Mary was deposed as queen of Scotland in 1567, which was afterwards ruled by a succession of regents on behalf of her infant son James VI, who was brought up as a Protestant. She was still the natural heir by descent to the English throne, but not actually by law, because there was no law. Nobody had any "claim" to the throne. Elizabeth and Parliament between them could have named anybody as the heir, and that would have been final.
But if Elizabeth had died before Mary, Parliament would have been extremely unlikely to agree to her as the next Roman Catholic monarch anyway. Mary Tudor's reign before Elizabeth had been a disastrously divisive attempt to restore England to Roman Catholicism, and nobody could have wanted that to happen again. Only European military support for English Roman Catholics could have installed her as queen.
After 20 years in "protective custody" in England, Mary was executed for (allegedly) agreeing to a plot to assassinate Elizabeth and promising to pardon the conspirators if it led to her becoming Queen of England. Elizabeth could no longer allow Mary to be such a focus of internal rebellion and possible foreign military intervention - these are the only two threats which I think she represented. After Mary's death, there was no obvious Catholic candidate for the English throne, so the English Catholics were more likely to unite with English Protestants than with Catholic Europeans, as happened the next year with the Spanish Armada.
When Elizabeth died, Parliament named James VI of Scotland as her heir, which suited almost everybody.
2006-10-10 02:49:09
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Elizabeth I was a very vain woman, so there was an element of jealousy as well--many considered Mary much prettier.
But two other big reasons why Mary was a threat were her marriage to Darnley, who, through his grandmother Margaret Tudor (Henry VIII's older sister, who married the King of Scotland and was, therefore, also the grandmother of Mary--Darnley descended from her second husband, a Scottish noble) also had a claim on the English throne (and, of course, being male there were always going to be supporters of a king over a queen, no matter what her abilities or his lack thereof). The other threat was that Mary and Darnley produced a son, and Elizabeth had no direct heir.
2006-10-09 13:05:05
·
answer #2
·
answered by Chrispy 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because she had a male heir and Elizabeth did not and also because she had a great alliance with France due to her mother being Marie di Guise.
2006-10-13 11:52:07
·
answer #3
·
answered by samanthajanecaroline 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Mary had a son who would inherit both thrones. Elizbeth did not have children. even if she had, they would not have a claim to the throne of scotland.
2006-10-09 13:05:07
·
answer #4
·
answered by smkwtrjck 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Another reason that she was a thret to Elizabeth I was that Elizabeth believed that Mary was ploting to kill her.
2006-10-11 10:38:47
·
answer #5
·
answered by eurohistorynerd23 1
·
0⤊
0⤋