This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Is Mary Queen of Scots the evil one?

newman24x

well...she was beheaded so...is she? or did people framed her?

Reply 1

FinalFlash

11

Mary Queen of Scots is not "Bloody Mary"...that's all i can remember for now.

Reply 2

BlueTrain

She's normally seen by Catholics as a martyr.

I guess she could be seen as evil for plotting against Elizabeth I

Reply 3

oo_Lucinda_oo

11

Bloody Mary is Mary Tudor, reigned from 1553-1558. She was not beheaded, but burned several protestants at the stake, earning her that nickname.

Mary Queen of Scots was executed after being implicated in several plots to assassinate Elizabeth I. She had links to a rich family in France, claim to the Scottish throne and was a problem for Elizabeth for much of her reign, until she was executed in... 1587, I think? She also was involved in scandal when her husband was murdered, by a man she then went on to marry, etc.

Reply 4

Transatlanticdrawl_

11

It's also worth noting that Elizabeth 1 and Mary QoS were cousins, and that Elizabeth didn't truly want to be responsible for her execution but it still "had" to be done. She was simply too much of a risk to be left alive.

Bloody Mary's death quickly put Elizabeth to the throne because they were sisters and a protestant Elizabeth was gladly welcomed to the throne in a country reeling from BM's vicious reign.

iirc. I'm quite tired so some of that may be wrong.

Reply 5

eden-flower

Some would also say that she was 'framed' for the Babington Plot in 1586 which probably secured Elizabeth's forced decision from her council to execute her. A letter apparently communicated between Mary, Queen of Scots, and Babington (can't remember his exact significance) to overthrow/kill Elizabeth was intercepted by Walsingham (one of her loyal subjects) in about 1586, therefore giving the Protestants in Elizabeth's council more reason to put pressure on the Queen to get rid of her closest Catholic relative

Tudor history is so fun! But the 'evil' one? Hmm most would probably agree that Mary QS was more of a victim?

Reply 6

newman24x

OP

eden-flower

Hmm most would probably agree that Mary QS was more of a victim?

is it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babington_Plot

under the fatal letter.

Reply 7

eden-flower

newman24x

is it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babington_Plot

under the fatal letter.

Indeed, this proves her willing participation in the plot to whatever extent, but did she have a choice? It was either a) accept any opportunity she was given to denounce her freedom, or b) remain in the Tower knowing that the majority of Elizabeth's council wanted her dead

I suppose I meant more so that she was just one of those tragic people whose lives were subject to much misfortune from birth - and in that way she was a victim

Reply 8

Alasdair

14

This actually leads to an interesting point. Mary Queen of Scots is a little early, but there is a bit of a tendency amongst even quite left wing Scots to see Mary, and the Stuart Pretenders as 'good' and the English as 'bad'. Whereas the reality is, especially after 1688, that the Catholic Stuarts were reactionary absolutists fighting against the kind of liberal enlightenment reform that we are conversely also proud of as Scots in the Scottish Enlightenment.

Reply 9

newman24x

OP

I've some basic questions:
1-why is it that Mary is next in line to inherit the English throne? Is it because she's a part of Elizabeth cousin? She is after all from the Kingdom of Scotland, so why her?
2-Mary came to England to seek help from her cousin Elizabeth, but the Queen immediately imprisoned her. Why did Elizabeth quickly assumed that Mary will want the English throne? Mary was imprisoned, why didn't Scotland do anything? After all she is Mary Queen of Scots..

hope to have a good discussion :smile:

Reply 10

Alasdair

14

Off the top of my head:

Mary and Elizabeth were cousins, and she was presumably the closest living relative to Elizabeth. In fact, her son later became James the VI and I. As for your second question, Mary was a Catholic, at a time when Elizabeth was busy making sure that England would stay Protestant after the death of her Catholic sister Mary... So when MAry came to England, Elizabeth was worried (with some reason) that she would try to overthrow her and re-establish England as a Catholic kingdom.

Reply 11

eden-flower

newman24x

I've some basic questions:
1-why is it that Mary is next in line to inherit the English throne? Is it because she's a part of Elizabeth cousin? She is after all from the Kingdom of Scotland, so why her?
2-Mary came to England to seek help from her cousin Elizabeth, but the Queen immediately imprisoned her. Why did Elizabeth quickly assumed that Mary will want the English throne? Mary was imprisoned, why didn't Scotland do anything? After all she is Mary Queen of Scots..

hope to have a good discussion :smile:

1. As Alasdair said too, she was Elizabeth's closest living relative and so, as she hadn't yet named an heir or had any children, if Elizabeth were to die suddenly then Mary would naturally have been first in line for the English throne - Scottish or not

2. Mary was forced to abdicate the Scottish throne to her baby son - James VI of Scotland - in roughly 1568 due to a scandal involving her husband and murder and other details that now escape me :redface:

but this whole affair made her hated by the Scottish and the country's increasingly Protestant influence left no room for her. So she fled to England in 1569 in hope of comfort from Elizabeth.

Why was Mary imprisoned straight away you ask? The Northern Rebellion on 1569 was started by the Catholic nobility the North of England when they heard that Mary, Queen of Scots, was in the country. They didn't like how Elizabeth had been excluding the North from other political matters, and so aimed to use force to pressure Elizabeth to name the Catholic Mary as her heir. However, they failed and dispersed, but Elizabeth obviously felt threatened by Mary's presence in England and had no choice but to keep her locked up in fear of another rebellion.

Her councillors tried to force Elizabeth to sign Mary's death warrant for years after that, but she kept refusing and putting it off. There were three plots altogether which plotted to kill Elizabeth and put Mary on the throne: the Ridolfi Plot, the Throckmorton Plot and lastly the fatal Babington Plot in 1586

Hope that helped! Looking forward to some more discussion :woo:

Reply 12

newman24x

OP

The thing that i find strange with the English monarchy is that it allows women to inherit the throne, and let alone rule the country. As I understand, monarchy such as Russia would not allow the Tsar's daughters to inherit the throne (as what happened to Tsar Nicholas II-but this is of course were the direct consequence of Empress Catherine II previous actions as Empress). Why so that the English monarchy or the English people welcome that the country be ruled by a Queen and not only by Kings as it has been strictly done by certain Kingdom i.e Russia.

Reply 13

eden-flower

newman24x

The thing that i find strange with the English monarchy is that it allows women to inherit the throne, and let alone rule the country. As I understand, monarchy such as Russia would not allow the Tsar's daughters to inherit the throne (as what happened to Tsar Nicholas II-but this is of course were the direct consequence of Empress Catherine II previous actions as Empress). Why so that the English monarchy or the English people welcome that the country be ruled by a Queen and not only by Kings as it has been strictly done by certain Kingdom i.e Russia.

I have no knowledge about the Russian monarchy whatsoever so I can't really compare, but I'll waffle some stuff regardless :p:

Referring to the Tudors, they really had no other option but to grant the English throne to females (Mary I and Elizabeth I). Although Henry VIII died a happy and reassured man in terms of his succession (in the form of his long awaited son Edward VI), Edward VI died too young to marry and have sons of his own, and he also had no close male relative to make his heir.

So therefore, he named Lady Jane Grey (some close-ish relative) as his heir - who went onto reign for a fortnight before being overthrown and executed by Mary I, Edward's sister and to most, the 'rightful' monarch next in line to the throne. It is argued that Edward did this under the influence of his 'regent', the Earl of Northumberland (as Ed was not yet 16 so couldn't rule for himself), because Lady Jane was married to his son - a move by Northumberland to gain more power. He probably assumed that he could rule her and manipulate her into complying with whatever he wanted because she was female, and that was probably the main reason for this choice in particular of a female monarch

On the other hand, Mary I earned her position on the throne by her own merit: she organised her own rebellion against Lady Jane which accumulated thousands of supporters and succeeded in overthrowing her on the basis that Mary had the strongest claim to the throne out of everyone (which she did)

People supported Mary because she was the main Catholic figurehead at the time in Reformation England, and with Edward and Lady Jane being Protestant, it didn't matter to anyone what gender she was, they just needed a leader to fight for the Catholic cause

So I suppose overall, in Tudor England the monarchy was mainly all about religious settlements and political squabbles over which direction the country should take - and the monarch had the final say.

Hope that all made sense and wasn't too irrelevent in parts. I enjoy Tudor waffles and get slightly carried away :woo:

Reply 14

newman24x

OP

eden-flower

Hope that all made sense and wasn't too irrelevent in parts. I enjoy Tudor waffles and get slightly carried away :woo:

Was a good read. Thank you :smile:

Have you watched Elizabeth: The Golden Age? Though it's not accurate but was a good movie to watch.

Reply 15

eden-flower

newman24x

Was a good read. Thank you :smile:

Have you watched Elizabeth: The Golden Age? Though it's not accurate but was a good movie to watch.

Hehe no prob! And no, I haven't seen it yet! I really should... Do you know what kind of inaccuracies it portrays?

If you happen to want something accurate, watch historian David Starkey's docu-film 'Elizabeth' :yes:

legend...

Reply 16

newman24x

OP

eden-flower

Hehe no prob! And no, I haven't seen it yet! I really should... Do you know what kind of inaccuracies it portrays?

Lol as i recalled:
-Did Elizabeth 1 has blue eyes?
-I thought she wore a wig and use those white makeup because she lost most of her hair and her skin is scared because of small pox, not because she wants to show that 'she's a virgin' and is 'married to England'?
-Did Ivan the Terrible proposed to her?
-Did one of her suitors just learned the English language when he went to court her? According to the movie; Archduke Charles (younger brother of Maximilian, Roman Emperor) barely speaks English.

well those are the things that i find questionable and somewhat strange in the movie. Do correct me if i'm wrong :smile:

Reply 17

emmyyyy

1

Bloody Mary was Mary Tudor, not Mary Queen of Scots

Is Mary Queen of Scots the evil one?

Related discussions

Articles for you