Mary, Queen of Scots (1542-1587)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Marengo

Administrator
Site Team
Joined
Aug 13, 2004
Messages
27,471
City
São Paulo
Country
Brazil
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
 
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:
 
Aren't they still trying to get the body of James Bothwell from Denmark?
 
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!
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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.
 
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!!"
 
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.
 
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
 
Hard for me to imagine even putting pen to paper with only six hours left to live! But after 20 years of captivity, Mary might have seen her death as a release from all the trials and tribulations she endured on Earth. From all accounts I have read, Mary had a strong religious faith and belief and that no doubt comforted her at the end.
 
I think she was also convinced that she was in the right in her actions. People who have that belief draw a great deal of comfort from that certainty. (As you can tell, I'm not a fan.)
 
I could tell you were not "enamored" of her. I am not excusing her behavior but I am not a fan of the death penalty either. I would have preferred that she remain locked up as opposed to being executed and would have wanted a life in prison even if Mary was viewed as a threat to the throne. All that being said, while I find her an interesting figure for the times, I think Mary was foolish and not well-schooled to be a leader for her people.
 
Mary, unfortunately for her was a definitely a pawn in all aspects of her life. So with that in mind, she had to die. Sorry...thats just the way it is. Just as the existence of Jane Grey could have allowed others to fight in her name, the same applies to Mary.

You remove the cause and the followers need someone else to follow.
 
The Tudors and their contemporaries were hardly advocates of human rights. As long as Mary persisted in her claim to the English throne and plotted with Elizabeth's many enemies, she was a danger not only to Elizabeth but to the stability of England. There wasn't much else IMO that could have been done with Mary.

Although I think that Mary was inept, had she been a more capable person she still might have ended badly given the men around her. I think Elizabeth was a more astute leader but she was fortunate in that she was able to dominate the men around her. It seems that the Scottish aristocrats dominated Mary and merely used her as a pawn.

It won't hurt my feelings if we debate this matter. I may be harsh in my assessment of her...

Vasillisos, you raised an interesting idea. Had Mary been raised in Scotland and with more of a sense of the Scottish people/aristocracy would she have fared better? In reality Mary was a Frenchwoman, raised by her French mother and then in the French court.
 
I think that poses another great "what if" in history, doesn't it? I agree that the times were different back then and that Mary definitely posed a problem but I still admire her facing execution with some sense of majesty. Could she have been a better Queen if raised in Scotland? Hard to say and I would think she probably would not have been as magnificent as Elizabeth but I think being raised in the French court definitely did not give her an advantage when she returned to Scotland. Furthermore, her strong Catholic beliefs worked against her as well. In a way, her situation could be compared to Mary I as far as many people being opposed to returning to the old ways.
 
Honestly, considering the Scottish nobility as it where...its a little damned if you do and damned if you don't. Mary, I think is an test case for Darwin. And I apologize for not phrasing it correctlyy, the question is Is She a product of her environment or is in her genes? Basically, if her circumstances had been different (Growing up in Scotland) would we still have the same result. I think things would be the same. From what I know of her, she just comes across as a very silly self indulgent woman. You are fighting the nobles in Scotland, they basically don't want you as their queen, you have a legitimate claim as heir to the English throne, but the person who is currently sitting on the throne views you as a threat? Do you really go over there and ask for help?!

Mary unfortunately for her was a victim of her times. It was Elizabeths moment and her destiny...and Mary (or anyone else in her place) was a side show and in the way. Its like Lady Jane Grey the moment was bigger than her.
 
Last edited:
I think that poses another great "what if" in history, doesn't it? I agree that the times were different back then and that Mary definitely posed a problem but I still admire her facing execution with some sense of majesty.

I think this sense of majesty came because of her deep faith and I bet she felt like a martyr and thought that divine justice would be on her side after her death.

Could she have been a better Queen if raised in Scotland? Hard to say and I would think she probably would not have been as magnificent as Elizabeth but I think being raised in the French court definitely did not give her an advantage when she returned to Scotland.

Thats indeed an interesting question. I think if she was raised in Scotland she would have known a bit better about the scottish nobility and "how things worked" in Scotland.

Furthermore, her strong Catholic beliefs worked against her as well. In a way, her situation could be compared to Mary I as far as many people being opposed to returning to the old ways.

Yes, I also would compare her situation just a bit with this of Mary I. Well, they bet on the wrong horse. I wouldn't call Mary Stuart silly but inept as Ioawabelle wrote plus naive, kind of weak and obsessed with power. But if I imagine that she came to Scotland in the age of 21 more or less as a foreigner the more respect I have for Queen Elizabeth I. for her strength and intelligence to manage these burdens of power and responsibility in an early age.

The Tudors and their contemporaries were hardly advocates of human rights. As long as Mary persisted in her claim to the English throne and plotted with Elizabeth's many enemies, she was a danger not only to Elizabeth but to the stability of England. There wasn't much else IMO that could have been done with Mary.

Couldn't agree more.
 
Elizabeth was incomparable and duly deserving of all the accolades heaped upon her. Indeed, when one considers the perils of her early life, it is almost unbelievable that Elizabeth emerged sane and in grasp of her faculties when she ascended the throne. She is an example of one who thrived and conquered despite the obstacles placed in her path. I think it is unlikely that Mary would have been a great, or even good, monarch even if she had not been spirited away to France at an early age. Mary was not made of the same "stuff" as Elizabeth.

But maybe by another form of measure Mary may still be considered victorious. It is Mary whose descendant currently occupies the Throne which the Queen of Scots unsuccessfully tried to claim during her own lifetime. So in the end it appears that while God bestowed great gifts on Elizabeth which enhanced England's prestige and bounty, He has also allowed Mary's bloodline to continue to grace throne and country.
 
That's a good point. I guess in the end it worked out. Mary, Queen of Scots was a victim of her era, and of her own nature. She was defintely far less suited to be a ruler than Elizabeth, but she wasn't a bad person. She and Elizabeth actually never met, although Mary wanted it.In a different era though, even in far more enlightened times, I doubt she and Elizabeth would have been friends, just likely royal relatives indifferent to each other.
 
Back
Top Bottom