Talk:James Hamilton, 1st Duke of Hamilton

Heir to the throne or thrones?

The section on his heirship to the Scottish throne makes me think, was it just the Scottish one or the English one too-If the House of Stuart had failed, would that have been the end of the personal union or not? Obviously the union of the crowns came about as the Stuarts were the next heirs after the Tudors to the English throne, but does that mean the Hamiltons were next after the Stuarts in England, just like they were in Scotland and if not then who were the next English heirs. I know that the Hamiltons were not themselves related to the Tudors as their lineage derives from James II of Scotland whilst the Stuart connection only goes back to James V of Scotland, whose mother was the sister of Henry VIII. But since that meant that on the death of Elizabeth I, her closest legitimate relative was James VI, would her next heir after his family be his closest legitimate relative, the Duke of Hamilton, or the next closest legitimate blood relative of Elizabeth I? -Whom Im not sure that would be, but Im mainly curious with just knowing how it would work, according to the rules of prigomenture. It's a quite complicated succession issue, so does anyone know-would it be James VI & I's relative, the Duke of Hamilton, (as in Scotland) or Elizabeth I's relative that the English throne would go to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nocrowx (talk • contribs) 12:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Just the Scottish throne. Had the line of Margaret Tudor (wife of James IV, King of Scots) died out, the English throne would have passed to the heir of her sister Mary Tudor. It appears that at the relevant time this was Lady Chandos (later the Countess of Castlehaven). Proteus (Talk) 15:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I see, thanks for clarifying that, Proteus. But that makes me wonder; if Princess Elizabeth Stuart had not had any decendents, the Hanoverians, then they would have had to go back in either the Scottish or the English line to name an heir to the new Kingdom of Great Britain during Queen Anne's reign. I wonder whether they would have chosen a Hamilton or a decendent of Mary Tudor to sit on the new unified throne and if the choice might have led to tensions between Scotland and England and no Act of Union at all. And there would still of course been the requirement for the selected heir to be protestant, otherwise they would have just went with the closest relative of Anne, James Francis Edward Stuart. I allways find it interesting thinking about what could have happened in history and how close we often came to taking different paths and this is a perfect example - if the simple thing had happened that Princess Elizabeth had no kids, then the bond between England and Scotland would have been weaker due to them having no common heir, as there would be no living protestant heirs of a post-union of the crowns member of the Royal Family. Nocrowx (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

He wasn't ever heir to ANY thrones. "Third in line to the throne" is not "heir to the throne" in ANYONE'S way of speaking. In most people's way of speaking, "heir to the throne" is NEXT in line to the throne, NEVER "third in line".108.234.62.240 (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

I've done some back-tracing and it is at least plausible that he was third in line to the throne of Scotland without being third in line to the throne of England. When all lines descended from the marriage of King James IV Of Scotland and Princess Margaret Tudor of England (sister of Henry VIII) became extinct, the search for next heirs for Scotland's thrones would thread back through siblings and ancestors of King James IV and the search for heirs for England's thrones would thread back through siblings and ancestors of Princess Margaret.108.234.62.240 (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

In common parlance, "heir" is "next in line" whether it's "heir apparent" (a person who can avoid inheriting some object only by dying before inheriting it) or "heir apparent" (a person who can avoid inheriting EITHER by dying before inheriting OR because of the birth of an infant whose place in the line of succession has priority over that of the until-then-heir presumptive, who then ceases to be heir presumptive. Some authorities say that strictly speaking neither an "heir apparent" or an "heir presumptive" IS an heir, because their meaning of the word "heir" is one who has ALREADY inherited by the death of the predecessor. So if you are your father's "heir apparent" or "presumptive" now, you won't be your father's "heir" until he dies and you inherit. That's what SOME authorities say but of course I realize that nobody in everyday life sticks to that.108.234.62.240 (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

Character assessment: Original research

This section's topic is inherently subjective. This sort of thing shouldn't be included in Wikipedia except in the form of reporting what (specific) historians have said, with references. This section, as written, merely presents its opinions as unreferenced fact, in other words unverifiable original research. Hairy Dude (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the unsourced part of that section, also removed the tag of original research.Creuzbourg (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

"Character Assessment" is never history and never encyclopedic. "Legacy" sometimes is, but usually not. Please just tell us which persons performed which actions, and which persons created which works (speeches, writings, paintings, sculptures, etc.). We cannot look at the outward manifestations left behind by individuals (i.e. their material residues which for me does include words they strung together in some form) and by using those residues read their minds or "see what's in their hearts". Nor will it ever matter. If Richard III did something, and we don't know if he did it because he was malevolent or did it because he was empathic, it will not matter because he still did it, and what he did still had the effect that it had. Stop the retroactive psychoanalysis of dead people. I believe that in at least SOME of the psychoanalytic professions you can lose your license for diagnosing a patient with whom you have had no personal communication. That probably includes people who were dead before you were born.108.234.62.240 (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

What charges?

Om what charges were Hamilton tried? From a modern point of view his execution seems to be a war crime. Creuzbourg (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)