Talk:Robert III of Scotland

message: In the succession box of Robert III. Stewart (that seems to be coded somewhere else) in the line for the heir to the Scottish throne, it should not be assumptive, but either apparent or presumptive; I vote for apparent as he was his father's (the king's) eldest son.  And the dates for life at the head of the box are those of his father.
--VM (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Succession box

message: :on April 4 1406 Robert died, probably at Rothesay, and was buried at Paisley. He married Annabella Drummond (c. 1350-1402), daughter of Sir John Drummond of Stobhall, and, in addition to the two sons already mentioned, had four daughters.
Would someone please clarify this passage by indicating who (Robert or his son James) was Annabella's husband? - Montréalais
:Robert III married Annabella Drummond, daughter of Sir John Drummond by Mary, daughter of Sir William Montifex.  James I, their son, married Joan, daughter of John Beaufort by Margaret Holland.  I'll change the pronoun to Robert accordingly. -- Someone else 22:20 Nov 16, 2002 (UTC)
:Burke's Peerage has year of birth 1368. Official Web Site of the British Monarchy says he was age 53 at his accession to the throne in 1390.
--ScottyFLL 18:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: If David died of starvation his death can hardly be described as 'mysterious.'  In fact, there is no contemporary evidence on the circumstances of his death, which,of course, does justify the mysterious label.  The starvation theory is plausible enough, but it is a later invention.
Rcpaterson 19:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  David duke of Rothesay. 

message: Egidia, or Elis, daughter of Robert II married 1387 Sir William Douglas of Nithsdale.
Egidia, also known as Jill, daughter of Robert III died young. It is unlikely she married.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shipsview (talk • contribs) 20:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children of Robert III and Annabella Drummond 

message: Christened John, but acceded as Robert.  
Is this the only case in British monarchical history where a person chose as his/her regnal name something other than one of his/her given names?  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  18:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I think he was the only monarch to take a name that he didn't already possess.  He got permission for this from the coronation parliament on or shortly after 14 August 1390. --Bill Reid | (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction.Permission was granted for name change in the general council in May 1390. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Name change

message: This article states that Robert was coronated on 14 August 1390. However, List of British coronations says it was 18 August, so which is the correct date and could someone who knows correct the incorrect one? /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 14:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of coronation 

message: Again, you add opinion to articles which are not consistent with the source provided.  This is vandalism.  I'm not going to muck about.  If you counter revert then I will take this to ANI to sort out.  The sentences following after your silly addition fully explain the situation. Once again, if you have verifiable sources that suit your statement then add it to the article but do not add stuff which does not accord with the source provided. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: 76.115.116.50

message: The article states Robert III was born on 14 August 1337; however, none of the references I have at hand (including the ODNB) give a precise date, but rather indicate that he was probably born "in the mid- to late 1330s" or "c.1336–37". Unless someone brings a reliable source for the precise date, I'll replace it with the estimate. – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 07:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted.  The article was correct, i.e. it stated his date of birth as c.1337, until IP 86.148.115.214 changed his DoB in both the article and infobox on 8. July 2012.  I have a reference for c.1337 and can build it into the "Heir apparent" section. Bill Reid | (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Bill. I did check to see when the information was added, but I didn't have the patience to check so far back in the history of the article. It's a shame this piece of misinformation should have stayed up so long (almost five years!). I have removed it. Now to do the same in all the languages in which it has percolated… – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of birth 

message: The recent removal of the Ancestry table is problematic (not because I like these--in fact I don't) but because removing it is contrary to required procedures.  The responsibity of sourcing the table was with the editor who added the table originally, but that didn't happen. Then, before the editor who tagged it, they themselves should have tried to source it, but again that didn't happen. Finally the unsourced information and the tag was removed without first trying to provide the sources themselves as required by WP:V that says that if the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it, and that didn't happen.  I will source it in the next few days. Bill Reid | (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I did try to find the sources, Bill Reid, although I maintain that sourcing information is primarily (if not only) the responsibility of those who add the information or wish to retain it. None of those cited in this article, that I could access, mention these people. The bigger question is: do we really need this information? The names of Cecilia de Dunbar, William Mure of Rowallan, Ronald Mure of Pokellie, and "a daughter of William Lindsay" are of no importance to this biography. It is odd to have a family tree that includes these irrelevant people but fails to include someone as vital as the subject granduncle David II or the subject's brothers. If you agree, I could create a family tree that includes those relatives mentioned in the article. That would be more useful and quite easy to verify, since they are all mentioned in the sources already cited. Surtsicna (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm sure that Robert III would have liked more people of substance as his ancestors but he's stuck with those you quoted as his direct line  but you'd be hard pushed to find many articles containing ancestry charts that mention great-grandparents and further back in the body of the article.  David II (he also has some 'unknowns' in his background) nor Robert's brothers or sisters are his ancestors and wouldn't appear in this kind of chart.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you envisaging something along the lines of the trees shown in Scottish monarchs' family tree that contains Bruces and the Stewarts and the people your mentioning? Bill Reid | (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, although a lot simpler. I don't think it should be overcrowded, otherwise it loses its purpose. It should probably contain only the people mentioned in the text, thus satisfying both verifiability policy and pertinence concerns. Surtsicna (talk) 09:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds interesting; look forward to seeing it. Bill Reid | (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

text: No, good call, IMO Bill Reid | (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

text: I like the clean lines of this type of chart that removes the boxiness of the other types.  Agree about his sisters too and also Robert III's half brothers to Robert II and Euphemia de Ross should, I think, be included particularly as Walter, Earl of Athol was to play a momentous part in the reign of his son James I. Maybe would start to get a bit cluttered though? Bill Reid | (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm afraid of making it cluttered. My rationale for leaving out Walter and others is that they are not mentioned in the text. That is why I left out the sisters and their husbands; is this affinity very notable? One of the two brothers-in-law is not even defined as such. If you'd like, they can still easily be added. Surtsicna (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'm fine with what you've done. It looks very good and adds to the article. Think I'll adopt this type of chart going forward.  I've got a rewrite of James IV at an advanced stage in my PC development wiki so I'll have a go at doing something like this.  Are all the names already adequately referenced in the article (I'm lazy and haven't checked). Bill Reid | (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very glad you like it! All are referenced except Marjorie and Robert I. They are necessary to show the link to David II. I suppose it would be easy to state in the prose (with a reference) that Robert II's mother, Marjorie, was the sister of David II, both being children of the first Bruce king, Robert I. Surtsicna (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I can add the sentence with a reference if you like.  Would you add your table and remove the grotty one? Bill Reid | (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! Surtsicna (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The chart looks very good but sorry to cause you more work.  While getting the reference for the added sentence I now see that Marjorie's mother was first wife Isabella of Mar and David's mother was second wife Elizabeth de Burgh. Bill Reid | (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think that's important to note? Did it figure somehow in the succession of Robert II or Robert III? I can add it if you'd like. Surtsicna (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not important for Robert III but it is in James I's reign so I can take care of it there. Thanks once again for lending  your help. Bill Reid | (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Ancestry section