|
Reply
| | From: terrilee62 (Original Message) | Sent: 10/16/2007 5:40 PM |
Meant to post this a few days ago, to be on the anniversary - I read on another historical site that she went on trial October 14, 1586. So many questions we could discuss... Darnley - did she or didn't she know about the plot to rid Scotland of his pustulant presence? Or was it a plot of his to kill her or them both that went wrong? Bothwell - did she know his part in the plot to kill the king (along with most of the other nobles in the land), or did she find out after? - did she agree to his idea of kidnapping her, raping her & holding her at Dunbar and then marrying him? Elizabeth - did MQOS really think that her 'cousin' would put her back on her Scottish throne? The Casket letters - who did compose them - Cecil? Maitland? MQOS herself? Or all of the above? |
|
First
Previous
2-7 of 7
Next
Last
|
|
Reply
| |
Thanks for starting this, Terrilee, as methinks twill be an interesting discussion. MQOS had a screw loose to begin with LOL so at first she probably DID think if she whined & schemed enough she could maybe get Elizabeth to restore her to her throne & make her the heir to England. What she didn't understand was that her son James was no longer a cute lil infant & he was conducting his own intrigues with Elizabeth. The last thing James VI/I wanted was to have his lackwit mother co-rule with him. He had come into his majority & wasn't interested in relinquishing the reins to Mommie Dearest in the slightest. There would be another thing to explore, James's total lack of retaliation against Elizabeth for his mother's death. Was he secretly relieved to get rid of her? After all, it isn't as if he could have had any memory of her, as he was not yet two when she decamped to England. As regards Darnley, methinks MQOS was clueless. It does fit her personality LOL I think she expected her lords to neutralize him in some way & help her out with the problem he'd become, IF he didn't die....remember, he was violently ill with what was probably a bad case of syphilis at the time of Kirk O'Fields. I've never understood why violence was employed in getting rid of Darnley. He was having so many quack treatments for his illness, it would have been so easy just to poison him & say he died from the clap. Methinks MQOS was one of those women who just NEEDED a strong man to lean on, which goes a long way toward explaining her rapid disenchantment with the weak Darnley. She relied upon her Guise uncles & the French King Henry during her tenure in France (Francis not being what one whould term a macho man LOL) & upon Moray & Maitland on her return to Scotland. Her intrigues were facile & transparent to say the least, & I don't know if she could have kept Bothwell's "ravishment" a secret were it planned in advance. Also, let's not forget her Catholic upbringing in this....she may have felt she HAD to marry Bothwell because they had sex, because what if she, as the female & the queen, conceived a child (which she did) from it? Methinks Bothwell told her this is how it's gonna be honey & she said okey-dokey, as what was she to do otherwise? Wasn't it Moray who produced the Casket Letters? I could be wrong. Moray is another of the vast majority of Scots who did NOT want MQOS back under any circumstances. Was it the Lennox faction who assassinated him in the end? I've read so many MQOS books you'd think I'd remember LOL After so many years in captivity, even a dim bulb like MQOS had to realize the only way she was getting out was if either she or Elizabeth were shoved into a pine box LOL Norfolk was also Elizabeth's cousin & she had to get rid of him in the end for his plotting. MQOS was a true Stuart in that she firmly believed in the divine right of kings, & really thought Elizabeth had usurped her rights by this point. The irony is that if MQOS had quit intriguing, Elizabeth would probably never agreed to her execution, & MQOS would have died a natural death. I wonder if MQOS realized how neatly Walsingham had set her up? |
|
Reply
| |
Reposted in the correct thread for continuity of discussion....mach, please DO NOT REPLY FROM EMAIL or start a new thread for an existing discussion. TYVM From: mach47 (Original Message) | Sent: 10/17/2007 11:13 AM | Hello Greensleeves,
When considering Marie Stuart's return to Scotland, there are two things we need to keep in mind: First, Marie had been raised from her infancy in the French royal court, the most licentious court of it's day., and that she was coddled and pampered as a faery princess, her every wish was granted. So, when she returned to Scotland, she was indeed a French woman in every respect, in fact she spoke French for the rest of her life. In the French court, flirtations, liaisons and affairs, were common place, and not condemned.
The second thing to keep in mind is that Marie was just becoming an adult, coming into her sexual prime and began using her sexuality to entice the men of her court. The Lord of Arran is said to have actually gone insane with lust for the queen. After the French poet, Chastelard, was caught under her bed twice, he was executed. You would think that after these incidents she would cool her ardor, but instead she became embroiled with her Italian secretary, David Rizzio, who was often found in her rooms after 2 a.m. As we all know, tragedy ensued. Thus was revealed Marie's biggest failing, her total lack of sound judgment where men were concerned. She compounded it with her marriage to the drunken Darnley. Then there was Bothwell, with whom I believe Marie became lovers when he was her bodyguard in France, and died in a hole in the ground, chained to a pole.
In France, these may have been harmless pastimes. In Scotland, they were fatal. Every man who made love to Mary Queen of Scots, paid for the pleasure with his life. How many English men went to the block because of Marie Stuart? Three? Four? And this was the woman who declared that she was being "unjustly murdered" by Elizabeth I for her Catholic faith. I say Marie Stuart received justice on the day of her execution.
Harry Gordon ([email protected]) 48° 39' 16" N 122° 56' 13" W
'So when the last and dreadful hour This crumbling pageant shall devour, The trumpet shall be heard on high, The dead shall live, the living die, And Music shall untune the sky!'
| |
|
Reply
| | From: mach47 | Sent: 10/17/2007 5:39 PM |
"Reposted in the correct thread for continuity of discussion....mach, please DO NOT REPLY FROM EMAIL or start a new thread for an existing discussion. TYVM"
I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Perhaps you could explain privately?
Harry Gordon ([email protected]) 48° 39' 16" N 122° 56' 13" W
'So when the last and dreadful hour This crumbling pageant shall devour, The trumpet shall be heard on high, The dead shall live, the living die, And Music shall untune the sky!'
|
|
Reply
| |
You don't understand because you are sitting in your email instead of visiting the group. |
|
Reply
| |
I don't think Mary knew about the plot to assasinate Darnley because she seemed really shocked when she heard of it. She would undoubtedly have liked to get rid of him (as who wouldn't?) but if she had been involved she would surely have chosen a less inept method - poision for instance. Also it seems likely that some of the lords involved in the plot were hoping to get rid of her as well. I don't see how Mary could not have known that Bothwell was involved, but she chose to ignore it. Marrying him was another major mistake, but she seems to have believed that he would be a good consort for her. As with Darnley, this turned out to be a big mistake and she was quickly disillusioned. She was not a good judge of men, but then it is very difficult to know what a man is really like until you have married him. Going to England rather than to France after she fled was another major mistake. If she really thought Elizabeth would help her get back on the throne of Scotland then she didn't understand Elizabeth at all. I have always understood that the Casket letters are thought to be forgeries. I think by the time of the Babbington plot Mary was probably desperate enough to agree to anything to get out of prison. And by that time she probably didn't have any friendly feelings towards Elizabeth, why should she after being imprisoned by her for so long after all? She probably thought it was worth the risk of trying anyway - anything being better than spending more interminable years in prison. Also, of course, murdering your royal relatives to get the crown was considered quite normal behaviour in those days. Henry IV murdered Richard II, Edward IV murdered Henry VI. Richard III of course went too far when he murdered his nephews, child murder was considered a bit off even for kings, but really murder was a quite acceptable way to gain a crown. Louise |
|
Reply
| | From: mach47 | Sent: 10/21/2007 10:28 AM |
terrilee62 wrote: > > Meant to post this a few days ago, to be on the anniversary - I read > on another historical site that she went on trial October 14, 1586. > > So many questions we could discuss... > > Darnley - did she or didn't she know about the plot to rid Scotland > of his pustulant presence? Or was it a plot of his to kill her or > them both that went wrong?
If she didn't know, she was about the only person in Scotland who didn't. Her feelings about Darnley were also well known. If she had known the details of the plot, would she have sat literally on top of the bomb the night it was to be touched off? I don't think so.
> Bothwell - did she know his part in the plot to kill the king (along > with most of the other nobles in the land), or did she find out > after?
You assume Bothwell's guilt, but the evidence suggests that he was an easy scapegoat.
> Elizabeth - did MQOS *really* think that her 'cousin' would put her > back on her Scottish throne?
As always, Mary's goal was the English crown, not the Scottish. Mary knew that if she was returned to Scotland, she would be executed.
> The Casket letters - who did compose them - Cecil? Maitland? MQOS > herself? Or all of the above?
Since the alleged Casket Letters where immediately stolen, and all that survive are alleged copies, it seems unlikely that we'll ever know.
> Lastly - the Babington plot - did she truly agree to the murder or > Elizabeth or was MQOS only seeking her freedom? Here's an > interesting site about the trial. > http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~jmcgill/project.html
The first sentence of that essay reveals it to be heavily biased: "In 1586 Mary Queen of Scots had been illegally held prisoner by Elizabeth I of England for eighteen years." There are many sites on the internet about Elizabeth and Mary, and most of them are biased one way or another. For a fair consideration of both sides I recommend a book by Jane Dunn, "Elizabeth and Mary: Cousins, Rivals, Queens".
Harry Gordon ([email protected]) 48° 39' 16" N 122° 56' 13" W
'So when the last and dreadful hour This crumbling pageant shall devour, The trumpet shall be heard on high, The dead shall live, the living die, And Music shall untune the sky!'
|
|
First
Previous
2-7 of 7
Next
Last
|
|