Did You Know? - Union of the Parliaments 1707 Did You Know? - Union of the Parliaments 1707 Treaty of Union courtesy of the Scottish Parliament Web Site. The reasons for the Union of the Parliaments (which was vastly unpopular with the ordinary Scottish people even though most of them at that time did not have the vote) were complex and varied. They can be summarised as follows: From the Union of the Crowns in 1603, England and Scotland had one monarch but two Parliaments. While this worked most of the time, there were occasions when the two institutions parted company - such as when England Executed King Charles I (to the distress of many in Scotland) and became a republic, while at the same time Scotland's governing body resolved to appoint King Charles II as their monarch. From the perspective of the leaders in London, such a situation had to be avoided in the future and the removal of the Scottish Parliament was seen as a way of achieving this. Following the abdication of King James VII and the accession of William and Mary, the Scottish Parliament were in agreement and declared a few months later that James VII had forfeited the Scottish throne.

But there were many in Scotland who still supported the deposed monarch. There were even uprisings in Scotland in support of James and the Jacobite cause was still bubbling away at the turn of the century. There was still a large measure of religious intolerance in both England and Scotland and those in power were determined that there should never again be a Catholic monarch. But the deposed Stuart line (with their Catholic sympathies) really had a stronger claim on the throne and again there were more in Scotland who felt that this should count. When the English Parliament decided, without consultation with their Scottish counterparts, that the crown should go via the Electress of Hanover, the German granddaughter of King James VI and through her to her son (the future King George I), the Scots Parliament made plain their resentment. There were a number of poor harvests in Scotland in the 1690s and Scotland's economic position was then drastically worsened by the ill-fated Darien Scheme to create a Scottish colony in Panama. Scotland lost 25% of its liquid assets. The Act of Union undertook to pay 400,000 pounds in compensation to those who had incurred these losses.

This was of course blatant bribery as the people who were to benefit from this compensation were amongst those who voted in favour of the Union. Scotland relied on 50% of its exports going to England. In an act of blackmail in 1705, the English Parliament closed their market to Scottish cattle, coal and linen and declared that all Scots would be treated a aliens. It showed the vulnerability of Scotland to a trade war. In addition, Scotland was excluded from England's colonial territories - indeed early moves towards a union of the parliaments stumbled in England as they were reluctant to allow open access. But the Act of Union in 1707 created the greatest free trade area in the world at that time. Act of Union 1707 A commission representing the two bodies met and thrashed out the details. The Scots lost the argument for a federal arrangement but did manage to secure the continuation of the Scottish legal system, education and church. These were important elements in allowing the country to continue to regard itself as a separate entity. The privileges of the Scottish royal burghs were also to be maintained.

Debates in the Scottish Parliament were heated and lengthy while the crowds in the streets burnt copies of the treaty and threw stones at the Parliament windows. A mob held the city of Glasgow for a month. But on January 16, 1707, the Treaty of Union was passed by 110 votes to 67 (with more than a suspicion that some of the poorer Members of Parliament had been bribed - though this was nothing new for those days). The Treaty was passed in Westminster without opposition and the Scottish Parliament met for the last time on 25 March 1707. When the Act of Union was given the Royal Assent by the Earl of Seafield, he touched the document with the royal sceptre saying "There's the end of an auld sang." Nearly 300 years later, at the "re-convening" of Parliament in Edinburgh in 1999, the Presiding Officer was to remark that it was the "start of a new sang".

Writing later, Sir Walter Scott summed up the attitude of the Scottish "man in the street" at the time in the words of one of his characters: "I ken, when we had a king, and a chancellor, and parliament - men o' our ain, we could aye peeble them wi' stones when they werena gude bairns - But naebody's nails can reach the length o' Lunnon". Use the "Back" button on your browser or click here to return to the Index of "Did You Know?" Where else would you like to go in Scotland? Links Pages BBC - History - British History in depth: Acts of Union: The creation of the United Kingdom Disunion The formation of any early modern state was achieved usually by absorption or by conquest. England had absorbed Wales and Cornwall by 1543, through parliamentary incorporation, political and cultural integration of the ruling elites, and administrative cohesion across church and state. But Ireland, despite being declared a dependant kingdom in 1541, was not incorporated into a composite English kingdom. Successive Tudor monarchs failed to effect conquest and achieved little integration beyond Dublin and the surrounding 'Pale'.

The plantations were a British endeavour to overhaul Ireland’s Catholic majority. The limited impact of the Protestant Reformation in Ireland further compounded this failure. In a marked contrast to both Wales and Cornwall, the cultural distinctiveness of Ireland remained threatening. This uneasy relationship was aggravated by large-scale migration to the plantations, which were a British endeavour to help overhaul Ireland’s Catholic majority. Migrant planters came from both Scotland and England in the 17th century. James I of England and VI of Scotland was determined to counter traditional English claims to overlordship of Scotland by cultivating a British identity and advocating total British Union. Plantation had therefore been promoted after his accession to the English throne in 1603. Top Resisting union James I of England and VI of Scotland) © The move from regal union in 1603 to parliamentary union in 1707 and 1800 was far from seamless. The English parliament rejected political incorporation with Scotland in 1607 and 1670. Irish overtures for incorporation were likewise rejected in 1703, 1707 and 1709.

A proposal for union initiated in the House of Lords in 1695 never got off the ground and another in 1700 was rejected in the House of Commons. For their part, the Scottish estates favoured 'federative' rather than 'incorporating' union in 1641 and in 1643. A federative union was an association of executive powers that did not involve the subordination or incorporation of the Scottish estates or the English parliament. The estates had violently split over an incorporating engagement in 1648 and had resisted political union in 1689 and 1702. But the estates, like the Irish parliament, were forced by Oliver Cromwell into an unwanted union with England from 1652 until the restoration of the Stuart monarchy in 1660. The Jacobites constituted a real threat to British state formation until they were vanquished in 1746. Scottish moves towards commercial union instigated in 1664 were rebuffed in 1668. A similar English initiative never got off the drawing board in 1674 or in 1685.

The transition from regal to incorporating union was severely disrupted by revolution and civil war in both the 17th and 18th centuries. Charles I was beheaded in 1649. His grandson, James II was removed in 1688-1689 to make way for William of Orange, who married his daughter Mary. In turn, they were succeeded by another daughter Anne in 1702. British determination to maintain a Protestant succession led to the accession of the house of Hanover in 1714, a distant cadet line of the Stuarts. The Jacobites, who remained loyal to the main Stuart line in exile, constituted a real if episodic threat to British state formation, until they were vanquished in 1746. Top Scotland: Rogue nation The most important consideration in the making of the United Kingdom in 1707 was the standpoint of England. Under William of Orange, England had been consolidated as a global power by the massive build up of the army and the navy to fight the French. England’s war effort was funded through a national debt, supplied increasingly by taxes on trade rather than land.

The largest component of customs dues was levied on the colonial trade. But this trade faced significant disruption from Scottish commercial networks which circumvented the Navigation Acts contrived to protect English domestic and overseas trade. England had insufficient manpower to fight wars, sustain manufacturing and expand its empire - the Scots were a ready reservoir. English feelings that Scotland was acting as a rogue nation contributed greatly to William’s willingness to sabotage the Darien Venture through which Scotland attempted to establish an entrepôt for the East and West Indies on the Panama Isthmus in the late 1690s. English desires to control the Scots became more acute after the accession of Queen Anne, particularly as the Scots seemed reluctant to accept an eventual Hanoverian succession. Financial issues became critical as England embarked upon the War of the Spanish Succession. Because the Jacobites were strongly backed by Louis XIV of France, this engagement could well have turned into a war for the British succession. Renewal of war further exposed a demographic crisis in England and brought about a major shift in government policy in favour of union. England had insufficient manpower to fight wars, sustain manufacturing and expand its empire. The Scots were a ready reservoir.

Queen Anne played a proactive role in the making of the United Kingdom, not least because she was outraged by the endeavours of the Scottish estates to impose limitations on the prerogative powers of her eventual successor. If the price of union and the Hanoverian succession was to be the termination of the Scottish estates, so be it. In turn, leading members of the estates, intent on preserving the royal prerogative, securing the Presbyterian Kirk and attaining greater career opportunities through empire promoted Union. Top Act of Union, 1707 The Treaty of Union was not a magnanimous, indeed unprecedented, act of altruism in which England rescued an impoverished Scotland - as it has sometimes been portrayed. Certainly the Scottish balance of trade appeared far from healthy, with imports hugely exceeding exports. Scottish government was also hard pressed financially. But several caveats are necessary. The impoverishment of government doesn't necessarily mean the impoverishment of the country. The adverse balance was calculated on taxed trade, not on trade conducted. The balance took no account of imported goods re-exported or reprocessed as manufactures for domestic consumption. Above all, the balance took no account of the invisible earnings from the thriving Scottish carrying trade from the Baltic to the Caribbean.

The financial capacity of Scottish commercial networks was powerfully demonstrated in the first four months of 1707, before the union became operative on 1 May. Only 45 MPs were to be returned. Scottish representation was less than that of Cornwall. Scottish networks exploited fiscal loopholes by investing £300,000 in brandies, wines, salt and whalebones (for manufacturing into bodices and stays) which they intended to export to England tax free after 1 May. Until Anne sidelined the English ministry’s attempts to prescribe this activity on the eve of union, its actual implementation was imperilled by vociferous protests from Scottish politicians and merchants. The enduring popular belief that Scottish politicians were bought and sold for English gold turns attention away from those Scots who negotiated union. They were not so much corrupt as inept. Their ineptitude was manifested by their stance on colonial access, reparations for Darien and investment in manufactures. All three were secured conditionally. The East Indies remained the preserve of English commercial interests. Marginally increased reparations were traded off against drastically scaled down investment from what the English ministry had been prepared to offer in return for political incorporation.

By agreeing that reparations and investment should be met by the raising of taxes to English levels, the Scots were effectively financing their own dividends from union. The Scottish negotiators also accepted a drastic reduction in their nobility eligible for the House of Lords, their numbers being restricted to 16 elected peers. No less significant, only 45 Scottish MPs were to be returned from the shires and burghs to the Commons. Scottish representation was less than that of Cornwall. In effect, the English parliament became the British parliament with marginal readjustment to accommodate Scottish interests. Top Act of Union, 1800 Disaffection within Scotland towards the Treaty of 1707 was soon enhanced by breaches in both the spirit and letter of the union and by delays in honouring fiscal inducement. Growing resentment about the running of Scotland led to a concerted effort by Scottish politicians at Westminster to terminate the Treaty, which lost narrowly in the lords by four proxy votes in 1713. The major beneficiaries of political disaffection were undoubtedly the Jacobites, who mounted two serious challenges to the Union in 1715 and 1745.

With the vanquishing of Jacobitism at Culloden, British national identity was promoted assiduously in Scotland, portrayed as patriotism and prosperity imbued by a common commitment to liberty and Protestantism. Leading figures of the Scottish Enlightenment viewed themselves as the moral guardians of the British constitution established during the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688-1689 and consolidated by the Treaty of Union in 1707. The distinctively Catholic faith of the Irish was disparaged by the Act of Union. Part of this guardianship was a general reawakening of interest in union, which chimed with rising resentment at the protectionist doctrine which denied Ireland free access to empire. Simultaneously, surveys of empire contrasted the integral partnership claimed for the Scots with the restricted role of the Irish. The extent to which there should be full legislative and commercial union between Britain and Ireland moved up the political agenda following the American Revolution, when Irish radicalism and constitutional instability were perceived as threatening to England. The perceived threat during the 1780s was compounded in the next decade by the French Revolution, when Ireland, like Scotland prior to 1707, was seen as the back door to invasion of England from France.

But it was not until moves commenced in Westminster in support of Catholic emancipation that the Protestant ascendancy in Ireland was convinced that incorporating union was more attractive than power-sharing. After the United Irishmen had courted an abortive French invasion in 1798, the British state moved from oppressive reprisals to advocating union. Prominent in this British reaction was Henry Dundas, the dominant Scottish politician. He and his political clients were to the fore, arguing the case for political incorporation both at Westminster and in the country at large, based on the reputed advantages that Scotland had enjoyed since 1707. The Act of Union that was duly negotiated between Britain and Ireland in 1800 again represented the continuation of the English parliament, but with less marginal adjustments in terms of political representation to accommodate Irish interests. Whereas the Treaty of Union had secured the Presbyterian Kirk, the distinctively Catholic faith of the Irish was disparaged by the Act of Union. Catholic emancipation remained a distant prospect, not an immediate commitment. Although fiscal dues were not equalised until the 1820s, union for Ireland, as for Scotland in 1707, led to protracted economic recession.

With industrialisation largely confined to Belfast and Dublin, the Irish lacked the entrepreneurial levers or the commitment to empire which had enabled the Scots to grasp the economic opportunities gradually opened up by political incorporation. Top An imperial postscript For the Scots, incorporation with England did not fundamentally alter their Kirk, their legal system or their local government. Only from the mid-19th century did state intervention became the norm rather than the exception. Notwithstanding the manifest disparity of wealth and resources with England, incorporation was initially viewed in Scotland as a partnership that had particular force within the British empire. The empire cemented Scottish commitment to political incorporation. De-industrialisation, civic rejection of Thatcherism and the decline of the National Health Service have eroded the social as well as the political capital of a British identity. For the Irish, union lasted just over a century. The catastrophe of famine in the 1840s, the haemorrhaging of people through emigration, limited industrialisation, a tendency to side with the exploited rather than the exploiters of empire, and ongoing sectarianism were hardly inducements to stay incorporated with Britain.

British over-reaction to the forlorn putsch known as the Easter Rising of 1916 duly paved the way for civil war and the separation of all but six of the 32 counties from Britain by 1922. Only Northern Ireland has remained part of the United Kingdom, though its Protestant ascendancy can no longer be sustained by political gerrymandering or even direct rule. Devolution is no guarantee of political stability. At the same time, devolution cannot be regarded as compensating the Scots for the loss of the British empire in the 20th century. De-industrialisation, civic rejection of Thatcherism and the decline of the National Health Service have eroded the social as well as the political capital of a British identity. At the time of writing, the Scottish prime minister in Westminster, Gordon Brown, is determined to restore British greatness. The Scottish first minister in Edinburgh is resolved on independence within the European Community. Three-hundred years on from the Treaty of Union, the political will of the Scottish people cannot be regarded as settled.

Ireland in the Age of the Tudors, 1447-1603 by SG Ellis (Harlow, 1998) The Great Crisis of the British Monarchy, 1685-1720 by T Harris (London, 2007) Union and Empire: The Making of the United Kingdom in 1707 by AI Macinnes (Cambridge, 2007) The Scots and the Union by CA Whatley with DJ Patrick (Edinburgh, 2006) The Making of the United Kingdom, 1660-1800 by J Smyth (Harlow, 2001) Prelude to Union: Anglo-Irish Politics in the 1780s by J Kelly (Cork, 1992) Acts of Union: The causes, contexts, and consequences of the Act of Union by D Keogh and K Whelan eds (Dublin, 2001) Top About the author Allan I. Macinnes is Professor of Early Modern History at the University of Strathclyde.

He has writteen extensively on British state formation, on Scottish Jacobitism and on Highland clans and clearances. His latest monograph, published by CUP, is Union and Empire: The Making of the United Kingdom in 1707 (Cambridge, 2007). He is currently leading a collaborative research project on Mobility and Identity, from Jacobitism to Empire, 1680-1820.

King James I | Britroyals Born: June 19, 1566 at Edinburgh Castle, Scotland Parents: Mary, Queen of Scots, and Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley Relation to Elizabeth II: 9th great-grandfather House of: Stuart Ascended to the throne: March 24, 1603 aged 36 years Crowned: July 25, 1603 at Westminster Abbey, also as James VI of Scotland at Stirling Castle on July 29, 1567 Married: Anne, Daughter of Frederick II of Denmark and Norway Children: Three sons and five daughters, of whom three survived infancy; Henry, Elizabeth and Charles Died: March 27, 1625 at Theobalds Park, Hertfordshire, aged 58 years, 9 months, and 7 days Buried at: Westminster Reigned for: 22 years, and 3 days, King of Scotland for 57 years 1567-1625 Succeeded by: his son Charles James was the son of Mary Queen of Scots and her second husband Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley.

He was descended through the Scottish kings from Robert the Bruce, and the English Tudors through his great grandmother Margaret Tudor sister of Henry VIII. His parent�s marriage was short-lived and Darnley was found murdered 8 months after James was born in June 1566. His mother married again, but in 1567 was forced to renounce the throne of Scotland in favour of her infant son. James became King James VI of Scotland aged 13 months in July 1567, and was crowned at Stirling. Mary fled to England where she was eventually executed following Catholic plots against Elizabeth I in 1587. His childhood and adolescence were unhappy, abnormal, and precarious; he had various guardians, whose treatment of him differed widely. His education, although thorough, was weighted with strong Presbyterian and Calvinist political doctrine, and his character � highly intelligent and sensitive, but also fundamentally shallow, vain, and exhibitionist � reacted violently to this. He also sought solace with extravagant and unsavoury male favourites who, in later years, were to have a damaging effect on his prestige and state affairs. A suitable Queen was found for him in Anne of Denmark and they were married in 1589.

As King of Scotland, he curbed the power of the nobility, although his attempts to limit the authority of the Kirk (Church of Scotland) were less successful. When Elizabeth I of England died in 1603 unmarried, James moved to London and was crowned King James I of England the first of the Stuart Kings of the combined crowns of England and Scotland. The English courtiers were wary of his Scottish favourites, affairs with male courtiers and uncouth ways. He was however a supporter of literature and arts. William Shakespeare was among the �Kings Men� troupe of actors who performed plays for their patron James. He commissioned the King James Authorized Version of the Bible, published in 1611, which remains one of the most important English translations of the Bible. He initially acted mainly upon the advice of Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, but on Salisbury�s death all restraint vanished. His religious policy consisted of asserting the supreme authority and divine right of the crown and suppressing both Puritans and Catholics who objected. Guy Fawkes' attempt to blow up Parliament in 1605 produced an anti-Catholic reaction, which gave James a temporary popularity which soon dissipated.

His foreign policy aimed primarily at achieving closer relations with Spain was not liked by Parliament who saw Spain as the Old Catholic enemy of the Armada and competitor for world trade. During his reign the East India Company expanded trade bringing spices from the East, and Jamestown was founded in Virginia. His willingness to compromise politically, even while continuing to talk in terms of absolutism, largely accounts for the superficial stability of his reign. However, the effects of many of his actions were long term, becoming fully obvious only after his death. James and Anne had 8 children only three of whom survived infancy. Their eldest son Henry died aged 18 of typhoid, and their 2nd son Charles became King Charles I. The marriage of their daughter Elizabeth to Frederic V, Elector Palatine and King of Bohemia, was to result in the eventual Hanoverian succession to the British throne. King James I's Signature Quotes: What God hath conjoined let no man separate.

I am the husband and the whole isle is my lawful wife' - James VI of Scotland who also became James I of England on the union of the crowns of Scotland and England, 1603 �[Smoking is] hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, and dangerous to the lungs.� � King James I �I can make a lord, but only God can make a gentleman� � King James I �God�s wounds! I will pull down my breeches and they shall see my arse!� � King James I (on being told that his subjects wanted to see his face) �Kings are justly called gods for they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth� � King James I Timeline for King James I Year The House of Stewart - Great Britain stamps 23 March 2010, from Norvic Philatelics. The MS takes a separate look at the life and times of the age, featuring events and individuals from the reigns. The events featured are: 1st class Founding in 1413 of St Andrews University and in 1505 of the College of Surgeons in Edinburgh.

81p development of the Scottish legal system of justice (the Court of Session), & John Knox, a leading figure in the Reformation in 1559. The border design features a timeline of the period. Acknowledgements: portraits of James I, James II and James III by unknown artists ï¿½ Scottish National Portrait Gallery; James IV, 1626ï¿½34, Daniel Mytens ï¿½ Private Collection; James V, c.1537, Corneille de Lyon ï¿½ Private Collection; Mary Queen of Scots, 1558, Franï¿½ois Clouet, The Royal Collection ï¿½ 2009 Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II; James VI, 1595, Adrian Vanson (attributed)ï¿½ Scottish National Portrait Gallery.

MS: S Andre sive Andreapolis Scotiae Universitas Metropolitana, c.1580, John Geddy (1571ï¿½94) ï¿½ National Library of Scotland; stained-glass window at the Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh, 1897, by Moxon & Carfrae, photography by Peter Wood; Great South Window at Parliament House, Edinburgh, 1868, artist unknown, photography by Peter Wood; John Knox, 1505ï¿½72, 1580, artist unknown (after Adrian Vanson) ï¿½ National Galleries of Scotland Background on the stamps 1st Class1st Class ï¿½ James I (1406-1437) James I (1394 ï¿½ 21 February 1437) was nominal King of Scotland from 4 April 1406 until his death, although his effective reign only began in May 1424. He spent the earlier part of his reign as a prisoner in England.

On his release he made moves to create a strong centralised monarchy in Scotland, and was assassinated by dissident nobles. 1st Class ï¿½ James II (1437-1460). James II of Scotland (16 October 1430 ï¿½ 3 August 1460) was the son of James I of Scotland and of Joan Beaufort (daughter of John Beaufort, 1st Earl of Somerset and of Margaret Holland). He gained the nickname "Fiery face" because of a conspicuous vermilion birthmark on his face. He was killed by the accidental explosion of one of his own cannon at the siege of Roxburgh Castle in 1460. 1st Class - 1st Class ï¿½ James III (1460-1488) James III (1451/2 ï¿½ 11 June 1488) was an unpopular and ineffective monarch owing to an unwillingness to administer justice fairly, a policy of pursuing alliance with England, and a disastrous relationship with nearly all his extended family. By 1479 this alliance was collapsing.

In 1482 leading his subjects against an English invasion, James was arrested at Lauder Bridge. He was imprisoned in Edinburgh Castle, and a new regime, led by 'lieutenant-general' Albany, became established. James regained power, by December 1482 but he became estranged from his wife, Margaret of Denmark, and increasingly his eldest son, favouring his second son. Matters came to a head in 1488 when he faced an army raised by the disaffected nobles at the Battle of Sauchieburn, where he was defeated and killed. His heir, the future James IV, took arms against his father, provoked by the favouritism given to his younger brother 62p ï¿½ James IV (1488-1513) James IV (17 March 1473 ï¿½ 9 September 1513) was King of Scots from 11 June 1488 to his death.

He is generally regarded as the most successful of the Stewart monarchs of Scotland, but his reign ended with the disastrous defeat at the Battle of Flodden Field, where he became the last monarch from Great Britain to be killed in battle. 62p ï¿½ James V (1513-1542) James V (c. 10 April 1512 ï¿½ 14 December 1542) was King of Scots from 9 September 1513 being just 17 months old when James IV died at Flodden Field, until his premature death at the age of thirty, which followed the Scottish defeat at the Battle of Solway Moss. 81p ï¿½ Mary (1542-1567) Mary (popularly known as Mary, Queen of Scots) (8 December 1542 ï¿½ 8 February 1587) was the only surviving legitimate child of King James V. She was six days old when her father died and made her Queen of Scots.

In 1558, she married Francis, Dauphin of France, who ascended the French throne as Francis II in 1559. However, Mary was not Queen of France for long; she was widowed on 5 December 1560. After her husband's death, Mary returned to Scotland, arriving in Leith in 1561. Four years later, she married her first cousin, Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley. Their union was unhappy and in 1567, Darnley was found dead in the garden at Kirk o'Field, after a huge explosion in the house. She then married James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell, who was generally believed to be Darnley's murderer. Following an uprising against the couple, Mary was imprisoned in Loch Leven Castle on 15 June and forced to abdicate the throne in favour of her one-year-old son, James VI. After an unsuccessful attempt to regain the throne, Mary fled to England seeking protection from her father's first cousin, Queen Elizabeth I, whose kingdom she hoped to inherit.

Elizabeth, however, ordered her arrest, because of the threat presented by Mary, who was considered the rightful ruler of England by many English Catholics. After a long period of custody, she was tried and executed for treason following her involvement in three plots to assassinate Elizabeth. 81p ï¿½ James VI (1567-1625) James VI (19 June 1566 ï¿½ 27 March 1625) was King of Scots as James VI from 1567 to 1625, and King of England and Ireland as James I from 1603 to 1625. He became King of Scotland as James VI on 24 July 1567, when he was just thirteen months old, succeeding his mother Mary, Queen of Scots. Regents governed during his minority, which ended officially in 1578, though he did not gain full control of his government until 1581. On 24 March 1603, as James I, he succeeded the last Tudor monarch of England and Ireland, Elizabeth I, who died without issue.

He then ruled the kingdom of England, Scotland, and Ireland for 22 years, often using the title King of Great Britain, until his death at the age of 58 Miniature Sheet 1st1st Class ï¿½ St Andrews Until the 15th century, the people of Scotland went to England or the Continent for a university education. Wishing to improve training of priests in his diocese, in 1410 the Bishop of St Andrews allowed teaching to start in his city. Papal approval of new universities was difficult to obtain, but the Scots used the split in the Church between supporters of rival popes to obtain a formal charter in 1413. 1st Class ï¿½ College of Surgeons In 1505, the Barber Surgeons of Edinburgh were given the Seal of Cause and incorporated as a Craft Guild to promote and maintain the high standards of their trade. King James IVï¿½s personal interest in the new science of medicine guaranteed his support, and in October 1506 a Royal Charter confirmed its formal establishment. Today it remains one of the worldï¿½s oldest surgical associations.

81p ï¿½ Court of Session The supreme civil court of Scotland originated during the reign of James I in ï¿½sessionsï¿½ of parliamentary committees for civil justice. By the reign of James IV a permanent panel of judges had emerged, but it was only in 1532 that the body was formalised, when James V created the College of Justice with 15 professional ï¿½Lords of Sessionï¿½ funded by a tax on the Church. 81p ï¿½ John Knox After time as a galley slave, John Knox became a preacher in England. In 1553 he fled to Geneva, but six years later he returned to Scotland and had a key role in the revolution against French influence and Catholicism. As minister of Edinburgh, he helped to devise the framework of Scotlandï¿½s Protestant Church, but died in 1572 with his plans unrealised. Technical details: The designs are by Atelier Works, and the 27 x 37mm stamps are printed in lithography by Cartor Security Printers, Meacï¿½, France, in sheets of 25/50, perf 14 x 14.

The miniature sheet is 123 x 70mm, also perf 14 x 14. All images are Copyright Royal Mail 2010. Products available: Challenge - a non-peaceful English succession of James I in 1603 - Google Groups Challenge - a non-peaceful English succession of James I in 1603 Showing 1-29 of 29 messages "Elizabeth was succeeded by Mary Stuart's son, James VI of Scotland (and I of England). This was done without any credible legal title (though a good hereditary one) and accomplished through an amazing piece of bluffery on the parts of both the Scottish and English governments: they simply declared that James was rightfully and indisputably king, proceeeded as if nothing was the matter, and hoped that nobody would contest the matter. Amazingly (for a country which had undergone so many civil wars over succession issues) nobody did." So - challenge - have somebody contest the matter. Likely contenders - 1.

Edward Seymour, Lord Beauchamp, questionably legitimate son of Lady/Queen Jane Grey's sister - born 1561 (she married the son of Lord Beauchamp in OTL in 1610). Possible POD - early 1603 - Beauchamp's wife Honora dies. He secretly, but proveably, marries either his second cousin once removed Lady Anne Stanley or his third cousin Lady Ar[a]bella Stewart. When Elizabeth I pops her socks, he announces the marriage and proclaims himself King. Do Robert Cecil & Co succeed in squashing him? Does anyone happen to know where these three were on 24th March 1603? On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:52:49 +0100, Graham Truesdale wrote: > "Elizabeth was succeeded by Mary Stuart's son, James VI of Scotland > (and I of England).

This was done without any credible legal title > (though a good hereditary one) and accomplished through an amazing > piece of bluffery on the parts of both the Scottish and English > governments: they simply declared that James was rightfully and > indisputably king, proceeeded as if nothing was the matter, and hoped > that nobody would contest the matter. Amazingly (for a country which > had undergone so many civil wars over succession issues) nobody did." Not only civil wars. Scotland was England's ancient enemy; to take a Scot as king was quite a leap for England. -- > Elizabeth was succeeded by Mary Stuart's son, James VI of Scotland > (and I of England). This was done without any credible legal title > (though a good hereditary one) and accomplished through an amazing > piece of bluffery on the parts of both the Scottish and English > governments. I know Henry VIII had previously decreed that the throne was not to be passed down Margaret's line to the Stewarts. However at the time of Elizabeth's death did the English government have any other realistic alternative? If James had been passed over (which I assume he wouldn't have taken lightly) the next in line were the descendants of Henry's younger sister Mary.

That meant the throne would have gone to Catherine Grey's son, assuming he was indeed legitimate. After the debacle with Catherine's sister Jane, that surely was never going to a acceptable. > "Elizabeth was succeeded by Mary Stuart's son, James VI of Scotland > (and I of England). This was done without any credible legal title > (though a good hereditary one) and accomplished through an amazing > piece of bluffery on the parts of both the Scottish and English > governments: they simply declared that James was rightfully and > indisputably king, proceeeded as if nothing was the matter, and hoped > that nobody would contest the matter. Amazingly (for a country which > had undergone so many civil wars over succession issues) nobody did." > > So - challenge - have somebody contest the matter. > > son of Lady/Queen Jane Grey's sister - born 1561 > 2. Lady Anne Stanley, 3G grand-daughter of Henry VII - born 1580. > 3. Lady Arabella Stewart, James I's first cousin - born c 1575. > (she married the son of Lord Beauchamp in OTL in 1610).

> > Possible POD - early 1603 - Beauchamp's wife Honora dies. > He secretly, but proveably, marries either his second cousin once > removed Lady Anne Stanley or his third cousin Lady Ar[a]bella > Stewart. When Elizabeth I pops her socks, he announces the marriage > and proclaims himself King. Do Robert Cecil & Co succeed in > squashing him? I imagine that without the government's backing, any rival contender is faced down, quashed, and likely executed for treason in a matter of weeks or even days. The only one of the claimants who *could* have made a bid for the throne against the will of the government (as it stood in 1603) was James himself, being a king with his own base of operations and his own army. At the very least, if the government had opted for an alternative candidate, James could have made things very hot for the English around the borders, and would either have had to have been bought off, or had an army sent against him -- both options being, of course, enormously expensive.

Put against that the fact that James was adult, male, with male heirs, a hereditary claim which, if granted, would confound those who had hitherto been partisans of Mary Stuart, and -- best of all -- a strong sympathy with the episcopal principles (as he understood them) of the Church of England -- and it is very clear why accepting James' claim seemed the best possible solution. The long-run problems of accepting a king whose best claim to the throne was an hereditary divine right, and whose episcopal principles were even *more* conservative than Elizabeth's (in a country where a 'Low' Protestantism was increasing in popularity) were obviously not apparent in 1603, or at least not thought to be an immediate problem. And indeed they were not; the immediate difficulty, as would be seen as early as 1605, was disgruntled Catholics who expected more liberty from Mary Stuart's son. But the discrepancy between the Stuart philosophy of kingship, and English (and indeed Scottish) opinions on the subject, lit more gunpowder than anything Guido Fawkes had to hand -- touching a fuse that would burn for nearly forty years, but would in the end devastate three kingdoms.

>On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:52:49 +0100, Graham Truesdale wrote: > >> "Elizabeth was succeeded by Mary Stuart's son, James VI of Scotland >> (and I of England). This was done without any credible legal title >> (though a good hereditary one) and accomplished through an amazing >> piece of bluffery on the parts of both the Scottish and English >> governments: they simply declared that James was rightfully and >> indisputably king, proceeeded as if nothing was the matter, and hoped >> that nobody would contest the matter. Amazingly (for a country which >> had undergone so many civil wars over succession issues) nobody did." > >Not only civil wars. Scotland was England's ancient enemy; to take a >Scot as king was quite a leap for England. Well the fact that James was unconditionally Protestant was a big plus, he never would have been acceptable to the powers that be i London if he was Catholic.

> "Elizabeth was succeeded by Mary Stuart's son, James VI of Scotland > (and I of England)." ObWI: Mary Stuart has children by her first husband, Francis II of France, including at least one son ("Henri"). Henri will be heir to France and Scotland, and next in line after Elizabeth in England. However, Henri will be Catholic, and King of France. 1) Can there be a union of crowns between France and Scotland? Scotland has gone Protestant. If Henri is excluded, who is the next heir in Scotland? 2) Can there be a union of crowns with England? If Henri is excluded, who's next? The Scots heir? 3) Crazy wildcard outcome: Henri converts to Protestantism, and is crowned in both England and Scotland, but encounters Catholic resistance in France. In the alt-War of the Three Henries, Scotland and then England support Henri against the French Catholics, extending the war and perhaps leading to Protestant victory. But how long can the union persist, even with the bonds of religion and common enemies? > a.. Porter, Linda (2007) Mary Tudor: The First Queen. > a..

Waller, Maureen (2006) Sovereign Ladies: The Six Reigning Queens of > England. > Mary won and the government lost. But Jane Grey did not have the undivided support of her 'government'; and Mary 'won', not by military force, but because a large part of the Privy Council declared for her, leading Jane and Northumberland to realize that it was all up. Had Jane had the unanimous backing of her government, Mary's task would have been much more difficult. But people were sick of Northumberland and perceived his elevation of Jane as his puppet-queen as a shameful political manœuvre. > Probably no longer than Henry VI of England's 'reign' > in France. I don't see why 'reign' should be in scare quotes; you don't have to accept the legitimacy of Henry's succession to admit that the area of France where he was proclaimed was very extensive, and English authority within that area was quite real.

Of course, the authority was not exercised by the infant Henry personally, but on his behalf by his uncle, the Duke of Bedford; but that would have been the case even if he had been a fully capable adult, since with the King resident in England, France could only be governed through a viceroy. Henry's reign over parts of France lasted from 1422-1453, almost 30 years, which is not too shabby, though of course at the end of the period the areas under English rule were quite small. Calais was retained by England for more than a century after, though I am not sure that it was ever legally considered as part of the English monarchs' "kingdom of France"; certainly by 1536, with the passage of the Calais Act, it had definitely come to be considered a part of the English kingdom that just happened to be on the far side of the Channel. Yes, because England was still at war with Spain at the time. (James quickly terminated the war on coming to power.) The army's major sphere of military action was, however, in Ireland, where Lord Mountjoy was battling a combined Spanish/Irish force at Kinsale.

The senior military man in the kingdom was probably the Earl of Nottingham, who was Lord High Admiral of England, but also a commander of land forces who had been "lord lieutenant general of all England". The problem with working out an alternative timeline is that all these high political figures in England seem to have been strongly for the Stuart succession -- to make it work out otherwise, you either need to get rid of James himself, or alter his character or his acts in such a way as to make him a far less attractive candidate than he actually was.

On 04/09/11 08:07, Louis Epstein wrote: > In alt.talk.royalty William Black< black...@gmail.com > wrote: > : On 30/08/11 22:13, David wrote: > : James's claim to the throne > :> was _first_ to his hereditary right, but _ultimately_ to a 'divine > :> right' -- that is, he claimed not only that there was an inherent > :> right to rule in his family, but further that that familial right was > :> based not on conquest, nor on election, nor on a legal basis > :> established by Parliament or any other assembly, but rather purely by > :> the grace of God, and according to the laws of God; hence any attempt > :> to remove his family from their rightful throne would be contrary to > :> the will of God. :> "Elizabeth was succeeded by Mary Stuart's son, James VI of Scotland :> (and I of England)." : ObWI: Mary Stuart has children by her first husband, : Francis II of France, including at least one son ("Henri").

: Henri will be heir to France and Scotland, and next in : line after Elizabeth in England. A much earlier POD than proposed in the challenge. A friend and I years ago conceived a more elaborate AH where a son of this marriage married a daughter of Mary Tudor and Philip II of Spain,setting the stage for a united Europe in due course. : However, Henri will be Catholic, and King of France. : : 1) Can there be a union of crowns between France and : Scotland? Scotland has gone Protestant. If Henri is : excluded, who is the next heir in Scotland? The French-Scottish union was specified in the marriage contract.I expect that there might have been a civil war in Scotland to oust the Protestants.Burn Knox at the stake! : 2) Can there be a union of crowns with England? If : Henri is excluded, who's next? The Scots heir? : : 3) Crazy wildcard outcome: Henri converts to : Protestantism, and is crowned in both England : and Scotland, but encounters Catholic resistance : in France.

In the alt-War of the Three Henries, : Scotland and then England support Henri against : the French Catholics, extending the war and : perhaps leading to Protestant victory. My scenario involves a Catholic Empire with little less influence over the choice of Pope than the British Crown enjoyed over the Archbishopric of Canterbury. : But how long can the union persist, even with : the bonds of religion and common enemies? How long can the enmities persist under an enforced union that punishes their expression? -=-=- IN 1603 Prince Henry, Duke of Rothesay was 7 years old. 'Woe to the realm whose king is a child'. What if James VI had died (of the greebles or whatever) in say 1602 ? I suspect that the experiences of Regents in the minority of Edw VI may have much soured the English against a child king. The Scots had perhaps little choice. But would an infant succession have altered matters in England. Bearing in mind that the infant *Henry I & IX would presumably already have a Regent in Scotland. Would said Regent expect to pick up the Regency of England also? Who would that upset? Could a dual Regency work at all ?

Who would the *Regent(s) be likely to be ? Would one of the more remote English claimants seem preferable to a child King and a Scottish Regent ? Or even an English Regent. Did any of the English grandees still have a military capability sufficient to stage a coup-de-main at that stage?

In alt.talk.royalty William Black < black...@gmail.com > wrote: : On 04/09/11 08:07, Louis Epstein wrote: :> In alt.talk.royalty William Black< black...@gmail.com > wrote: :> : On 30/08/11 22:13, David wrote: :> : James's claim to the throne :> :> was _first_ to his hereditary right, but _ultimately_ to a 'divine :> :> right' -- that is, he claimed not only that there was an inherent :> :> right to rule in his family, but further that that familial right was :> :> based not on conquest, nor on election, nor on a legal basis :> :> established by Parliament or any other assembly, but rather purely by :> :> the grace of God, and according to the laws of God; hence any attempt :> :> to remove his family from their rightful throne would be contrary to :> :> the will of God. Border Reivers. The Grahams of the Rivers Esk and Leven are Pacified Privacy Policy Border Reivers.

The Grahams of the Rivers Esk and Leven are Pacified In 1603 Elizabeth 1 of England died without an heir to follow in the Tudor dynasty which had begun with Henry V11 following his victory over Richard 111 at Bosworth in 1485. However James V1 who ruled in Scotland, had the blood of the Tudors coursing through his veins from his descent from James 1V and his English wife, Margaret Tudor, sister of Henry V111 of England. On his ascent to the English throne James decreed that the Border Marches, the country north and south of the Border line would exist no longer. Rather it would be called the Middle Shires of a new United Kingdom. The Border Reivers who had held sway in the Borders for centuries, were now an embarrassment to a king who sought to dominate both kingdoms. Ill or Busy Week. The Border Reivers had lived a life of theft, murder, extortion and blackmail for generations, from the time of the Scottish Wars of Independence, beginning about the dawn of the 14th century. They knew that now a monarch ruled over both nations their days were numbered.

They had many scores still to settle as James Stuart made his royal progress to London, the crown of England and untold wealth. Feud and blood-feud were the ‘canker’ of the Border folk. They would take one last swipe at enemies both in their own country and across the Border in the other. The Border Reivers believed that the rule of law was held in abeyance between the death of a monarch and installation of a successor. It was the perfect opportunity to bring to a head the differences that might, in some cases, have existed for generations. And all achieved without any comeback. The time between Elizabeth’s death and James’ investiture in the crown of England was known, in the rich and sarcastic parlance of the Reivers, as Ill Week or Busy Week. The Border, from the Solway in the west to the North Sea in the east was awash with crime, theft and murder as the clans and families made one last attempt to get the better of sworn enemies.

On his accession James had said that the crimes committed in Busy or Ill Week should be disregarded but now, in a move which was typical of the man, he demanded that those who were caught up in the endless raids at that time, were guilty of ‘foul and insolent outrages… in the Borders’ and should submit to his mercy. James V1 of Scotland and 1 of England would use the crime of Ill Week to his advantage within a short time of ascending the throne of England. The Scottish and English Lords who fawned at his knee would become benefactors of his largesse when he decreed that the lands of the Border Reivers should be confiscated as a result of the turmoil and violence which had followed the days immediately following the death of Elizabeth. The Graham family of the lands of the river Esk were particularly signalled out for callous retribution. A Border Commission. By 1605 James had set up a Commission on the Borders ostensibly to punish the Border people for their centuries of waywardness. It was made up of five Englishmen and five Scots under the direction of Sir Wilfred Lawson.

Their brief was to rid the Border country of the malefactors, the Border Reivers, whose families had created havoc in the area for years. The Commission was granted authority to scour the whole of the Border country, both English and Scottish, for the leading members of the clans and surnames (families) and to deal with them as they saw fit. Northumberland, Cumberland and Westmorland, the palatinate of Durham on the south and Berwick, Roxburgh, Selkirk, Peebles, Dumfries and Kirkcudbright and Annandale on the north of the Border, were to be the areas to be relentlessly targeted. Under the auspices of the Duke of Cumberland, a man with a insatiable desire for land and its revenue, the focus of the Commission would take a different turn. Though the latter had the responsibility of clearing the whole Border of its miscreant tribes, an undue emphasis was placed on clearing the lands of the river Esk in the west, a rich and fertile land yielding abundant crops and succulent pasture and the haunt of the family of the English Grahams. It had been for centuries. The avarice of Cumberland would direct the Commission to his own desires and ends.

The Commission set to with a vengeance to punish the Grahams. What’s in a Reiving Name? Not everyone with a name identified with the calling was a reiver. Many of the families with reiving names followed lives within the law even though they were surrounded by the crime which affected their livelihood. To the men of the Commission and the veritable armies that followed them an Armstrong, an Elliot, a Graham and a Milburn, to name but few, were Border Reivers and dealt with accordingly irrespective of their backgrounds. The Grahams, many peaceful and law-abiding, were very harshly dealt with. Their history shows that they were the major force on the English Scottish Border, had often provided the men of arms who created a buffer state against the Scots. And all at the invitation of successive English monarchs who wished to hold their northern neighbours in check. Following the Union of the Crowns in 1603, the Grahams were forcefully evicted from the lands they had held by royal licence for centuries; death to those who contested the new order, transportation for the less aggressive. The Reiving Clans are Persecuted. Many of the men of the reiving Clans were rounded up and hanged.

Mass hangings became a familiar sight in the Borderlands in the first decade of the 17th century. Most often the punishment was inflicted without trial. Whilst there were many who deserved their fate, others suffered just for their name. Avaricious eyes, purportedly on the side of law and order, saw the potential of ridding the land of its former tenants, the Border Reivers, and acquiring riches beyond their dreams. Thus began an era of ethnic cleansing. The lands of the river Esk were of particular interest to the Duke of Cumberland and he ensured that the Commission directed their efforts to clearing the Grahams from the area. Their chief of men were hanged or drowned, their homes and crops burned, their dependants, wives and children, left destitute in the wake of unconditional greed ostensibly carried out in the name of the law. The Reivers and Holland. One of the options to remove the Reivers from the Borders was to send them to the Cautionary Towns of Holland where English garrisons existed at Flushing, Brill and Ramakins. Elizabeth 1, a confirmed protestant, had made a huge loan of £800,000 to the Dutchn in their wars against Catholic Spain.

The Cautionary towns were held by the English as insurance against the loan. The Grahams of Netherby and Mote were singled out for this dubious distinction. Taken from imprisonment, many of them in Carlisle, (almost thirty had escaped on the hearing of their fate), they were shipped to Holland never to see wives or children again. Reivers Transported. Within a few short years of James coming to the throne of England yet another enterprise to rid the Middle Shires of the reiving clans was pronounced. It was decided to transport the clans and families to Ireland, to the bogs of Roscommon. They were rounded up and taken to the west Cumberland ports and shipped to a life of subsistence and penury. This was a particularly harrowing time in the history of the Armstrongs, the Grahams and others. Yet they were hard, obdurate people and many survived. Within a few generations their descendants had emigrated to all corners of the world. The Highland Clearances, so well documented and lamented over, were not the first in Scottish history.

A hundred and fifty years before the clansmen of the Highlands were flushed from the homes they had inhabited for centuries and a way of life that had little changed in a millennium, a similar action was taking place in the Borders. And for the same underlying reason: avarice. To clear the lands of the Border tribes especially the valleys and holmes of lower Eskdale, home of the Grahams, provided wealth and eminence for the Lords who would ignore rationality and common-sense justice, eschew any sympathy in the quest of self-aggrandisement. The Grahams of the valleys of the river Esk were signalled out for particular retribution by a Scottish king who harboured an irrational hatred of the name because of previous strife and confrontation. True to the resilience of the Border Reiver, the Grahams would re-appear in their native lands again. Indeed they are still there today. Testimony surely to a people who were hard to subdue. Hello,I’m Tom Moss, a technologist by profession, but a romantic by heart. I love the history of the Scottish English Border with a passion.

I live in its midst and am enthralled by the history that created the Border line between England and Scotland, the great struggles that followed, the people, the Border Reivers who emerged from the chaos. Like to know more? Join me. . No related posts.

Question: Whose accession to the throne of England created the Union of the Scottish/English Crowns in 1603?
Answer: James VI and I