Mary Queen Of Scots and Charles 1 . ???????

Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#1
When looking at a major historical event, where possible, I like to look at what was happening at the time and any likely past influences.

The execution of Mary Queen Of Scots by Elizabeth 1 in 1587 was a remarkable, even unheard of event, as far as I'm aware.

I was wondering if the precedent of Mary's execution would have had any effect on the execution of Charles 1 , only 60 odd years later? I don't mean the charges, I mean the very idea of executing a monarch.

Too vague? Too complex a question?

This just idle speculation on my part. I'm hoping for an erudite answer, nut am not expecting one.
 
Aug 2015
2,359
uk
#2
Mary's case is certainly an unusual one. Officially she was no longer Queen, although it could be argued that as her abdication was forced then this was a technicality.

Usually if a monarch or noble of another country was captured, they would be ransomed back. But it's questionnable if the Scots would want her back, certainly not pay for the privelege, as her return could provoke further civil unrest. Being held captive by the English helped them from having to make dificult decisions if she was returned. Equally the English didn't want to send her back, firstly because she was under the 'protection' of her cousin, secondly because they also were satisfied with the status quo in Scotland.

Personally I think she was entrapped by Walsingham and Cecil, as not only was she a focal point for rebellion both in Scotland and England, it was important that she did not succeed Elizabeth if she died.

To answer your question, I don't think the execution of Mary was at the forefront of the minds of the men who condemned Charles to death. Mere men did not have the right to judge, and have put to death, a sovereign ordained by God. When they did, the reverberations shook the country to it's core - unlike Mary were many breathed a sigh of relief.
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
25,216
Lago Maggiore, Italy
#3
Obviously any event has to be kept in its own contest. In History it's difficult to think to a job with more risks than the one of the Monarch. To kill a Sovereign [or to execute him/her] seeems to be a kind of traditional cultural habit which has accompanied mankind through the centuries.

Usually the execution of a crowned person is more rare simply because the Crown tends to control the Justice System ... so who would condemn the Monarch? Then, as said, to capture the King or the Queen of an other country can become a very lucrative business. So there had to be particular reasons and conditions to execute a Ruling Queen or King.

Of course, we keep a part the revolutions [during a revolution it wasn't odd to see the revolutionaries killing a king or his entire family, think to Russia]. Technically, revolutionaries had even the possibility to run a trial and to condemn the Monarch, before of executing him, but this is a totally different context.
 

Similar History Discussions