Talk:James VI and I/Archive 1

"He also claimed to be King of France, because his mother had been, for a short time, queen consort of France."

His mothers life had little to do with this title.Queen consorts didn't have rights to the throne.He became nominaly "King of France" on 1603 when he took the throne of England.All Kings of England held this title between Henry VI and George III.Henry VI had been declared both King of England and France after the deaths of his father (King of England) and his grandfather (King of France).Although he was the King who lost the Hundred Year War his heirs continued to take both titles upon coronation until 1801.So until 1801 any King of England also claimed the title of King of France.Including James.

User:Dimadick

Excellent. That is what makes Wiki so good. There is always someone out there who knows some useful but little known fact that improves all our knowledge. Thanks, Dimadick. JTD 00:00 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

Although he claimed the title of "King of France" is it proper to define him as the "King of France"? Susan Mason

I protected the Page. Susan and 172 were continuously reverting each other changes. I reverted to pre-edit-war state as is policy. -- JeLuF 07:02 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

Good call. Don't unprotect the article until Lir/Vera/Susan is banned. 172

Well, are you going to discuss the page or just talk trash? Susan Mason

In your case . . . no. Don't feed the trolls.

You are the one vandalizing articles. Susan Mason

In any case, Im willing to speak to you if you ever wish to engage in dialogue. Susan Mason

Both his parents seem to be Scottish. What makes you think he is English? Tuf-Kat

Susan, going by the experience of RK who called you a liar (opps, sorry that was in your pretending to be Dietary Fiber phase), 172 who has described you (in your Vera Cruz phase) as a professional vandal, Zoe (who has had her fill of you), Deb (who is driven mad by you) and a whole host of others, you don't know the meaning of the word dialogue. You generate a worthless debate in which you waste everyone's time pretending to listen while not paying a blind bit of notice. It is what you are notorious for, as a glance around the pointless wars you started (like reverting names, calling someone [[Edward VIII, Duke of Windsor]], abandoning an agreed naming convention for peers) you name it, Susan Mason can be guaranteed to cause it. One by one everyone attempts to talk to you. One by one they give up, if not leave wiki altogether. STÓD/ÉÍRE 07:44 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not quite mad yet - just irritated. Deb 08:19 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

That's what I love about you, Deb. So spot on. :-)

Was Henry Frederick Stuart really the "Prince of Whales"? Seems unlikely. Fred Bauder 08:25 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

While whe're about it, can someone whith access please amend "Prince of Whales" on this page to read "Prince of Wales". Deb 08:27 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC) (increasingly irritated)

Done. However, the page remains protected. -- Notheruser 08:30 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

172, why not lock the whole database, so Susan Mason can't make any edits until she is banned? The article was protected, and the sysop who protected it asked you to discuss on the talk page. Susan Mason is offering to discuss it, instead you choose to call her a troll and say her arguments are trivial. You're quick to point out situations in the past where Susan Mason may have done wrong, and other users' frustration, but you refuse to discuss any specific and current problem. You are stalling the resolution of the article until Susan Mason is banned. Wouldn't it be better to discuss the article (that's why the page is protected) and maybe even finding a compromise? If you feel that Susan Mason is breaking established conventions, point to policy or precedent to prove it.

--cprompt

I'm afraid that has been tried and tried and tried with Lir, then with Vera Cruz, then with Susan, then with Dietary Fiber. Compromise has never been possible with the Adam family. Everyone who had tried a compromise has given up in frustration. On the History of the Soviet Union the reason her rewriting was changing the whole meaning of a two line paragraph was explained and explained ad nausaum. And still she'd ignore it and put in her version. Vera Cruz drove everybody mad on the new imperialism page, undoing the page and redoing it in her version, in process throwing out everyone else's contribution and everyone else's attempts at compromise. Read through that exchange and you'll have some idea of what working with this troll is like. Her speciality is rewriting pages to suit what she wants, and undoing everyone else's changes. As two people on idolitary she produced a continuous edit war. On lists she began unilaterally changing things in the face of protests from everyone else. At this stage, trying to compromise with any of Adam's creations is the equivalent of banging your head off a brick wall. STÓD/ÉÍRE 20:15 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

Lir was Dietary Fiber as well? -- Tarquin 20:23 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

Why should JTD and I deliberate for hours with Lir/Vera over a change that is historically incorrect? Deliberation is not going to wipe the term “regime” out of the historical lexicon nor will it transform King James into an Englishman posthumously. We can’t be faulted for not playing his/her game.

And yes, Lir is Dietary Fiber as well.

172

--Actual Discussion about page-- It is a widespread convention to list titles of relatively equivalent rank in the order in which they were conferred, therefore it makes sense to list him as James VI of Scotland first, as that predated his inheriting the English crown.

And in terms of describing him, British would be the best adjective, Scottish next, but English is patently absurd. Dramatic 20:42 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

British as the name of the state only occured in 1707 through it 1604 James VI/I did take about reigning over great brittaine. But because he and some other monarchs until 1707 used two ordinals, using that terminology is a recipe for confusion; how can a king of one kingdom have two ordinals? So standard usage with most historians is to reserve the word 'Britain' and 'British' until after the 1707 Act of Union, and keep the individual references to the two states until then. James was born Scottish, reigned in Scotland and inherited the throne of England while Scottish king, so Scottish is the right terminology to use, British is less right but explainable, English is garbage and patently absurd. STÓD/ÉÍRE 20:52 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

I thought "British" was also used for much earlier periods and was a general term meaning "pertaining to the Island of Britain". Dramatic 21:33 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

It was used much earlier and later, but as by that stage you were seeing the emegence of modern states, we have to be very careful and accurate in the use of terminology. So the saftest and most accurate thing to do is to stick strictly to formal terms. James was King of Scotland, then King of England. Each state existed with its own parliament and government. Britain creates the impression that there was only one state, but that didn't happen until 1707. That is why, even though great britainne was mentioned in 1604, it was such a poorly defined term that it is better left to 1707, when that became the legal name of the state (albeit spelt differently!)

What is jtdirl/172s problem with my edits? Im still waiting. Im well aware that James I was from Scotland and the "edit war" had nothing to do with the fact that I described James as an "English" king, although perhaps it would be better to simply say "king". Certainly, a simple issue like that doesn't call for a revert. Naturally this page serves as a good example of why the naming convention requiring titles and such is a bit much, is this going to be changed to James I of England, Ireland, Scotland, and France? Susan Mason