The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #81  
Old 07-08-2011, 07:59 AM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Posts: 8,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by HM Queen Catherine View Post
Personally, I don't think Mary's elaborate tomb was erected to show James' fidelity and affection, but rather to glorify the Stuart name and the new dynasty on England's throne.
There might have been a hint of guilt also seeing as he did nothing to save his mothers life.

James was a cold fish!
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 07-08-2011, 10:36 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 237
Hi,

I have always thought that James I and the rest of the Stuarts had that elaborate tomb built and preserved for Mary because it envisioned and cemented the idea that Mary was a Queen of England. And, it's placed beside Elizabeth... It put into place the concept that she reigned there right along with Elizabeth...
Mary's tomb is a symbol of Stuarts heredity in England.
It cemented the idea that the Stuarts belonged there too!!

Larry
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 07-08-2011, 11:35 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by MRSJ View Post
No- in those days to keep your throne, it was kill of be killed. Elizabeth did not want to kill Mary Queen of Scots but did so reluctantly because there was proof Mary was plotting to try and take the English throne- she had to protect her reign.....in those days that's how it was done....when claimants believed it was their rightful due to be King/Queen ( and remember royalty believed they were annointed by God) you could not 'talk' them out of it.
That was why Elizabeth hesitated for so long (and probably hoped that Mary would die of bad health anyway): Mary was a crowned queen and having her beheaded like she was a normal traitor of high rank meant to show her subjects that being a crowned queen herself did not mean to be sacrosanct herself.Which ended in Cromwell and the beheading of king Charles I. Stuart not long afterwards, so she was kind of right in hesitating.

For Mary OTOH Elizabeth was not sacrosankt as for her Elizabeth was a bastard. Unlike her siblings Mary and Edward, who were born out of a marriage that the Catholic church accepted or at least could accept (Henry VIII. was the widower of Catherine of Aragon when he married Jane Seymour, Edward's mother), Elizabeth was born while Catherine of Aragon still lived. Thus for Mary, Queen of Scots she was not legitimate and couldn't become queen by the grace of God. And the next in line after Edward and Mary was herself, according to her way of thinking.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 07-08-2011, 11:49 AM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Posts: 8,667
Mary Queen of Scots mother (Marie de Guise) was buried at The St Pierre Convent in Reims,her tomb I assume was lost during the French Revolution (like so many others).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 07-09-2011, 09:53 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,285
Its quite sad that The Tudor's had to murder/execute so many of their cousins and family members to keep themselves safe. A few of them, not Mary QOS, being guilty of nothing else but being related to or being a claimant on the throne.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 07-10-2011, 01:24 AM
Lenora's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 2,056
I think the execution of Mary was in fact an assassination just in a different form,yes it was habitual for those times,but if we take the Christian conceptions on which the kingdom was based,it was done a cruelty and nothing more.
I wonder what really happenned to her twins ,whose father was Earl Boswell,they were said to be born dead,though I doubt it.
I think Mary could be compared to a really tragic heroine,as she was depicted in Stephen Zweig's novel.Her story is very sad ,to begin with she wasn't appropriate to the role of Queen,she had been raised in France and wasn't prepared to reign in Scotland.Many were sceptical towards her because she was just a woman.She made some very wrong decisions in her life,she was thinking and living with heart,that was the main cause of her fall.She turned for help to the wrong people who latter betrayed her confidence.It is particularly sad that she was separated from her son at such an early age.He didn't do anything to help or save his mother,only because he had been turned against her from an early age.At least her words had a prophetic meaning "In my end it's my beginning",because her descendants are the actual monarchs of Britain.
If she had been smarter in politics ,she could have got the throne of England or keep her own at least.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 08-03-2011, 09:03 PM
IloveCP's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Palm Springs, United States
Posts: 4,890
Was she the youngest monarch of any country?(Six Days Old)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 08-03-2011, 09:30 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,325
Poor girl, the story always makes me sad. Everything that's wrong about monarchy is illustrated in this story. No one should be made from birth into a particular job - and yet that's what happens. And no one should have so much power that they can execute someone else, and yet that still happens too.

Monarchies have survived all this (and those that have become humane are all the stronger for knowing the history).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 08-04-2011, 03:30 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenora View Post
I think the execution of Mary was in fact an assassination just in a different form,yes it was habitual for those times,but if we take the Christian conceptions on which the kingdom was based,it was done a cruelty and nothing more.

As the Pope told the Catholic people of England that they wouldn't be committing a crime if they killed Elizabeth and some used Mary's name as the reason for committing treason there was no other option.

If she had come out and publicly acknowledged Elizabeth's right to the throne and said that she wouldn't take it if Elizabeth was assassinated by her (Mary's) supporters I might have some sympathy for her.

But she didn't - she actively encouraged Elizabeth's subjects to rebel against Elizabeth - hardly an innocent and one deserving of the most severe punishment allowable by the laws of the day.

I have no sympathy for her at all - she got exactly what she deserved.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 08-04-2011, 05:24 AM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,285
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.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 08-04-2011, 05:38 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 08-04-2011, 06:30 AM
shari-aree's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: melbourne, Australia
Posts: 170
Mary, Queen of Scots!
What a very sad existence she endured.
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
__________________
" 'an harm none; thy will be done "
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 08-04-2011, 06:41 AM
Lenora's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 2,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by shari-aree View Post
Mary, Queen of Scots!
What a very sad existence she endured.
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
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 08-04-2011, 06:47 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
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.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 08-04-2011, 07:01 AM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Posts: 8,667
Anyone interested in Mary's French mother,Marie de Guise/Mary of Guise?

Mary of Guise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 08-04-2011, 09:24 PM
shari-aree's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: melbourne, Australia
Posts: 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Royale View Post
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.

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.
One a Mother without her child, the other Childless with another Women's child in her care.

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.
__________________
" 'an harm none; thy will be done "
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 08-04-2011, 11:09 PM
Duchessmary's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: San Diego, United States
Posts: 1,075
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 08-05-2011, 02:50 AM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,285
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.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 08-11-2011, 04:16 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,325
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 08-11-2011, 04:24 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,325
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!
__________________

__________________
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 258 05-30-2014 11:32 PM
Mary I (1516-1558) Kotroman British Royal History 42 08-17-2013 07:56 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth bourbon-parma charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta sofia jordan kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman picture of the month pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince laurent prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia spain state visit wedding william winter olympics 2014


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:26 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]