The former Scottish and English royal House of Stuart is a thrilling tale of dynastic intrigue, war and revolution. It includes the last gasps of autocratic monarchism in the British Isles, two exiled princes, a British dictatorship, multiple factional divides spanning political ideology, religion and nationality, a war of conquest and the finalisation of the form of democracy that now exists in 19% of UN member states. It has been depicted in books, film and television, and it informs many more stories across medium.
My fascination with the story of the Stuarts began with Peter Ackroyd's in-depth History of England, specifically volumes 3 and 4 (Rebellion and Revolution). These not only deal with the House of Stuart, but the state of England culturally and politically during the two hundred years they cover, the same period I intend to tell in this series of posts. Beginning with the ascension of James I and VI to the English throne, to the failure of Bonnie Prince Charles to retake his grandfather's throne and the end of the Jacobite cause.
I will be telling this story in chronological order, focusing mostly on the royal family's involvement in events in history, as my story is largely about their rise and fall, rather than telling a History of England from 1603 to 1745. My interest in this series is in the story rather than necessarily the history. Not to say I'm writing fiction, but as I explore each part of the tale, I will be examining it from an analytical perspective, how it has been depicted in culture, its significance to culture in the present day, and what I find interesting in the story.
Another prompt of course for my writing this series is how similar recent events are to the start of this story. Last month the second Queen Elizabeth passed away, and her namesakes own death weas the beginning of this story. Ackroyd tells the start of the Stuart story in England is wonderfully dramatic:
Sir Robert Carey rode furiously from London to Edinburgh along the Great North Road, spending one night in Yorkshire and another in Northumberland; he arrived at Holyrood Palace, 'be-bloodied with great falls and bruises' after a journey of more than 330 miles. It was late at night on Saturday 26 March 1603. He was ushered into the presence of King James VI of Scotland and, falling to his knees, proclaimed him to be'King of England, France and Ireland'. He gave him as testimony a sapphire ring that his sister, Lady Scrope, had thrown to him from a window at Richmond Palace immediately after the death of Elizabeth I. 'I have', he told his new sovereign, 'a blue ring from a fair lady.'
The death of Queen Elizabeth I is a touchstone for English history. The Tudor dynasty is the most celebrated in England's cultural landscape, its history taught as a matter of course in English secondary schools and in many commonwealth realms besides, and Elizabeth's death was of course the end of that dynasty.
Elizabeth was of course also the cousin of Mary Queen of Scots, James' Mother. Mary's grandmother was Margaret Tudor, the daughter of Henry VII of England, and it is through these women that James's position as Elizabeth's heir was established (in fact, through writing this article I learnt that Margaret Tudor was James great-grand mother through both his mother and his father, but his more immediate claim was through his mother).
When arranging to have his daughter wed to the Scottish king James V, Henry somewhat prophesised the union of crowns and its effects on England and Scotland when asked if he was worried a Scottish king should inherit England:
What then? Should anything of the kind happen (and God avert the omen), I foresee that our realm would suffer no harm, since England would not be absorbed by Scotland, but rather Scotland by England, being the noblest head of the entire island, since there is always less glory and honour in being joined to that which is far the greater, just as Normandy once came under the rule and power of our ancestors the English