Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


MSP's battle for body of Mary, Queen of Scots

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 12 October 2008
By Hazel Mollison
NATIONALIST MSP Christine Grahame is leading a campaign to repatriate the body of Mary, Queen of Scots, from Westminster Abbey.
The South of Scotland MSP is to lodge a motion in Parliament calling for the monarch's remains to be buried in Scotland. She will also write to culture minister Linda Fabiani, urging the Scottish Government to support her campaign, which is already b
eing backed by the composer James MacMillan, along with historians and the Catholic Church in Scotland.

Mary, who was born at Linlithgow Palace, fled to England after she was forced to abdicate in 1567. She was held prisoner by her cousin Elizabeth I, found guilty of treason, and executed at Fotheringhay Castle in Northamptonshire 20 years later.

She was initially buried at Peterborough Cathedral, but her body was exhumed in 1612 when her son, King James I of England and VI of Scotland, ordered that she be reinterred at Westminster Abbey.

Grahame said she believed Mary should be buried at Falkland Palace in Fife, where her father died shortly after she was born.

She said: "She was an iconic historical Scots figure and ultimately the victim of English plotting. Given the House of Stuart's association with Falkland Palace, a place where Mary is believed to have spent her happiest days, that would appear to be an appropriate place to inter her remains."

The campaign also has the backing of Hugh O'Donnell, the Liberal Democrat MSP.

Alan MacInnes, professor of history at Strathclyde University, agreed Mary's final resting place should be at Falkland Palace.

He said: "She shouldn't be in England under any circumstances."



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 12 October 2008 12:44 AM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
 
1

Brian the Barbarian.,

12/10/2008 01:57:26
Christine Graham is a charlatan with nothing in her head but a stupid idea to get in the papers.

remember this at the next election.

How low are these people willing to stoop for publicity ?
2

Edward,

12/10/2008 02:00:18
Actually if you care to read, this is widely supported accross party lines (that is until Labour get there next set of intructions from Westminster) as well as church leaders and academics
Regardless of what Mary represented, she was still our Queen and should be buried in Scotland
3

subrosa,

12/10/2008 02:13:32
About time this happened. When I first visited Westminster Abbey as a youngster, I was taken aback to find out Mary Queen of Scots was buried there (no Scottish history taught in schools back in the 50s). As Edward says she is part of Scottish history, was our Queen and should be buried on Scottish soil.
4

Mercutio,

FALKIRK 12/10/2008 04:12:12
#3 Your blanket statement that no Scottish history was taught in schools in the 50s is disingenuous.
Marie Stuart was French in all but birth and of course was also Queen of France and in many eyes the legitimate successor to her namesake Mary Tudor so her burial in Westminster is geographically apt.
This is just publicity seeking from an unelectable list hack.
5

donald,

glasgow 12/10/2008 05:26:51
And I thocht MacMillan preferred the body of an ancient English Queen?
6

drunken proffet,

Tassy 12/10/2008 05:59:53
Ach, you are just hankering after the days when the Protestants and Catholics were murdering each other.
7

Kate,

Zurich 12/10/2008 07:57:38
Mercutio, you may be right that as a monarch, Mary, Queen of Scots should be in Westminster Abbey, but her sovereignty of England was never recognised and she herself requested that her remains be buried in Scotland, a request which was ignored, along with many others by the plotting of Elizabeth's spies, led by Walsingham.
8

daveserviceman,

edinburgh 12/10/2008 08:10:32
Mary Queen of Scots is Not Scottish Or English If she is to be Disturbed from Her peaceful rest against my Christian Teachings then She should Be reinterned in France
9

Pilrig,

Livingston 12/10/2008 08:19:46
8 - she was born in Linlithgow since when has that been part of France ?

That said I agree with you that her remains should say in Westminster Abbey.
10

Pilrig,

Livingston 12/10/2008 08:21:24
3 - not much Scottish history taught in the 60s either. And if Peter Peacock had his way there would zilch taught in the 2000s.
11

Joe Macdelta.,

12/10/2008 08:49:16
#11 If you could make it one of those modern art type artists (even if not dead) we would be grateful, but MQoScots does belong up here, send her home.
12

albanman,

12/10/2008 08:59:08
I agree that Mary's body should be brought back to Scotland; it makes perfect sense as she was our Queen. It is bizarre that her body lies next to the woman who authorised her execution. The issue crosses political and religious lines, so let's stop spouting that kind of nonsense in this thread.
13

John S,

12/10/2008 09:25:45
The Duke of Windsor died in Paris on May 28, 1972. The Duchess remained in Paris until her own death on April 24, 1986. They are buried at the royal Frogmore cemetery at Windsor Castle in England.The Royal Family prohibited the Windsors to reside in England,that is until they had died.
Let Mary, Queen of Scots be buried in Scotland.
14

Aiberdeen loon,

Stonehaven 12/10/2008 09:42:28
#4.I took my 'highers' during the 'fifties and can confirm that no Scottish history was taught during that period. I learned more about the English civil war and the French revolution than all my future English relations ever did. At that time Scottish history pre. 1707 was ignored
Mary should be repatriated and Falkland Palace is the right place
15

W Smith,

Middle East 12/10/2008 09:47:22
Once again the SNP have got their finger on the pulse of the nation, then eh?

The financial meltdown is going to put many Scots on the dole and the SNP are rabbiting on and on about this kind of claptrap!

I suppose its slightly better than listening to anti-NATO, pro-Hamas, Salmond prattling on and on about Trident.
16

,

12/10/2008 09:47:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
17

Pat Scot,

12/10/2008 10:15:55
Seems like a bit of a fuss about a dead monarch. I thought the SNP were republicans, anyway.

Has she nothing better to do with herself? Probably not, as it's alex who does everything for the SNP (or at least takes the headlines for it)
18

Guga II,

Rockall 12/10/2008 10:18:17
I agree that Mary should be buried in Falkland Palace.

As for people like #14, I am glad to see that, as an Englishman, he had the decency to put "we" in inverted commas. Why don't people like him butt out of matters of concern to Scotland, and limit their comments to the Guardian or similar?
19

Bridged and tunnelled,

12/10/2008 10:48:28
Maybe we can put her decayed remains on show alongside the chessmen we want back from the British Museum?

The first had her heart in France, and the second were made in Norway, but why should that stand in the way of petty nationalism and the tawdry urge to grab headlines?

20

Ursus arctos horribilis,

12/10/2008 10:51:04
A rather tasteless and tawdry publicity stunt.

Let the poor woman rest in peace and surely there are plenty of contemporary issues for Christine Grahame to concern herself with.

21

Alec M,

Falkirk 12/10/2008 11:47:04
#13 - I agree with your sentiments. However, Mary's tomb is quite separate from that of Elizabeth the Bâtard, which she shares with Mary Tudor, both barren of stock. Several of Mary's descendants are interred with her.


22

Dr. James Wilkie,

Vienna 12/10/2008 11:50:51
On a pedantic point, I assume from the context that this refers to Mary I, Queen of Scots (1542-1567), and not Mary II, Queen of Scots (1689-1694), who was the dynastic successor to James VII, King of Scots, after the latter had been formally deposed by the Scottish Parliament.

Before discussing any historical issue we could start by getting our terminology right. The endless repetition of "Mary-Queen-of-Scots", like the interminable references to a "Union of the Crowns" in 1603 (no such event occurred) have the negative effect of obscuring and distorting genuine historical fact, which in its turn can lead to misjudgment of the contemporary situation.

Whatever the motives behind the present suggestion regarding the re-interment in Scotland of Queen Mary I, it would be an event that would attract worldwide banner headlines and do Scotland an immense power of good internationally. More than 400 years after her death she remains one of the world's leading historical figures and continues to attract an immense amount of international interest.

23

sjs,

Edinburgh 12/10/2008 12:05:17
If relocated anywhere I think Mary explicitly said she wanted buried in France.

However, if Scotland wants to have her, burial should really be at the places Stewart kings were buried: namely Holyrood Abbey; which of course should be restored and not left it ruins :) . Holyrood Abbey is where her father James V was buried and Mary's half-brothers. Mary's mother is buried in Rheims, France.
24

Budgie,

INCHINNAN 12/10/2008 12:36:27
Should the wishes of her son not be respected?. After all, it was he who ordered that Westminster Abbey should be her final resting place.
Leave her where she is, and spend the costs this exhumation would incur, on something worthwhile.
25

Jardine,

12/10/2008 12:36:56
Could we be sure the body was the genuine article and not a fake?
26

Hagbard Celine,

Under a cloud 12/10/2008 13:45:06
Perhaps Christine Grahame could spend her time answering letters written by her constituents rather than wasting it on this nonsense.
Let the deceased rest in peace.
27

Boy Wonder,

12/10/2008 14:37:51
Au contraire! Scottish History certainly WAS taught in the 50s. 60s and 70s ... at least in RC primary schools! It was de rigeur!!

And M,QoS was Scots with a French mother, Marie de Guise. True, she spoke French, but then, so did all the other monarchs of the period. It was the Lingua Franca at the time!

However, I agree. The remains should be reinterred in the land of her birth ...

Ever since her return from France, events during her reign were manipulated by England and its agents in Scotland ... such as her second husband, Darnley and the later Regent Moray, Lennox, Mar and Morton. Her son gladly accepted his mother's imprisonment in England because it kept her out of his way.

Bring her home ... and let her remains rest in peace in Scotland.



28

,

12/10/2008 15:15:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
29

,

12/10/2008 15:22:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
30

Brian Hill,

Edinburgh 12/10/2008 16:15:06
Well done Christine, another imaginative piece from you.

Catholic or Protestant it's irrelevant. She was a Scottish Queen beheaded in England by her English cousin, therefore the last place she would want to be buried is England.

Bring her back to St Giles or somewhere equally suitable so that Scots and tourists a like can visit her.
31

Brian Hill,

Edinburgh 12/10/2008 16:16:42
Just read the article more fully, yes Falkland Palace, excellent suggestion. (it has one of the first, if not the first tennis court in the world there.)
32

Keef Richards,

12/10/2008 16:37:46
This traitor Mary's remains should stay in England. Only the bigots and other headbangers want her back in Scotland.
33

David55,

London 12/10/2008 17:19:10
I support independence but I tend to agree with the negative comments. The SNP should be looking to the future, however certain elements of their party seem to want to wallow about in the past.
34

Douglas,

Bathgate 12/10/2008 18:05:01
As usual there's a compromise solution available to settle the matter.
An equitable distribution of the remains would have us north of the border calming down if we just keep the heid.
35

Patrick O'Reilly,

Coatbridge 12/10/2008 18:28:01
How many more hare brained ideas can the SNP come up with? Financial chaos the world over and this daft wummin wants to bring back the remains of a "queen" who was widely despised by the Scottish people.
36

Guga II,

Rockall 12/10/2008 19:45:18
#26.

You have already admitted in various previous posts that you are English. You're too late to try and change your mind now.

In any event, no genuine Scotsman could have such a hatred for his own country as you display towards Scotland.
37

Grahamski,

Falkirk 12/10/2008 20:06:22
Only a jackass or nutter would take personal offence at somebody's view on centuries old history. How dare anybody decide what a 'true' or 'genuine' Scot should think about their history.
We're taking baby steps to fascism with that kind of claptrap.
38

Dr. James Wilkie,

Vienna 12/10/2008 20:35:34
#46. You can resolve the question once and for all by coming out into the open, identifying yourself and revealing your background. I have long since done that, since 1973 in The Scotsman alone, which has not prevented you from making uninformed and snide personal remarks about myself that have bordered on actionable defamation. Your propensity for twisting facts - or ignoring them when they happen to be inconvenient - matches the immoderation of your expression. However, why should I be ungrateful? The number of hits on the Scotland-UN story (www.realmofscotland.com) went through the roof after your much appreciated, but unsuccessful, attempt to rubbish it, and is booming as never before.

39

oder,

Scotland 12/10/2008 21:09:18
any chance we can get David Livingstone as well?
40

,

12/10/2008 21:22:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
41

Westfield Bairns,

falkirk 12/10/2008 21:48:15
Mary should be buried in her native Scotland, as was her wishes. Scotland one of the oldest European nations and rich in history, however this fact seems to annoy Unionists greatly
42

Westfield Bairns,

falkirk 12/10/2008 22:14:20
52
Check your history Unionist FvD, we'e also been Independent longer than as part of a UK State, aw must be painfull for you as we all know how mutch the truth hurts Unionists
43

,

12/10/2008 22:24:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
44

,

12/10/2008 22:35:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
45

Enigma,

12/10/2008 22:36:15
She fled from Scotland in fear of her life. Surely that says it all.
46

Kitti Kat,

Newtown Square 12/10/2008 23:06:02
Can understand why soime would wish Mary to be moved bak to Scotland but on the other hand, it was her son the king who had her interred in the Abbey. I've often wondered why he had her put there but then again,she was his mother and perhaps he wanted her nearby in death as she was not around in life. I have no right to an opinion since I am not a citizen odf Scotland but she should be left where her son had her buried.
47

,

13/10/2008 00:18:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
48

oder,

Scotland 13/10/2008 10:34:26
50 Vincent-W,12/10/2008 21:22:45


moving the bodies of people from one place to another quite a common practice for the famous. it isn't anything new in all other cases cost seems to be irrelevant it would not cost anymore that it would for any else? yes! it would create interest (which politicians in Westminster don't take the opportunity to indulge in publicity for themselves? or is it just the SNP) world wide but the question remains Mary is a Scottish Queen not English nor ever acceptable to the English, unlike her son who was an legitimate King of England, In letters to her son before her execution she implored her son to do all the he can to keep Scotland free of English rule the chances are Mary would have been an SNP supporter! normal to bury Monarchs in their own countries, why should it be different for Scotland/Mary Queen of Scots?
49

Reidari,

Space 13/10/2008 10:44:40
Oh God, not this kind of guff again. Wasn't there something a while back where we had some half-wit junior politico putting forward the motion that we "re-habilitate" Macbeth ?
How much are we paying these clowns for this kind attention-seeking ?
50

oder,

Scotland 13/10/2008 10:50:48
How much are we paying these clowns for this kind attention-seeking ?


I dont Know! how much do you pay English ones?
51

I-Mac,

13/10/2008 10:58:43
This smacks of yet another manufactured dispute between Scotland and England, with the good old Protestant/Catholic thing chucked in for good measure.

The fact that Mary's son expresly requested that she be interred in Westminster Abbey should be respected.
52

Joanna,

13/10/2008 11:02:45
Westminster Abbey is a strange resting place for a foreign Queen whose ambitions for the English throne would probably have resulted in civil war and England being ruled by the French.

Take her back, you are most welcome, perhaps the MSPs would care to pay the bill for the reinternment. I don't see why the taxpayers of the UK should be out of pocket.
53

,

13/10/2008 11:13:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
54

Doh,

13/10/2008 11:13:36


OMG
55

oder,

Scotland 13/10/2008 11:49:34
as you know Joanna history is written by the winners! but don't you find it odd that the numbers of people who are found guilty of crimes against England while in English custody all end up dead! whether they are in England or on Elba all to convenient for England`s political stability!

as for England being ruled by the french maybe you should go over English history again!

take her back? we cant do that you have to give her back! we Scots are not has tight fistted as the English like to say! if the people of Scotland think it is important I am sure they could raise the cash for it, no need at all to burden English taxpayers.
56

oder,

Scotland 13/10/2008 11:56:42
65 Vincent-W,13/10/2008

another 'manufactured dispute'?

well its nice to see MSP equally capable as Westminster MPs
57

Joanna,

13/10/2008 11:58:46
oder

You can pop into Westminster Abbey and dig her up for all I care.

Just make sure not to make a mess and pay for your own spade.
58

Joanna,

13/10/2008 12:05:16
"take her back? we cant do that you have to give her back!"

lol

Anyone would think there were English people tying themselves to her coffin in Westminster Abbey to keep her there. Hilarious!
59

oder,

Scotland 13/10/2008 12:07:02
69 Joanna,13

"truth" bothers you Joanna? dont be petty!
60

,

13/10/2008 12:07:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
61

,

13/10/2008 12:09:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
62

Joanna,

13/10/2008 12:20:10
Vincent :))

Thing is oder, the only tomb in Westminster Abbey that is of any real poignancy and meaning is the one of the Unknown Warrior.

"They buried him among the Kings because he had done good towards God and his house"

Its the only one I was really interested in seeing when I visited the Abbey anyway.

The old Kings and Queens you can have them, you'll maybe need a bigger spade though.

63

oder,

Scotland 13/10/2008 12:48:37
73 Vincent-W
back to your usual charming self one does not support your view of things Vincent?


"Can't you understand my earlier statement? "I don't agree with it whoever is proposing it"

bit of arrogance this eh!

I understand it fine! don't you understand? your opinion isn't necessarily fact! and as I said previously this has and gets done by many different countries and personalities, so the consensus is by the majorities of different peoples that it is acceptable!

you have now called me a racist! for not agreeing with you ,and now mad for not agreeing with you, if you could mature a little bit and get beyond your your habit of showering insults on people who have a different view. it might be worthwhile to indulge you in debate, try harder! you wont be the first Englishman to have reached that level.
64

oder,

13/10/2008 12:55:00
74 Joanna,13

Quite frankly I think its a question for the Scottish Parliament and people, personally I am easy with it one way or the other.
65

Joanna,

13/10/2008 12:57:46
oder

I'm getting the impression that you're not over keen on the English. Oh lordy, lordy how will we get through the long winter nights?

66

Florestan,

glasgow 13/10/2008 12:58:04
Oh for God's sake, why has there always to be row about everything up here? Mary wanted to be buried in Scotland. If people want to bring her back, let it be. What's the problem? It could be an amazing spectacle - the reburial of an iconic, historical figure according to the full rites of her beloved Roman Catholic Church in St Mary's Metropolitan Cathedral in Edinburgh, presided over by Cardinal O'Brien...

Aha, that's the problem, isn't it?


67

Joanna,

13/10/2008 13:06:44
oder

Seriously, have they even asked if they can have the body (bones) back? I've not seen a mention of this in the English press.

If you don't ask you don't get. I can't see why anyone in England would be that fussed about where she lies, apart from the expense of moving her of course.

There is also the pertinent point that her next of kin James VI and I had her interred in WA in the first place, so like most things it had zero diddly squat to do with the ordinary people of England. Mere pawns in the games of the ruling powers.

68

oder,

Scotland 13/10/2008 13:07:33
77 Joanna,13

not true Joanna ! I am as keen on the English as you are on the Scots.
69

Joanna,

13/10/2008 13:13:33
"not true Joanna ! I am as keen on the English as you are on the Scots"

Oh, that's nice then you really like us lots.

If it was in my power to do so (which, sorry its not) I would send her home immediately. Parcel Force do you think?
70

Jmhzx,

brighton 13/10/2008 13:24:49
I think she should be buried in the Basillica of St Denis in Paris along with the other French Royals or, in the House of Stuart Chapel in St Peter's Basillica at the Vatican. If it must be in Scotland, then either the chapel at Falkland Palace or St Mary's cathedral in Edinburgh. At least the Cathedral would be free of charge for catholics to visit and pray at her graveside, (she's considered an important martyr by the RC church)which is strictly forbidden at Westminster Abbey. Either way, she needs to be moved from London.
71

A Better Way,

Scottish Republic 13/10/2008 13:27:07
Dr James Wilkie,

Could you please clear up the following claim by many Scots that the Scottish Parliament of 1707 was not empowered to Vote for the Act of Union under the Scottish Constitution.

Secondly could you enlighten us about the further claims by historians, that in fact the Scottish Parliament was never formerly disolved, by both the members of the Scottish Parliament and the Sovereign of the Scottish State.

This is not a frivolous request. I genuinely do not know the correct answer to the above questions. I have read snippets on Wikpedia, but I am sure that the information could be open to corruption because of the edit facility on Wikpedia.
72

oder,

Scotland 13/10/2008 13:29:59
the only time I never forgive the English is when they beat us at football everything else is forgivable!

Seriously!
as Ive said its a question for the Scots parliament there is some argument as to why actually James VII had her buried there! it may have been his own way at "striking back" back at the English establishment for his mothers death! who knows for sure! the removel of Mary (if it happens) should not be seen as a dispute between the English and the Scots, she is emense figure in Scottish history that makes her important to Scotland,nothing more than a troublesome woman to England, England and the Unionists don't need to feel threatened.

Parcel Force do you think? who paying the postage?
73

oder,

Dundee 13/10/2008 13:42:25
sorry sould read immense figure`
74

,

13/10/2008 13:54:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
75

A Better Way,

13/10/2008 14:01:44
Oder, Well said.

The really sad thing about the Independence debate is that the Unionists continue you clam being pro Scottish means hating the English People. What absolute craap. Many,many Scots have English friends, and that applies quite a bit to most SNP supporters. Unlike unionists, we supporters of taking ownership of our nation, sympathise with many English Peoples poor life because of the London Centric System. SNP supporters are normally more open to genuine ideas that are good for our country.We welcome English,Welsh,Irish and Muslim Scots who wish to share our heritage and be part of the Scottish Nation. There are 6,000 English people coming to Scotland every year. They are looking for a better life for their loved ones, and want no more than to just be part of the Scottish Society. Good on them and a genuine welcome to Scotland to everyone of them.

The one thing we will not support is children of migrants being kept in a jail type enviroment under any circumstances, or innocent people being held for 42 days without charge. Every Scot is entitled to justice, and when we run our own nation that will be part of the Scottish Constitution. Protection of the Peoples right to live and develop in their own way.
76

Florestan,

glasgow 13/10/2008 14:24:58
This topic is nothing to do with Scottish Nationalism/Unionism. It is to do with the final wishes of a devout Catholic monarch. The habitual dogfighting between the usual bores is unseemly. There will be some "nationalists" who will not want "the nation" to be reminded of its Catholic origins. That's fine - those protestant "nationalists", I'm sure will throw all their energies into the coming 5-centenary celebrations of "The Reformation" in 2013. Fine then.
Leave Mary to the rest of us.
77

Joanna,

13/10/2008 14:31:26
oder @ 8

Possibly James was trying to save a bit of money, he was supposed to have been a bit tight with it. Or perhaps it was guilt for having never exactly been the most devoted of sons. Deposing your mum, with the help of your uncle, is one thing but then hardly making a murmer when she had her head chopped off in a foreign country is quite another.

But then, canny James had his eye on that throne as well as the one he was already sitting on so he had a lot to lose by making too many objections.

Or perhaps it was just more convenient for him to visit the tomb in WA, after all once he succeeded to the English throne he didn't like leaving London too often in case some greedy divil (or ungrateful son) attempted to depose him.

They were a self-centred lot those Kings and Queens of old.


78

Peajay,

13/10/2008 15:31:06
Joanna @ 81
You'd need to do Special Delivery with a signature at destination, otherwise if she got lost on route they'd want proof that we hadn't still got her as part of a fiendish ploy to keep 'dem auld bones'!!
79

AJ Fife,

13/10/2008 16:42:21
Calm down everybody, it's only a corpse. Jist try and keep the heid.......so to speak........
80

Joanna,

13/10/2008 16:47:19
Thanks for the heads up Peajay, its a very good point :D

Better late than never AJ :))
81

Lanna,

13/10/2008 16:52:14
Hi Joanna,
make that two late.... :)
82

AJ Fife,

13/10/2008 16:53:06
Joanna,

The question is, was Mary Queen of Scots a basket case before or after the chop chop?
83

AJ Fife,

13/10/2008 16:55:40
Hi Mel,

It is too late, but haven't auld Joanna and Peajay shamed the Scotsman On-line readership? ;)
84

Lanna,

13/10/2008 17:02:49
AJ,
quite so!
85

Joanna,

13/10/2008 17:35:52
"It is too late, but haven't auld Joanna and Peajay shamed the Scotsman On-line readership? ;)"

Axe and you shall receive, two heads are always better than one. :))
86

,

13/10/2008 20:32:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
87

oder,

Scotland 13/10/2008 21:25:39
89 Joanna,13/10/2008

one has to wonder what could you honestly expect from a six year old little boy a murmur? if from what Ive read he did not know until after the event, again in this situation you have to ask who are the winners here? it wasn't six year old little boy! identify the winners and we have the culprits.
he did not turn out to be much of a king as you said but that could not be known at the time of his mothers death! as I said before who writes the history?... the Winners!
88

Joanna,

13/10/2008 22:00:56
oder

You need to read up a bit on Mary and James I think.

James was 21 when his mother was executed, he was born in 1566 and she died in 1587. So I think he could have murmered quite a lot if he'd wanted to. Instead of which his reported words on his mother's death were: "Now I am sole King".

89

Joanna,

13/10/2008 22:06:20
oder

The little boy that you wax so lyrically about became a very powerful King who believed that he ruled by Divine Right and was ruthless in his determination to remain King.

Sounds like a winner to me.
90

oder,

Dundee 14/10/2008 01:12:01
yes it looks like my dates were wrong
ames VI and I (19 June 1566 – 27 March 1625) was King of Scots as James VI, and King of England and King of Ireland as James I. He ruled in Scotland as James VI from 24 July 1567, when he was only one year old, succeeding his mother Mary, Queen of Scots. Regents governed during his minority, which ended officially in 1578, though he did not gain full control of his government until 1581.[1] six year before Mary was executed


101 Joanna,13/10/2008 22:06:20 the Divine right Kings was Charles 1st not James VI Mary Queen of Scots was his Grandmother Charles like his grandmother lost his head too! sounds like a loser to me. Mary was executed on claims of conspiracy by protestents with a hatred of all this Catholic, and Charles was executed by that other great hater of Catholics Oliver Cromwell first man to sign the death warrant! who by the way 2 years after he died the English dug him up and hanged him. seems I am not the only one mixed up on this bit of history.
91

Dr. James Wilkie,

Vienna 14/10/2008 01:18:41
#83. Sorry about the delay in answering. I had to rush off immediately after writing #47. Modern international law emphasises that the right to self-determination is possessed by "peoples", not governments or legislatures, but there are difficulties in applying that principle retrospectively to the 1707 Union. For centuries the Scottish constitutional philosophers like Hector Boece, George Buchanan and others taught that the people are superior to the institutions of state, and indeed it was largely Scots who wrote that idea into the Constitution of the United States of America. The principle is also implicit in the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath.

It is indeed arguable that the 1707 Union had no constitutional legitimation in Scotland because it was carried through against the almost total opposition of the country at large. it was a dirty affair, but at that date the referendum had not yet been invented... After 300 years it would be pointless to apply for a court decision annulling the Union on that ground, but it is certainly a factor in considering whether that Union should continue under today's vastly altered framework conditions.

As regards the second point, there is not a single word in the Treaty or either of the Acts of Union that formally abolished the Scottish Parliament (or the English one for that matter). They both simply stopped meeting when the new Union Parliament convened. The last act of the Scottish Parliament was to fix a date and time for its next meeting, but that adjourned session was never held until 1999. This point was emphasised by the Scotland-UN Committee in its submission to the Council of Europe that brought about the recall of the Parliament in that year (see: www.realmofscotland.com), when it had a telling effect in diplomatic circles.

92

Joanna,

14/10/2008 08:23:08
oder

Suggest you google 'Divine Right of Kings' and the first name that pops up is James I and VI. Charles I was only following his Dad, although at least James managed to avoid civil war.

All the early Stuarts to a greater or lesser degree believed in the Divine Right.
93

Joanna,

14/10/2008 08:27:05
Re: the discrimination against Catholics.

Have a look at the history of Mary Tudor (half-sister of Elizabeth I), known as Bloody Mary to understand why the English did not want a Catholic monarch after her.

The Wars of Religion were not that one-sided.

94

Joanna,

14/10/2008 09:56:16
oder

Have a look at this link:

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/workbook/ralprs20.htm

In King James own words what he had to say about his Divine Right to rule.

95

oder,

SCOTLAND 15/10/2008 00:24:21
104 Joanna,14/10/20

the "Divine right of Kings" did not make its advent in England with the coming of the Stuart Kings although they all believed it to a greater or lessor extent! as did every other English King before them.
the Magna Carta signed by King John 1215 was the first attempt by the people(mainly the nobles) to subject the King to the law of the people, Henry 1st at his coronation said that "his actions as king are subject to the law" around the 1100s sometime!
King John fought the first two civil wars over the "Divine right of Kings" also known as the "Barons wars" and the results ended up with the "Magna Carta"
to easy to google its a lot more complicated that that!
by the time James VI rocked up on the scene England had fought two civil wars over it, James VI was not the first king of England to instigate civil war in the land! although if you believe google it will say that he had! Nor was the concept that the "King was not above the Law" uniquely Puritan/English the Declaration of Arbroath 1320 goes a lot further were it states Robert Bruce is King of Scotland by approval of the people, and if they think he is failing in his duty to the country, the people will remove him!
getting back to James VI he was equally bad to Catholics as he was to Protestants although he came down on them pretty hard after the Gowrie plot!
King Charles Spaniels, James Version of the Bible, the gun powder plot, "and the wisest fool in Christendom"
and that sums up his reign... he was a loser!

Like all the Stuarts they greatly underestimated the hatred for Catholics in the English Establishment.
Mary had abdicated in favour of her infant son, and was no threat! Elizabeth had she died with out an heir James VI was her legitimate successor as was the case and they got rid of him too! and even when they restored the Monarchy one of its main conditions " No Catholics" hatred runs deep when you feel the need to enshrine it in law, its the winners that write the
96

oder,

Scotlandf 15/10/2008 00:26:52
its the winners that write the history!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.