English Scots for YES

Well done, Scotland.

aljazeera.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=38ffd892c93e55497901185c8&id=6e716f53a6&e=7cecddd9cf

If and when they go independent, hopefully they will accept many English migrants.

The (Catholic) Queen Mary of Scotland(great-great niece of Henry VIII) abdicated the throne (or was persuaded to) in favour of her son James VI.
The (Protestant) Queen Elizabeth I of England - who was in fact a Tudor and the Tudors were Welsh - reluctantly signed the death warrant of her cousin Mary.
With no-one to inherit the English throne Mary's son James VI became King of England as well (James I).
Eventually, there being no Protestant successor to James I's great grand-daughter Anne Stuart, his great-grandson George of Hanover acceded to the throne of the Great Britain.
So when people call the Royal Family 'German' or the Queen the 'Queen of England', they are in fact descended from the Scottish James I.

We do not seem to have had a truly English King or Queen on the throne since the Plantagenets - oh no, they were French!

I expect you all knew that anyway.

I think Cromwell killed a fair few people in England too!

I don't think Cromwell was very tender with the Irish, either.

Elizabeth was in a difficult position with Mary Q of S. While Mary lived she was the focus for Roman Catholic plots to depose Elizabeth (not a legitimate heir in their eyes) and put Mary on the throne. She did seem to put off executing her for as long as possible... I've had arguments with people over this Horrid though it was I think she had little option.

The Queen of Scots had been deposed by her own countrymen and supplanted by her baby son. She had ceased to be Queen and had fled over the border to England, long before she lost her head.

Jalima - and Ireland!

mcem I think Cromwell killed a fair few people in England too!!

James V1th/1st only visited Scotland once in 1617, after taking the throne n 1603. He was alleged to much prefer England to Scotland- perhaps it was the weather!!!

^ pointing out to the teacher that she had chopped off OUR Queen's head^
but they were cousins - there was much dissidence between royal cousins in the olden days.
And we all know what happened next, don't we

We did quite a lot of Scottish history at school in England, both primary and secondary, but not much of it was pre- James IV/I. We also sang a lot of Scottish songs, Welsh songs, Irish songs and English songs.

Yes, as I just pointed out !
so I was agreeing with you mcem and pointing out that someone else pointed out the other day

Daphne I don't think James VI / I could ever have moved the English parliament to Scotland. It had no authority over Scotland. There had been union of Kingdoms at that time but no political union until 1707 when a single joint parliament was set up.

General Monck was Cromwell's commander in chief and his troops raped and murdered their way through Dundee in (?) 1650.
If you Google General Monck and Dundee you can read the bloody story.
Great that something has sparked your interest and you're so willing to read more.

Just been reading about Cromwell and the Covenanters in Scotland, so I've learned something new today. Apparently, many of the Scottish prisoners taken by Cromwell were sold into indentured labour in the West Indies, Virginia and Maine.

Google calls the civil wars the "Wars of the Three Kingdoms". I must admit I'd only ever known much about the English Civil War, although I knew that Ireland and Scotland were involved.

I wonder how differently history would have turned out,if James VI had built himself a huge palace in Scotland, transferred Parliament to Scotland and ruthlessly put down the English rebels.

As for nationality...AFAIK my ancestry is English for at least five centuries, but I've never thought of myself as anything other than British. Nationality has never been an issue for me and I certainly won't be flying any English flag. I feel lucky rather than proud to have been born British.

And so Robert Burns wrote 'A Parcel of Rogues in a Nation'!!

From the Scottish point of view the union was financially expedient after the disaster of the Darien affair. From the English point of view it was as you say to ensure the Scots didn't choose a different monarch to England after the death of Queen Anne. There were other considerations of course! The Hanoverian claim was through James V1th/1st daughter Elizabeth who married Frederick of Bohemia (the winter king)

Mary of Scotland was brought up in France and was a Catholic which would have caused all sorts of problems as people were very adverse to another Catholic on the throne. She foolishly became embroiled in plots to overthrow Elizabeth, hence her inevitable albeit reluctant execution.

I think the Act of Union was passed to preempt the exiled Stuarts claiming the Scottish throne once Queen Anne died (though they claimed both thrones anyway...). The Stuart link to the Hanoverians was very tenuous.

Roses totally agree with you that this is exactly how it should be.

Slightly deviating from the threads title to post a Welshman's blog now.

autresroyaumes.wordpress.com/2017/03/19/a-welshman-in-aberdeen/

Not me, Granny23. We didn't move to York until 1998, although the time you are talking about, we had a vegetarian cafe.

That would have been a fun breakfast, though.

After Elizabeth 1 had her cousin Mary Queen of Scots executed she died with no heirs. Mary's son James ascended the English throne hence the Union of the Crowns.

Would just like to say, that although we are the United Kingdom, we can, and do, think of ourselves as being English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish.Why not?My village flies the English flag along with the union flag on certain days a year, and nobody here thinks of the BNP

The union of the crown was 1603 after the,death of Elizabeth 1st. James V1th of Scotland became James 1st of England. James 1Vth of Scotland had married Margaret, eldest sister of Henry V111th, hence James of Scotlands claim. The act of union was passed in 1707 by the English and Scottish parliaments leading to the creation of the United kingdom of Great Britain.

DJ Way back in the late 80's or early 90's we stayed in a Vegetarian BB in York and the breakfast was memorable, not only for the delicious food but for the fact that the bailiffs turned up in the middle of it looking for the landlady's husband. She gave them short shift and calmly carried on cooking and serving breakfast.

Ps DD - thank you for that but please note that I did not link slave trade,India and colonialism to later 'rivalries'.
See my post at 11.52.02.
Lots of people confuse 1603 and 1707!

My experience was similar to varian's. Way back to Malcolm, Alexander, Queen (St) Margaret, Wallace, Bruce, Jacobite rebellion, Culloden et al.
(Much of it was still taught by me to classes in the 70's 80' until there were major changes to the curriculum.)
So post Vikings it was mostly Scottish history. Nothing at all on English history like the Plantagenets or Tudors until Elizabeth 1 got involved - Mary Queen of Scots and the Stuarts.
Industrial revolution and constitutional reforms Corn laws etc.
Later WW1 interwar years and WW2.
Agree with granny 23 re English lit curriculum. Happy with Shakespeare and major English poets/writers but not much
Scottish lit.