Talk:Mary of Modena

Vital dates
Burke’s Peerage says she was born at Modena on 25 September 1658. This is the Julian calendar's equivalent of 5 October 1658 in the Gregorian calendar. Italy had been using the Gregorian calendar since its inception in 1582, so either:
 * (a) Burke's converted 5 October 1658 to the relevant Julian date for the sake of consistency, given that they were describing a queen of England and England was still Julian at that point, or
 * (b) they just got it wrong, or
 * (c) she really was born on 25 September in the Gregorian calendar, and everyone else who says she was born 5 October has got it wrong. If this scenario is correct, the appropriate Julian date would be 15 September.

Burke's also says she died on 8 May 1718, whereas we prefer 7 May.

Anyone have any comments on this? -- JackofOz (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Mary of Modena was born 5 October 1658 in Italy, which is the correct date as this is also the Gregorian Calendar date. The English used the outdated Julian calendar, thus subtracted ten days from Mary's DOB. Her correct DOB should read 5 October 1658. The English did the same thing with Henrietta Maria and the French did the opposite with her daughter Henriette Anne when she went to France to live.--jeanne (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Some proposals
It is amazing how this article was changed since the last time I read it. Congratulations to User:Jack1755 - this is surely going to be another Good Article.

I propose referring to James Francis Edward as James Francis Edward. That's NPOV (as we do not imply that he was King James III/VIII) and much less confusing. Of course, it should be noted that he was recognized as James III/VIII by the Jacobites and some European rulers.

Precedents were sought for the Queen because a full-length joint coronation had not occured since the days of King Henry VIII.[59] Weren't James I and Anne of Denmark crowned jointly? Surtsicna (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Surt'! Yes, they were, but Oman relates that the coronation "had been hurried through, almost privately, because of an outbreak of plague". As for JFE, I completely agree. -- Jack1755 (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to the coronation of James I and Anne of Denmark? If so, I propose explaining the situation. How do you feel about replacing:
 * Precedents were sought for the Queen because a full-length joint coronation had not occured since the days of King Henry VIII.[5
 * with
 * Precedents were sought for Mary's coronation because a splendid joint coronation had not occured since the ceremony performed for Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon. If I understand correctly, the coronation of James I and Anne was simple compared to a normal English coronation. Surtsicna (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me! -- Jack1755 (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The Queen, melancholy from the King's affair with Catherine Sedley, Countess of Dorchester, who had recently returned to England, moved into new Christopher Wren-designed £13,000 apartments in Whitehall, home to a Catholic chapel since December 1686, in February 1787.

No matter how much I tried, I couldn't understand this sentence. I tried to reword it, but whenever I finished one part, the next one wouldn't fit in. Could you please reword it, perhaps by dividing the sentence into three or at least two plain sentences? Is it supposed to say that Mary was melancholical because of James's affair? Who moved into Whitehall apartments (Mary or Catherine)? Did she move in in February 1787 or what? Non-native speakers like me can't make heads or tails of this sentence :) Surtsicna (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Queen dowager
The section abut her after 1688 is named "Queen ower the water", but did she not become queen dowager in 1701, even in the eyes of the jakobites? Perhaps its better to remove the years of the section-title. --Aciram (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

She's called Queen over the Water in reference to being the consort of James II, not Queen Dowager. As his death she would have became Queen Mother, so the title is right. - Croix 129 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:8300:64D:948F:4A56:A4AB:BBFE (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Succession as Consort
In 1685, Mary succeeds Catherine as Queen Consort of England upon Charles II's death and James II's accession. Judging from the table, this is the only instance of such an event (one consort instantaneously replacing another with no vacancy between) between January 1066 (Ealdgyth replacing Edith) and May 1910 (Mary replacing Alexandra). Given that one is (just) before the Norman Conquest and the other is after two unifications, this event might be described as unique in the history of the Kingdom of England! Robin S. Taylor (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)