Talk:Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage.

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Henry Darnley, Duke of Albany

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Expanding and references

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

[edit] Birthplace

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