Jump to content

Talk:Mary II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleMary II 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 26, 2005.
On this day... Article milestones
September 20, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
September 21, 2006Featured article reviewKept
June 14, 2007Featured topic candidateNot promoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 13, 2005, February 13, 2006, February 13, 2007, February 13, 2008, February 13, 2009, February 13, 2011, February 13, 2014, February 13, 2017, February 13, 2020, April 11, 2023, and April 11, 2024.
Current status: Featured article


The statement that the title was K & Q of E, S, F & I is correct only for England. In Scotland the title was K & Q of S, E, F & I.
Also, although these are the titles used by the Parliaments &c, the titles normally used by British monarchs themselves, in coins & documents issued by themselves, were K/Q of Great Britain from 1604 onwards, with a few exceptions, mainly Scottish issues 1649-51. 14:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

old style/new style dates[edit]

Which are given here? Shouldn't this be explained? john k (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I raised substantially the same question 18 months ago - see "Calendar" above. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of France[edit]

Is it possible for Mary II to have inherited the English claim to France? France was bound by salic law, which excluded females from succession. Or is there something I don't know about? Regards, -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole English claim to France was based on rejection of Salic Law - Edward III claimed the throne through his mother. By 1689, at any rate, the whole claim was nominal rather than real. john k (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) -- Jack1755 (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Including images of Mary, William and James would be much more useful than having those two templates in the "Reign section". If nobody opposes, I will remove the templates (whose purpose is trivial) and add relevant images. Surtsicna (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Think I am correct in saying that Mary was Charles II's sister not niece as in the article. Anyone else agree? Smch52 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. DrKay (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:James I of England which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 18:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Book link[edit]

Regarding a forthcoming book focusing on Mary II, this is disallowed by Dr Kay on the grounds of it being spam. I think it would be of interest to those interested in Mary, but if it is to be disallowed, should book links here also be disallowed? When there is mention of a forthcoming film on a given topic, as is common on Wikipedia articles, should these be removed too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grorland (talkcontribs) 19:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to see these entire sections removed. My views are essentially consistent with those expressed at Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content, but perhaps more deletionist. I think notable depictions that have shaped the perception of an historic character and that have received coverage in the academic literature may be covered; however, as these sections are merely lists of appearances without any context, I think they are really nothing more than trivia.
For me, it is an issue of due weight, in that the articles should cover material in due proportion to its importance. If every biography of Mary mentions something, then it should be in the article; but if no biography of Mary ever mentions it, then it should be cut as irrelevant. DrKay (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your personal preference on this, but I dare say you will just keep deleting the reference if I restore it. I trust now, anyway, that for consistency you'll also be deleting the book references in the William article. Gavin (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per DrKay; I'm long on record as being against blighting serious articles with trivial pop culture references. Take it to the articles on those topics or, better, take it to wikia; they love that crap. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Excuse me, but I think is impossible the painting in the top of the infobox royalty template to be painted in 1662, because Mary II was an infant then!!!1 The painter died in 1680, so the portret must have been painted about 1670-1680. Am I wrong?--Ιων (talk) 09:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Corrected. DrKay (talk) 10:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proclamation text on Wikisource[edit]

Hi, the text of a Proclamation by Mary, from 1690 the second year of William and Mary's reign, has just been added to Wikisource. She calls upon all seamen and mariners who are evading service to return to the navy, and for any officers of the law to seize and prosecute those that hide away. I'll leave it to the editors of this article to decide in what way to use or link it. It's at wikisource:A proclamation requiring all seamen and mariners to render themselves to Their Majesties service. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Mary II of England[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mary II of England's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto":

  • From Henry VI of England: Ralph Griffiths, The Reign of Henry VI, Berkeley 1981
  • From Head of state: "Deutsches Historisches Museum Berlin - Reinhold Begas - Monuments for the German Empire - Exhibition".

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 01:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


It is unnecessary to repeat the same year or date in one sentence after another. And events should be presented in a logical chronological order, with people's names clear. It is confusing to go from the Duke of York, to James II, back to the Duke of York again. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:William III of England which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Death' section[edit]

Celia Homeford you reverted my edit from yesterday with a handful of changes referring to Mary's death.

Since she died at aged 32, I have added that to the introduction as well as the cause of the death, which was previously hidden.

I furthermore created a new section heading about her death.

In terms of the removal of content, a lot of the stuff about her death seemed a bit fluffy and not very relevant. Happy to explore adding this content back in if we can tighten it up a bit, but I would like to add back the other changes I made. Let me know what you think.

Thanks, ollee (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of that content can be cut. The date of her funeral, the date of her death in the article body, her care in ensuring the safety of others, and the attempted reconciliation with her sister are not fluffy and are directly relevant. Short sections and short, stubby paragraphs should be merged. The sentence describing her physical fitness links topically with the next one on her falling ill, and the new section heading introduced a break there, disconnecting the two. I can see the benefit of "Death" being a new two-paragraph subsection within the "Reign" section, comprising the final two paragraphs of that section, without the removal of content or the addition of extra paragraph breaks. I also see the benefit of adding 4-5 words of content to the short first paragraph of the lead. But I'm not seeing any benefit from the other changes. DrKay (talk) 08:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References to Battle of Killiecrankie[edit]

The article says that Dundee was wounded at the start of the battle. But this does not accord with the page on the Battle of Killicrankie, which specifically states that "...Dundee was fatally wounded towards the end of the battle, and died shortly afterwards". Which is correct? Sbishop (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Sbishop[reply]

Neither source given is explicit. DrKay (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article about Coronation[edit]

In my opinion, there should be an article about the Coronation of William III and Mary II, covering their coronation in greater detail, just like that of Elizabeth I and other modern British Sovereigns. As they both were joint Sovereigns, it would be interesting to know how the Coronation was carried out, as the Crown Jewels and regalia (including the Coronation Crown) are usually reserved for a single sovereign. Were they crowned one by one with the St Edward's Crown, or an additional crown was created, all these details can be covered. Also, the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time, didn't recognise James's removal. So, I think it would be an interesting article. Peter Ormond 💬 13:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpicking yes, but fwiw. Elizabeth I, William III/II & Mary II were not British monarchs. Liz was an English & Irish monarch, while Billy & May were English, Scottish & Irish monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 05:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 September 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. DrKay (talk) 07:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary II of EnglandMary II – Mary II already redirects here. And given that she was equally, Queen of England, Scotland and Ireland, "Mary II" would be a better and more neutral title. Peter Ormond 💬 05:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Notably? No. There is one other entry on Mary II (disambiguation); Maria II of Portugal. The others are not a monarch, not known as Mary 'II', and are a boat and airbase. Which is why Mary II redirects here, and is not a disambiguation page. (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Having just read through this as part of the effort to check over old Featured Articles promoted before 2016, it doesn't look too bad, but it's pretty reliant on van der Kiste and Waller. There haven't been too many books specifically on Mary since this was promoted, but Jonathan Keates' William III and Mary II: Partners in Revolution (2015) seems like an obvious omission. There are also more recent academic works on William (e.g. Redefining William III and William III, The Staadtholder King) which may have useful information. There are also relevant academic articles specifically on Mary, which one might expect to see cited: here, here, and here immediately come to my attention.

The other major concern I would have is the legacy section: the immediate aftermath of her death is well-discussed, but then the only discussion of any more recent legacy is a listing of three films and a TV series in which she is featured. Is there not anything substantial to say about how she has been received in modern culture? If not, is it actually important to list some random films where she features – especially given that she seems to be a pretty decidedly secondary character in most (all?) of them. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at Keates's book while at the library. It's only ~77 pages long - and these are smaller pages than you expect, it's a tiny book. I can see if there's anything notable to add into the article from it, but I wouldn't get your hopes up too high. That said, Keates calls out in his "further reading" section Chapman's 1953 book on Mary II ( [1]), so maybe that would be the better source to integrate? He seems to think it's still relevant despite the age.
On the cultural legacy bit, Keates specifically whines about how not enough music / opera / plays / etc. have been made about William & Mary, the Glorious Revolution, etc. in his epilogue (he thinks that they're too honest and scandal-free to make for exciting fiction). So those three films may well be about the best that's available. SnowFire (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
William is scandal-free? But his reputed homosexual relationship with Arnold van Keppel, 1st Earl of Albemarle was considered controversial in his own lifetime. Dimadick (talk) 07:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Take it up with Keates? I'm not well-read enough on the subject to know if this is Keates' own eccentricity or a common opinion. Here's what he wrote more fully (this passage is specifically about biographers rather than movies & other stuff, though):
This Whig theory of history became an obvious target for revisionists, making easy casualties out of William and Mary in the process. Neither of them would ever be a popular subject for biographers. William's essential reserve and secretiveness, not to speak of the fact that much of the early source material for his life was in Dutch, made him unappealing to anglophone historians. Mary proved still less engaging. What sort of narrative heroine could be made from a woman whose short life was so conspicuously virtuous — apart from her quarrel with Anne and the Marlboroughs, where there were faults on both sides — and whose anguished Protestant piety precluded any sort of scandal? This was indeed the problem with England's sovereign double act — not enough high-end gossip and sleaze. Their reign effectively killed off the world of the Restoration, with its duels and debauches, its gropers and fumblers, whores and orange-wenches, clap-doctors, cuckolds, rogues and bullies. Part of the trouble with William and Mary, for succeeding generations, has been that they were too seriously respectable. He was his wife's only love and she had no interest in dalliance or casual flirtation. Hard evidence is lacking, meanwhile, for William's supposed sodomy with Bentinck and Keppel, while Elizabeth Villiers always played things cool as a royal attachment, never seeking to embarrass the king or upstage the queen. (p. 72-73)
SnowFire (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just confirming that Keates isn't really that useful for more. DrKay said that one of the areas Keates did notably differ from the current article (i.e. Anne's opinion on James Francis Edward Stuart) isn't supported by their other sources; did not check them to confirm, although Keates seems convincing enough to me on that particular topic. But for everything else, it's just too short a book, practically an extended Wikipedia page itself.

I looked a bit at the 1953 Chapman book, which did seem usable enough. I think incorporating it would involve a change in "style" of the article though which I wouldn't really be comfortable with doing - the article is currently aiming to be more of a concise high-level biography. If you want to cram it with details like how the doctors also diagnosed Erysipelas in addition to measles, or quote Mary's writing a bunch and her request to have the funeral be low-key, or other stuff, then Chapman would be handy. But as noted, it would be a fairly significant style shift. SnowFire (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 January 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mary II of EnglandMary IIWP:SOVEREIGN says we should avoid the "of England" dab if it is not needed, and it is fairly clear she is the primary topic for the term. I am on the fifth page of Google results before I get anything other than her. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject British Royalty has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject English Royalty has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Scottish Royalty has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Netherlands has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject London has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't we just move both? One becomes Mary II and the other Maria II. And with both pages, we simply have a note at the top about "for the similarly named Queen of X country, go to Y article"; or, "not to be confused with X, Queen of Y"? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Disambiguation needed. Indistinguishable from Queen Mary 2. Not an improvement, not helpful to readers. Walrasiad (talk) 11:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies in this instance, and as others have noted the Portuguese queen with a similar name is usually called Maria. Векочел (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Dimadick and Walrasiad. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Rosbif73. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Mary II already redirects here, and she's clearly primary. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. estar8806 (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support clear primary topic. Nobody's gonna confuse her with Maria II of Portugal (completely different spelling) or the ship Queen Mary 2 (the same way nobody confuses Elizabeth II with Queen Elizabeth 2!). Keivan.fTalk 04:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who is this nobody? Speak for yourself! When I hear "Queen Elizabeth II" without country, I think of the ship first. Just because your mind is wrapped in royal kitsch, not everyone is. Walrasiad (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mind your attitude. And I wouldn't speak of minds being wrapped in royal kitsch if I myself were participating in every single royalty-related RM. A member of the general public is not gonna hear Queen Elizabeth II and think of a ship unless they have a vested interest in all things ship-related. Overall, that's a preposterous claim. Keivan.fTalk 14:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do write and publish quite a bit on the history of navigation. I don't give a damn about royalty. Unfortunately, their names occasionally come up in my work. So I do care that these articles remain useful and recognizable to lay people (like myself) - that is, researchers, students and the general public who are not, and should not be assumed to be, obsessive royalist geeks. Walrasiad (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because the general public thinks of a ship when they hear the words "Queen Elizabeth II"? Google disagrees. So does every person on the street. You wanna keep the pages in a format you think is ideal for navigation? Fine; that's your opinion. Don't make it about being normal vs being a royalist geek. Keivan.fTalk 18:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Every person on the street"? I don't know what street you live on, but again you assume everyone has your tastes and interests. In my street, nobody gives a toss about European royalty. But I am not the measure here, and neither are you. In this, as in everything I do on Wikipedia, I make an effort to put myself in the shoes of Wikipedia general reader, and ask myself what is the best way to communicate and educate. You should do the same. It is a mistake to overestimate people's knowledge, confounding it with your own. You may be fascinated with kings, queens and princesses, but don't assume other people are. The best way to share your niche interests with the general public is actually to make it clear, accessible and recognizable, not making them more obscure and difficult to access and assume "everyone knows". It is not only a disservice to the reader, it is a disservice to the very topic you want to educate them about.
You mention Google search, well, a google search of "Queen Mary II", the ship pretty much dominates results. Walrasiad (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the content, not the contributor. You should know it too well that you are not allowed to judge other people based on their contributions. I'm not fascinated by anyone. I am a citizen of two republics (one a former monarchy) and I intend to keep them that way. Doesn't alter the fact that Elizabeth II overtakes a British passenger ship, which was decommissioned 15 years ago and nobody around the world would probably know of or give a damn about, in terms of fame. Won't make a difference even if you ask the republicans vs the monarchists; who/what dominated headlines around the world? The ship being decommissioned or the woman dying? Speaking of Google results, when I search Queen Mary II I get results about the deceased monarch. When I search Queen Mary 2 I get results about the ship. Anyway, you made your point and I made mine. We are walking into WP:BLUDGEON territory now. Keivan.fTalk 15:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am commenting on your arguments - specifically, your easy resort to declaring universal assumptions. Statements like "Everybody", "Nobody", etc. which are patently wrong, and urging you to refrain from them.
As for google search, maybe your engine is busted. Here "Queen Mary II" I get the ship as the primary side-column (ship also dominates all images), Maria II of Portugal right up the top as well, etc. So clearly not primary topic. Walrasiad (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, me being "fascinated with kings, queens, and princesses" was a comment you made based on my arguments. Right, whatever.
What you are making a big deal of is something that can be resolved with a hatnote. Maria II of Portugal is also in the process of being moved. The aim is to drop territorial designations not make either of them primary topics. They don't even have the exact same first names. It's like arguing someone could confuse Isabella I with Elizabeth I. Had Maria's name been "translated" (the way Frederick the Great's has been) I would have seen the point in your argument.
The ship is also not named "Queen Mary II", it's named "Queen Mary 2" and all Google results refer to it as such. An no, my engine is not busted. Mary II and Mary 2 both give results on the deceased queen and have her info as the primary side-column. And we are not suggesting a move to "Queen Mary II" anyway, which is the name that would have been actually closer to the ship's name "Queen Mary 2".
By the way, I was never in favor of getting rid of territorial designations for all monarchs; people changed the guidelines at WP:NCROY by consensus and I'm simply asking for the new guidelines to be followed for all monarchs whenever possible. If you can manage to revert the results of that consensus by establishing a new one, you'll put an end to all these RMs popping up every week some of which I have not supported, namely Nicholas II of Russia and Frederick William IV of Prussia (and which I'm also finding tedious at best). Keivan.fTalk 19:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I enter "Queen Mary II" on google search, the ship is dominant. And by quite a large margin. Walrasiad (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but as I said for Mary II the deceased queen is the dominant result and that's what the page is potentially being moved to. Keivan.fTalk 22:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is fair to say most people only think of the ship when they hear the initialism "QE2", whereas they tend to think of her late majesty as "Queen Elizabeth the second". Likewise in the case at hand, "Queen Mary two" for the ship, "Mary the second" for the queen. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Disambiguation is needed with Maria II of Portugal. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 12:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That article could just be moved to Maria II with hatnotes going both ways. estar8806 (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Consistency with Mary I of England and William III of England. Srnec (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mary I is also in the process of being potentially moved. Keivan.fTalk 05:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't WP:SOVEREIGN (Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed) imply that titles of articles about sovereigns from a given country will not necessarily be consistent in using a territorial designation? The question here is not whether the title is consistent with Mary I of England and William III of England in its use of a territorial designation, but rather whether this title qualifies as a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Graham (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does. It is a recent and highly contentious change to the guideline, to say the least. There was an RFC, but now there have also been several failed RMs. I think the reality is that the community does not have any consensus on how to treat titles like these. I would say that being primary topic for "Mary II" no more makes that automatically the best title than "Cézanne" having a primary topic makes that the best title for the article. Srnec (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reality is that the community does not have any consensus on how to treat titles like these. If you don't believe there was a consensus this past November, shouldn't we either review the closure per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE or open a wider discussion? Unless the closure is overturned or a new consensus is reached in a central discussion, surely it isn't appropriate to simply disregard our guidelines. Graham (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disregarding guidelines is a core policy. Srnec (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, in exceptional circumstances. Considering the scope of the guideline in question (WP:SOVEREIGN), do you think that this is an exceptional circumstance? Graham (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is helpful to readers. Removing it is detrimental to readers. We serve readers, not editors. Walrasiad (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes it exceptional, though, in the sense of serving as an exception to the usual rule provided by WP:SOVEREIGN? This would seem to be the precise situation contemplated by the guideline. Graham (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:SOVEREIGN. Graham (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Walrasiad here. We should also consider whether the redirect Queen Mary II should point here given the overwhelming prominence of the ship on google searches for that term. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC) In addition, I see no benefit from trying to reduce the article title to as few words as possible, when the article title is already short. We don't use Einstein or Hitler because "we should avoid dab if it is not needed, and it is fairly clear they are the primary topic for the term". The opening rationale is unpersuasive and is the same as saying we should move articles to Obama and Biden because the presidents are the primary topics for those terms and disambiguation isn't needed. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Keivan.f. Peter Ormond 💬 21:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose: If this action were to be taken, it would be emblematic of English Wikipedia's growing favoritism toward the English speaking world and the histories and people of those nations as the "default." Also, the names of monarchs are some of the few that are consistently translated from language to language. The Radioactive Box (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. This move is requested in order to follow the applicable guideline, WP:NCROY, which applies equally to non-English/British monarchs. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the above, and per the wasteful plethora of other such RMs currently circulating. The country is important in the interests of our readers and necessary to make the subject of such articles sufficiently clear. Removing it isn’t an improvement for our readers (which policy instructs is our priority) and doesn’t seem to serve any good purpose beyond just following the recent change to NCROY. (And given the contentiousness of all the RMs that that change prompted, it almost certainly needs to be revised.) ╠╣uw [talk] 18:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (no one disputes that; Mary II already redirects here), WP:COMMONNAME (ngrams), WP:PRECISE (unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that) and WP:SOVEREIGN (Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed). The dearth of policy-based arguments, or any strong arguments, from Opposition here is equally important. I've looked at every Oppose !vote so far. Here is a summary of the oppose arguments:
  • We need to disambiguate this article from Maria II of Portugal or Queen Mary 2
    • Why this disambiguation is supposedly needed is not explained.
    • The PRIMARYTOPIC of Mary II is not even addressed, much less is it shown that this article is not PT despite Mary II being the PRIMARYREDIRECT to this article for over six years.
    • Maria II of Portugal could be moved to Maria II. In fact, Maria II is already a PRIMARYREDIRECT to that article and an RM is underway accordingly.
  • Removing "of country" is "not an improvement for our readers" or "not helpful to our readers"
    • Failing to be "an improvement for our readers" is not a policy-based reason to oppose a move.
    • Most title changes are "not an improvement for our readers", regardless of which way they are changed. Titles reflect the common name of the subject to our readers, disambiguated if necessary, but thanks to redirects serve no useful purpose in the searching process. FLORA articles use scientific names for their titles which may as well be random unique keys as far as most non-specialist readers are concerned, yet no one complains about non-specialist readers not being able to find and learn from the FLORA articles they seek. Do you recognize Quercus kelloggii, Toxicodendron diversilobum or Narcissus? Can you recognize which is Western Poison Oak, California Black Oak, and Daffodil? The argument can be made that FLORA arguments don't follow COMMONNAME and even RECOGNIZABILITY (been there; done that), but the fact remains that in terms of serving readers there is nothing lost by the use of these names for titles which are unrecognizable to most readers.
  • Consistency with Mary I of England and William III of England.
    • There is an ongoing RM for Mary I already and William III is very ambiguous and presumably has no PT.
    • The fact that SOVEREIGN requires "of country" only when disambiguation is required necessitates inconsistency between disambiguated and undisambiguated titles; that's a WP norm.
  • The proposal is emblematic of "favoritism toward the English speaking world"
    • The SOVEREIGN guidance to disambiguate with "of country" only when necessary applies equally to monarchs or all nations.
  • "The country is important in the interests of our readers and necessary to make the subject of such articles sufficiently clear."
    • The country is important; that's why it's specified in the lead sentence. No need for it in the title, unless needed for disambiguation.
    • Per RECOGNIZABILITY, "sufficiently clear" means "recognizable to someone familiar with the topic. Making it recognizable to others has no policy basis.
  • Removing "of country" "serves no good purpose"
    • Failing to serve a good purpose is not a policy-based reason to oppose a move.
    • The move does serve two good purposes:
      1. Bringing SOVEREIGN articles better in line with CRITERIA, which disambiguating with "of country" only when necessary does, will ultimately bring stability to these titles.
      2. Being consistent about using disambiguation only when necessary makes our titles reliably indicate whether a given topic is the primary (or unique) use of its name or not. Landing on Mercury (planet) tells us there are other important uses of Mercury. Landing on Uranus tells us that planet is the primary or only use of its name. If it was at Uranus (planet) to be "consistent" with Mercury (planet) that would be misleading. Similarly, landing on William III of England indicates there are other William IIIs and this one is not the primary topic, whereas landing on Elizabeth I tells us she is the primary or unique use.
In summary, all Opposition arguments are easily refuted, and they provide no basis in policy to oppose this move. In contrast, Support presents traditional strong policy-based arguments for changing this title. --В²C 07:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B2C: A few points:
  • Primary topic policy does not dictate that the most concise unambiguous title is the one we must use. If it did, we'd have US, UK, Obama, 103rd Congress, Cezanne, Bothell, Rockies, Pacific, DTs, AI, etc., all of which currently redirect to less concise titles. Policy recognizes that other factors beyond conciseness and ambiguity are important for us to consider.
  • Re recognizability: the problem is that many regnal names — and especially common and repeated names like Mary — may not be sufficiently recognizable even to those who are familiar with royalty. I myself am one (familiar but no expert) and until these recent RMs I would not have been able to tell you that Charles X and Charles XI were from entirely different countries, of that Mary II must necessarily be Mary II of England.
  • Explaining the title in the text is not a substitute for meeting our WP:CRITERIA as well as we can.
╠╣uw [talk] 11:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one claimed PT says we must use the most concise unambiguous title. The relevance of PT here is that since this topic is primary for Mary II, ambiguity with other uses is not a policy-based objection to using Mary II as the title. It’s CONCISE that provides guidance to favor more concise titles, with notable exceptions listed there explicitly.
  • The standard for recognizability here is not someone who is “familiar with royalty”. It is someone who is familiar with Mary II in particular.
  • Yes, and choosing Mary II is meeting CRITERIA as well as we can. That’s the point. Opposition cites no CRITERIA that favors the current title.
В²C 14:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, B2C, the standard is not "someone who is familiar with Mary II in particular". WP:CRITERIA specifically states that the title should be recognizable by "someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area". WP:CONCISE further affirms that good titles require "sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area". (Emphasis mine.) Nixing the country fails that criterion (to say nothing of the other policy directives it would fail to meet, such as prioritizing reader interests and maintaining an encyclopedic register). ╠╣uw [talk] 19:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per long-discussed other RMs. Not gonna go into it, but see arguments elsewhere. Similar issues apply. SnowFire (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not gonna go into it This is WP:NOTAVOTE. Graham (talk) 05:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because she was not only the Queen of England. DieOuTransvaal (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Firstly, Mary II wasn't just Queen of England, but also Scotland and Ireland. Having her pagename reflect only one kingdom, and specifically England can be viewed as having unfortunate implications; as if her rule over the other two kingdoms was lesser. More importantly, Mary Stuart is the only actual "Mary II". Another woman with that name was inconsequential Scottish noblewoman, then Mary Polly Paaaina (that being her common name, and Mary II an alternative), and the ship of the same name; which isn't even "Mary II" but "Queen Mary 2". There is Maria II of Portugal, but in the English-speaking world—and this is the English Wikipedia, after all—is known as MarIA, not MarY. Mary Stuart is very much the primary topic under the "Mary II" label/name. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Dimadick, Walrasiad and Celia Homeford. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because she was sovereign of both England and Scotland. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. That's what hat notes are for.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 22:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because she was Mary II of Scotland too. (And the idea that people will mistake Mary II for a ship is daft.) Richard75 (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Status as heir apparent / presumptive[edit]

In the "Category:Female heirs apparent" page, both Mary II and Anne are discussed as an example of female heirs apparent. Although the British kingdoms used male-preference primogeniture at the time, the circumstances and aftermath of the Glorious Revolution did bring forth some unique elements to the line of succession. Although Anne is still part of the list - I guess in some way, this discussion affects her too - Mary II is not. I was wondering if Mary II counts as an example of an heir apparent or not?

Ulrika Eleonora of Sweden is placed in this category, and after she abdicated in favour of her husband, she was named his heir. In the case of Mary and William, the law did state that whoever died first, their spouse would continue reigning, essentially making them each others heir apparent. But unlike Ulrika Eleonora, Mary was not William's consort but equal. So, taking account all these, could Mary II be described as an heir apparent? Should she be placed in the same category as her sister? PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See List of heirs to the English throne. William III and Mary II were "mutual heirs" from 1689 to 1694. The death of Mary turned Anne into the heiress from 1694 to 1702. Dimadick (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]