Talk:James VI and I

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleJames VI and I is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic starJames VI and I is part of the Gunpowder Plot series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 19, 2005.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 13, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
April 28, 2007Featured article reviewKept
June 14, 2007Featured topic candidateNot promoted
January 28, 2011Featured topic candidatePromoted
October 19, 2011Featured article reviewKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 24, 2004, March 24, 2005, March 24, 2006, July 24, 2007, March 24, 2008, March 24, 2009, March 24, 2010, March 24, 2011, March 24, 2014, March 24, 2016, March 24, 2018, March 24, 2021, March 24, 2023, July 24, 2023, and August 30, 2023.
Current status: Featured article

Article title[edit]

Perhaps we should consider 'moving' the article title back to James I of England. Yes, I know his Scottish reign was much longer, but he's mainly know for being the English monarch. Indeed, his son, grandsons & granddaughter are titled Charles I of England, Charles II of England, James II of England, William III of England & Mary II of England. GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I agree that article titles should be consistent, and the English/British/UK monarch's article's titles are becoming a veritable hotbed of inconsistency and messy page moves, but I'm not sure about moving this article. I have no strong feelings either way, but I would comment that he is famously the first Scottish monarch to be king of England, and there would likely be some nationalist quarrels from Scotland if it were to be moved (given the ever-so-fragile situation that they're in at the moment), which is why I have a bit of a reservation about it. I think a more permanent solution would be to create a guideline or policy on specifically British monarchs, which would be achieved via community consensus (WP:NCRAN does, admittedly, do quite a good job in general). Even an essay would be fine, as long as it is given some respect by the community (similar to WP:BRSG). It's just slightly irritating to see the article titles for British monarchs become increasingly, increasingly inconsistent.
Cordially, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move request notification[edit]

A move request has been created at Talk:James I (disambiguation)#Requested move 3 August 2022 but no notification was posted here by the requester, presumably due to the redirect from James I not being followed. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Religion[edit]

King James was a member of the Church of Scotland, and he remained committed to the Church of Scotland. For his religion it should say "Church of Scotland" rather than not having it at all. TheFriendlyFas2 (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He was an Episcopalian. Linking to a Presbyterian church is misleading. Remember this was before the split in the Church of Scotland or the foundation of the Scottish Episcopal Church. As was said elsewhere, he was also baptised Catholic, and he worshipped with the Church of England after 1603. This is too complicated for an infobox, which should be simple and succinct. DrKay (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should change his religion. Itid1878 s pretty well-known. He was Catholic, but because he was king of Scotland and England he had no troops without protestant, and he couldn't even walk outside of his castle without being a protestant so well. He acted in Catholic interests. It was publicly proud of student because he had no choice. But he is famously the king that united all three crowns 2001:56B:3FFA:E3FB:340D:4894:3AD2:5F0B (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After 1500 catholics rulers had a choice constant locals attacks or foreign most chose foreign and become Protestants. 2001:56B:3FFA:E3FB:340D:4894:3AD2:5F0B (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're right, he wasn't a Presbyterian but he certainly wasn't an Episcopalian. It wouldn't be misleading to link to the Church of Scotland since that's the denomination that he was a member of, it wouldn't be misleading in the slightest. Though he may have worshipped & been active in the CoE, he kept his Calvinist beliefs & continued to worship with the Church of Scotland, he never made any sort if commitment to the CoE. Also the fact that he was baptized a Catholic doesn't really make any sort of difference because he was never a practicing Catholic & grew up as a Calvinist. Just say he was a Calvinist or a Protestant at the least, or you could even put "Protestant Prev. Catholic" and it'd be as simple as that. What about that sounds too complicated to you? TheFriendlyFas2 (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? This is far too complicated for an infobox. They are supposed to answer obvious questions, not beg new ones. It's not going to happen. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not complicated, he was protestant, simple as. TheFriendlyFas2 (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong 2001:56B:3FFA:E3FB:340D:4894:3AD2:5F0B (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hes jacobite line i believe forced protestant lol 2001:56B:3FFA:E3FB:340D:4894:3AD2:5F0B (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calvinist?? Hardly. "No bishops no king". He tried to Anglicanise the Church of Scotland. DeCausa (talk) 07:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He supported episcopal polity but he was still Calvinist. It was a very popular movement among the noble laymen in the Church of Scotland. TheFriendlyFas2 (talk) 08:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He certainly wasn't at the end of his reign - if anything he tried to stamp out Calvinism in the CoE, promoted Laud etc and there was the 5 Articles of Perth. Where's your source for his Calvinism? DeCausa (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
think freedom vs liberty or Irish roman vs English Highlands also latin isn't good for much but law. 2001:56B:3FFA:E3FB:340D:4894:3AD2:5F0B (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scotland the Highlands is protestant and Scottish the rest is Roman Irish or English depending on the time. 2001:56B:3FFA:E3FB:340D:4894:3AD2:5F0B (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When the same editor says in one post "he certainly wasn't an Episcopalian" and then in a following post, with no hint of irony or retraction, "He supported episcopal polity", that doesn't make much sense. Complicated issues are unsuitable for inclusion in an infobox. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Witch trials[edit]

Absolutely no mention of the North Berwick witch trials or any of the other persecution of (mostly) women he perpetrated. It’s a dark part of British history and a part of his legacy. 2001:1C02:2F03:F300:C2C:723C:1838:1640 (talk) 06:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely there is. There's a whole section on it. Maybe read the article first? DeCausa (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]