Talk:Margaret Tudor

message: "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)
thread_title: "Single" great, not double

message: 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)
thread_title: Reorganisation

message: 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)
thread_title:  Crowns and Queens 

message: 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)
thread_title:  In popular culture 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Her birth date 

message: I don't have any books on Margaet, but this article is in desperate need of references, and I'd be grateful if anyone could help! At the moment, it reads like a well-written but partisan and opinionated student essay, rather than an encyclopedia article. I'm going to see how the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography can help. Boleyn (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The first citation occurs towards the end of the article!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Request move, Margaret Tudor to Margaret of England 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Unneeded reference "...eldest surviving..." 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bad markup in "Proxy marriage and the new Queen's progress"? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Margaret's children

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Dorothea Stewart