Previous Message Previous Message I think you missed the point of my post: I realize full well that Mary did indeed become a queen regnant. What I meant was to focus on her claim on the English throne -- that had she not been so precipitate and wrongheaded, she might very well have succeeded to it as well. There was no United Kingdom at the time, so one has to look at England Scotland separately. No I did not misunderstand your point. I live in Edinburgh Scotland so I'm well aware of the history of Scotland and the United Kingdom. The others who you list were never Queens. Mary was a Queen, she had been Queen of Scots since she was 6 Days Old. She was misguided in her choice of men, but she was not wrongheaded. She was Catholic, but actually tried to work with and tolerated the newly established Protestant religion. Mary kept her half-brother Moray as her chief advisor. Her privy council of 16 men, appointed on 6 September 1561, retained those who already held the offices of state. The council was dominated by the Protestant leaders from the reformation crisis of 1559–1560. The unforunate fact was she was a woman and totally untrusted by the males who made up her court. As for the English throne, there ware claims made early in Mary's life by her French relatives the Guise. Henry VIII's last will and testament had excluded the Stuarts from succeeding to the English throne, but in the eyes of many Catholics, Elizabeth was illegitimate and Mary Stuart was the rightful queen of England, as the senior surviving legitimate descendant of Henry VII through her grandmother, Margaret Tudor. Mary herself made no public thoughts on her claim to the English throne. Thank you Karen for your response. Of course, Mary was not a would-be queen regnant. I also appreciate your description of Mary: the odds she faced were heavily stacked against her and to describe her as wrongheaded is a misunderstanding of her actions and what she tried too achieve. |
Message Thread
« Back to index |