does the current title! I do, of course, appreciate that "England" has meant "Britain and Ireland" in the past, and may still do in parts of the wider world, but in those and the neighboring islands now that is absolutely not the case. To most living in those islands today "England" incontrovertibly excludes two-thirds of James's dominions. It is further claimed that an encyclopedia must establish context in the article title since unlike a book there is no predefined context. I don't buy that argument; if you look in a written encyclopedia, the articles are most often simply titled "James I", "Charles I", "Henry I", etc. There is no need to include a country disambiguator in a print encyclopedia; it is only necessary to do so in an online encyclopedia because multiple kings with the same name cannot occupy the same page not because the article title must establish context. As I said above, I see no good reason to alienate readers with the current title, and sympathise with the wish to change it to a modern neutral alternative. DrKiernan (talk) 08:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, he was James VI of Scotland before he became James I of England. Also, he reigned over Scotland for 'bout 58yrs & England for 22yrs. GoodDay (talk) 11:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. I see a good reason for moving (the present ignorance of his (longer) reign in Scotland) and do not see any good reason for keeping at its present location. The place disambiguator is only needed if there were another monarch named James who ruled over two kingdoms in that sequence, which is improbable. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikipedia should reflect published scholarship. It shouldn't be leading a battle (or in the front lines) to use "a name recently constructed by historians to avoid bias". He is still commonly known as "James I of England".  When, and if, published scholarship changes, Wikipedia should change the article title. Noel S McFerran (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See the section above. In the last five years, "James VI of Scotland" is more common in published scholarship. DrKiernan (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Earl of Moray death date
Posting this here because I think there are more eyes on this. This article says that James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray was killed on 22 January 1570. However, the Earl of Moray's article says he died on 11 January. And James Hamilton (assassin) says that Hamilton killed the Earl on 23 January. All three articles have citation to an offline source. Can anyone confirm what the date should be? Thanks.  howcheng  {chat} 07:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Antonia Fraser in Mary, Queen of Scots, on page 486, says he died on 11 January 1570. This is a reliable source.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have since corrected all the articles to read 11 January 1570. Thanks for pointing this out.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking up on that!  howcheng  {chat} 09:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm glad you noticed the discrepancy between the dates.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, Fraser's date is a just a mistake in her book, and I have linked refs to Spottiswood's History, which gives the date as 23 Jan 1569/70 o.s.Unoquha (talk) 09:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Duyat6, 17 March 2011
edit semi-protected

Title should read "James 1 of England and V1 of Scotland"

Duyat6 (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: per the discussion above about the name of the article which ended with no consensus, the name has to stay as it is until a decision can be reached by the editors at large. -- gtdp (T)/(C) 18:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * More famously remembered as James I Of England. But most people know he was a Scot. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Introduction
I think the introduction should mention that he often styled himself as King James I of Great Britain and Ireland. (92.7.26.238 (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC))
 * It already does. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The title was King of Great Britain and Ireland. (92.7.26.238 (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC))

Blatant racism
James VI & I is how he is most commonly referred to. The reason for the title being James I of England is for no other reason than English nationalism prevalent throughout wikipedia. I doubt it will be changed but I just want a record that someone has called out the racism. Scotland is not less important than England; him being the King of Scotland was arguably his most notable feature as it led eventually to the union between Scotland and England (plus Wales); the reason it says James I of England is the same reason why British is never used as a nationality for people or even bands and the occasional TV programme or film where any Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish participation or funding is ignored. Racism pure and simple. 217.39.90.126 (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In the last formal discussion on the proposal, more people than not wanted to make James VI and I the title. So maybe, if someone can make a cogent case, it will eventually be changed.--Kotniski (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * My count is 7 against 12, that's no majority. And seriously, just how chippy do you have to be to think that calling James the first, who was the first king called James in England, "James I", is racist? FOARP (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Racism? That doesn't make any sense. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It makes perfect sense. I see you are Canadian Mr/Ms GoodDay, do your Acadian compadres enjoy having to use English? The racism referred to is not about colour or somesuch (as I assume you are alluding to), it's about cultural and imperialist inference of superiority by the majority being best in society agin an alternative minority. That's something well kent in your neck of the woods, and yet early Canada was always a collection of states never sovereign as were the Kingdoms of Scotland and England. Brendandh (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyways, the Kingdom of Great Britain didn't come into existance until 1707. Also, we can't use ...England, Scotland and Ireland in the article title. GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Failed for the usual reasons. DrKiernan (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

James I of England → James VI and I – Concise, precise, natural, recognizable and neutral. Twice as common in ghits, and more common in scholarly sources of the last 15 years. DrKiernan (talk) 07:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Can we have links to the 25 previous attempts to do this? Johnbod (talk) 09:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted above at 17:12, 12 July 2010 are 13 links to previous discussions. — Becksguy (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks; and since then there has been this and another just below it]], so this is merely the sixteenth proposal after all. My apologies! Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree it does feel like 25 discussions :-) Needs a new list which I'll do soon. — Becksguy (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Support The strength of feeling that is demonstrated in the previous section indicates that the current title is not optimal and is considered insulting and bias by readers who come here. I see no reason to insist on a title that causes offense when a common, concise, precise, natural and recognizable alternative that avoids this pitfall is available. Of course it can be argued, as indeed it has been on many occasions, that the current title reflects that historically "James I of England" is more common than "James VI of Scotland", but if you look at ghits, there are 630k for "James VI and I" and 313k for "James I of England". This reflects the growing consensus that references to the man should reflect recent historiographical changes giving more weight to his Scottish realm, and is driven by the very strong distaste in some quarters for the solely English form.

It was cogently suggested in a previous discussion that "James VI and I" is a name recently constructed by historians to avoid bias, and that may be correct, but that is just why it should be used: it is a dispassionate and neutral name used by modern scholars. It was further argued that the proposed target does not include the country James ruled and therefore does not establish context. However, it can also be argued that the current title does not include countries James ruled either! I do, of course, appreciate that "England" has meant "Britain and Ireland" in the past, and may still do in parts of the wider world, but in those and the neighboring islands now that is absolutely not the case. To most living in those islands today "England" incontrovertibly excludes two-thirds of James's dominions. If you look in a written encyclopedia, the articles are most often simply titled "James I", "Charles I", "Henry I", etc. There is no need to include a country disambiguator in a print encyclopedia; it is only necessary to do so in an online encyclopedia because multiple kings with the same name cannot occupy the same page not because the article title must establish context.

The suggested target meets four of the five criteria of the applicable guideline Article titles, and is in line with the section in that guideline on neutrality. According to Naming conventions (royalty and nobility), article titles should use the most commonly associated numeral and state. As shown by ghit counts, it is more common to use "VI and I" than "I of England". WP:NCNT also states that "the country can be omitted, [if] it is unnecessary, against usage and possibly problematic". It is unnecessary to add a country to "James VI and I" because there is no other "James VI and I". "James I of England" is increasingly against modern usage. Including "I of England" is problematic, as shown by the repeated attempts to change the article title. DrKiernan (talk) 07:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * COMMENT. I don't find "avoiding insulting people" arguments in article name disputes terribly convincing. We are not seeking to avoid insulting some Wikipedia editors when we choose names for articles. We are in general seeking the most widely used common name for something. This debate should be about the accepted common name. Globally and in the English language, I'm pretty sure that's James I. We could also go on to discuss analogous entries where kings moved from one territory to another and the weight of evidence there is against the change, but we can't just use fear of offending editors as the main reason. This is particularly true because vocal nationalist activists are over-represented amongst the UK and Ireland Wikipedia editor communities. There is no implicit "bias" in using a historically widely used name as such. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There are twice as many ghits for "James VI and I" than there are for "James I of England". So, the suggested target is the more common name. DrKiernan (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And there are at least fifty times as many uses of James I as either of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, I find Dr K's reasoning convincing. The proposed name is a common one, and removes perception of bias.--Kotniski (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Bias arguments don't stack up and avoiding offence is not a sufficient reason. Similar articles about Kings who took on a new and larger territory typically follow the same pattern as this one. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. In fact, in England - his most important kingdom - he was known as James I & VI. ðarkun coll 09:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, as per the countless discussions in the archives above. Brendandh (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly Support Systemic bias in favour of English nationalism is long overdue for removal on this article. DrK's arguments do stack up, the proposed name is twice as common as the "English" name.  WP:NPOV should have seen this moved a long time ago, simply dismissing other national viewpoints just isn't acceptable.  Wee Curry Monster talk 13:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. He is much more commonly known as "James VI and I" than "James I and VI": 16,900 google books results for "James VI and I", compared to 3,710 for "James I and VI". That said, I also disagree "James VI and I" is more common than "James I of England". As said, there are 16,900 gbooks results for "James VI and I", but there are 46,800 results for "James I of England". However, in recent years (and by recent I mean the last 20 or so), "James VI and I" has become more common than the current title (see this ngram). Jenks24 (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose for all my (and other's) previous arguments, including that the naming convention for royalty WP:NCROY requires the form of: "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}", with a few exceptions, none of which apply here. "James VI & I" is ambiguous and imprecise as the obvious question would become: James of what country, and therefore he becomes unrecognizable. To include both crowns in the same order and following NCROY, it would have to be titled "James VI of Scotland & James I of England, France and Ireland". — Becksguy (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Elizabeth II is the current Queen of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, yet has no territorial designation on her article title, whereas King Juan Carlos of Spain does. There is no conflict or ambiguity especially between different Monarchs articles with the same name, as there are no other James VI & I's. So what gives? Brendandh (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Becksguy, as I said in my comment, the argument about "of what country" is already proven wrong, and the proposed target is permitted by WP:NCROY. You actually have to know he's king of England in the first place to type in "James I of England", so obviously people already know which king is being talked about before they even come here. BTW, it's James VI not IV. DrKiernan (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you DrK for pointing that out. James IV, instead of James VI, has been incorrectly used about five times since 2007, including by me. This typographical error prompted a comment in June 2009, quoting as follows from the archive: Two people in this discussion have now called him James IV instead of James VI, perhaps highlighting the unmemorability of the proposed title. James II of England would, by the way, have to be clumsily renamed—to James VII of Scotland and II of England and Ireland, one mother and father of a tricky and obscure formulation. To the commenter above who said that the Scottish crown could be added without adding the Irish one, the point is that Henry VIII retitled himself from "Lord of Ireland" to "King of Ireland". qp10qp (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC) I fixed my typo here but someone inexplicably restored the error. Fixing it again. — Becksguy (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose until James VI & I becomes more common than James I.  We are not anglocentric, we are anglophone. WP:NCROY says, and I cut-and-paste,
 * Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ordinal and state. For example, Charles II of England, not Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland; Philip II of Spain, not Philip I of Portugal''. It is often desirable to give the other states compensating prominence in the introduction of the article. Create redirects from other possible titles.


 * This was inspired directly by this issue; when this article included both numerals, we got complaints that we were omitting James I of Ireland; what limit is there to this line of argument? (Man, the Channel Islands, Nova Scotia, Virginia, Plymouth...) The argument is the same as with Phillip II; we should call James I by the simple name which most sources (especially those not involved with Scots nationalism) call him: James I, which in turn requires disambiguation from his distant ancestor, James I of Scotland. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to have misread the proposal. We're not suggesting a move to "England and Scotland", or suggesting excluding Ireland alone; we're suggesting a move which removes the necessity to have any of these countries listed. DrKiernan (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have misread neither the proposal nor the arguments for it; this proposal is supported as "fairness to Scotland"; it will be succeeded by the cry of "fairness to Ireland" if we do indulge in correcting the English language to promote the vanishingly rare over the commonplace because we don't like what most English-speakers do.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? Posting incomprehensible gibberish just makes you look a fool. The numeral I is still there, so why would any Irishman complain? DrKiernan (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Irish were justified in complaining last time; but they did. Similarly, those so emotionally committed  as to throw around personal attacks like "fool" and "gibberish" complain now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's obvious that your oppose is logically disconnected from the proposal. There is no reason to suppose that shifting to "James VI and I" is somehow anti-Irish. You are taking the arguments on bias and fairness to a far more absurd extreme than any other person here. DrKiernan (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See reductio ad absurdum. All arguments about bias and fairness should be removed from the topic, unless one is presented which is not "you have to do what I want, because I think it's fair." This applies equally to the Irish and the Scots complaint. But the existence of both does mean that appeasing one of them will not end the tumult; the other will continue to complain. The only other argument is a red herring, which ignores the fact that of England as as much disambiguation here as with Henry IV of England. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For example, there are several kings and an emperor who are most commonly called Henry IV; their articles are titled Henry IV of England, Henry IV of France, and so on. The same holds for most kings; see James I, Robert I, and so on. From WP:NCROY.
 * You've also made the same mistake as Jamesinderbyshire. Most sources now use "VI and I" not "I of England" or "I and VI",Clarified. DrKiernan (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC) so your comment "we should call [him] by the simple name which most sources call him" is actually in support of the move. DrKiernan (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * An even redder herring than it was last time; James I is the common name, by a factor of almost 100; but we need to disambiguate it. Our standard method of disambiguation is by principal country of reign; it is easier here because he wasn't James I in Scotland. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Google Ngrams graph is pretty definitive and backs up the common sense "feel" that James I is likely to be the best-known global en-usage. I'm happy though to continue being held up as the exemplar of Mistaken People in this thread. :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with that ngram is that we are not naming the article "James I". If you actually look closely, you will see that since the mid-1990s "James VI and I" has become more common than "James I of England". Jenks24 (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is an incisive solution: call this article James I as WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, over James I of Scotland, of Aragon, and so on. This should also mean abandoning our system of naming British monarchs; the only disambiguations will be the handful of cases where Scotland has used the same name and numeral for a different monarch: James I, James II, possibly Mary I, possibly William I, although we seem to be managing with the Conqueror and the Lion. I doubt this will appeal to anybody who supports this move; but let's see. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. WP:NCROY is often used as an argument as if it was some kind of policy, but it clearly states that in the opening paras that "It is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English". I am sure editors find this ongoing debate tedious, but the reason it is more-or-less continuous is simply because, whatever the intentions or motivations involved, the current title strikes many of us as deliberate POV pushing. (One of the more frustrating aspects of the debate is its lop-sided nature - it is very difficult to think of a credible example of a possible change to an article about a prominent English individual that would have a similar impact. Winston de Churchill? Margaret That Jer? George III of the Limies? Hardly.) James VI and I is an essentially neutral as well as common name and I commend it. Ben   Mac  Dui  18:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "My POV is essentially neutral." Where have we heard that before? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Think someone has had an ale or two. Brendandh (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. WP:SOVEREIGN is clearly worded. --FormerIP (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No it bloodily well isn't. Brendandh (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, so what's the ambiguity in it that might be exploited? "Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ordinal and state". That's clear. --FormerIP (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, a quick Google search: 17,300,000 for James I of England, 2,010,000 for James VI of Scotland, yet 29,000,000 for James VI and I, 151m for KJ of GB tho', even tho' GB didn't exist 'til Queen Anne. Quite clear that these results are from copy sites of WP etc. In my book that is a bit of Goebbels-isation. Listen this is getting really, really boring. James Stuart became the King of England following a very long and successful reign in Scotland, he is known most commonly as James VI and I now, the Tudor Rose failed to provide a flower, and Jamie Saxt took the reins. The man spoke Scots even when he was on his deathbed. What are your parameters for "most commonly associated"? The man was even known in in England as the 'Scots King' especially with the 5/11 conspirators. This article should be renamed. This is not about nationalism as per those above, but corrct nomenclature.Brendandh (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Your Google search was too quick. If you had remembered to put your strings in quotes, you would have got 650K for "James VI and I", compared to 9 million for "James I". Plus you're missing the point. The wording of WP:SOVEREIGN actually excludes "James VI and I" from consideration. We need to pick one ordinal and one state.
 * If you're finding following this discussion boring, there's an obvious solution to that. --FormerIP (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The searches for "James I" don't work well, because it doesn't distinguish between "James I and VI", "James VI of Scotland and James I of England", "James I of England (VI of Scotland)", etc. You have to look at the individual hits to see what they actually say. DrKiernan (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Google hits are not a good way of deciding questions like this. But the main point is that, regardless of what you get from Google, the guideline takes "James VI and I" off the table. --FormerIP (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't think WP:COMMONNAME should be the be all and end all of naming. Any reputable encyclopedia maintains some sort of style guide. Fussing too much over this would give us Princess Diana, Princess Grace, etc. The double numeral itself may be enough of a disambiguation but I do think England was the dominant kingdom of the time. Seven Letters 01:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is also true that where possible, Wikipedia should play an educative role, using names for things as ways of illuminating less well-known facts. I'm just not sure that's right in this case - might it not actually confuse many people in that crucial "at a glance" moment when you arrive at the article and wonder if it's the "right" one? Despite all the talk here about increasing acceptance (amongst academics maybe?), I doubt that most people know him as "James I and VI" or as "James I of England and James VI of Scotland", although the latter is more widely known than the former. Also, what did he call himself? Is it not the case that he became the lead exponent of being known as "James I of Great Britain"? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In contemporary writing, he is "King James the First". Kauffner (talk) 10:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct, he did proclaim and style himself as King of Great Britain in 1604, after succeeding to the English, Irish, & French crown in 1603. However, the Kingdom of Great Britain didn't actually exist until 103 years later with the Acts of Union 1707. — Becksguy (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose His common name is "James I". England "James I" -wikipedia gets 85,700 post-1990 English language Google Book hits, compared to 6,960 for England "James VI and I" -wikipedia. The "of England" suffix reflects the unfortunate mutilation of his name by NCROY. The low number of hits for the phrase "James I of England" tells us only that the RS doesn't follow NCROY. Kauffner (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There are 89,200 hits for England Scotland "James I" -wikipedia, which include "JAMES I. and VI", "the accession of James VI of Scotland as James I of England", "JAMES VI/I (1566–1625) king of Scotland [as James VI] and England [as James I]", "James VI in Scotland and James I in England.", "James VI King of Scots also became King James I of England", "James VI King of Scotland (James I King of England)" and so on. So, there are more hits for the double numeral than there are for the single. DrKiernan (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that within en-Wikipedia, of the many thousands of articles that link here, the overwhelming majority use the form "King James I" as the text covering the link. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I don't feel strongly, but I think this is a waste of effort as it will displease as many people as it will please. Deb (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I appreciate why Scots may be upset by it, but James I is the common name by which the king is known to history outside Scotland. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per the arguments above, every time this topic has come up. Outside of the UK he is almost exclusively known as James I of England. James I and VI (and James VI and I) should redirect here, as should James VI of Scotland. But it is an intrinsically parochial British (and almost exclusively Scottish) conceit to think that that would be how most non-Brits (or even just non-Scots) would think of him. The standard here is to use the single most-senior title for royals and nobles, otherwise we would have similarly-complex titles for an awful lot of German princes. -- OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Following is a list of the previous name change discussions, or discussions on his royal titles that could impact the article name, that relate to King James since the earliest talk page. Some are short, a few very short, but are included for completeness. There is a long history that shows an inability to form a sufficient consensus to change the title, including three previous formal Move requests that were closed as no consensus. The other threads died out. This ongoing move request is the eighteenth thread (by my count), and the fourth formal move request.
 * Talk:James I of England/Archive 1
 * Talk:James I of England/Archive 1
 * Talk:James I of England/Archive 1
 * Talk:James I of England/Archive 1
 * Talk:James I of England/Archive 2
 * Talk:James I of England/Archive 2
 * Talk:James I of England/Archive 3
 * Talk:James I of England/Archive 3
 * Talk:James I of England/Archive 4
 * Talk:James I of England/Archive 4
 * Talk:James I of England/Archive 4
 * Talk:James I of England/Archive 4 - Move request closed as no consensus on 13 June 2009
 * Talk:James I of England/Archive 4
 * Talk:James I of England/Archive 5 - Move request closed as no consensus on 5 November 2010
 * Talk:James I of England/Archive 5 - Move request closed as no consensus on 15 November 2010
 * Talk:James I of England
 * Talk:James I of England
 * — Becksguy (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This should tell you that the article is being held at a non-neutral name favouring an English viewpoint, ignoring other relevant viewpoints in the English language, is incongruous with modern scholarly references and utterly at odds with an encyclopedia professing to offer a WP:NPOV. It keeps coming up because it isn't neutral and doesn't reflect modern practise.  The comments in the oppose camp all reflect a strong bias toward an entirely English viewpoint and a reluctance to acknowledge other viewpoints.  So it will keep coming up. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Does it tell us that? Or does it tell us that nationalist activists are very active indeed in WP and repeatedly try to impose a modern nationalist viewpoint anachronistically onto historic names? Anyway, the weight of opinion is and always has been against the proposed move, so probably best to stop flogging the dead horse now. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't think it is I'm afraid, and I think that last shows a little Anglo-nationalism there. And where's the anachronism here precisely btw, Jamie the Saxt was in contemporary usage in Scotland before 1603. So a comparison, why isn't the article about Cnut the Great at Cnut of Denmark, because he certainly was king of there before England? At that point Denmark was arguably more important than England as per comments above regarding importance and the pecking order of of various states in the late medieval and early modern periods. James I of England is rather like calling Cnut, Cnut I of Norway.....James I of Great Britain or James VI & I would my choice.  Brendandh (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure about that, James. There were 20 move discussions at the Elizabeth II talk page before it was moved, but since it moved 18 months ago the page has gone quiet on the article title. I'm inclined to think that the title "Elizabeth II" had consensus for a long time but it was never moved just for the sake of intransigence. Consequently, I'm of the opinion that all these slow-burning move wars would evaporate if we simply listened to the other side and then used a title without nationalistic undertones. DrKiernan (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There has always been a systemic English bias in British history and, hence, the move in modern scholarship has been to address that. This is why the name used has changed in the modern context.  Wikipedia should reflect that, rather than clinging to outmoded names that stem from systemic bias.  There is an intransigence here, backed up with English nationalism that refuses to recognise the world has moved on.  Your comments about a modern nationalist viewpoint are incongruous when moving forward is being blocked by a myopic English nationalist viewpoint.  I agree with DrK, we should reflect NPOV and avoid nationalistic undertones.  Then the move wars will go away; it keeps coming up because the English majority frustrate change rather than any inherent superiority of the current position.  Wee Curry Monster talk 11:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What I think it tells us is that there is no right and wrong answer. If consensus is reached on this occasion and a move takes place, it is more than likely to be reversed or moved again at some future date.  Under the circumstances, I think that sticking to the naming convention is better. Deb (talk) 11:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Really. So could you tell me your personal reason for not moving to reflect modern academic usage?  Wee Curry Monster talk 11:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I just did. The titles of wikipedia articles should be selected on what is the best title for a wikipedia article, bearing in mind the purpose of that title (ie. to help visitors to the site find the article as quickly as possible and to avoid ambiguity).  This is not always the same as, for example, the best title for a book or the way the article's subject is referred to in the text of an academic work. Deb (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And I have yet to see any evidence that the Scotticism is more prevalent in "modern academic usage." Horse before cart, please.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, "modern academic usage" is not always the guide to naming - there are thousands of article names in WP that avoid the academic name for things and instead use the one in wide popular usage. The Elizabeth II one is actually an example of something different - the need to use commonname above some name that meets internal WP style norms. I think the name issue here is not fundamentally a nationalist one (and shouldn't be - we agree about that at any rate) - it's fundamentally one of what the Prime Name and what the Common Names are. However it may be that the "of England" part is wrong, as with Elizabeth II. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, this stems from a systemic bias in favour of England in British history. The modern nomenclature has changed to James VI & I to reflect this and changing to the modern term would be compatible with WP:NPOV.  WP:NPOV is a policy, whereas WP:NCROY is just a guideline.  WP:NCROY is not an excuse for perpetuating a bias in favour of a particular national narrative.  Wee Curry Monster talk 13:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * According to NPOV, however: If a name is widely used in reliable sources ... and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. --FormerIP (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I don't dispute that it is biased. However, I don't regard the proposed alternative as a better article title. I might have thought differently about, for example, "James VI of Scotland and I of England".  Deb (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Which was IIRC the exact title when we got the "How about Ireland?" movement. I remain ready to consider James I. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Really Deb? When I innocently made such a move see presuming it was not a controversial measure, I got a ton of crap for daring to mention the Scottish word in the title.  The last time there was a clear majority in favour of a move, the strength of argument was in favour of a move and yet it was still closed as no consensus to change.  There are a lot of editors deterred from editing as any attempt to change is opposed.  And as we see above, English nationalists dismiss any other viewpoint in a manner that is patronising and disrespectful to other viewpoints whethere Scottish, Irish or Welsh.  Wee Curry Monster talk 20:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. I have no opinion about this that is based on my own national heritage or background, but I do agree that "James VI and I" has become the favoured way to refer to this king, especially by academics who wish to remain a veneer of neutrality. It is certainly more common than "James I of England". Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose We are gradually moving away from following WP:NCROY as rigidly as we have done in the past, but there should still be a clear preference for following it. "James VI and I" does have a certain currency, but is not clearly more common than the current title, if people are getting into arguments about google searches etc. it suggests that this is not a clear-cut issue.  This move opens a can of worms, with the potential for a lot of other move discussions,since there have been many other dual monarchs in history e.g. his grandson James II of England, who in Scotland is sometimes known as James VII.  Scots patriots might accept the current title since it acknowledges that Scotland did lose a degree of independence at the Union of the Crowns, he said that he would come back every 3 years but he only came back once, some later monarchs during 1603-1707 never visited Scotland at all.  The proposed title is Brito-centric since it assumes a basic knowledge of British history. PatGallacher (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I notice a trend in other Wikipedias to either go for "James I of England" or "James I of England and VI of Scotland". I like both of them better than "James I and VI".-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 14:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose as usual. The question of whether "James VI and I" is more common than "James I of England" is utterly irrelevant, and is, at any rate, a loaded question, since one almost never sees monarchs referred to as "Name Numeral of Place" in second reference, or even in first references when disambiguation is unnecessary (i.e., no work on English history is really going to say something like, "this would change in the reign of James I of England," because it's obvious from context that he's the king of England).  The proper question is whether "James I" is more common than "James VI and I."  It is, and so we get this title.  Alternately, we could have James I, since I'd say that this James I is probably a primary topic, getting far more discussion than James I of Aragon or James I of Scotland. john k (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that "James I" is commoner is not in question. The question is whether "of England" or "VI and", is now the commoner and or a fairer disambiguator. DrKiernan (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is what you say the question is. I do not have to accept the way you have laid out the issue, and I don't accept it.  If we must disambiguate "James I," we should follow the naming convention and disambiguate by country.  If we're going to ignore the naming convention, then I think that by general naming conventions he is the primary topic for James I and that this is a better title than James VI and I.  Your laying out of the case would seem to universally forbid parenthetical disambiguation for anyone with a middle name, since. "Firstname Middlename Lastname" is almost always going to be commoner than "Firstname Lastname (parenthetical explanation)".  john k (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.