Talk:Mary II

message: The statement that the title was K & Q of E, S, F & I is correct only for England. In Scotland the title was K & Q of S, E, F & I.
Also, although these are the titles used by the Parliaments &c, the titles normally used by British monarchs themselves, in coins & documents issued by themselves, were K/Q of Great Britain from 1604 onwards, with a few exceptions, mainly Scottish issues 1649-51. 14:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles 

message: Which are given here?  Shouldn't this be explained? john k (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I raised substantially the same question 18 months ago - see "Calendar" above.  --  JackofOz (talk) 10:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  old style/new style dates 

message: Is it possible for Mary II to have inherited the English claim to France? France was bound by salic law, which excluded females from succession. Or is there something I don't know about? Regards, -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole English claim to France was based on rejection of Salic Law - Edward III claimed the throne through his mother. By 1689, at any rate, the whole claim was nominal rather than real. john k (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks :) -- Jack1755 (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Queen of France

message: Including images of Mary, William and James would be much more useful than having those two templates in the "Reign section". If nobody opposes, I will remove the templates (whose purpose is trivial) and add relevant images. Surtsicna (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images? 

message: Think I am correct in saying that Mary was Charles II's sister not niece as in the article. Anyone else agree? Smch52 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No. DrKay (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sister?

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:James I of England which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 18:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Excuse me, but I think is impossible the painting in the top of the infobox royalty template to be painted in 1662, because Mary II was an infant then!!!1 The painter died in 1680, so the portret must have been painted about 1670-1680. Am I wrong?--Ιων (talk) 09:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Corrected. DrKay (talk) 10:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Portrait

message: Hi, the text of a Proclamation by Mary, from 1690 the second year of William and Mary's reign, has just been added to Wikisource. She calls upon all seamen and mariners who are evading service to return to the navy, and for any officers of the law to seize and prosecute those that hide away. I'll leave it to the editors of this article to decide in what way to use or link it. It's at :wikisource:A proclamation requiring all seamen and mariners to render themselves to Their Majesties service. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proclamation text on Wikisource 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Mary II of England's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "auto":
From Henry VI of England: Ralph Griffiths, The Reign of Henry VI, Berkeley 1981
From Head of state: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Mary II of England]] 

message: It is unnecessary to repeat the same year or date in one sentence after another. And events should be presented in a logical chronological order, with people's names clear. It is confusing to go from the Duke of York, to James II, back to the Duke of York again. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:William III of England which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 15:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Celia Homeford you reverted my edit from yesterday with a handful of changes referring to Mary's death.
Since she died at aged 32, I have added that to the introduction as well as the cause of the death, which was previously hidden.
I furthermore created a new section heading about her death.
In terms of the removal of content, a lot of the stuff about her death seemed a bit fluffy and not very relevant. Happy to explore adding this content back in if we can tighten it up a bit, but I would like to add back the other changes I made. Let me know what you think.
Thanks, ollee (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think any of that content can be cut. The date of her funeral, the date of her death in the article body, her care in ensuring the safety of others, and the attempted reconciliation with her sister are not fluffy and are directly relevant. Short sections and short, stubby paragraphs should be merged. The sentence describing her physical fitness links topically with the next one on her falling ill, and the new section heading introduced a break there, disconnecting the two. I can see the benefit of "Death" being a new two-paragraph subsection within the "Reign" section, comprising the final two paragraphs of that section, without the removal of content or the addition of extra paragraph breaks. I also see the benefit of adding 4-5 words of content to the short first paragraph of the lead. But I'm not seeing any benefit from the other changes. DrKay (talk) 08:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Death' section 

message: The article says that Dundee was wounded at the start of the battle. But this does not accord with the page on the Battle of Killicrankie, which specifically states that "...Dundee was fatally wounded towards the end of the battle, and died shortly afterwards". Which is correct? Sbishop (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither source given is explicit. DrKay (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to Battle of Killiecrankie 

message: In my opinion, there should be an article about the Coronation of William III and Mary II, covering their coronation in greater detail, just like that of Elizabeth I and other modern British Sovereigns. As they both were joint Sovereigns, it would be interesting to know how the Coronation was carried out, as the Crown Jewels and regalia (including the Coronation Crown) are usually reserved for a single sovereign. Were they crowned one by one with the St Edward's Crown, or an additional crown was created, all these details can be covered. Also, the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time, didn't recognise James's removal. So, I think it would be an interesting article.  Peter Ormond 💬 13:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Nitpicking yes, but fwiw. Elizabeth I, William III/II & Mary II were not British monarchs. Liz was an English & Irish monarch, while Billy & May were English, Scottish & Irish monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 05:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article about Coronation 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved.  DrKay (talk) 07:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Mary II of England →  – Mary II already redirects here. And given that she was equally, Queen of England, Scotland and Ireland, "Mary II" would be a better and more neutral title.  Peter Ormond 💬 05:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Notably? No. There is one other entry on Mary II (disambiguation); Maria II of Portugal. The others are not a monarch, not known as Mary 'II', and are a boat and airbase. Which is why Mary II redirects here, and is not a disambiguation page. 90.192.1.235 (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 27 September 2021 

message: *Oppose - as I prefer the Monarch # of country article title style. Would go with adding ...of England, Scotland & Ireland, for the Stuarts from James I/VI to William III/II, btw. GoodDay (talk) 05:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Notably? No. There is one other entry on Mary II (disambiguation); Maria II of Portugal. The others are not a monarch, not known as Mary 'II', and are a boat and airbase. Which is why Mary II redirects here, and is not a disambiguation page. 90.192.1.235 (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: In the "Category:Female heirs apparent" page, both Mary II and Anne are discussed as an example of female heirs apparent. Although the British kingdoms used male-preference primogeniture at the time, the circumstances and aftermath of the Glorious Revolution did bring forth some unique elements to the line of succession. Although Anne is still part of the list - I guess in some way, this discussion affects her too - Mary II is not. I was wondering if Mary II counts as an example of an heir apparent or not?
Ulrika Eleonora of Sweden is placed in this category, and after she abdicated in favour of her husband, she was named his heir. In the case of Mary and William, the law did state that whoever died first, their spouse would continue reigning, essentially making them each others heir apparent. But unlike Ulrika Eleonora, Mary was not William's consort but equal. So, taking account all these, could Mary II be described as an heir apparent? Should she be placed in the same category as her sister? PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: See List of heirs to the English throne. William III and Mary II were "mutual heirs" from 1689 to 1694. The death of Mary turned Anne into the heiress from 1694 to 1702. Dimadick (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status as heir apparent / presumptive