Jump to content

Talk:William the Lion/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Longest reign?

[edit]

It says that his reign was the longest in Scottish history, but I don't know whether this claim should survive as two Queens of Scotland (after union with England) had longer reigns(?). --Daniel C. Boyer 20:50, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Interesting one. It depends how you interpret the phrase "Scottish history", doesn't it? We could add a sentence saying, "However, two rulers of the United Kingdom..." Deb 20:58, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I think this would be the best approach. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:15, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't agree. For one thing , five monarchs from the British Isles had (or in one case, has) reigns longer than William's: Edward III, Elizabeth II (52 years and still counting), Henry III, George III and Victoria.

For another, I think it very reasonable to assume that the terms "Scottish History" refers to the history of Scotland prior to 1603 (though a look just now at History of Scotland suggest otherwise). However, if you really insist, you could say that William was the longest serving Scottish monarch. Arno 03:59, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You mean prior to 1707. From 1603 to 1707, "King of Scotland" was still officially a distinct title. Aridd (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William and the French

[edit]

William did NOT arrange the Auld Alliance, which dates from the reign of King John Balliol. It is quite meaningless to raise earlier connections between Scotland and France in this context, just as it is to suggest a spurious extension of the Franco-Scottish alliance to the times of the Jacobites.

Rcpaterson 00:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Excommunicated?

[edit]

It says on the entry on Pope Alexander III that he excommunicated William I. Why? Could be interesteing to learn more about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.140.216.99 (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no move. DrKiernan (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William I of ScotlandWilliam the Lion — Per WP:NCNT If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country. I certainly think this is the case here. In the articles I write, I almost always type [[William I of Scotland|William the Lion]] or King [[William I of Scotland|William]], because it is rare to refer to him as William I. It is uncommon to the refer to William of Orange as William II of Scotland, and therefore it is counter-intuitive to see William the Lion called "William I", even though it is technically correct. In any case, that is my interpretation of why it is so rare. —Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Nickname test cases. Andrewa (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.