The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (
-   British Royal History (
-   -   Mary, Queen of Scots (1542-1587) (

Marengo 10-16-2008 05:52 PM

Mary, Queen of Scots (1542-1587)
From the BBC:


Queen Mary's body 'should return'

A Nationalist MSP has called for the remains of Mary Queen of Scots to be returned to Scotland. The Catholic monarch's body has lain at Westminster Abbey in London since shortly after she was executed on the orders of her cousin Elizabeth in 1587. South of Scotland MSP Christine Grahame is to make a motion to the Scottish Parliament later this week demanding the body be repatriated.
Read the entire article here.

Elspeth 10-16-2008 06:44 PM

Well, if they want her so badly, maybe they shouldn't have kicked her off the throne and forced her to flee for her life in the first place.

According to the BBC article, she was buried at Westminster Abbey on the orders of her son, who was King of Scotland as well as King of England. This is a pretty empty gesture of the Nationalists.

BeatrixFan 10-16-2008 07:23 PM

I see both sides. On one hand, the Abbey have the responsibility to obey family wishes however ancient. On the other hand, she was a Queen of Scotland and if the Scots want her back then she should find a resting place in Scotland where she can be appropriately venerated etc. On the third hand (ok, so one too many hands) this hasn't been an issue until the Nationalists needed a boost so I remain doubtful.

Elspeth 10-16-2008 07:37 PM

I think she was styling herself Queen of England for most of her life anyway, which is part of what upset Elizabeth I so much.

I wonder how many other Scots are buried in Westminster Abbey that the Nationalists want back.

BeatrixFan 10-16-2008 07:45 PM

Its one of those things isnt it? I mean, lets face it - what if the Swedes demanded Christina back from the Vatican? Sometimes it's best to let dead Royals lie.

Skydragon 10-17-2008 05:34 AM


Originally Posted by Elspeth (Post 838597)
Well, if they want her so badly, maybe they shouldn't have kicked her off the throne and forced her to flee for her life in the first place.

According to the BBC article, she was buried at Westminster Abbey on the orders of her son, who was King of Scotland as well as King of England. This is a pretty empty gesture of the Nationalists.

It does generate them some publicity, along the lines of we are challenging the English, we are taking back YOUR heritage, stolen by those thieves across the borrrrder! (No way to roll the R's on a computer), We are restoring all that was ours, etc, etc etc.

The unfortunate thing is that they forget to check their historical facts before coming out with all this. Many Scots still believe, and believe with all their hearts, that it was the English v Scots at Culloden and Glencoe!:rolleyes:

Still, it might help the ailing tourist industry!:whistling:

Menarue 10-17-2008 07:00 AM

Poor Mary, who would have wanted her life, and now so many years later it seems she may be treated like the Stone of Scone. :whistling:

ysbel 10-17-2008 10:42 AM

Aren't they still trying to get the body of James Bothwell from Denmark?

Viv 10-18-2008 06:04 PM


Originally Posted by ysbel (Post 838848)
Aren't they still trying to get the body of James Bothwell from Denmark?

The church where he is buried is not inclined to let the Scots have
him back!

carlota 10-18-2008 06:27 PM

well, it's quite an honour for mary that so many people want her back. although i think being buried in westminster must be a big thing in itself, just next to newton and other important personalities.

Lilla 10-18-2008 07:51 PM


Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 838610)
(ok, so one too many hands)

I love that remark :rofl:

Lilla 10-18-2008 07:59 PM


Originally Posted by Viv (Post 839476)
The church where he is buried is not inclined to let the Scots have
him back!

Do you have any knowledge as of why?

Not that I care whether his bones are buried in Denmark or in Scotland. I just wonder....which reason does the church give?

DuedePhiladelphia 04-04-2009 09:47 PM

Mary, Queen of Scots (1542-1587)
any info will be appreciated,

Prince Armando 04-04-2009 10:03 PM

Well, most of what I know from history is that she was to be the next in line if it was followed right but when Henry started his drama it set tings in motion, not just from a heir to the throne but also from a political stage as well, he killed many who chose not to accept his new church and took their lands and created titles for those and gave it to these people. Anyone who was R.C would then be a threat to politics, when a hose was dieing out the british sought families from other lands to take the throne, hence german blood entered the line of succession. Most of the laws then created were to make sure no R.C could take the crown.

also i meant house , when no heir was left, also to point out there once was aQueen Jane qho had the crown just before Mary the first daughter of henery took the crown , Jane died becasue Mary was trying to restore the church in England.

Iluvbertie 04-04-2009 10:35 PM

You seem a bit confused about the Tudors and Stuarts and the succession.

Henry VIII had three legitimate children who in turn reigned - namely Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I.

Lady Jane Grey was proclaimed Queen between Edward VI and Mary I by those who were, rightly as it turned out, concerned about Mary wishing to return England to the Roman Catholic Church. After Mary's reign the crown passed to Elizabeth, who through her religious policies truly established the Church of England.

However, after Elizabeth there was no direct heir so the line returned the Henry VIII's sister Margaret.

Margaret had married James IV of Scotland and was the mother of James V of Scotland. James V died 6 days after the birth of his only child, a daughter named Mary (known as Mary, Queen of Scots). Henry VIII however, in one of his wills, stated that Margaret's line wasn't to inherit the English throne.

However, that was ignored when, in 1603 Elizabeth died. The next in line was Mary, Queen of Scots' son James VI and I. (VI of Scotland and I of England).

Mary, Queen of Scots, had been raised a Roman Catholic, had been Queen Consort of France as well as Queen Regnant of Scotland but her religious policies, along with a number of other reason, upset her barons and she was forced to flee Scotland. She went to England and sought asylum from her cousin Elizabeth who imprisoned her for 20 or so years. Mary, regularly claimed that she was the rightful Queen of England as, like many Roman Catholics, she didn't recognise Henry VIII's divorce of Katherine of Aragon and therefore didn't accept Elizabeth as a legitmate child thus making her ineligible for the English throne.

However, after Mary's execution Elizabeth didn't have a concern about the religion of James VI and I as he was being raised a Protestant.

After James succeeded to the English throne protestants were in the ascendancy but his son Charles I married a Roman Catholic, Henrietta Maria of France and their children definitely had a preference for their mother's religion. Although, after the Restoration of Charles II he followed the Church of England the politicians knew that his brother had converted to Roman Catholicism but the real concern was his second marriage to the Roman Catholic Mary of Modena. No one was truly worried about James II's conversion as long as he didn't have a son as he had two protestant daughters through his first marriage to Anne Hyde.

These two daughters, Mary II and Queen Anne were strong protestants and both married good protestants as well - William of Orange and George of Denmark.

The anti-Catholic inheritance laws don't come into effect until Mary of Modena and James II have a son. The parliament weren't prepared to have a Roman Catholic king follow James and so they triggered James' 'abdication'. James fled with his baby son and Mary II and William III became the monarchs. There were still no concerns as the assumption was that either Mary or Anne would have a number of children. However, after Mary's death and the death of Anne's son the parliament passed the Act of Settlement, in 1701, to pass the throne to the Protestant descendents of James I and VI through his daughter Elizabeth.

When George I inherited the British throne in 1714 there were about 50 or so Roman Catholics with better blood claims than his - namely the descendents of James II/VII (the Old Pretender), Charles I through his daughters and older siblings of Sophia of Hannover, the youngest child of Elizabeth of Bohemia, James' I and VI daughter

Therefore there have been three Queens Regnant in the British Isles with the name Mary - Mary I of England, Mary, Queen of Scots and Mary II of England.

Sorry if you knew all this but the way your post came about it seemed to me as if you were confusing your Mary's.

Grace Angel 04-05-2009 11:57 AM

Mary Queen of Scots was a very beautiful, tragic woman who was born to James V and Marie of Guise, she grew up as an only child and fatherless as he father died around the time of her birth, so she became queen. She grew up in France because she was betrothed to the Dauphin, Francis, son of Catharine de Medici and Henri III. When they were teenagers, she and the Dauphin married, but he was sickly and died as a teenager not long after.

So as a childless teenage widow she went home to Scotland to rule it. She was more French than Scottish in some ways because she had been brought up in France, not in fairly rough Scotland. So in some ways she never fitted in- her religion was Roman Catholicism, and that of many of the Scottish, Calvinism. She thus was some ways not suited to be Queen there. She had to find someone suitable to marry as she had to have heirs so she married Henry, Lord Darnely who was a cousin, descendent of Henry VII and of his daughter Margaret Tudor by her second marriage. She was infatutated with Henry, Lord Darnely but he was a foolish immature youth with little to recomend him beyond his royal blood and distant claim to the sucession to the English throne. Their marriage quickly went downhill once the infatuation wore off although they soon had a healthy son together, the future James VI of England. During her pregnancy with their son, he killed Mary's secretary an Italian Catholic named Rizzio because he thought Mary and this man were having an affair, although they were not. Henry and Mary's marriage became unbearable, but it ended when Henry died in mysterious circumstances among whispers he was murdered by Mary or men who were working for Mary. It was never proven, but whispers about Mary being a murderess soon sprung up to ruin her reputation.

She tried to rule Scotland after Darnley's death, but she was very unpopular and had a bad reputation, not helped by her marriage to the Earl of Bothwell, a Scottish noble who rumor had it had a hand in the murder of Darnley. So she looked bad married to a man who might have killed her husband or had a hand in it, it looked like she was to blame. But Bothwell had a lot of military power. She was soon expecting twins with Bothwell, but her marriage to him was very unpopular with Scotland. She eventually miscarried the twins and lost her throne in Scotland because even though Bothwell had military power, he and she both were very unpopular and she knew she was no longer welcome in Scotland, so after losing battles against forces in Scotland and being a prisoner for awhile in Scotland, she fled to England.

She always maintained as mentioned above she had a claim to the English throne since to her, as a Roman Catholic, the marriage of Elizabeth's parents had not been legitimate. She was a prisoner her whole time in England though because Elizabeth I felt she was a political threat, which she was. She plotted from her imprisonment in various plots to put herself on the throne and take Elizabeth off. She had been a famous beauty in her day but she grew older and her beauty faded in captivity, although early on in her captivity, part of one plot to put on her on the throne called for her to marry the Duke of Norfolk, a leading peer of England. Elizabeth was relunctant to exceute her but after she caught Mary in a plot directly she decided she had to execute her. So she was beheaded in 1587, a year before the Spanish Armada reached England. Elizabeth didn't want to, but she was compelled to have Mary put to death as Mary couldn't stop plottong in captivity her escape and Elizabeth's death. James, then a young man ruling Scotland ( in his childhood a regency had ruled for him) had never known his mother and thus didn't step in and also he wanted to have the English sucession, so that was another reason he did nothing. All in all, Mary's was a sad life. A good bio of her is the one by Antonia Fraser.

Zonk 05-04-2009 10:36 PM

You have to wonder how Mary's life would have been if she had a father's love while growing up. She is, unfortunately, another example of women during this time period being used as pawns for their country.

And the men in her life. Its like she had a sign on her forehead, that said "Bad boys only!!"

Royal Fan 05-04-2009 10:51 PM

didnt she have Prophyria (sp)

Grace Angel 05-04-2009 11:26 PM

Some people think she might have had poryphia, but it's not proven. I agree, her last two husbands were bad boys, but her first, dynastically assigned her, was way too young to prove what he was when he died. He would likely not have been the "bad boy" type. She had grown up with her first husband, and was comfortable with him. Thereafter she followed her own judgement- and Darnley, although dynastically suitable was a bad choice, and Bothwell was even worse.

Skydragon 09-09-2009 04:21 PM

The last letter ever written by Mary Queen of Scots is to go on display for the first time in 30 years.
The 422-year-old manuscript - written six hours before her execution - will go on show at the National Library of Scotland in Edinburgh on 15 September

BBC NEWS | UK | Scotland | Queen's last letter to go on show

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:25 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018
Jelsoft Enterprises