 |
| James VI and I |
The Union of The Crowns was an event in 1603, which saw the
English and Scottish crowns joined under the monarch of a single king – James
VI of Scotland who in turn became James I of England. Such circumstances arose
as following the death of Queen Elizabeth I
in 1603, she had no children – and this left James , great grandson on
Margaret Tudor (Henry VIII’s sister) in the blood-line to the English
monarchy. His accession to the crown
itself could be seen as considerably romanticised
at the time, including mobbed by adoring and excited Englishfolk on entering
London and himself speculating on the
joining of the crowns of England and Scotland
as a little like a ‘marriage’. However, this article will explore that
the Union of the Crowns was not as necessarily harmonious as this image of
‘marriage’ suggests, and if we are to continue the relationship metaphor,
potentially composed of many more illicit, and often short-lived romances.
After all, James himself had not been raised in circumstances
of unity. The only child of Mary Queen of Scots and Lord Darnley, he was denied of his father – who was
murdered in 1567, potentially in retaliation for the murder of the Queen’s secretary
Rizzio. Mary then went onto marry The Earl Of Bothwell, which was regarded with
disparity by most of the populace. This discontent even evinced itself
physically in that the queen was captured– and imprisoned in Loch-Leven Castle,
forced to pass the hereditary title to James, who was only 13 months old at the
time. In reaction to Mary’s increasingly unpopular Catholicism – seen as linked
to France and foreign invasion – James was raised by prominent protestant
Earls; with his key regent for much of his early life being The Earl of Moray.
Furthermore, it was Moray who played a key role in defeating Mary’s troops at
Langside in 1582 – and in this way it is interesting to see how James was in
effect, raised by a man implicated in the early doom of his mother. There was
also further insecurity for James in this arrangement, as not only under the influence of Moray, but
also prominent advisors such as Lennox. James himself was the object of kidnap in what has became known as the 1582 Ruthven Raid as he was captured by protestant elites seemingly
suspicious of Lennox’s Catholic connections.
 |
| A young Mary Queen of Scots |
However, rather than hard-lining his protestant views, it
could be seen that James’ different series of experiences with different
religious groups led to him attempting to
drive his own view – rather than what different parties had attempted to force
on him. After all, James was a prominent champion of The Divine Right of Kings and
this could appear exhibited in what could be seen as crackdown on religious
practice following this release in 1583. This included curtailing rather than
aiding Scottish protestants in the form of The Black Acts 1583 which exercised
a greater extent of royal control over the kirk (Scottish Church). By some
Scottish people at the time, this may well have been seen as a form of ‘betrayal’;
especially when coupled with the Treaty Of Berwick which was drawing up an agreement
of peace between Scotland and England whilst Elizabeth I was still ruling. In
this light, to the Scottish people, limitations upon the kirk could may well
have been associated with getting closer to England – and thus taken as
negative and betrayal. This may well have been emphasized by James’ declaration
to Elizabeth during the turbulence of the Spanish Armada (Phillip II attempting
to enact his revenge on Catholic Mary’s protestant sister) that he would be
like a ‘son’ to her and help where he could.
But were these just royal pleasantries or was James already
making early steps to put himself in a position of unpopularity? Following the
death of Elizabeth, accession was not a wholly popular decision after all –
especially as James was in the eyes of many, the son of a woman guilty of
treason (Mary Queen of Scots had been beheaded, as accused of plotting against
Elizabeth I ) and also a ‘foreigner’. However, he also possessed factors which
were attractive to any monarchy and a welcome rather than alienating break from
the past. For example, he had a solid marriage with Anne of Denmark, and also
three children – two of whom were male and thus could offer a hereditary line
which had been an issue previously in terms of religion. On the surface then,
people may have thought James offered a great, romanticised prospect, hence the
enthusiastic crowds and James’ apparent tones of confidence. It was this confidence he exhibited in calling
both the Scottish and English parliaments in 1604 to discuss the idea of a
‘perfect union’.
Yet ‘perfect’ seems a term almost farcical to use in regards
to monarchy – a momentary ideal perhaps, but not a state which can be maintained.
This was ultimately the case in terms of James’ rule of Scotland and England,
which could be seen as proceeding to entail multiple complications - and as
many have argued, James’ betrayal of Scotland. This betrayal could be seen as
beginning that despite his pledge he would return to Scotland (Edinburgh) every
three years, he only returned once. The Scottish people may have seen this as
proof that James had become a ‘puppet’ to England and her parliaments –as after all, James
was stopped in his own ideals for closer and English and Scottish union by
legal rejection through the parliament in both 1607 and 1647.
 |
| Part of the Treaty of Berwick |
But how could a prospect of a king who once seemed so popular
now appear so rejected? In one way, it
could appear that with his own upheld views on The Divine Right of Kings, James had placed himself at an
idealistic distance from what in reality were tides of turbulence in regards to
nation and religion. This was not just limited to Scotland and England, but
also in Ireland , where there was much
animosity between the Irish and old English and new Scottish settlers moving in
as part of James’ imposed plantations settlement. In this light, it appears James
was a character intent to impose his ideals and no less. This was evident in
Scotland also with apparent measures taken to what he termed as ‘civilise’ the
clans in the highlights and islands – including The Statues of Iona of 1609,
which required every clan leader to come to mainland Scotland and receive
education in the English language. By many scots people, this was not only considered
an affront to national identity, but to their pride – further impacted upon in
that James referred to their Gaelic language
during his reign in a derogatory way, suggesting it was ‘alien’. Thus
although James was a Scottish king, he may well have been seen by many traditional
scots as harbouring a kind of rejection of Scottish values.
Yet James himself potentially saw himself neither as Scottish
king or a rejecter of Scottish values, but a British king; a completely new concept.
It was in 1604, following the union of the crowns, he proclaimed himself ‘King of great Britain’; thus a proclamation
rather than legal statute. And how could the people react to this? It was potentially
a relationship to themselves which they could neither accept or reject, as it
was an unknown concept. And in turn, a key reaction to what is unknown, is to
attempt to destroy it, there were three major attempts on James’ life in the
first five years of his joint reign – the
Bye plot, the Main Plot and the gunpowder plot – arranged largely by
catholic conspirators alarmed bu his protestant
king from ‘foreign’ Scotland who likely in their eyes also had a ‘foreign’
way of doing things. After all, rather
than adopting what became known as the Anglican ‘middle way’ or religious
settlement as Elizabeth had, it appeared that James preferred to use
religion and even nationalism with
fluctuating intensity, in order to suit his needs. This not only included exercising
his idealised Episcopalian polity over the more radical Presbyterian kirk, but
also allowing a certain degree of laxity for practicing Catholics in Britain – before
later cracking down with penal laws.
James himself was an avid supporter of the theatre – a patron of Shakespeare
– and it could appear that within his dynastic affairs, he was attempting to
stage a play which facilitated all his senses.
 |
| The Eucharist - a significant area of dispute between covenanters and episcopalians |
Puritans approached him
with the Millinery Petition to remove elements of what they believed
as ‘popery’ from the catholic church,
but he turned them away. He also turned down the more readily Presbyterian system
in Scotland in actual favour of bishops as they actually more readily supported
a monarchical structure. Forcing through the Five Articles of Perth despite unpopularity in Scotland, may well
have appeared summative that king of ‘Britain’;
rather than Scotland, had power in mind rather than people.
No comments:
Post a Comment