Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit scar_tissue's column >>

SCAR_TISSUE

sarcasm & a know-it-all
Articles Posted: 46  Links Seeded: 172
Member Since: 9/2009  Last Seen: 5/16/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Off With Her Head, Part 5: The Execution of Mary, Queen of Scots

Mon Jun 6, 2011 3:39 PM EDT
history, england, execution, queen, royal-family, stuart, tudors, elizabeth-i, mary-queen-of-scots, babington-plot, bothwell, darnley, fotheringhay-castle, william-cecil, casket-letters, sir-francis-walsingham
By scar_tissue

Mary, Queen of Scots (artist unknown)

Advertise | AdChoices

If I were to summarize the entire wild ride of the life of Mary, Queen of Scots (1542-1587), it would be book-length and epic.  Suffice to say the Scots loved a good regency and were not so fussed with adult monarchs, especially when that monarch was female, Catholic, Frenchified, and married to a fool (Henry, Lord Darnley; they were first cousins because Mary was the daughter of Margaret Tudor's son James V of Scotland from her first marriage to James IV of Scotland, while Darnley was the son of Margaret's daughter from her second marriage to Archibald Douglas, Earl of Angus, Margaret Douglas).

Mary's fatal mistake was fleeing to England under the impression that she was going to receive assistance from her cousin Elizabeth I.  Mary's precipitate wedding to James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell, was the catalyst for her forced deposition in favor of her infant son, James VI, and her imprisonment in ths island castle of Lochleven, from which she managed to successfully escape and head south.  Her older bastard half-brother, James Stewart, Earl of Moray, essentially wrested the throne from her, as he was appointed the baby king's Regent.  Moray was not that bad of a ruler and this is one of those cases where the offspring from the wrong side of the blanket should've been born on the right side of it.

Mary's presence in England was a dilemma for Elizabeth.  Mary had claimed Elizabeth's throne before she even sat on it, stating her bastardy should prohibit her from being queen and the crown should've passed to Mary, the eldest legitimate scion of the Tudor bloodline.  Mary desperately wanted to be recognized as Elizabeth's heir apparent and had married Darnley partially to strengthen both their claims to the English throne, but Elizabeth refused to name a successor.  Elizabeth did not want war with Scotland, which would occur if she attempted to restore her feckless cousin to that throne.  But she could not just release Mary to the Continent for fear of plotting with the Catholic Spanish to invade England and take Elizabeth's throne away, either.  The papacy had declared Elizabeth a "heretic" and invited anyone who could to remove her from power.  Mary could be used as a figurehead for that, since she had the best claim to succeed Elizabeth.  There was nothing to do but keep the runaway Queen of Scots imprisoned.

Queen Elizabeth I, (the "Sieve Portrait", by George Gower)

Naturally Mary objected.  She was just 25 when she first set foot on English soil in 1566 and had spent the majority of her life in France for protection from the "Rough Wooing" of Henry VIII and his successor Edward VI.  She had briefly worn a pair of crowns, her first husband having been Francis II of France, and her abdication under duress now meant that she had none.  It was an untenable position for Mary and she immediately fell to plotting. 

She was already under suspicion for Darnley's mysterious death in the aftermath of the explosion at Kirk O'Fields, giving Elizabeth a thin excuse to hold her captive while the notorious "Casket Letters" were analyzed.  George Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, and his wife Bess of Hardwick were given the unenviable position of Mary's jailers.  Bothwell had escaped the Scots lords only to fall afoul of his past in Norway, where he was arrested for "ruining" a girl of noble family and imprisoned for the remainder of his life in Denmark's Dragsholm Castle (Denmark and Norway being ruled by the Danish king at the time).  After his death, Mary entertained the idea of wedding the Catholic Duke of Norfolk, Thomas Howard, who ultimately lost his head for the notion, executed in 1572 for high treason after Mary's Ridolfi Plot fell apart. 

William Cecil, Lord Burghley, Elizabeth Is premier advisor (portrait by Marcus Gheerharts)

Though Mary's involvement was widely suspected, no hard evidence of it could be found.  Elizabeth's chief councilor, William Cecil, Lord Burghley, begged her to make an end of the Scots queen, but Elizabeth refused to do so on merely circumstantial evidence.  She had her own position to think of as well, for if she executed a fellow queen, might not the same thing happen to her one day?  Philip II of Spain, her sister Mary's widower, was Mary Stuart's most vocal supporter and threatened to invade England, depose Elizabeth, and install his daughter Isabella as queen in her stead if any action were taken against Mary.  The Spanish Hapsburgs had a distant claim to the English throne via Edward IIIs son John of Gaunt; his daughter Catherine had married into Castile and his daughter Philippa had married into Portugal and were among Philip's ancestors.

Fear of further uprising prompted Parliament to pass an act making it punishable by death to plot against the queen.  Sir Francis Walsingham, Elizabeth's "spymaster", made it his main goal to destroy the Queen of Scots, trying various entrapment schemes to get her to hang herself.  He set up the Throckmorton Plot in an attempt to lure Mary into committing to the assassination of Elizabeth and was frustrated when he could get no evidence of her assent in her own hand.  Finally the Babington Plot nailed Mary.  Walsingham by this time had set up a system to intercept Mary's personal correspondence and he got his hands on a letter in which she agreed to having Elizabeth killed with Mary herself as the replacement queen, gleefully doodling a gallows on the paper when he saw it.

Sir Francis Walsingham, Elizabeth's spymaster (portrait by John de Critz)

Mary was moved, under a new jailer, Sir Amyas Paulet, to the castle of Fotheringhay, ironically the closest she would ever get to London and Elizabeth (in the 20 years of this captivity the two queens had never met and never would), and was tried in its great hall beginning October 15, 1586.  She refused to recognize the legality of an English court to try her and refused to mount a defense for her actions, resulting in a conviction of high treason on October 25.  She was sentenced to death by beheading.

Elizabeth did not want Mary's blood on her hands and tried to persuade Paulet to quietly poison her nemesis.  He refused.  Elizabeth dithered about and refused to sign the execution warrant.  She finally did so on February 1, 1587.  After the fact she would send her secretary, Sir William Davison, to the Tower of London, insisting he had slipped the document into a routine pile of paperwork and tricked her into signing off on it.

Davison hurriedly took the warrant to Cecil and Walsingham, mindful of Elizabeth's capricious nature and aware there was little time to spare in case the queen changed her mind and demanded it back to tear up.

On February 7, 1587, Mary Stuart was officially informed of her execution the following morning at eight o'clock.  She was refused the services of her Catholic priest, De Preau, but offered those of the Protestant Dean of Peterborough, which she declined.  She was then left alone to spend her last evening with her by now depleted group of servants.  Mary demanded an early supper and appeared serene amidst her servants' tears.  She then proceeded to go through all her remaining possessions by distributing them to her servants and earmarking some to be sent to her French relatives. 

Having done so, she put pen to paper and drafted an elaborate will designed to provide for the welfare of those she was leaving behind.  She then wrote a letter to her chaplain De Preau in lieu of the confession she had been denied.  Her second letter was to her brother-in-law, Henry III of France. She also composed a poem about her approaching death:

O my Lord and my God, I have trusted in Thee.
O my dear Jesus, now liberate me.
In shackle and chain, in torture and pain, I long for Thee.
In weakness and sighing, in kneeling and crying, I adore and implore
Thee to liberate me.
Mary Queen of Scots, Wednesday 8th February 1587

It was by then two o'clock in the morning and Mary simply lay on her bed fully dressed without attempting to sleep.  Between eight and nine in the morning she was led to the Great Hall of Fotheringhay, where she was eventually allowed to have some of her servants present after much pleading.  Sir James Melville, her Secretary, Dr. Bourgoing, her physician, Jacques Gervais, her surgeon, Didier, her porter and two of her women, Elizabeth Curle and Jane Kennedy, were allowed to attend.  Mary held a crucifix and prayer book in her hand and two rosaries hung down from her waist; round her neck was her pomander chain and an Agnus Dei.

Mary Queen of Scots Being Led to Her Execution (painted by Laslett John Potts, 1871)

Mary was led up the three steps to the stage and from there listened unperturbed to the commission for her execution.  It wasn't until the Protestant Dean from Peterborough proposed to say her prayers according to Protestant rights that she expressed her disapproval.  The Dean nevertheless proceeded while Mary, kneeling, read out loud from her Latin Prayer book.

The executioner, as customary, then asked for her pardon to which she replied, "I forgive you with all my heart, for now I hope you shall make an end of all my troubles".  She was then undressed, assisted by Jane Kennedy and Elizabeth Curle, and divested of her Agnus Dei and rosary.  Mary was now stripped to her red petticoat with red satin bodice trimmed with lace and a pair of red sleeves; red, the colour of martyrdom in the Catholic Church.

After bidding her servants not to cry and to pray for her, Jane Kennedy bound her eyes with a white cloth embroidered in gold, chosen by Mary the night before.  Mary now stood alone on the stage and positioned her own chin on the wooden execution block.  "Into thy hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit" were her last words before the first stroke of the axe.

The first blow missed the neck and cut into the back of the head.  Mary was heard to whisper "Sweet Jesus".  The second blow almost severed the head.  The third blow completely cut through the remaining sinew.

As the executioner then picked up the head and held it up in the air to show the audience, the wig slipped off and the head rolled to the floor.  Mary's hair was almost entirely gray from her long imprisonment.

Closeup of the tomb of Mary, Queen of Scots in Westminster Abbey

Every relic was burned and every drop of blood washed away. Her little Skye terrier that had managed to hide under her skirts and would not leave his dead mistress's side was also washed, but refused thereafter to be fed and pined away and died as well.

Mary's body was then subjected to further humiliations.  Her heart and organs were buried deep within the castle of Fotheringhay, but the exact spot was never revealed.  The body was then embalmed and incarcerated in a heavy lead coffin which remained unburied in the castle until July 30, 1587, where it was taken, in the dead of night for fear of public protest, to Peterborough Cathedral.  Eventually her son James had her remains reinterred in Westminster Abbey when he succeeded to the English throne.

Execution scene from the BBC series Elizabeth R (1971). Starring Glenda Jackson as Elizabeth I and Vivian Pickles as Mary, Queen of Scots.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • scar_tissue's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: British Royal Family Fans, Coffee Table, Historical Vine, History Vine, SuperVine!, Women Warriors, Ye Olde History Vine
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (54)
Tricky Mona

Dang! Three whacks! Was it too much to ask for a sharp ax???

  • 4 votes
Reply#1 - Mon Jun 6, 2011 3:57 PM EDT
scar_tissue

Hey! I was still puttering LOL You snuck in there.

Well, MQOS was stubborn; maybe so was her head :P But yeah, that happened a lot, ya'd think they'd keep an axe-sharpener on the royal payroll to prevent such things.

  • 5 votes
#1.1 - Mon Jun 6, 2011 4:03 PM EDT
daMamma

It would have been (to my mind anyway) the polite thing to do, would to have had a good swords man do the deed as Anne Boleyn was given by Elizabeth I's father.

To get a clean and successful first try with an axe is not easy.

  • 5 votes
#1.2 - Tue Jun 7, 2011 11:29 PM EDT
Auteur 1536

Hard to forget how brutal times were back in that day.

  • 5 votes
#1.3 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 3:14 AM EDT
Reply
scar_tissue

Usual image disclaimer; fair use for educational purposes, portraits in public domain.

If I had started from the beginning & fleshed out the numerous plots, I would've written a book. MQOS is an historical life that is extremely well-documented from cradle to grave & beyond, starting w/ her disappointed father, James V of Scotland, turning his face to the wall upon hearing his queen had presented him w/ a daughter & muttering, "It came wi' a lass, an' will pass wi' a lass", & ending w/ her son, James VI/I, transferring her remains from where they rested near Catherine of Aragon at Peterborough Cathedral into Westminster Abbey.

James V, who was like the most depressed king in the history of kings, had good reason to be disappointed in his last child's gender. His 1st wife, Madeleine of Valois, got a wee touch of consumption from breathing in all that Highland mist & never made it to their 1st anniversary. This was said to be a love match. His 2nd wife, Mary of Guise (when in doubt, always take a bride from the Auld Alliance of France & Scotland), had presented him w/ 2 sons, but both had died just a few mos apart in the same yr Mary was born. To top that off, the Scots had just suffered a devastating defeat at the hands of the English at the Battle of Pinkie Cleugh right b4 Mary's birth. She became queen at the age of one week when her father sighed & died, & from then on in it was nothing but tumult & chaos until she lost her head.

She was smuggled off to France, betrothed to its dauphin, became Queen of France after Henry IIs weird, Nostradamus-predicted demise, was quickly widowed, & went back to Scotland when it became clear Catherine de Medici, the new Queen Mother, wanted her gone. Mary's Frenchified upbringing & delicate sensibilities had not prepared her for the way the Scots lords did business & it was a fast downhill slide of intrigue, romance, murder, & mayhem the entire time until she galloped for her life across the English border & threw herself upon the mercy of Elizabeth.

Was it Machiavelli who said, "Put not your trust in princes"?

Antonia Fraser's bio of MQOS is top-notch for anyone who wants to delve into it further, & John Guy's runs a close 2nd.

  • 7 votes
Reply#2 - Mon Jun 6, 2011 4:00 PM EDT
scar_tissue

[hangs head in shame] Mixed up me Scots battles :-( Pinkie was the one where Mary of Guise was all yikes that Rough Wooing nonsense means business & sent MQOS to France for safekeeping. When James turned his face to the wall it was in the aftermath of the Battle of Solway Moss. Ooops. Sorry about that.

  • 5 votes
#2.1 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 12:33 PM EDT
Reply
Kearney Outlaw

Another outstanding article, ST!

  • 5 votes
Reply#3 - Mon Jun 6, 2011 4:27 PM EDT
scar_tissue

TYVM, KO! :-)

  • 5 votes
#3.1 - Tue Jun 7, 2011 10:25 AM EDT
Reply
Darrah, Greenville, SC

Wow, s_t! If you don't have a PHD in English history by now, we'll give you one. You've really earned it.

I didn't realize until now that Mary and Elizabeth had never met. You'd think the feud would have led to that at some point. I feel for Mary because of her father turning his face to the wall when he found out that he had a daughter.

And then the three blows. Couldn't those people have an executioner on hand? Maybe they did and I missed it. These women sure had a lot of grace under pressure. Wow!

I love the image of her in her red petticoat. You come up with the most amazing images, paintings and descriptions!

Is there another execution waiting in the wings? I need to get a head start by looking up English executions or something.

Thanks, s_t!

  • 6 votes
#4 - Mon Jun 6, 2011 9:03 PM EDT
Darrah, Greenville, SC

Yes, I just finished some googling and I think I know who's going to be on the chopping block next. Very interesting! lol

I won't tell either way.

  • 5 votes
#4.1 - Mon Jun 6, 2011 9:36 PM EDT
scar_tissue

If you don't have a PHD in English history by now, we'll give you one.

Good, b/c then I won't have to get fluent in a foreign language for it (one of its requirements). I can read in French (which is fun when you stumble across primary docs posted online) but I couldn't speak it to save my life & you have to do that to get a PhD in history.

I didn't realize until now that Mary and Elizabeth had never met.

I think Elizabeth was afraid to meet her once she was on her own turf. Simply b/c she knew how it might (& did) end up. Even w/ never meeting Mary, Elizabeth still had a paroxysm of grief at having to execute her. It would've been even worse had she known her. We get wrapped up in Elizabeth & tend to forget who her mother was & what fate she met, as well as one of Elizabeth's stepmothers & her cousin Jane, whom she lived & studied w/ in Catherine Parr's household for a cpl yrs. I don't think Elizabeth knew Margaret Pole personally, but she may have heard nice things about her from Mary, who shared a household w/ her half-sister. Every woman who got beheaded prior to MQOS was in Elizabeth's lifetime & while she was an impressionable child/teenager. Even her stepfather (Thomas Seymour) got the axe. So did her bonny Robin's father & grandfather. It was probably hard on her to sign off on MQOS knowing she was subjecting her to the same fate as her own mother & all these other ppl she was close to, had known, or had heard about.

I think I know who's going to be on the chopping block next.

I'm not going to France LOL Marie Antoinette would be even harder to condense than MQOS.

The only other English noblewoman to be beheaded was a long time later, in the reign of James II, in the aftermath of Monmouth's Rebellion. Lady Alice Lisle was sentenced to be burned in the infamous Bloody Assizes for harboring rebels against the Crown following the Battle of Sedgemoor. James commuted her sentence to the axe & she was executed at Winchester in September 1685.

Beheaded males were a dime-a-dozen, which is why I thought I'd focus on the few females instead. So I'm done chopping heads for now. I might tinker some w/ the Wars of the Roses so y'all can enjoy the knock-down drag-out Kearney Outlaw & I will inevitably have over Good Richard III/Bad Richard III LMAO Or just tell the story of all William's royal ancestors. I think I might do something on the Tower next....it's like books, there's too many to choose!

  • 4 votes
#4.2 - Tue Jun 7, 2011 10:52 AM EDT
Kearney Outlaw

Kearney Outlaw & I will inevitably have over Good Richard III/Bad Richard III

Oh, it is SO on. (Is it a CoH violation to call someone a Lancastrian loving dog?) ;-)

  • 7 votes
#4.3 - Tue Jun 7, 2011 12:21 PM EDT
Darrah, Greenville, SC

When I was doing my little research, I forgot all about the women and stumbled onto a particular male. His was related to Mary. He had a claim to fame here in the Carolinas. You know, Charleston? Ok, I'll just put it out there and see what you think. King Charles l. And then you've got Edward Teague / Blackbeard. Even though he wasn't royalty, he was the most infamous pirate. He took Charles Town (Charleston) hostage. Then there was Chief King Hagler (Catwaba Indian) who dealt with King Charles ll. I'm related to Chief Hagler by way of his daughter, Jar Fly. She married a white man by the name of Jonathan Barrett. I'm not a direct descendant of him though.

Why can't we go in that direction too? Touching on Blackbeard and then the Indian connection with the Kings? We could move about in the group since it's not that structured and we don't have a ton of members. Heck let's have a tea party. lol

Think about it, st. You're the one that would basically have to write the articles. I sure can't do it. But I would like to write about Chief Hagler and his dealings with King Charles--later on down the line.

  • 4 votes
#4.4 - Tue Jun 7, 2011 3:04 PM EDT
daMamma

I knew Mary and Elizabeth had never met. I thought that they did correspond a considerable amount over the years. (?) If this is true, it would also lend some reluctance to Elizabeth signing off on an execution warrant. Mary would be another in a long line of family members to have met that fate. Not something that Elizabeth looked forward to increasing, I'm sure.

  • 4 votes
#4.5 - Tue Jun 7, 2011 11:43 PM EDT
scar_tissue

(Is it a CoH violation to call someone a Lancastrian loving dog?) ;-)

The Cat, the Rat, & Lovell our Dog

Rule all England under the Hog

The Lancastrians did it, so I'd say not a CoH violation LOL

Do you recollect what they said to Jack? :P

King Charles l.

Gawd, I hate them Pocky Parliamentarians & all their fiddling around w/ Bad & Goods & Longs & Rumps.....Parliament is boring LOL but you have to stick all that nonsense in to tell Charles I properlike.

Then there was Chief King Hagler (Catwaba Indian) who dealt with King Charles ll.

See, you know stuff! I have never heard of this Indian connection w/ Charles II. I bet you could write a nice article [everyone come back & poke Darrah to type! :-)]

I thought that they did correspond a considerable amount over the years.

Once Mary was established in Scotland, they did exchange letters regularly. Mary was trying to suck up to Elizabeth to be named her heir (she was ummm I wanna say about 14 yrs younger). Elizabeth was meddling in Scots politics & she lectured Mary all the time about the stupid stuff she did, about which Mary was not amused. So yeah,. they did sort of know ea other, but unlike in the movie w/ Vanessa Redgrave & Glenda Jackson, they never did meet up face to face.

  • 3 votes
#4.6 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 1:55 AM EDT
Kearney Outlaw

Jack of Norfolk be not too bold,

Dicken thy master is bought and sold.

I've got my own take on Bosworth when you get there...

  • 4 votes
#4.7 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 10:46 AM EDT
Darrah, Greenville, SC

As far as Chief King Hagler, he had quite a few dealings with King Charles and some weren't pleasant. A lot of the chiefs were given the name of King because of the kings like Charles. King Hagler is in several history books about Eastern Indians. He was known for telling Charles where he could stick it because of the whiskey made from rotted grain that was killing his people. The Indians weren't use to strong alcohol anyway so it caused a lot of problems.

Oh, King Hagler had to beg King Charles for a horse because as the Chief said "I'm getting long in the tooth."

  • 4 votes
#4.8 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 11:26 AM EDT
scar_tissue

Jack of Norfolk be not too bold,

Dicken thy master is bought and sold.

Why is some books do they quote it as "Jockey" & not "Jack"? I mean. I've seen "John" shortened to "Jock" in Scotland, but never "Jockey" & never in England. I'm thinking it was a Dickon slur intimating Norfolk was really in charge & not him. Interesting how the Howards lost their dukedom due to one battle & then gained it back over another (Flodden).

I've got my own take on Bosworth when you get there...

Like it wasn't there?

You should do your own Bosworth article this summer, don't wait for me! I'd love to see other folks write stuff.

King Hagler had to beg King Charles for a horse because as the Chief said "I'm getting long in the tooth."

Did he get one? Charles II had such a warped sense of humor he might well have said OK. I'm thinking he's gotta be everyone's fav Stuart king.

It's the little details like that I dunno about American history b/c just as I was starting to get really into it I discovered England LOL The only period I've really researched heavily is the War of 1812 b/c it was fought in my backyard. I seem to be one of "those ppl" who is attracted to war eras & I am still pouting b/c 15 yrs ago my parents took my kids to Gettysburg when driving up from FL to NY & didn't even tell me they were going till they got back!

  • 3 votes
#4.9 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 12:28 PM EDT
scar_tissue

she was ummm I wanna say about 14 yrs younger

I just realized I ummm'd too long, it was more like 9....Elizabeth was born September 7, 1533, & Mary was born December 8, 1542.

See? I just can't do Math. Something's gotta give in your brain when it's crammed full of history :P

  • 3 votes
#4.10 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 12:40 PM EDT
Kearney Outlaw

I've seen "Jockey" too. I've never seen that in any other English context, either.

Well, the "bought and sold" obviously refers to the Stanley brothers, I think. Dicken (Richard) had been sold out and stood no chance of winning the imminent battle. It seems that Northumberland got the message, but Howard did not, and paid the ultimate price.

Recent archeological work supports the theories that the battle did not take place on Ambion Hill, and was in fact, further to the south, nearer Dadlington. My own take is no different, however, I give credence to Juan d'Salazaar's account where others may not. I'll go into that in an article. I think YOU should do it!! You're much better at this than I am, ST. Seriously... August 22. Do it! (Maybe with some events leading up to it as precursors to the main article.)

  • 3 votes
#4.11 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 12:51 PM EDT
Darrah, Greenville, SC

I basically have some genealogical material that my cousin passed onto me regarding Chief Hagler, his daughter, and son-inlaw. It has some of the birth and death dates. It has bit of trivia regarding Jonathan Barrett and Samuel Oxford ll who married Bathsheba. She was the daughter of Jar Fly and Jonathan. Samuel Oxford Sr. was born in 1707 in Hadleigh Suffolk Co., England.

There's quite a bit of history about Chief King Hagler in books. That's where I read the thing about the horse and King Charles. He gave King Hagler a horse and saddles, bridles and silks for his daughters-- one being Jarmin (Jar Fly).

You know kings. They give a little and then go all out. ;-)

  • 4 votes
#4.12 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 4:19 PM EDT
scar_tissue

I've seen "Jockey" too. I've never seen that in any other English context, either.

It just popped in w/ one of those blinding flashes of light that happen when you stop thinking about it....it's from Shakespeare, of course, in the last act of Richard III, after Dickon wakes up from his plague of ghosts & Jack was all o my check this out, what's it mean? So pretty safe to assume about as much poetic license as 8 yo Dickon running amok killing folk at Wakefield in Henry VI.

I think YOU should do it!! You're much better at this than I am, ST. Seriously... August 22. Do it! (Maybe with some events leading up to it as precursors to the main article.)

You just want to shove me off that internecine warfare cliff, dontcha? ;-) Man, I wish NVs software supported something as basic as tables in an article....then I could make scorecards to keep the players straight!

Samuel Oxford Sr. was born in 1707 in Hadleigh Suffolk Co., England.

Now that's kinda cool, you have an ancestress born a Native American who then took ship back to Europe (shades o' Pocahontas) when most ppl were coming this-a-way. I definitely think you should do an article!

He gave King Hagler a horse and saddles, bridles and silks for his daughters-- one being Jarmin (Jar Fly).

You know kings. They give a little and then go all out. ;-)

Charles probably went, o he has daughters? Maybe I'll get lucky LOL Maybe you're Di's cuz :P

  • 4 votes
#4.13 - Thu Jun 9, 2011 2:23 AM EDT
Darrah, Greenville, SC

I must be getting the kings wrong. I've looked at the timelines of King Charles l and ll compared to the days of Chief Hagler. He was born around 1700 and died from being scalped in 1763. He was only a chief for 9 yrs.

In my personal info, it doesn't say anything about his dealings with a king. It concentrates more on his daughters, their husbands and the family links. What I read about Hagler and a king was in one of the American Indian history books. It would have to be a King Charles one or two wouldn't it? Could it have been a king after the two? I can't find anything on the websites about it but I know where that particular book is at the library. It has information about their meetings (?) and what King Hagler wrote or said to King Charles (?) I'll have to stop by and get it again. Basically King Hagler put his foot down withthe king and let him know that the Catawba nation wasn't going to be used and abused. They were much smaller than the Cherokees but didn't like to be pushed around. Another thing is that they never killed a white man for any reason, although as you know that was sometimes necessary in a lot of situations.

  • 2 votes
#4.14 - Thu Jun 9, 2011 10:39 AM EDT
Kearney Outlaw

Hi Darrah,

ST will have more to add, I'm sure, but yeah... Charles I let go of his head in 1649 as a result of the civil wars and Oliver Cromwell and company.

I was pulling for it to be Charles I, though. His nephew, Prince Rupert, had ties to the new world. After his involvement in his uncle's battles, he went back to Europe where, among other ventures, he sponsored an exploration into the Hudson Bay. I thought that might have been your connection, but as you have pointed out, the dates don't add up.

ST, yes, Shakespeare used it, but I consider the Bard the Oliver Stone of his day and usually refrain from references to him where possible in history discussions. :-)

  • 2 votes
#4.15 - Thu Jun 9, 2011 12:10 PM EDT
scar_tissue

I consider the Bard the Oliver Stone of his day

OK that's hilarious LMAO

I so heart Rupert of the Rhine....it's a toss-up as to whether he or John of Gaunt had the *hottest* royal portrait LOL

Charles II demised b4 your chief was born, Darrah; I wanna say February 1685, give or take a yr. Hagler would've been born in the reign of Queen Anne, whose DH was a George, her son was a William & died as a child, so no Charleses there. Kings of Great Britain that would fit would be either George I or George II, not a Charles in the lot of their numerous offspring. There was a Charles III of Spain who came to the throne a few yrs b4 the chief died, tho. Pardon my ignorance but I have only a vague idea what part of the US the Catawba tribe would've been in (I wanna say somewhere down South), but I'm thinking definitely not in any Spanish-held territory, esp as the daughter emigrated to England. So it's gotta be one of the Georges.

  • 4 votes
#4.16 - Thu Jun 9, 2011 12:51 PM EDT
Darrah, Greenville, SC

Now that you've mentioned it, I think it might have been Charles lll of Spain. I'm pretty sure it was a Charles though. I'll get the book over the weekend and let you know. I think it's called "Through Indian Eyes."

The Catabas were right on the NC and SC border. They have a very small reservation about 10 miles from Charlotte on this side--Rock Hill, SC. They were never forced there but they separated from another tribe before they left Canada. (I think)

King Hagler was born in Tryon, NC and didn't become a chief until around the age of fifty. As he got older, he spent a lot of time in Camden SC. That would be quite a ways on a horse. lol

esp as the daughter emigrated to England. So it's gotta be one of the Georges.

You mean Chief Hagler's daughters? They didn't go to England. They stayed in the South. Their husbands were born here. Chief Hagler's granddaughter married Samuel Oxford, Jr. His father was born in England though. Jarmin, his daughter married a Johnathan Barrett who was thought to be of Scottish origin but who was said to "live like an Indian." One of these days, I'll get a genealogist to follow up on what info I have.

King Hagler was born in Tryon, NC though. All of that land was of course the Carolinas back in the day. There aren't any more full blooded Catawabas. They married into the Cherokee nation. The Cherokee comes into play on my mother's side. She's half Cherokee. Her mother grew up in Cherokee, NC. There are lines in my family where the Catawba, Cherokee, British, Irish and Scotch crisscross.

We should do a "who do you think you are?" article for people who have European roots (which would include a whole lot of people.) We wouldn't give any personal data like names, birthdates, etc. Can't be too careful these days.

  • 2 votes
#4.17 - Thu Jun 9, 2011 6:19 PM EDT
scar_tissue

You mean Chief Hagler's daughters? They didn't go to England.

I must've read wrong, I thought you'd said Samuel Oxford was Jarmin's son, my mistake.

We should do a "who do you think you are?" article for people who have European roots

I'm just a peasant LOL I have an uncle on my dad's side who has traced the family back to Europe. Evidently we have such an unusual surname b/c it was truncated at Ellis Island. He also traced his sister's DHs family & found out she married into nobility, as he was descended from a count. I'd guess the majority of ppl w/ European roots were of peasant stock & got on the boat for a shot at a better life.

  • 2 votes
#4.18 - Fri Jun 10, 2011 4:22 AM EDT
Reply
bellingham-1004062

I can't believe it took three tries to cut off her head. Guillotine didn't come until the French Revolution.

One of the points I like is the hesitancy of an important person to kill another important person with the fear it might also be done to them. Still seems the same today. Usually it is the innocent die for whatever the elite represent.

  • 4 votes
Reply#5 - Tue Jun 7, 2011 1:23 AM EDT
scar_tissue

One of the points I like is the hesitancy of an important person to kill another important person with the fear it might also be done to them.

Elizabeth had been threatened w/ deposition & death from the moment she succeeded her sister. A direct consequence of MQOSs demise was the invasion of the Spanish Armada (o that would be another good article). Had it succeeded, we'd all be speaking Spanish & Roman Catholic to boot. Spain would've gained control of the entire Western Hemisphere & they would've been the ones ruling the seas w/ a far-flung empire, not Great Britain.

  • 5 votes
#5.1 - Tue Jun 7, 2011 11:03 AM EDT
bellingham-1004062

Most monarchs were under threat from rival claims -- that was nothing new. Most of the royalty throughout Europe were related in some way.

From what I am currently reading (Sea Dogs) it doesn't seem like Philip was completely in bed with the Roman Catholic church. The English had alliances with Spain that were important in trading on the Spanish Main. Elizabeth did not want to break them. The Spanish settlements were glad to trade (slaves) from the English. Even as Philip pulled away his support, the settlements feined that the English forced their hand when they really needed to trade. The Spanish were also at war with the French and were glad for any grief that the English inflicted on the French.

I'm sure religion had a lot to do with it but there other factors. The Roman Catholic Churches power had seriously diminished at this point.

Being of English descent myself I'm a little biased in the history. I would rate the English a little ahead of the Spanish (historically) as a people and probably unfairly. But they were both really a nasty bunch. Lets face it the English were trading with the Spanish (who were wiping out the natives) with slaves which they capture from West Africa (some of which they stole from the Portugese). All in the name of profit.

  • 4 votes
#5.2 - Thu Jun 9, 2011 1:42 AM EDT
scar_tissue

The Roman Catholic Churches power had seriously diminished at this point.

Yea & nay, when Elizabeth succeeded it had only been a quarter-century since Henry broke w/ Rome & there was still a whole lot of Counter-Reformation stuff going on trying to reverse that. Scotland's kirk & the German states' Lutheranism were sm potatoes when compared to losing England from the fold not once but 2x, b/c Elizabeth's predecessor was Mary, Philip's 2nd wife.

And Elizabeth had just actively helped the Dutch slither out of Philip's dominions b4 MQOS was executed, w/ Dudley being made Governor-General of the Netherlands. So MQOS & papal supremacy was a good excuse for Phil's wounded pride. The common folk didn't know what his left hand was up to & the Sea Dogs were making him look bad. Besides, who else but the papacy was going to draw nice lines of demarcation on the map to give the Spanish more of the New World or would let those crazy Spanish keep marrying their nieces? Si, it's OK if I swive my sister's kid, God said so, I need to replace that wacky Don Carlos, now put another peso in the collection basket for my 4th wedding! Ay yi yi LOL

Lets face it the English were trading with the Spanish (who were wiping out the natives) with slaves which they capture from West Africa (some of which they stole from the Portugese).

Well, technically it was the Portuguese who began the trans-Atlantic slave trade in the 1530s, & a huge percentage of it went straight to Brazil. About 6% ended up on North American shores in the British colonies, another 1-2% in the British Caribbean colonies. It took England a good 150 yrs or so to go wait a sec, let's cut out them foreign middlemen who are making all the profit & do this ourselves, b/c up until that pt they had nothing of value in the colonies to offer in order to carve out their own niche in the trade.

Thru modern eyes things that were done throughout history does look nasty. When they were doing them, tho, that's how things were done & that's all they knew, so it has to be looked at in context so modern values & judgments don't muddy it up. I tend to drive ppl nuts w/ that attitude at times, but there's gotta be a level of emotional detachment btwn "then" & "now" to explore history.

  • 5 votes
#5.3 - Thu Jun 9, 2011 2:54 AM EDT
bellingham-1004062

I tend to drive ppl nuts w/ that attitude at times, but there's gotta be a level of emotional detachment btwn "then" & "now" to explore history.

I wasn't really reacting to your attitude. I was trying to keep it in perspective for myself. When weighing the actions of the English versus the Spanish or any other nation you have a tendency to that emotional detachment.

History certainly has its biases. There are ideas that prevail history that have hurt humanity throughout--religion being one. However, there is evidence of counter thinking.

As Henry David Thoreau put it

Many are concerned about the monuments of the West and the East,--to know who built them. For my part, I should like to know who in those days did not build them,--who were above such trifling.

Going back to my original point though. I love Elizabeth as a ruler. However, I think there were a lot of other forces at work to undermine the Roman Catholic Church. Another big issue was the availability of books through the invention of the printing press. This is one of the major factors that lead to the reformation to start with. The reformation allowed the commoner to see how corrupt the church was but this was only possible because of relative availability of books at a cheaper price and the growing desire for people to learn to read for themselves.

  • 2 votes
#5.4 - Thu Jun 9, 2011 10:12 AM EDT
scar_tissue

I wasn't really reacting to your attitude.

O no, I didn't think you were at all! Just a general disclaimer as I have had a cpl run-ins online regarding the ability to detach emotionally from the "bad bits" of history & see it in its contemporary context.

Another big issue was the availability of books through the invention of the printing press.

Good pt. A lot of reformist literature was smuggled in fron the Continent to England. Tho Henry VIII remained essentially Catholic, his interest in theology led even the likes of him to read such things. His grandfather Edward IV actually made it possible by being a patron of William Caxton & allowing him space for his printing shop at Westminster. The guy who translated the 1st book published in the vernacular, ie English, lost his head, alas. It was Anthony Woodville, Edward's queen's brother. Widespread availability of printed books also encouraged ppl to read the Bible for themselves as well the arguments for reform.

  • 5 votes
#5.5 - Fri Jun 10, 2011 4:34 AM EDT
bellingham-1004062

Thanks for the discussion.

  • 2 votes
#5.6 - Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:42 PM EDT
scar_tissue

Ditto....I like when ppl drop by to history-natter :P

  • 2 votes
#5.7 - Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:37 AM EDT
Krasna Ludec

bellingham--

The Scottish Maiden (an early form of guillotine, based on the English Halifax machine), was made by some carpenters in 1564. Mary, Queen of Scots was alive at that time.

It is interesting to note that Louis XVI made an improvement to the blade of the French guillotine. I wonder what he was thinking at the time of his demise.

scar_tissue--

Very nice post. What a wonderful change from the usual political trash that appears so often on Newsvine.

  • 5 votes
#5.8 - Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:39 AM EDT
daMamma

I was surprised to learn that the history of guillotine type machines begin prior to 1300!

Amazing how creepy humans can be in their pursuit of maiming and killing each other.

  • 2 votes
#5.9 - Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:43 AM EDT
katrix

We need to get more people to join this group. It is so cool how something like this transcends our political and religous leanings. You could be the most diehard (insert whatever term here) and still have fun here.

And oh, the cool things that I've read and learned here! I'd like to maybe do something on the Civil War - my neighbor was wade-fishing two years ago, and found an actual Civil War musket in the river! I live close to where they all went over to Antietam and back - Pack Horse Ford. He also found a cannonball.

And to finally find people who I want to put on my watchlist, as I mentioned earlier - that is even cooler.

  • 3 votes
#5.10 - Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:07 PM EDT
Darrah, Greenville, SC

I created the group because I saw how interested scar_tissue was in British history. I was basically following the Royal wedding when I ran across her comments. So that's how it all began. ST is the administrator and has brought in some members. I advertised it in the "metavine" and "not news" sections.

Seagull has created a history group since then. It's not just for British history though (which is good.)

I'm going to invite a few more people that might be interested in British history. Feel free to invite as many people that you want.

  • 3 votes
#5.11 - Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:35 AM EDT
daMamma

British history is pretty cool, and it intertwines with so many other nations which in turn draw more than just those interested in England. There are the Scots, Irish, French, just to name a few next door neighbors. Then the Indian (India), Chinese, and pretty much most of the world.

One could seed 100 different seeds every day for decades and never really deplete the topic. This was the empire in which the sun never set.

  • 4 votes
#5.12 - Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:19 PM EDT
Darrah, Greenville, SC

Exactly, daMamma!

  • 3 votes
#5.13 - Sun Jun 12, 2011 1:34 PM EDT
bellingham-1004062

Krasna Ludec

Thanks for Scottish Maiden update. I overlooked that one.

Why did they not use this for Mary I wonder? What goes into execution politics?

  • 3 votes
#5.14 - Mon Jun 13, 2011 1:04 AM EDT
Reply
Abby.

I loved this chapter, & I got smarter by it.
;)

  • 3 votes
Reply#6 - Tue Jun 7, 2011 1:23 AM EDT
scar_tissue

I loved this chapter, & I got smarter by it.
;)

[watches Abby's brain grow to amazing proportions :P]

  • 4 votes
#6.1 - Tue Jun 7, 2011 11:04 AM EDT
daMamma

I loved this chapter, & I got smarter by it.

Both seem to happen with consistent regularity whenever we visit this particular writer. : )

Thank you for another great piece of history scar_tissue.

  • 3 votes
#6.2 - Tue Jun 7, 2011 11:47 PM EDT
scar_tissue

You're welcome, daMamma! :-)

  • 3 votes
#6.3 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 1:57 AM EDT
Reply
SeagullDeleted
katrix

In all my years on the 'vine, I've never put anyone on my watchlist. I just put you on there. For the other few of you on history vine - I'll do the same. Only 7 of us? It's such a great way to avoid the drama.

Now, I expect you to check out Slate and see their articles on the "Da Vinci Code." It's not what you would think.

Seagull, I don't think I've met you - and this is your group. Nice to meet you and thank you so much!

  • 4 votes
Reply#8 - Tue Jun 7, 2011 10:35 PM EDT
SeagullDeleted
scar_tissue

Cool! :-)

  • 3 votes
#8.2 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 12:35 PM EDT
Reply
scar_tissue

O the places we'll go! Clicking links. On the AB coronation article daMamma mentioned she'd heard of Henry's fountain of wine, one of which did feature in the coronation festivities. I bet she was thinking of the even more famous one from the Field of Cloth of Gold & linked to a pic of it. Didn't know the artist & decided to see if I could dig up a name, so I did & I did & it said this engraver's shoppe was in London on Great Queen Street. So I've never heard of Great Queen St & click on that. It says it's in Camden Borough. So I click on that to kinda affix this in my head's vague geography of London (smack in the middle BTW FYI). And it says it's MP (member of Parliament) is Glenda Jackson.

So I'm all, it can't be that Glenda Jackson. Jeez, I just linked her fictitious mtg w/ MQOS from YouTube in this article! So I click on that.

Yup. It's her! The actress who played Elizabeth 2x is a Labour MP & has been for yrs! Boggles the mind. She's 75 :-O

This is a prime example of why I always have Mt Laundry LMAO I click too much!

  • 5 votes
Reply#9 - Thu Jun 9, 2011 4:24 AM EDT
etva

Enjoyed the article! Thanks Scar_Tissue!

  • 3 votes
Reply#10 - Thu Jun 9, 2011 6:41 PM EDT
scar_tissue

You're welcome, etva! TYVM for stopping by.

  • 4 votes
#10.1 - Fri Jun 10, 2011 4:36 AM EDT
etva

Gotta run now!

[crumbs fall as etva runs out of the castle; moles follow, sparkling from the jewels they pilfered]

  • 2 votes
#10.2 - Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:05 PM EDT
Reply
Leave a Comment:
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
(XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
Newsvine Privacy Statement
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
FUN STUFF:
  • Leaderboard |
  • E-Mail Alerts |
  • Top of the Vine |
  • Newsvine Live |
  • Newsvine Archives |
  • The Greenhouse |
COMPANY STUFF:
  • Code of Honor |
  • Company Info |
  • Contact Us |
  • Jobs |
  • User Agreement |
  • Privacy Policy |
  • About our ads
LEGAL STUFF:
  • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
  • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
  • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com