Mary, Queen of Scots (1542-1587)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Oh Bertie, isn't that a little harsh? I think Mary was the epitome of stupid and that Elizabeth had to kill her; but for some reason I just can't think that she got what she deserved; despite the idiotic things she did.


Elizabeth had tried to hold her as a prisoner for 20 years but even so there were plots with Mary at the centre and with the backing of the Pope.

Of course Elizabeth had no option as Mary didn't do anything to prevent it.

What other options were there - none. Elizabeth had tried but leaving Mary alive wasn't an option so she got what she deserved.

Had she stayed in Scotland she wouldn't have lived as long.

No I am not being too harsh - she deserved to die as there was no other option - she actively encouraged treason and plots to kill another person. In that situation - choice - kill or be killed - what would you do. Elizabeth had her executed as self defence.
 
Mary, Queen of Scots!
What a very sad existence she endured.:sad:
To lose a parent so young.
Be moved to a foreign nation and raised within another family.
Married three times, without longevity or 'everlasting' love.
Having her Son removed from her, and raised to not love her.
Imprisoned by a Cousin.
Believing her faith was the right one and acting on this, with advice from so many; who may have had their own interests at heart.
For 20 years it seemed she lived a half-life.
Like her or not, Agree with her or not, The Lady went through way too much in her life, she musn't have had a moments peace.
I believe she should be allowed to rest in peace, in a place of honour.
She will always 'belong' to Scotland, maybe they should allow her to be what she was in life...a Scottish Queen, living in another country.
May she rest in peace:flowers:
 
Mary, Queen of Scots!
What a very sad existence she endured.:sad:
To lose a parent so young.
Be moved to a foreign nation and raised within another family.
Married three times, without longevity or 'everlasting' love.
Having her Son removed from her, and raised to not love her.
Imprisoned by a Cousin.
Believing her faith was the right one and acting on this, with advice from so many; who may have had their own interests at heart.
For 20 years it seemed she lived a half-life.
Like her or not, Agree with her or not, The Lady went through way too much in her life, she musn't have had a moments peace.
I believe she should be allowed to rest in peace, in a place of honour.
She will always 'belong' to Scotland, maybe they should allow her to be what she was in life...a Scottish Queen, living in another country.
May she rest in peace:flowers:
I completely agree with your opinion,not everyone is enough strong to support
such gradual changes in her life.I doubt very much that with all Elizabeth's security and armed forces around,she could have been considered a really dangerous.Her execution was in interests to protect Elizabeth,but not only that,I suppose behind it there was a feminine envy that Mary was more beautiful and luckier than she was(not exactly like in Stephen Zweig's tragedy,but very similar).
Mary's son was estranged from her and we could suppose that Elizabeth at that time thought of a possible union between England and Scotland,as Mary was an apparent obstacle,she was just exterminated.After many years passed in prison Mary looked awfully,but she remained with regal dignity,despite being conducted by feelings all her life.It was rather prophetic this quote from her youth "In my end,it's my beginning",at that time she hadn't known that she would have a lot of descendants and even the actual Windsors are her direct descendants.
 
It was by no means an easy decision for Elizabeth. It's said to have tormented her something shocking and caused her great distress.

Elizabeth was caught between wanting to preserve the life of a relative who was gods anointed sovereign and deffending her throne, the church and her life. Mary endeavoured to undermine Elizabeth's good graces and legitimacy which ultimately, brought about her demise. She'd have known the risks and largely thought herself untouchable. She sought to have her cousin assassinated and as anyone would have done, Elizabeth was compelled to extinguish that threat. If it were I, I'm in no doubt I'd have done the same.

Elizabeth was logical and forthright. She knew she wasn't untouchable and the growing threat that Mary posed both at home and abroad, was much too great to ignore.

I wonder if Mary would have offered the "heretical whore" the blade or stake had roles been reversed?! Personally, I doubt she'd have been quite as gracious as Elizabeth.

I've always mainatined a real interest in Mary and her life, but I don't have much sympathy for her. She's a fascinating historical figure though.
 
Last edited:
It was by no means an easy decision for Elizabeth. It's said to have tormented her something shocking and caused her great distress.

Elizabeth was caught between wanting to preserve the life of a relative who was gods anointed sovereign and deffending her throne, the church and her life. Mary endeavoured to undermine Elizabeth's good graces and legitimacy which ultimately, brought about her demise. She'd have known the risks and largely thought herself untouchable. She sought to have her cousin assassinated and as anyone would have done, Elizabeth was compelled to extinguish that threat. If it were I, I'm in no doubt I'd have done the same.

Elizabeth was logical and forthright. She knew she wasn't untouchable and the growing threat that Mary posed both at home and abroad, was much too great to ignore.

I wonder if Mary would have offered the "heretical whore" the blade or stake had roles been reversed?! Personally, I doubt she'd have been quite as gracious as Elizabeth.

I've always mainatined a real interest in Mary and her life, but I don't have much sympathy for her. She's a fascinating historical figure though.
:previous:
I don't doubt it was hard for Elizabeth.
Personally I'm glad I was not either of them!;)
They lived in hard times for 'women in power' -(but who were really being bullied, used and advised by men who wanted to gain for themselves).
Her death may have been made necessary as she was considered a real threat to the English throne, but her life however could have been made a little easier.
To have one's child removed from you is too higher price to pay for any reason.
Very sad for them both.:sad:
One a Mother without her child, the other Childless with another Women's child in her care.:sad::sad:

But! I am grateful that there is soooo much information written about them and the time in which they both lived, we at least have their History!:)

Agree with one another or not, we are able to enjoy their stories.:flowers:
 
No matter what, Mary Queen of Scots did not deserve to be beheaded-or butchered, if you prefer. Elizabeth could've sent an expert swordsman, like her mother had. Mary was an anointed Queen. :ermm:
 
Mary did suffer any more of less than other women at that time including Elizabeth I and Mary I; and unlike them, some of Mary's miseries were of her own creation.
As for sending an experienced swordsman, for Elizabeth to have done that she would have had to have known the execution was taking place which I read she did not know. PLUS Anne Boleyn requested a french swordsman, so Mary would have had to do the same thing.
 
Last edited:
The killing/imprisoning of rivals to the throne goes way back indeed (I'd like to know how far and whether it was as common in Scotland as it was in Wales and England). Obviously, there's King John and his nephew and niece. I don't think Henry II resorted to such tactics (he seemed fond of his broader family but may have thought he had to buy their favor). King Edward I didn't imprison potential claimants to his own throne, AFAIK - would be interested to hear more and Edward II had more problems staying on his throne and little power to battle other claimants. None of these murdered or executed any wives, AFAIK (during this period, the French King - I believe it was Philippe, imprisoned his brand new wife for 20 or more years; Henry II did not execute his treasonous wife, he imprisoned her).

You'd have thought that the Plantagenets would be more bloody (being more medieval and so on), so that when the Black Prince died before his father, one might have thought that the Black Prince's brothers, all grown up and so much more powerful than the lad Richard, might have immediately conspired to kill Richard, but it appears they did not. There was a murderer in the family (Richard's cousin, Henry killed a nobleman) and that person, apparently quite ruthless, ended up deposing Richard and taking the throne as Henry IV. After failing to assassinate his cousin, Henry starved him to death (as King John had starved Maude de Braose to death - but not because Maude was involved in succession).

So these outbreaks of violent behavior among family members seem particularly pronounced among the Tudors. While Henry IV was technically a Plantagenet descendant, he was not the legitimate Plantagenet heir, so he's a Lancaster and well he should be.

It seems to me that, after this, perhaps the signs of inbreeding or an errant gene got into the mix, as Henry VI (Henry IV's grandson) was apparently what today we would call psychotic (perhaps major depressive or bipolar type II- as he had a recovery from what sounds like a deep depression; his general behavior seems normal enough during remissions). What a mess his reign was, and thus we have another example of a family member imprisoning (but not immediately killing) a reigning monarch - Edward IV (Edward of York) imprisons Henry VI.

Henry VI (after many twists and turns) dies in the Tower of London, imprisoned by Edward IV (no reason to suspect he was murdered, but being in captivity couldn't have helped his depression - and he died shortly after receiving word that his son, the Prince of Wales, had died in battle with Edward IV's supporters).

Personally, I don't understand Edward IV's claim to the throne very well. He seems like a total interloper and traitor, but, oh well. At any rate, ever since childhood, I have been mindful of (maybe a little obsessed) with the tragic story of the two princes in the Tower - Edward IV's children. When Edward IV died, his brother killed the two princes or had them killed and it was this act that always, to me, symbolized the brutality that was to come under the Tudors.

The two princes died somewhere along about 1483. No one knows for sure. At any rate, they disappeared forever.

So, it seems to me, that the Tudors rose in a time when ugly acts of violence against children and royal successors were very much on everyone's mind and may have been seen as normal. I know it's heading into the Renaissance, but in many ways, the medieval kings seem more restrained in terms of killing family members (it's a long time between King John and Richard III - and King John was the legitimate king, getting rid of someone who was a rebellious pretender, not a rebellious pretender killing a legitimate king).

I still don't understand exactly the role of Scots kings and queens in all this, or why Mary would get herself so involved in the English succession, at such peril (I know about the religious reasons, but I mean the more immediate personal reasons - need to read up on Mary Stewart).

Do I see it spelled both ways? Stuart and Stewart? Is Stewart preferred? When did the Stewart's rise (I know it's after Edward I of England - but when? And what role did the English crown play in their world?) Lots of questions about how Scotland and England related to each other back in the times I'm mentioning, leading up to the demise of Mary - always grateful for the information I get here.
 
I'm getting it! I'm so excited (ILuvBertie's post from 2004 is so helpful).

So after Elizabeth, back up through Henry VIII and over to his sister Margaret, who had married the Scottish king, whose granddaughter Mary, Queen of Scots was. Mary was Catholic and her son was Protestant, so by eliminating Mary, Elizabeth insured (despite Henry's prior wishes - but Henry wasn't the King anymore now, was he?) that James I got onto the throne of England.

I get it!
 
It's funny really Elizabeth I beheaded her cousin Mary,queen of scots because of the threat of the throne, Mary died and Elizabeth reigned but childless.... Mary's son became king of England so in a way Mary got to be queen of England.
 
I just don't understand why Elizabeth I loathed Mary,queen of scots so much to have her beheaded. They were COUSINS gosh darn it they were related by BLOOD I am sure rather than beheading your own cousin something could have been worked out
P.S it is also Elizabeth's own fault
Knowing as queen she needed to marry and produce an heir but she didn't do any of that so with no kid then the throne would go to someone else when she died
She killed the proposed next queen of England so that ....but ironically England did go into mary's family wether E I liked it or not from her tomb= mary's son became king of England and Mary was buried next to her.

Elizabeth lived all her life under the stain of illegitimacy, aware of factions eager to assassinate her and claimants with strong rights to the throne - not just Mary Stuart but her own Tudor cousins, Katherine and Mary Grey who were the granddaughters of Mary Tudor, Henry VIII's younger sister. The Pope and Catholic countries wanted her dead since they considered her a heretic and a bastard with no right to the throne, and actively encouraged conspiracies to that end. She never had a peaceful day during her reign and since she ascended the throne, she constantly had to hang onto it with her strength of will, diplomacy and political acumen while outwitting various assassination attempts and plots to overthrow her. She never wanted to marry, not just for her own personal reasons, but also knowing that her husband would be declared king and usurp her power, situations she could never abide. Mary represented a tangible threat to Elizabeth, declaring herself true Queen of England and bearing the royal arms of England on her own coat of arms of France and Scotland all through her life. An obvious affront and challenge to Elizabeth.

I always thought Mary charged headstrong into situations that she never thought carefully through and was misdirected by advisers and conspirators. Elizabeth tried to be conciliatory toward her, but Mary would have none of it since she considered herself the true English queen. While she is a tragic figure, I haven't much sympathy for her since she was involved up to the very end to assassinate Elizabeth i.e. the casket plot while she was imprisoned and led to her conviction and execution. She was the author of her own demise. Elizabeth had no choice but to act as she did as an absolute ruler who defended her throne at all costs, and at a great cost. And James Stuart was a better prospect as Elizabeth's heir since he was a Protestant than Mary who was a Catholic. Mary would have never been accepted as a Catholic ruler of England.
 
Last edited:
And, I believe, would have had no hesitation or qualms about executing Elizabeth in the unlikely event of her being accepted as Catholic ruler of England.
 
I don't know if I can consider Mary a tragic figure when all her tragedies were her own fault. If there was a 16th century book on Why Women Shouldn't Rule, Mary QOS would be on the cover.
I feel one of her problems was that she was raised in France yet was Queen of a country like Scotland; yet her mother was French and she reigned much better than her daughter.
 
I just gotta ask..did mary,queen scots really deserve to die the way she did? Or is it because of Elizabeth I? I mean I know Elizabeth was the one to send her to her death and that she didnt wish mary to be Queen of both Scotland and England.
 
If Mary tried to kill Elizabeth then that is treason and she had to be punished for it. As for the painful way she died, that was due to a botched execution by a bad executioner; I read that the reason the executioner wasnt more experienced was because Elizabeth wasn't involved in the selection because she didn't know it was happening. But I don't know if that is a fact or not.
 
Well, yes and no.

No, she didn't deserve to die the way she did but the method of her death was very common at that time. I mean, I can't think of any way to die other than by natural death (i.e. sleep) as a nice way to die to be honest.

Yes, for her crime of treason Mary did deserve to die. She was a legtimate threat to Elizabeth by virtue of her birth. She was not content to be just Queen of Scotland. From what I read (via Antonia Fraser) is that she considered Scotland to be the runner up prize. The throne of England for Mary was the Crown Jewel (pardon the pun). So she was constantly scheming and working to get the throne that she believed was rightly hers.

She definitely did bring a lot upon herself. She was definitely her own worst enemy. I think a lot of that had to do with her personality more than the way she was raised.
 
She didn't exactly bring joy and happiness during her brief reign as Queen of Scots. A shrewd politician and diplomat she was not.
 
I don't know if I can consider Mary a tragic figure when all her tragedies were her own fault. If there was a 16th century book on Why Women Shouldn't Rule, Mary QOS would be on the cover.
I feel one of her problems was that she was raised in France yet was Queen of a country like Scotland; yet her mother was French and she reigned much better than her daughter.

Mary grew up around many strong women especially at the French Court.Marie de Guise & her mother Antoinette de Bourbon were both very well educated & shrewd ladies.I often think had Marie de Guise lived longer perhaps her daughters throne would have been more secure.

Her mother in law was Catherine de Médicis who was major force during the second half of the 16th century. Another royal power player was Jeanne d'Albret,Queen of Navarre spent much of her time at the French Court.
 
She didn't exactly bring joy and happiness during her brief reign as Queen of Scots. A shrewd politician and diplomat she was not.


I think that had something to do with her lack of familiarity with the Scottish clans, government, the role of the Scottish monarch etc. But yes, she was not a shrewd politican and diplomat. Its a shame that she didn't have good advisors.
 
Mary grew up around many strong women especially at the French Court.Marie de Guise & her mother Antoinette de Bourbon were both very well educated & shrewd ladies.I often think had Marie de Guise lived longer perhaps her daughters throne would have been more secure.

Her mother in law was Catherine de Médicis who was major force during the second half of the 16th century. Another royal power player was Jeanne d'Albret,Queen of Navarre spent much of her time at the French Court.

Yet only one of these women governed Scotland successfully. The problem is not France itself, but Mary QOS growing up there and having no understanding of her own country and how it operated.
 
I think part of the problem is all the adulation poured over Mary from birth. She was seemingly adored by everyone, and she grew to expect it and crave admiration and attention from everyone.

She was never forced to scheme and maneuver to gain her position, as Elizabeth was.
But they had different personalities: Mary made it clear that she hated going back to Scotland and considered it rough and uncouth after her years in cultured sophisticated France. Her Scots subjects sensed and resented this.

(I read once that if Elizabeth had ruled the Scots, she would have shown them in every way how proud she was of them).
 
I think part of the problem is all the adulation poured over Mary from birth. She was seemingly adored by everyone, and she grew to expect it and crave admiration and attention from everyone.

She was never forced to scheme and maneuver to gain her position, as Elizabeth was.
But they had different personalities: Mary made it clear that she hated going back to Scotland and considered it rough and uncouth after her years in cultured sophisticated France. Her Scots subjects sensed and resented this.

(I read once that if Elizabeth had ruled the Scots, she would have shown them in every way how proud she was of them).

Imagine if James V married Catherine de Médicis instead of Marie de Guise,the unruly Scottish nobles I believe would have met their match with Catherine as their Regent ;)
 
Imagine if James V married Catherine de Médicis instead of Marie de Guise,the unruly Scottish nobles I believe would have met their match with Catherine as their Regent ;)

Perhaps, but perhaps not.
After all, Catherine couldn't keep her Valois dynasty in power for very long; her sons died and left the way for Henri IV.
 
Yet only one of these women governed Scotland successfully. The problem is not France itself, but Mary QOS growing up there and having no understanding of her own country and how it operated.

She was indeed ill trained, despite the fact she was Queen 6 days after her birth, she was engaged to the Dauphin (later Francis II) in a dynastic match that was suppose to unite the crowns of Scotland and France and thus was educated to be a Queen Consort.
 
Perhaps, but perhaps not.
After all, Catherine couldn't keep her Valois dynasty in power for very long; her sons died and left the way for Henri IV.

Catherine is largely credited with preserving the throne for her sons,it turned out that none of them had a son to succeed which wasn't any fault of Catherine and her tenacious zeal for the Valois dynasty.
 
Elizabeth lived all her life under the stain of illegitimacy, aware of factions eager to assassinate her and claimants with strong rights to the throne - not just Mary Stuart but her own Tudor cousins, Katherine and Mary Grey who were the granddaughters of Mary Tudor, Henry VIII's younger sister. The Pope and Catholic countries wanted her dead since they considered her a heretic and a bastard with no right to the throne, and actively encouraged conspiracies to that end. She never had a peaceful day during her reign and since she ascended the throne, she constantly had to hang onto it with her strength of will, diplomacy and political acumen while outwitting various assassination attempts and plots to overthrow her.

So if it was 'poor' Elizabeth didn't find any peace being queen, why not abdicate?


After all, Catherine couldn't keep her Valois dynasty in power for very long; her sons died and left the way for Henri IV.

But that was because her sons died and didn't have issue. Catherine kept the throne for her sons all she could. By the time Henri IV became king, Catherine was dead. Catherine did what she could.
 
November 22nd,1515 marks the anniversary of the birth of Mary Queen of Scots French mother,Marie de Guise/Mary of Guise/Lorraine.



Mary of Guise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Maryofguise1.jpg
 
Concerning the speculation about whether Mary Queen of Scots had porphyria, there is a link in another thread to a great article by Drs. Hunter and McAlpine on this. A detailed description of Mary's symptoms is given. The best proof of her porphyria may still be that her son James I/VI was definitely diagnosed with it by his doctors and by his own testimony of his symptoms. James passed urine (when in porphyria attack) which he described as the color of alicante wine (it was not colored this way from blood. Not all persons with porphyria have this coloration of their urine, but it is one of the signs of probable porphyria.)
The Valois family is also thought to have suffered from Porphyria. Inbreeding of the various families only made this condition more likely to be passed on, through Stuarts and Tudors and later through Hanovers, all related to one another. Owen Tudor's wife was Katherine of Valois, widow of Henry V.
 
Back
Top Bottom