Recall that the usurper king, Stephen of Blois, was also a foreigner: this is what one can expect when princesses marry foreign royals.
But of course, there was no fixed succession law, back in those days: the principle of strict agnatic primogeniture (meaning Salicism) obviously could not be applied. However, if it was nevertheless male-only succession -- even if the descent was cognatic -- the question was the exact order of inheritance. Unfortunately, it took a bloody succession war to resolve the issue -- and it would hardly be the last, in European royal history.
Actually his father Henry Stuart, lord Darnley was born in London and Darnley's mother Margaret Douglas was also born in England giving them an edge over James V and his daughter Mary Stuart.
I guess it was the Catholic faith of his cousin Margaret Douglas and her son Henry that kept Edward VI from not making the young boy his heir. I know Henry VIII had left out the line of his older sister in his act of succession but Edward seems to have been quite fixated on a male heir (not unlike his father).
In the end James VI being foreign born turned out not to be an issue otherwise his cousin Arabella Stuart would have been the most likely candidate from the most senior line of English born heir(Jesse)s.
On the other hand, the fact that James claimed the Scottish throne exclusively through his mother and had a stronger genealogical claim on the English throne through her tended to render moot his paternity.
Of course, the most important thing was legal, not biological, paternity. But when it came to royal succession, the latter was an issue of concern only when the father was the sovereign. Consider France, bound from ancient times by the Salic law, which meant that the throne passed strictly patrilineally.
Not so England, Scotland, Spain, or Portugal ...
There were rumors put about at the time, certainly false but pernicious nonetheless, by both Mary's and later James's enemies that James was the son of David Riccio. Darnley himself was taunted with this by the conspirators who gained his participation in their murder of Riccio. It was a matter of great import at the time, because it was considered essential for Mary's cause that Henry publicly acknowledge that the infant James was his son, which he did. Caroline Bingham addresses this in her excellent biography of Darnley, as does Pauline Croft in her biography of James VI & I, in which she discuss the way in which it was used against James by those at Elizabeth's court who opposed his succession to the English Crown.
Mary Stuart seems to have been infatuated with lord Darnley when she married him, but quickly discovered his less pleasing behaviour. There is no reason to doubt he fathered their son.
The pregnancy of her third marriage like the marriage has been both described as the result of Mary's extra-marital affair with Bothwell during her marriage with Darnley and as the result of being raped by Bothwell forcing her to marry the man who made her pregnant.
She miscarried the twins days before her forced abdication.
No. It has been said that Mary Queen of Scots did miscarry twins by the Earl of Bothwell.
252
Message Thread
« Back to index