Mary Queen of Scots, historical confusion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gobo J
  • Start date Start date
G

Gobo J

Guest
The scots seem to have the belief that the English killed off their royal line with the execution of Mary Queen of Scots...well firstly she was a conspirator against Elizabeth and Mary was at that point the Queen of nowhere. What isn't learned in school; both in Scotland or England - is that Mary was such a shit Queen that the Earls of Scotland kicked her out and were going to kill her, it was Elizabeth who offered her asylum.
Further more, the royal line of Scotland was not killed off by the English, it was in fact continued with James who's dynasty became the rulers of England. It was in fact England's true royal line that died out.
 
well in the end we have neither an English or Scottish decended Monarchy we now have a German/Greek Institution so I guess that adds to the confusion.
 
There's no confusion about Mary Queen of Scots. The Scots deposed her and she fled to England. The English executed her. Her son, James VI became James I of England. His only claim to the English throne is that his grandmother was a descendent of Henry VII, a Welshman who usurped the English throne. He was a descendent of John of Gaunt, but aren't we all?

England's Royal Line was chucked out by William the Conqueror and we've been ruled by foreigners ever since. If we'd stuck to his line, we'd now be ruled by the head of the Plantagenate family - an Australian called Bruce.
 
If the Scots believe [incorrectly in my opinion] that the English killed off the Royal Scottish line, who then was King James I of England and [same person] King James 6th of Scotland?

Surely he was of the Royal Blood-line of Scotland and was already the crowned head of Scotland - the King of Scotland and also crowned King of England - the Union etc.
 
Your statemants"Englands true royal line died out" isnt true either. The Tudors were welsh. The last English king was Richard 111
 
I think you need to study more. It is still debated if the "evidence" of Mary plotting to kill Elizabeth was forged. Elizabeth's nobles wanted her dead, and it is believed they forged the documents. If that is true, Mary was an innocent person .
Mary's brother and the nobles wanted to shut Mary up so they could run the country themselves. She fought them and they overthrew her.
The "asylum" Elizabeth gave Mary was to imprison her for years until the execution. She prevented Mary from getting to a Catholic based monarchy.
It was well known that the only heir to the thrown would be James the 1st. There was no surprise of that, and not the end of the line.
 
I don't know anyone who believes that the royal line was killed off, as everyone knows James was Mary's son.
 
Technically Elizabeth did not offer her asylum but When Mary showed up in her country she ordere basically locked upo and hid away so there was not an uprising of the catholics. Like its already been said James was Mary and Darnleys son. He was raised a protestant and that is why Elizabeth named him as her heir. There is alot of evidence that Mary was part of multiple acts of treason against Elizabeth. Mary was in England for a good 20 years before Elizabeth had her beheaded. There is no True royal lines. All of Europe were a bunch of different clans only one clan became victorious and that clan leader became king.
 
Back
Top