Talk:Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley

message: Surely the name should be 'Stewart', as in The Complete Peerage and the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography? As stated below, 'Stuart' is the French version so it would apply to Mary and was adopted by their descendants... but Darnley was a Stewart, no? Roryharrow (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The citations in the article seem to prefer Stuart. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Stewart or Stuart

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Should that be,  the "dukedom" of Albany,  or the "duchy" of Albany ?  I think duchy is incorrect.Eregli bob (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  "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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Henry Darnley, Duke of Albany 

message: 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)
thread_title: Expanding and references

message: The first note: "Iure uxoris" or "Jure uxoris" is Latin expression means "by right of so's wife". This expression is used without a preposition, so the preposition "de" is not needed in front of it. In some occasion bare Ablative can take place, so the category "De jure uxoris kings" is a wrong form! The second note: "Iure uxoris king" is the synonyme of the king consort, so Henry Stuart, who was King of Scotland by right of his wife, is the most suitable member of this category as the first husband of Mary the Queen of Scots, Francis II King of France.Borgatya (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to correct the categories and create a new one. (Category:Iure uxoris kings?) If you need help with replacing de jure uxoris with iure uxoris in articles, I'll help. I disagree, however, that iure uxoris king is the synonyme of the king consort. The former is a monarch who reigns during his spouse's lifetime and has a monarchical odrinal. The latter is an equivalent of queen consort and therefore king consort is not a monarch, but merely the queen's consort who holds the title of king and has no monarchical ordinal. The subject of this article is not known as Henry of Scotland. he is known by his premarital name and title, which implies that he was a king consort. Surtsicna (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I know the basics of Latin (1 on the scale 1 to 5, as I claim on my user page). It means the same, but it's not used in the same context. In English language, king consort is used to describe a queen's husband who doesn't reign alongside his wife. Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley is one example. A man described as iure uxoris king reigns with his wife and he is considered to be co-monarch. Sigismund of Luxembourg is one example. Surtsicna (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I do not understand. All your examples confirm what I said above. Ferdinand II was king during his wife's lifetime and Ferdinand V was king of Castile during his wife's lifetime - therefore they were iure uxoris king. They obviously ceased to be kings upon their first wife's death, since their second wives didn't get the title of queen. As for John II of Navarre, he is considered an usurper from Blanche I's death until his own death. Martin and the others were iure uxoris kings during their wife's lifetime and elected kings from their wife's death until their death. These men are considered monarchs, while Henry is always put among the royal consorts. Surtsicna (talk) 10:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Iure uxoris

message: This paragraph reads as though it were copied & pasted from elsewhere in the article. It might be a good idea for someone so inclined to clean it up so it doesn't read as though prefacing information has been removed.
As Queen Elizabeth I of England resented the fact that one of her (former) subjects had been promoted in this manner and refused to recognize his Scots titles, many of the contemporary narratives describing his life and death (those written by English agents) refer to him as Lord Darnley, his title as heir apparent to the Earldom of Lennox, and it is by this appellation that he is now generally known.[1]Jedikaiti (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: The Conspircy Theories section is seriously biased: a forthright assertion that Mary had no link whatsoever to Darnley's murder, rather than an impartial assesment of the evidence or an objective summary of other, widely-held viewpoints. It really needs a NPOV tag until this can be addressed. Gregory dj (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 9 March 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Henry-stuart-darnley.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Hello. 
I will be editing this page for a project for my college class. If you have any concerns, please contact the editor redcknight. Thank you very much.
-Shansen56  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shansen56 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revising 

message: The Lordship of Darnley is a Scottish title, why is it listed as English? 71.194.44.209 (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord Darnley an English title? 

message: On the 16th March a new editor came along and added a great deal of material, with some references and then went off into the sunset.  
They left behind this statement: 
::Darnley's father had been declared guilty of treason for his part in the ‘rough wooing’, and his Scottish estates were forfeited in 1545.[2]
Now admittedly, it's referenced. But no casual reader on this planet could possibly know what the "rough wooing" was, unless they already knew quite a lot about English/Scottish relations of the 16th century.  Can someone with an interest in this article go through it and fix it for possibly obscurities? 
Amandajm (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Does anybody watch this page?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140204015143/http://www.nationaltrustcollections.org.uk/object/1129218 to http://www.nationaltrustcollections.org.uk/object/1129218
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The first sentence in the second paragraph says that Mary "acceded" the thrown but it should be  "ascended" the throne.  Wallabyjoe (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of spelling errors, it's "throne", not "thrown".  --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

text: "Acceded" and "ascended" are both accurate; "succeeded" would be as well. J S Ayer (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling Error 

message: This sentence, "Mary's private secretary, David Rizzio, was stabbed 56 times on 9 March 1566 by Darnley and his confederates, Protestant Scottish nobles, in the presence of the queen, who was six months pregnant," seems to my rather ignorant gaze, to rate something more than a secondary paragraph under a section heading of, "Estrangement". 60.241.23.96 (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible bias? 

message: A coat of arms is captioned as Darnley's before his marriage.  The file describes it as the coat of arms of his father, Matthew Stewart, 4th Earl of Lennox.  Since Dad outlived young Henry, and two men cannot use the same arms at the same time, this cannot have also been Darnley's coat of arms.  This coat of arms does not appear in the article on the 4th earl, and the blazon contains a small discrepancy: it says the saltire in the inescutcheon is engrailed, while the illustration shows it straight-edged.  I hope someone with detailed knowledge of Scottish heraldry will mend this. J S Ayer (talk) 02:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat of Arms