Comments on: 1587: Mary, Queen of Scots http://www.executedtoday.com/2008/02/08/1587-mary-queen-of-scots/ Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:16:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: ExecutedToday.com » 1592: Roger Ashton http://www.executedtoday.com/2008/02/08/1587-mary-queen-of-scots/#comment-6378 ExecutedToday.com » 1592: Roger Ashton Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:01:47 +0000 http://www.executedtoday.com/2008/02/08/1587-mary-queen-of-scots/#comment-6378 [...] the jittery national mood post-Deventer and pre-routing the Spanish Armada — the time when Mary, Queen of Scots lost her head — makes a case for dating the Henry plays to that period, which in turn makes a [...] [...] the jittery national mood post-Deventer and pre-routing the Spanish Armada — the time when Mary, Queen of Scots lost her head — makes a case for dating the Henry plays to that period, which in turn makes a [...]

]]> By: Ravensdottir http://www.executedtoday.com/2008/02/08/1587-mary-queen-of-scots/#comment-3566 Ravensdottir Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:12:49 +0000 http://www.executedtoday.com/2008/02/08/1587-mary-queen-of-scots/#comment-3566 It has always riled me to hear the "But she was so beautiful!" defense. Fiz is right: Mary was wilful without the will or intelligence of Elizabeth. She led (or attempted to lead) with her emotions, not her brain. And what right did Elizabeth have? The mandate to rule as the only surviving sister of the last Queen regnant & previous King regnant, & the child of the King regnant before that. She went in & out of legitimacy depending on the hopes & pragmatism of Henry VIII, as did Mary Tudor. Elizabeth also had the military behind her, which Mary Stuart did not. Scotland was also fragmented in the 16th century and under the influence of John Knox (the infamous author of The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women), which should have been fair warning to any sensible monarch. If we are to judge the legality of Mary Stuart's execution, we also should judge the illegal victory at Bannockburn by the Scots in 1314. Rules, as they were, of siege stated that a siege was lifted if a relieving army came within 3 leagues of the siege. Sterling Castle was under siege by Scots forces, & Robert Bruce's brother had agreed that the castle would be ceded to the English if the siege were lifted within a year. The English marched North in the given time frame and within the 3 leagues to Bannockburn. And met their fate (without Mel Gibson). It has always riled me to hear the “But she was so beautiful!” defense. Fiz is right: Mary was wilful without the will or intelligence of Elizabeth. She led (or attempted to lead) with her emotions, not her brain. And what right did Elizabeth have? The mandate to rule as the only surviving sister of the last Queen regnant & previous King regnant, & the child of the King regnant before that. She went in & out of legitimacy depending on the hopes & pragmatism of Henry VIII, as did Mary Tudor. Elizabeth also had the military behind her, which Mary Stuart did not. Scotland was also fragmented in the 16th century and under the influence of John Knox (the infamous author of The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women), which should have been fair warning to any sensible monarch. If we are to judge the legality of Mary Stuart’s execution, we also should judge the illegal victory at Bannockburn by the Scots in 1314. Rules, as they were, of siege stated that a siege was lifted if a relieving army came within 3 leagues of the siege. Sterling Castle was under siege by Scots forces, & Robert Bruce’s brother had agreed that the castle would be ceded to the English if the siege were lifted within a year. The English marched North in the given time frame and within the 3 leagues to Bannockburn. And met their fate (without Mel Gibson).

]]> By: ExecutedToday.com » 1552: Edward Seymour, deposed Lord Protector http://www.executedtoday.com/2008/02/08/1587-mary-queen-of-scots/#comment-3446 ExecutedToday.com » 1552: Edward Seymour, deposed Lord Protector Thu, 22 Jan 2009 06:20:50 +0000 http://www.executedtoday.com/2008/02/08/1587-mary-queen-of-scots/#comment-3446 [...] inherited a campaign against Scotland (and France) to secure the betrothal of the king to the young Mary Queen of Scots, then just beginning her own lifetime as a political and matrimonial [...] [...] inherited a campaign against Scotland (and France) to secure the betrothal of the king to the young Mary Queen of Scots, then just beginning her own lifetime as a political and matrimonial [...]

]]> By: Fiz (UK) http://www.executedtoday.com/2008/02/08/1587-mary-queen-of-scots/#comment-2133 Fiz (UK) Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:22:48 +0000 http://www.executedtoday.com/2008/02/08/1587-mary-queen-of-scots/#comment-2133 You are completely wrong, Phill. I am a historian, and everything that happened to Mary was a result of her own lack of judgement. Mary thought it was smart to insult Catherine De Medici - first mistake which got her sent back to Scotland after Francois died, when she might otherwise have been kept in France. Plus it was Mary's mother, Mary of Guise, who sent her to France, not her father, who died when she was born, rather than marry her off to Edward VI. However the French thought very little of the Auld Alliance, which was why she was packed off home again. Mary's deliberate conspicous Catholism infuriated Calvinist Scotland, and she did it quite deliberately. I could go on all night giving examples of her stunning lack of judgement and commonsense, both of which led to her death. And please don't call her Mary Queen of Scots, which is a completely Victorian invention and never used by historians. She's Mary Stuart, not some romantic heroine, and please read a litlle more yourself before you try to condemn what I do or don't know. You are completely wrong, Phill. I am a historian, and everything that happened to Mary was a result of her own lack of judgement. Mary thought it was smart to insult Catherine De Medici - first mistake which got her sent back to Scotland after Francois died, when she might otherwise have been kept in France. Plus it was Mary’s mother, Mary of Guise, who sent her to France, not her father, who died when she was born, rather than marry her off to Edward VI. However the French thought very little of the Auld Alliance, which was why she was packed off home again. Mary’s deliberate conspicous Catholism infuriated Calvinist Scotland, and she did it quite deliberately. I could go on all night giving examples of her stunning lack of judgement and commonsense, both of which led to her death. And please don’t call her Mary Queen of Scots, which is a completely Victorian invention and never used by historians. She’s Mary Stuart, not some romantic heroine, and please read a litlle more yourself before you try to condemn what I do or don’t know.

]]> By: Phill http://www.executedtoday.com/2008/02/08/1587-mary-queen-of-scots/#comment-1342 Phill Thu, 07 Aug 2008 17:24:54 +0000 http://www.executedtoday.com/2008/02/08/1587-mary-queen-of-scots/#comment-1342 Fiz has obviously never read an account of Mary Queen of Scots life, it is clear that she was never in control - Scotland and England's relationship was frail at the best of times; perhaps more obviously now than at any time in the recent past. The Auld Allience with France was a good way for the French to distract the attention away from there own plans for England and as such Mary's fate had been sealed by the actions of her father. Throughout her life she was kidnapped, raped, forced to abdicated and framed using the "Casket Letters", all whilst outliving at least one husband and two Scottish Civil Wars. I think that would be enough to make anyones hair fall out. She wasn't an ideal monarch - but then again no one would have been in 16th Century Scotland. Fiz has obviously never read an account of Mary Queen of Scots life, it is clear that she was never in control - Scotland and England’s relationship was frail at the best of times; perhaps more obviously now than at any time in the recent past. The Auld Allience with France was a good way for the French to distract the attention away from there own plans for England and as such Mary’s fate had been sealed by the actions of her father.
Throughout her life she was kidnapped, raped, forced to abdicated and framed using the “Casket Letters”, all whilst outliving at least one husband and two Scottish Civil Wars. I think that would be enough to make anyones hair fall out.

She wasn’t an ideal monarch - but then again no one would have been in 16th Century Scotland.

]]> By: Fiz (UK) http://www.executedtoday.com/2008/02/08/1587-mary-queen-of-scots/#comment-577 Fiz (UK) Sat, 09 Feb 2008 22:48:32 +0000 http://www.executedtoday.com/2008/02/08/1587-mary-queen-of-scots/#comment-577 Mary and her followers plotted treason again and again against Elizabeth and England, even when she had arrived in England. It was treason for catholics to plot against the English Crown and Mary did it repeatedly and asked Spain, England's greatest enemy at that time for help. She got what she deserved. Mary and her followers plotted treason again and again against Elizabeth and England, even when she had arrived in England. It was treason for catholics to plot against the English Crown and Mary did it repeatedly and asked Spain, England’s greatest enemy at that time for help. She got what she deserved.

]]>