Talk:Margaret, Maid of Norway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This article already existed at Saint Margaret of Scotland...one of them should redirect to the other. Adam Bishop 02:08, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't know if they covered the same person back in 2003 when you made this comment, but at this time they cover two different people and should not be merged or redirected.

Contents 1 Queen regnant ? 2 Naming 3 Cut & paste move 4 James I and Margaret; Margaret and the Cambridge Medieval History

[edit] Queen regnant ?

If Professors Duncan, Macdougall, Oram, and Penman can't bring themselves to describe Margaret as Queen, or say that she wasn't, then she wasn't Queen. That's not POV or OR, that's citing reliable sources as required. POV would be saying that she was Queen on the basis of unreliable and/or obsolete sources. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I could quote other sources, Whitaker's Almanack, Junior Pear's Encyclopedia, John Prebble's The Lion in The North, and that's just off the top of my head. If the sources are divided, we ought to reflect this, although I note you seem to be only quoting Duncan. Macdougall's point may be true but is not relevant to this argument. PatGallacher 13:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Duncan and Oram (i.e. Penman, as he wrote that section.) Penman says

Margaret was never inaugurated and was more properly styled 'lady of Scotland'. (Oram, 107) Duncan says

Modern works without exception call her 'queen', including reference books which give the date of her accession as 19 March 1286 (Alexander III's death); they are victims of Edward I's determined hustling.

A list of Scottish rulers must surely be based upon the law and custom of Scotland, which called her'lady and heir' in 1284 and still in 1290 when she was about to cross to Scotland. In the three years following Alexander III's death she is not mentioned in any record, and the Guardians never describe themselves as holding office for her, though on 17 March 1289 in letters that will be discussed shortly, they did describe the common seal as that 'used in the name of our aforesaid lady'; the phrase does not recur. Her titles appear in 1289 for the first time, when Eric II's and Edward I's clerks called her 'queen', but after her death this was abandoned as quickly as it had been adopted. Never inaugurated, she was never queen of Scots. (Duncan, 181-182)

The alternative viewpoint, that magic Discworld kingons transmitted the succession infallibly and instantaneously, would mean that we need to have King-for-a-day Edward I of Scotland and rename Edward Balliol to Edward II of Scotland. Margaret was no more Queen than Edmund of Scotland was king (and doubtless you can find books that say that he was, as indeed the WP article used to say). Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If these historians say that she is "traditionally styled 'queen'" and "Modern works without exception call her 'queen', including reference books which give the date of her accession as 19 March 1286" then this deserves recognition in the article, these historians are entitled to their POV, but it is only a POV. There can be a grey area about who is included in lists of monarchs, with e.g. Lady Jane Grey, sometimes included but usually not. Edward V of England and Edward VIII of the United Kingdom are always counted even though they were never crowned. Edward Balliol was crowned, he is usually not included but sometimes is. In her case (and others) an argument in her favour is that nobody else was claiming to be monarch during her putative reign. References to the law and custom of Scotland do not solve the problem since it was unprecedented in Scotland for the successor to the monarch to be outside the country and not available to be inaugurated. The only time anything like this happened again was during the imprisonment of James I of Scotland, contemporary Scottish documents describe him as heir not king, but most reference works date the start of his reign from the death of his father in 1406 not his coronation in 1424. Charles I had a Scottish coronation only a few years after his English coronation, and James VII, William of Orange, Mary II, and Anne never had a Scottish coronation or even visited Scotland during their reign, but they were monarchs of a separate kingdom of Scotland. "Lady of Scotland" is a peculiar title (has it ever been used for anybody else?) if Eric and Edward described her as queen they cannot have been wildly at variance with contemporary opinion, and off the top of my head I believe the Treaty of Salisbury, which did have Scottish signatories, described her as "lady, queen, and heir". She may indeed have been airbrushed out of history after her death, but what does that prove? Robert the Bruce's first parliament in St. Andrews ruled that his grandfather had been the been the legal heir to Alexander III, implying that she had never even been heir (and also implying that some sort of "semi-Salic" law applied in Scotland, which casts doubt on the succession of Mary Queen of Scots). In a few cases people have been given titles by the judgement of later historians e.g. King of England, Emperor of Rome. The idea that "magic Discworld kingons transmitted the succession infallibly and instantaneously" is actually the current view, which is why they say "The king is dead - long live the king". PatGallacher 15:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As for the current view of how things work, presentism is a fallacy when it comes to history. Scots kings were inaugurated, following custom, at Scone. That this was no idle flim flam in the period is shown by the unseemly rush to have the underage Malcolm IV inaugurated on David I's death (David dies at Carlisle 24 May, Malcolm inaugurated at Scone 27 May). As for Margaret, John of Fordun didn't think she was queen, "... Margaret, the daughter of the king of Norway, then the true heiress of Scotland." Nor did Barbour and Wyntoun:

Quhen Alexanderthe king wes deid
That Scotland haid to steyr and leid;
The land sex yere, and mayr perfay,
Lay desolat eftyr his day;
Till that the barnage at the last
Assemblyt thaim, and fayndyt fast
To cheis a king that land to ster ...(The Brus, 37-43, quoted by Wyntoun)

Six years is, surprisingly enough, the interregnum between Alexander III and John. As for Eric and Edward, it never hurts to remember the wise words of Mandy Rice-Davies; they did have a vested interest in portraying Margaret as queen, just as Duncan notes. The same is true of Parliaments under Robert I; Robert Bruce was always the rightful king and Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

Indeed the thoughts of Duncan, Oram and Penman could be waved away as mere opinion on the basis of the anonymous compilers of assorted almanackery, but I'm fairly sure that's not how things work. Duncan wrote the relevant old Edinburgh History volume while Oram is writing the new one. Based on Kingship and Unity, I can tell you that Geoffrey Barrow thought, some 30 years ago, that Margaret was indeed Queen of Scots; A.D.M Barrell thinks so too. However, Duncan's opinions in The Kingship of the Scots are especially relevant as it takes Succession and Independence as subtitle and theme and is by far the newest work on the topic (written 1993-2002). I don't doubt that there are whole heap of books which say that she was Queen, but none of them will do any more than make that bald statement of fact. We might just as well stick with the 1911 EB if "everybody says so" is to be the measure. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have never claimed that this is not a grey area, I am interested to see that 2 important historians, Barrow and Barrell, do regard her as queen. Barbour was writing poetry, not history, and his words are open to interpretation. I recognise that there is an argument that in mediaeval society some would have said that you only became monarch once you were crowned or inaugurated, but if you grant that approach you would have to delete Edward V from the kings of England, or say that the Scottish throne was vacant during 1406-24, which might have been the view of some contemporaries but is not the view of most historians. I'm not sure this is what is meant by presentism (read the article) but if that's your understanding of "presentism" then I would say it's difficult to avoid in some contexts. For example, we would have to avoid referring to William I or William the Conqueror, since nobody called him that in his own day, but call him William the Bastard or William the Great. Read the article on Roman Emperor for another example, this title has been retrospectively awarded on people by historians, there are similar problems with the question of at exactly what point the kings of Wessex become the kings of England. "False anti-presentism" could lead to you not referring to the pre-Columbian inhabitants of America as Indians or Native Americans, since nobody called them that at the time. PatGallacher 18:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Every difficult case needs to be taken on its merits. Edward V of England was king because "the king is dead; long live the king" is how things worked in England in his time; Robert Curthose, eldest son of William of Normandy, wasn't "rightful king of England" because things worked differently in the 1080s. James I of Scotland was king from 1406 in the same way that Edward V was king, because C15th succession was automatic; Margaret wasn't queen because things worked differently in the 1280s. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not at all clear that "the King is dead; long live the King" was the standard in England in 1483. The situation was ambiguous, and Edward V was only locked into the list when Edward VI took that ordinal. john k 20:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that every difficult case needs to be taken on its merits. However Robert Curthose is completely different, William Rufus was generally recognised as heir to the throne of England, even Robert himself didn't dispute this. As for Edward V, I have heard it claimed by a partisan of Richard III that "the king is dead long live the king" isn't how things worked then, this idea only came in during the Tudor period. Similarly this wasn't necessarily how things worked in Scotland during 1406-24, James I was just described in official documents as the heir, and the Regent Albany minted coins in his own name. PatGallacher 00:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

King Edward and the political elite of Scotland decided that Margaret would be queen, and that she would marry Edward of Caernarvon. However, she never visited Scone and was never crowned queen; you had to be crowned at Scone to be the monarch in this period, that's just simple fact. So she never did become Queen. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

As Scotland did not have a written constitution this is a matter of interpretation or POV not "simple fact". If, as you say, the "political elite of Scotland" thought that she was queen, as well as Edward and Eric, then the bulk of contemporary opinion thought that she was (we don't know what the peasants thought). It can be ahistorical to project current practices onto an earlier period, but it can also be ahistorical to claim that there was well-established custom and practice in what was, at the time, an unprecedented situation. PatGallacher 11:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

We know what Robert Bruce did after killing Comyn: he had himself inaugurated at Scone six weeks or so later by Lamberton and a substitute Earl of Fife in the form of Isabel. We know what Edward Balliol did after Dupplin Moor: had himself crowned at Scone by the Bishop of Orkney. The ceremony at Scone mattered. Bruce and Balliol believed they were king by right, but both went through with the ceremonial king-making. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Scone did indeed matter. It was, besides everything else, the ceremonial and indeed - though it is little known today - governmental capital of the kingdom (even in the 14th century!), the "chief seat of our realm" as one king called it. Scotland is even referred to as the "kingdom of Scone" in at least one source. But this is digression. Being crowned there separated the all-powerful warlord from the ceremonial monarch; it was also a functional way of establishing the consent of the old Gaelic "Earls", without which no effective monarch would have been possible. This is less relevant by the end of the 13th century, but the Scottish constitution, written in the heads of the people of the kingdom, is quite firm on this point. I am afraid there is no getting around that Margaret was no monarch until her Scone crowning. You might wanna see Margaret like an unconsecrated bishop who goes on some bishop lists, but gets omitted from the picky ones. ;) Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Er, what did Richard III do after deposing his nephew? I seem to recall that he had himself crowned at Westminster. And, um, what did Charles VII do as soon as he could get himself to Reims? I seem to recall that he had himself crowned there. What is the relevance of this? Obviously, Margaret is a marginal case, but pretending that medieval customs on such matters are perfectly clear is ridiculous. john k 20:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really. All monarchs who were monarchs of Scotland in this period were crowned at Scone. That's why Robert I's reign begins in 1306 rather than any other date. Custom here was clear! :p If you don't think so, then please enlighten us with more evidence. :) Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the comparison with Robert I isn't a terribly good one. His coronation came at the end of a 10 year interregnum, and, additionally, King John was still alive in 1306. While he may have been claiming the hereditary right to the throne before this, he didn't have any of the actual characteristics of king prior to 1306. So 1306 it must be. With Margaret, on the other hand, she was, as I understand it, pretty much universally acknowledged as the heiress, and there was no interregnum with a still living deposed king and a long English occupation to confuse matters. Whether or not she was considered queen at the time, that does make it enough for her to be considered retroactively queen, and that's something. Question: if Margaret had not drowned, but had arrived in Scotland in 1290 and been crowned at Scone, would her reign have been said to begin from 1290 or from 1286? With the instance of James I, we obviously have a case where he was not crowned until 1424, but his reign is said to begin in 1406. And nobody has as yet produced any evidence that custom had significantly changed by that point. john k 21:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

John did not die until 1313, so it is a good comparison; the only thing Robert had going for him in 1306 was being crowned. Hence the comparison is good. It's a good question you ask about James. Being crowned was less important by the 15th century because succession by this point was more determined by the actions of the preceding monarch and increasingly strict legal proceedures that made Gaelic custom, to say the least, secondary. The late 13th century is perhaps the start of that period of change, but only the start. Let's be honest, the reasons Margaret is listed as a monarch in tertiary works are quite arbitrary. There is more actual reason to list Findláech of Moray as a monarch that Margaret. Anyways, the problem we have here is whether to have a strict monarch list which would only include monarchs crowned (or bishops consecrated), or one including all who for whatever bunch of arbitrary or non-arbitrary reasons are included in modern lists. My own view is that it is better not to mislead, so her name shouldn't be included in the template or in the succession boxes. The difference between Margaret and other uncrowned cases was that she was a young child who never even visited Scotland, let alone got crowned. Interregnum is much more appropriate. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the comparison is completely inverse. In the case of Robert I, you have a still living (ex-?)king, and another guy who has been crowned. This might prove that being crowned makes you king, but it does not prove that not being crowned makes you not king. The situations are not the same at all. Of course Robert was not king before he was crowned - he was not obviously the heir of anybody, and there was a still living former king who had never abdicated. On the other hand, Margaret was obviously Alexander III's natural heiress, and there was no other monarch about. Whether or not she was Queen of Scots, she was the heiress, and the crown, apparently, belonged to her in that it couldn't be given to anybody else, and there was a regency until she could arrive. For listing purposes, we should follow other sources that make lists, and not make up our own list, which moves towards the direction of original research. john k 22:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Article revised to suit both points of view. However, starting articles with a paraphrase of "Soandso (X–Y), child of Suchandsuch, is traditionally considered high-muckety-muck of Z, but this is wrong because ..." is turning into a habit; I think my last edit here made this the tenth or eleventh such. The alternatives are ruled out by it being demonstrably false or disputed on the one hand and inertia (or pandering to the lowest common denominator if you prefer) on the other. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hurray for the lowest common denominator. The current intro looks good to me. john k 22:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I do think that there should be a succession box. Perhaps instead of "Queen of Scots" it should say "Heiress of Scotland," to indicate the ambiguity. john k 23:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming

We are running into a problem with Wikipedia naming conventions. According to these conventions, if she was a queen regnant then she should be Margaret of Scotland, but so should 2 Scottish women who married foreign royals, and that's before we get to the Queens consort of Scotland. I propose treating "Margaret of Scotland" as a disambiguation page and moving this page to "Margaret of Scotland (Maid of Norway)" on the grounds that she is not substantially more important or better known than the other Margarets. PatGallacher 17:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not how I see it. Either she's Margaret of Scotland because she's queen regnant (and that's your version, not mine) and thus substantially more important than a mere consort, or she's not queen, and thus not Margaret of Scotland, but rather Margaret of Norway. And in that case she'd be better known as The Maid of Norway or Margaret, Maid of Norway or something similar. However you slice it, she can't be Margaret of Scotland, Maid of Norway. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

A queen regnant is not invariably substantially more important than anyone else with a similar name, that is monarchist mysticism. There must be umpteen examples of child monarchs, undoubtedly accepted as such, who had short reigns and never effectively ruled, John I of France is an extreme case. This argument would apply even if she had been living in Scotland on the death of Alexander III and had a coronation or inauguration. PatGallacher 00:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have raised this on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). PatGallacher 00:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As nobody else has objected over the last couple of days I am now re-organising as proposed. PatGallacher 23:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It is one thing to be bold and move pages without soliciting views, it is something else to ask and then move a page when there's no consensus to do so. It only makes it worse that you edited the page this came from, thus preventing a simple revert, and left dozens of other pages now pointing to a disambiguation page instead of this one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not Margaret, Maid of Norway? For other dubious monarchs, we generally use a pure "most common name" rather than monarchical conventions - see Lady Jane Grey and Edgar Ætheling. john k 10:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suggested that, and I presume that it was unacceptable because I suggested it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it wasn't because it was you who suggested it. It was because according to Wikipedia conventions she should be "Margaret of Scotland", the problem is disambiguating her from other people who Wikipedia conventions mean should also be called "Margaret of Scotland". Lady Jane Grey was at Jane of England at one time, and in my view she should have stayed there. PatGallacher 13:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

A masterful non-response that I'll surely keep in mind for future use. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), exception 4: 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.

It seems to me that Margaret, whose status as a Queen of Scotland seems, at any rate, highly questionable to begin with, is overwhelmingly known as the Maid of Norway. Thus Margaret, Maid of Norway, seems the thing to do. And Jane Grey is not only universally known as "Lady Jane Grey" rather than "Queen Jane," her actual status as even de facto queen seems doubtful - she was certainly never recognized as such throughout the Kingdom, just in Westminster, and only for a couple of days, and only by a minority of Edward VI's council, as far as I am aware. What purpose, precisely, is served by articles at Jane of England and Margaret of Scotland, which are a) unrecognizable, and b) assert a particular questionable POV? john k 18:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, if we're going to call her "Maid of Norway", in any combination, we don't need "of Scotland"; it's for disambiguation, and there is no need to dab the unambiguous. Septentrionalis 17:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Very well, you have persuaded me, sometimes a cognomen can be too well-established to challenge it, but I still think we should recognise "Margaret of Scotland" as a legitimate alternative term for her. Do people prefer "Margaret, Maid of Norway" or just the "Maid of Norway". (Although part of the problem with Alfred the Great is whether to call him Alfred of England or Alfred of Wessex.) PatGallacher 12:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Which is one reason to follow overwhelming usage, and leave him at Alfred the Great. Septentrionalis 17:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Of the two choices here, "Margaret, Maid of Norway" is much preferable; we should make clear that this article is about a person; this is how the CMedH introduced and indexes her. For all I know, there is a Maid of Norway brand of butter which will begin linking here, if we do it the other way. Septentrionalis 17:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• I have seen histories which introduce her as Margaret, called the "Maid of Norway, but continue calling her Margaret on second reference. This would argue for moving her back to Margaret of Scotland as having Margaret as the most common name. (This does not imply, btw, that she was queen, either reganant or consort, any more than Joan of Arc does.] Septentrionalis 17:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cut & paste move

I'm pretty certain that moving articles via a cut and paste move is not acceptable, so I reverted the attempt to turn this into a redirect. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware cutting and pasting is the only way of moving an article to an alternative name which already exists as a redirect. If you know of a better way of doing this, let me know. PatGallacher 13:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You'll be wanting Wikipedia:Requested moves. Moving pages by cut and paste loses the page history which is not acceptable under the GFDL, the license which governs contributions to Wikipedia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

An afterthought: you'll also be wanting to copy the penultimate version of Margaret, Maid of Norway to a sandbox under your user page, because that, and its history, will be deleted as part of the move. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James I and Margaret; Margaret and the Cambridge Medieval History

The analogy with James I is not quite as close as the revision suggests. When Alexander III died, the heir was not Margaret but his unborn child by Queen Yolande, as discussed by Duncan, Kingship of the Scots. As far as the Guardians declaring Margaret to be Queen, that doesn't date from March or November 1286, but from the treaty of November 1289, a treaty written by Edward I. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)