Contents

Talk:Anne of Denmark

	Anne of Denmark is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 3, 2009.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 16, 2007 Good article nominee Listed May 26, 2007 Peer review Reviewed June 1, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 17, 2007, May 17, 2008, May 17, 2009, May 17, 2010, May 17, 2012, May 17, 2015, May 17, 2017, May 17, 2020, May 17, 2023, and May 17, 2024. Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Mid-importance). English Royalty Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Royalty. For more information, visit the project page.English RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject English RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject English RoyaltyEnglish royalty articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Scottish Royalty High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scottish Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scottish Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Scottish RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject Scottish RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject Scottish RoyaltyScottish royalty articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Norway This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles Denmark High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. London Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women's History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. England Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Scotland Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hot Nordic Blonde? Typical. IP Address 13:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the entry on James I it is stated that the marriage was formalised at Krondborg in Denmark. Here it says it is at Oslo in Norway.『He further endeared himself to Protestants by marrying Anne of Denmark—a princess from a Protestant country and daughter of Frederick II of Denmark—by proxy in 1589. Another marriage, this time with both parties personally present, occurred on 21 January 1590 at Krondborg during James' visit to Denmark.』 Could someone clarify this discrepancy, please? King Hildebrand 19:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The date given here is correct. The necessary change has been made on the James I page. Rcpaterson 07:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Her traditional name in English is Anne, but the article repeatedly refers to her as Anna (which, I assume, was her birth name). Is it appropriate to refer to her with both names, or should we stick to Anne at all times? Funnyhat 06:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should stick with Anne. It's also worth noting that in most languages, "Anne" and "Anna" are pronounced more or less the same, and since spelling was not standardized in the 16th/17th centuries, I'm not sure it's even right to say that her birth name was Anna, although I would think her name was probably pronounced closer to "Anna" than to "Anne" in Danish. john k 07:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. I went ahead and fixed the spellings. Funnyhat 23:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

________________________________________________ LEGAL NOTICE HEY, ANNE OF DENMARK TENURE IS 1702 TO 1714 REFF FRANCE ARCHIVE ANNE IN CONFLICT WITH RICHELIEU..AND ANNE WITH SEVEN YEARS OF WAR OF ROSES. ANNE ROYAL HOUSE IS YORK-NOT STUART OR WHATEVER. SIGNED Queen Margrethe II Valdemarsdatter of Denmark Russia & France FOR FREE WEBSITES ACCOUNT LEGAL COPYRIGHT SPECIFICATIONS Creative Common Order of Statutory International Crown Copyright http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ United States of America – European Union – OSI 2.5 Generic Related Right of Margrethe II Valdemarsdatter ________________________________________________ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.246.228 (talk) 11:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC) The dates for Anne's birth and death were given as 14 October 1574 – 4 March 1619, with the note "The dates of her birth and death are variously recorded, these being the ones engraved on her coffin". Whether a coffin (I suspect we are talking about the tomb) counts as a reliable source or not, I don't know. For the time being I have put these alternatives here and replaced them with the dates given in my books. In my view it is likely that the tomb makers were not clear about the exact dates; there is documentary evidence for the dates now given in the article. (By the way, this is not one of those infuriating Old Style discrepancies.) qp10qp 14:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've found out now that the catafalque placed over Anne's tomb was destroyed during the civil war. If we really are talking about the coffin, fair enough: but if we are talking about something dated after the civil war or Commonwealth, maybe the dates above are unreliable for that reason too. Apparently, no memorial was built to Anne after her death. qp10qp 23:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note the comment above that "this is not one of those infuriating Old Style discrepancies". Which leads me to a query. Is the death date 2 March 1619 given in Old or New Style? If Old, this would mean that according to the NS calendar she would have died on 12 March 1619. (The birth date is ok as it happened prior to 15 October 1582). -- JackofOz 04:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should engage in original research on this. I've just checked (again) Williams' biography of Anne, Willson's biography of James, and Stewart's more recent biography of James, and since all three give March 2, I would say that our job is done, which is to make dates verifiable to secondary sources. In my view, it doesn't pay to poke the accepted dates for this period too hard, as they do tend to disintegrate, I admit. It's better to just play along with the secondary sources. qp10qp 16:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. I know all about the disintegration factor. However, I'm not sure this qualifies as OR. Do any of the source biogs explain which calendar is used throughout the book? Most books dealing with these time periods have a Reader's Note about the dating system they use. Where the subject of the biog had significant associations with other countries that were using a different calendar, it's important for the reader to know which calendar is being used for any given date. For example, biogs of 19th century Russians who travelled to the West will typically use OS dates for events in Russia, but NS dates for events in Germany, France, Italy, USA and Britain - or, they'll render all dates in NS. Both approaches are valid; but whichever approach they take, they'll explain it in the Reader's Note. I would be wary of believing any dates in a biog that didn't have such a Reader's Note. So, if these 3 books do contain such a Reader's Note, there's nothing wrong with extrapolating OS dates to the relevant NS dates. We do that for Shakespeare, for example. Most books, dictionaries etc say his death occurred on 23 April 1616 and leave it at that, but we go the extra mile to say that this was the same day as 3 May 1616 in those European countries that were using the NS calendar by then. I have to acknowledge here that I have a private reason for being particularly interested in the calendric basis of historical dates, but that doesn't alter my argument above. -- JackofOz 00:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should simply follow the dates that are good enough for the secondary sources and not take it upon ourselves to convert them for the honour of Wikipedia. Where books give both dates, as they often do for Russian subjects, we should do the same. Wikipedia policy is monkey see, monkey do, surely. qp10qp 00:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

86.146.25.43 (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC) There's also a discepancy with Anna's date of marriage. The article states that she married at 14, please see this reference: "Seven months before her sixteenth birthday, in May 1589, and less than a year after the death of her father, Anna was married by proxy to James VI of Scotland" (Barroll, Lewis. Anna of Denmark, Queen of England. A cultural Biography. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 2001. Page 17)[reply]

The coronation took place in May 1590, and perhaps Barroll, who is a cultural historian and doesn't provide a strong backbone of fact in his book, is getting muddled up. I note that Barroll, however, gives Anne's birth accurately, as 12 December 1574. I've just checked Williams, Willson, and Stewart and they give the dates of the marriage ceremonies as does the article. The proxy marriage is documented as having taken place on August 20 1589, when Anne was fourteen, and she was still fourteen (just) when she was married in person on 23 November. qp10qp (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This article was a bit shorter the last time I read it... :-) I particularly like this bit: "Anne made her state entry into Edinburgh in a solid silver coach brought over from Denmark" - they didn't do things by halves in those days, did they? Carcharoth 13:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the bit about the three hundred tailors working on her wedding dress? qp10qp

I even linked to damask! Did you ever get to the Danish account of their entry to Edinburgh and the cameos and recitations of poetry from a little boy dressed up as a mathematician, and then they came to "a large theatre or stage, on which Virtue and Piety stood amongst their four daughters [Prudentia, Justitia, Fortitudo and Temperantia], in black silk clothing" - I wonder whether that contributed to the Queen's love of masques?Carcharoth 21:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and there were people masquerading as blackamoors, which she did herself later. I think there's definitely a connection between that street pageantry and the masques. qp10qp 23:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh wow. We have articles on the Jacobean masques! The Vision of the Twelve Goddesses and The Masque of Blackness! Good stuff. Carcharoth 13:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know; what a delight! These are down to user:Ugajin, and I've written to thank him/her. Just look at their contributions list!

Wow. That's a very literary list. Carcharoth 21:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "many of the phenomena now seen as peculiarly Jacobean can be identified more closely with Anne's patronage, and with that of her sons, than with James, "whose standard reaction to being presented with a masque was to yawn" and who "fell asleep during some of England's most celebrated plays"" - LOL! That's hilarious! :-) Carcharoth 13:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nervous because I'm not sure where Stewart is getting that from; but I couldn't resist it.

The article is still work in progress and very raw, but I'm hoping it can become a peery-goody-featury thingy one day, once I've called in French polishers such as yourself. I ony started work here to answer your request for more on James's relationship with Anne, and I got carried away. qp10qp 15:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a nice way to get carried away! Carcharoth 17:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Should the language of the day be interpreted a bit for modern readers? I found this quote a bit difficult to understand: "Praying God, my heart, to preserve you and all the bairns, and to send me a blithe meeting with you and a couple of them" - Wicktionary should help with wikt:bairn (since added to the article), and wikt:blithe (now also added) thankfully avoids the need to read about the comic book character Blithe... Do we have a glossary of Jacobean phrases? Carcharoth 17:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating how the meaning of blithe has reversed completely! Carcharoth 17:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "bairn" is still in use in the north and in Scotland, though I should think it is inexplicable to non-Brits. I've been trying to read a few Danish documents (amazing the things you end up doing for Wikipedia, though Danish is not indecipherable to an English speaker with a bit of German) and, interestingly (well, interesting to a nerd like me), the word for child in Danish seems to be "barn". I wonder what the word for barn is. qp10qp 19:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Barn" (Danish, plural: "Børn") = "Child". Barn (English) = "Lade" (Danish, plural: "Lader"). You're right about the German connection. In medieval Danish, c. 40 % of the words came from Low German. Valentinian ^{T / C} 11:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is Old English in origin, so ultimately they probably have a common root in Proto Germanic. Some of the etymology is here. Carcharoth 21:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There are three (so far) uses of the word papist. I was initially linking to Roman Catholic with those, but would papist be a better link? Maybe go the wiktionary route again? wikt:papist?

I think "papist" is a derogatory term, which is why it appears in the quotes rather than the article text. Same with "popery". But see my comment below about links within quotes. qp10qp 19:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you think it best not to link it. What about readers who are puzzled by what it means? Carcharoth 21:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I also didn't try and explain what James meant by "Spanish course" in the quote "upon any papist or Spanish course" - does he just mean Roman Catholic and is using two ways to describe it? Or is Spanish course something different again? Carcharoth 17:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's an incredibly interesting expression by James. You might be sensing that I'm among those who don't believe Anne became a Catholic. At the moment I'm reading "God's Secret Agents" by Alice Hogge, about the whole Catholic business, and it's very clear to me that a massive grey area existed between Catholicism and Protestantism, where people didn't actually know quite what they were...and I suspect Anne came into that category. So maybe James means "leaning toward Catholicism". Jacobean English is the most extraordinary stuff: it's never totally explicable, and I really like that. I particularly relish that letter quoted in the James article, where Elizabeth advises Mary Queen of Scots to punish the people "who have done you this pleasure" in murdering Darnley. That's such a dense phrase.

My thesis is that the reason England produced the unsurpassed literary flowering that it did in late Elizabethan and in Jacobean England is that this issue of Catholicism, with all its legal consequences, provoked a whole edifice of linguistic doublespeak, secrecy, metaphor and equivocation, whereby nobody ever said anything plainly (well, a few did and were executed). It seems to me that that's why not just Shakespeare but any writer of the period, even kings and queens, can never be definitively decoded. I hope I'm not making it difficult for Wikipedia readers by quoting so often, but these nuggets of language are so gorgeous that I want to present them on a plate, like exquisite chocolates. qp10qp 19:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That a fascinating thesis! Maybe you are right - leave the quotes as exquisite nuggets of Jacobean language. Carcharoth 21:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "the governing Council met at Stirling" - I've linked Stirling, but I suspect you (or your source) meant Stirling Castle?Carcharoth 17:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• "went to bed in anger and parted with child the tenth of May" - this refers to the miscarriage, but this is not clear until later. Is there a way to make it clear to the reader that she has had a miscarriage? Carcharoth 17:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that can be done. I'm on it.

Many thanks for all your assistance: it's like the old firm is back in town! I would never have the patience to look all those things up—you are very good at it. Once thing bothers me, though, and I should have mentioned this when we were working on James: Wikipedia policy is not to link within quotes, and I do agree with that, for a whole lot of reasons. qp10qp 19:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I should add that I've got a few days to go before the article will be in a tolerable shape. I'm leaving the lead till last, for example, since it is supposed to summarise the article... and there are repetitions and infelicities (odd section structure, a single-sentence paragraph) which I will iron out when the time comes. I am going to round the article out by using Williams's and Barroll's biographies and then nuance from a few specialist books, like Lindley's one on Frances Howard, which has a lot about the literary atmosphere, and a couple of books on masquing. qp10qp 19:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I'll wait until you've finished your latest expansion before running through it again. The thing about not linking in quotes is interesting, and rather ironic actually, as I once kicked up a huge fuss (well, it felt like it at the time), campaigning (practically) for banning linking inside quotes. Since then I've become a bit more ambivalent. I wonder if Wikipedia:Quotations should not contain wikilinks is still around? Yes it is, and it now redirects to Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context#Links in quotations. The discussion mainly took place at:

• Wikipedia talk:Only make links that are relevant to the context#Links in quotations
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 37#Wikilinks when quoting
• Wikipedia talk:Quotations should not contain wikilinks

Having said that, considering these quotes in particular has made be think a bit more carefully. When we don't know what this Jacobean language was referring to, removing links makes sense. Feel free to remove any lnks where I've gone too far. My linking of Eve and serpent were particularly gratuitous... Having said that, if glossing of terms can be added in the form of footnotes or links from nearb text, that would be great. Also, linking to places and people should be OK, but linking to concepts or trying to 'explain' the language is, I agree, to be avoided. Do you want me to go back through it and take some of those links out, or are you happy to look over it yourself? Carcharoth 21:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, lets leave them, and if the article goes to peer review/FAC or whatever, the jury there can decide. The only exception, for me, is miserie, which illustrates the danger of linking in quotes, namely that we thereby identify information with the language which the writer may not have intended (with normal linking, we write the text and so can decide what information we want associated with it). In this case, "miserie" is only an old spelling of "misery", not a Latin plural: if we think the reader can't handle that, we can put [sic], which is an acceptable scholarly insertion—though, personally, I am not fond of the usage: where do you stop? The Manual of Style does recommend not linking in quotes, I think, whatever the discussions (unless it's been changed). qp10qp 22:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Some examples of linking within quotes, or text: To Anacreon in Heaven#Lyrics (arguably footnotes might be a better way of glossing the words, as you can't control what the article at the end of the link will look like in a few years time), and Jabberwocky. Carcharoth 21:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think these examples are different, because they are from whopping great chunks of poem, which it seems to me bring literary criticism into play rather than clarification of precise meaning. Even so, I disagree with the linking there: the poet, for example, never intended the reader to conjure up a dirty great wodge of unpoetical and largely irrelevant material about bog-standard myrtle when choosing to write "Myrtle of Venus". I can see why the editors have resorted to links, though, because when such a large quotation is included (should these poems not be in Wikisource and linked to?) our usual system of footnoting breaks down.

The answer is, I think, to explain things in the footnotes: but we must very carefully avoid doing so with the aid of original thought, as it were. A wiktionary link in the notes might work, with an introductory "see" (so that it doesn't look as if we are having the effrontery to reference ourself). qp10qp 22:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about miserie, so I removed that. I count ten other links in quotes, and am listing them here for review (by others, even if you are OK with them):

• "I shall defend the true religion and worship of God, and advance the same, and shall withstand and despise all papistical superstitions, and whatsoever ceremonies and rites contrary to the word of God."
• "froward womanly apprehensions"
• "The King himself was a very chaste man, and there was little in the Queen to make him uxorious; yet they did love as well as man and wife could do, not conversing together"
• "A dress of peach and parrot coloured damasque with fishboned skirts lined with wreaths of pillows round the hips was especially admired."
• "Praying God, my heart, to preserve you and all the bairns, and to send me a blithe meeting with you and a couple of them"
• And he swore "upon the peril of my salvation and damnation, that neither the Earl of Mar nor any flesh living ever informed me that ye was upon any papist or Spanish course."
• "as they say, troubled with the gout"
• "Catholic foreign ambassadors—who would surely have welcomed such a situation—were certain that the Queen was beyond their reach. 'She is a Lutheran,' concluded the Venetian envoy Nicolo Molin in 1606." Stewart, 182
• "In 1602 a report appeared, claiming that Anne...had converted to the Catholic faith some years before. The author of this report, the Scottish Jesuit Robert Abercromby, testified that James had received his wife's desertion with equanimity, commenting, 'Well, wife, if you cannot live without this sort of thing, do your best to keep things as quiet as possible'. Anne would, indeed, keep her religious beliefs as quiet as possible: for the remainder of her life—even after her death—they remained obfuscated." Hogge, 303–4.
• "It was verily thought that the disease was no other than the ordinary ague that had reigned and raged all over England"
• "Latter day experts have suggested enteric fever, typhoid fever, or porphyria, but at the time poison was the most popular explanation." Stewart, 248

Most of these are wiktionary links, though some aren't. Some are links in Jacobean quotes, some are links in quotes from modern historians. Do any cross that line between explaining, interpreting, and misrepresenting? Carcharoth 23:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've turned the fourth one and last one into paraphrases, which makes it easier all round. With the modern ones on the Catholicism issue, I felt I should quote them word for word because they refer to a point of controversy. qp10qp 00:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having a major side interest in etymology, I couldn't resist, after looking up the etymology of some of those words, speculating on whether some of these quotes from James are among the earliest recorded uses of the words:

• ass - the quote from James, declaring in 1589 that he is not an: "irresolute ass who could do nothing of himself" - now this etymological entry says: "To make an ass of oneself is from 1590" (a year later than James's quote here). Related is asinine (from c.1610). Of course, the donkey (ass) had been used to typify "clumsiness and stupidity" since the time of the Ancient Greeks, but still, this particular dating of a particular phrase ("To make an ass of oneself") to 1590 is interesting, as is the reference to an attestation of asshead to 1550. I wonder what the 1590 quote in question is, and what the OED has to say? Also, will modern American readers see past the slang meaning of the word 'ass'?

My dictionary has "to act the ass", 1592. But dictionaries don't usually have the earliest usage, often by a long way, though they try. Jonson wrote a play called "The Devil is an Ass", 1622, though what that title means I don't know. I don't think it matters if the Americans muddle this with the other ass because I suspect the meanings were probably already combining in James's day. Chaucer uses the term "ers", though not this way. qp10qp 00:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I also looked at the etymology of uxorius, bairn, froward and blithe, but they all date back to OE or further. Shakespeare did use froward in The Taming of the Shrew ("probably penned in 1593 or 1594"), so maybe James, writing in 1603, wasn't sleeping through as many of these plays as is supposed. Though, more likely, I'm probably just showing my ignorance of Shakespeare here, as I'll probably be told these scandalous plays were not welcomed in Scotland, and James was only exposed to the narcoleptic effect of them after 1603... And seeing as Shakespeare invented half the English language, he probably used all these words and more.

Uxorious is Latin, really. It's interesting that "bairn" is used today in areas which once had Norse influence, but not used at all in the other areas of Britain. qp10qp 01:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I think the ass question is interesting. Irresolute ass might refer to a particular fable where a donkey is indecisive and does nothing. Or is he using 'ass' in an early documented example of the sense of 'being a fool'? Carcharoth 00:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that James was learned, do you think he may have been referring to Buridan's ass? Seems an irresolute enough ass to fit the bill. qp10qp 01:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! Now, let's see if we can find a bale of hay here and another one here... Carcharoth 01:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked atheist in the article, but am now wondering if the Jacobeans had a different idea to us when they talked about someone being atheist? I've looked at Atheist#Early Modern Period, but that doesn't help too much. As atheist is a featured article, I'm going to leave the link anyway. Carcharoth 00:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well this was the ranting of Kirk presbyterians. But atheism was very much talked about at the time. I remember reading a book about Christopher Marlowe which showed it to be an issue of the day, surprisingly. I've just had a look at our article on Kit, and it has a section on atheism which suggests that Catholicism was associated with atheism by Protestants, though the accusations in Marlowe's case are consistent with modern atheism, as I recall, insofar as they meant disbelief in God. I think as far as David Black (moaning git) was concerned (now there's a juicy red link), anyone who stayed up late dancing ("balling", as he called it) was a surefire atheist. No wonder Anne leaned towards Catholicism: at least you could wear fancy clobber and have a random knees-up, activities close to her heart. qp10qp 02:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Burbage is come and says there is no new play the Queen has not seen but they have revived an old one called Love's Labour's Lost which for wit and mirth he says will please her exceedingly" - is this referring to Richard Burbage or his brother Cuthbert Burbage?Carcharoth 00:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I'll try and research that tomorrow. I put this quote in because it relates to my main reason for working at this article: Anne was clearly a very significant influence on the theatre world between 1603 and 1610, when British dramatic literature reached its zenith. qp10qp 02:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astute of you to ask the question, because I note that most of the books I have looked into on this (yes, astute, but, crumbs, you do create extra work, mate) give no indication whatsoever of which Burbage this is. I assumed it was Richard Burbage (slaps wrist), but the evidence points to Cuthbert Burbage. I haven't found a book which goes into the matter particularly, but the McCrea book I've referenced glancingly suggests that this is "probably" Cuthbert Burbage (I take from "probably" that there's no final proof). Adding this reference has allowed me to move the wikilink from the quote to the added note.

We often flagellate ourselves on Wikipedia, but we have now been more helpful here than a crateload of books that use this quote (it is very famous, since it refers to a Shakespeare play). The same is true for the dates of some of those babies. We indulge in constant hand-wringing about how unreliable Wikipedia is (fair enough), but the discussions rarely point out how often inaccuracies appear in regular books. I come across those day in and day out, as well as blatant misuse of evidence to make points: the longer I edit on Wikipedia, the better I get at sniffing the practice out. qp10qp 22:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! More accuracy, or ferreting out of inaccuracies, can only be good. As for assuming it was Richard Burbage, don't assume that because the link to the Wikipedia article on Richard Burbage is in the article that you made that assumption. You might have indeed have assumed this when adding the quote, but I think I was the one that linked to Richard, and only later, after reading the Richard Burbage article did I spot that he had a brother who could have been the Burbage in question. Anyway, I'm glad this seems to have been sorted, and the stuff about inaccuracies in books has been very instructive! Carcharoth 00:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article's getting a bit bloated now, I admit, but I'm deliberately chucking the kitchen sink in, for the time being; will trim and offload later. qp10qp 02:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the element in the caption which says that Anne is "probably" in mourning for Prince Henry (more "probablies"!). This is actually what it says at the National Portrait Gallery, but that isn't necessarily a reliable source because it will play up its art (in fact they haven't even been attributing this portrait to Gheeraerts till relatively recently). I don't think omitting information really counts as original research, but here follows the dose of that disreputable commodity by which I concluded that the bit about mourning Prince Henry is questionable:

Prince Henry died on 12 November 1612, and since the picture is dated to 1612, are we to believe that Anne sat for a picture between 12 November and the end of the year, especially when her son had just died? She was too ill with the gout to attend his funeral on 7 December, we know that. She was also reported to have sat for days speaking to no-one and weeping uncontrollably. Of course, it is still possible that the caption was accurate, because the painter may have already largely finished the painting and added the mourning colours on instruction—but we don't know that, and I think it's best to be on the safe side and stick with information which won't raise the eyebrow of an attentive reader (lowers eyebrow). qp10qp 00:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She could have sat for the portrait in 1613, and the 'date' of the picture might have been retrospectively constructed (either then, or later) to be 1612 based on the mourning clothes in the portrait. Maybe fudge the issue and just say "in mourning for her son Henry, who died in November 1612". ie. the caption won't specifically give a date, but will still explain why she is wearing black, and will give a rough idea of the date, which is probably good enough for most purposes. It would be interesting to find out the provenance of that "1612" date, since, as you say, the artist information only appeared relatively recently. Makes you wonder what problems future historians will have dating and identifying the stuff our age is producing. Information overload, I suspect. I remember reading somewhere that personal diaries and letters from our age will be lost to future ages because (at the moment) when someone dies most of that stuff dies with them inside a computer somewhere (and people throw paper stuff away because "it's all on the computer"). You personally know, from the books you read (such as the Chamberlain one), how important letters and memoirs are to historians, so that is one way that things might be different for historians in the computer age. Not quite sure how I got onto that topic from the provenance of artworks, but there you go! :-) Carcharoth 01:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me we have to choose between two pieces of info offered by the National Portrait Gallery: one, that the work was painted in 1612, and the other, that she was probably in mourning for Henry. Well, I think she is definitely in mourning (that little thing on her head is the clue rather than the colour), and it is also probable that she is in mourning for Henry. But if we choose to represent that in the caption, the 1612 date then comes into question, in my opinion. Knowing the way they go about these things, as you say, the experts may actually have dated the painting according to the mourning, not looking closely at how late in the year Henry died or how upset and ill Anne was. So you could be right—maybe this was painted in 1613, when she'd recovered somewhat: but we can't unilaterally redate the painting on the basis of our well-honed Sherlockian nasal sensitivities. Despite my doubts, I prefer to reference the date than the "probably" (a bit of a giveaway that, of good old art-conoisseurs' blag). qp10qp 03:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Image:Cannoniere 1652 03.jpg for a delightful account (about a century later) of how to safely fire a cannon. Carcharoth 10:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love reading things like that. qp10qp 23:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course this passes GA! No question about it meeting the criteria. Here are my comments for improvement. Feel free to paste them into peer review when you do that.

• Can you spice up the first paragraph of the lead? It just has names and dates right now. You need to draw the reader in just a tad more, I think.

I've cut a dull chunk and amalgamated it with the second paragraph, which introduces some aspects of her character.qp10qp 03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• However, recent reappraisals acknowledge Anne's assertive independence and, in particular, her dynamic significance as a patron of the arts during the famous Jacobean age. - Are these reappraisals based on an underlying methodology like feminism?

McManus's book is very feminist, I think. But Pauline Croft, though a woman, crafts her comments in ways that disguise any overt feminism, it seems to me, though she endorses the reappraisal. Barroll contributes a major and original reappraisal of Anne without sounding particularly feminist: but he has worked with Cerasano, who is very feminist. I'm not sure. I think feminists like McManus have followed historians' reappraisals of early Stuart monarchy—a general trend over the last twenty years but not a feminist thing itself—by focussing on Anne, and then their works have in turn informed mainstream biographers like Alan Stewart. It's difficult tracing the origins of the reappraisal: Ethel Williams in 1970, not noticeably a feminist though identifying, I think, with Anne as a woman, said a number of little things which I suspect may have set off a few bells among feminists later on, for example that Anne's support of Ben Jonson and Inigo Jones had never been fully appreciated (a very significant thing to say when you consider that they are two of Britain's greats, and very dependent on patronage). I also get the impression that feminist studies of the Jacobean age are often more cultural and literary than purely historical: the historians, even the women, seem more cautious in their language than the literary and cultural analysts—I suppose because they are interpreting a limited number of known facts rather than a vast sea of literature and art which can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways.

Basically I was wondering if there was a reason for the reappraisal that you could put into the sentence. Revisionist history often happens for a reason. Awadewit ^Talk 05:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See comment below about historical views.qp10qp 03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Anne's birth at Skanderborg Castle in Skanderborg, in Jutland, in the Kingdom of Denmark - too many "in's"?

Carch, are you listening? Ten flagellations, now.

Oh dear. I'd better bring cat o' nine tails up to Good Article standard, or something. Carcharoth 15:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely sorted by Carcharoth.qp10qp 03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Güstrow provided Anne with a frugal and stable environment during her early childhood - "frugal environment" seems like an odd description.

I think I got the idea from Williams's:『Life at Güstrow was frugal, orderly and virtuous; very different from the hectic conditions prevailing at the Danish court.』One ties oneself in knots trying to use different words, and Williams is the only real source of information about Anne's childhood that I've come across. I'll try to find a different word than "environment".

Better wording now in place, I think.qp10qp 03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Anne was under pressure to fulfill her perceived chief purpose and provide James and Scotland with an heir - why "perceived"?

I thought it might sound a bit horrid not to add that. One of the historians just calls it her purpose. I think I can leave out the whole central phrase without loss, though.

I think it is more historically accurate to say it was her purpose, though. History isn't always pretty. Awadewit ^Talk 05:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now removed all mention of purpose and I think the sentence is better for it.qp10qp 03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Anne's opportunity came when James left for London in 1603 to assume the English throne, taking the earl of Mar with him. - her "opportunity" to do what?; also might be unclear to some readers why he was assuming the English throne now

I can just say "opportunity" to take custody of Henry.

Sorted by Carcharoth.qp10qp 03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In the "Custody" section, I was slightly confused - did she miscarry twice? Also, you might indicate that it was thought that she miscarried because of the stress over the Henry custody battle. I'm sure we don't really know why. Figuring out the real medical causes of events in the past is nearly impossible.

She did miscarry twice. I thought it was clear they were different: one was in 1595 and one in 1603—the dates are there...I'll try to make it clearer, by perhaps saying "miscarried again". In fact she miscarried at least one more time, but I'm not sure when that was. I did try to distance those foreign interpretations. I can say "it was thought", or whatever.

I've adjusted here and there to make this clearer and brought Calderwood's contemporary quote from the notes into the text.qp10qp 03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In "Reaction to favorites" there is a referencing mishap.

Fixed. qp10qp 01:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that you can expand a bit in the "Patron of the arts" section; I was disappointed by its brevity, especially since the lead said that she led a sparkling salon.

I wanted to keep the overall length down. But actually I think this is her most important sphere. Oddly, though, precise information about the painters is lacking, while there is a major ton about the masques.

I would add information on the masques, then. I know that size is an issue, but right now you talk about her mostly in relation to other figures. It would be nice to bolster the article with something she did on her own. Awadewit ^Talk 05:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still to do: I've decided to add a paragraph on masquing, but I'll have to do some re-reading first.qp10qp 03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Tiniest thing - some of your ISBNs have hyphens and some do not.

I just copy them out of the books. Some have hyphens, some gaps, and some are solid. What do you think is the best way to do them: all solid?

I do solid. Awadewit ^Talk 05:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done solid.qp10qp 03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In the lead you suggest that there are competing interpretations of her reign among historians - I would have liked to see a section or a few paragraphs comparing those interpretations somewhere. Awadewit ^Talk 23:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the notes are full of conflicting interpretations, but, as you know, I don't really like intruding the historians into the main text unless absolutely necessary. Anyway, I'll see what I can do.

Well, then don't tempt us in the lead! :) Awadewit ^Talk 05:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a subsection on this with a paragraph dealing with historians' opinions. Obviously, I'm only sampling five historians there, but Croft does summarise this whole reappraisal, and so I've cited her to cover that.

Many thanks for your help! Oh, and thanks for doing the GA thing....might have had to wait for weeks. I'll do the above edits tomorrow because I'm getting a bit tired. qp10qp 00:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, why do I see the "b" word on the "Birth and Upbringing" section? Who put it there and why?

Vandal. It's gone, now. Mdotley 22:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although some of the smaller changes to the infobox are fine, I feel that others have reduced the quality of the article.

• The infobox is now bigger and, on my browser at least, has taken over from the opening of the article in prominence. Instead of the opening of the article being wider than the infobox, the infobox is now wider than the opening of the article, which seems to me inappropriate.

• Despite this widening, the information above the portrait has now been changed from "Queen consort of Scotland, England and Ireland" to a seemingly inconclusive "Queen-consort of Scots, England, and Ireland (more...)", which does not meet the first principles of design.

• If one clicks (more...), one gets a big table of information; one should not be given links to information tables on the headings at the top of infoboxes, which should be unlinked entirely, there being plenty of space to link information below; at the very least, one should not have a parenthesis in a heading.

• Queen consort does not have a hyphen as a rule and should conform to our article title and to the usage in dictionaries and history books in that respect.

• The change from "Queen consort of Scotland, England and Ireland" to "Queen consort of Scots, England and Ireland" has unmatched the parts of the sentence, resulting in bad English; for that to work we would have to say "of the Scots, English and Irish".

• Good English apart, since the form used on titles of Scottish monarchs on Wikipedia is that of "James III of Scotland", and "Mary I of Scotland", etc., we should use that in this case: James VI of Scotland.

• The insertion of flags into the infobox is not to my taste, but I won't oppose it on those grounds: what is problematic, in my opinion, is that the flags have replaced the names of the countries: readers now need to know the flags of England and Scotland to understand what is being indicated: in my view, we should use words to impart information and flags only for decoration, if at all.

• Finally, the caption to Anne's portrait "Anne of Denmark, c.1612. Attributed to Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger." has been replaced by "Queen Anne in mourning for Prince Henry", which is less informative and less accurate. The source gallery says that Anne is "probably" in mourning for Prince Henry, but galleries aren't the most reliable of sources because they often play up their paintings (in this case, the "probably" is quite telling"). Since Henry died in late November 1612, it is hard to believe that Anne sat for the painting between then and the end of the year: but the truth is that we don't know whether she was in mourning for Henry or not in this painting, so it is wrong to pretend otherwise to the the reader. Lets stick to the convention of subject, date, artist, rather than venturing into questionable art criticism in the caption.

I propose to change these aspects back, unless otherwised convinced; but I invite discussion here. I will contact the user who made the changes. qp10qp 15:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have my vote, as you've summed up what I hadn't yet been able to get up the energy to write after seeing the change earlier. Some of the points are simply down to the choices made in filling the infobox details, but I don't see that the new infobox is an improvement over the old one (the (more...) link is particularly ugly and useless.) Yomangani^talk 15:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've long given up challenging infoboxes or flags in themselves; but I draw the line at their actually taking over. The way things are going, articles will soon be one huge infobox, with a little piece of article cowering in one corner, the size of a lonely hearts message. qp10qp 15:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags? Flags absolutely must not replace text. I have looked at both versions and support the older one. The moving of the birth and death information further down the infobox is particularly nonsensical in my opinion. You might want to take this up at Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty/Style guide. Carcharoth 00:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Few things to say. I don't really think the infobox is that much bigger, and it adds to the opening does not distract from it. With regard to "of Scots"; this is correct. The title of Scottish monarchs is/was "of Scots" not "of Scotland", so it should read as it now does. Also, I personally prefer the flags, but I won't try and argue against WikiPolicy. I would advise qp10qp to change back the caption, remove the hyphen and replace the flags with text. Otherwise, I think it should be left as it as. --UpDown 13:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as "of Scots" is concerned, it's not a matter of whether it is correct or not, in my opinion, but of whether it matches the titling system on Wikipedia (Mary I of Scotland etc.) and of whether it matches grammatically. All my books on James call him "James I of England and VI of Scotland", and I think the reason is surely grammatical: the need to match parts with "England". qp10qp 17:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sorry it is, "of Scots" is the correct title, and therefore should be used in the infobox. --UpDown 17:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a grammatical issue. Type "King of Scots, England and Ireland" into Google and you get one hit. Guess what that is? qp10qp 20:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bollocks do I! "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,370,000 for King of Scots, England and Ireland. (0.39 seconds)" DBD 21:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search the exact phrase. qp10qp 21:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know, I was being facetious... Deliberately, in order to highlight the fact that you can hardly use a Google search as evidence here. DBD 21:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so. I've got my books laid out in front of me here, but I can't show them to you to illustrate that no-one says "King of Scots, England and Ireland" (let alone "Queen consort of Scots, England and Ireland"). There's nothing wrong with the term "King of Scots" in itself, of course, though "King of Scotland" is correct too and was used at the time (in fact, I suspect James started to use that form in combination with the new titles when he ascended the English throne for the same grammatical reasons that I have pointed out: the error would have stuck out even more in Latin). So, the only real issue is grammatical. If you want to use "King of Scots", you have to do it this way: "King of Scots, King of England and King of Ireland", which creates a series of matching parts. The trouble here is that the equivalent for Anne of Denmark is cumbersome: "Queen consort of Scots, Queen consort of England, Queen consort of Ireland". Which is why the usual form "Queen consort of Scotland, England and Ireland" is the best solution. (I notice you have used "Queen consort of England, Scotland and Ireland" for the Henrietta Maria infobox, which seems to me the correct choice. qp10qp 21:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We abbreviate from "King of England, King of Scotland, and King of Ireland" to "King of England, Scotland and Ireland", by dropping the repetitions of "King of", so why not the same when Scotland is rendered Scots and listed first? But, if we got with "of Scotland", would you be happy with "Queen consort of Scotland, England and Ireland"? Scotland being first because she was Queen of Scots first. DBD 22:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On your first point, because "Scots" and "England" are not like parts: a series of Latin teachers flogged that principle into me and I'm not going to start letting the old boys down now. On the second point, of course I would be happy with that. :) qp10qp 22:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are like parts – whilst "Scots" is a people, and "Scotland" a land, they are both nouns. See King of Scots#Style – the Latin were Scottorum and Scotiae respectively - both, although separate declensions, are in the genitive case, so, for instance "King of Scots and England" would be rendered rex Scottorumque Angliae, and "King of Scotland and England" rex Scotiaeque Angliae – there's no problem with either in the Latin. :P Thanks for the Latin workout though! DBD 01:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the hyphen, and reverted the flags, but have retained the caption per WP:CAP. However, whilst I freely admit I may have been wrong in using the hyphen, I only added the flags to stop the dates wrapping, which I feel is undesirable. DBD 15:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptive captions on images are fine in principle, but Jacobean portraits are a special case because we know so little about them: not only did the artists rarely sign them but they were employed by the monarchy to produce many duplicates of their own work and of each other's, even of deceased artists, leading to such stylistic confusion that we can attribute few pictures with certainty to John de Critz, Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger, Paul van Somer I, etc. So it is a real stretch to date a painting, let alone to say with certainty what it is about. I can only guess that DBD changed the caption because he went by the filename; but the filenames on Commons are often very inaccurate (they aren't editable), and this one was based on a "probably mourning Prince Henry" note at the art gallery. When you look into the date of Prince Henry's death, it becomes clear that either that speculation is wrong or the date is wrong. Yes, she is probably in mourning for Henry, but the painting may be a fiction, created in a workshop with no sitting, as was often the case. The truth is that no one knows or can know whether Anne is in mourning for Henry in this picture or not, and we should not pretend otherwise for the sake of an interesting caption. The rest of the article is nailed down with references, and I would not like this to be the exception. qp10qp 17:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every so often, someone changes the date of birth, without giving any reasons. That Anne's date of birth was 12 December 1574 is verifiable by a glance at the following sources (for full book details see the references section):

"...born at Skanderborg Castle in Jutland on 12 December 1574...". Williams, Anne of Denmark, page 1.

"Anna, born 12 December 1574..." Barroll, Anna of Denmark, 16.

"Born Dec. 12, 1574..." Encyclopaedia Britannica online, Anne of Denmark [1].

These references can be backed up by others. I am now going to change the date of birth back to 12 December.

If there are any arguments for a different date, such as old style/new style discrepancies, let them be advocated here. But I think we do well to run with the pack. qp10qp (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this new section that was added:

Legacy: Cape Ann in the U.S. stateofMassachusetts was named in honor of Anne. The explorer John Smith had given it the name "Cape Tragbigzanda" after a lover of his. When Smith presented his map to Charles I he suggested that the Charles should feel free to change any of the "barbarous names" (meaning the many Native American ones) for "English" names. Charles made many such changes, but only four survive today, one of which is Cape Ann.^[1]

My reason for removing the paragraph is that, in my opinion, the material is too specialised and tangential for a general biography of Anne (her biographers don't mention it). The information is not significant enough to be worth a place in the article, it seems to me, let alone to have a section of its own. I suggest the information be added to an article about the geographical area in question. I have placed the paragraph here, so that others may assess its worthiness for inclusion. qp10qp (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did add it to the Cape Ann page. Since many bio pages have a legacy section mentioning things like this I thought I'd add it here. But it doesn't matter to me so no big deal. Pfly (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth a line, or a see also. Is that all that was named after her? She did notably badly if so! Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recently the file File:Anne of Denmark by Paul Van Somer.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 23:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The unreferenced statement that "mutual respect and a degree of affection survived" is opinion and does not necessarily reflect the reality. For example, look at Pauline Gregg's biography of Charles I from 1981: "...she did not attend the official christening of Charles but remained at Dunfermline, nursing her resentment and planning, some said, to punish those who had poisoned the King's mind against her. Beatrix Ruthven was not allowed back into her service . . . correspondents in England were writing that the death of Gowrie would be revenged." Gregg gives a strong impression that the relationship between James and Anne was nothing but contentious.

I think it was contentious, but it survived. James respected Anne and allowed her her own court and a diplomatic role. He was upset when she died and, as Goodman said, "The King himself was a very chaste man, and there was little in the Queen to make him uxorious; yet they did love as well as man and wife could do, not conversing together". Although James would not restore Beatrice Ruthven to Anne's service, Anne eventually won a pension for her from James. Contrast this with the way Henry VIII treated most of his wives. Do you wish me to add the references to the lead? qp10qp (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"To the lead" - - Do you mean to the actual article? SURE, why not, can't hurt anything.  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.200.152 (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added refs to Stewart. These pages include the above quote from Bishop Goodman and Molin's "many hold that the king is most devoted to her", as well as an account of James's response to Anne's death. qp10qp (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason for marriage: Denmark-Norway needed stronger foreign alliances in the aftermath of the Northern Seven Years War. I don't know how to work this into the article. However, this is the source: Ersland, Geir Atle (1999). Norsk historie 1300-1625 (in Norwegian). Oslo: Samlaget. p. 208. ISBN 82-521-5182-5. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

This article devotes considerable space to the fight for custody of Prince Henry, but omits all but the barest mention of James and Anne's other children, including Charles I. This seems a lopsided treatment. It may be justified, but there should at least be some explanation for the situation. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was she the last queen consort in Britian to be crowned separately from her husband in her coronation as queen of Scotland?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"When former intelligencer Sir Anthony Standen was discovered bringing Anne a rosary from Pope Clement VIII in 1603, James imprisoned him in the Tower for ten months.[92] Anne protested her annoyance at the gift, but eventually secured Standen's release.[79]"

Would not logic call for an "and" rather than the "but" here? --Terminally uncool (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She claimed to be annoyed by the gift but secured his release anyway, despite her claims. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this article, Nicolo Molin wrote a description of Anne in 1606, addressing her influence, or lack thereof, in court. There's no mention of her physical self. A beautiful waistcoat, that might be Anne's, is held by the Burrell Collection, Scotland, and is quite tiny. Was Anne that small in her adult life? If so, was labor and delivery problematic for her? I know that she married the king when she was 14 years old. If this is her garment, perhaps the dating of the waistcoat is off and does not come from her adulthood, but from her teen-aged years. If she was so tiny an adult, I would think that somebody would have mentioned it when writing about her. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7Zl2nnkbt8

Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it looks like the links and the texts in the "issue" section on the right are wrong. Roberteli22 (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]