The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #41  
Old 07-29-2010, 05:29 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,423

I guess there was nothing to stop her son having her reburied in Scotland (or France), but he didn't.
__________________

__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-29-2010, 06:56 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren View Post

I guess there was nothing to stop her son having her reburied in Scotland (or France), but he didn't.

To me it is significant that he had her reburied in Westminster Abbey (she was originally buried in Peterborough Cathedral).

James was her son and if anyone should have decided where to bury her it was him and he chose Westminster Abbey - the burial site of monarchs of England, including his immediate predecessor, Elizabeth I.

His decision and I don't think anyone should be against the decision of the son to make the point that his mother, who claimed the English throne in life, should be buried amongst them.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-29-2010, 07:03 AM
Australian's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 2,152
I wonder what her remains would be today and that of Elizabeth. Would it just be dust? a skeleton? I wonder if her clothes are still in tact.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-29-2010, 09:46 AM
lady of hay's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: around the uk, United Kingdom
Posts: 215
Mary and Elizabeth are buried next to each other in Westminster Abbey. I think that Elizabeths feet are at Mary's head, so the two monarchs are almost side by side.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-29-2010, 11:07 AM
Duchessmary's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: San Diego, United States
Posts: 1,087
I don't believe Mary's lead-lined coffin has ever been disturbed. I have a curious feeling that the remains would be in remarkably good condition.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-29-2010, 11:14 AM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
And it is Mary's descendants who grace the Throne, not Elizabeth's, which adds a certain poignancy when one considers the two Queens are buried near each other.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-29-2010, 11:45 AM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 4,625
James was a bad son who betrayed his mother...he cared more about staying in Elizabeth I's good graces (in order to inherit her Throne) while Mary was alive, and after Elizabeth's death he was hardly likely to care about respecting his late mother's wishes regarding her Will.

I suppose he is to be commended for removing Mary from Peterborough to the more prestigious Henry VII Chapel at Westminster Abbey, however.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07-29-2010, 11:52 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 237
Hi,

Ironic and poignant, that although Mary lost her head, her descendants occupied the thrones of most of Europe in the coming centuries and Elizabeth produced nothing (barren stock!!).....

Larry
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 07-29-2010, 12:32 PM
magnik's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 3,681
Two women, cousins, queens, rivals buried in one place and next to each other.
So I guess that Elizabeth wouldn't be happy to know that her cousin is buried next to her...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07-29-2010, 05:12 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
James was a bad son who betrayed his mother...he cared more about staying in Elizabeth I's good graces (in order to inherit her Throne) while Mary was alive, and after Elizabeth's death he was hardly likely to care about respecting his late mother's wishes regarding her Will.

I suppose he is to be commended for removing Mary from Peterborough to the more prestigious Henry VII Chapel at Westminster Abbey, however.


James barely knew his mother as he was only 13 months when she was deposed and forced to leave him behind. He could hardly betray someone he didn't know. What sorts of feelings he would have had for her would be hard to determine but certainly not the normal parent/child one as there was no time for that to truly develop - remember at that time too royal babies didn't see much of their parents anyway at his age. He was only 21 when she died and had only had full control of his country for about 6 years but even so a young stipling king will be strongly advised by those who had been dealing with the government of the country during his minority.

He was loyal to his religion at a time when religion was extremely important and his mother was of the opposite religion but Elizabeth was of the same as him. Had he supported his mother he would probably have lost his own throne as well as the Scots were determined to stay protestant and having Mary come back would likely have lead to a civil war in Scotlant to ensure a protestant monarch. As Mary was Elizabeth's direct heir while she was alive James would inherit the English throne whether he supported his mother or not but supporting her could have been disastrous for Scotland with civil war over religion and James even losing his life.

When Camden wrote his Life of Elizabeth in the reign of James, James insisted on checking what was said about Mary to ensure that a reasonable picture of his mother was given. He ensure rhat she was buried with the monarchs of England - a throne she had claimed since 1558 due to Elizabeth's religion and more particularly the timing of her birth (Catherine of Aragon was still alive so in the eyes of the RC church Elizabeth was a bastard who had no claim - whereas Edward did as Catherine was dead so Edward was always seen as legitimate by the RCs).

When a child loses their parent as an infant unless they are raised to have some feelings for that parent they won't have them and James wasn't raised that way. He was raised to look after Scotland and Scotland's interests and that meant leaving Mary where she was - out of the way.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 07-29-2010, 05:15 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vecchiolarry View Post
Hi,

Ironic and poignant, that although Mary lost her head, her descendants occupied the thrones of most of Europe in the coming centuries and Elizabeth produced nothing (barren stock!!).....

Larry

It is hard to say that Elizabeth was barren as she simply never married and so it would have been inconceivable for her to have a child - but an unmarried woman not having a child doesn't equal barren but rather an unknown. Of course there are also the rumours that she did have a child with Dudley but ...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 07-29-2010, 07:50 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 237
Hi Iluvbertie,

I agree with you wholeheartedly...
I only placed that saying there, as I believe that Elizabeth uttered it when Mary had James.
"The Queen of Scots is today lighter of a fine, bonny prince; and I am but barren stock" - - paraphrased.
I remember Glenda Jackson crying out this in "Elizabeth R"; whether Elizabeth actually said it is congecture...

Larry
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 07-29-2010, 08:40 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vecchiolarry View Post
Hi Iluvbertie,

I agree with you wholeheartedly...
I only placed that saying there, as I believe that Elizabeth uttered it when Mary had James.
"The Queen of Scots is today lighter of a fine, bonny prince; and I am but barren stock" - - paraphrased.
I remember Glenda Jackson crying out this in "Elizabeth R"; whether Elizabeth actually said it is congecture...

Larry

That is reputed to be what she said but as she was still able to marry and have a child at that time I have often wondered if she ever truly said it as how would she have known?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 07-30-2010, 10:21 PM
cmbruno's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: S„o Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 436
In 1867 there was a search for the place where James I was buried. His body was found in the tomb of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York, but at first is was thought he was in Mary’s tomb. A large vault of brick was found under the Mary’s monument and to everybody’s surprise many small lead coffins where there sharing the space with Mary’s coffin. Queen Anne’s still born 18 babies where there, among other royal children and some adults as well. It is said that Mary’s coffin had a remarkable size and the case had not given way. No attempt was made to open it. What a fascinating woman! I remember when I was in England for the first time and in Westminster Abbey looking at her tomb and thinking about the irony of her resting place.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 08-01-2010, 08:33 AM
Australian's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 2,152
I really don't understand why Mary and Elizabeth are buried next to each other. I'm sure they would not have agreed with it if they had known before hand! I bet there is some major ghostly catfights going on in Westminster Abbey at night time!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 08-01-2010, 09:06 AM
lady of hay's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: around the uk, United Kingdom
Posts: 215
Australian,
given the number and diversity of people buried in Westminster Abbey, I don't think the cat fights will be just between Elizabeth and Mary. I'm quite sure that HenryVII and Elizabeth of York would have plenty to say about what their son did to the country ! Elizabeth was pressed for many years to sign Mary's death warrent ,but was reluctant to do so because Mary was an anointed queen, her cousin and ,a rarity at that time ,a fellow female monarch.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 08-01-2010, 05:45 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Australian View Post
I really don't understand why Mary and Elizabeth are buried next to each other. I'm sure they would not have agreed with it if they had known before hand! I bet there is some major ghostly catfights going on in Westminster Abbey at night time!

I believe that it was James' decision to bury them that close together.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 08-01-2010, 06:50 PM
Duchessmary's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: San Diego, United States
Posts: 1,087
As the founders of two dynasties, it seems appropriate.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 08-01-2010, 07:21 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchessmary View Post
As the founders of two dynasties, it seems appropriate.
'

Which dynasty did either of them found?

Elizabeth had no children and the Stuart dynasty existed long before Mary.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 08-02-2010, 10:58 AM
Duchessmary's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: San Diego, United States
Posts: 1,087
I goofed. I think I was trying to say is that it was appropriate for Mary to be entombed there as her descendants went on to merge the two crowns.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Queen Mary, consort of George V (1867-1953) gaoshan1021 British Royal History 279 10-15-2014 01:09 AM
Mary I (1516-1558) Kotroman British Royal History 44 10-05-2014 07:15 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympics ottoman poland pom pregnancy president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:18 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]