Talk:Burial places of British royalty

James II/VII

James VII should really be James II, and his article says: "During his last years, James lived as an austere penitent. He died of a brain hemorrhage on 16 September 1701 at Saint-Germain-en-Laye. His body was laid in a coffin at the Chapel of Saint Edmund in the Church of the English Benedictines in the Rue St. Jacques, Paris. However, during the French Revolution, his body was desecrated and the remains were lost,[2] however his brain survives in a bronze urn in a chapel at the Scots College in Paris." so it seems he wasn't buried at Saint-Germain-en-Laye. What are you doing for cases where the burial location changed and the body ended up in different bits? Carcharoth 13:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it to II and VII - I'm a crusty old Scot, so excuse me if I like him as the VII. ;) Yes, must of the rest was done in a hurry, so feel free to fix errors, although we really need to use proper sources and not rely on Wikipedia articles in the long run. I'm in two minds about complicated cases. I really didn't want to muck up the tables with tracing the journeys of some King's heart. In a few cases, there are complications of several competing stories of what might have happened to some part or relic. If we include mini-essays, the table will be a mess. How about narrating the basic resting place and then having extended footnotes below each section of the table for complications? As I say, feel free to join in.--Sandy Donald 14:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, the source says "His body was lain (in a coffin, but not buried) in the Chapel of Saint Edmund in the Church of the English Benedictines in the Rue St. Jacques, Paris. His brain was sent to the Scots College in Paris, his heart to the Convent of the Visitandine Nuns at Chaillot, and his bowels divided between the English Church of St. Omer and the parish church of St. Germain-en-Laye. James' body remained in the Church of the English Benedictines, waiting translation to Westminster Abbey, until the French Revolution when it were desecrated by the mob and lost. Lost also during the Revolution were his remains at the Scots College, the Visitandine Convent of Chaillot, and the English Church of St. Omer. The praecordia which had been placed in the parish church of St. Germain-en-Laye, however, were rediscovered in 1824 and remain there to this day." [1].

So, Id say we put the burial place down as Chapel of Saint Edmund in the Church of the English Benedictines in the Rue St. Jacques, Paris (1701-1789? although he wasn't actually "buried"). Then a footnote to say that other parts of the body went elsewhere - and the only remaining part is at the church of St. Germain-en-Laye.--Sandy Donald 14:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I probably won't have time to join in, I'm afraid, but I'll try and read over it from time to time. Carcharoth 14:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

What criteria have been used to define the first monarchs of England and Scotland? Currently it seems purely arbitrary, or at the very least unscholarly.

Athelstan was the first king of all-England, so why are the pre-Athelstan kings listed? And although Kennethy MacAlpin is traditionally the first king of Scots, I think you would find very very few scholars who take that view now (most look to far earlier rulers). If we took the traditional starting point then maybe Alfred the Great roughly corresponds in English national mythology to MacAlpin's (or Fergus') role in Scottish national mythology.

Personally, I think that Wikipedia should stick to solidly referenced academic material, and cut all the folk-history/pseudo-history crap. --Mais oui! 07:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, sorry for being 'arbitrary' and 'unscholarly', that's just me. I simply used the list provided at List of monarchs in the British Isles. No doubt much of the earlier stuff is disputed (I bow to your scholarship)- although I don't see it on that page perhaps you want to take it up there. I was simply interested in burial places and such 'crap' rather that the niceties of historical conventions of lineage.--Sandy Donald 08:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have serious doubts as to whether a list burial places of groups of notable people is actually a vaild encyclopaedic topic, but as we currently (astoundingly) have a Wikipedia article on Quagmire McDuck I suppose it is futile to oppose the wave of rampant inclusionism. You know, the longer I have been here at Wikipedia, the more I begin to doubt what on earth it is we are doing here. Is this thing just meant to be a vessel for cramming in all the information that exists in the world? If so, it will just get worse and worse. --Mais oui! 08:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm, actually, whilst an article on some minor element of popular culture may have only ephemeral interest. Collating (roughly) verifiable information on burial places of major monarchs is likely to be of some ongoing interest. I certainly was very interested in the variety of abbeys where Kings of Scots are interred and I learned a bit doing the collation. Given the server space is minuscule, articles like this are at worst harmless interesting trivia, and at best useful (if not entirely reliable) resources. --Sandy Donald 09:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm... kind of agreed, but if I was in Wikilawyering mood I would point out that statements like "I learned a bit doing the collation" immediately conjure up Wikipedia:Original research in my mind. However, I am not in that mood, cos I have become seriously disillusioned with this entire project. And if you think that the English language edition of Wikipedia has serious problems, as I do, then you should take a dip into some of the other language versions, as I have in the last few weeks. Truly lamentable for the most part, even the "big" ones. --Mais oui! 09:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, this is probably more Wikibooks kind of stuff, as opposed to original research. Kind of like a chapter in a book about British monarchs. Carcharoth 14:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, although I've used various websites, all this information is collated in a number of other websites. Plus it isn't an original synthesis since it has a very clear criteria for inclusion. Is this any different from putting all the pokemon stubs on wikipedia?--Sandy Donald 14:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Page title

"Burial places of monarchs in the British Isles" is unclear what is in the British Isles - the burial places (obviously not as some are in Denmark and France and Germany), or the monarchs. In any case, I suspect the intended meaning is "monarchs who ruled in the British Isles". Regarding the unencyclopedic comment, the encyclopedic comment will really be in the footnotes for an article like this. In cases where the burial place is uncertain, or there is a bit of history to be recounted, there will be verifiable and sourced encyclopedic content. The rest will just be illustrated entries in a list, though each entry could be annotated with a few facts, like the funeral of Edward VII: "the greatest assemblage of royalty and rank ever gathered in one place and, of its kind, the last.". Carcharoth 12:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

So, what about - "burial places of monarchs of the British Isles"? I've been trying to reference it - but yes, I think detailed notes are the way to go. It may be many months, or years, before this is a polished article - but surely that's OK.--Sandy Donald 13:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There has not been a monarch of the British Isles since George V, and even then that was not his actual job title. --Mais oui! 13:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

We can get into legalise wrangling here. The question is what best indicates to the reader that this is a list of where monarchs who have been king over the UK or one of the constituent nations, without being verbose. The burial places are not necessarily IN the British Isles. The monarchs (mostly) did not reign over the whole of the British Isles. That's why I'd originally called this the burial places of British monarchs - since all the monarchs were monarchs within Britain. Personally, I don't care much what we call it - as long as it is clear. However, I do agree the current title tends to suggest that the places are in Britain.--Sandy Donald 13:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. What was wrong with burial places of British monarchs? That is clear enough, and the very first sentence can make clear exactly what is meant (ie. not monarchs who ruled Britain, but any of the monarchs in Britain). There might be a case for splitting this into separate lists, though, as the English one seems to have a more varied history. Carcharoth 13:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm reasonably happy about splitting it. But lets think how to do it. We could take the English monarchs and Scottish monarchs to different pages - but then do monarchs 1603-1707 go on both pages? Or do they go on a Great Britain page? But then they weren't kings of Great Britain - but of three seperate countries? And do Kings of the United kingdom of Great Britain 1707-1801, go on the same page as monarchs of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland? And what about after 1929? See it all gets confusing mix of what's 'correct' and what's useful. Please, no-one make any changes without proposing them here and getting some agreement.--Sandy Donald 13:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest

Burial places of the monarchs of Scotland (to 1603)

Burial places of the monarchs of England (to 1603)

Burial Places of British monarchs (since 1603) (with an explanation that this means anyone who was a monarch in any part of Britain, however legally described)

Royal burial places in the British Isles - which could be a list of each place with a note of which royal is buried there (monarch or not).

Alternatively, leave it as is for now.--Sandy Donald 14:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Graves in Sweden

2 graves in Sweden with good images too. Don't know how to add them. Anyone? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Royal protectors?

Why are the Cromwells (rather stark opposites of royalty) included in a list that is specified as including Burial places of British royalty? Should WP proclaim other non-royal politicians as royalty also and add them? Or should the article's name be changed to something like Burial places of British royalty and a few other folks that some of us think it's fun to add too? Wikipedia's credibility is at stake when we do contradictory things like this. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Some will say that they were de facto monarchs, but I do not see what makes them different than any other powerful head of state. Surtsicna (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. Wikipedia's credibility would be at stake if we gave misleading information - not if we give related and relevant information, clearly indicating there's an anomaly. I suppose we could move the information on the Cromwells to "Burial places of British Lord Protectors" but that would be insane. The Cromwells are an anomaly, there were heads of state, highnesses, and used all the trappings of monarchy.--Scott Mac 19:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Were they "Royal Highnesses"? They were heads of state, but they were not royal. As far as I know, they did not claim to be royal, nor did anyone consider them royal. Including prime ministers would not make any less sense than including the Cromwells. Some were probably more "royal" than the Cromwells. Surtsicna (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

No one is arguing that they were royal. However, you'll often find them named on lists of Kings, because the information is useful and pertinent. See [2].--Scott Mac 23:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The information is absolutely not useful or pertinent as long ad the article is a list of royalty. If you'd like to suggest a change to that, please do so forthwith! Otherwise I'll be removing non-royals here soon, until someone comes along with a good source that tells us that the Comwells can be considerered royalty. It is not helpful to provide false information, no matter who thinks it's related. Reliable lists contain only what their names say they contain, not things that some inventive people consider related. There is no use to make a list of anything unless the list includes only what it's called. It's like adding a chair or two to a list of famous tables. Furthermore, this list is just about graves, not the comparable political importance of the corpses in them, so your own arguments backfire on you completely, as I see it. Adding non-royals to a list that is supposed to contain only royalty is false, misleading and completely inappropriate. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to remove it, when it has been there for so long, then please get a consensus first to avoid an edit war. The information is not "false" since we are not saying they are royal (although, if you want to be technical about it, Diana Princes of Wales, isn't royal either - since marrying a royal doesn't make you one.) If you look at almost any list of English monarchs, the protector and the interregnum is acknowledged. We are not Debrett's peerage cataloguing and listing everything in some notion of the "correct" way, we are an encyclopaedia organising material in a useful and coherent manner for our readers. In a list of royal graves, it is useful to give information on the only two anomalies to the line of descent. By all means make it clearer there are anomalies, if you think there's any chance of someone being mislead.--Scott Mac 13:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe Diana indeed was a royal highness at one time, which to history makes her royalty after death, no matter what her status was at the end of her life. Your clearer separate heading now is better, but (as long as you don't elect to add Paramount Queens like Danny La Rue or Dame Edna) I sincerely suggest you make another article of interest called Burial places of British heads of state, where the Cromwells would fit in. They still do not fit in under the title of this article. Your suggestion that Wikipedia should be less correct than Debrett's et al could be pretty damned offensive to all of us who try very hard to do conscientious, reliable work here and list things accurately, not arbitrarily. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

"Correct" was in scarequotes, because I was being ironic. We are organising information is a way that makes it useful and accessible, not that fulfils rules of pedantry. We could move the article to Burial places of British heads of state, but no doubt then you'd want to remove pretenders and consorts who were not heads of state. Oh, and good luck getting the Cromwells removed from List of English monarchs--Scott Mac 17:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Either read what I write and comment on that, or don't bother! Why should I reply when your comments are about things that I haven't suggested? Why be so rude by inferring that I am pedantic? Are you a qualified judge on the rules of pedantry? We are not discussing the List of English monarchs here. I wrote "I sincerely suggest you make another article of interest called Burial places of British heads of state" - nothing in that sentence about moving this one. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

So, you are "sincerely" suggesting that the best way to organise this material would be to remove two items from here, and create another article with exactly the same information as is here except with those two items, and then seek to maintain both near-identical lists? That would be a content fork, and something we try to avoid. Someone would immediately (and rightly) propose merging such articles.--Scott Mac 16:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Once again, you are creating debate where there is none in reality. I don't know why you like to do that. "create another article with exactly the same information as is here except with those two items" is your invention, not anything I've ever suggested or inferred. A list of the burial places of British heads of state should obviously include only the heads of state, not any of the other royalty on this list. Such an article would be of value to Wikipedia. Some readers are interested in heads of state, but not at all in other royals.

Read! Think! React to what someone actually wrote, and only to that! Don't waste your time or the time of others! All constructive suggestions for your continued good work. Sincerely, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

There's no need to be insulting, just because someone is telling you that we don't do that. An article on "British heads of state" would simply be this article with non-crowned royals out and the Cromwells in. We don't create near identical overlapping articles like that. Someone would (rightly) merge them, and we'd be right back where we are now.--Scott Mac 13:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)