The witch hunts and witch trials that happened hundreds of years ago are some of the most infamous events that have happened throughout history.
Perhaps the most infamous witch trials were those that happened in Salem Massachusetts, in the United States of America. The Salem Witch Trials happened between 1692 and 1693. The European witch hunts and trials were already happening long before the Salem witch hunts took place - the Salem Witch Trials happened in the dying decades of the witch trials that were happening across Europe during the early modern era.
The witch-hunts were happening in Europe from 1450 to 1750. These witch-hunts resulted in the brutal deaths of both people and animals in Europe.
The witch-hunts in the early modern era of Europe, resulted in many different European countries having witch trials. These countries included - Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, the Netherlands, Finland, Denmark, Ireland, Scotland, England and many more. In England, the witch-trials resulted in the 'The Witchcraft Act 1542'. The Witchcraft Act 1542, was a law that King Henry VIII had passed. This law was passed in the final years of King Henry VIII's reign, as the Tudor monarch died in 1547. This resulted in Henry's son, Edward, becoming king of England - King Edward repealed the Witchcraft Act that his father had put in place. The witch trials didn't stop in England though at that point; they lasted from the 15th century to the 18th century in England. The witch trials in England resulted in hundreds of deaths, the vast majority of people persecuted and killed because of the witch trials, were women. In Scotland, there were different witchcraft acts. For example, the Scottish Witchcraft Act of 1563 was passed. This act resulted in witchcraft and associating with witches as a capital offence. It is estimated that witch trials and hunts were significantly higher in Scotland, compared to England - as it is estimated that there were thousands of people persecuted in Scotland for being witches.
King James VI of Scotland (James I of England), was perhaps the most notorious person in history to be associated with the witch hunts and trials. James was notoriouslysuperstitious ; his dark superstitious nature resulted in thisking's brutal witch hunts.
The Scottish king himself personally attended Scotland's first major witch trials; these witch trials were called the North Berwick witch trials. There was said to be between 70 to 200 women who were arrested and accused of being witches; these women were tortured upon their arrest and murdered - though the exact number of women persecuted in the North Berwick witch trials is unknown to this day. The witch hunts in Scotland were significantly worse than its neighbour England. While England was thought to have killed around 500 people (mostly women) of witchcraft, the death rate was 3 to 4 times higher in Scotland, as it is estimated that 3,000 to 4,000 women in Scotland were killed because they were accused of witchcraft. The Witchcraft Act 1735 During the height of the witch trials, Scotland and England were united in the union. The Act of Union 1707, united Scotland and England to form one country. The witch trials and witch hunts were still happening during this time, however, these hunts and trials were ending. The Witchcraft Act 1735, which was made law in the Kingdom of Britain, resulted in the killing of witches being outlaw in Britain. However, people could still be sent to prison for witchcraft. The last witch-hunting trials which happened in England were in 1717 in Leicester. The witch hunting trials seemed to put an end to people being killed in the name of witchcraft, however, women (largely) were still imprisoned for witchcraft up until very recent history, due to the Witchcraft Act 1735. Remarkably, Scotland's last witch was sent to prison in 1944! The persecution of women in the name of witchcraft, stopped in Britain when the Witchcraft Act of 1735 was repealed by the UK parliament in 1951.
The biggest amount of witch trials and hunts across Europe came between 1580 and 1630.
These witch hunts and trials happened in much of Europe. It is believed that men, women and even animals were killed as a result of the witch hunts. The vast majority of those killed in the name of witchcraft across Europe were women. And, most of these women were usually either middle-aged or elderly; they often lived alone too. These women were also poor and social outcasts. This resulted in the thousands of women (and some men), during the early modern era in Western Europe. It is estimated that as many as 200,000 people were killed, tortured and hanged as a result of being accused of witchcraft between 1484 and 1750. What Was The Reason For The Witch Hunts? A major driving force in the witch hunts and trials seemed to be misogyny : a hatred of women. The vast majority of those accused of witchcraft were women. It was believed that 80% of those persecuted and killed in the name of witchcraft in the early modern era, were women. This has resulted in people theorizing that the witch hunts which happened were driven bymisogyny. Another reason that people believe that the witch hunts happened, was due to mass hysteria and moral panic. Mass hysteria has been seen as the reason, specifically for the Salem witch trials. Other reasons for the witch hunts happening are - people not fitting in with the social and religious beliefs and ways of life at the time, persecution of elderly and old women. It seems likely that is was a combination of all of these things that resulted in the witch trials and hunts of the early modern era in history; rather than just one thing being responsible for them. The witch trials and hunts were one of Europe's most infamous and brutal events in history.
0 Comments
On this day in history, on the 24th of July 1567, Mary Queen of Scots was forced to abdicate the Scottish throne and flee Scotland in the process.
The Lead Up To Her Fleeing Mary Queen of Scots had her only child - a son named James - with her second husband, Lord Darnley, on the 19th of June 1566 at Edinburgh Castle. James would later become King James I of England and Ireland and James VI of Scotland. He was only a baby when he became King. The godparents of Mary Queen of Scots son was chosen as England’s Queen Elizabeth I and France’s Charles IX. The young James became parentless at a young age. His father, and Mary Queen of Scots second husband - Lord Darnley - was murdered just a few months after James was baptized. James was baptized on the 17th of December 1566 at Edinburgh Castle. Lord Darnley was murdered on the night/early morning of the 9th/10th of February 1567. He was murdered at about 2 am, when two explosions took off after gunpowder was placed near Darnley’s sleeping quarters that night - his sleeping quarters were at the Old Provost’s lodging at Kirk O’Field in Edinburgh that night and early morning.
Who Killed Lord Darnley?
Rather conveniently, Mary was away for the night at a wedding in Holyrood. during the time of Lord Darnley's murder. Was it just a coincidence that she was separated from her husband on the night of his murder? or was it an opportunity that Mary used to kill her own husband? We know that Mary and Darnley weren’t getting along prior to Darley’s murder; perhaps this could be seen as a motive in-and-of-itself. The murder of Lord Darnley also seems like it was premeditated - with Mary going to a wedding during the time that Lord Darnley was murdered, she would have had plenty of time to plan his murder and she was also the one who brought Darnley to the Old Provost’s to stay. Mary also showed form for planning murder. Or, at least, we know that she was prepared to murder, which gives her form. Mary was prepared to murder her own cousin, Queen Elizabeth I, therefore, if she was prepared to get rid of Elizabeth, then it seems reasonable to suspect that she may have been prepared to have got rid of Lord Darnley. There is evidence that Mary Queen of Scots plotted to kill Queen Elizabeth I, however, the same cannot be said of any evidence pointing Mary to Lord Darnley’s death. Regardless of that, it’s possible that she gave a silent nod, or was even happy at her own husband’s death, as Darnley was a drunk and violent (to name some of his ill-behaviour). Although there is a lot to point Mary towards the murder of Lord Darnley, she is not the main suspect to his murder. The main suspect to his murder is Lord Bothwell. Quite interestingly, Mary Queen of Scots married Lord Bothwell a few months after the murder of Lord Darnley. Before their marriage, Bothwell was accused of murdering Darnley. However, he was acquitted of the murder in February 1567, therefore, he was never found guilty of murdering Darnley. There are some things though that could suggest that Lord Bothwell murdered Darnley. Bothwell was ambitious, ruthless and opportunistic. It’s possible that Bothwell also wanted to be King of Scotland alongside Mary and probably did love her, as he tried to gather an army when she was captured by Elizabeth I. However, it is thought that Bothwell abducted Mary before she was captured by Elizabeth. The abduction happened on the 24th of April 1567: just a few months after Bothwell was acquitted Darnley’s murder. It didn’t take long for both of them to become married. Mary and Bothwell were wed on the 15th of May 1567, just a few weeks after Lord Bothwell had abducted her. The marriage wasn’t favoured by everyone at court it seems, which led to him fleeing from Mary on the 15th of June 1567, first to Aberdeen, then to Shetland and later to Norway.
The Abdication Of Mary Queen Of Scots
Lord Bothwell fleeing the country was the beginning of the end of Mary Queen of Scot’s reign. It was her own people, her own nobles that turned on Mary and imprisoned her in her own country. She became a Queen in name only at this point, as through being captured and imprisoned, her power as Queen and even her dignity as Queen was stripped from her. While much is said about the way that Elizabeth I treated Mary, not much is said about the way Mary’s own people treated her. Upon Bothwell fleeing the country, Mary’s own Scottish lords humiliated her in front of a spectator of crowds by denouncing her as a murderer and adultress in Edinburgh. Later that night, after Mary’s humiliating experience, she was imprisoned by the same lords in Loch Leven castle.
Mary Queen of Scots became imprisoned by her own Scottish lords.
While imprisoned at Loch Leven castle during the 11 months being imprisoned there, she suffered a miscarriage - which would have given her twins - and, she had a failed attempt where she tried to escape from the castle. Her second attempt was successful in escaping the castle though. Mary successfully escaped the castle on the 2nd of May 1568. Mary’s Abdication Before Mary abdicated in 1567 while imprisoned in Loch Leven Castle, she suffered a miscarriage. Mary suffered a miscarriage of twins between the 20th of July and the 23rd of July in 1567. It was only a day later, on the 24th of July 1567, that Mary Queen of Scots was forced to abdicate from the throne. Taking her place was her one-year-old son, James. Sources: https://www.historyextra.com/period/tudor/downfall-mary-queen-scots-execution-murder-lord-darnley/ https://britishheritage.com/history/mary-queen-scots-kill-lord-darnley https://www.history.com/news/mary-queen-of-scots-casket-letters-scandal Weir, Alison (2008) [2003]. Mary, Queen of Scots and the Murder of Lord Darnley. London, England: Random House https://www.thehistorypress.co.uk/articles/mary-queen-of-scots-great-escape/
New aerial footage of William Wallace's fort has been captured.
The footage was captured by drone where it once was. Most of the former fort that was thought to be owned by William Wallace is now gone, only fragments of it remain. William Wallace's former fort is found in Southern Scotland, in a place called Annandale. The fort was built to ''annoy the English'' by Wallace. But, Wallace was not the only presence in Annadale - also present was clan Johnstone, who were also setting their setting their sights on the English. Clan Johnstone was a powerful border clan during the medieval era which held central lands of Annadale from 1174 and kept lookout for English forces coming to Scotland. This was almost exactly one hundred year before Wallace was born - he was born in 1270; Clan Johnstone remained a powerful border clan for hundreds of years, including throughout Wallace's life. In 1296, like most clans and nobles, Sir John Johnstone - a knight of Dumfries, where Annandale is - signed the Ragman Rolls. The Ragman Rolls was a document in which Scottish nobles signed their allegiance to King Edward I of England. However, William Wallace, who was also a nobleman at the time, refused to sign the Ragman Rolls. Wallace became a knight a year or two later. It's not clear when his fort was built, but it was a functioning fort around the same time as the Ragman Rolls were signed, as Wallace's men were present there in 1297. It's also likely that Wallace himself was present in this fort in 1297, as it is believed that Wallace was planning to takelochmaben castle in 1297 - a castle which is about a 20 minute drive from Annandale. Not only was Wallace's fort aimed at being something to antagonise the English and act as a defence towards them, it is also believed to have been his house. Therefore, when Wallace was not in battle, he must have spent a considerable amount of time here. Not much seems to be known about the fort otherwise. You can see a picture of it below.
The monarchy is a British institution like no other. It is historic, both for its longevity, and its traditions. The history of the monarchy has all sorts of different historical events condensed into one. From dramas, to love, romance, marriages, deaths, battles, war, religious conflicts, political scandals...you name it, monarchical history has it. And that is what makes it so interesting: the history of the British monarch has been like Game of Thrones in action.
Of course, things have mellowed down as to how the British monarchy used to be. But the history of the British monarchy is still fascinating. A large part to do with how fascinating the British monarchy has been throughout history, is down to the individual monarchs themselves. There is a long list of monarchs who are diverse and interesting. In this list, we are going to look at ten monarchs who have all been different and unique in their own way. These top ten monarchs are from a range of different historical eras. Their era, as well as their choices, influenced and shaped history on the British Isles forever, and that is why they have a place in our top ten list of monarchs from the British Isles. This top ten monarchs list will be based on which monarchs have had the greatest and most influential role in history. It will be about how these monarchs shaped the history of the British Isles, both at the time of their own reign and how their actions helped shaped future historical eras. This list won’t be based on how ‘good’ or ‘bad’ these kings and queens were. Instead, it’s based on how impactful they have been on history, their longevity, their memorability to us and how they changed the course of history on the British Isles forever. Let’s start with our top ten list of monarchs to sit on any British throne list!
10. Ethelflaed
Kicking off our top ten list is Ethelflaed. Ethelflaed was the daughter of King Alfred the Great; King Alfred the Great was King of the Anglo-Saxons between 886 and 899, he was also King of the West Saxons between 871 and 886. Ethelflaed is not only known for being the daughter of Alfred the Great, she is also known for being the ruling monarch of the Kingdom of Merica.
The Kingdom of Merica was one of the kingdoms that existed on the British Isles before the Kingdom of England was formed, Ethelflaed was Lady of the Mercians from 911 to 918. She is on our top ten list because Ethelflaed was a warrior Queen who broke down the glass ceiling. This Lady of the Mercians was the only female royal ruler of an Anglo-Saxon kingdom, and she was a warrior Queen who notably took on the Vikings. Ethaelflaed was a war-like monarch, who defended the Kingdom of Mercia several times against the Vikings, and, due to her warrior strength and military savviness defended her Kingdom agaist the Vikings on several occasions. Her military strength and cleverness is one of the reasons why she deserves to be on this top ten list. Another reason why she deserves to be on this top ten list is due her breaking down the glass ceiling for other female monarchs on the British Isles to lead their kingdoms. She paved the way for Matilda, Elizabeth I, Mary I, Mary Queen of Scots, Anne, Victoria and Elizabeth II. We haven’t had many female Queens in history who have led in their own right, Ethelflaed deserves to be remembered for being the first female monarch to rule a kingdom on the British Isles. She wasn’t the first Queen of England though. The first Queen of England was Mary I (Bloody Mary), who became Queen of England several hundred years after Ethelflaed had died. 9. William the Conqueror
We are staying with the medieval era, but looking at another impactful monarch of the medieval era: William the Conqueror. William the Conqueror is well-known to us all. William is known for his Norman conquest of England in 1066, and is known for being the first Norman King in history. William the Conqueror (also William I) fought and defeated Edward II at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. It was a turning point in history and laid the foundations for the England we know today. The England that William I won, and won the right to rule over was only a newly formed kingdom around the same time that William the Conqueror became King of England. A few decades before the Battle of Hastings, the Kingdom of England didn’t exist. Instead there were a few different kingdoms in its place, such as the Kingdom of Merica, a Kingdom that King Ethelstan unified with our Kingdoms to create the Kingdom of England.
King Ethelstan was the first ruler of England, however, William the Conqueror is often looked upon as the first King of England. William has managed to make an impact on history that other monarchs have failed to do, such as Ethelstan. This is another reason why William the Conqueror is on this list, because he has made an impact on history that few monarchs have. There have been hundreds of battles fought on the British Isles and most of them are not memorable, or well-known. However, the Battle of Hastings is one of those few exceptions. The Battle of Hastings has cemented William the Conqueror’s place in history, both for his role in the battle, William’s speech after winning the battle, and how it shaped the course of English history. Another, and final thing that makes William’s reign as king memorable, is due to his coronation itself. The coronation of William was on Christmas day 1066, which resulted in him officially becoming King of England. 8. Llywelyn the Great
From one unifying King to another unifying King, we now look to Wales and to Llywelyn the Great. Llywelyn the Great is one of the longest-serving monarchs the British Isles has ever had. For this reason, he deserves to be in our top ten list of monarchs on the British Isles. Llywelyn reigned as King of Wales for an impressive 45 years, resulting in him being one of the longest-serving monarchs the British Isles has ever had. He is the eighth longest-serving monarchs in Britain of all time, this impressive reign by Llywelyn, was a longer reign than Elizabeth I had.
The long reign of Llywelyn the Great suggests a strong, resilient and savvy political and military leader. These traits are shown in what Llywelyn accomplished during his reign as King. Llywelyn the Great successfully united Wales as one. Before that, we he first became King, he was only King of North Wales. However, due to his political savviness, diplomacy skills, war-like spirit and strength, successfully resulted in Llywelyn the Great uniting Wales. For is role in uniting Wales and creating the Wales we know and love today, is one of the main reasons why Llywelyn the Great deserves to be on this list. There is one final reason why this Welsh King deserves to be on this list: he was instrumental in the Magna Carta being enshrined into law. The Magan Carta is, probably, the single most important historical document in both the British Isles and the world. Llywelyn the Great forced King John to sign the Magna Carta, which means that Llywelyn the Great was instrumental in creating the Magna Carta laws. This is important, as the Magna Carta has given people human rights and freedoms. It has also influenced the American constitution and is still an important law that helps shape and influence human rights and freedoms to this day. 7. King John
In keeping in the spirit of the Magna Carta we are going to look at our next monarch: King John. King John deserves to be on our top ten list of monarchs for several reasons, one of these reasons is the Magna Carta. Although King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta, it was an important, if not one of the most important events which have ever happened in history. King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta in June 1215 by his barons and Llywelyn the Great. It was an important historical event which has shaped the course of British history and beyond ever since. Being forced to sign the Magna Carta though, shows that King John was a weak king who did not have full control of his realm, it shows that he lacked the authority he should have had and displayed as King.
It is perhaps partly through this that King John has a bad reputation in history. He also has a bad reputation in history because of his failed military endeavours and through his poorly received reputation through the tales of Robin Hood. His role in the history of Robin Hood is another reason why King John deserves to be on this list. For what would the tales of Robin Hood be without the evil imposter King John? Thanks to the tales of Robin Hood, King John is seen as a classic villain - he has been seen as the imposter King who stole the English crown from history brother (King Richard I), and as a monarch who ruled over England with a cruel iron fist, is the way King John has been perceived through the tales of Robin Hood, which has helped shaped his reputation in history. 6. Richard I
Sticking with Robin Hood, we look none other than to King Richard I himself. King Richard I deserves to be on this list for being part of, and shaping the story of Robin Hood itself. Although King Richard I was absent from England due to fighting in the Crusades in the Middle East, he is a central and crucial role to the history that shaped Robin Hood. There is historical evidence that Robin Hood did exist, the first record of him being noted in history is from 1377. However, it’s also likely there is some added folklore to the real Robin Hood and his story. For example, Maid Marion was added to the story much later and it’s unknown if Robin Hood ever actually did meet Richard the Lionheart, though no record of it seems to be recorded.
Whatever the real truth about Robin Hood, what can be said is that Robin Hood has helped immortalized Richard I in history. His catchy name ‘Richard the Lionheart’ also helps this medieval monarch stand out and be remembered in a sea of British monarchs. King Richard the Lionheart deserves to be on this list through his memorable impact on British and English history, both for the crusades, but especially for Robin Hood. King Richard I shows that a monarch can have a great impact on both his era and history without being a long-lasting monarch, as Richard was only King of England for ten years. Ten years isn’t a long reign, but it didn’t need to be for Richard, as it was long enough to make his stamp on history and be remembered. He is the last medieval monarch on our list. 5. Henry VIII
Away from the medieval era, we move into the Middle Ages, with none other than King Henry VIII himself. King Henry VIII really needs no introduction, he is a monarch that speaks for itself just by describing his name. Henry VIII was an impactful monarch in so many ways: he was instrumental in breaking away from the Catholic Church through the English Reformation, he was a tyrant-King who spared no one of mercy and he had a record-breaking six wives. Henry deserves to be on this list for his colourful and boisterous character, and for the fact that he changed the nature of religion and religious worship on the British Isles forever.
Everything about Henry VIII’s reign is interesting and gripping, perhaps more so for the way that he treated those closest to him, rather than anything else. With his six wives and Queens, one was exiled by him, two were beheaded by him, one died through giving birth to the son he so desperately wanted and two outlived him. He also beheaded two of his closest friends and political confidants: Thomas Moore and Thomas Cromwell. There are so many reasons why Henry VIII deserves to be on this list and you could write a whole book about how impactful and memorable his reign as King was. It was so impactful that his reign as King lasted long after his death, with us him giving us the first English Queen, Mary I (Bloody Mary, who was his daughter), and the second Queen of England, Elizabeth I who was also his daughter. Henry desperately wanted a son to secure his legacy and to secure the throne of England for the Tudor dynasty, however, the irony is, was that his son Edward VI was weak and didn’t last that long as King after the death of Henry VIII, whereas, both of Henry’s daughters Elizabeth and Mary were longer serving monarchs and were as strong as any King. 4. Elizabeth I
In keeping with the Tudor spirit, Queen Elizabeth I is one of our top monarchs of all time. She came to the throne when her sister Mary I had died. Mary I reigned for ten years as the first Queen of England. However, her reign as Queen was notorious, which is seen through the title that she is now remembered by: ‘Bloody Mary’. Mary was known for her cruel persecution of protestants and her attempt to reverse the English reformation due to her Catholic beliefs. However, given that Mary was succeeded by Elizbeth, a practising protestant, it seems in hindsight that Queen Mary’s attempt to reverse the English reformation was futile. After Mary tried to stamp out the protestant faith in England during her ten-year reign, Elizabeth restored the protestant faith in England upon becoming Queen. It is partly for her protestant faith, and the impact that it had on England that Elizabeth is remembered for. She is also remembered for the relationship that she had with her sister Mary I. The relationship between the sisters was a complex one, however, although they had differences in religious beliefs, Mary I named Elizabeth as her successor and wanted her sister to succeed her to be Queen of England, which is what happened.
Elizabeth is also known for her relationship with her cousin Mary Queen of Scots. Mary Queen of Scots was imprisoned by her own lords and forced to abdicate the Scottish throne, she was imprisoned in Loch Leven castle. Mary escape and fled to England. However, it was a fatal mistake on Mary's behalf, as her existence was a threat to Elizabeth's life and crown. Elizabeth didn't want to kill her own cousin, but as she saw Mary as a threat to her own crown she imprisoned Mary in England for almost twenty years. Though there is no evidence to suggest that the two cousins met, their distant relationship is one of the things that both women are remembered for. Elizabeth is also known as the Virgin Queen due to her unwillingness to marry. Like with Henry VIII, a whole book could be written about why Elizabeth I deserves to be on this top ten list of monarchs, Elizabeth I reigned for over 44 years and is the ninth longest-reigning monarch in the history of the British Isles. 3. Victoria
In keeping with the longest-reigning monarchs, we move to the second longest-reigning monarch in British history: Queen Victoria. Queen Victoria is the second longest-reigning monarch of British history and the British Isles, she’s also one of the longest-reigning monarchs ever to have lived in the world. Queen Victoria ruled for an impressive 63 years, which is one of the reasons that she belongs on this list. But there are other reasons why this monarch deserves to be on our top ten list of monarchs, mainly, for how the Victorian era changed both Britain and the world. The British Empire largely changed the nature of the world and Britain itself. It helped modernize Britain through the industrial revolution.
During Victoria’s reign, Britain was the world’s most powerful country. It dominated and controlled large parts of the world in several continents. The British Empire stretched from Asia, Australasia, Africa and the Americas, which led to the British Empire becoming the world’s largest-ever empire by the time the Victorian era had finished. But it is not just how the Victorian era shaped the world that makes Victoria’s reign memorable, which also makes it memorable is how Victoria’s reign shaped Britain itself. Today we remember Victorian Britain as a place of workhouses and deep inequality. We can see how things like inequality and workhouses shaped Victorian Britain through the work of Charles Dickens. It is also partly through Charles Dickens that we have the Christmas that we know today. Christmas before the Victorian era was vastly different from the Christmas that we have today, it was really the Victorians who created the modern Christmas we know today. Partly that was down to Victoria herself, who introduced the Christmas tree into Britain. It is thanks to Victoria herself that we have the most central aspect of Christmas that we have today: the Christmas tree. Victoria’s reign helped change and shape the modern world we live in today. 2. James I (VI)
From one long-serving monarch to another, we move onto James I (VI), he ruled as monarch for a very impressive 57 years. King James I deserves to be on this top ten list of monarchs both for his longevity as King and for being the King that united the British Isles and formed the foundations for the United Kingdom. The Union of the Crowns happened in 1603, resulting in the crowns of Scotland and England uniting into one crown and serving the whole of the British Isles. England and Wales were already united through the 1536 Act of Union, therefore, the 1603 Union of the Crowns united all of the British Isles. And the Act of Union in 1707 formed the United Kingdom, which happened after the death of James I.
It is through creating the union, and bringing together all countries in the British Isles that King James I deserves to be so high up on this list. His actions created the most successful Union in the world and brought together the countries of the United Kingdom to form one country which has brought peace between the countries, economic prosperity, a shared history, culture and language, and many of the worlds modern inventions. James came to be King of the whole British Isles due to already being King of Scotland and through the death of Elizabeth I who had no heir to succeed her, apart from her cousin, James I of Scotland. James is not only known for creating the United Kingdom, but he is also known for the Gunpowder Plot. The Gunpowder Plot is when Guy Fawkes and several other men tried to blow up the Houses of Parliament on the 4th/5th of November 1605, when James was set to open parliament the following day. The Gunpowder Plot wasn’t successful and Guy Fawkes was caught in the act in the House of Parliament cellars. The attempted plot resulted in the creation of Guy Fawkes Day/Bonfire Night which is still celebrated to this day. Therefore, James deserves to be on this list of our top ten list of monarchs for creating Guy Fawkes Night and forming the United Kingdom. 1. Elizabeth I
For her longevity alone Elizabeth I is our number one monarch. This monarch has reigned for nearly 68 astounding years. Elizabeth I has reigned for so long that it seems very unlikely that we will have another monarch who reigns so long. However, they probably thought the same about Victoria. Coming to the throne in 1952, the vast majority of British people have never known another monarch except Elizabeth I. The world and Britain have went through so many changes since the 1950s, when Queen Elizabeth first took to the throne. Probably the biggest changes are the changes brought about by technology, where we have instant contact with people from anywhere in the world and 24-hour media, both things were unheard of in the 1950s.
Although there has been many changes throughout the world since the second Elizabethan age began, it is hard to get a grasp on this monarch in a historical context, as we are still living through this second Elizabethan age. It is only historians decades from now that will be able to see this age and monarch a lot more clearly, and through a proper historical lens. But, however, history judges this monarch, it’s safe to say Elizabeth II has cemented her place in history due to her longevity as Queen. All of these monarchs for various different reasons have cemented their place in history and created monarchical history for what it is and was. All of these monarchs have shaped history in a way that no other monarchs have, which is why they are on our top ten list of monarchs, their actions have shaped the course of both British and world history over the course of a thousand years and put their place in the history books forever.
The last letter of Mary Queen of Scots has went on display in Edinburgh, Scotland. The last letter of Mary Queen of Scots has been put on display to mark the anniversary of her death. The anniversary of the death of Mary Queen of Scots was on the 8th of February. Mary Queen of Scots died on the 8th of February 1587 at Fotheringhay Castle, in Northamptonshire. Fotheringhay Castle was also the birth place of Richard III. Today the castle largely doesn't exist. What remains of the castle now is just a few earthworks, nothing more. Largely Fotheringhay Castle is gone. Fotheringhay Castle was dismantled in the 1630s. Today is remains a protected historical site, which is open to the public. A modern picture of Fotheringhay Castle below....
Mary also wrote her last letter at Fotheringhay Castle; the letter which has just went on display.
The last letter of Mary Queen of Scots was written just six hours before her execution. It is a letter which is now 430 years old. As the letter is very old, it is fragile and therefore is not on display all the time. It was on display from 10am until 7pm on Wednesday. The last time it was on display was in 2009. The letter was written by Mary Queen of Scots on the 8th of February 1587 at 2am. The letter was addressed to King Henry II of France. In the letter, Mary Queen of Scots wrote: ''Sire, my brother-in-law, having by God's will, for my sins I think, thrown myself into the power of the Queen my cousin, at whose hands I have suffered much for almost twenty years, I have finally been condemned to death by her and her Estates. I have asked for my papers, which they have taken away, in order that I might make my will, but I have been unable to recover anything of use to me, or even get leave either to make my will freely or to have my body conveyed after my death, as I would wish, to your kingdom where I had the honour to be queen, your sister and old ally.
|
|
|
The letter tells us a few things about Mary Queen of Scots and her time imprisoned. She tells us that she was poorly treated in England, especially by Queen Elizabeth I. Mary Queen of Scots also believes (from this letter) that she was being executed for her Catholic religion. Her Catholic religion certainly played a part in her downfall, but more so while in Scotland than in England.
Interestingly Mary Queen of Scots writes that she is ''innocent of any crime'', even though there is physical evidence, a hand written letter by her to show that she plotted the downfall of Elizabeth I. In Mary's eyes, did she think that this was not a crime? Probably. More to the point, does it suggest that she lacked any self-awareness of her own behavior which became an instrumental reason for her execution, perhaps.
It's impossible to really know what Mary Queen of Scots was really thinking in the last hours of her life.
One last thing which is very interesting about this letter is in whom it is addressed to. It is partially addressed to her son. But interestingly her final address was not to Scotland, but to France. It gives us an indication of where her heart really lay. Not in Scotland, but in France.
There are several good reasons for this too. Mary Queen of Scots was more French, than Scottish. She grew up in France, not Scotland. She spent more of her time in France, than in Scotland. In fact, she barely lived in Scotland - she also spent more time living captive in England, than in Scotland.
Perhaps Mary became bitter about Scotland. The way that she was forced to flee her homeland and wasn't very welcome by the nobility of Scotland when she returned.
In the final hours of a persons life perhaps shows us what they truly hold dear to them. From Mary Queen of Scots final letter, what she seems to have held most dear was: her son, her religion and France.
http://digital.nls.uk/mqs/trans1.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-38907013
https://stv.tv/news/east-central/1380224-last-letter-of-mary-queen-of-scots-goes-on-display-in-edinburgh/
|
Mary Queen of Scots is one of history's most tragic monarchs. Partly through circumstances within Scotland at the time, partly through her claim to the English thrown and partly through her naivety.
Before we get to why Mary Queen of Scots was naive, and why it led to her downfall, we will first look at the question, 'Who was Mary Queen of Scots?' |
Who was Mary Queen of Scots?
Mary Queen of Scots was born inLinlithgow Palace. Linlithgow Palace is situated in West Lothian, near Edinburgh. The palace was commissioned to be built by Stewart kings, from the Royal House of Stewart.
The Royal House of Stewart began in 1307 and ruled until 1603 until the Act of Union, which brought England and Scotland together, through Scottish king James I.
James I became the United Kingdom's first monarch; Mary Queen of Scots was in some respects Scotland's last monarch.
Although Mary Queen of Scots was Scottish, and was Scotland's queen from 1542 to 1567, she spent most of her life in both England and France.
At five years old, Mary was sent to live in France because of the turbulent situation in Scotland. Both of a political and religious nature. Scotland wasn't safe for Mary, especially as queen.
Mary Queen of Scots became queen of Scotland at just six days old. When her father, James V died. Her French mother, Mary of Guise acted as Mary Queen of Scots regent.
While just five years old, Mary Queen of Scots became betrothed to England's king Henry VIII's son, Edward. However, Mary's guardians broke of the arrangement. When they did, Mary Queen of Scots was taken to Stirling castle.
The broken arrangement made an enemy of Scotland and Mary Queen of Scots, in Henry VIIIs eyes. Herny VIII is infamously known for his vengeance - those who crossed Henry VIII were brutally dealt with.
The broken engagement of Mary Queen of Scots and his son Edward was no different. The situation resulted in 'The Rough Wooing.' This was an act of military aggression towards Scotland by Henry VIII between 1544 and 1548, as a result of the broken engagement.
Who was Mary Queen of Scots during those early years, is not something we can decipher. As she was too young to make her mark in history.
But, we can answer who was Mary Queen of Scots more through her time living in France.
Mary Queen of Scots in France
Mary left Scotland on the 7th of August in 1548, at Dumbarton. She arrived in France about a week later, at Brittany.
It was while in France that Mary's character and personality developed. She was said to be popular at the royal court. And popular with the French royal family.
It is also said that Mary was intelligent and talented. Mary Queen of Scotland spoke six languages; her native Scots, French, Latin, Italian, Spanish and Greek. She was also a gifted writer in prose and poetry.
Her other talents included: falconry, horsemanship and needlework.
Mary married her first husband while in France, Francis. The two married in Notre Dame in Paris, in 1558. The marriage united the Scottish and French crowns. However, it did not last.
Just a year later, on the 5th of December 1560, Francis had died of an ear infection. Leaving Mary a widow.
Mary's return to Scotland
Just nine months after the death of Francis, Mary Queen of Scots choose to return to Scotland. She arrived in Leith on the 19th of August 1561.
It was a decision made by Mary which would be the first step in her downfall.
From the moment Mary stepped foot in Scotland, she put herself in a precarious position. The situation in Scotland was politically and religiously dangerous.
The Scottish nobility were prone to acts of violence and lawlessness.
What was most dangerous for Mary is that she was a Catholic queen in a protestant country. This led her to go to mass privately. A sign that it was dangerous to be a Catholic at the time.
Although in public Mary Queen of Scots projected that she did not want to interfere with the protestant faith, it was not was she was saying behind the scenes.
Even though this was the case, protestants were suspicious of Mary. Most of her noble council was protestant, only a handful were Catholics.
The danger to Mary was that she never really had the support of her councilors and the wealthy nobility of Scotland. This was mostly due to her Catholic religion.
Being a ruling monarch during the era of Mary Queen of Scots was difficult enough. What made it more difficult for Mary Queen of Scots was not having the support of her own country men.
Elizabeth I during the same time had the same problem, not having the (full) support of her councilors and nobles, due to religious disagreements. What it shows us is that Elizabeth (and Mary Tudor of England), managed to keep their heads and their crowns, even though they both faced similar religious antagonists. This shows us that Mary Queen of Scots was a weaker and less effective monarch.
It wasn't just circumstance which led Mary Queen of Scots to her downfall, it was partially down to her being a weak and naive monarch.
The downfall of Mary Queen of Scots
Having enemy's within her own country was bad enough, dangerous enough, but Mary Queen of Scots made matters worse for herself. She made an enemy of England. Which wasn't a wise move.
Mary Queen of Scots made an enemy of England by making a claim to the English throne, when she was back in Scotland. She may have had a legitimate claim to the English throne, but she was in no position to claim it. England was more powerful than Scotland. Elizabeth was more powerful than Mary. Mary had enemies of her own within Scotland. Her claim to the English throne meant that Mary had made enemies both sides of the boarder.
Perhaps the situation was outwith her control, a situation not created by her. But, making an enemy of England and Elizabeth perhaps could have been avoided - if she hadn't made a claim to the English throne.
The cousins, Elizabeth and Mary, already had a turbulent relationship. Elizabeth already had defeated Mary earlier over the Treaty of Edinburgh.
Mary further made an enemy of Elizabeth through her third marriage to Lord Darnley. Lord Darnley also had a strong claim to the English throne. This undone the diplomacy tried by the two women.
Mary Queen of Scots and Lord Darnley married on the 29th of July 1565, at Holyrood Palace. The marriage did not last long, in 1567, Lord Darnley was murdered.
Mary was forced to abdicate the throne later in the year, during the summer. Showing the precarious nature that Scotland was in at the time.
She was imprisoned in Loch Leven Castle in Kinthrosshire. Making way for her son, James, to be crowned the new king of Scotland.
On the 2nd of May 1568, Mary Queen of Scotland escaped her imprisonment of Loch Leven castle. On the 16th of May that same year, Mary fled Scotland by a fishing boat to England.
Mary naively hoped that her cousin would help her. By choosing to flee to England, Mary sealed her doomed fate.
She also put herself into a dangerous situation. Yes, Mary was already in a dangerous situation while in Scotland, but she made matters worse for herself by choosing to go to England. Not only was she a threat to England's queen Elizabeth, she also was a Catholic in another protestant country. Both things made Mary Queen of Scots a walking target.
Elizabeth had Mary imprisoned and under surveillance while in England. For 19 years.
What was to happen over the following two decades perhaps shows us another difference between the queens. It shows us that Mary Queen of Scots was ruthless and vengeful. Whereas, Elizabeth I seems to have had more compassion.
Throughout her time in prison, Mary Queen of Scots was at the center of plots to assassinate Elizabeth, and put Mary on the English throne.
Mary was not directly linked to any of these plots, and so Elizabeth did not want to assassinate her. Though, the English nobles at the time wanted the queen to act in this way.
In 1586, physical evidence of Mary plotting the downfall of Elizabeth did surface. She was found to correspond with Anthony Babington, to bring down the queen.
It was a naive and foolish mistake by Mary Queen of Scots. It gave the English nobels the evidence they both needed and wanted to get rid of Mary. In effect, Mary Queen of Scots signed her own death warrant. Mary provided evidence for Elizabeth that she was a danger to Elizabeth's life.
Ultimately, it ended in Mary Queen of Scots death. First there was a trial. And then in October 1586, Mary Queen of Scots was sentenced to death.
Mary was executed on the 8th of February 1587 at Fotheringay Castle.
Concluding thoughts
If Mary had never fled to England, she could have been executed in Scotland. Neither country was safe for her. Not Scotland. Not England.
Partly the reason for that was outwith her control, such as the religious reformation which was turning Catholicism on its head; replacing it with Protestantism in both Scotland and England.
For a Catholic monarch this was dangerous.
What was also dangerous for Mary was how she behaved as queen. Naturally any monarch during that time had enemies, alliances were built to avoid such enemies.
Although Mary did in some respects try to befriend and make an alliance with Elizabeth, her claim to the English throne was enough to make a permanent enemy of Elizabeth.
Naturally Elizabeth did not just fear for her crown, she also feared for her life, with Mary making a claim to the throne.
A combination of Mary's stake to the English throne, her lack of support from her nobles and her naivety, all played a part in Mary's downfall.
We can see her downfall not as one event, but a series of events which led to her demise.
In some respects Mary Queen of Scots was a tragic figure of political and religious circumstance. In other respects, she partially created her own downfall.
Her story may be tragic, but Mary Queen of Scots is one of the most fascinating figures in Scottish history.
Sources:
http://www.historyextra.com/article/premium/deadly-rivals-elizabeth-and-mary
http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/mary-queen-scots-leaves-france-scotland
http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/education/int/hist/mary/act1/wooing/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/history/articles/james_v/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/people/mary_queen_of_scots/
https://www.britannica.com/topic/House-of-Stuart
https://www.historicenvironment.scot/visit-a-place/places/linlithgow-palace/getting-there/
Mary Stuart returned to Scotland on August 19th, 1561. Mary Stuart (or Mary Queen of Scots, as she is also known), left France, Calais, on the 14th of August, 1561.
As she left France, Mary Stuart burst into tears. She said as she was leaving the port at Calais, and said, machere France. Mary was leaving a country which she grew up in, to go to one that she wasn't familiar with. Scotland.
Mary was only 18 when she returned to Scotland. She had been in France since she was an infant. Mary Stuart was sent to live with the French royal family, by her mother who was French because Scotland was war torn. And Mary was the heir to the throne.
Obviously she was far to young to take on the role of queen. Therefore, her life became a danger in Scotland. And a source of manipulation.
The Queen of Scots was taking a chance, she was heading back to a country with protestant reformers at it's helm. Mary herself was a catholic.
Mary's faith was something which put her life in danger. She was a catholic queen, in a protestant country. Her move back to Scotland can be seen as naive, in this light.
However, it wasn't as naive as when Mary Stuart had decided to flee Scotland, for England. Mary had fled to England in thehope that her cousin Elizabeth I would protect her.
This was really naive of Mary for two reasons. The first is, that her faith put her in danger, in England too. The second reason is that she had a claim to the English throne.
These two things put her life in danger in England, especially the latter. The minute she set foot in England, she put a noose around her own neck. It seemed inevitable that she would die.
Another thing which seems to emphasis that Mary was terribly naive, is that fact that she put in writing that she wanted to dispose Elizabeth and take the throne. She literally signed her own death warrant.
Duncan I king of Scotland died on this day in 1040. It is unclear when Duncan I was born. But he reigned as Sottish king between 1034 to 1040.
He was the son of Malcolm II of Scotland. And was succeed by Macbeth, king of Scotland.
Both of Scotland's kings Macbeth and Duncan are portray in William Shakespear's play, Macbeth. In the play Macbeth, King Duncan is portrayed as an elderly man. And he is killed by Macbeth.
Robert III was a grandson ofRobert the Bruce. Bruce's monarchical name wasRobert I of Scotland. Robert III's father was Robert II of Scotland, who was a relation of Elizabeth II (his 17th great-grandfather). Making Robert III of Scotland Elizabeth II's 16th great-grandfather.
Here are some facts about Robert III of Scotland:
. He was a member of the House of Stewart. The House of Stewart contains some of Britain's most well-known royals. Including; James I who united Scotland and England, Charles I, Bonnie Prince Charlie, and of course, Mary Queen of Scots.
. Robert III ascended to the throne on the 19th of April, 1390.
. He was crowned king on the 14th of August, 1390, atScone Abbey, in Perthshire.
. Robert III was king until he died. He died on the 4th of April, 1406, at Dundonald castle, in Ayrshire, which still stands to this day.
Most of what we know of William Wallace is what happened during the final years of his life; when he fought the English during the First War of Independece. Other than that, there is very little historical evidence of the man William Wallace. According to the 'National Archives of Scotland' there are only four documented sources which were 'issued by Wallace'.
Most of what we know about Wallace stems from 1297 to 1305, we know little about his early life, and childhood. Historians think that it is likely that Wallace was educated, this is because he was born into a family of nobility. It was common for those of nobility to be educated in reading and writing (something which was extremely rare at the time), it is also likely that Wallace was bilingual, probably he spoke Gaelic, Latin, and even French. We know that in Wallace's later life is went to France to seek help from the French, to defeat the English, so it is possible that he did speak French - as it would have been common in the nobility. Though, there is no evidence that Wallace was bilingual, or that he was educated, however, it is an educated guess about what Wallace's abilities were, based on how other nobles lived.
Given that written documents are rare for this era, it is unlikely that we will ever know.
Most of what we know about William Wallace was his time in battle. There first documented battle, or incident, was Wallace's assassination of the English high Sheriff of Lanark, William De Heslerig. Thereafter, Wallace carried out further rebellions at the time; which coincided with the rebellions in the Highlands led by Andrew Morray. Wallace and Moray carried out rebellions separately from May 1297, until September 1927 when both men met up and carried out rebellions together.
In the coming months, at the Battle of Falkirk, in April 1298, a few months after his suprising win at Stirling, Wallace was to face his second, and final battle. As a result of Wallace's actions towards Northern England, King Edward I of England drew up a 25,000 strong army, and invaded Scotland. The invasion of Scotland was not just an act of revenge, it was aimed at enticing Wallace out, to capture him. We know it didn't work, Wallace fled to France, and cam back to Scotland sometime in 1304, a year, or few months from his capture and exicution (depending on the date he came back to Scotland).
Wallace was living on borrowed time, in hindsight, his choice to return to Scotland was a fatal mistake. Perhaps this gives us an insight into his personality - he was cocky? arrogant? overestimated his abilities and strengths?. Wallace would have been aware that many of the Scottish nobles were allies of England, and that a return to Scotland would have seen him captured, and sent to England. It's also possible that he could have thought things would have died down in Scotland, or, naively thought that the English would have not had Scottish eyes watching out for the return of Wallace.
Whatever reason Wallace had for returning to Scotland, it was a mistake. Indeed, he was captured by a noble who sympathized with Edward, and was loyal to Edward, John De Mentheith. mentheith was the man who captured Wallace just outside of Glasgow.
It was on September 11th 1297, when Wallace and Moray became more serious with their attack on the English, at the Battle of Stirling Bridge. Moray, and Wallace's army when vastly outnumbered by the English, they were also not half as well trained as the English, but, they did win the battle. It was the end for Moray though; he died in battle from inflicted wounds. Wallace's victory as Stirling led him to wage war on Northern England. Wallace overstretched his ambition by invading Northern England, he pillaged, murdered, and rioted, but it was short lived, soon he was driven back to Scotland, extremely quickly.
Wallace was living on borrowed time, in hindsight, his choice to return to Scotland was a fatal mistake. Perhaps this gives us an insight into his personality - he was cocky? arrogant? overestimated his abilities and strengths?. Wallace would have been aware that many of the Scottish nobles were allies of England, and that a return to Scotland would have seen him captured, and sent to England. It's also possible that he could have thought things would have died down in Scotland, or, naively thought that the English would have not had Scottish eyes watching out for the return of Wallace.
Whatever reason Wallace had for returning to Scotland, it was a mistake. Indeed, he was captured by a noble who sympathized with Edward, and was loyal to Edward, John De Mentheith. mentheith was the man who captured Wallace just outside of Glasgow.
Wallace was taken to England. His trail was quick, a matter of days. It was a forgone conclusion, the trail was really just for show. In the trail Wallace is recorded as saying, ''I could not be a traitor to Edward, for I was never his subject'', in regards to his treasonous charges. There is no evidence that Wallace was offered any sort of clemency, therefore, it wouldn't really have mattered what his choice of words were.
Wallace was hung, drawn, and quatered on the 23rd of August, 1305. And died that day.
Archives
April 2023
March 2023
February 2022
April 2021
March 2021
January 2021
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
April 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
July 2019
June 2019
April 2019
March 2019
November 2018
August 2018
July 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
November 2015
Categories
All
Borgias
British History
Captain Smith
Christmas
Claudius
Elizabeth I
European History
Folklore
French Revolution
Henry VIII
Italy
Jack The Ripper
Jack The Ripper Letters
Jack The Ripper Sources.
Jack The Ripper Supsects
Jack The Ripper Victims
James I (VI)
Magna Carta
Medevial History
Monarchs
Mythology
On This Day In History
Queen Victria
Quizzes
Robin Hood
Roman
Russia
Scottish History
Suffragettes
Thomas-cromwell
Titanic
Tudor-history
Tudors
Victorian-britain
Victorian-history
Votes-for-women
Winston-churchill
Witches
Women-of-history
Womens-history
Womens-suffragge
World-war-one
World-war-two