Talk:Margaret Tudor

"Single" great, not double
"Double great-grandson" is confusing, unnecessary and inaccurate. James VI and I (who was King of Ireland as well as King of Scots and King of England) was son of Mary I, Queen of Scots and Henry, Lord Darnley; grandson of James V, King of Scots and Marie de Guise; and (just) great-grandson of James IV, King of Scots, and Margaret Tudor. "Double great-grandson" implies the person is a great-grandson twice over - which, measured from James and Margaret, would be King George I of Hanover and Great Britain, because he's the great-grandson of their grandson; to wit: James IV & Margaret; James V, son; Mary I Stuart, granddaughter; James VI & I, great-grandson; Princess Elizabeth, daughter of James VI & I, great-great-granddaughter of James IV; Princess Sophia, granddaughter of James VI & I, great-great-granddaughter of James IV; George I of Hanover and Great Britain, great-grandson of James VI & I, great-great-great-grandson of James IV.

Clearly, James VI & I was simply the great-grandson of James IV and Queen Margaret.

24.4.205.205 (talk) 06:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, in part. In genealogy "double" is used to refer to 2 lines of descent. While James VI and I has 1 line of descent from James IV, he does have 2 lines of descent from Margaret Tudor: Margaret Tudor>James V>Mary Queen of Scots>James VI and I, and Margaret Tudor>Margaret Douglas>Henry Darnley>James VI and I.  So it would indeed be correct to say James VI and I is the double greatgrandson of Margaret Tudor through 2 of her marriages.

How important this fact is to the article I will let others judge, but it does increase the consanguinity index of James VI and I. 69.42.41.130 (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)HistoryLunatic

Reorganisation
I just did a fairly big reorganisation of the article as it seemed to have become a bit confused chronologically, with some material duplicated. However, I haven't really got the means to verify a lot of the statements (particularly after 1513), and it would be good if someone were able to do so. Mrabbits 21:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Crowns and Queens
I've carried out some emergency surgery on this page to correct serious errors of fact, which I note are now being duplicated on other web pages. The whole article shows an abysmally poor understanding of Scottish history-and of the character and political vicissitudes of Margaret Tudor. I will rewrite the whole thing as soon as I am able; but, in the meantime, here are the main corrections in fact and interpretation.

1. Scottish politics, both them and later, is not all about 'Highland clans', fractious or otherwise.

2. Margaret represented a pro-English faction in Scotland-though her politics and alliances were subject to change-but to write that "she openly believed Scotland should be part of the English Kingdom" is, quite frankly, unmitigated rubbish. Did she "openly believe" (as opposed to a closed belief?) that her young son should be deposed, and that Scotland should be annexed? If she declared this belief then her exit from the regency would have been considerably less dignified than it eventually was.

3. John Duke of Albany, in all respects but name a Frenchman, was invited to Scotland by the Council of Regency. Margaret married Douglas in 1514, which helped facilitate her removal from the regency in 1515. Albany did not manipulate himself into this position, as this article suggested.

4. Margaret returned to Scotland in 1517 while Albany was temporarily back in France, and remained, even after his return. She came not to "see her child" but first and foremost to dabble and intrigue in Scottish politics.

5. James was not held as a "virtual prisoner" by Albany or anyone else; not, at least, until his step-father got hold of him in 1525.

6. Albany was not driven out of Scotland. He left for France in May 1524 on business, intending to return in September of the same year. Before this could happen Margaret succeeded in obtaining a declaration that the royal minority was at an end. With no further function in Scotland Albany never returned.

7. When James escaped from Angus in 1528 he took full powers of state. He most assuredly did not join his mother and Methven in England. Where on earth did that come from?

8. As for Margaret's "unfailing determination to bring Scotland into a greater England" I have nothing to say about this, other than to flag it up for the ridicule and contempt it deserves. Rcpaterson 01:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've now begun a systematic rewrite of this whole page, to try to explain the true significance of Margaret in the history of Scotland. It's a complex subject which is likely to take a day or two to complete. Please excuse the lack of organisational tidiness while things are underway. Rcpaterson 02:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite complete, barring minor amendments. Rcpaterson 03:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think your edits are a little kind to Albany. You seem to be unaware or uninterested in the fact that Albany stood to gain by the removal of Margaret's son from power, as being in line for the throne himself. Margaret, like many others, were all too aware of the "princes in the Tower" and Richard III. She did not want a repeat of history. To think that Albany, who's father had himself tried to usurp the Scottish throne was wholly uninterested in a coup is a bit overly optimistic in my opinion. I will refrain from editing the page however. Otherwise seems fine. Agrippina Minor (This may not all be true)

In popular culture
The two paragraphs under this section need to be joined into one, as the second paragraph repeats information in the first... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.50.161 (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Her birth date
"Margaret Tudor (28 November, 1489 – 18 October 1541) was the eldest of the two surviving daughters of Henry VII of England and Elizabeth of York, and the elder sister of Henry VIII. In 1503 she married James IV, King of Scots, thus becoming the mother of James V and grandmother of Mary Queen of Scots. Most important of all, Margaret's marriage to James was to lead directly to the Union of the Crowns.  Fate, it was once argued, had intended Margaret to be Queen of Scots.  Born on 29 November, 1489, she was christened on the 30th — St. Andrew's Day — in St. Margaret's Church, Westminster, dedicated to Scotland's only royal saint."

When was she born? 28 November or 29 November? 87.250.116.18 (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Intro
The article proper starts with too dramatic a section. The Thistle and the Rose part feels like the beginning of a novel. It may be relevant for experts on the matter, but for general folk like me, it was too. Can we have a simple born on ... daughter of ... etc intro? Vinay84 (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Request move, Margaret Tudor to Margaret of England
Royalty is not known by surnames, but rather from the country in which they are from, example, not Isabella Trastamara, but rather, Isabella of Castille. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.222.5 (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That is how she is known in today's culture though.. there have been too many Margaret's of England. Why can't we have her page named Margaret Tudor, Queen of Scotland -- her sister has the page name Mary Tudor, Queen of France. Isn't that the usual label for women who become consort or queen regent of a country on wiki? --- Lady Meg (talk) 08:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't even agree with first premise, having in my hand a copy of that reliable source, Prince Alexandre Labanoff's Lettres de Marie Stuart, reine d'Ecosse.Unoquha (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Margaret Tudor is perfectly appropriate with or without "Queen of Scotland" tagged on. As stated above, there have been several "Margaret of England"s (more than one of whom married into Scotland). The reason her sister Mary is referred to as "Mary Tudor, Queen of France" is to differentiate from her niece Mary Tudor, daughter of Henry VIII who ruled England as Mary I. 69.42.41.130 (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)HistoryLunatic

Unneeded reference "...eldest surviving..."
"Margaret Tudor... was the elder of the two surviving daughters of Henry VII of England and Elizabeth of York (eldest to reach adulthood)..."

Edited for redundancy and awkward wording. Margaret was the eldest daughter, period. To add "...(eldest to reach adulthood)..." implies there were other daughters born before her who did not reach adulthood, which is not the case. Margaret and Mary Tudor did have 2 other sisters who died young but both were younger than Margaret. 69.42.41.130 (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)HistoryLunatic

Bad markup in "Proxy marriage and the new Queen's progress"?
Near the end of the 3rd para, there is this: "Her riding gear was burnt and a new sumpter cloth or pallion of cloth-of-gold harvtxt £127." Perhaps some reference markup that was mangled? Here's hoping that the editor that wrote the original citation can clean this up. Dgorsline (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Margaret's children
The article says that Margaret had a daughter who "died shortly after birth November 1512". However, with James V's birth, this child would only be at seven months gestation, so would it be dead shortly after birth... or a miscarriage of a child at 7 months? DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The term 'misscarriage' is typically used for the death of a foetus before 20 weeks. Her daughter was born prematureley, and since she isn't listed as a stillborn we can infer that the child survived a short time after birth before passing away. EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Dorothea Stewart
I can’t find a proper source that says Margaret had a daughter by her 3rd husband. On his page, they used two sources. The two sources after doing some digging come from The Peerage site that a lot of people use. When looking into the source by Alison Weir, the info is said to be “improbable” in her research and she isn’t even sure if her name is Dorothea. The other source listed is a Peerage book. “Mosley, Charles, editor. Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage, 107th edition, 3 volumes. Wilmington, Delaware, U.S.A.: Burke's Peerage (Genealogical Books) Ltd, 2003” pg 2768. Can anyone confirm what this source actually says? Lady Meg (talk) 04:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The Weir citation is sufficient to include her here as 'improbable' or 'possible', and even if she's included by Mosley, that still doesn't remove Weir's improbableness. So, I advise that we include Weir's uncertainty and forget Mosley. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)