[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth

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

Exhumed?

[edit]

Since the National Portrait Gallery wasn't opened until 1856 (in a different building to that currently occupied) it seems that the story about being exhumed to have a portrait painted for the 'National Portrait Gallery' seems unlikely. Was such a portrait painted perhaps for the Royal Collection? Any documented information would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.112.216 (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know the background but this must be apocryphal. Surely you can't paint a living likeness from a severed head sewn on to a corpse? Particularly if it did take eight axe blows... (shudder) :: Supergolden 13:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Wiki page on the Monmouth Rebellion, "A Yeoman Warder was therefore sent to retrieve the head from London Bridge, the body exhumed, and the surgeon general sent for to sew the head back on. The portrait was done very quickly and still hangs in the royal portrait gallery today". However, I took a quick look at the portrait gallery and there is no portrait of Monmouth dated specifically to 1685 (and a few that have tentative dates prior to his execution). There is, however, a picture listed on the British National Portrait Gallery website cataloged as, "Unknown man, formerly known as James Scott, Duke of Monmouth and Buccleuch" which looks like a corpse with a sheet pulled up to his neck. There is no information on when the authorities decided it was not Monmouth, but I would suggest that the story of the posthumous painting and the attribution of NPG 1566 as that picture is apocraphal. Lizbetann 03:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are right, but the Yeomen Warders of today tell this story to visitors at the Tower of London.--Streona (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James II and VII?

[edit]

I would be intrested to know who 'the some' are who recognize James Duke of Monmouth as James II and VII? He may have declared his royal title in England, but to my certain knowledge was never proclaimed as James VII in Scotland. Indeed, he promised Archibald Campbell, eigth earl of Argyll, his leading Scottish ally, that no precipitate or unilateral claim would be made to the royal title. Rcpaterson 23:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man in the Iron Mask

[edit]

I recommend this paragraph be removed. There is no attribution, and the Wiki article on Man in the Iron Mask has details that place "Eustache Dauger" in Pignerol during the 1670s, thus making it impossible for it to be Monmouth. Lizbetann 21:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a source has now been inserted but it remains an unlikely tale. Dormskirk (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Scottish Monarch infobox

[edit]

As he was never actually King of Scotland (see comments above re James II and VII), there is an arguement that the military person infobox be used rather than the Scottish Monarch infobox (which is currently being used). The contrary arguement would be that he was the son of the Monarch. Any views? Dormskirk (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

military person infobox now used Dormskirk (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Religious stances

[edit]

I think this needs some clarification, was he a "Protestant" in the sense of his father Charles II, a largely tolerant man... or a "Protestant" in the sense of Oliver Cromwell. Obviously there is quite a bit of difference between the two. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cromwell was quite tolerant of other Protestants and Jews but not Catholics. After the Clarendon Code many Dissenters were quite badly persecuted during Charles II's reign and Charles could have done a lot more to prevent the Popish Plot hysteria since he knew Oates to be a charlatan due to his shrewd questioning of him.--Streona (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you impute greater power to the king than he had. It took a long time to expose Titus Oates as a liar. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claim to Throne

[edit]

Was illegitamcy a complete bar to the Throne ? King Athelstan, Hardicanute and William I were all bastards (in fact William was called "William the Bastard|" though not to his face). The Synod of Chelsea held that a monarch could not be "born in adultery". Since neither Charles nor Lucy Walter were married Scott was not born in adultery even if illegitimate. There were numerous other bastards before & since, but I think almost all were actually "born in adultery", including Charles's numerous other natural children.--Streona (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The case of Saxon kings is immaterial. William I obtained the throne by right of conquest. The extent to which the the English throne was fully hereditary in the early modern period must be questioned. Henry IV, Edward IV and Henry VII acceded to the throine by right of conquest. After 1547, it devolved according to Henry VIII's will (with the aid of an Act of Parliament). Lady Jane Grey took the throne on the basis that Mary and Elizabeth were bastards and the Scottish king was excluded as a foreigner, but Henry's will in fact took effect. Charles I was executed by the Roundheads. In the exclsuion crisis, the Whigs were trying to exclude James II (as he became) because he was a Catholic. That exclusion took effect in 1688, when William III invaded and the army deserted, but William became king partly by right of conquest. After his death, with Anne being childless, Parliament pursued the same policy, passing over numerous Catholic claimants to give the throne to George I. The throne was nomally hereditary, but this could be changed by the will of Parliament. Parliament could ave declared Monmouth legitimate and given him the crown, though I suspect this would have raised the difficulty that Charles II would have eben a bigamist. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions

[edit]

In searching for this article, I found a horrible one Duke of Monmouth. It was tagged for notability, which was due to its quality. Since there was never more than one Duke of Monmouth, I have converted that peerage article into a redirect to here, as also another article, which was a redirect to it. The only thing that I have merged is two categories, and if I should not have brought these in, I will not dispute their removal. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to research by Hugh Noel Williams should be deleted as it is outdated. Article states that Williams found Charles II did not arrive in Hague until September 1648. However, William died in 1925. More recent research shows Charles arriving in the Hague no later than July 12 1648 (see Robert Coote, Royal Survivor, Hodder and Stoughton 1999), a full 9 months before Monmouth's birth. I cannot find any modern biographers (Coote, Fraser, etc.) who question whether Charles was Monmouth's father. 71.101.143.28 (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it is probably worth keeping if only to show the idea has been considered - and rejected. Dormskirk (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noble Titles

[edit]

The list of Monmouth's noble titles excludes Duke of Buccleuch but includes Earl of Dalkeith (both Scottish). Should we list all the Scottish titles associated with Buccleuch that existed in his time, and perhaps separate English and Scottish titles? Duke of Buccleuch has the necessary information. Did Monmouth assume all his wife's subsidiary titles? J S Ayer (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now included all titles in the main text and split into the English ones and then the Scottish ones. Dormskirk (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DNA discussion

[edit]

I have removed the ref to the webpage of the DNA of the Stewart clan as that is a self-published, unvetted page written by a single author, with no editor, no fact-checking, and not a known previously published author in this line of work. All of that means, it's not a reliable source.Wjhonson (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why Duke of Monmouth?

[edit]

Are there any RS that cover why Monmouth was chosen for the dukedom? As far as I am aware, there was never such a dukedom previously. It is perhaps more understandable why it has never been revived. But do we know why Charles II chose this, not very significant, market town, to which, as far as I'm aware, neither he nor his son had any connection? I suppose Henry V gave it some lustre, but it still seems an odd choice. The local magnate, Henry Somerset, 1st Duke of Beaufort entertained Charles at Badminton House in 1663, the year of Monmouth's elevation. Any connection? KJP1 (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Scott,_1st_Duke_of_Monmouth&oldid=1218738892"