This template was considered for deletion on 2006 August 21. The result of the discussion was "to keep".

Template:House of Stuart sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Eixo 13:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scott Wilson wrote "James should have the Scottish numeral first; convention since they were monarchs of Scotland before they were monarchs of England."

There is no such convention for James II and VII. The Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles) say that "where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ones."

It is true that the usage "James VI and I" is far more common than "James I and VI". But it is also true that "James II and VII" is far more common that "James VII and II" (do a Google search).

I have left "James VI/I" but changed his grandson to "James II/VII". It reflects common usage, even if it doesn't follow a pattern. Noel S McFerran 02:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• You're correct that Wikipedia convention is to use the most commonly associated one (and I won't get into that kettle of fish) but the general convention when referring to them is to put the Scottish numeral first. I'll see if I can source this and get back to you. --Scott Wilson 08:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I said previously: do a Google search. There are three times as many webpages which use the phrase "James II and VII" as do "James VII and II". Most of his biographies call him merely "James II" (Clarke, Miller, Turner, Haswell, Ashley), although Trevor has him as II and VII. Scottish nationalists may refer to him as VII and II, but the rest of the world doesn't. Noel S McFerran 12:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It may be a common mistake, but that doesn't make it any less of a mistake. --Scott Wilson 14:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Noel. Astrotrain 18:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The image associated with the 'Anne' portion of this template appears to have been deleted or renamed. Problems? Adavidb 10:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The images for James I & II and Charles I & II were not working. I think I fixed it. AFAIK they should all be the same. -- Mufka ^{(user) (talk) (contribs)} 00:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not usual on the templates for royal houses to include illegitimate issue. I'm not sure why somebody has included the illegitimate sons of Charles II - but not his illegitimate daughters, nor the illegitimate children of his brother James II. These illegitimate sons of Charles II were not members of the House of Stuart sidebar; all of them had other surnames. I will remove them within a few days. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I support the removal. Charles 03:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was going to propose the removal too. Surtsicna (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mary I was the first member of the House of Stuart sidebar. Should we included her in the template? Surtsicna (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No she wasn't... Her father would have been before her and so on. If you are alluding to the union, not even then, her son is the first member of the House of Stewart to rule over both England and Scotland. James I and VI seems to be the first in a while to have had more than one child. Also, everyone in this template is not a member of the House of Stuart sidebar by right of Mary, they are members of the House of Stuart sidebar by right of Lord Darnley (of the House of Stuart sidebar-Lennox). Charles 23:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mary Queen of Scots adopted the French spelling Stuart while in France, which made her the first member of the House of Stuart (but not the first member of the House of Stewart). It doesn't matter really, she doesn't have to be included. Surtsicna (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A request for comments which may impact this template has been started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#RfC on style in royal family templates. You are welcome to comment there. Fram (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why Children of the Charles I is listed as Princes and Princesses here? Before the accession of George I members of the royal family did not customary styled as Prince or Princess other than Prince of Wales. Their titles were like "James Stuart, Duke of York"
Some of them were Princes (eg: son of Anne), because they were Princes of Foreign nations
Chamika1990 (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]