The Marriage of Mary, Queen of Scots

Mary wedded Francis, Dauphin of France on 24 April 1558.

Mary became Queen of Scots when she was less than a week old, on the death of her father, James in December 1542. Crowned at nine months, she was in the charge first of the Earl of Arran and then of her redoubtable mother, Mary of Guise, who was from one of the most powerful aristocratic families in France. A Roman Catholic and regent from 1554, she had to contend with both the rising tide of Protestantism in Scotland and the machinations of the English who had tried to force a marriage between the baby queen and Edward Tudor, the young heir to the English throne.

It was not a prospect Mary of Guise could tolerate and in 1548 the five-year-old Mary was sent to her grandmother Antoinette of Guise in France, where her Scottish entourage was considered appallingly barbarous and swiftly got rid of, and she was brought up as a Catholic Frenchwoman. French became her first language, she always called herself Marie Stuart and she loved dancing and hunting. She grew up delightfully charming, graceful and attractive, the French fell in love with her and Henry II of France resolved to marry her to his son and heir, the sickly dauphin Francis. A marriage treaty was signed with the Scots, which provided that Scotland and France should eventually be united under Mary and Francis as one kingdom. There were also secret agreements, which the youthful and inexperienced Mary signed, that would have made Scotland a mere adjunct of France.

Mary was fifteen and Francis fourteen when they were married with spectacular pageantry and magnificence in the cathedral of Notre Dame, Paris, by the Cardinal Archbishop of Rouen, in the presence of Henry II, Queen Catherine de’ Medici, the princes and princesses of the blood and a glittering throng of cardinals and nobles. The Duke of Guise was master of ceremonies. Mary in a white dress with a long train borne by two young girls, a diamond necklace and a golden coronet studded with jewels, was described by the courtier Pierre de Brantôme as ‘a hundred times more beautiful than a goddess of heaven … her person alone was worth a kingdom.’ The wedding was followed by a procession past excited crowds in the Paris streets to a grand banquet in the Palais de Justice with dancing far into the night.

Mary became Queen of France when Henry II died the following year, but Francis died prematurely in 1560. Whether the marriage was ever consummated is uncertain. Mary’s mother also died in 1560 and it suited the French to send her back to Scotland and claim that she was the rightful queen of England as well. She would eventually meet political and romantic disaster in Scotland, enduring years of imprisonment in England where, too dangerous a threat to Elizabeth’s throne, she was executed in 1587, at the age of forty-six.


https://www.historytoday.com/archive/months-past/marriage-mary-queen-scots

Mary was properly queen of three realms: Scotland, France and England, two royally. It was an amazing situation, and it killed her.

Highly doubtful it was consummated. Maybe a bit of heavy petting but nothing beyond. Francis was sickly and Catherine d’Medici wouldn’t let allow anything to further damage him. He did a bit of youthful boasting.

Catherine also didn’t want her hanging around in France as it was a distraction she didn’t need and was also fearful of losing her command over her next two sons who would become king in turn, as they were enamoured of Mary.

Mary probably found sexual fulfillment with Darnley but then he kept getting drunk and petulant about not receiving the Crown Matrimonial from Mary that he acted so disgusting when murdering Rizzio right in front of her, well no wonder she went off him.

Original Quill wrote:Mary was properly queen of three realms: Scotland, France and England, two royally.  It was an amazing situation, and it killed her.

Mary was rightfully the heir AFTER Elizabeth (hence her son becoming king) but not before her. That was her father-in-law, Henry II’s doing, and he only did it because Henry VIII would go changing the succession almost as much as he changed wives because he was having a tantrum.

Even then there would have been legal challenges because she was born in a foreign country and her grandmother, Mary Tudor, gave up her claims to the English throne when she married James IV of Scotland.

Cass wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Mary was properly queen of three realms: Scotland, France and England, two royally.  It was an amazing situation, and it killed her.

Mary was rightfully the heir AFTER Elizabeth (hence her son becoming king) but not before her. That was her father-in-law, Henry II’s doing, and he only did it because Henry VIII would go changing the succession almost as much as he changed wives because he was having a tantrum.

Even then there would have been legal challenges because she was born in a foreign country and her grandmother, Mary Tudor, gave up her claims to the English throne when she married James IV of Scotland.

Elizabeth was a bastard.  Archbishop Cranmer didn't give Henry a divorce, but an annulment.  So, either Mary Tudur or Elizabeth was a bastard.  Thus, if Mary Tudur was legitimate, Anne was a mistress, not a wife.  Elizabeth was not legitimate.

Original Quill wrote:

Cass wrote:

Mary was rightfully the heir AFTER Elizabeth (hence her son becoming king) but not before her. That was her father-in-law, Henry II’s doing, and he only did it because Henry VIII would go changing the succession almost as much as he changed wives because he was having a tantrum.

Even then there would have been legal challenges because she was born in a foreign country and her grandmother, Mary Tudor, gave up her claims to the English throne when she married James IV of Scotland.

Elizabeth was a bastard.  Archbishop Cranmer didn't give Henry a divorce, but an annulment.  So, either Mary Tudur or Elizabeth was a bastard.  Thus, if Mary Tudur was legitimate, Anne was a mistress, not a wife.  Elizabeth was not legitimate.

The above Mary should have been named Margaret Tudor. Don’t know why it typed Mary.

Anne became his legitimate wife after Catherine of Aragon died. So technically Mary was legitimate as was Elizabeth but both were pushed down by Edward VI. He wanted Elizabeth as his heir but Northumberland delayed getting him to sign anything which allowed him to put forth his daughter In law Jane Grey on spurious grounds that her grandmother Mary Tudor, Duchess of Suffolk was next in line as her older sister Margaret Tudor had married into a foreign country Scotland.

After Edward died, the people quite rightly saw Mary Tudor as the heir in spite of her Catholic religion or rather I should say her Roman Catholic religion. Henry, Wolsey, Cranmer, Cromwell, Gardiner all played fast and loose with the laws of succession.

Again it is semantics as MQOS son ultimately came to the throne. Some say he had a double right not only through his mother but through his father who was a great-nephew of Henry VIII.

phildidge wrote:Mary wedded Francis, Dauphin of France on 24 April 1558.

Mary became Queen of Scots when she was less than a week old, on the death of her father, James in December 1542. Crowned at nine months, she was in the charge first of the Earl of Arran and then of her redoubtable mother, Mary of Guise, who was from one of the most powerful aristocratic families in France. A Roman Catholic and regent from 1554, she had to contend with both the rising tide of Protestantism in Scotland and the machinations of the English who had tried to force a marriage between the baby queen and Edward Tudor, the young heir to the English throne.

It was not a prospect Mary of Guise could tolerate and in 1548 the five-year-old Mary was sent to her grandmother Antoinette of Guise in France, where her Scottish entourage was considered appallingly barbarous and swiftly got rid of, and she was brought up as a Catholic Frenchwoman. French became her first language, she always called herself Marie Stuart and she loved dancing and hunting. She grew up delightfully charming, graceful and attractive, the French fell in love with her and Henry II of France resolved to marry her to his son and heir, the sickly dauphin Francis. A marriage treaty was signed with the Scots, which provided that Scotland and France should eventually be united under Mary and Francis as one kingdom. There were also secret agreements, which the youthful and inexperienced Mary signed, that would have made Scotland a mere adjunct of France.

Mary was fifteen and Francis fourteen when they were married with spectacular pageantry and magnificence in the cathedral of Notre Dame, Paris, by the Cardinal Archbishop of Rouen, in the presence of Henry II, Queen Catherine de’ Medici, the princes and princesses of the blood and a glittering throng of cardinals and nobles. The Duke of Guise was master of ceremonies. Mary in a white dress with a long train borne by two young girls, a diamond necklace and a golden coronet studded with jewels, was described by the courtier Pierre de Brantôme as ‘a hundred times more beautiful than a goddess of heaven … her person alone was worth a kingdom.’ The wedding was followed by a procession past excited crowds in the Paris streets to a grand banquet in the Palais de Justice with dancing far into the night.

Mary became Queen of France when Henry II died the following year, but Francis died prematurely in 1560. Whether the marriage was ever consummated is uncertain. Mary’s mother also died in 1560 and it suited the French to send her back to Scotland and claim that she was the rightful queen of England as well. She would eventually meet political and romantic disaster in Scotland, enduring years of imprisonment in England where, too dangerous a threat to Elizabeth’s throne, she was executed in 1587, at the age of forty-six.


https://www.historytoday.com/archive/months-past/marriage-mary-queen-scots

That was the one phrase that jumped at me. Disgusting that cousins were betrothed to each other and saddled with the responsibility of marriage  and having to rule a kingdom at such young ages. There are many examples of teenage marriages like that one, some were conducted by proxy, in the bride's absence, the pair meeting at a convenient date afterwards,  maybe for the first time!  

In the mid 19th century a son of the Danish king was suddenly chosen to be the king of Greece. He arrived at the Greek palace to take up his post aged just 17 and they found a 16 yo bride for him, his Russian royal cousin.  Few days after the wedding she vanished, and everyone searched frantically everywhere and eventually found her under the stairs, playing with her dolls.  Says it all …….

phildidge wrote:Mary wedded Francis, Dauphin of France on 24 April 1558.

Mary became Queen of Scots when she was less than a week old, on the death of her father, James in December 1542. Crowned at nine months, she was in the charge first of the Earl of Arran and then of her redoubtable mother, Mary of Guise, who was from one of the most powerful aristocratic families in France. A Roman Catholic and regent from 1554, she had to contend with both the rising tide of Protestantism in Scotland and the machinations of the English who had tried to force a marriage between the baby queen and Edward Tudor, the young heir to the English throne.

It was not a prospect Mary of Guise could tolerate and in 1548 the five-year-old Mary was sent to her grandmother Antoinette of Guise in France, where her Scottish entourage was considered appallingly barbarous and swiftly got rid of, and she was brought up as a Catholic Frenchwoman. French became her first language, she always called herself Marie Stuart and she loved dancing and hunting. She grew up delightfully charming, graceful and attractive, the French fell in love with her and Henry II of France resolved to marry her to his son and heir, the sickly dauphin Francis. A marriage treaty was signed with the Scots, which provided that Scotland and France should eventually be united under Mary and Francis as one kingdom. There were also secret agreements, which the youthful and inexperienced Mary signed, that would have made Scotland a mere adjunct of France.

Mary was fifteen and Francis fourteen when they were married with spectacular pageantry and magnificence in the cathedral of Notre Dame, Paris, by the Cardinal Archbishop of Rouen, in the presence of Henry II, Queen Catherine de’ Medici, the princes and princesses of the blood and a glittering throng of cardinals and nobles. The Duke of Guise was master of ceremonies. Mary in a white dress with a long train borne by two young girls, a diamond necklace and a golden coronet studded with jewels, was described by the courtier Pierre de Brantôme as ‘a hundred times more beautiful than a goddess of heaven … her person alone was worth a kingdom.’ The wedding was followed by a procession past excited crowds in the Paris streets to a grand banquet in the Palais de Justice with dancing far into the night.

Mary became Queen of France when Henry II died the following year, but Francis died prematurely in 1560. Whether the marriage was ever consummated is uncertain. Mary’s mother also died in 1560 and it suited the French to send her back to Scotland and claim that she was the rightful queen of England as well. She would eventually meet political and romantic disaster in Scotland, enduring years of imprisonment in England where, too dangerous a threat to Elizabeth’s throne, she was executed in 1587, at the age of forty-six.


https://www.historytoday.com/archive/months-past/marriage-mary-queen-scots

Just as well.  
French was the official language used in all European courts, for a while.  With so many languages spoken among the various royals, it was French that was chosen as the official language of communication. Shows how imposing & domineering they were. Ironic that they were one of the first nations to get rid of their monarchy.

Jules wrote:

phildidge wrote:Mary wedded Francis, Dauphin of France on 24 April 1558.

Mary became Queen of Scots when she was less than a week old, on the death of her father, James in December 1542. Crowned at nine months, she was in the charge first of the Earl of Arran and then of her redoubtable mother, Mary of Guise, who was from one of the most powerful aristocratic families in France. A Roman Catholic and regent from 1554, she had to contend with both the rising tide of Protestantism in Scotland and the machinations of the English who had tried to force a marriage between the baby queen and Edward Tudor, the young heir to the English throne.

It was not a prospect Mary of Guise could tolerate and in 1548 the five-year-old Mary was sent to her grandmother Antoinette of Guise in France, where her Scottish entourage was considered appallingly barbarous and swiftly got rid of, and she was brought up as a Catholic Frenchwoman. French became her first language, she always called herself Marie Stuart and she loved dancing and hunting. She grew up delightfully charming, graceful and attractive, the French fell in love with her and Henry II of France resolved to marry her to his son and heir, the sickly dauphin Francis. A marriage treaty was signed with the Scots, which provided that Scotland and France should eventually be united under Mary and Francis as one kingdom. There were also secret agreements, which the youthful and inexperienced Mary signed, that would have made Scotland a mere adjunct of France.

Mary was fifteen and Francis fourteen when they were married with spectacular pageantry and magnificence in the cathedral of Notre Dame, Paris, by the Cardinal Archbishop of Rouen, in the presence of Henry II, Queen Catherine de’ Medici, the princes and princesses of the blood and a glittering throng of cardinals and nobles. The Duke of Guise was master of ceremonies. Mary in a white dress with a long train borne by two young girls, a diamond necklace and a golden coronet studded with jewels, was described by the courtier Pierre de Brantôme as ‘a hundred times more beautiful than a goddess of heaven … her person alone was worth a kingdom.’ The wedding was followed by a procession past excited crowds in the Paris streets to a grand banquet in the Palais de Justice with dancing far into the night.

Mary became Queen of France when Henry II died the following year, but Francis died prematurely in 1560. Whether the marriage was ever consummated is uncertain. Mary’s mother also died in 1560 and it suited the French to send her back to Scotland and claim that she was the rightful queen of England as well. She would eventually meet political and romantic disaster in Scotland, enduring years of imprisonment in England where, too dangerous a threat to Elizabeth’s throne, she was executed in 1587, at the age of forty-six.


https://www.historytoday.com/archive/months-past/marriage-mary-queen-scots

That was the one phrase that jumped at me. Disgusting that cousins were betrothed to each other and saddled with the responsibility of marriage  and having to rule a kingdom at such young ages. There are many examples of teenage marriages like that one, some  were conducted by proxy, in the bride's absence, the pair meeting at a convenient date afterwards,  maybe for the first time!  

In the mid 19th century a son of the Danish king was suddenly chosen to be the king of Greece. He arrived at the Greek palace to take up his post aged just 17 and they found a 16 yo bride for him, his Russian royal cousin.  Few days after the wedding she vanished, and everyone searched frantically everywhere and eventually found her under the stairs, playing with her dolls.  Says it all …….

 

Hi Jules

You will also find examples of where they were younger than teens. When married off within Royalty back then. Its quite appalling and some were mere toddlers in some cases.

Sure Vintage or Cass could elaborate more on examples. They know this era, more than I. 

I am more military in knowledge for this time

Have no time to go into today, sorry.

@Cass, great points and spot on.

phildidge wrote:Have no time to go into today, sorry.

Ah don't worry, p/d, there's always tomorrow.  
And I know about royal 'toddler' marriages too. But it's all ancient history now.


We should all worry more about some disturbing traditions that are practiced even today. If they are not exposed, how will we get people to ever change. >

 

Too true Jules, the problem of child brides today is appalling

https://www.girlsnotbrides.org/where-does-it-happen/

Cass wrote:Anne became his legitimate wife after Catherine of Aragon died.

Catherine of Aragon died January 7, 1536. Elizabeth was born September 7, 1533. I’ve never heard of retroactive legitimacy.

Are you making this up?

Original Quill wrote:

Cass wrote:Anne became his legitimate wife after Catherine of Aragon died.

Catherine of Aragon died January 7, 1536.  Elizabeth was born September 7, 1533.  I’ve never heard of retroactive legitimacy.

Are you making this up?

You are cherry picking what she said.

Do you want the rest of her post again?

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Catherine of Aragon died January 7, 1536.  Elizabeth was born September 7, 1533.  I’ve never heard of retroactive legitimacy.

Are you making this up?

You are cherry picking what she said.

Do you want the rest of her post again?

Nah. I believe laws of succession are meaningless. Henry tried, and so did Edward. What happened? When dead, a monarch loses all power. No one cared.

England follows salic law, to a modified extent. Unlike France, the female line can inherit (or pass through) the seat of power.

The proof is in the pudding. On Elizabeth’s death, James, son of Mary Queen of Scots, inherited the English throne. Later on, when his grandson James II tucked tail and ran, they went all the way back to James I, and followed the line of his daughter, Elizabeth, to the German kings.

Never fails. Salic law rules.

Original Quill wrote:

phildidge wrote:

You are cherry picking what she said.

Do you want the rest of her post again?

Nah.  I believe laws of succession are meaningless.  Henry tried, and so did Edward.  What happened?  When dead, a monarch loses all power.  No one cared.

England follows salic law, to a modified extent.  Unlike France, the female line can inherit (or pass through) the seat of power.

The proof is in the pudding.  On Elizabeth’s death, James, son of Mary Queen of Scots, inherited the English throne.  Later on, when his grandson James II tucked tail and ran, they went all the way back to James I, and followed the line of his daughter, Elizabeth, to the German kings.

Never fails.  Salic law rules.

You are contradicting yourself, saying the laws are meaningless. Which would render your point meaningless

As seen it has changed the line of succession throughout history

Plus James II was desposed.

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Nah.  I believe laws of succession are meaningless.  Henry tried, and so did Edward.  What happened?  When dead, a monarch loses all power.  No one cared.

England follows salic law, to a modified extent.  Unlike France, the female line can inherit (or pass through) the seat of power.

The proof is in the pudding.  On Elizabeth’s death, James, son of Mary Queen of Scots, inherited the English throne.  Later on, when his grandson James II tucked tail and ran, they went all the way back to James I, and followed the line of his daughter, Elizabeth, to the German kings.

Never fails.  Salic law rules.

You are contradicting yourself, saying the laws are meaningless. Which would render your point meaningless

As seen it has changed the line of succession throughout history

It hasn't, and that's the point.  Monarchs can shout laws of succession all they want, and once they are dead the people do what they want.

phil wrote:Plus James II was desposed.

Deposed or run off, what's the difference?  He got his hat.

James II was a Catholic whose second marriage was to a Catholic.  When his son was born, he saw the writing on the wall and scurried off to France.  To say he was deposed is liking closing the barn door after the horse has escaped, and declaring it's all secure.

James II protestant daughters Mary (with William of Orange) and Anne replaced him for a brief period.  Then, when they produced no heir, it was right over to Elizabeth and her progeny, the Germans.

Salic law rules.

It make big difference

His crown was taken away from him and he hardly ran away.

He tried to win the crown back and his ancestors continued to do so. I guess you have never heard of the Battle of the Boyne.

It had nothing to do with Salic laws, but religious prefernece

Jules wrote:

phildidge wrote:Mary wedded Francis, Dauphin of France on 24 April 1558.

Mary became Queen of Scots when she was less than a week old, on the death of her father, James in December 1542. Crowned at nine months, she was in the charge first of the Earl of Arran and then of her redoubtable mother, Mary of Guise, who was from one of the most powerful aristocratic families in France. A Roman Catholic and regent from 1554, she had to contend with both the rising tide of Protestantism in Scotland and the machinations of the English who had tried to force a marriage between the baby queen and Edward Tudor, the young heir to the English throne.

It was not a prospect Mary of Guise could tolerate and in 1548 the five-year-old Mary was sent to her grandmother Antoinette of Guise in France, where her Scottish entourage was considered appallingly barbarous and swiftly got rid of, and she was brought up as a Catholic Frenchwoman. French became her first language, she always called herself Marie Stuart and she loved dancing and hunting. She grew up delightfully charming, graceful and attractive, the French fell in love with her and Henry II of France resolved to marry her to his son and heir, the sickly dauphin Francis. A marriage treaty was signed with the Scots, which provided that Scotland and France should eventually be united under Mary and Francis as one kingdom. There were also secret agreements, which the youthful and inexperienced Mary signed, that would have made Scotland a mere adjunct of France.

Mary was fifteen and Francis fourteen when they were married with spectacular pageantry and magnificence in the cathedral of Notre Dame, Paris, by the Cardinal Archbishop of Rouen, in the presence of Henry II, Queen Catherine de’ Medici, the princes and princesses of the blood and a glittering throng of cardinals and nobles. The Duke of Guise was master of ceremonies. Mary in a white dress with a long train borne by two young girls, a diamond necklace and a golden coronet studded with jewels, was described by the courtier Pierre de Brantôme as ‘a hundred times more beautiful than a goddess of heaven … her person alone was worth a kingdom.’ The wedding was followed by a procession past excited crowds in the Paris streets to a grand banquet in the Palais de Justice with dancing far into the night.

Mary became Queen of France when Henry II died the following year, but Francis died prematurely in 1560. Whether the marriage was ever consummated is uncertain. Mary’s mother also died in 1560 and it suited the French to send her back to Scotland and claim that she was the rightful queen of England as well. She would eventually meet political and romantic disaster in Scotland, enduring years of imprisonment in England where, too dangerous a threat to Elizabeth’s throne, she was executed in 1587, at the age of forty-six.


https://www.historytoday.com/archive/months-past/marriage-mary-queen-scots

That was the one phrase that jumped at me. Disgusting that cousins were betrothed to each other and saddled with the responsibility of marriage  and having to rule a kingdom at such young ages. There are many examples of teenage marriages like that one, some  were conducted by proxy, in the bride's absence, the pair meeting at a convenient date afterwards,  maybe for the first time!  

In the mid 19th century a son of the Danish king was suddenly chosen to be the king of Greece. He arrived at the Greek palace to take up his post aged just 17 and they found a 16 yo bride for him, his Russian royal cousin.  Few days after the wedding she vanished, and everyone searched frantically everywhere and eventually found her under the stairs, playing with her dolls.  Says it all …….

Yes William I and Olga. Yes she took her dolls with her to Greece. He was the brother of Queen Alexandra and Empress Marie of Russia.

Royalty were married to their cousins quite frequently. Victoria and Albert were first cousins through her mother and his father. Mary of Modena, wife to James II was only
15. Plenty of times girls were engaged from young ages and then it was broken off.
I’ve read if children being wed as young as 4, mostly heiresses who were wards.

Original Quill wrote:

Cass wrote:Anne became his legitimate wife after Catherine of Aragon died.

Catherine of Aragon died January 7, 1536.  Elizabeth was born September 7, 1533.  I’ve never heard of retroactive legitimacy.

Are you making this up?

No.

Anne Boleyn wasn’t arrested until May 1536. Henry made Elizabeth legitimate in 1533. Mary Tudor was then declared bastard through the law. But as soon as Anne was executed Henry made a law making Elizabeth a bastard as well so for a short time she was legitimate. Technically after Edward died (who wanted Elizabeth to be next) they were both still bastards until Mary captured Jane Grey. She then annulled her parents annulment through Parliament making her legitimate again. I don’t think Eliydid the same. She concentrated on the fact of who her father was and her claim through him and never some about her mother (although she wore her picture until she died).

phildidge wrote:It make big difference

His crown was taken away from him and he hardly ran away.

He tried to win the crown back and his ancestors continued to do so. I guess you have never heard of the Battle of the Boyne.

It had nothing to do with Salic laws, but religious prefernece

Quite right. Parliament asked William to invade and depose his father in law. He demanded the Crown Matrimonial before he agreed, hence why he was able to still be king after Mary died of smallpox. Last instance of that happening in the U.K. and pretty much everywhere, Mothers were regents only.

Cass wrote:

phildidge wrote:It make big difference

His crown was taken away from him and he hardly ran away.

He tried to win the crown back and his ancestors continued to do so. I guess you have never heard of the Battle of the Boyne.

It had nothing to do with Salic laws, but religious prefernece

Quite right. Parliament asked William to invade and depose his father in law. He demanded the Crown Matrimonial before he agreed, hence why he was able to still be king after Mary died of smallpox. Last instance of that happening in the U.K. and pretty much everywhere, Mothers were regents only.

Well said me Lady

Sometimes Quill baffles me. He has a great knowledge of history but sometimes with British history. He simple invents his own view onto that part of history. That makes little to no sense.

Cass wrote:

phildidge wrote:It make big difference

His crown was taken away from him and he hardly ran away.

He tried to win the crown back and his ancestors continued to do so. I guess you have never heard of the Battle of the Boyne.

It had nothing to do with Salic laws, but religious prefernece

Quite right. Parliament asked William to invade and depose his father in law. He demanded the Crown Matrimonial before he agreed, hence why he was able to still be king after Mary died of smallpox. Last instance of that happening in the U.K. and pretty much everywhere, Mothers were regents only.

But James was never disposed. Parliament pulled back from disposing James as king. They only declared that James, by his flight and the act of throwing the great Seal into the river, had abdicated his throne.

Who cares how James escaped? Events were framed by then. William, not wishing to make James II a martyr, let him to escape in December, 1688. He was received by King Louis XIV of France, his fellow-Catholic, cousin and ally.

We were talking about Acts of Succession. They never came up with James. They are as worthless as the paper they are written upon. As soon as the originator is dead, he's just another cadaver. People will do what they want...they follow salic law.

The interlude of Mary and Anne, after James escaped to France, was in keeping with salic law... they were, after all, both Stuart daughters.

As soon as Anne died, like a whiplash the English people resorted immediately to salic law. The English went back up the line to James I, followed the line of his daughter, Elizabeth, and thence to the Hanover kings.

lol, someone has been looking up wiki and nearly word for word

That is still desposing the King, inplace of another. No matter how they want to word it.

He never abdicated and Parlimented decided that he had, hence they desposed of the King. It was there decision that led to a replacement. All organised by them.

Again this had everying to do with religion and nothing to do with Salic Laws

phildidge wrote:lol, someone has been looking up wiki and nearly word for word

That is still desposing the King, inplace of another. No matter how they want to word it.

He never abdicated and Parlimented decided that he had, hence they desposed of the King. It was there decision that led to a replacement. All organised by them.

Again this had everying to do with religion and nothing to do with Salic Laws

My internet is much better than yours.

James II was chased off, and replaced by this two daughters, in succession. No deposition. No Act of Succession.

Keep your eye upon the doughnut, and not upon the hole.

Original Quill wrote:

phildidge wrote:lol, someone has been looking up wiki and nearly word for word

That is still desposing the King, inplace of another. No matter how they want to word it.

He never abdicated and Parlimented decided that he had, hence they desposed of the King. It was there decision that led to a replacement. All organised by them.

Again this had everying to do with religion and nothing to do with Salic Laws

My internet is much better than yours.  

James II was chased off, and replaced by this two daughters, in succession.  No deposition.  No Act of Succession.  

Keep your eye upon the doughnut, and not upon the hole.

He was captured and William deliberately made sure he escaped and clearly to use to his advantage

Again it shows Parliment desposed of him

That is clear, as it was they who decided that he had vacated the throne.

He never did and tried to reclaim his throne

So did some of his descendents

So no matter how you many times you keep presenting revisionist history, I will continue to constantly correct your many errors

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

My internet is much better than yours.  

James II was chased off, and replaced by this two daughters, in succession.  No deposition.  No Act of Succession.  

Keep your eye upon the doughnut, and not upon the hole.

He was captured and William deliberately made sure he escaped and clearly to use to his advantage

Again it shows Parliment desposed of him

That is clear, as it was they who decided that he had vacated the throne.

He never did and tried to reclaim his throne

So did some of his descendents

So no matter how you many times you keep presenting revisionist history, I will continue to constantly correct your many errors

Again quite right. Why he doesn’t stop I don’t know. Neither of us never said it wasn’t about religion when we both know it was.

Mary Queen of Scots was forced under duress to sign an act of abdication but James II never did. Otherwise what in the hell was the point of the Battle of The Boyne?

His son, The Old Pretender, and his grandson The Young Pretender both tried to raise money and troops to take back the Crown. Louis XIV gave them a home, money to live on and money to get back the Crown. Both died knowing that they were the rightful heirs to the British Throne.

Cass wrote:

phildidge wrote:

He was captured and William deliberately made sure he escaped and clearly to use to his advantage

Again it shows Parliment desposed of him

That is clear, as it was they who decided that he had vacated the throne.

He never did and tried to reclaim his throne

So did some of his descendents

So no matter how you many times you keep presenting revisionist history, I will continue to constantly correct your many errors

Again quite right. Why he doesn’t stop I don’t know. Neither of us never said it wasn’t about religion when we both know it was.

Mary Queen of Scots was forced under duress to sign an act of abdication but James II never did. Otherwise what in the hell was the point of the Battle of The Boyne?

His son, The Old Pretender, and his grandson The Young Pretender both tried to raise money and troops to take back the Crown. Louis XIV gave them a home, money to live on and money to get back the Crown. Both died knowing that they were the rightful heirs to the British Throne.

Spot on

Seriously me Lady, Quill frustrates me, with his revisionist history. Still its always interesting

I don't particularly like the Tudor period as there was such a high turnover of monarchs. 


I had to memorise the initials of them or make mnemonics - and then in the middle of a quiz - I'd forget the flipping mnemonic,  back to square 1 - grrrr!! 

It's an interesting topic but your choice seems very random, given that you could have chosen 101 other random monarchs to discuss.


So, why choose Mary of all people ......... Is there something about Mary?  

Jules wrote:It's an interesting topic but your choice seems very random, given that you could have chosen 101 other random monarchs to discuss.


So, why choose Mary of all people ......... Is there something about Mary?  

The story was posted on the anniversary of her wedding Jules

I guess that is why the article appeared in the History Today on that day

I think Jules was making a joke Didge.

Syl wrote:I think Jules was making a joke Didge.

Yeah I know, as there was a film, with said title with Cameron Diaz

@ Phildidge
Okeydoke.

I will lookout for one of Henry8th 's anniversaries and might make a thread.

6 nubile wives & only a total of 3 offspring to show for it ffs, despite his best efforts!  No wonder he was such a bullying overbearing, buffoon - he was clearly trying to compensate for his lacklustre performance in the boudoir.

Syl wrote:I think Jules was making a joke Didge.

Hehehe.
Busted!

phil wrote:He was captured and William deliberately made sure he escaped and clearly to use to his advantage

Yep.

phil wrote:Again it shows Parliment desposed of him

So, you don't know what ‘deposed’ means?

Oxford defines it as: “remove from office suddenly and forcefully.” Allowing the monarch to escape doesn't sound very forceful.

phil wrote:That is clear, as it was they who decided that he had vacated the throne.

He never did and tried to reclaim his throne

On December 11, 1688, James tried to flee to France, first throwing the Great Seal into the Thames. James was soon captured in Kent; later, he was released and placed under Dutch protective guard. Believing the escape was a good idea, and having no desire to make James a martyr, William let him escape on December 23, 1688.

So far from deposing James, as you argue phil, it appears that William was an aider and abettor to the escape. Parliament later took James’ abandonment and throwing away the seal to be “abdication”.

'Abdication' means something different than 'deposition'. The Oxford Dictionary defines 'abdication' as: ”an act of renouncing the throne.” If you are unfamiliar with these terms, you might try and look them up.

But, I guess my internet is better than yours.

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:He was captured and William deliberately made sure he escaped and clearly to use to his advantage

Yep.

phil wrote:Again it shows Parliment desposed of him

So, you don't know what ‘deposed’ means?

Oxford defines it as: “remove from office suddenly and forcefully.”  Allowing the monarch to escape doesn't sound very forceful.

phil wrote:Yes I do know what it means and he was removed from office by force. Theyvoted in Parliment for this to happen. William was the one that allowed him to escape not Parliment.

On December 11, 1688, James tried to flee to France, first throwing the Great Seal into the Thames.  James was soon captured in Kent; later, he was released and placed under Dutch protective guard. Believing the escape was a good idea, and having no desire to make James a martyr, William let him escape on December 23, 1688.

But, I guess my internet is better than yours.

He never abdicated and no matter how many times you continue to invent this, it was Parliment that removed him from power. Not William or James II

In fact as seen James try to take back his throne at the Battle of the Boyne

So no where did James renounce his throne. That agains was Parliment

I suggest you stop embarressing yourself on some history you clearly know very little about and have to interpret what you have read on google

phil wrote:He never abdicated and no matter how many times you continue to invent this, it waqs Parliment that removed him from power. Not William or James II

Perhaps, James didn't agree with Parliament. It's not my concern. My concern is with how he lost the monarchy.

phil wrote:In fact as seen James try to take back his throne at the Battle of the Boyne

Perhaps, James didn't agree with Parliament. It's not my concern.

phil wrote:So no where did James renounce his throne. That agains was Parliment

Parliament took his actions as abdication. Again, perhaps James didn't agree, but history thinks otherwise.

phil wrote:I suggest you stop embarressing yourself on some history you clearly know very little about and have to interpret what you have read on google

You are an ignorant fool.

Jules wrote:@ Phildidge
Okeydoke.

I will lookout for one of Henry8th 's anniversaries and might make a thread.

6 nubile wives & only a total of 3 offspring to show for it ffs, despite his best efforts!  No wonder he was such a bullying overbearing, buffoon - he was clearly trying to compensate for his lacklustre performance in the boudoir.

Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived (although for not that long). That will always be in my head.

New research suggests an x-linked chromosomal order and rare blood type (kell positive ) although others have suggested Type II diabetes, syphilis, Cushing's syndrome, or myxedema, which is a byproduct of hypothyroidism, much of which explains his bad health from about 35 onwards (he was nearly 400 pound at death) and what could be described as his insanity.

His father’s health was not the best but both of them were severe hypochondriacs.

Representatives of the English political elite invited William to assume the English throne; after he landed in Brixham on 5 November 1688, James's army deserted and he went into exile in France on 23 December. In February 1689, Parliament held he had 'vacated' the English throne and installed William and Mary as joint monarchs, establishing the principle that sovereignty derived from Parliament, not birth. James landed in Ireland on 14 March 1689 in an attempt to recover his kingdoms but despite a simultaneous rising in Scotland, in April a Scottish Convention followed their English colleagues by ruling James had 'forfeited' the throne and offered it to William and Mary. After defeat at the Battle of the Boyne in July 1690, James returned to France where he spent the rest of his life in exile at Saint-Germain, protected by Louis XIV.


https://www.revolvy.com/page/James-II-of-England

So its plain as day, that James was forced out of power by Parliment

This shows even more this had nothing to do with Salic laws

If Quill wants to argue against facts, after they have been presented, then its clear he cannot admit to being wrong

@Cass

Have you see the film yet Mary (Queen of Scotts)?

Not seen yet, but really want to see.

I have seen "The Favorite" Is very funny and think you would enjoy. Have you watched also?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYb-wkehT1g

phildidge wrote:@Cass

Have you see the film yet Mary (Queen of Scotts)?

Not seen yet, but really want to see.

I have seen "The Favorite" Is very funny and think you would enjoy. Have you watched also?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYb-wkehT1g

Yes I have seen both. Mary drove me crazy for all sorts of historical reasons but it was beautiful to watch. I had to keep stuffing popcorn in my mouth to stifle my screams. Now Mr. C and my mum loved it.

The Favourite was fabulous. Olivia Coleman was simply amazing and truly deserved her Oscar. Rachel and Emma were also great. Apart from the whorehouse scene, it was mostly true historically. It got the poignancy of Anne across very well. Now this one Me. C and my mum hated. Peasants

Cass wrote:

phildidge wrote:@Cass

Have you see the film yet Mary (Queen of Scotts)?

Not seen yet, but really want to see.

I have seen "The Favorite" Is very funny and think you would enjoy. Have you watched also?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYb-wkehT1g

Yes I have seen both. Mary drove me crazy for all sorts of historical reasons but it was beautiful to watch. I had to keep stuffing popcorn in my mouth to stifle my screams. Now Mr. C and my mum loved it.

The Favourite was fabulous. Olivia Coleman was simply amazing and truly deserved her Oscar. Rachel and Emma were also great. Apart from the whorehouse scene, it was mostly true historically. It got the poignancy of Anne across very well. Now this one Me. C and my mum hated. Peasants

lol, ha ha. I thought it was very clever and funny and all the women played great parts. So completely agree with you. Funny how Mr C and your mum did not like it and liked Mary...

I did see the "Outlaw King" which I have to say was really disappointing.

So I guess there is many historical inaccuracies in Mary. Still will watch mind

phildidge wrote:

Cass wrote:

Yes I have seen both. Mary drove me crazy for all sorts of historical reasons but it was beautiful to watch. I had to keep stuffing popcorn in my mouth to stifle my screams. Now Mr. C and my mum loved it.

The Favourite was fabulous. Olivia Coleman was simply amazing and truly deserved her Oscar. Rachel and Emma were also great. Apart from the whorehouse scene, it was mostly true historically. It got the poignancy of Anne across very well. Now this one Me. C and my mum hated. Peasants

lol, ha ha. I thought it was very clever and funny and all the women played great parts. So completely agree with you. Funny how Mr C and your mum did not like it and liked Mary...

I did see the "Outlaw King" which I have to say was really disappointing.

So I guess there is many historical inaccuracies in Mary. Still will watch mind

They don’t like history as much as I do. Well mum does but yeah it was weird. Like I said, peasants

Oh yes I’m glad I watched MQS. I’ve seen a lot worse. Like I said visually stunning but I’m fairly certain the history will drive you nuts. I can’t divorce my mind enough at the movies.

Agree on the Outlaw King though.

I read somewhere that even though Henry had various disorders which may have contributed to the miscarriages and early births of his children by Catherine she could have had 'sticky blood' disorder and if aspirin had been available she may well have successfully given birth to 6 children. Whether all would have remained healthy is debatable due to whatever Henry suffered from and the times.
Catherine, especially in the early years had no difficulty conceiving, and seemed to carry her babies without any problems but seemed to deliver them too early.
I often wonder how things would have panned out if she had managed to produce an heir and spare and a couple of girls maybe. I don't think Britain would have remained Catholic though.

Vintage wrote:I read somewhere that even though Henry had various disorders which may have contributed to the miscarriages and early births of his children by Catherine she could have had 'sticky blood' disorder and if aspirin had been available she may well have successfully given birth to 6 children. Whether all would have remained healthy is debatable due to whatever Henry suffered from and the times.
Catherine, especially in the early years had no difficulty conceiving,  and seemed to carry her babies without any problems but seemed to deliver them too early.
I often wonder how things would have panned out if she had managed to produce an heir and spare and a couple of girls maybe. I don't think Britain would have remained Catholic though.

That is interesting Vintage.

Do you have a link?

Be very interested to read this hypothesis

Thanks

I don't have a link re Catherine I think it may have been a tv programme there is one on Henry possibly having a blood problem which could also cause him and his wives and mistresses to have problems with their offspring
https://www.history.com/news/did-blood-cause-henry-viiis-madness-and-reproductive-woes

Vintage wrote:I don't have a link re Catherine I think it may have been a tv programme there is one on Henry possibly having a blood problem which could also cause him and his wives and mistresses to have problems with their offspring
https://www.history.com/news/did-blood-cause-henry-viiis-madness-and-reproductive-woes

Thanks Vintage. Is also interesting to read

There are some who also point to his accident at the joust and say it could be brain damage that changed his personality so drastically, we'll never know I suppose, although I do wonder if something couldn't be found out with his skeleton and DNA, considering the recent discoveries with Richard lll and the Egyptian mummies. I doubt it would be allowed though. Many monarchs seem to have problems having children or/ those children surviving although some were prolific and it still caused problems, thinking Henry ll for an example.

Vintage wrote:There are some who also point to his accident at the joust and say it could be brain damage that changed his personality so drastically, we'll never know I suppose, although I do wonder if something couldn't be found out with his skeleton and DNA, considering  the recent discoveries with Richard lll and the Egyptian mummies. I doubt it would be allowed though. Many monarchs seem to have problems having children or/ those children surviving although some were prolific and it still caused problems, thinking Henry ll for an example.

I have read that before and that he was quite normal before the head injury. Which then changed his temprement.

Henry VIII, former King of England (1491–1547), is remembered as the monarch who broke with Roman Catholicism and paved the way for centuries of British military expansion. His erratic behaviour towards the end of his life has long puzzled both historians and physicians. The latter have tried to explain his abrupt personality and behavioural changes in terms of a host of diseases and syndromes—namely, Cushing's syndrome, diabetes, hypothyroidism, syphilis, leg ulcers, and McLeod syndrome with psychosis and infertility. 1 Although all these nosological entities might explain some of his symptoms, none account for the whole pathological picture. So what condition can explain all of the King's symptoms? His dramatic neurological changes featured memory loss, outbursts of anger, depressed mood, and sociopathy. Post-traumatic growth hormone deficiency might explain his obesity; muscle weakness, a complication of venous hypertension and leg ulceration, and hypogonadism might well be explained by a series of head traumas that the King had in 1524, 1525, and 1536 while jousting or hawking, dangerous activities on which he spent a great deal of his time.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(16)30006-0/fulltext

All these theories are very interesting and go a long way to explaing many aspects of their lives