Phil

I think that John does have the answer.  Using both numbers makes sense, as
both James are often referred to by both numbers together i.e. 'James VII &
II' in both speach and print.

Using preferred/non-preferred terms would not be a good idea.

Other similar names - in the example you give, John Balliol is commonly
spoken of as John Balliol, whereas John Plantagenet is not often so called.
This reflects the political feeling that John Balliol was not a true king of
Scotland - I've never heard him referred to as 'King John'.  You will
probably find that most of the kings have distinguishing identifiers e.g.
nicknames (very common here) which could be used in addition to their
numbers to seperate them out....

A political minefield, I admit, but probably easily soluble once you have
the names in front of you.

Mary


Dr Mary MacLeod
Regional Archaeologist
Arts and Leisure Services
Comhairle nan Eilean Siar
[log in to unmask]
(01851) 703242
-----Original Message-----
From: Carlisle, Philip <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 08 February 2000 17:37
Subject: RE: PERIODS - Timeline Thesaurus


>John
>Thanks for that! I think you may have the answer. The double numbering
could
>work but we'll have to look into it. It would be helpful if someone in
>Scotland could give us a definitive list of Scottish monarchs as well as
the
>regnal numbers for monarchs of Britain.
>
>One way round the problem of other similar names eg, JOHN in England and
>JOHN in Scotland, would be to assign surnames.
>Thus we'd get JOHN PLANTAGENET and JOHN BALLIOL but personally, I can't
>stand that and anyway it still doesn't solve the problem about the Stuarts
>
>Of course the other answer would be to make James VII (Scotland) a
>non-preferred term for JAMES II (BRITAIN)..................
>On second thoughts maybe not!!
>
>Phil
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Wood [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: 08 February 2000 17:16
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: RE: PERIODS - Timeline Thesaurus
>
>Well, I don't want to be a troublemaker but believe it or not such things
>are actually important in Scotland.  And just to pick up on this one:
>
>"Political Period
>If we include the homographs JAMES I (SCOTLAND) and JAMES I (BRITAIN) and
>JAMES II (SCOTLAND) and JAMES II (BRITAIN) then there shouldn't be a
>problem. From the sources we've looked at Burke's Peerage etc. the Kings of
>Scotland stop getting a different numerical identifier after JAMES I and
VI.
>Therefore JAMES II (BRITAIN) is not also JAMES VII (SCOTLAND) and as such
>Martin's point of what ELIZABETH II is in Scotland becomes irrelevant.
>Having said that I'm sure someone out there is going to tell me different."
>
>I'm afraid that many Scots don't accept this.  Whatever Burke's Peerage may
>say, James II of England is James VII of Scotland.  I know he is the second
>James to rule the whole of Britain but that doesn't help much.
>
>Actually the most sensitive ones are the Stuarts.  James I of England is
>always referred to here as James VI, and for that matter James II of
England
>is James VII.   I think this is because we had so many medieval Jameses and
>to start re-using their numbers is confusing. Actually I don't hear many
>people insisting on Edward VII, VIII and William IV being given their
>Scottish numbers. The Georges and Victoria aren't a problem anyway.
>Nevertheless this is likely to become an increasingly sensitive issue in
the
>future.
>
>One way round this might perhaps be to give them both numbers, e.g. James
>VI/I, where different - at least for the Stuarts anyway.
>
>John Wood



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%