Queen of Scots return?

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Elizabeth had a problem with marriage.

Yes, she did. Because she was regarded as illegitimate by most of Europe's royal families (who were, and are, staunchly catholic) she was limited in her choice of husbands to those protestant royals who were either weaker (in the military sense) or stronger (in the military sense) than England. A weak marriage would only embolden England's enemies (chiefly Spain), while a strong marriage would drain England of resources (men and money) to support a long and drawn out continental war-- something Elizabeth managed to avoid during most of her reign-- and allow her enemies (again, chiefly Spain) to invade and subjugate her realm.

As Machiavelli pointed out in The Prince: for the monarch there is no right or wrong, only success or failure. For Elizabeth to succeed, marriage was out of the question. In fact, from the day she ascended the throne, it was never even a consideration.

... she (Mary Queen of Scots) ought to be sent back to Scotland. It was the country of her birth and to whom she was their rightful queen.

Scotland was indeed the country of her birth, but she left when she was three years old, and only returned after the death of her husband, the King of France.

Despite the romance of it all, Scotland was a second-rate kingdom when compared to Sweden, France, Spain, Portugal, it's neighbor, England, or any of the other European powers. Had Francois II not died in a jousting accident, it's doubtful if Mary would have ever returned to Scotland.

Given the Scots love of intrigue, and murder, it is likely that her half brother James would have ended up on the throne of Scotland and (in the fullness of time) England, while Mary's son would have become King of France.

The reality is that Mary didn't return to Scotland out of love for the land or the people, she was dragged back by her over ambitious mother who wanted her daughter to be a Queen.

[duchessofnc]

Queen Elizabeth I, bastard and protestant or not was not lacking in marriage proposals. It is well documented that for one she was in love with Robert Dudley whom she could not ever marry. Being single was more profitable. She brought in a great deal of cash for England from her suitors. One of them being the very powerful King of Spain, Phillip II who was married to her sister, Mary I. And rebuffing him was a powerful motivator in the Spanish Armada that attempted to attack England. She just really didn't want to be another pawn in some man's game. She was unusual in that she was a monarch in her own right. It was extrodinary historically that there were two such Queens in Europe at the same time. Her cousin being the second.

Furthermore, Mary, Queen of Scots did not return to Scotland to be the Queen that her ambitious mother wished for her to be. She left for one because it was the country that she was indeed Queen in her own right. Her mother was dead before she entered Scotland. Plus if you were the daughter-in-law of Catherine De Medci you would want to get as far away from her as possible.

Scotland was a whole lot more appealing than the French Court at that time. And she did go there with the best intentions. It just didn't work out that way.

[duchessofnc]

Had Francois II not died in a jousting accident, it's doubtful if Mary would have ever returned to Scotland. --- Correction: He didn't die in a jousting accident. That was his father. He died from complications of an ear infection and did not have a history of being well.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Had Francois II not died in a jousting accident, it's doubtful if Mary would have ever returned to Scotland. --- Correction: He didn't die in a jousting accident. That was his father. He died from complications of an ear infection and did not have a history of being well.

My thanks for the correction-- you are, in this matter, factually correct. As to some of your other contentions, I am afraid that I will have to respectfully disagree with some of your conclusions.

Regardless of modern interpretations of Marys' life and career as a queen, the fact remains that she was buried in Westminster as "rightful Queen of England" and, in all likelihood, there she will remain.

[bowser]

Who cares? there is way too much re-writing of history because we with our modern eye don't like the way something was done hundreds of years ago. Its a waste of time and effort and in the end really does not matter, nobody in a hundred years from now will know nor care, and we have far better things to worry about and spend money on.

Perhaps because the stone to make Stonehenge was from north Wales and since we don't have a receipt to say it was paid for, it should be repatriated?

[Galician]

Sorry Frank, but I'd have to disagree-- suppose a journalist in Aberdeen decided that, as he was born in Scotland, the body of John Paul Jones should be removed from the U.S. Naval Academy and re-buried in Scotland?

MacMillan, I was reminded that your use of JPJ was particularly, even if unwittingly(?) apt to this argument. Jones died and was buried, not in the U.S.A., but in Paris, FRANCE, where he was serving as the U.S. Ambassador to the Royal Court. A century ago, it took a six-year search by the Embassy there to locate his remains, upon which they were removed and taken to the Naval Academy.

The same applies to Mary. As the dowager Queen of France it could be argued (by French monarchists) that she should be buried next to her husband, Francois II. In France.

The reality is that Mary considered herself to be the de jure, if not the de facto, Queen of England. To underscore that point her son had her dug up, and dragged (with full ceremony) to London to be re-buried at Westminster.

Really, given the generally anti-royalist views voiced by many Scots-- especially in the media and the Scottish Assembly, I'd have thought the last thing most Scots would want would be the body of a long deceased Royal dragged across the border and planted at some to-be-determined tourist destination.

Yours,
formerly of post code EH7 1UH

Macmillan, I had also wondered about the claim the French could make on her remains. Any idea if her husband's tomb survived the French Revolution?

Hmm. Don't know. Did I hear someone shout "GOOGLE"!

Thanks for the gentle reminder. Turns out that, as I suspected, it would be impossible to bury her next to her first husband, as all royal remains were removed from their tombs during the Revolution and dumped into a common grave. While the surviving remains were removed decades later, it was, of course, impossible to identify individuals, so they were kept in a group and simply re-interred in a place of honor in the royal basilica where they had originally been buried.

[McClef]

Perhaps because the stone to make Stonehenge was from north Wales and since we don't have a receipt to say it was paid for, it should be repatriated?

Not north Wales but the Preseli Mountains in west Wales.

But stones or bones the repatriation idea can be taken to ridiculous lengths...

[bowser]

Not north Wales but the Preseli Mountains in west Wales.

But stones or bones the repatriation idea can be taken to ridiculous lengths...

I am from Cornwall so the whole of wales is north to me