Really Want to Watch this when it comes Out - MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS Official Trailer (2018)

Yes and me, I love all things Tudor and its good to see a film about the Stuart's Queen, Mary. I can't help feeling sorry for her, she was let down by her own courtiers and Generals. I do think she was wrong to connive with others over Elizabeth's demise, but then she was also set up by Cecil who wanted her head off. He felt she threatened Elizabeth all the time she lived, which in reality he was right. Such goings on in those hard and frightening times.

Although I am very drawn to this time it was an awful time to be a woman, one of many of course. Hardly anyone including women thought a female could rule and had to have a husband or male advisors to decide the issues, Noble women were used as pawns by the great families to advance family wealth and influence, they were controlled in all situations yet if things went wrong they were on their own and as susceptible to punishment as anyone. I think the ordinary woman may have had a bit more freedom at least there are records, of a bit earlier maybe, of women taking cases to court in their own right, owning and running businesses like bell making and shoe making.

magica wrote:Yes and me, I love all things Tudor and its good to see a film about the Stuart's Queen, Mary. I can't help feeling sorry for her, she was let down by her own courtiers and Generals. I do think she was wrong to connive with others over Elizabeth's demise, but then she was also set up by Cecil who wanted her head off. He felt she threatened Elizabeth all the time she lived, which in reality he was right. Such goings on in those hard and frightening times.

I don't think she participated in the Babington Plot.  It was all trumped up.  But Mary Stuart was the legitimate Queen of England, over the bastard Elizabeth Tudur, as evidenced by the installment of her son, James VI and I, immediately on Elizabeth's death.  Unfortunately, Mary's mother--a de Guise--was of one of the most prominent Catholic families of Europe.  Any attempt on the Protestant Elizabeth Tudur, and adversaries were going to look to Mary, and make up any story to justify it.

Mary Stuart was a stupid and coddled monarch raised in the protected court of Henri II Valois of France, ripe to be used and manipulated.  Her half-brother James used her, and then tossed her aside when it became expedient.  Mary Stuart needed an intelligent and shrewd man at her side, instead of the trash she kept collecting.   Elizabeth Tudur knew she, herself, was a bastard, and Mary was the legitimate Queen, of not only Scotland, but England as well.  Mary's death was a foregone conclusion as soon as Elizabeth got her hands on her.  Elizabeth I will always be remembered for the most famous regicide in history.

Elizabeth was not a bastard but the real queen of England. Since his divorce from Mary, he married Anne, which was legal. Had she died they wouldn't put Mary on the throne because she was a Catholic. She was not an English queen but a Scottish queen. Scotland only United with England when James 1st was made king of England aswell. Tbh he really was the only choice by our government because this is what Robert Cecil wanted. Inreality he wasn't the only choice, queen had cousins who were more inline to the throne than James.

Mary may have been queen by precedence but Elizabeth was legally declared heir and queen and her parents were married in the then English law, Henry declared his daughters bastards, undeclared them and legally put them in the line of succession. Heredity has not always been the way to the throne in Britain, some were elected by the Witan, others by right of conquest, others by declaration. Then of course you get people ruling that aren't even the child of the ruling monarch with the apparent father away at the wars for eleven months and a very low key christening for the child who was supposed to be the heir, its a bit of a lottery.

Exactly Vin. Even our queen wasn't born to rule, only because her uncle abdicated.

Victoria was right out of it and brought into rule because her uncle had no other kin. I always think that the three queens who were never meant to reign, were indeed the best.

They do seem to have presided over the best of times for the country in one way or another.
I think the best speeches ever made in this country was by Churchill during WW2 and Elizabeth when the Spanish Armarda was on the doorstep. Inspirational.

Yes, Elizabeth's speech was amazing and at the right time, same as Churchill.

I wonder what Mays speech will be now she's sold us down the river

Thor wrote:

Ah, that look!!!! 
Impossible to mistake her for anyone else.

Sorry, but Anne was paired to a married man.  Henry was never divorced from Catherine of Aragon.



They call that shacking up.  Any children are bastards. Elizabeth was a bastard.

magica wrote:Exactly Vin.  Even our queen wasn't born to rule, only because her uncle abdicated.

Victoria was right out of it and brought into rule because her uncle had no other kin.  I always think that the three queens who were never meant to reign, were indeed the best.

Nonsense.  Queen Victoria (1819-1901) was the daughter of Edward, Duke of Kent, fourth son of George III.  She was not "out of it and brought into rule", but the natural heir in the line of succession.  Edward was the only son of George III to have any surviving offspring on the death of his brother, William IV, so naturally the crown fell to her.

Vintage wrote:Mary may have been queen by precedence but Elizabeth was legally declared heir and queen and her parents were married in the then English law, Henry declared his daughters bastards, undeclared them and legally put them in the line of succession. Heredity has not always been the way to the throne in Britain, some were elected by the Witan, others by right of conquest, others by declaration. Then of course you get people ruling that aren't even the child of the ruling monarch with the apparent father away at the wars for eleven months and a very low key christening for the child who was supposed to be the heir, its a bit of a lottery.

Succession is not "declared", but determined by the terms of Salic Law.  The Witan (Witenagemot) was an Anglo Saxon tradition, and Normans (the ruling class of England) followed the Salic rules.  Although Henry VIII fooled around with Acts of Succession, he was largely ignored after his death.  Succession flowed by Salic Law, except for Elizabeth I, who was a usurper and well knew it.

When Henry VII took the English crown in 1488 he married his daughter Margaret to James IV, King of Scotland...Henry VII was a marrying fool, so insecure was he about his own throne he wanted a labyrinth of connections.  Margaret's granddaughter was Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, who turned out to be the sole legitimate heir of the Tudur line after Mary Tudur.  

While Mary Stuart was still in France--also being the consort Queen of that country--Elizabeth took advantage of the Protestant wave and usurped the English throne.  As events progressed, Mary moved to Scotland to take up the monarchy there.  Elizabeth stirred up political matters in Scotland, resulting in Mary taking refuge in Northern England.  In England she was captured, and became the "guest" of Elizabeth.  Of course, knowing Mary's superior (dynastic) claim within the Tudur family, Elizabeth had her murdered.  Antonia Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots (1969); see also, J. Cannon & R. Griffiths, The Oxford History of the British Monarchy (1988).

Of course, on Elizabeth's death, the powers that be had no alternative but to name Mary's son the king.  His mother had been the legitimate queen...so what else were they to do?

England has never had Salic law. The custom was that the reigning monarch would name the heir to the throne, either on their death bed or in their will or to crown them during their own lifetime. The heir was usually their eldest offspring but not always the eldest and not always their offspring. It was generally accepted by the nobles unless it affected their power and money too much. Then of course the whole thing could be disrupted by someone claiming the throne by right of conquest. To stay with the original line of succession, there could be thousands of claimants to the throne with more right than all the monarchs from at least 1066.

The Normans followed salic law, and when William I won the battle of Hastings, salic law became the law of England.  The one breach with salian tradition was when Henry I asked the nobles to honor the right of his daughter, Matilda, which was denied by Stephen, Henry's nephew.  A compromise was made and succession went to Matilda's son, Henry II Plantagenet.  The point was that England broke with salic law, allowing succession to pass through a woman.  This was relied upon when Henry VIII's daughters came along.

But it had consequences before that.  Everyone has seen Braveheart, right?  Remember the pretty wife of Edward II?  She was the daughter of Phillip IV of France, who died without male heir.  Her son, Edward III, then claimed the French throne through his mother.  The French eventually resolved this by following strict salic law, where women could not inherit or be passed through.

So the upshot of this was that women on the west side of the English Channel could inherit the crown, but on the east they were purely agnatic.  Other than that, salic law prevailed.  That is why, as you say, “[t]he heir was usually their eldest offspring…”  They are following a form of salic law, modified by male-preferred primogeniture.  With the birth of a daughter to William and Kate, Parliament has recently changed the rules of succession to eliminate the male-preference.

Salic law was not practised in England, a form of semi Salic might have been up to a point but women have never specifically been bared by law from inheriting lands or the throne there or males inheriting through females.

Vintage wrote:Salic law was not practised in England, a form of semi Salic might have been up to a point but women have never specifically been bared by law from inheriting lands or the throne there or males inheriting through females.

That might have been a part of it. Henry I, son of William the Conqueror, married Scottish princess Matilda, daughter of Malcolm III Canmore, King of Scotland. The Canmores were not Norman, and salic law might not have been meaningful to them.
Matilda may have been the influence that assured her daughter (mother of Henry II) shared in the English monarchy.

Could be, anyway now I'm going to have to look for who would have taken the throne if there had been Salic law in Britain as it wouldn't have been Mathilda nor Stephen, being the son of a sister.

Original Quill wrote:

magica wrote:Exactly Vin.  Even our queen wasn't born to rule, only because her uncle abdicated.

Victoria was right out of it and brought into rule because her uncle had no other kin.  I always think that the three queens who were never meant to reign, were indeed the best.

Nonsense.  Queen Victoria (1819-1901) was the daughter of Edward, Duke of Kent, fourth son of George III.  She was not "out of it and brought into rule", but the natural heir in the line of succession.  Edward was the only son of George III to have any surviving offspring on the death of his brother, William IV, so naturally the crown fell to her.

She was like Edward today, the fourth child of our queen. Not inline to the throne. Victoria wasn't in line but became queen because there wasn't anyone else inline at that time


Also Elizabeth 1st was no bastard, her parents were legally wed by the law of that time. Also Mary Queen Scots was never inline for the English throne as the Greys had more rights than her.

Vintage wrote:Could be, anyway now I'm going to have to look for who would have taken the throne if there had been Salic law in Britain as it wouldn't have been Mathilda nor Stephen,  being the son of a sister.

What are you talking about? Succession isn't difficult. There are no special rules. It's just the next in line.

magica wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Nonsense.  Queen Victoria (1819-1901) was the daughter of Edward, Duke of Kent, fourth son of George III.  She was not "out of it and brought into rule", but the natural heir in the line of succession.  Edward was the only son of George III to have any surviving offspring on the death of his brother, William IV, so naturally the crown fell to her.

She was like Edward today, the fourth child of our queen. Not inline to the throne. Victoria wasn't in line but became queen because there wasn't anyone else inline at that time

What do you think "in-line" means?  "No one else" means you are next.    Surprise.  You're it!  

After the death of William IV, Victoria was simply the next in line.  Can you name anyone else?  No.  Everyone else was dead.

magica wrote:Also Elizabeth 1st was no bastard, her parents were legally wed by the law of that time. Also Mary Queen Scots was never inline for the English throne as the Greys had more rights than her.

Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn could not have been legally married, as Henry was still married to Catherine of Aragon.  Catherine died on January 1536, and Elizabeth I was born in September 1533.  Whooops...

Margaret was older than Henry, and way older than Mary in the female succession. The Grays were down-line from Margaret and Henry, and one degree removed from Mary Tudur.  Take a look:


.

Original Quill wrote:

magica wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Nonsense.  Queen Victoria (1819-1901) was the daughter of Edward, Duke of Kent, fourth son of George III.  She was not "out of it and brought into rule", but the natural heir in the line of succession.  Edward was the only son of George III to have any surviving offspring on the death of his brother, William IV, so naturally the crown fell to her.

She was like Edward today, the fourth child of our queen. Not inline to the throne. Victoria wasn't in line but became queen because there wasn't anyone else inline at that time

What do you think "in-line" means?  "No one else" means you are next.    Surprise.  You're it!  

After the death of William IV, Victoria was simply the next in line.  Can you name anyone else?  No.  Everyone else was dead.

magica wrote:Also Elizabeth 1st was no bastard, her parents were legally wed by the law of that time. Also Mary Queen Scots was never inline for the English throne as the Greys had more rights than her.

Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn could not have been legally married, as Henry was still married to Catherine of Aragon.  Catherine died on January 1536, and Elizabeth I was born in September 1533.  Whooops...

Margaret was older than Henry, and way older than Mary in the female succession. The Grays were down-line from Margaret and Henry, and one degree removed from Mary Tudur.  Take a look:


.

The marriage with Catherine was annulled, therefore no block to Henry's marrying Anne, which he did before Elizabeth was born. Though whether they were actually married before or after conception is a separate matter.

It a tad ironic to go off the legitimacy of ethier Mary or Elizabeth. When Henry VII had a very meagre and very weak claim to the throne. Espcially when he painted over existing coats of arms, with his own name. Then spent a huge amount of time, rewriting history, to make his very weak claim, as if legitimate, to gain not only disaffected Yorkists and Lancastrians. He simple usurped the throne by beating Richard III in battle.

If you look at the claimants to the throne say from 1066 when it was seized by William hardly any, if any at all, have a cast iron right to reign, some got it by seizure in battle, then because your great grandfather had fought for it and your family managed to hold on to it for a few generations, family in fighting and murdering, dubious paternity and illegal marriage and by default.

Eilzel wrote:

Original Quill wrote:
Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn could not have been legally married, as Henry was still married to Catherine of Aragon.  Catherine died on January 1536, and Elizabeth I was born in September 1533.  Whooops...

Margaret was older than Henry, and way older than Mary in the female succession. The Grays were down-line from Margaret and Henry, and one degree removed from Mary Tudur.  Take a look:


.

The marriage with Catherine was annulled, therefore no block to Henry's marrying Anne, which he did before Elizabeth was born. Though whether they were actually married before or after conception is a separate matter.

Ah huh...  I agree.  When Pope Clement refused Henry an an annulment--using, incidentally, the same arguments proffered by Henry to defend his marriage; Catherine had previously been married to his brother, Arthur--Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Cranmer cooked up the idea of an annulment under his own authority.

But, if the marriage to Catherine was annulled, which essentially declares that the marriage never existed, Catherine was just a sleep-over.  If there was never a marriage, there were no legitimate children.  That means that Mary Tudur was a bastard.

If Mary Tudur was a bastard, how did she ever become Queen?  It shows that the annulment was just a farce to get Henry out of a predicament.  It was a ruse, and no one believed it...moreover, very few people at the time believed in the Church of England.  The Church, too, was created to by-pass Pope Clement, and the Holy Roman Emperor, Catherine’s nephew, Charles V.

It was a farce of convenience for Henry.  The annulment, itself, was illegitimate, making the marriage to Anne illegitimate.  Consequently, Elizabeth was a bastard.

They were both declared bastards in 1536 which meant Henry then had three bastard children. When Mary came to the throne , the annulment of her parents marriage was overturned and she was declared legitimate, Elizabeth didn't bother.

Vintage wrote:They were both declared bastards in 1536 which meant Henry then had three bastard children. When Mary came to the throne , the annulment of her parents marriage was overturned and she was declared legitimate, Elizabeth didn't bother.

I know...it's such an obvious tactic. It's like: I'm the commander-in-chief, so I command that I am commander!!! It's tautological. And some people confuse it with religion: if you're catholic, Mary Stuart was queen; if protestant, Elizabeth. But that merely belies the fact that the Tudurs were putting the cart before the horse.

Anyway, after Elizabeth screwed Mary Stuart out of her throne, it was all put aright by Cecil following Elizabeth's death...James carried on as if nothing happened. But hey...Mary, Queen of Scots was a rare person. She was three Queens...of Scotland, first; of France, as the wife of Francis II; and of England. as the granddaughter of Margaret. Pretty cool.

Mary was never inline as Queen of England. Elizabeth was the the heir after her half sister Mary. Her son James was chosen after Elizabeth's death because he wasn't Catholic. It also joined both countries, UK.

magica wrote:Mary was never inline as Queen of England.  Elizabeth was the the heir after her half sister Mary. Her son James was chosen after Elizabeth's death because he wasn't Catholic. It also joined both countries, UK.

You haven't been following the discussion, have you? You are just saying things without any justification. You are not contributing...

Its quite amazing how many of the monarchs had problems with succession.
Henry l, his son and heir drowned, his daughter, although all the nobles including Stephen swore fealty to her as heir on three occasions, Stephen eventually took the throne. Mathilda apparently got on the wrong side of just about everyone so maybe it was for the best.
Henry VII had a nursery full of children then suddenly he was down to Henry, Margaret and Mary.
Henry Vlll what can you say about him he seemed a decent kind of person who loved his wife and surviving daughter and gave her an education fit for an heir, I can't help wondering why he didn't find a fitting consort for her, a plan B kind of thing, although I suppose everyone was so ambitious in the noble houses it would end up as a take over. There were a number of people who were considered in the line of succession during his father's reign if they'd been no heir, so I would think a suitable match could have been made and heirs produced in his lifetime .
There is a theory that the jousting accident in 1536 caused brain damage and personality change, he was unconscious for over 2 hours. Although, his treatment of a loyal and loving wife in Katherine seems to show someone who could be cold and uncaring in pursuit of his desires and in protecting his reputation of manliness.

Vintage wrote:Its quite amazing how many of the monarchs had problems with succession.
Henry l, his son and heir drowned, his daughter, although all the nobles including Stephen swore fealty to her as heir on three occasions, Stephen eventually took the throne. Mathilda apparently got on the wrong side of just about everyone so maybe it was for the best.

Stephen’s move was no surprise.  Under Salic law at the time, women were in no way allowed to inherit a crown.  So the presumption of right was that the crown should pass to Stephen.  The usurpation, if any, was Henry’s insistence that the crown should pass to his headstrong daughter.

What was unusual was that Henry I spoke up on behalf of his daughter Matilda, and got the nobles to swear fealty to her.  As we've discussed, Henry’s wife Matilda, the mother, may have been the deciding influence.  But, whatever, it was a momentous decision for England, creating a huge division with the rest of Europe; women could inherit the crown of England.

But any direct confrontation was avoided by compromise, having Stephen pass the crown on to Matilda's son, Henry II.  This took the edge off of having a female as head of state.  That would await the Tudurs.  See, John Knox, The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regiment of Women (1558).

Vintage wrote:Henry VII had a nursery full of children then suddenly he was down to Henry, Margaret and Mary.
Henry Vlll what can you say about him he seemed a decent kind of person who loved his wife and surviving daughter and gave her an education fit for an heir, I can't help wondering why he didn't find a fitting consort for her, a plan B kind of thing, although I suppose everyone was so ambitious in the noble houses it would end up as a take over. There were a number of people who were considered in the line of succession during his father's reign if they'd been no heir, so I would think a suitable match could have been made and heirs produced in his lifetime .
There is a theory that the jousting accident in 1536 caused brain damage and personality change, he was unconscious for over 2 hours. Although, his treatment of a loyal and loving wife in Katherine seems to show someone who could be cold and uncaring in pursuit of his desires and in protecting his reputation of manliness.

To Tudur fortunes, the death of Henry VII's first son Arthur was highly disruptive.  Arthur was trained to be king; his brother Henry trained to become Archbishop of Canterbury, or some other church-related role.  Henry was educated by his grandmother, Margret Beaufort, a deeply religious soul.  But Henry was also highly personable, handsome, and very athletic in his youth.  Neville Williams, Henry VIII and His Court (1971).  He was quite a beautiful, intelligent and popular prince.

The flaw of the Tudurs began with Henry VII.  Imagine he had just overthrown the mighty dynasty of the Plantagenets at the battle of Bosworth field.  Henry VII was not a stud; as the Earl of Richmond he was a bookish sort, who found himself thrust into a dynastic position that suddenly cast him as a super-hero.  I imagine it scared the crap outta him.  He was most anxious for he and his family to be accepted amid the European dynasties.

As I said earlier, Henry VII was a marrying fool—at one point he even suggested marrying his mother-in-law, Elizabeth Woodville, to James III, the Scottish king.  He did in fact marry his daughter, Margaret, to James IV--the union that eventually produced Mary, Queen of Scots.  He did everything to gain legitimacy for his Tudur name.

So, you can understand the obsessive preoccupation of young Henry VIII with producing a male heir.  It hounded him all of his life.  However, the jousting accident of 1536 clearly affected Henry VIII.  Today we are learning the personality effects of head injuries, and they are life-changing, producing a sort of perpetual hostility and belligerence toward everything.  I am one who believes it is possible this accident accounts for the profound personality change In Henry VIII.

Original Quill wrote:

magica wrote:Mary was never inline as Queen of England.  Elizabeth was the the heir after her half sister Mary. Her son James was chosen after Elizabeth's death because he wasn't Catholic. It also joined both countries, UK.

You haven't been following the discussion, have you?  You are just saying things without any justification.  You are not contributing...

Don't talk like that to me, who are you to say I'm not contributing.  I know more than you think. l won't bother anymore.

Btw it's spelt Tudor not Tudur.

magica wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You haven't been following the discussion, have you?  You are just saying things without any justification.  You are not contributing...

Don't talk like that to me, who are you to say I'm not contributing.   l won't bother anymore.

It is evident that you know very little history, nor do you know the rules of dynastic succession.  You just interject impulsive, incorrect comments, that interrupt the discussion I'm having with Vintage.

I have no problem with you hanging around and learning--google is a wonderful tool in this effort--also, ask questions.  But it's unproductive to create false arguments just to demand attention.

If I was impatient, I apologize.

magica wrote:Btw it's spelt Tudor not Tudur.

The Welsh spelling of the name is Tudur.

Wiki wrote:Tudur ([ˈtɨ̞dɨ̞r]), from Old Welsh Tutir, cognate with Gaulish Toutorix,[1] is the Welsh form of the given name Theodoric.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudur

Modernly, it has been anglicized to Tudor.  I prefer the correct, original spelling.

Original Quill wrote:

magica wrote:

Don't talk like that to me, who are you to say I'm not contributing.   l won't bother anymore.

It is evident that you know very little history, nor do you know the rules of dynastic succession.  You just interject impulsive, incorrect comments, that interrupt the discussion I'm having with Vintage.

I have no problem with you hanging around and learning--google is a wonderful tool in this effort--also, ask questions.  But it's unproductive to create false arguments just to demand attention.

If I was impatient, I apologize.

I think you're very rude. I was not coming in for attention, this is a board for anyone to take part. Didn't realise it was just you and Vin. I was saying what I felt was right. Don't try to belittle me, I'm not a fool.

Btw I know that is the Welsh spelling of Tudor, but as we are not in Wales I prefer Tudor to Tudur.

magica wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It is evident that you know very little history, nor do you know the rules of dynastic succession.  You just interject impulsive, incorrect comments, that interrupt the discussion I'm having with Vintage.

I have no problem with you hanging around and learning--google is a wonderful tool in this effort--also, ask questions.  But it's unproductive to create false arguments just to demand attention.

If I was impatient, I apologize.

I think you're very rude. I was not coming in for attention, this is a board for anyone to take part. Didn't realise it was just you and Vin.  I was saying what I felt was right.  Don't try to belittle me, I'm not a fool.

As I said, I am sorry.  It was late last night when I posted that, and I was tired.  I was impatient and snapped at you.  It was rude and uncalled for.

magica wrote:Btw I know that is the Welsh spelling of Tudor, but as we are not in Wales I prefer Tudor to Tudur.

Actually, we are in Texas.  But no matter, I am in California and I'm the one who likes to use the correct Welsh spelling:

What does Tudur mean?
The name Tudur is of Welsh origin.
The meaning of Tudur is "king of the tribe".

It consists of 5 letters and 2 syllables and is pronounced Tu-dur.
http://www.ourbabynamer.com/meaning-of-Tudur.html

As for the line of succession that's only adhered to in the most part if it suits the powerfuland equally easily dispensed with as required.
Mary and Elizabeth were heirs of the body of Henry Vlll, he put them in the line of succession after their brother and it was ratified by the council, so legal at least in England. Theoretically Mary Stuart was a contender but in real terms not, they'd just had a Catholic Queen and were only too glad to be rid of her, another one, with what seemed to be very poor judgement, wasn't going to be anywhere near welcome except by some Catholic diehards.
As for Henry Vll claim, his was as valid as any York claim, even though the Beaufort line was legitimised it was not supposed to be in the line of succession, yet Henry Tudor was enough of a threat to the Yorks that his life was in danger. After Arthur died the council were casting around looking for suitable heirs as if Prince Henry didn't exist.

The Beauforts were out of the union of John of Gaunt, 3rd son of Edward III, and his long time gf, Katherrine Swynford.  John was married to  Blanche of Lancaster.  John later married Swynford, and asked then King Richard II to legitimize his children with her, which he did, with one important caveat:

Wiki wrote:John married Katherine in 1396, and their children, the Beauforts, were legitimised by King Richard II and the Church, but barred from inheriting the throne. From the eldest son, John, descended a granddaughter, Margaret Beaufort, whose son, later King Henry VII of England, would nevertheless claim the throne.

So the Earl of Richmond (Henry VII) was half entitled, and half not entitled.  I think it's easier to say the Wars of Roses had gone on so long that the last guy standing was handed the crown and everybody went home.

Anyway, the Tudurs walked off with the crown.  They only lasted 116 years.

After all that, two brief reigns and one magnificent one, the dynasty ends. The bloodline continues albeit with Stuart, Hanovarian etc additions. Its interesting to see the connections between the Royal families of Europe through Queen Victoria and King Christian of Denmark's descendants.
Even the Norwegian royal family are in the line of succession for the British throne somewhere at about 76th. and onward.

Victoria was...well, productive.  After the death of Prince Albert, she became companion with John Brown, a Scottish personal attendant and favourite for many years.

This is what I mean about Mary Stuart...Mary needed a strong and sagacious John Brown in her life, instead of all the rubbish she kept marrying (except Francis II).  Ultimately, it got her killed...Elizabeth turned out to be a viper.

Elizabeth did what she had to, there were so many plots against her life, it was bad enough being a king, you had to continually watch your back and you had to 'remove' troublesome people on times, it must have been much harder for a Queen regnant, with religious, political and misogynistic elements in her own country constantly trying to get rid of her.

Original Quill wrote:

magica wrote:Mary was never inline as Queen of England.  Elizabeth was the the heir after her half sister Mary. Her son James was chosen after Elizabeth's death because he wasn't Catholic. It also joined both countries, UK.

You haven't been following the discussion, have you?  You are just saying things without any justification.  You are not contributing...

Maggs is right actually.

Henry VIII said in his will that after Edward would come Mary then Elizabeth, after which would come the offspring of his younger sister Mary, not Margaret. He banned her offspring from a look in at the crown. Bastards or not both his daughters were named in the succession.

The fact that after that would come the offspring of Mary was the cause of Northumberland taking his chances with Lady Jane Grey

He underestimated public feeling of fair play though. and even though the people weren't keen on a catholic monarch again there was no way they were going to let Mary Tudor be done out of her rights to what was rightfully hers.

Elizabeth was welcomed not only as the next in line, but also a protestant. plus she was very popular with the public

the only cousin she could have left the crown to was katherine Grey, younger sister of Jane but Elizabethf did not consider her worthy of it, nor did she like her so James it was

gelico wrote:Henry VIII said in his will that after Edward would come Mary then Elizabeth, after which would come the offspring of his younger sister Mary, not Margaret. He banned her offspring from a look in at the crown. Bastards or not both his daughters were named in the succession.

Who cares, ffs?  The guy is dead.  Once he's dead, his word, or will, means piss.

This is/was the problem with all declarations of succession.  As powerful and dictatorial a person might have been when he was alive, he's powerless when he's buried.  Many a ruler tried to hedge his bets by giving parts of his dominion to the heir before death.  Henry II appointed his first-born, Henry the Younger, to be co-ruler because he, of all people, knew he wouldn't get what he wanted after his death.

This is why rules of succession were invented.  Such rules assured kings of a uniform practice that rose above anyone's dictates, and could be depended upon regardless of acts or pronouncements.  That is why most of Europe, including the Church, followed Salic law.

Only when England, and later GB, grew into a parliamentary democracy, was succession given over to an active, sustaining body.  Haha...that sure wasn't the case in Tudur England.

Original Quill wrote:

gelico wrote:Henry VIII said in his will that after Edward would come Mary then Elizabeth, after which would come the offspring of his younger sister Mary, not Margaret. He banned her offspring from a look in at the crown. Bastards or not both his daughters were named in the succession.

Who cares, ffs?  The guy is dead.  Once he's dead, his word, or will, means piss.

magica wrote:
Mary was never inline as Queen of England.  Elizabeth was the the heir after her half sister Mary. Her son James was chosen after Elizabeth's death because he wasn't Catholic. It also joined both countries, UK.

quill wrote:
You haven't been following the discussion, have you? You are just saying things without any justification. You are not contributing...



I was just pointing out to you that Maggs (who you said wasn't following the discussion) was, in fact correct in what she said.

Don't worry quill, I can fully understand why you would respond with ''who cares''

I get it

I agree, Mary Stuart was not in line of succession, Henry's will was enacted by a law in Parliament, there's a lot to it and previous acts which made Mary illegitimate in 1533 and Elizabeth in 1536, then another later which put them back as heirs after their brother but did not change their illegitimate status.
The will stated Henry was able to dispose of the crown as he wished. he named Edward, Mary and Elizabeth and after them if needs be the descendants of his sister Mary, Duchess of Suffolk but specifically excluded her daughter Francis Brandon, so the Grey girls were definately in but also specifically excluded were the descendants of his sister Margaret Tudor, therefore Mary Stuart was not in the succession in a document passed as lawful by the parliament of the time.

gelico wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Who cares, ffs?  The guy is dead.  Once he's dead, his word, or will, means piss.

magica wrote:
Mary was never inline as Queen of England.  Elizabeth was the the heir after her half sister Mary. Her son James was chosen after Elizabeth's death because he wasn't Catholic. It also joined both countries, UK.

quill wrote:
You haven't been following the discussion, have you? You are just saying things without any justification. You are not contributing...



I was just pointing out to you that Maggs (who you said wasn't following the discussion) was, in fact correct in what she said.

Don't worry quill, I can fully understand why you would respond with ''who cares''

I get it

Good, I'm glad you follow.

Vintage wrote:I agree, Mary Stuart was not in line of succession, Henry's will was enacted by a law in Parliament, there's a lot to it and previous acts which made Mary illegitimate in 1533 and Elizabeth in 1536, then another later which put them back as heirs after their brother but did not change their illegitimate status.

Meh...see, that's the problem. The Acts of Parliament around Henry's time were usually dictated by Henry himself...no principle involved, just the wishes of a dead man. He was fickle and the people knew it. Both Mary Tudur and Elizabeth and been bastardized, and reinstated. After death, Henry was dead and couldn't enforce it.

Until Parliament became the real power (after the German kings, George Louis and George II, who didn't even speak the language) the monarch was who the people followed.

The people chose Mary Tudur, irrespective of what Henry said in his will. Despite her Catholacism, the people followed her and, despite having been disenfranchised in 1533, made her the Queen.

Vintage wrote:The will stated Henry was able to dispose of the crown as he wished. he named Edward, Mary and Elizabeth and after them if needs be the descendants of his sister Mary, Duchess of Suffolk but specifically excluded her daughter Francis Brandon, so the Grey girls were definately in but also specifically excluded were the descendants of his sister Margaret Tudor, therefore Mary Stuart was not in the succession in a document passed as lawful by the parliament of the time.

The will of Henry was so much rubbish floating on the wind. After Henry died, the will of Edward VI bequeathed the crown to Lady Jane. How did that work out? So much for wills.

If Mary Stuart had played her cards right, she'd have been at Mary Tudur's deathbed with a Franco-Scottish army (she was French Queen as well as Queen of Scots) behind her, ready to take over. Mary QoS was a poor judge of character, and consequently paid the price.

Indeed, the people were initially glad of Bloody Mary, largely I think due to her mother and her treatment by Henry when Anne came along, they soon came to regret their welcome of her though.
The will was ratified by act of Parliament, but then of course Edward decided to change the succession in his will which he was entitled to do, with the backing of his council and parliament. He decided to exclude his sisters and leap frog to the next ratified heirs in his father's will the Greys.
Mary Stuart was excluded in both, her father in law the King of France claimed the throne of England in her name, he even had her sign a secret document to bequeath Scotland and England to France on her death, she was about 15 at this time, yet within two years France and Scotland acknowledged Elizabeth as the legal Queen of England.
Only the die hard Catholics kept the flame of rebellion going. Mary would never have been accepted by English nobles and parliament especially if the secret document had come to light at that time.

Mary of Scotland would never have been a match for Elizabeth, even on her best days.

She was married off young and sent to France where she had no power whatsoever, did not take any interest in the running of the country, the mood of the  people, or any of the politics involved.  She was the darling of the court, spoiled, adored, feted, patted on the head and told to enjoy life which she did.  She had no experience at all when she left for Scotland and to think that her bastard half brother (who had been used to being in charge) was going to be her friend and support her showed she was very naive.  

Elizabeth, had supreme intelligence and a very high education.  she never knew whether she was going to be in or out of favour with the king and had to learn to be very discreet and artful.  Even more so when Mary came to the throne.  She managed to outfox her interrogators who were convinced she was part of a protestant plot against her sister.

when mary came to the throne of Scotland she was innocent, naive and used to the easy life.  she made her decisions based on her emotions

when Elizabeth came to the throne she had already escaped death a few times and was a born survivor who always made decisions based on logic