The Marriage of Mary, Queen of Scots

First topic message reminder :

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

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

That’s the link I read last year although I think it was first discussed back in 2011. Possibly Mary inherited this from her father but also her age was a factor when she married Phillip II. He went on to have children but mind you, his son was disabled. His grandmother was Mad Juana of Castile who carted her dead husband’s body around, so a predisposition was there. Too much inbreeding methinks.

I agree that the head injury probably resulted in a traumatic brain injury and exacerbated whatever illnesses he already had. He was also a narcissistic sociopath so not a good combination at all.

Proliferation was considered a good thing due to the high rate of mortality not just in infants but in all ages. But as Vintage says, if they survived it led to a whole lot of different problems. Edward III was another prolific father whose offspring created issues. Of course lack of children in later monarchs created succession issues as we have previously discussed.

Thanks both for a great discussion that helped a long boring car journey.

Cass wrote:Proliferation was considered a good thing due to the high rate of mortality not just in infants but in all ages. But as Vintage says, if they survived it led to a whole lot of different problems. Edward III was another prolific father whose offspring created issues. Of course lack of children in later monarchs created succession issues as we have previously discussed.

Thanks both for a great discussion that helped a long boring car journey.

+1

Thank you as well Me lady and Vintage. For always interesting history posts

Hope to find another interesting historical thread to start soon again

The evidence seems to point to Henry being the problem, although if Catherine had sticky blood it would fit with Henry being that much younger and not as ill as later so that they were able to conceive reasonably easily but Catherine not being able to deliver successfully.
Later with Anne Boleyn he was of course that much older and his health problems would be developing, Henry and Anne managed two pregnancies in four years, she was pregnant before the marriage, not bad I suppose.
Henry and Jane Seymour, one year married and a successful pregnancy, which sadly ended in Jane death.
Catherine Howard, Henry was apparently besotted by her so must have spent a considerable time with her, he wasn't much good in bed, so she was supposed to have said but you don't really need to be to pro create but there was nothing forth coming there, despite her being young and presumable fertile, ok it was only a year.
Catherine Parr was still reasonably young and they were married for four years and no children, Henry was of course quite ill by then, yet she became pregnant quite quickly with Thomas Seymour.

I always think it was such a waste with Catherine Of Aragon she was a good and loyal wife and a queen beloved by her people and a capable regent. Surely a good match could have been found for Mary in case no son survived, her parents saw she had a very good education and would probably have made an excellent ruler if her on going life had been happier.
Sometimes I feel sorry for Anne Boleyn -she was manipulated by her family, her life may have been easier and longer had she become Henry's mistress, her apparent disdain for Catherine though, usually wins over any compassion I might feel.
Catherine Howard another one used by her family when they thought they could achieve greatness otherwise mistreated and neglected, I do feel for her.
Anne of Cleves, might have been the best thing that happened to Henry since his first marriage, she was a strong and capable woman and probably would have given him a couple of children. at least and would have been a caring mother, he made quite an error there I think.(he wasn't exactly a catch by then was he).

phil wrote: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...

That's what I said, dumbfuck.  Parliament held that he abdicated.  You were saying he was deposed.

You learn from me rather well.  I don't see why you can't do original research by yourself. You're just not a good researcher until I guide you.

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote: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...

That's what I said, dumbfuck.  Parliament held that he abdicated.  You were saying he was deposed.

You learn from me rather well.  I don't see why you can't do original research by yourself.  You're just not a good researcher until I guide you.

Which means Parliment forced him out and deposed him. James never abdicated, hence he was forced out and deposed. Even before this they invited William to come over and take the crown. All of which you ignore, because you refuse to admit when wrong

Hence you resort to childish insults. Which is the problem here. parliment took control away from the King, deposed him and then placed William and Mary in his place. If that is not deposing, then you fail to even understand the English language

The reality is Quill, you continue to embarress yourself further here, because you are too stubborn to admit when wrong

Seriously, grow up