No because they regarded Elizabeth as illegitimate because Henry's first wife (Catherine of Aragon) was still alive. when he married Elizabeth's mother. Though he had divorced her they did not recognise divorce (let's face it if Henry hadn't brought it in because he wanted an heir then we proably wouldn't have had divorce in this country ever.)
2007-10-10 05:26:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by D B 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
No, the Jacobites did not consider Mary Stuart the queen of England. She was the Queen of Scotland only.
Mary Stuart's claim on the English throne came through her mother's line and it did not supersede the children of Henry VIII.
James Stuart was James VI of Scotland and James I of England because neither Edward, Mary or Elizabeth had any children. He was the closest relative of either sex.
Now Catholic interests in England made an abortive attempt to overthrow Elizabeth and make Mary Stuart queen of England, but it never had a chance in hell of succeeding. Some of them might have used Elizabeth's birth as a reason for their treason.
Mary Stuart knew such a plot could not succeed and managed to stay out of the intrigue for years, commiting nothing to paper. She was the subject of the rhyme "Mary, Mary, quite contrary." The complete verse is:
Mary, Mary quite contrary
How does your garden grow?
With silver bells and cockle shells
And pretty maids all in a row.
The garden paths were lined with cockle shells (a common decorative touch in that era) and Mary liked wind chimes. The pretty maids (all named Mary) were either spies for Elizabeth or the opposition. Some were both.
2007-10-10 05:44:25
·
answer #2
·
answered by loryntoo 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Many Catholics thought that as Elizabeth I was illegitimate (in Catholic eyes, as they didn't recognise the divorce of Catherine of Aragon), then the throne of England should have passed to Mary Stuart. This is why Mary Stuart was such a danger to Elizabeth I, as she was the focus of Catholic plots to replace her. That's why Mary was eventually executed.
However, by the time the Jacobites came along, it wasn't really a pressing issue, as Mary Stuart's son James had succeeded to the English throne anyway when Elizabeth I died without heirs. The Jacobites wanted the Catholic heirs of James II (who was deposed in 1688) to succeed him. They'd been cut out of the succession by an Act of Parliament which said no Catholic could succeed. So even though James II had a son by his Catholic wife, the throne passed to his Protestant daughter.
2007-10-11 23:42:04
·
answer #3
·
answered by booklady 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
What the Jacobites didn't recognise was when they deposed James II in 1688; they still considered James and his heirs to be the rightful rulers, not William III. They didn't even exist for over 100 years after Mary of Scotland was executed.
2007-10-10 05:46:09
·
answer #4
·
answered by Captain Hammer 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
can I be stupid and say that England already had a monarch called mary and Scotland at the time of mary 1 was not part of England and as such then we have never had a monarch called mary. So towit then the Queen mary11 of England was the 1st Queen mary of Scotland. There are some in Scotland who don`t recognise the Elizabeth 11 as a legitamate queen but that is a nother story.
2007-10-10 06:18:03
·
answer #5
·
answered by finn mchuil 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
They believe the House of Stuart lineage has the right to the throne. Jacobites were supporters of King James II.
2007-10-10 05:44:44
·
answer #6
·
answered by staisil 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Mary Tudor was Mary I of England not Mary, Queen of Scots (aka Mary I of Scotland). Mary, Queen of Scots was Mary Stuart (or Stewart). If your asking about the difference between Mary I of England and Elizabeth I of England: Mary and Elizabeth were half-sisters with different mothers, Mary's mother was Catherine of Aragon and Mary was a Catholic, Elizabeth's mother was Anne Boleyn and was a Protestant.
2016-05-20 23:33:48
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't know if this helps, but when I watched 'The Tudors' on BBC2 last Friday, someone (possibly Duke of Buckingham) mentioned that he should have been king, not Henry.
I shall be watching the answers on this subject with interest.
2007-10-10 05:40:50
·
answer #8
·
answered by cadenza 3
·
0⤊
1⤋