Mary brought it all upon herself. - Mary Queen of Scots (2018) Discussion

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

Mary was pretty useless as a monsrch, which didn't make her any less of a threat to Elizabeth. As long as she was alive she was the focus of any plan to give England a Catholic monarch, and Elizabeth was damn tired of Catholics trying to depose her.

Aaand that is how the Pkantagenet and Tudor dynasties died out! After centuries of killing any relative who posted a threat, they just ran out of relatives.

reply

[–] Coleburg83 (684) 5 years ago

Truth.

She followed the example set for her. Her mother should have kept her engagement to Edward, but as soon as she could, she broke the agreement and sent Mary to France to serve the best interests of the French, which is what she was, not the Scottish who paid the price with the long war and scorched Earth policies employed by the English in response. Edward would have died before they could be married and she could have married who she wanted anyway. And because of her upbringing, Scots rightfully saw her as French and not Scottish, a huge reason for her unpopularity even before her stupid mistakes.

She chose to marry Darnley who was an fool instead of a candidate Elizabeth supported which would have ensured her the support of England rather than it's hostility. The Protestant Lords in Scotland who removed her would never have done so if she had England backing her. They all depended on running to England if things went bad. She was a complete idiot when it came to marriage. Then she married her husband's murderer and was out of power in a matter of months.

Elizabeth didn't want to execute Mary, but she felt she had no choice for the opposite reason. If she didn't, then she would be seen as weak (and women unfit to rule due to this) and Mary would remain a constant threat.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

"But she was a complete idiot when it came to marriages."

Ain't that the truth! Mary thought she could both follow her heart and remain queen, Elizabeth knew she couldn't.

And that's why Mary got the chop, and Elizabeth is still being called "England's greatest monarch", at least by some. Elizabeth had brains and used them to realize it would be disastrous to marry her Dudley, Mary went ahead and married her Darnley and it all went to hell because of that.

reply

[–] Coleburg83 (684) 5 years ago

Despite the chaos in Scotland and France at the time, Mary had a pretty sheltered upbringing in the French court. Elizabeth had to go through tough times again and again before she got the crown. That probably helped her a lot. Also of course what happened to her mother made her paranoid about marriage in the first place. Although it's certainly arguable that her never marrying and having kids was not the best thing for England, it certainly wasn't for the monarchy. Not 50 years after her death, there was civil war over royal power and an English King was executed by Parliament. And it was only about 100 years before the Germans took over the British crown.

Elizabeth couldn't marry Dudley because of what happened to his first wife or she might have, but she actually wanted Dudley to marry the Queen of Scots and Mary refused. If she had, she would have had Elizabeth and England's support whenever she needed it most. As well as an experienced courtier husband who would of been of value to her in ruling.

Instead she chose about the worst candidates she could. It's hard for me to believe that she actually did love Bothwell and that he didn't force her to marry him. But if he did, she should have had him arrested as soon as she could. And not reveal his abduction and rape much later.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

Leaving aside Elizabeth's personal feelings, which we can only guess at, the question of her taking a husband and bearing an heir was a goddamn political minefield.

There just weren't that many protestants worthy to be the husband of the monarch, and every one had drawbacks. If she married an English noble, all the other nobles would be jealous and try to destroy the guy. If she married a foreign prince, that foreign country would have an excuse to interfere with the government of England, or take it over (she would also lose a big diplomatic bargaining chip, the promise of her hand). If she married any man with a triple-digit IQ, he'd think he was king and take over the ruling, and he wouldn't be half the monarch she was. So every potential husband out there came with so many drawbacks that it became a problem she never solved in her lifetime, or while she was still young enough to have children.

And seeing two ill-advised marriages topple her cousin from her throne can't have made her any keener to pick a guy.

reply

[–] Martoto (4071) 5 years ago

Most of the problems the Scots Lords had would have been tempered (and in some cases, non-existent) if they had a "French" King instead of a "French" Queen.

reply

[–] Coleburg83 (684) 5 years ago

The major issue was her Catholic faith more than being a Queen instead of a King. And her upbringing and in France. Traditionally, the Scottish nobles had looked to France for help, but because France remained a Catholic nation, the now Protestant Scottish Lords looked to Protestant England, who also had a Queen. When that mentality finally changed, a union of the crowns was inevitable. It's ironically very unfortunate for Mary that Edward Tudor didn't live, because there's little doubt that after Francis's death he would have married her instead of the Valois princess he was engaged to. And the Protestant nobility and Knox especially who had been chaplain to Edward would have strongly supported the marriage. Marrying Darnley against Elizabeth's and Moray's advice and then Bothwell against all common sense was inevitable in bringing her down. And her first four relatively successful years of rule were almost entirely due to Moray who is always vilified now, but alienating him to promote Darley was perhaps her worst mistake of all. It led to all the other major mistakes. He was the only one that could keep the Protestant nobility in check, once he was gone, that's when everything came apart for her.

reply

[–] Martoto (4071) 5 years ago

Scottish Lords would have been less bold if it had been catholic King instead of a Queen.

Mary womanhood was a specific problem for the people wishing to undermine her.

reply

[–] Coleburg83 (684) 5 years ago

I don't agree. While of course the nobles in Scotland, like in England, wanted a King instead of a Queen, that was not the key factor IMO. Look at some of the things that happened to her son and he was a Protestant under their control.

The Scottish nobles at that time were quarrelsome to the core and all involved in personal rivalries.. They seemed to have no concept of loyalty to a monarch and were entirely self-interested.

As I said, the major issue was that Mary was a Catholic and made two terrible marriage choices. A King who made the mistakes she did would have been deposed as well. Once Scotland became a Protestant country, dethroning a Catholic monarch seemed inevitable, male or female. Just like what the Protestant Parliament in far less fractured England did to Catholic King James in England a century later.

reply

[–] fishpan (544) 5 years ago

Mary and Elizabeth were coming off two completely different situations.

Elizabeth got more of a free pass off her nobles for four huge reasons. It gave her more freedom to do what needed done for England
1) She was the same faith as the majority of them.
2) They had just come off the reign of her sister, her brother, Lady Jane Grey and Henry
3) It was only 2 generations from the war of the roses and no-one was willing to go through that again.
4) England was the more modern nation - it had a better idea of nationhood going than Scotland did who was stuck in a more feudalist mentality which put religion and feudal loyalty above country.

As for marrying Darnley instead of Dudley - well Darnley played better to the Scottish nobles/calvinists more than rumoured cast off of Elizabeth, while complying with the conditions set as he was born in England. Not to mention his stronger claim to the English crown than Mary and the fact that at points during her time at the English court Darnley's mother was considered to be a Princess of Scotland as she was the daughter of the Queen of Scotland (Henry VIII sister).

Also the Scottish parliament was right to break the Treaty of Greenwich, shown by the rough wooing. England's reaction was a almost a decade's long war, showing Henry's intent was to not only close off the back door for French troops but to also essentially absorb Scotland politically into England. Something the common Scots would have revolted against.
Remember both Catherine of Aragon and Anne of Cleeves were princesses in their own right, but after their marriages were annulled neither were returned to their respective nations. You honestly think that the Scots didn't look at those situations and get that if Mary married Edward they'd be handing over their Queen to a nation that was never handing her back if anything happened to her husband and therefore handing their nation away too.

reply

[–] Coleburg83 (684) 5 years ago

You are completely wrong about Darnley being a better marriage choice than Dudley or anyone supported by Elizabeth/Parliament. Her decision to marry him was truly the beginning of the end for her. Not just his behavior later. The Protestant Lords were the real power in Scotland, led by Moray and Knox and they hated the idea of a Catholic King and a future Catholic monarchy above all else. Her decision to marry him completely alienated Moray and turned him against her. And he was the only one who could control the Protestant Lords. As I said, it was really Moray who ruled during those first four successful years of her reign. Not to mention turning England against her for the same reason (a Catholic monarchy) and ensuring they would not help her and would help her enemies, which they did.

Also, you are completely wrong about the Treaty of Greenwich. It was certainly in the greater interests of Scotland. Mary wasn't going to be sent to England as a hostage or anything, it was a common future marriage agreement between royalty. And when Mary de Guise broke the treaty to serve France's interest (not Scotland's), the English rightfully saw it as a huge betrayal like after the French had broken the agreement made with Henry V after Agincourt and they saw their war with the Scottish as a righteous Holy War and engaged in the scorched Earth tactics. And remember, Mary de Guise (and Mary, Queen of Scots) secretly sold out their country in the marriage agreement that gave Scotland to France. Like I said, her mother served France and not Scotland. The engagement and possible marriage to Edward was the right thing for Scotland. And certainly in hindsight without question.

reply

[–] fishpan (544) 5 years ago

Darnley was a better choice than Dudley, but Elizabeth could have supplied better options than her master of horse.

Moray's nose would have been put out of joint by anyone Mary married and if the man in question was seen to be capable things would have come to a head sooner than they did with Darnley as there would have been less argument not to give the man Mary married power over national affairs instead of keeping him King consort. Also by marrying Darnley someone who was in line to both the Scottish and English thrones was in Scottish hands and not English ones and although he was raised Catholic, Darnley himself didn't seem to value Catholic rituals and was influenced by Protestantism (he didn't attend mass with Mary after they were wed). So could have been seen by both Catholic and protestants as a compromise in the mind of Mary.

However, if she had married Dudley the Scottish people would not have suffered an Englishman on the throne if there was taint to him such as him jumping from the bed of one queen to another, especially if those in the pulpits could argue he was only ennobled for such a task.

One was capable and the other a fool but sometimes using the fool holds off the inevitable and Moray's nose was out of joint because he put pride above his nation. He could have easily controlled Darnley but he wouldn't have had a hope in hell's chance of doing with Dudley even if he did feel they were working towards similar goals.

As for the Treaty of Greenwich, this was only agreed after the death of James V and the Earl of Arran went slower than a snail before him with Mary of Guise killed it. It was dead before it got out of the water and England did not need to scorch the earth at a time when it had other means to deal with France. As for not keeping Mary hostage, part of the treaty of Greenwich was Mary to live in England and be raised by English lords until she was wed - royal practice but it was also a practice of keeping parties in line.

reply

[–] Coleburg83 (684) 5 years ago

There is a huge difference between something that looks good on paper and what are the facts on the ground. Yes, Darnley's family had an excellent claim by blood to the Scottish and English thrones. But they were now both Protestant kingdoms and wanted more than anything else to stay that way. Darnley's Catholic family in particular were deeply despised by both, whatever their claim.

The plain truth is that any Protestant English or Scottish Lord would have been a better choice for Mary. If she didn't want Dudley, she could have kept up negotiations for someone else. Parliament/England would have rather had a Scottish Protestant than a Catholic Englishman. And the people in Scotland who mattered would have rather had her marry an English Protestant over a Catholic Scot. That's the reality. Her religion was always the major issue. Darnley was a terrible, terrible decision on her own part. Of course her son ended up ruling both, but if she had a stable marriage, she might have produced an enduring monarchy instead of losing her head. Not one that would see James infamously face assassination, then Civil War and Charles being executed, Catholic James's overthrow and then the Germans taking over and the monarchy losing nearly all of it's real importance in terms ruling the country.

One can imagine she was really devout like Mary Tudor, but likely she never left her Catholic faith because she feared losing the support of France that she considered home. And that cost her. Joining the faith of her country and becoming a Protestant when she returned to Scotland would have been the smartest thing she could have done.

With Mary's commitments in the Treaty of Greenwich, she was to have English ladies and servants in her household until she got older and then sent to England before the marriage. Nothing unusual at all. And mind you these agreements were always being negotiated. They could have found 1000x excuses to not send Mary when she reached the right age. And Edward would have been dead before then anyway. It was firmly in Scotland's interest to keep the engagement in place. Mary de Guise broke it to serve France. Just as she betrayed the country in the marriage agreement signed with France, far more restrictive than the one England made with her Protestant Lords.

reply

[–] whoanelly (1555) 5 years ago

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/tudors/spying_01.shtml

reply

[–] halomaniac88 (1736) 5 years ago

I think the entire Tudor dynasty was a series of unfortunate religious conflicts, that being said, politics is and has always been a dirty business. Being a leader is hard.

reply