Queen of Scots return?

[bowser]

And, for the record, most Scots are rather fond of Mary whether Catholic or Protestant.

I have to take issue with this, I had the misfortune to have a room between 2 Scotsmen once, one was left foot and one right, one would not even touch something if it were orange and the the same if it was green white and gold, he even refused to wear gold rings etc only having silver.

[McClef]

She wasn't wanted in Scotland when she was alive being badly treated and used as a pawn by various power factions and her religion as well as her gender were held against her. She was not seen as the romantic figure that she now is by the Scots of the time.

And yes, she would have soon left Scotland had she lived to inherit the throne from Elizabeth - her son wasted no time in doing so! Scotland was for her a place of sorrow as much as was her English captivity.

Where she is buried is a place of great honour, leave her in peace.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

... this sounds like a matter for Scots to deside... and as such anyone not living in Scotland should stay out of it... it's their business.

Frank

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?

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

[Arlen]

I have to take issue with this, I had the misfortune to have a room between 2 Scotsmen once, one was left foot and one right, one would not even touch something if it were orange and the the same if it was green white and gold, he even refused to wear gold rings etc only having silver.

Like I said, 'MOST' Scots.
Those rabid few never like anything and rarely know anything.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

While the "rabid few" that Arlen has mentioned are stewing over the dust and bones of Queen Mary, perhaps they should also set their sights on having James I/VI and Charles I & II sent up from England as well. And while they are at it, why not go for the full set, and see if they can get the Vatican to hand over James VII and Bonnie Prince Charlie as well! Oh, and lest we forget, Queen Anne will need to be accommodated as well. Better send her north in two packing crates.

I know that some of you will think I'm being factitious, but my argument is motivated by genuine concern for the Scottish taxpayer. If the Stuart dynasty is brought north piecemeal, it will result in duplicating the expenses of shipping (even if Eddie Stoddard gave a discount, the costs would be exorbitant), to say nothing of the burden placed upon the populace in having to foot the bill for seven state funerals. Parking in Edinburgh would be impossible.

I can already hear grumblings of discontent from all the Hibernian supporters-- "What about Henry Benedict, Cardinal of York, de jure Henry IX of England and I of Scotland and younger brother of BPC?" No anti-catholic sentiment here, but in death (as in life) he was Church property, and he was disposed of in accordance with the cannon law then appertaining. And I'm sorry, but adding him to the list would mean an eighth state funeral, and that's just asking too much of Jock Q. McPublic. That said, maybe the Hibs could stop their grumbling and have a quick whip 'round at the next Rangers v. Celtics match and come up with enough coin of the realm to erect a suitable monument somewhere in Scotland that desperately needs to become a tourist destination.

Of course, what everyone has overlooked is that this really isn't a government matter, despite what a member of that staunchly royalist party, the SNP, may think.

Perhaps someone better versed in English church law would care to comment: As I understand it, the government cannot force the Church of England to surrender its property, or levy taxes upon it. By extension this would (it seems to me) include the remains of those buried within the walls or precincts of any church.

Since you would expect law makers to have at least a nodding acquaintance with the law, you might find yourself asking what's really at the bottom of this nonsense about "returning" Mary's bones to Scotland.

[Jock Scot]

I actually think that most Scots don't even know where Mary Queen of Scots is buried. I didn't, and until I had read this thread I have never given it a thought.Speaking for myself, she is best left in peace where she is.

[Galician]

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?

I was surprised to read what you wrote about how Mary considered herself to be the de jure Queen of Engand. If so, it explains to me why Elizabeth would have considered her to be such a threat. But what would this claim have been based on?

As regards Cardinal Henry Benedict, I suspect that canon law of the period might have made him ineligible for inheriting the title, due to his status as a cleric.

[highlander_Daz]

Ive never paid a Dollar in taxes !!

leave her to rest in peace, and the smell would be terrible.

another Publicity hungry MSP !!

[duchessofnc]

Historical Fact: Mary Queen of Scots was not the most intelligent woman in the world. Oh she had an education but she had not one drop of common sense or she wouldn't have married either Darnley or Bothwell. She did plot against her cousin, Queen Elizabeth I. She thought she should have been the rightful Queen of England. And she never let go of the claim and spent the moment Mary I of England's death reaching her, plotting on taking the English throne. Even more so she was desperate to do so while she fled in exile because if she could have ousted Elizabeth on the throne.. or at least killed her... she would be next and could take English troops to Scotland, depose of her son, and retake the Scottish throne.

Queen Elizabeth I did not want to execute her cousin and signing her death warrant was something that she had avoided until she was left no choice. The reason Elizabeth I was very reluctant to executing her cousin was this: It could be done to her. Mary would have been better off just waiting her turn. It was going to get to her and her family eventually. Elizabeth had a problem with marriage. It couldn't have been because her father had 6 wives and had executed two of them ( her mother and cousin could it)?

I am neither Catholic of Protestant , and if it can be done without great expense, she ought to be sent back to Scotland. It was the country of her birth and to whom she was their rightful queen. And if she is well loved as the article suggests then I'm sure private donors would be more than happy to contribute financially to the move.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

[QUOTE=Galician;611484]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?[QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=Galician;611484]I was surprised to read what you wrote about how Mary considered herself to be the de jure Queen of Engand. If so, it explains to me why Elizabeth would have considered her to be such a threat. But what would this claim have been based on?[QUOTE]

Mary's claim to the English throne was through her Grandmother, Margret Tudor, and placed her in the line of succession after the children of Henry VIII. As Elizabeth was considered illegitimate Mary's claim was valid. That is why, following the death of Mary, her son, James VI of Scotland, became the heir to the English throne, and ascended to that throne upon the death of Elizabeth I.

[QUOTE=Galician;611484]As regards Cardinal Henry Benedict, I suspect that canon law of the period might have made him ineligible for inheriting the title, due to his status as a cleric.[QUOTE]

Henry became a Cardinal at the ripe old age of 22 (in 1747). Following the death of his brother in 1788 he assumed the style of Henry IX, and displayed the Royal Arms on his coach. On his death in 1807 he is supposed to have willed a number of items to George III, including the coronation ring.

Interestingly, when Rome fell to Napoleon Henry Benedict fled to Naples where he was elected Pope-- he promptly repudiated the election, citing his status as de jure king of England (!) as one of the principal reasons.