Talk:Margaret, Maid of Norway

message: We are running into a problem with Wikipedia naming conventions.  According to these conventions, if she was a queen regnant then she should be Margaret of Scotland, but so should 2 Scottish women who married foreign royals, and that's before we get to the Queens consort of Scotland.  I propose treating "Margaret of Scotland" as a disambiguation page and moving this page to "Margaret of Scotland (Maid of Norway)" on the grounds that she is not substantially more important or better known than the other Margarets. PatGallacher 17:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not how I see it. Either she's Margaret of Scotland because she's queen regnant (and that's your version, not mine) and thus substantially more important than a mere consort, or she's not queen, and thus not Margaret of Scotland, but rather Margaret of Norway. And in that case she'd be better known as The Maid of Norway or Margaret, Maid of Norway or something similar. However you slice it, she can't be Margaret of Scotland, Maid of Norway. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 21:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: A queen regnant is not invariably substantially more important than anyone else with a similar name, that is monarchist mysticism.  There must be umpteen examples of child monarchs, undoubtedly accepted as such, who had short reigns and never effectively ruled, John I of France is an extreme case.  This argument would apply even if she had been living in Scotland on the death of Alexander III and had a coronation or inauguration. PatGallacher 00:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It is one thing to be bold and move pages without soliciting views, it is something else to ask and then move a page when there's no consensus to do so. It only makes it worse that you edited the page this came from, thus preventing a simple revert, and left dozens of other pages now pointing to a disambiguation page instead of this one. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 09:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not Margaret, Maid of Norway?  For other dubious monarchs, we generally use a pure "most common name" rather than monarchical conventions - see Lady Jane Grey and Edgar Ætheling. john k 10:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I suggested that, and I presume that it was unacceptable because I suggested it. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 11:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it wasn't because it was you who suggested it.  It was because according to Wikipedia conventions she should be "Margaret of Scotland", the problem is disambiguating her from other people who Wikipedia conventions mean should also be called "Margaret of Scotland".  Lady Jane Grey was at Jane of England at one time, and in my view she should have stayed there. PatGallacher 13:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A masterful non-response that I'll surely keep in mind for future use. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 13:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Certainly, if we're going to call her "Maid of Norway", in any combination, we don't need "of Scotland"; it's for disambiguation, and there is no need to dab the unambiguous.  Septentrionalis 17:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Very well, you have persuaded me, sometimes a cognomen can be too well-established to challenge it, but I still think we should recognise "Margaret of Scotland" as a legitimate alternative term for her.  Do people prefer "Margaret, Maid of Norway" or just the "Maid of Norway".  (Although part of the problem with Alfred the Great is whether to call him Alfred of England or Alfred of Wessex.) PatGallacher 12:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *Which is one reason to follow overwhelming usage, and leave him at Alfred the Great. Septentrionalis 17:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *Of the two choices here, "Margaret, Maid of Norway" is much preferable; we should make clear that this article is about a person; this is how the CMedH introduced and indexes her.  For all I know, there is a Maid of Norway brand of butter which will begin linking here, if we do it the other way.  Septentrionalis 17:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *I have seen histories which introduce her as Margaret, called the "Maid of Norway, but continue calling her Margaret  on second reference. This would argue for moving her back to Margaret of Scotland as having Margaret as the most common name. (This does not imply, btw, that she was queen, either reganant or consort, any more than Joan of Arc does.] Septentrionalis 17:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming

message: I'm pretty certain that moving articles via a cut and paste move is not acceptable, so I reverted the attempt to turn this into a redirect. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 13:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll be wanting Wikipedia:Requested moves. Moving pages by cut and paste loses the page history which is not acceptable under the GFDL, the license which governs contributions to Wikipedia. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 14:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An afterthought: you'll also be wanting to copy the penultimate version of Margaret, Maid of Norway to a sandbox under your user page, because that, and its history, will be deleted as part of the move. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 14:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cut & paste move

message: The analogy with James I is not quite as close as the revision suggests. When Alexander III died, the heir was not Margaret but his unborn child by Queen Yolande, as discussed by Duncan, Kingship of the Scots. As far as the Guardians declaring Margaret to be Queen, that doesn't date from March or November 1286, but from the treaty of November 1289, a treaty written by Edward I. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 19:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: James I and Margaret; Margaret and the Cambridge Medieval History

message: I'm still kind of new to trying to improve Wikipedia, so I can't cite some guideline or anything, but I feel like naming one of the sections "Was She a Queen?" seems rather un-encyclopedic. Maybe something like "Title Controversy", or "Queenship Controversy", or something? I mean, not that it's a HUGE deal or anything, but...Cowsrhot (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Was she a Queen?

message: Are the translations of her names into contemporary Norwegian Bokmål really relevant? It would have been very alien to Norwegians of her era. If anything is to be included shouldn't it be the Old Norwegian (Old Norse) names? -- Nidator T / C 16:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporary translations 

message: The article was assessed C-class, for lack of in-line citations. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP: Women's History Assessment Commentary 

message: "Jomfruen av Norge" is a Norwegian translation of her English nickname "Maid of Norway", and it doesn't make any sense to have a (different) translation back to English in the article. I'm removing that double translation and the hidden note left by an editor as well. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maid of Norway 

message: Is it possible that she died of seasickness? I know that people who are sea sick feel like death, but they do not die from it.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: She is supposed to have died in Thrumster, Caitheness, wrecked on the coast. scope_creep (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of death 

message: Best to have a note pointing out the dispute of whether Margaret was queen of Scotland. Using designate suggested she wasn't, but was going to be. Also queen-designate appears to be a recently invented term. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a trivial matter that can be delegated to a note. There is a whole section dedicated to the matter, and the lead paragraph should address it very clearly too. I do not know what you mean by "recently invented term". As I have said, Margaret is defined as Scotland's queen-designate in the 2004 edition of ODNB by A. A. M. Duncan, an expert on the subject whose work is a major source for the content of this article. I imagine it is a compromise meant to reflect the uncertainty of her position. It might be helpful to read the #Queen regnant ? section too, as this was discussed 14 years ago. Surtsicna (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend a dispute note, for the intro. Notice that we don't use Queen-designate in the infobox heading. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have explained why the note is a bad idea. Repeating it without counter-arguments is not going to get us anywhere. The infobox does not call her queen-designate because the next field refers to a "disputed reign". I felt that it would be an overkill to have both "designate" and "disputed" in the infobox. Do you think both are warranted? In any case, please stop reverting. The content of the article is based on the highest-quality sources. Discuss here instead. Surtsicna (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Queen-designate is a ridicules looking term to use. We can at least adopt what's used at the Lady Jane Grey article's intro. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: We cannot mimic the intro of Lady Jane Grey because Margaret cannot be said to have ever been de facto queen. They lived in different countries, in different times, under different circumstances. The foremost expert on the Maid of Norway calls her queen-designate in, mind you, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. This means we need a better reason not to use this term than your assertion that it is ridiculous. Surtsicna (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: A supposed reign of 9 days, compared to a supposed reign of 4 years? Yet, we're going to treat Jane as more likely queen of England, then Margaret as more likely queen of Scotland? GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Jane spent all of her supposed reign in her kingdom. Margaret never set foot in it. And we are going to treat people the way experts treat them. That is Wikipedia policy. Surtsicna (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Primary sources are frowned upon. Using queen-designate is problematic. Since we're not going to agree on this matter, it's best to wait for input from others. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you on about? What primary sources? Surtsicna (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a primary source to me. Anyways, best to let others chime in. Given the low traffic on this article? that may take awhile. PS - I notify WP:SCOTLAND & WP:UK about this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography seems like a primary source to you? The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography? Surtsicna (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

text: I hope you will also accept the definition of primary source and the expertise of people who researched the life and times of the Maid of Norway. Surtsicna (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

text: Does this mean we have to delete Margaret from the List of Scottish monarchs article? GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that would be wise. As the article explains (and it does so because the biographers emphasize it), Margaret is commonly found in modern lists of Scottish monarchs. Indeed, the aforementioned Reid argues that she was a Scottish monarch - despite having never commenced her reign. Her inclusion in that list should (and does) come with a caveat. Surtsicna (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think 'queen-designate' is fine and there is no need to remove her from the List of Scottish monarchs, which article explains the situation adequately. Keay & Keay's Collins Encyclopaedia of Scotland describes her as the "designated heiress to the throne".  The reference is Keay, J. & Keay, J. (1994) Collins Encyclopaedia of Scotland. London. HarperCollins. ISBN 0002550822 page 680 if you want it. Ben MacDui 10:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just never heard of the term "queen-designate" before, until I came across this page. I've seen the "-designate" thingy added to prime minister, premier, governor-general etc. Just not to a monarch. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

text: so we should replace "queen-designate" with "queen". GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

text: I sense no such thing. Describing her just as queen would not reflect modern historiography on the subject. The issue had already been discussed on this talk page, sources consulted and examined, and again, the consensus was against plainly defining Margaret as queen. Surtsicna (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That discussion occurred 14 years ago, with a late comment 10 years ago. Anyway, so far the interest in this topic 'now', has been like tumble weeds through a ghost town :( GoodDay (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that part of the problem here is that things like categories require binary solutions - is it in or not in? - but the issue is simply not black/white. Today we may have chosen to use language (e.g. 'queen-designate') that tries to overcome the challenge but I think that the answer to the question - was she a queen, or not a queen? is both 'yes' and 'no'. Ben MacDui 13:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was she Queen of Scotland or not 

message: With the review underway, reluctant to change anything, but on checking Duncan (p. 179), he says that Fraser only may have met Edward. Here is some alternative wording for you to look at:  William Fraser, Bishop of St Andrews, one of the guardians of Scotland, was out of the country in early August and it is possible that this was for a meeting with Edward.  Nevertheless, Margaret was still with her father and the Scots could only observe the negotiations between the two kings. --Bill Reid | (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, Bill Reid; Barrow also notes that there is uncertainty about whether they met. What do you think about doing away with Fraser? Perhaps the article would do just fine without mentioning his mysterious expedition. Surtsicna (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, agreed.  I like the point that the Scots were really bystanders and that the negotiations were king to king, though. Bill Reid | (talk) 10:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Lady and queen, 2nd par.

message: As she was the de jure Queen of Scots, her name in languages of Scotland should be shown, alongside her name in Old Norse, Bokmal and Nynorsk, the languages of Norway, her homeland.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.64.242.247 (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name in Scottish Gaelic and Scots 

message: Hi, how come the family tree is restricted to UK royalty, and not including the family tree of her father? 84.208.65.62 (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family tree