Talk:James VI and I/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Change of article title to James VI and I

Since this monarch was the ruler of two kingdoms, each held under different titles (James VI of Scotland and James I of England). The monarch in question had more than one title, and a search for James VI of Scotland should not really return James I of England, even if they are one and the same person (it would be just as indelicate to have a search for James I of England returning an article titled James VII of Scotland). I maintain that it would be more delicate to respect the fact he was the monarch of two separate kingdoms with two separate titles, and for the article title to reflect that. By redirecting no change is being made to the content - for which I have no complaint - it would simply mean that searches for James I of England or for James VI of Scotland would both return James VI and I, which was his actual title. I believe serious consideration should be given the change I proposed, since it does not introduce any error, it is more culturally sensitive and it actually conforms to the spirit of the law as decided in the case of MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1953. Lusobrandane (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article should not be James I of England. This is very misleading, at the very least it should be James VI of Scotland. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It originally was titled James VI of Scotland but it was agreed to change it to the current title many years ago. This is really an issue which should be solved technically by allowing Wikipedia articles to have multiple titles (which might also help with such long running issues as the gasoline/petrol debate). It might happen one day. In the meantime redirects are the best we can do... -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If not for the current method for naming European monarch titles (X of country)? I'd support James VI & I. However under the current rules, James VI of Scotland and I of England, would be too long. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Without my having to search through the archives, can anyone tell me why James I of England was chosen over James VI of Scotland, when he was the Scottish King long before he reigned over both countries? Jack forbes (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

To keep it consistant with Charles I of England, Charles II of England, James II of England, William III of England & Mary II of England. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

None of whom were kings of Scotland alone. No big deal, but it seems strange that all those articles favour of England over Scotland or Ireland. Are those articles the common name for these Kings and Queens? Personally, I always think of James as James VI of Scotland. No matter. Jack forbes (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose, common usage tips them in favour of of England. Wrongly (IMHO), the English Throne was seen as 'above' the Scottish Throne. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, they were two seperate thrones. The English certainly saw their throne as 'above' the Scottish one, but then, they would wouldn't they. The people of Scotland didn't think that way. Jack forbes (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Stuarts themselves saw the English throne as the more important one, as did every other power in Europe. Because, you know, it was. England was one of the more important states of western Europe, while Scotland was a backwater. john k (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The common name is certainly James I. When he inherted the Tudors territories, he decided to come down to England (not without attempts to "blow him back to his Scottish mountains" as Guy Fawkes put it, but non the less). Though he claimed to be King of Great Britain personally, this wasn't recognised in law. His coins said "ANG SCO FRA ET HIB" in 1603 with England first (bit harsh to put Ireland behind a titular claim to France, but anyway), then the next year it said "BRI FRA ET HIB".[1] - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep as James I of England because that crown was considered more prominent than his Scottish crown after 1603, when he succeeded to the English crown as James I. He has been referred to variously as James VI, James VI & I, James I & VI, James I, and if we were using his full title, it would be, after 1603: King James I of England, France and Ireland, King James VI of Scots, etc. They were, however, still two separate kingdoms, with a single monarch. The other variants are redirects to this article title, and the lede says: James VI & I. Also for consistency with other dual monarchs and per naming convention for monarchs. He apparently never returned to Scotland, which kinda diminished the importance he apparently placed on that crown. This suggestion should go into this article's Wikipedia:Perennial proposals. — Becksguy (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of WHO considered WHAT crown more important, he never STOPPED being James VI, did he?82.0.25.104 (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Lance T.

He did, in fact, return to Scotland in 1617 see here :[2]. This article's title is just plain wrong. The man was a direct male line descendant of the Great Stewards of Scotland, by route of the Earls of Lennox and the Stewarts of Bonkyll, prior to them gaining the Scots throne. His reign in Scotland was longer than that of his reign in England, furthermore he continued to speak Scots, rather than English, once he had suceeded in England.

This article should be titled James VI of Scotland and I of England or even James I of England and VI of Scotland if that would satisfy the anglophiles. In much the same way that his grandson James VII and II should be treated.

It is patent historical jingoism to infer that the sovereignty of one nation is superior to that of any other. Brendandh (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a very convincing argument IMO. For example, Philip II of Spain was King of Naples and even King of England before he was ever King of Spain. Whether x nation is superior to x isn't really the question, but whether holding sovereignty of one was generally considered more prestigious contemporary to the era. On the coins James decided to have "Ang" first and made his court in England once he inherted all thrones, even though he was born and bred in Scotland. Encyclopedia Britannica titles the article on him as simply "James I".[3] IMO the best compromise is if we have for the Stuarts, ______of Great Britain, since that is the title they themselves prefered after the Union of the Crowns.- Yorkshirian (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I would be against putting "of Great Britain" for the monarchs before the acts of union to avoid confusion with those who were actually legally defined as King / Queen of Great Britain. I really do think this article should be James VI of Scotland, that was his original realm and the one he spent most of his life as monarch of. He just gained a larger realm later on in life but it should not take primacy in the article title. He was of Scotland, not of England and the article title should reflect that. Sadly too often people gloss over the fact that it was a Scotsman who laid the foundations for our union. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Stuart contribution to the creation of Great Britain is largely downplayed due to the myth of 1688 and the scandalous usurpation (even though James designed the Union Flag!). But that is another story. The official Royal website isn't much help on the issue, since it lists their number in separate sections for Scotland and the UK as well.[4] - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Oliver Cromwell stood in the way. At first we did not like his son that was a leftfoot. The we had a closetcase Kingdom, which Cromwell insisted was a republic. Then we discovered we did not like Cromwell. I must admit I am confused to how James I could be so lethaly efficient, while his two sons (King Charles I was infact the Duke of York until 1612)were more stupid than King James' own parents. The Union Law came in 1707, so even with King James in charge, it still took it's time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.28.194 (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

!!!The common name is only James I in England!!! In Scotland he is always referred to as James VI. I do not understand why it has not been changed yet. This is the 21st Century!!! This is an extremely sensitive subject and it is obvious that the Scottish title should come first, as he was the Scottish king first - and Scottish! Please inform me how it is possible to declare that the "common name" is James I. James I is the English name. Anglophiles should realise that the world does not revolve around England.!!!

Then Glasgow peole must stop ramming through the mortal sin #1. Let's understand that the nuLabour party does not evolve around their city. "OOH. Leabour teakes me fer granted". And even if Edinburgh is better than Glasgow (just check out Channel 4), King James VI still chose to shove of to London. Being number one is stell be'er than being number sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.28.194 (talk) 08:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well let's see how some of his contemporaries in a similar situation are handled. Henry III of Navarre (1572-1610) or Henry IV of France (1589-1610) or Henry III of Navarre and IV of France? Of France. Philip I of Naples (1554-1598) or Philip II of Spain (1556-1598) or Philip I of Portugal (1581-1598) or Philip I of Naples and II of Spain and I of Portugal? Of Spain. And the contemporary Holy Roman Emperors are all listed by that title, not Austria or one of their other crowns. And this is much the case for just about every other personal union monarch, even those like James, Henry and Philip who inherited thrones at different times. What makes James an exceptional case? Timrollpickering (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

For one thing, neither Navarre nor Naples exist as countries any more. That aside, maybe those page titles should be revisited, too. Sowelilitokiemu (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Um...I don't recall Scotland's UN membership going through anytime recently, either. Certainly Portugal is much more of a country than Scotland. john k (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well the same can be said for England's membership of the UN. Would you tell an Irishman, that his state doesn't exist, because it was in personal union with the English crown for 800 years or so? Brendandh (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

To those that say that Ang appeared on his coins before Sco I think I should point out you are looking at English pounds, the pound Scots did not put England first. 30 January 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.10.235.175 (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is that "James VI and I", with no kingdoms named, gives no context at all to those not familiar with British history, which includes most WP readers, and will just confuse them. Johnbod (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What about changing the article's name to; "James of England and Scotland" (purely alphabetical). I don't think the I and VI are actually that important. 82.1.157.16 (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

They're quite important, to distinguish from James VII and II. LRT24 (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that the equivalents of this article in a few of the other language wikis already use the full "James VI of Scotland and I of England" including the Spanish and Danish articles. Sowelilitokiemu (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide a few examples? It is hard to understand how a man who was King of Scotland for 35 years before the Union of the Crowns ends up with an article title as it is at present. Perhaps as part of the "respect" agenda it should be moved to "James I of Great Britain" - a title he claimed for himself according to the lead. Ben Mac Dui 17:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This should be at the Scottish title as you rightly point out he had that for 30+ years before becoming King of England. I would rather it not be moved to Great Britain which would be the same method used for monarchs of the Kingdom of Great Britain, something he was not although supportive of its establishment. Changing this to King James VI of Scotland makes the most sense. England simply having the bigger population does not mean it should have the article name by default. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Titling this "James VI of Scotland" doesn't make sense. As Timrollpickering notes above, other monarchs with multiple crowns are not known by the crown they held first but by the crown(s) they held most prominently, Philip II of Spain being a good example of this. In the case of James, historians never refer to him simply as "James VI of Scotland". They either refer to both titles or they refer to one or the other based on specific context. For this article, given that he is well known for both his Scottish and English crowns, I think it makes the most sense to title this, "James I of England and VI of Scotland", or vice versa. (I leave that discussion to others as I have no particular preference.) -- Hux (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I would have no problem with James I of England and VI of Scotland but i dont think that title would be accepted by the wikipedia naming police because it goes against "convention". I think it probably has to be either of England or of Scotland. It is true he is known for both crowns, but surely the crown he held for much longer (we aint just talking about a couple of years) should have priority in such a situation. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It's an awful title. If moving is to be done James VI and I would be much better (and I don't see why the title not providing context is even slightly important - titles don't need to provide context). But I generally think articles should ditch "of Country" unless it's absolutely necessary. As policy currently stands, there's absolutely nothing wrong with James I of England. john k (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

[[James VI and I ] is better yes, if we can get it past the wikipedia naming police. I do not accept that James I of England is fine, This guy was James VI of Scotland for much more of his life than he was "of England" and the title emplies he is from England by saying "of" which he was not. He is notable as the King of Scotland who became King of England and started the pushing for the unification of Great Britain. He is so notable because of the union of the crowns so that could help justify the James VI and I title. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Edard VII of the United Kingdom was Prince of Wales for much more of his life than he was King of the UK. Henry IV of France was Henry III of Navarre for much more of his life than he was King of France. And "of" implies nothing of the sort, unless you demand that we change Philip V of Spain or George I of Great Britain or Carol I of Romania. john k (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The point is this King is just as notable for being King of Scotland as he is for being King of England, there for to compare it to something like the King of France with "of Navarre" (where ever that is) clearly is a different situation. But lets just stick with the suggestion of moving this to James VI and I. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. Ben Mac Dui 17:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If that's the point, it's a pretty poor one. As I've said before, England was one of the most important states in western Europe; Scotland was a marginal backwater. I'd say that 22 years as King of England is pretty clearly more important than his 22 years of personal rule in Scotland prior to 1603 + 22 years as an absentee king of Scotland living in England. As king of Scotland, James is very important for Scottish history, mildly influential on English history, and of no importance whatever to European history as a whole; as king of England, he is a figure of the first importance in English history and of great importance in the broader history of the continent as a whole. I wonder what a comparison of the number of pages written by historians about his pre-1603 reign vs. his reign in England would turn up - I doubt it would be to the advantage of Scotland. john k (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Ben MacDui. Seumas VI/Jamie Saxt/James the Sixth, whichever later title he obtained, should be known by the longest reign that he had, and the one which formed his personality and ideas of Kingship. exempli gratia in Wikipedia, KJ's father,Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley is not known by his legal title of Duke of Albany, a title he held from his marriage to Queen Mary and before the explosion at Kirk o'Field. In this situation it is because Lord Darnley is the name he was commonly known as. All the above suggesting that KJ had more prominence as King of England, than King of Scots are biased and Anglocentric. King James VI and I, is the moniker that he was most commonly known as through the last few centuries by international historians, James VI of Scotland and I of England. This may be 'English' Wikipedia, but it is not the exclusive Wikipedia of England, but rather that of all Anglophone nations. Brendandh (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

George I's longest reign, and the one which formed his personality and ideas of kingship, was Hanover. Nobody ever gets upset about that one, though (even on the German wikipedia). john k (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

George I was not a "King" of Hanover, merely an Elector, the Kingdom of Hanover was not created until 1814 . And to your earlier point regarding Edward VII as Prince of Wales, that title is an honorific of the heir to the throne of England, much as the title Duke of Rothesay is to the Monarch of Scotland, neither are titles of sovreignty, as indeed neither was the position of Elector in the Holy Roman Empire, a vassal to the Emperor. As to your insinuation that Scotland was a marginal backwater during this time is just another example of the sort of faux history perpetuated by various English commentators, and is a racist slur that the Scots have endured ever since the union of the crowns. Furthermore, King Jamie did return to Scotland in 1617 in an attempt to harmonise the structures of the two very different churches within his realms, he also continued to speak in Braid Scots, . As to your point that as King of Scotland, King James had no influence in Europe, why was he given the hand of Anne of Denmark, daughter of one of the arguably most powerful monarchs in Northern Europe, Frederick II of Denmark? And to cap it off, a quick google search returned 118,000 for "James VI of Scotland", yet just 92,900 for "James I of England". Brendandh (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes George I was merely an elector. I don't see how that is particularly relevant. The King of England was universally granted higher precedence than the King of Scotland, so I'm not sure why that's irrelevant, but the precedence of elector vs. king is relevant. As to racist slurs, that's absurd and ridiculous. Even today, Scotland has about 10% of the population of England, and it's always been poorer, weaker, less populous, and less relevant to European international affairs. I don't see how this is even debatable. When Scotland did play a role in European affairs, it was pretty much always in context of relations with England - whether it would ally with England and relieve pressure on England's northern border, or harass England and distract it from its continental interests. As far as James's marriage proving his importance, Frederick II's other daughters married a Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, a Duke of Holstein-Gottorp, and an Elector of Saxony. Frederick II's sisters married an elector of Saxony and a duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg. Frederick I's daughters had married a Duke of Prussia, and several dukes of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, while Frederick III's daughters married an elector of Saxony, a duke of Holstein-Gottorp, an Elector Palatine, and a King of Sweden. That's one other royal marriage out of about a dozen over 150 years or so. So, no, James's marriage to a Danish princess says virtually nothing about his power and influence in Europe, save that it was probably about equivalent to an Elector of Saxony or a Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin. And your google search is meaningless. If I just search "James I" vs. "James VI," the former has about ten times as many hits as the latter, and the vast majority of them are about this James I. Not only that, I can't seem to replicate your results - I get 154,000 results for "James I of England." Basically, you're just throwing the kitchen sink at me and hoping some argument will stick. So, for example, you throw out utterly irrelevant nonsense like that James returned to Scotland once (George I and II went to Hanover many times), or that he continued to speak Scots (George I didn't even speak English at all; George II was a native German-speaker), and what not. I suppose it would be difficult to come up with monarchs who fit the exact circumstances of James, but the criteria you come up with that way or basically indefensible, because they're basically just excuses for a conclusion you've already determined a priori. john k (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Universally recognised as having a higher precendence? By whom? Universal recognition in my book generally means 'all' opinion, and this is certainly not the case. Come on then, back it up. With your "backwater" insinuations you are still, as per my earlier point, still very tidily in bed with the idea of denigrating Scotland, and in line with the Scotophobe commentators of the 17/19th centuries (and to a part those in Westminster at the dawn of the 21st). Brendandh (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe there was a court in Europe which would have given a Scottish ambassador precedence over an English one. Note François Velde's page on the subject, which notes two examples where the King of England was placed before the King of Scotland in diplomatic precedence. Beyond that, do you deny that Scotland was less economically developed, militarily weaker, and less populous than England in the 16th and 17th centuries? That England played a more prominent role in European affairs? Do the demands of 21st century Scottish nationalism mean that we have to pretend that these things aren't true, or that these things did not, effectively, make Scotland a backwater? You could write a a history of Europe without mentioning Scotland. You couldn't do the same thing without mentioning England. Further, a history of England that failed to mention Scotland would have some major omissions, but you'd still probably be able to get the main gist of the story. A history of Scotland that failed to mention England would be completely incomprehensible. Basically, you insist on an ahistorical equality between England and Scotland because your present-day politics demands it, not because it actually makes any sense when referring to sixteenth and seventeenth century history. Scotland was a legally separate kingdom from England, joined only by a personal union, certainly. But it is simply unquestionably the case that England was the more powerful and important of the two kingdoms. Your only counterargument so far is that anyone who says this is a "Scottophobe." That's hardly an argument. john k (talk) 02:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well for a start, France and Denmark-Norway. How could you write a history of England without including Alexander II's Scottish army reaching Dover in support of the English Barons against King John? Or the Battles of Neville's Cross, Homildon Hill, Halidon Hill, Stanhope Park, Chapter of Myton to name but a few? Or the Honour of Huntingdon, or David I who effectively ruled a realm that stretched north from the Mersey and Humber? Or as is pertinent here, how could one write a history of England, that didn't include the successive failure of its ruling dynasties, so that a Scotsman succeeded to its throne. Further, to write a history of Europe without including Scotland, as so many "main-stream" historians have, would be erroneous. From the Hundred years war to the Nine years war, Scottish Armies were involved in almost all major conflict in western Europe. Of course Scotland, had less economic clout and manpower during the 16th/17thc.s, as the greater part of her nobility and administrators had been massacred at Flodden Field in 1513, fighting to relieve the pressure on the French, caused by Henry VIII's belligerence in Northern France. An effective decapitation. Henry's brother-in-law, James IV's army was far more technologically advanced than the English one, but through ill-judgement they lost the day. The Scottish court at Stirling/Linlithgow/Falkland was as advanced and colourful as any in northern Europe. As to my politics, they are hardly relevant. But if you must know I'm a Unionist, and Scotophobe only has one 't'! Brendandh (talk) 09:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not denying that Scotland has played an important role in European history, and perhaps the heat of argument has led me to statements more extreme than I intend. I will say that I think a schoolchild's history of England could more or less avoid mentioning virtually all of that, except probably the succession of the subject of this article and maybe the Bishops' Wars (without which it becomes difficult to understand the origins of the English Civil War). A schoolchild's history of Scotland would have to speak of England at length throughout. At any rate, I'm not trying to deny anything to Scotland - certainly Flodden, the Jacobite rebellions, and so forth had important resonances for broader European history; the Bishops' War, and much else, had important repercussions on England. But I don't see how it can be denied that England was the more powerful and important state. john k (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a perennial issue for this article since the first talk page in 2003, and second only to his sexuality. Here are most, if not all, of the threads on this subject. Although a few are short threads, many are thoughtful discussions on the issue. I have to agree with QP, and many of the previous arguments, that this title is the most appropriate Wikipedia title. Per WP:NCNT, it's the more common reference to him and the most consistent. James I is even listed as an example there. I have a lot of sympathy with those that argue for Scottish inclusion, but then we would have to include all of his titles, including that of Ireland, to read, at a bare minimum, "James VI of Scotland and James I of England and Ireland". And don't forget France. And whatever else. And change all the styles and titles of many other monarchs as well. And yes, I know he was King James IV longer than James I, but arguably he was more important as James I of England (not Great Britain, which actually didn't exist as a Kingdom until 1707, despite his sometime usage). See: Jacobean era as an indication of that importance. In addition, as James I, he ordered and commissioned the English translation into what was arguably the most famous, important, and influential English Bible for some 300 years. That Bible, the King James Version (KJV) of 1611 was named after him. So, yes, James I as a title is incomplete, but I believe it's actually less misleading, and works best here.

[This is mostly a repeat of a post listing the previous threads from the article talk archives on this subject, originally made on 5 June 2009.] — Becksguy (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well why has it not been sorted out yet then? Ireland was a dominion (supposedly) of England, France a pie in the sky (especially for a Stewart Monarch). Scotland was an independent state and deserves that recognition, and recognition of its last exclusive head of state. Brendandh (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that you are pretending that the personal union between England and Scotland from 1603 to 1707 is some kind of unique phenomenon, when in fact personal unions were the rule, not the exception, in early modern Europe, and we judge what was the "most important realm" in determining article titles all the time. The article title is to have a convenient, predictable place for articles to be located, not to give kingdoms which have not existed for over 300 years the "recognition" they "deserve." john k (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Kingdom of England has also not existed for over 300 years. Brendandh (talk) 09:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason we call the article James I of England is not to give the Kingdom of England "recognition". john k (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal unions weren't unique, but THIS ONE is important because it led to the formation of a united Great Britain. 4.243.47.251 (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually it has been effectively sorted out many times, in at least 14 threads starting in 2003, not that everyone was happy with the results. Even though there were good arguments on both sides of the issue, each time it came up, resultant consensus was that the article name not be changed, or it died out which is effectively no consensus, defaulting to status quo. Once, on 20 November 2009, an editor boldly changed the title (moved the article) from "James I of England" to "James VI and I". Twenty minutes later it was changed back with the edit summary: "drastic moves like this should not be taken without discussion." Correct summary. There was a rather lengthy discussion of more than 7K words over eight days (in which I participated), formatted like a WP:RFC, on moving the article in June 2009, seen here, also as #12 in my list above, but there just wasn't sufficient consensus to change the title. I don't believe anyone here deliberately intends to impart ethnic or nationalistic bias with title names, as a major consideration should be how Wikipedia names royalty articles using the naming conventions in the WP:NCROY guideline. It's "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". Further, from WP:NCROY #6: "Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ordinal and state. For example, Charles II of England, not Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland; Philip II of Spain, not Philip I of Portugal. It is proper and often desirable to give the other states compensating prominence in the introduction of the article. Create redirects from other possible article titles." I believe there are compelling reasons to not change the title in this case, but if consensus clearly changes, including ignoring WP:NCROY, so be it. — Becksguy (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason the subject is debated so often is presumably because the result is so unsatisfactory. I can only assume that those who voice the argument that "England is bigger than Scotland so we can safely ignore the latter" simply don't understand why. Now, NCROY says "Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ordinal and state" but in this case that's a little tricky. There is no difficulty with "King Billy" but I don't see any firm evidence that "James 1 of England" fits that bill. A very naughty thought occurs to me. Is there any policy that would prohibit there being two articles? We could have a small and inferior one dealing with his early life and reign, summarised in the much larger and better one dealing with his more important later life? :) Ben Mac Dui 08:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:POV fork? Surtsicna (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not like this article title but i wouldn't want two articles. Sadly it doesnt loo like there is going to be enough support to get this article moved. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is saying Scotland should be ignored, simply that it should not be included in the title. As it stands, there's ten paragraphs about his reign in Scotland, and the fact of his reign in Scotland is mentioned prominently in the introduction. I'm sure everyone would welcome it if someone wanted to expand that material. As Sutrsicna says, creating two articles would be a POV fork. john k (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the amount of info (or not) about his reign in Scotland should matter. What's important about calling him James VI & I (I'm American and this is what I've always seen, FWIW) is that it shows that he united the crowns of Great Britain, which is probably the most notable thing about him. 4.243.47.251 (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No matter what NCROY says, it shouldn't trump NPOV. And the current title clearly isn't neutral, and is probably downright offensive to the Scots, which is why people keep trying to change it. James VI & I is neutral and in common usage, and therefore a much more acceptable title. LRT24 (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

We could, I suppose, name him in order of ordinal number (I & VI). But it seems to me it's an insolvable problem if we want to please all parties. I can't see how any compromise is possible. The great majority of historians and historical literature acknowledge him as King of England first and Scotland after. If we want to break the mold and do it in reverse, however, I, as a descendant of a Glasgow emigrant, have no objection. We know the drill- take a poll, comment, and vote. The whole thing will no doubt be brought up again. But hey, that's Wikipedia. Gazzster (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Scots will have to be content with the knowledge it was a Scottish monarch who assumed the English throne and not the otherway around (heck knows previous English monarchs had tried). GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure it is a POV fork - or at least the idea is not anticipated in the policy. There is no dispute about the content of the article at all. Of course any such article on Jas VI would have to include significantly more information than presently exists in the article to make much sense. It would also have to avoid contradicting the existing article. However, as it exists, it seem fairly light on his policies within Scotland as monarch from 1578-1603 (which are what drew me here in the first place). Ben Mac Dui 08:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

We've already split off James I of England and the English Parliament, James I of England and religious issues, and Personal relationships of James I of England. If the sections dealing with his reign in Scotland were also split off, then I think it would be appropriate to use James VI in the title of those articles rather than James I. Though I still prefer "James VI and I" without a country disambiguator in all cases, because then there would be no perception of nationalist bias. DrKiernan (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Commenting on a split off article, the discussion looks like there would be two articles proposed, one titled James I of England and the other titled James VI of Scotland. But where would the all the content from 1603-1625, when he wore both crowns, be placed? Properly into both articles I would think, and that would be horribly duplicative, and would probably result in an WP:AFD for one of them. This biography is about a single person who had two crowns at the same time, although only one court in England. How can we split him in two? As to content disputes; there have been disputes about his sexuality. When that erupts again (which based on history and experience, it will eventually), it would flareup in two articles, rather than just in one. Also, how do you keep two articles in sync without content drifting between them. I can't see how two biographies about James would work. — Becksguy (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that whilst theoretically plausible, that particular game is not likely to be worth the candle. I am not an historian by any stretch of the imagination but I will have a look at what I have on his "national policy" whilst K o'Scots. If it eventually amounts to something worth creating a split off for, perhaps one or other of the redirects might go there. I continue to be in agreement with Dr K and others that, on balance, "James VI and I" would be the best. However I am under no illusions about our methods of obtaining "consensus" in such circumstances, involving as they do one much numerically larger group than the other. In the meantime I content myself with a Gedanken experiment:- At a time, far distant from now, the world will be one in which economic disparities between nations will be less. By sheer force of numbers English-speaking editors from South and East Asia will come to dominate proceedings here. WP:ENGVAR will be cheerfully ignored in favour of (say) Indian English. Articles titles will be changed to suit the preferences of these folk, who will justify themselves with outrageous remarks about "a majority of sources say", cheerfully ignoring the views of editors from small countries such as England and the USA. This article will be called "Jamez One of UK" or similar. Sadly perhaps, even smaller nations from the Celtic fringes will have ceased to exist save for a memory - but perhaps their ghostly chuckles will be heard on these pages long after we are gone. Ben Mac Dui 18:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that there are several redirects to this article, titled James I of England:

However, James I of England and VI of Scotland does not exist (yet) and James I is a WP:DAB, since there were multiple people named James I. The redirects are easy ways to get to this article and don't require readers to have any knowledge of our naming conventions. It just works. — Becksguy (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There has been much discussion on here about the name of this article from both sides, but the only fair thing would be to rename it James VI of Scotland and I of England which would comply with the wiki naming rules, but if that is too long then just James VI and I should be sufficient as that is a unique enough title to not have to conform to the of x rule, just as in the article, Cuilén. Nocrowx (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

The fact that this discussion has gone on so long without agreement shows that the present title is not satisfactory otherwise it would have been laid to rest some time ago. 86.153.194.169 (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC) CM 11/3/11

After obtaining his majority, James' entire policy centred around keeping in the good books of Elizabeth I, so as to secure the English succession for himself. And once having done so, he set foot in Scotland - once, I believe. There is no doubt which of his kingdoms James considered the more important, a view shared by history. If any name change is desired for this article, it should be to James I & VI, his title in England. ðarkun coll 00:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

There'll be no moving the article title for the foreseeable future. To do so, would mess up the consistancy of his Stuart successors. GoodDay (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It's inconsistent with his Stuart predecessors. DrKiernan (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

He had no Stuart predecessors. His predecessors on the throne of Scotland were Stewarts. He inherited the spelling "Stuart" from his father. ðarkun coll 09:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

My point is - the surrounding articles (English monarchs & Scottish monarchs) are mostly Monarch # of country. If the whole 'pedia, were to adopt the Monarch style for these articles, then page movement would be more acceptable here. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Well that's just ludicrous pedantry. Spelling forms were a lot more fluid in the 16th century than now. Stuart, Stuyers were amongst the French forms, and even Stewart itself was a Scots form of the English Steward. To say that Jamie saxt wasn't a Stuart/Stewart is silly. (cf the 5th Earl of Douglas and Wigtown, known in France as Victon). Umm, and when does a father fail to be a predecessor, especially in a late feudal Europe full of agnatic succession etc? Quite agree though, with those above that this article should not be at this title, and should be at James VI and I, and to hell with Wikipedian convention. Brendandh (talk) 11:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

His father was Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley. He inherited the Scottish crown from his mother, Mary Queen of Scots, who was a Stewart by birth. That's the reason he's a Stuart, rather than Stewart. Of course, Henry Stuart's branch of the family may well have been influenced by French spelling conventions, but the immediate reason that James is a Stuart was simply because that was his name. ðarkun coll 12:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It's the same family name, just a different spelling. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow. As an Englishman I find the title of this article frankly embarrassing to put it nicely, ludicrous to put it bluntly. Seriously. This just HAS to be reopened and looked at PROPERLY. Bods (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

As a Scotsman I find it grossly offensive, to put it nicely. I am not an ardent Scottish nationalist but I find the English hegemony keeping it at a non-neutral title to be utterly contrary to wikipedia's policy of a WP:NPOV. I have tried and failed before to have this addressed and was harangued for doing so. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I echo the sentiments of Wee Curry Monster. In Scotland, one does not refer to our last monarch as James the First of ENGLAND!!! That is not down to nationalistic jingoism, but because we are sick of the attitude put forward by many down south that UK and Engerland are synonymous. We have even had adverts where a song mentions a butter being "English too", while the characters wave UNION FLAGS. At any Engerland sporting events, the Union Flag is waved as opposed to St George's Cross or the Three Lions flag. In Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, you see the national flags or standards raised by those nationals. Even looking at the wikipedia article on succesion, there are about two or three lines in the article mentioning.."oh yeah, and the Stewarts ruled in Scotland for a wee while". By all means have an article on "James 1 of England", but why have "James VI of Scotland" redirecting instead of having its own article??82.0.25.104 (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Well, POV forks arent acceptable - you don't want two articles about the same person. Better just to rename this one. Frankly I can't believe that it wasn't renamed to James VI & I based on the archived discussion below, there wasn't any decent arguement made in favor of keeping the current name. LRT24 (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There have been about 16 discussion threads, since the first talk page in 2003, on the subject of changing the title of this article. Almost all of them wanting to use James VI and/or James I in some combination, many as "James VI & I". Some of them were explicitly closed as No Consensus, and some just petered out, which is effectively the same thing. None of then developed sufficient consensus to change the title, therefore they all defaulted to status quo. Mostly the same arguments have been repeatedly expressed, both for and against. It's a perennial issue. — Becksguy (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I would beg to differ about the last time it was tried to change the name, there were a lot of comments that have no basis in policy and it is supposed to be about the strength of argument. There was no decent arguments to keep it the same and the fact it keeps being raised shows that it is problematic where it is now. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There were only two serious issues raised with the last proposal. 1, that it wasn't used by scholarship, which plain isn't true (although the form used tends to depend on whether you read histories of England, Scotland or Great Britain), and 2, that the location wouldn't be clear from the title, even though we have plenty of monarchs named this way already. It was ruled that there was no consensus, but it looks more like it was filibustered by one user. See WP:NOTUNANIMITY. LRT24 (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Quite. It is a perennial issue, because the title of this page is just so patently wrong, and a small mob of editors assume that if no consensus is reached then that is fine and dandy to carry on with the status quo. The amount of keyboard tapping about this should be indicative of a will to change this to something more suitable and non-contraversial. Although it may be WP's slightly fascist streamlining thing, I believe that rules are there for guidance rather than the "Word of God", and in unique situations, unique solutions are required. James VI & I is my preferred. More Admins here please? Brendandh (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything here that requires admin intervention. There is however nothing preventing you requesting a move - something that seems likely to continue to occur until a less egregiously insulting article name is agreed. Ben Mac Dui 13:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The article should just be renamed James VI and I. It's short, it's understandable and it doesn't elevate any nation above that of another. I had a look through a few encyclopaedias and all of them have either used James VI and I or used both England and Scotland in the title. A lot of previous arguments about size and importance are entirely spurious - both England and Scotland were sovereign nations in the time of James and he had been King of Scotland for 35 years before he became King of England, which is why I think James VI and I is more appropriate because James I of England very clearly places more importance on one nation than another. Notorious Biggles (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Naming style, per the naming convention in WP:NCROY is {Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}. Which leads us to "James I of England", not "James VI of Scotland and James I of England, Ireland, and France", or even to "James VI and I". James (1566-1625) was 37 when he became James I in 1603, and he had been James VI of Scotland for 36 years (1567-1603). However, all but 19 of those years was as an infant, child or teenager and much of that was under a regent. So he was James VI in name for 36 years before 1603, but only in real power starting at age 15 for 22 years (1581-1603). He was both James I of England and James VI of Scotland for 22 years (1603-1625), about the same amount of time he had real power in Scotland before wearing both crowns. So using length of rule really doesn't apply in determining which of his titles is more important. I believe it is clear that he is better known for his rule as James I, and for continuing the Elizabethan period of cultural flowering into the Jacobean era, the literary, cultural, artistic and scientific era which was named after him. In addition, as James I, he ordered and commissioned the translation of the bible into what was arguably the greatest, most famous, important, and influential English Bible for some 300 years. That Bible, the King James Version (KJV) of 1611 was named after him. He did more as James I than as James VI. Despite ethnic and national pride issues, England was considered the more important and powerful crown, especially by him. He schemed to get the English crown, and as soon as he assumed it, he moved his court to England. And that's where he stayed, except for one visit. If the Scottish crown was so important, why didn't split his court between both kingdoms, or even visit Scotland more than once. And all that, in addition to Wikipedia naming conventions, WP:NCROY, is why the title of this article should stay as it is: James I of England. — Becksguy (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If were going to go into his accomplishments, surely we shouldn't forget about the most important one - unifying the crowns of England AND Scotland. Both should be in the name. LRT24 (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:NCROY also states: "Some monarchs have a cognomen or other name by which they are clearly most commonly known (in English) and which identifies them unambiguously;". "VI and I" is an unusual "other name" but it is an epithet nonetheless and one which is both common and unambiguous. NCROY then goes on "Otherwise, kings, queens [etc.] who are known as "first name + ordinal" ... normally have article titles in [that] form". (My emphasis). So far as I can see there is no a priori reason for choosing to ignore the former option. Also, he did not stop being James VI when he became James I, so the idea that "He did more as James I than as James VI" does not seem possible to me. I think you must mean that he did more when he wore both crowns which may be fair. However, the issue is not what James himself did, intended or thought, or the obvious fact that England is larger than Scotland. It is that we are choosing to call a monarch, who ruled one country for very nearly sixty years by another name he also had for 22 years and which treats the former as irrelevant, when there is no need to do so. Ben Mac Dui 18:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If we used "James VI & I", one of the more often suggested titles, the inevitable question would be "King of what"? Adding "of {country}" to that would result in "James VI of Scotland and I of England, France, and Ireland", which is unwieldy and overly long. Even leaving out the titular crown of France doesn't fix it. In identifying monarchs, the place is significantly more important and defining than is the ordinal. Same problem with his son and successor, as Charles I of England, although at least the ordinal is the same for all three crowns (Ireland, Scotland, England). James also styled himself as King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, by proclamation in 1604, except Great Britain didn't exist yet, until 1707. "James" has been used eleven times in naming monarchs, that I know of: James I-VII of Scotland, James I & II of England, and James I & II of Aragon. I disagree that "VI & I", or "I & VI" is common, or common enough for readers to know which James we are talking about. Elizabeth I may be such a designation, although even there, an Elizabeth of Russia also existed. I really don't know how to title this article in a way that responds to all of the concerns and makes everyone happy. Eight years of article history and copious discussions say keep the status quo. Of course, consensus can change. — Becksguy (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The "inevitable question" you refer to applies to all the other monarchs with a cognomen or other name, yet NCROY makes it clear that the "first name + ordinal" is the second choice, so this argument would appear to have no basis. There is no need whatever for the title to include any "of {country}" and most of the rest of the information you offer is thus irrelevant. The "consensus" you refer to (which word Wiktionary defines as "widespread agreement among group members") seems to be rather closer to an imposition by a majority of something disputed strongly by a minority. This would not be called "consensus" elsewhere and I wonder if you have a proposal to end these copious discussions rather than re-iterate points in favour of a position that can only prolong them? Ben Mac Dui 09:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Another discussion thread that petered out. Seriously, what is it with this insistence on arguing a point which has been done to death over and over. Yes, some people don't like the policy, but it is the policy which is applied for the convenience of all the pages on all the monarchs known for all the countries, and there is no justification in making a special exception for King James simply because he ruled over English-speaking subjects whose descendants feel offended to see that their country has not been awarded pride of place. FOARP (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was a discussion thread that petered out, its another imposition by a majority of English editors who label anyone wanting to change to modern nomenclature as a "Scottish Nationalist", whilst maintaining a bias towards English nationalism. Irony or hypocrisy you take your pick. Those damned "Scottish Nationalists" actually propose to use a name that is neutral, gives equal prominence and is more reflective of modern nomenclature (which has changed to reflect the strong systemic bias towards the English in British history). This is already a significant compromise and it has fuck all to do with feeling offended that Scotland has not be awarded pride of place. That is arrogant, dismissive and grossly offensive to those who have earnestly tried to build a concensus and been stonewalled. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move II

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

– This could be the best solution to a thorny dispute, at the very least it merits discussion. The argument is that there is a precedent, the kingdom of Spain during around the time of the Spanish Armada was a personal union of Castile and Aragon which were only fully united later, but a request to move the titles of the kings of Spain around that time was defeated. In reality events in Scotland and England became increasingly linked during this period e.g. at the civil war and the glorious revolution, and Scotland was under English military occupation under Cromwell. The title "King of Great Britain" was used even at the time e.g. by James I, and by the Scots parliament when they proclaimed Charles II after the execution of his father. The naming convention that dual monarchs take the name of their most important kingdom is I think meant to avoid article titles containing a lengthy list of titles, not cases where some concise title can be used. PatGallacher (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment The move bot seems to have a problem, I proposed to move James I, Charles I and Charles II as well. PatGallacher (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Support Anything is better than the current situation, where the article is kept at a name that is anachronistic compared with modern nomenclature. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. This would be the worst solution, as it would mean replacing an appropriate title with an incorrect, anachronistic and misleading one for the sake of political correctness. The articles about the Habsburg monarchs of Castile should all be titled Name # of Castile (why are the Trastamara sovereigns of all Spanish realms, Ferdinand the Catholic and Joanna the Mad, treated differently?); the fact that they are not should not lead to corruption of articles about their British counterparts. The aim should be to improve all articles, not the other way around. Surtsicna (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Per the following text in the article: " In April 1604, however, the Commons refused on legal grounds his request to be titled "King of Great Britain". In October 1604, he assumed the title "King of Great Britain" by proclamation rather than statute, though Sir Francis Bacon told him he could not use the style in "any legal proceeding, instrument or assurance"."--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Support And so what? The English House of Commons had him as James I of England. The Estates of Parliament of Scotland had him as James the sixth. He proclaimed himself the King of GB. Why should a clerkly decision of the pre 1707 English administration have any bearing on this article title? Brendandh (talk) 23:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Limits existed even in monarchies prior to 1707. If none other than James I claimed himself to be something, then obviously a problem exists. I would not support this change even if Wikipedia had been around in 1604. I like the longer titles better, but this one is simply silly.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Limits??Why silly? The King of Scots since the mid 16thc. who inherited the empty throne of England and Ireland who was invited to take those crowns and pronounced himself king of GB. Simple, no? The English parliament was not a gainsayer for the all the realms that King James ruled. Btw what was happening in 1604? Brendandh (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Limits for royal power. As much as we would like to think otherwise, parliament, the nobles, and even the common people still held some political control over monarchs. James I is no exception. None supported his decision to proclaim himself "King of Great Britain", not even his closest advisors. Have you read the quote I took from the article? Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose The first monarch to be legitimately styled "...of Great Britain" was Anne. Though that didn'y prevent her and her may predecessors also styling themselves kings of France, much to the annoyance, no doubt, of the real king of France. The user DrKiernan has been trying to squeeze out these Titles in pretence because of the bad odour they cause. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
He was James VII of Scotland and James II of England. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Charles II of Spain for a comparable discussion last year which has been alluded to. PatGallacher (talk) 00:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What ended up "winning" in that discussion was not only the common name but also the correct name (as presented by one editor, the title "King of Spain" was accepted by the time of Charles II; this is not the case of "King of Great Britain" at the time of James I).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, especially concerning William III of England. The proposed move tries to cover all the countries a monarch ruled. But what about the fact that William III also ruled over large parts of the Netherlands (as semi-heditary stadholder) and some small parts in France and Germany (as Prince of Orange and Nassau). Maybe we should then move the page William III of England → William III of Europe (joking). Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 04:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - what about Ireland? He was monarch of 3 kingdoms, not 2, so the omission of Ireland is a very pointed breach of NPOV. The whole proposal is a breach of WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia cannot just make things up because somebody does not like the facts, as duly recorded in countless academic works. The Kingdom of Great Britain was established in 1707, so trying to back-date this event over a hundred years just makes the project look amateurish beyond belief. I despair of Wikipedia sometimes: Pokemon, endless hagiographies and history at primary school level. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Than they should be named "of the British Isles" (LOL). Anyway, it's too complicated. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 06:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
You're giving them ideas. Hehehe.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Weakly opppose, as inaccurate and therefore uncustomary. Despite James' small effort towards multinationalism, he ruled three kingdoms, with (for example) separate peerages; there was no Kingdom of Great Britain before 1707. I could support James I, James II, William III, and Mary II as primary usage; but that logic would lead to not disambiguating the Kings of England (and most of the Kings of Scotland) at all - a major change. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose as to James: James I of England was James VI of Scotland and bboth numbers were used. His grandson was James II and VII. Neutral as to William and Mary. William III was theoretically only William II of Scotland. Mary II had one predecessor of her name each in England and Scotland, so that there ought to be no difficulty. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. They are not referred to in this way. john k (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Propose renaming this talkpage section "Requested move II and XIX". --FormerIP (talk) 23:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, as the Kingdom of Great Britain didn't come into existance until 1707. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose per Surtsicna and GoodDay. Great Britain is anachronistic, and to use it here would be be more fodder to those professors and teachers who like to denounce Wikipedians to their students as "amateurs".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No offence but teachers, professors and modern academics will be denouncing wikipedia as "amateurs" whilst this article is being kept at a name that is anachronistic. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not those from reputable institutions. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

WCM, cite one scholarly text which describes James I and James VI as James I of Great Britain.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there are a fair number, over a thousand in fact, including Burke's Landed Gentry (2001) p.1291 "Henry Stuart, Duke of Albany and Master of Lennox (see above under 4th Great Steward), formerly styled Lord Darnley, by whom she had issue ( an only son, KING JAMES I of Great Britain)." and Professor Barry Coward's Companion to Stuart Britain p. 9 in "As a firm advocate that monarchy was divinely interposed between God and civil society, James I of Great Britain viewed dynastic consolidation as the first step towards perfect union under an imperial monarchy." (I'm not saying it should be moved. I'm just saying it is used.) DrKiernan (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that most academics now refer to James VI and I, while we anachronistically stick with an older name. So yes we look like amateurs. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The only alternative I'd accept, would be James I of England, Ireland & VI of Scotland. An article title, that would be too long for this article - same with 2 Charles, other James, Mary & William. GoodDay (talk) 10:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

When referring to "most academics", the mention is primarily of historians. History is one of the most conservative sciences and thus very unlikely to make a drastic switch from "James I of England" to any other "short name" for the man (the only other reasonable option, as mentioned by GoodDay, is to have the long version).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Potential compromise article title change to King James

Every en-Wiki article on a monarch named James includes "of {country}". I counted about 22 of them. The WP:DAB page on King James lists nine monarchs. Since this is off topic from the move request, I started a new thread. There is no article with the title "King James", except for the DAB page. And that could be renamed to King James (disambiguation), which at this point is a REDIRECT to King James. At first blush, it appears that WP:SOVERIGN (or WP:NCROY) allows for a title without a country or ordinal if the monarch is sufficiently famous enough and well known enough with a non-conforming name. But we would need to carefully reread all the policy and guidelines on article titles, as well as COMMONNAME and SOVERIGN, and whatever else. Has anyone thought about renaming this article "King James". He is arguably the most famous and historically important monarch with that name. Just throwing this out to see if there is any interest in discussing this further as a possible compromise position. The nice thing is that it removes all issues of nationalism from the title and to my mind, is a better title than "James VI & I" which doesn't seem to have much popular significance or context. And the SOVERIGN conforming tile would be "James VI of Scotland & James I of England, Ireland & France", which is overly long. As one indication of his importance as "King James", the King James Version of the bible (KJV), the most important, influential, and best known English language bible version since 1611, has as it's dedication the following: "TO THE MOST HIGH AND MIGHTY PRINCE JAMES, BY THE GRACE OF GOD KING OF GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND IRELAND, DEFENDER OF THE FAITH, &cc. ...". Thoughts? — Becksguy (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. "He is arguably the most famous and historically important monarch with that name"... arguably is right. He's probably not the most important Scottish monarch of that name. From the point of view of the wider British history James II (and VII) is a more pivotal figure in the development of the Whig/Tory party system. And that doesn't even start to consider Kings called James outside what is now the United Kingdom. Opera hat (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I am not sure this is the right solution, but I much appreciate your willingness to come up with creative ideas. Secondly, whilst it is not my preferred outcome it is certainly better than the existing name. Call this "qualified support" if you like. Ben Mac Dui 08:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose That is actually more Anglocentric than the current title, since it implies that the 5 pre-Union Scottish Jameses are of little importance. PatGallacher (talk) 10:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - the worst of every world. Deb (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Smend. I don't think this is possible. In addition to his five predecessors of that name, there is his grandson; he is not primary usage oover all of them. In addition, in the register we are using, he is ususlly called James I, which I would continue to support; but is there any compromise which will not be condemned as "more anglocentric than the present title"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There may or may not be a compromise that has more chance of success but it's hard to imagine one that could be significantly "more anglocentric than the present title". The problem is that the existing title is unacceptable from a Scottish point of view, James VI of Scotland would have the reverse effect on anglophiles, but almost anything else gets grumbled at by the NCROY fans. Another problem (and one that I think is pretty generic to our organ) is that the discussion has a tendency to be pretty black/white. The apparent peace that has broken out at QE2 suggests these problems are not insoluble but this is a rather intractable issue. I wonder what it would look like if we took "James VI of Scotland" and "James I of England" out of the equation just as a thought experiment. I suppose we'd be left with:

James I of Great Britain
James of Great Britain
King James
James VI and I
James I and VI
James I

I think I'd choose "James I of Great Britain". The man himself would probably have liked it, it has the advantage of being a genuine compromise, it doesn't fall foul NCROY, although there is an obvious disadvantage in terms of common use. James VI and I would be my second choice. Sweet dreams to one and all. Ben Mac Dui 20:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Unacceptable from a Scottish point of view? You write as though this were a bad thing. The more titles and articles we have that are unacceptable from a national point of view, the better. When all our articles are unacceptable to all the national points of view involved, we will done a great deal to attain neutrality. (I will cheerfully accept suggestions on how this article may be made unacceptable to a Sassenach point of view; if they are backed by general English usage and the consensus of reliable sources, they should be inserted immediately. The inclusion of VI & I in the first line is a start. ) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Clearly the ideal is a solution that is acceptable to all points of view rather than one that simply avoids being acceptable to certain undesirable ones, but insofar as you are saying that solutions that avoid unnecessary national POV-pushing and a foolish consistency are to be preferred, we are in agreement. Ben Mac Dui 07:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is promoting an English national POV at the moment, so according to Anderson's argument his oppose should be a support above should it not? James I of England is a distinctly English POV. James VI and I isn't and is broadly acceptable to modern scholars, and the argument is that it should stay the way it is because of an anglo-centric view of history that has a systemic bias toward the English POV. Mmmm Wee Curry Monster talk 07:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a tenable case for James I of Great Britain, although logically we would have to move the next 5 monarchs as well. The arguments could be that we had a comparable discussion in relation to the kings of Spain, they should be described as such following the presonal union of Ferdinand and Isabella, even though Castile and Aragon were not fully united until some time later. The title King of Great Britain was used at the time, e.g. Charles II was proclaimed as such by the Scots after the execution of his father. PatGallacher (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

James VI and I. There is a reasonable compromise stemming from modern academia that has the advantage it is a compromise that is broadly acceptable to all sides. Recognise that Scots et al are compromising, those perpetuating an untenable status quo are not. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Compromising from what? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Compromising from the fact that the article should be named James VI of Scotland, he was crowned King of Scotland first and ruled Scotland far longer than he ruled England. We see complaints of Scottish "nationalism" for a change that promotes neutrality and eliminates bias, used to promote a status quo that is basically based on English "nationalism". Ironically the only people prepared to compromise are those damned Scottish nationalists. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I imagine we should also have Henry III of Navarre? What's that? Crickets chirping? john k (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

James VI of Scotland / James I of England. Reasons - historically and chronologically accurate under WP: Article title guidelines already discussed as well as the Article's scope which deals extensively with both countries since his rule was so long i.e., Longest serving Scottish monarch. United both countries. Most reasonable for ALL English-speaking countries. Politically neutral name. Mugginsx (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

"James I of England and VI of Scotland"

Bit of a longer name, but I noticed other Wikipedias use this to name the article. Opinions?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

How he is commonly known in English I think. However it's confusing how it says "James VI & I" in the lead and not something like "King James I of England, also known as King James VI of Scotland" - which would not conflict with the title as it currently does. --85.210.110.198 (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

To answer Marshal N20 and numbered IP - I am almost "OK" with the title in reverse and correct chronological and historical order, i.e., King James VI of Scotland, James I of England. I think it will fulfill the suggestion of founder Jimbo Wales as stated below, "a solution which is satisfactory to all, or at least which creates the least dissatisfaction..." for his full statement, please see below in Section entitled: Back to the title with a suggestion by Jimbo Wales Mugginsx (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Back to the Title with a Suggestion by Jimmy Wales

Suggestion: Let's ask Jimmy Wales to weigh in.

As everyone seems to want to identify by country, I will say again that I am an American and not of either English or Scottish descent. Agree with User:Nocrowx. Also English-speaking countries would find it more logical. He was King of Scotland who "became" King of England, not the reverse. Does not make sense as is. It also fails guidline Wikipedia:Article titles it fails to precisely identify the article i.e., he was King of Scotland many years before King of England. Would agree with James VI of Scotland, or James VI and James I as suggested above or simply James VI with a redirect to James I.

It is ridiculous, with all due respect, to put his "lesser" title as the complete title in this otherwise fine article. I believe it also fails the smell test to the editor who stated that because James VI did so much work for the English Crown before he was king that his "heart" was with England. As to "I really do no know how the title should be changed" as stated by another good faith editor, I would say that there is only one way to do it - To a person who is not involved by "Nationality" the subject does not require alot of "intellectualizing". I repeat, He was King of Scotland for many many years before becoming King of England. Perhaps this is a subject which is difficult only to those of the two countries involved. Also, to the editor above, to my knowledge we have never incorporated Ireland in medieval monarchy article title that I have seen for the simple reason that there were no Irish Kings that became English Kings so I see no valid argument there, with respect. There are alot of other people who read Wikipedia and since this is not just a European question we might invite the founder, Jimmy Wales, to weigh in. Mugginsx (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm happy to weigh in, but mainly on the side of encouraging thoughtful discussion and dialogue in an attempt to find a solution which is satisfactory to all, or at least which creates the least dissatisfaction. Relevant criteria will include consistency with similar cases, common usage (particularly in scholarly sources), and clarity for the reader. I have only begun to read the discussions on this page, and I find interesting points on all sides. One thing that I would like to request is that we avoid framing the discussion in terms of 'nationalism', Scottish or English. Such a frame seems more likely to hurt feelings and cause people to dig in their heels than to seek compromise.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Unfortunately, I believe this is a unique situation in Wiki I cannot find a single precedent in the monarchy series of articles. Will check other suggestions you made and I hope other editors will as well. Mugginsx (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The more new and independent eyes on this page the better and thank-you both for your consideration. We should indeed avoid accusations of nationalism, which are unlikely to help, but the reality is that to date it has essentially been a debate about the conflicting claims of two national groups. It seems to be the sort of problem which is hard to resolve (see also Talk:Republic of Ireland passim). Those of us from larger nations may be content with the idea that the might of numbers is right, but it is frustrating for those from smaller constituencies. Consider a small thought experiment. If policy was that each of two sides in such a debate had to choose five representatives each to come up with a solution that was supported by at least a simple majority, does anyone imagine that the present article title would be the outcome? I realise that this is not the way we do things. Nonetheless it seems surprising to me, given the options provided by scholarly sources, that some kind of compromise has so far failed to find any serious traction. Ben Mac Dui 20:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Americans are taught just the opposite - that small groups (such as our founding fathers and Colonists) could defeat mightier odds. That is the cornerstone and core belief of American History. Mugginsx (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is presently in two places: here and at User talk:Jimbo Wales Section "James I of England". Mugginsx (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is (IMHO) a prime example of the reason to drop the of country from monarch article titles. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Repeated below since I do not know which discussion is going and you have commented at all three. Almost got it right GoodDay

- James VI of Scotland / James I of England. WP:Article title - WP:Article Scope - Longest serving Scottish Monarch - article encompasses his entire life. Historically accurate - chronologically accurate. Politically neutral to all English-speaking countries. Example given earlier was of a medieval dead monarchy. Mugginsx (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

First Paragraph Proposal

James I of England (19 June 1566 – 27 March 1625), also known as James VI & I, was King of Scots (from 24 July 1567) as James VI and King of England and Ireland (from 24 March 1603) as James I. Upon inheriting the English and Irish crown, he united the Crown of the Kingdom of Scotland with the crown of the Kingdoms of England and Ireland (each country remained legally separate, with their own Parliaments, judiciary, and laws, though each was ruled by James). James VI & I continued to reign in all three kingdoms until his death in 1625, but based himself in England (the largest of the three realms) from 1603. At 57 years and 246 days, his reign in Scotland was longer than any of his predecessors.

This is an improvement from the current first paragraph. It fits with the current title, includes the name "James VI & I", and shortens a long (confusing) sentence. Agree or disagree? Explain in either case please.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

God no. The country designation should never be in the bolded text at the beginning of an article on a monarch. john k (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Why no John k? A bit of a better variation on the theme:

James VI of Scotland and I of England and Ireland (19 June 1566 – 27 March 1625) was King of Scots (from 24 July 1567) and King of England and Ireland (from 24 March 1603). Upon inheriting the English and Irish crown, he united the Crown of the Kingdom of Scotland with the crown of the Kingdoms of England and Ireland (each country remained legally separate, with their own Parliaments, judiciary, and laws, though each was ruled by James). James VI & I continued to reign in all three kingdoms until his death in 1625, but based himself in England (the largest of the three realms) from 1603. At 57 years and 246 days, his reign in Scotland was longer than any of his predecessors. Brendandh (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I like this proposal as well. Either this one or the original I proposed are better options than the current status (which is confusing and hard to follow).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Why no? Because "of England" and "of Scotland" are not part of his name. Note the intros to Charles I of England, Elizabeth I of England, Louis XIV of France, and every other well-maintained article about a monarch. john k (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I helped fix part of the problem with the first paragraph. This sentence is also bothersome to read:

(each country remained legally separate, with their own Parliaments, judiciary, and laws, though each was ruled by James)

Which countries is this refering to? I think this would do best as a separate sentence within the paragraph.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If I can help, the above is in the article, I believe. Mugginsx (talk) 09:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

At the moment, the first words in this article are "James I & IV". How about changing that to "Charles James Stuart", the name in which our article says he was baptised? James500 (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

James I & IV? GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Almost got it right GoodDay

- James VI of Scotland / James I of England. WP:Article title - WP:Article Scope - Longest serving Scottish Monarch - article encompasses his entire life. Historically accurate - chronologically accurate. Politically neutral to all English-speaking countries. Example given earlier was of a medieval dead monarchy.Mugginsx (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

"IV" was a typo and I was not suggesting that the article title be changed. James500 (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This article title will eventually be moved to James I and VI. I believe a trend is growing towards dropping the of country part of monarchial bio article titles. GoodDay (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe that is wishful thinking, GoodDay. The valid arguments are just not there, certainly not comparisons to dead medieval monarcharies and other such arguments. Country should remain in the title even if it is sometimes a country that is not that particular editor's country. Mugginsx (talk) 08:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course the country names should not be dropped; otherwise James I and VI would not make much sense to a casual reader. Anyway, the names of the countries are in fact, the names of the kingdoms over which the monarch reigned: James VI of Scotland/James I of England or vice-versa. Seeing as his reign commenced in Scotland in 1567 whereas he did not ascend the English throne until 1603, I think the article should be entitled James VI of Scotland and James I of England. It is long but unquestionably accurate and not open to confusion.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree, to James VI of Scotland / James I of England (with all pertinent re-directs). It does NOT make historically accurate or historically chronological "sense" any other way! I think we will be ready for another vote now or soon. Please notify me if I miss the start of the process. There is no pertinent argument on the other side except "change the guidelines". It seems that the monarchial series guidelines have worked just fine until now. Mugginsx (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd recommend James I of England and Ireland, VI of Scotland or James VI of Scotland, I of England and Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move III - Politically neutral Title Change for all English speaking countries

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Withdrawn per nominator's request in favor of his proposal below. Hot Stop talk-contribs 19:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

New Vote for title change from James I of England to James VI of Scotland and James I of England

Support. Historically accurate, Chronological accurate. Emcompasses Article Title and Scope Guidlines. Policitally neutral. Mugginsx (talk) 08:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It should've been shortened to James VI of Scotland and Ireland, I of England. No need to have James mentioned twice. GoodDay (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: You say down below the title is too long! That would make it longer. You can't have it both ways. Be fair.Mugginsx (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

SuppBold textort but may I suggest we replace the / with and?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

done. Mugginsx (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Support makes the most sensen historically and chronologically. It is also neutral politically. Best option. -DJSasso (talk) 12:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME as most famous as King of England and requested change would create a ridiculously long title. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: that may be true in England or even Europe but not necessarily in every other English speaking country. Mugginsx (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that's the case. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

With respect-As an American living many yrs in different states & a multi-cultural country, I assure you it is the case.

With respect, I don't believe you. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, let me ask you this: Is Harry Truman more important to you than Calvin Coolidge? I didn't think so. Mugginsx (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Truman - I wrote an essay on his politics during the course of my BSc. I fail to see the point. And you'll have to forgive me if I don't believe that your opinions are representive of an entire country so I'm going to stick with asserting that WP:COMMONNAME applies. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, as title is too long & reads as though there's 2 individuals. GoodDay (talk) 13:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

PS- Also, what about Ireland? GoodDay (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: He was not King of Ireland separately. He only attained that title as the King of England. Mugginsx (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

He was indeed King of Ireland seperately. There were three thrones involved, not just two. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

There was no joining of the crowns as in the case of Scotland and England. The so-called kingdom of Ireland was a Tudor creation, it had nothing to do with the ancient kingdoms of Ireland and was not even recognised in Catholic European nations. The article already states that he was king of Ireland in the lead, there's no need to have it in the title.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Ireland united with the Kingdom of Great Britain, in 1801. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you call Henry VIII King Henry I of Ireland?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The Irish monarchs used their English regnal numbers. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose for the same reasons as GoodDay above. James VI and I would be better - there's been nobody else with both those ordinals so including the countries is unnecessary disambiguation. Opera hat (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Only problem with your title is that "a country" will want to be put in and then all the arguments start again. Mugginsx (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Compare Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI and Elizabeth II. Opera hat (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I guess you have a point there. If this fails I would consider it but think its more controversial. Mugginsx (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, for the same reason as GoodDay wrote. Should we name the article of William III then "William III of Orange, the Netherlands and of England and William II of Scotland"? This is totally unpractical. Why are these kind of discussions always regarding British Kings???? Take for example on continental Europe where Kings, Dukes, or Fürsts (princes) existed in which many of them held more than one country. But in those cases there is never such discussion as here. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I am sorry that comment is old and won't work as you know as well as I that this is a completely different scenerio since James was King of Scotland before he became King of England (and thereby "inheriting" other titles already incorporated into the Kingdom of England}. Completely different to my mind. Mugginsx (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose this is a style he himself didn't use, and no reliable sources have been provided using it, so therefore is original research. As an aside, has anyone suggested plain old King James for him? Hot Stop talk-contribs 14:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Who care's? It was, in fact, what he was. There is an article entitled The Black Prince that is not how he was styled either. As to the plain old King James, you must know that would not work. Mugginsx (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Must you use italics? Hot Stop talk-contribs 14:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Added to my comment above. I always use italics for my comments, so do others. No one has ever commented before. Is this better for you? Mugginsx (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've never really seen people do it, but it doesn't really bother me. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support Support this or even James VI and I per modern nomenclature. Those quoting WP:COMMON NAME may wish to consult modern publications which use James VI and I, so per that policy it would no longer reflect the current article name. WP:OR is a red herring. Continuing to hold the article at a name that is increasingly anachronistic is just not sustainable under the policies. This is the English language wikipedia not the English nationalist wikipedia. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yup, just disregard WP:OR. Policies are made to be broken, after all. Hot Stop talk-contribs 23:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  - He didn't style himself James VI and I but that is how modern textbooks refer to this monarch, nor did he simply style himself James I of England. So you comments about WP:OR are actually irrelevant, since the very article title you promote is WP:OR by you interpretation of that policy. WP:PETARD. Ciao. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
    - Except this proposal calls for James VI of Scotland and James I of Scotland. Note I supported the below proposal which drops the country names and which is more common. Hot Stop talk-contribs 14:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Support. A more accurate name for this article and also chronological correct. Bjmullan (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Support. The best solution - not necessarily. Better than the current one - certainly. Those brandishing COMMON NAME may wish to be reminded that the current version is a common name, but not the only one. Ben Mac Dui 07:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Strongly oppose – among other things, the proposed title is clumsy. Since we now have Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI and Elizabeth II, and since it is rather unambiguous, I would support James VI & I (and his grandson James II & VII) IFF there is proper proof that these are common enough usages! D B D 08:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment:wp:clumsy is a subjective observation. Your suggestion as to an alternate title could have merit if this vote fails. Mugginsx (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose per Hot Stop. It's OR. JonC ^Talk 12:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Can we close this thread now? It is tied anyway so no one will be affected. Mugginsx (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.