Mary 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.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 26, 2005.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 20, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted September 21, 2006 Featured article review Kept June 14, 2007 Featured topic candidate Not promoted
Current status: Featured article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Royalty and Nobility FA‑class 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 FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as High-importance). British Royalty FA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British 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.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. English Royalty FA‑class High‑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 FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Scottish Royalty FA‑class Top‑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 FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Netherlands FA‑class This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Spoken Wikipedia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken 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.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles Politics FA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Women's History FA‑class 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 FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Vital 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. 14:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

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 131.111.164.236 (talk)

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]

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)

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

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]

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 (talk • contribs) 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]