Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 21:12, 28 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the James VI and I article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days

	James VI and I is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	James VI and I is part of the Gunpowder Plot series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 19, 2005.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 13, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted April 28, 2007 Featured article review Kept June 14, 2007 Featured topic candidate Not promoted January 28, 2011 Featured topic candidate Promoted October 19, 2011 Featured article review Kept Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 24, 2004, March 24, 2005, March 24, 2006, July 24, 2007, March 24, 2008, March 24, 2009, March 24, 2010, March 24, 2011, March 24, 2014, March 24, 2016, March 24, 2018, March 24, 2021, March 24, 2023, July 24, 2023, August 30, 2023, and August 30, 2024. Current status: Featured article

This  level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Peerage and Baronetage / Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as High-importance). Scotland High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. England Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics of the United Kingdom High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity: Catholicism / Anglicanism / Reformed Christianity High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Reformed Christianity (assessed as High-importance). LGBTQ+ studies: Person This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies This article is supported by the LGBTQ+ Person task force. Scottish Royalty Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scottish Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scottish Royalty on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Scottish RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject Scottish RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject Scottish RoyaltyScottish royalty Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. English Royalty Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Royalty. For more information, visit the project page.English RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject English RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject English RoyaltyEnglish royalty Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. London Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Bible Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Biography / British / European / Early Modern This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force British military history task force European military history task force Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

Legacy

Seems to be a decided attempt by certain determined sources to kill off any depiction of his as one of the few proto-Western rulers to have shown any sense, mercy or progression. Seems as though we need some less ideological based sources to correct this, not like sources that say things like "He said or did this bad thing once, common by times as it were, he is defined by it forever." 113.197.13.138 (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Please do not remove additions to ancestry charts

Please do not remove additions to ancestry chart as it adds easily understandable context to the page which does not violate any notices Chonky edna 2.1 (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Please do not expand this section. Four generations is more than sufficient to explain the context and additional of all great-great-grandparents introduces irrelevant material that is incompatible with WP:NOTGENEALOGY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. DrKay (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Don't expand the ancestry chart. As DrKay points out, we limit them to four generations. GoodDay (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed - don't expand either in this article or the others where you have done the same. @Chonky edna 2.1: you are the one the one that needs to persuade other editors of the value of your addition per WP:BRD. Don't re-add unless and until there is consensus for it. 18:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Puzzling character sentence in the lead

Can we get a hint in the sentence, "Anthony Weldon claimed that James had been termed "the wisest fool in Christendom", an epithet associated with his character ever since" of why?

It's puzzling in context as it suggests the Bible translation and Prayer book are the cause? Why? The footnote does not clear it up. Henry of France famously had to deal with violent religious problems (even converting), as did much of Continental Europe. And a similar thing occurred in England but after James. So it might suggest, others thought he was not threading the needle of religious strife "wisely" (encouraging both sides?) but maybe that's not it. It's confusing or begging for a bit more info, as is, I think. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Julian and Gregorian Calendars **Important**

The dates for the death of Gregorian vs Julian is really confusing when you look at the death. It starts to make you wonder if the Burial Dates and the Birth Dates are Gregorian or Julian. I myself wonder this too and I feel like we should be clarifying if it is one or the other. It also makes you confused with other articles preceding the time changes. For example: Was the Birth Date of when his father was born Julian or Gregorian. This isn't just going to be this article problem, it might end up having to change all the Misplaced Pages pages. This is really important and I would like to have thoughts on this please. Reader of Information (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Not really.

1. NS is specifically indicated, which would seem to imply unmarked dates are OS, especially since Britain didn't adopt Gregorian until the 18th century.
2. Gregorian was first introduced during James's life, so the birth date being Gregorian would make no sense.

Whether you know those details are don't, there simply isn't the ambiguity you describe unless you purposefully think too hard about it. Remsense ‥ 论 16:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Valid point. I probably was thinking too hard about it. I tend to do that a lot. Lol. Would that mean that the dates such as the birth date of his predecessor would be O.S. too? Reader of Information (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

See MOS:JG for the "rules". DeCausa (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much. That's so helpful! Reader of Information (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm doing a geneology family tree of all the royals from every part of the world and I just recently noticed the N.S. and O.S. thing so I'm going to have to go back and fix it all to Julian. Reader of Information (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Point of pedantry: the Kingdom of Great Britain adopted Gregorian in 1752, a century and a half after James's death. Scotland adopted the calendar year starting on 1 January from 1600 but England didn't until 1752. DeCausa (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

If that's the case, then why do we have O.S. or N.S? Reader of Information (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

He might have been the King of Scotland but does that warrant the O.S. and N.S.? Reader of Information (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I see that you are a new editor. Here's a health warning: everything you see in the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" isn't necessarily right. Someone's decided it would be a "good idea" to add the NS date to the infobox. Who knows why. If you look at the body of the article the OS date of 27 March is the only one stated. Infoboxes and leads always attract "interesting" contributions. WP:SOFIXIT. DeCausa (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Although assuming makes a butt out of you and me which honestly I did assume that it was in the body of the article lol. I will keep that in mind. Thanks for pointing that out to a new editor like me. Currently editing a Misplaced Pages page using google translate as I noticed that links on the Misplaced Pages page of the original one are not on the English one and thought it might be helpful to add them. Working on that now lol. Sorry that I kind of went off topic with the reply. 😅 Reader of Information (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The entry says: Died 27 March (NS 6 April) 1625. That means that when he died, that day was called 27 March in that place (England), but some other parts of the world (Italy, Poland, Spain, Portugal et al) called exactly the same day 6 April. Most people don't care about the latter information. Except for those who may be interested in comparing events between countries where different calendars were employed at the time.

So, we could say, for example, that on the very day that James died, Event X also occurred in Madrid, but the Spaniards had a different date because they were using a different calendar. To the casual observer, Event X may appear to have occurred 10 days later, in real time, than James's death, because Event X happened on "6 April" whereas James died on "27 March", which appears to be 10 days earlier. But if the observer takes note of the parenthesised info, they will realise that there wasn't any time gap at all, just different labels being used for the same thing.

But I think you have at least half a point regarding the Scottish calendar in use since 1600. Moving the start of the year to 1 January from 25 March had the effect that, as far as the Scots were concerned, James died on the 86th day of 1625, but for the English it was still only the 3rd day of the year. But they both nevertheless called that date “27 March 1625”, so they were in agreement at least on that.

Now, if James had happened to die before 25 March – on, say, 18 February 1625 - then that would definitely have required a note as per your point. We’d be saying he died on 18 February 1624/25, and perhaps we’d be explaining that in one of his kingdoms (England), he died in 1624 because their New Years Day hadn’t arrived yet, while in the other kingdom (Scotland) he died in 1625 because their New Years Day had already occurred 7 weeks earlier on 1 January.

But because he actually - and conveniently for us - died two days after 25 March, then that issue disappears, and nothing needs to be said. -- Jack of Oz 20:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining, that makes a lot of sense. Reader of Information (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Questions like yours help me think through the Byzantine minefield that is the history of the Western calendar. The James VI/I case handily exposes all the main issues in one place. I'm far from a casual observer when it comes to discussions of the calendar, but setting it all out as clearly as I can takes quite a bit of thought. So thanks for the opportunity to think (I must try it again some time soon). -- Jack of Oz 20:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I asked this because I'm doing a genealogy project of the family tree of every royal in existence (almost but I'm getting there). That's why I wanted to ask this because I'm using Misplaced Pages as the basis of information just to put it together and then go back and find sources and confirm them. Right now I'm just editing articles out of boredom but I'll get back to it soon. Lol. Reader of Information (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Context Seems to be Missing

“On 19 September 1582, during James's imprisonment, John Craig, whom the king had personally appointed royal chaplain in 1579, rebuked him so sharply from the pulpit for having issued a proclamation so offensive to the clergy ‘that the king wept’.”

This line is referring to some unknown proclamation in the paragraph within which it falls. In other words since I know not what proclamation is being referenced, the context of the sentence remains to me completely unintelligible. 2600:6C4A:727F:16A:65DF:4B93:EA3D:3756 (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I would be inclined to cut it because it is from a 1904 biography of Craig not a modern biography of James. DrKay (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I for one would rather have more information than less, being myself ignorant on the topic. I also searched the entries of John Craig’s page and could not locate further information on his redress of the king in 1582; on this point, I am not arguing for or against accuracy but rather what exactly was the cause of such a significant moment to which the narrator of the statement in question is appealing to claim had resulting effects of which produced lasting significant impact upon the English speaking peoples. 2600:6C4A:727F:16A:84E2:EF8F:12AB:16E1 (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article: if an incident is not well-attested, then it shouldn't be included. Remsense ‥ 论 17:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok and this is the talk section of wikipedia where discourse is welcome. And I have legitimate question to which I would like a direct answer to which is as follows: what is the ”proclamation” being referenced.

Please do not reply if only you intend to dodge or deny the legitimacy of my inquiry. I believe that common courtesy is still part of the value set of Misplaced Pages. 2600:6C4A:727F:16A:84E2:EF8F:12AB:16E1 (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The talk page is for discussing improvements or changes to the article. It is not a reference desk. DrKay (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

IP, you can check the cited source just as any editor can. The source is Thomas Graves Law (1904). WP:OLDSOURCES. I looked at what Law had written (it's available through clicking the citation link) and he doesn't state what this proclamation was. He cites as his source Archbishop John Spottiswoode. There the trail went cold for me. What do you suggest we now do? This talk page isn't a helpdesk to answer questions on the subject. It's a place for those who edit the article or who wish to edit the article to collaborate and work out how the article can be improved. Given that you could have investigated the source of the information just as I have, do you have any suggestions on how this should be resolved? DeCausa (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Touché to the reference desk remark.

I was able to find the following on the web, which provides context for the imprisonment mentioned:

“There, the Lords Enterprisers provided their list of reasons for their actions called a “supplication” on August 23, 1582. Their demands included a pure Protestant regime, that had been approved by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The requirements also included tighter financial controls. Due to the Court’s excessive spending, the King owed £48,000 Pound Scots to the Earl of Gowrie, who served as Lord High Treasurer of Scotland.”

and

“From Perth, the King was taken to Stirling Castle and moved to several different houses over the course of the next year. During that time, Protestants Francis Stewart, Earl of Bothwell; James Cunningham, Earl of Glencairn; Laurence, Master of Oliphant; and John, Master of Forbes, joined the Lords Enterprisers. The Ruthven regime sent Esmé Stewart, Duke of Lennox, to Dumbarton Castle and then forced him into exile in France.”

(Source:https://www.clan-forbes.org/post/ruthven#:~:text=In%201582%2C%20William%20Ruthven%2C%201st,of%20William%2C%207th%20Lord%20Forbes.)

I might suggest adding this webpage as one of the citations to the article. I also will keep looking for more clarity on legal or religious proclamations made during that time. Thank you all for your help so far. 2600:6C4A:727F:16A:44D6:CAF9:132:43D (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

It's no good as a source on WP. See WP:BLOG. DeCausa (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• FA-Class Featured topics articles
• Misplaced Pages featured topics Gunpowder Plot featured content
• High-importance Featured topics articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• FA-Class level-4 vital articles
• Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in People
• FA-Class vital articles in People
• FA-Class biography articles
• FA-Class biography (peerage) articles
• High-importance biography (peerage) articles
• Peerage and Baronetage work group articles
• FA-Class biography (royalty) articles
• High-importance biography (royalty) articles
• Royalty work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• FA-Class Scotland articles
• High-importance Scotland articles
• All WikiProject Scotland pages
• FA-Class England-related articles
• Top-importance England-related articles
• WikiProject England pages
• FA-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• High-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• FA-Class Christianity articles
• High-importance Christianity articles
• FA-Class Catholicism articles
• High-importance Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Catholicism articles
• FA-Class Anglicanism articles
• Top-importance Anglicanism articles
• WikiProject Anglicanism articles
• FA-Class Reformed Christianity articles
• High-importance Reformed Christianity articles
• WikiProject Reformed Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• FA-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• FA-Class WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies - person articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies - person articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• FA-Class Scottish royalty articles
• Top-importance Scottish royalty articles
• WikiProject Scottish Royalty articles
• FA-Class English royalty articles
• Top-importance English royalty articles
• WikiProject English Royalty articles
• FA-Class London-related articles
• Low-importance London-related articles
• FA-Class Bible articles
• Mid-importance Bible articles
• WikiProject Bible articles
• FA-Class military history articles
• FA-Class biography (military) articles
• Military biography work group articles
• FA-Class British military history articles
• British military history task force articles
• FA-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• FA-Class Early Modern warfare articles
• Early Modern warfare task force articles