History question

[saharris]

In the 16th-century England and Scotland are two different countries, with two different parliaments, and two different crowns (held by the Tudors and the Stuarts, respectively).

In March 1603, the Tudor dynasty fails in England with the childless death of Elizabeth I. The English crown falls to James VI of Scotland, her nearest cousin. England and Scotland were still two different countries, with two different parliaments, and two different crowns (both just happen to be held by the same king – who is appropriately styled “James I of England and VI of Scotland” to reflect the two crowns held in personal union).

Fast-forward a bit to June 1688.

James II of England and VII of Scotland (the aforementioned James’ grandson) fathers a son. This establishes a Catholic heir apparent to the crown of Protestant England. The English bishops and nobility exile James and his heir (who go to France); and the English parliament declares that he has abdicated the throne. England then replaces James with his Protestant daughter and her Dutch husband – who reign jointly as William III and Mary II.

This is what I don’t get:

If England and Scotland were two different countries, with two different parliaments, and two different crowns (they would not become one country, with one parliament, and one crown until 1707) – then how does the English parliament in London deciding that James is no longer the King of England have any affect on him as the King of Scotland?

From what I understand, 1688 should have just been the end to the personal union of the crowns – with James VII as King of Scotland, and with William III and Mary II and King and Queen of England. Unless I’m missing something, which I clearly am…

Can the rabble help clear me up?

[Tobus]

If England and Scotland were two different countries, with two different parliaments, and two different crowns (they would not become one country, with one parliament, and one crown until 1707) – then how does the English parliament in London deciding that James is no longer the King of England have any affect on him as the King of Scotland?

It didn't. The Scottish Parliament also declared him to have abdicated (on April 11, 1689). The same declaration gave William and Mary the crown of Scotland. This was a totally separate declaration by a totally separate government.

http://www.jacobite.ca/documents/16890411.htm

[McClef]

When James fled he was held to have abdicated and indeed the Scottish Parliament declared that James had forfeited his throne on 11th April 1689.

William III (II of Scotland) and Mary II (same for both countries) were offered the Crown by the Scottish Parliament and accepted on 11th May the same year.

Hope this answers your question.

[saharris]

Okay. I can understand Protestant England going regicidal with the birth of a Catholic heir apparent; but wasn’t Scotland still majority-Catholic? Why did the Scottish Estates of Parliament follow England’s lead in dethroning James? Wouldn’t this have been a great opportunity to reassert Scottish independence, or at least try to?

[davidg]

but wasn’t Scotland still majority-Catholic?

Scotland was Presbyterean. John Knox and the Reformation and all that in the time of Mary Queen of Scots, a long time before. Yes, there were still Roman Catholics but they were being oppressed

[McClef]

Scotland had not been majority Catholic for over a century. James's great grandmother had been in a religious minority even as Queen.

You can google all about it pretty easily.

The only time after 1603 when Scotland took a different course with regard to a Monarch was during the English Commonwealth when Charles II, James's brother was crowned at Scone on 1st January 1651 well ahead of his restoration in England.

[Tobus]

Scotland was Presbyterean. John Knox and the Reformation and all that in the time of Mary Queen of Scots, a long time before. Yes, there were still Roman Catholics but they were being oppressed

It's probably also important to note in relation to his question that "majority" has no bearing on it. Not like it would today where democratic principles are more relevant to the workings of government. Only the religion of those with titles mattered, when it came to national decisions. And Protestants clearly held power since the Reformation, as has been said.

The religious history of Scotland is full of confusion and complexities (one might even say that the history of Scotland is the history of religious struggle), and it's never as simple as Catholic versus Protestant. I've been studying it for years, and still haven't made a dent on understanding it.

[Peter Crowe]

Scotland had not been majority Catholic for over a century. James's great grandmother had been in a religious minority even as Queen.

You can google all about it pretty easily.

The only time after 1603 when Scotland took a different course with regard to a Monarch was during the English Commonwealth when Charles II, James's brother was crowned at Scone on 1st January 1651 well ahead of his restoration in England.

Trefor and David are quite correct. The Scottish Reformation occurred about 30-40 years later than the Reformation(s) in England and the Continent, in 1559/60. However, unlike in England or the German states it was a thoroughgoing popular revolution (subsequently taken over by many of the nobility called the Lords of the Congregation who forced the Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots to abdicate in favour of her infant son, James VI in 1567 following her marriage to Bothwell). In its initial phase it closely followed the theology and practices of Calvin's Geneva, but the issue of maintaining Bishops (an Episcopalian Church Polity) was undecided until after John Knox's death in 1572. Thereafter, the Presbyterians led by James and Andrew Melville (Uncle and Nephew) gained the ascendancy, although there was significant support for Episcopacy north of the River Tay.

To cut a long and complex story short, over the next century or so (from c.1575 to 1690) the issue of Episcopacy versus Presbytery was an open question in both Scotland's ecclesiastical and secular politics (although Presbyterians were in the majority in most parts of the country, overwhelmingly so south of the Tay). The Revolution settlement of 1689/90 saw the triumph of a Presbyterian church settlement. In Scotland James VII was held to have forfeited the Crown and the 1689 Claim of Right (arguably much more radical and revolutionary than England's Bill of Rights, because it is much more explicit about the contractual nature of Monarchy having been breached by James, and therefore his right to be King forfeited) declared that the imposition of Prelacy (rule by Bishops in the Kirk) was a great grievance to this kingdom, or words to that effect. From that point onwards there has been a separation between the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) and the Scottish Episcopal Church (Anglican), although they share the same common lineage in both the pre-Reformation Church of Scotland under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, continuing on from the Reformation until the Revolution Settlement in 1689. It is a common misconception (particularly in Scotland) to regard the Episcopal Church as the English Kirk because it is in full communion with the Church of England, and many English people living in Scotland worship there. However, the Scottish Episcopal Church is an independent member of the worldwide Anglican Communion, and a sister church of the Church of England (i.e. not her daughter church) indigenous to Scotland, with her own history and traditions. The Church of Scotland on the other hand, is still very much the 'national' although not 'state' church, which counts her members by those who have formally made a public Confession of Faith, not those who were baptised. If adherents are counted as opposed to formal members it is still the largest denomination in Scotland, although not as influential as it was 40-50 years ago. The Church of Scotland (The Kirk) has for most of her history since 1690 had a complex and difficult relationship with the state, because her theology does not sit well with the legal concept of 'establishment'. This was largely rectified by the Church of Scotland Act 1921, in which Parliament recognised the Kirk as the historic national church (of Scotland), presbyterian in government, but in all matters of doctrine and worship free from state interference and funded by the voluntary principle.

There were pockets of the Western Highlands and Islands (Arisaig, Barra, and South Uist come to mind) that remained relatively untouched by the Reformation and the people remained faithful Roman Catholics. There was also a strong Episcopal tradition in the North-East, which with those that remained Catholic, formed part (by no means all) of the support for the Jacobites. It is a common misconception, (largely reinforced by the early 19th century Romantic movement and Hollywood's treatment of Scottish themed novels like R. L. Stevenson's Kidnapped) to equate Jacobitism with proto-Scottish Nationalism. This does not bear any close scrutiny because all the evidence is that the Jacobites who were ultra-legitimists and believers in the Divine Right of Kings were after the main prize of a Stuart Restoration in all three kingdoms; Scotland, England (including the Principality of Wales), and Ireland.

[warrior]

Can anyone shed light on the cross border allegiances of the lairds and how that played out. It has always been my understanding one of Scotland's greatest weaknesses was the very thing us descendants seem to hold in high esteem. Namely the clan system and internecine warfare and clan self interest above the national interest. To wit many chiefs and lairds also held lands and titles in England. Not to even mention the difference between the lowland and highland.

I'm not looking for a rehash of old injuries real or imagined but an honest telling of history that many of us have only heard as romanticized versions of a long ago memory.

[warrior]

By the by if it is so then at this late date all one can say is well played by whoever came out on top if anyone ever truly does at that type of game.