@@JesusRodriguez-hm1fs I guess that Catholics and Protestants believe that the world is spinning around them, but sadly this is not the case. There are some other religions except those two, buddy. Educate yourself. Ah, yes! And I live on planet Earth.
@@tchujdenetza There is no open hostility anymore. But they aren't exactly the best of friends. Although I would say most members have learned to get along peacefully. I think the bigger problem for them these days is Islam.
It still feels so surreal that this happened. Even though I study through history, going over especially from the 14th to the 18th century feels like reading a fictional story at times.
I know what you mean. I’m a big reader of history, and it all feels almost made up. If there wasn’t ‘proof’ of these events occurring, I’d think it was a folk tale. It’s hard to believe that such grandeur and such brutality once occurred, but it’s also hopeful - if society could survive events like this, we can survive the current political battles.
@@nursepls4110 Certainly. Not only that but events lead to change, often for the better. While there are victims of torture, we can in a sense be reassured that it won’t happen again.
I doubt a lot of what happened according to personal accounts. I’m sure it went down of course, but not exactly the way they described, just something similar. Even the most honest people put biased words to paper at times.
@Dion J lol riiiiiiiight...what planet did you roll in from ? All that shit that happened happens today and with modern medicine they can do much much worse to you and you wont die.
@Dion J you live in a bubble,china massacres its citizens every day,so does Africa, the middle east ,humans NEVER change we are not evolving there is no such thing
The real reason is power. The excuse is satanic rituals. But dumbasses blame religion although if you research you'll find the cause of most wars is money n Satan. Religions all serve Satan. An no Christianity is not a religion!
Does anyone imagine that Elizabeth would've been treated any differently if Mary's supporters had had their way? In a parallel universe it's Elizabeth's head on the block and Mary who becomes Queen of both England and Scotland. Barbarians all of them.
The English monarchy is shrouded in embarrassing controversy, and I say English,,,,, I'm a little bit off course,,, as from the middle of the 18th century to present day all the "" monarchy" are of German decent,,, in 1917 the Tzar of Russia, the then King's 1st cousin begged him for refuge, he refused, and he let Him and his family be Brutally murdered by the Bolsovic's even to this day,, on that terrible night in Paris,, that the present monarch had no part in the killing of Diana,,,,,,,, the apple doesn't fall from the tree,
@@joecummins4452 Think it was in the Daily express yesterday that i read the question of who are these royals as their DNA does not match up with Richard 3rd. And today saw that they do xmas prezzies on xmas eve as is tradition in their german history. i dont know why the history books are not taught the truth that Queen Victoria and so on are not related directly to Henry 8th etc. Considering King James had so many children where are their decendents.
@@justtruth5855 I understand where your coming from.. so in your account its difficult to see the exact true dependency of the modern monarchy,, on further investigation of the royals it is without question that a lot of incestuous relationships are apparent (forgive the pun)
@@justtruth5855 . "i dont know why the history books are not taught the truth that Queen Victoria and so on are not related directly to Henry 8th etc." I think you will find they do, it's common knowledge.
when talking about those letters, you should have said allegedly, because there are historians who suggest that the letters were actually faked. Queen Elizabeth I was Henry VIII's daughter don't forget, and whenever Henry needed someone 'gotten rid of' 'evidence' was simply manufactured fit the charges
I absolutely love hearing about both these fabulous ladies lives, but with that being said I do not envy either one of them and can’t imagine how scary their lives were. They were both very strong women of history
Sounds like it was botched on purpose and I can only imagine how terrible a site that must have been and just knowing that a dull axe was used makes it that much more barbaric.
I remember reading, over the years, one could usually pay the executioner to have a sharp blade. The hope being one swipe. That may not have mattered here and Mary just got the Ser Roderick GoT treatment.
The saddest aspect may well be that she adored her infant son, but her exile severed that bond. It is also written that her small dog ran from her underskirts when she was beheaded. Elizabeth 1st 'accidentally' signed the death warrant, as it was conveniently placed amid a large number of documents to be signed. (unable to post this comment!)
Not ironic. Having grown up knowing that her father had her mother beheaded, and the fickleness of his « love », Elizabeth loathed the idea of having to have her 1st cousin Mary executed. That’s why Mary was in prison for 19 years. Mary knew that’d her « luck » had ran out. She made a deal w/Elizabeth: not appealing her death sentence, provided that Elizabeth would name her son James her successor since she didn’t have a biological heir. It was agreed and James would become king of both England and of Scotts.
@@antonsilva6263 That being said, if Elizabeth had other plans for her succession, she could have simply exiled James to France after executing Mary. The agreement between the cousins at conclusion of (Mary’s) trial assured no contest to James being successor. But it’s just my simple opinion. I welcome others :)
@@jackcracker31, no you are wrong, today both Scotland and England are part of the British state. England and Britain are not interchangeable terms, Mr Glass is correct. Also, these events occurred before the Act of Union, so Scotland and England were completely separate states.
This story always saddens and horrifies. It's worth mentioning here that Henry 8ths first daughter Mary was known as Bloody Mary due to her oppression of protestants, up to 280 were burned at the stake over a 5 year period until she died herself. This was just a brutal time.
And what about Henry’s Murdering of Catholics? then Edwards reign? Then Elizabeth? hypocrisy at its finest. what Mary did wasn’t right, but at least she “confessed” at her death.
I find it interesting that she is remembered as Bloody Mary, they reckon over 70,000 people were executed during Henry VIII's reign and that Elizabeth too also had more people executed than Mary ever did but Mary is the one remembered as bloody Mary...
Beheading was france.s preferred way of execution . Madame guillotine . Only stopped in 1970s although I don't think many in that century ever suffered that fate . So no more brutal than other countries really .
@@timmydonlon3458 It was the protestants that wrote the story, the victors always write the history. Elizabeth ruled for forty-four years! Again the Foxes Book of Martyrs was written around that time. The next catholic on the throne was James II who also didn't do much good for the Catholic cause and was also deposed in the Glorious Revolution by his own daughter and son-in-law/nephew Mary ll and William lll.
And she was Queen since she was a toddler. She had a regent but assumed the throne at about age 16 when she came back to Scotland from France where she lived almost her whole life.
If u read what I said. It said she came back to Scotland ffom Franve where she had lived almost her whole life. In France. Not Scotland. I was saying up until she came back to Scotland she lived in France almost her whole life. I know Mary's story. I dont need ur history lesson.
Yes she wore a red dress for her execution. And her little dog was hiding under that dress. After her cruelty exe. the little dog was ful of her blood. Bastard Queen Elizabeth II.Mary Queen of Scots was an anointet Queen. !!
@@daisystanley7103 The 16th Century was not the same as the 21st Century when it came to religion. Judgements we make by today's standards, would be regarded as heresy - and cost you your life - 435 years ago. It's easy to dismiss Royalty as simply the biggest bullies in town at the time (which was quite true). But they did take their leadership role very seriously. And protection and observance of religious beliefs was fundamental to this principle of national leadership. It was a Constitutional matter. Elizabeth was reluctant to set a precedent for legal execution of a monarch - which would've meant she was then at risk of suffering the same fate.
The Queen and her family should pack up their shining, brilliant, magnificent, proud ,resplendent uniforms, decorated with medals, the sashes and lanyards, the sceptres and swords, the crowns and jewels, and fuck off.
@@lindatimmons3675 , I am from South Africa and would love this biography you've mentioned. If anyone have an extra copy to sell/exchange I would really appreciate please? Gerda le Roux
@@mightress Especially when it’s in politics. We may not have executions because of religion in the west. The politicians in America are suppressing women’s rights because of religion. Sessions used scripture from the Bible to justice human rights violation. Evangelicals are a bunch of grifters. The Middle East has Jihadist. No peace between the two Arab tribes.
It was obviously not for her religion, but rather that she plotted to overthrow the Queen. Yes, Mary's co-conspirator's were religiously motivated, as was she, but Elizabeth had avoided executing Mary for many years.
@@JRandallS Yes, Mary was executed for her part in too overthrow Elizabeth. Mary’s coconspirators and Elizabeth’s advisers were religious motivated. Elizabeth did not want her cousin, who was God’s anointed queen. Her advisers kept pressuring to sign the death warrant. She signed it and she asked them to hold on to it. Her men executed Mary behind her back. During the Tudor era there was a lot of executions because of religion.
No pun intended, but using an axe was a 'hit and miss' affair. The blade was too short for it's grim purpose. That's why Anne Boleyn had a French swordsman for her execution as the longer blade afforded a greater chance of a quick, one-stroke slaying.
@@NickPenlee that seems particularly light for a long sword. I would imagine that with most of them I would have trouble wielding one although I would be able with both hands to lift one above my head and smash it down. With armour a light sword would have little impact compared to a heavy sword which would have kinetic energy.
@@alexbowman7582 Yes I must say that I was a little surprised at the lightness of a longsword. I've concluded that the actual weapon was either a much heavier sword or that the Frenchman was sufficiently skilled enough to wield a well-honed longsword fast and precise enough to do the job efficiently. He seems to have succeeded, as history doesn't record a botched execution.
My ancestor Alexander Livingston was her guardian when she was small and was Regent king of Scotland! His son was then guardian of her young son King James future king of England! Livingston’s settled into Jamestown (my people) and New York! Signed Declaration and Constitution! Uncle and Nephew signers! Amazing history, religion killed many! Mary Livingston was one of her ladies in waiting!
Why do so many people blame religion for the crime of centralized power? We've seen secular tyrannies commit horrors that make religious crimes look like the jaywalking. Look at the horrific secular executions done by Communist or the Nazis. Death by a thousand cuts? Here is the realty... HUMANS are brutal when given power. That power can be taken many ways, and religion is just one of them... but at least religion has the mitigating factor of a God telling you to be decent... not that people always listen, but many do. It's exactly the concept of free will and that we are made in the image of God that has shaped our modern age into a place where you have rights and the presumption of innocence. You may say its not perfect, I only ask you to point to period in history that was less brutal and more fair. Religion has done more good than harm by far. The fact is, people are religious, even those who pretend not to be. Its just they worship the state instead of God. Of the two, the state is by far a more dangerous and less compassionate "higher power." In the past people have fought to kill Christianity. God help us all if they ever succeed. The world before Christianity was brutal in a way that people of this age cannot even fathom. The world after it will be much the same.
Bravo! The people still blaming organized religion for the worlds evils are communists, marxists and anarchists who perpetrate atrocities on scales much larger than any crusade a 1,000 years ago ever did. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Castro, Kim...they all hated religion ruthlessly tried to snuff it out by force. The problem is their followers still try and sell the same hype or just look the other way.
The very person you're accused of plotting to kill another Monarch, signs your death warrant?. Then the condemned persons son takes your job,I wonder where Cromwell got the courage?.
@@navnig Mary Queen of Scots is a very important figure in British Royalty. If she hadn't been sentenced to death by the law, it's possible Cromwell could never have raised his new model army. The divinity of Monarch's was gravely undermined especially by the fact her death warrant was signed by another regnant and reigning Monarch? . The Tudors were sadistic power crazed dictators in a totalitarian Monarchy. Elizabeth1 in her desperation for a suitable male heir to the English Throne faced a gamble even she knew could spell the death knell of Monarchy for good and it nearly happened but she had little choice for the sake of England as she saw it. Mary1 of Scotland was a sacrificial lamb, she had been imprisoned in England years before any plot to assassinate Elizabeth was ever alleged to have been hatched, she was set up rotten. For 7 years there was no Monarchy in England. Mary Queen of Scots was the victim Elizabeth needed out of the way to make JamesV1 and 1st as fine a successor to England's Monarchy as possible. Alot of Scottish people are still sore about our wonderful queen's horrific botched public execution and the slight made on our proud history by an evil sadistic and then a foreign Monarch, an evil Tudor, as well as ugly because Mary was beautiful. There is simmering hatred to this day at the cads. The Scottish Church is secular unlike the sectarian ridden English Church. The fact Mary was a Catholic meant nothing in Scotland, it's all dumb English hype that that was relevant. I have no doubt in my mind that James Stuart was involved in a conniving scheme with Elizabeth1 to overthrow Mary, hatched when he was exiled in England a guest of Elizabeth, she hosted him a traitor bur detained Mary. It's also English hype that the Scottish people had turned against Mary. She could have returned to Scotland and reclaimed her Crown after James Stuart was assasinated if evil Tudor Elizabeth had freed her. Hundreds of years later the English are beginning to admit the English church should be secular, the trouble the Tudors created is on par with Adolph Hitler.
Can I say a big thank you to the narrator of these videos. You make them interesting and bring these stories to life. You do a great job in presenting these interesting stories that we often overlook in history. And with your well-read and spoken voice, do justice to these historic facts and stories. Well done.
@Hel V it is a real life story filled with a bit of everything, but if one has been born in England, the other in Scotland, then you can guess what one shall have the aurora of kindness, beauty, romance, and moral goodness,and what one shall be the baddy.
To Duncan Bryson: one of my favorite school subjects was history and I remember the incident about the wig. Due to the caustic cosmetics during those times, many women lost their or went gray prematurely, so they wore wigs.
@@dorettakirk1445 I know about the effect on skin of some of the stuff they used. I'm not sure which video it was in but Caitlin Doughty (Ask A Mortician) looked at that in a bit of detail. Have a look at her vids, although she deals with death, she presents the subject in a humourous irreverent way.
This is true; my best friend in "Haw Skew" was a great guy, and his dad was great, too. His dad told me once that the most important thing is to never hurt any other person or creature, on purpose. This covers just about anything any religion could ever come up with, and so it's what I believe. It's amazing how well it agrees with most codes of behavior.
I agree, it may sound like a platitude but after I read Anna Karenina, I think this is true. It seems like the root idea behind most religions, and its unfortunate that they stray from this one truth that we are all born knowing the difference between right and wrong and that we need only to have faith in that and look to that to guide our lives. Everyone deserves to be treated with kindness and respect, including yourself.
Thank you once again for your nice comments! Stay tuned for some more on this period, including something involving a rebellion and Henry VIII this week!
Don’t entirely blame religion, this was politics. You had two strong women and one country to unite/rule. As someone who has both Scot/English ancestry, I’m not saying it’s right, but that’s the way it was. Don’t think that Mary wouldn’t have done the same, if the roles were reversed.
Could you do some more vids on individual torture instruments and their history/usage? Not that I don't like these videos on individuals, I love them! I just love the ones you did on some individual instruments like "The Scavenger's Daughter" I found it really informative :D I like hearing about torture instruments I never heard of before! subbed, new fave channel!
but Elizabeth, supposedly, in her dying breath, gave the english throne over to Mary's son, James.. James, the king of Scotland, did become the king of England. and maybe because James was protestant it was ok with Elizabeth. It would be a gesture that could help reunite the two countries.. in a way, it showed it was more about catholcism vs protestantism than england vs scotland.. maybe?
@@greg4795 James, Marys son got the throne of England under condition he converted to protestantism, he agreed but secretly still practiced catholism (only the citizens did not know this in order to keep the peace)
@denise bond Eh what are you talking about, of course he wanted the throne, that's why he converted to protestantism you silly beatch. Where in my comment did i say he never wanted the throne?
You would've had to make absolutely certain that the executioner was very well paid! In a very very minor way: I've always elected to employ a really strong dentist to extract a bad tooth of mine :(
You know, in the categories of , ' you have one bloody job ', cutting off someone's head must be a pretty specific one, so maybe use an expert, proper axe & training using prisoners or dead from hospitals. Think of it like golf with a blade, right skills, right tool, minus the stupid cloths, 3 goes !, that's just embarrassing not to mention cruel, I'm so glad we live in such enlightened times, insert all the sarcasm you need now before you burst.
when Marys son Became king of England most of the places where Mary was held prisoner he had raied to the ground, this is why there are no remains of buildings at Fotheringhay.
@@NCKrypotonite33 i entirely agree, most of the places Mary lived in were in Staffordshire and Derbyshire so i was able to visit most of the remains when i lived in Stafford.
Much of the stones from Fotheringhay castle were used to build a hotel near by, stayed there for my honeymoon, there's a staircase apparently it's the one Mary walked down on her way to her exacution, probably not true but i still climbed stairs and wondered
Elizabeth did not want Mary executed. She had no choice. Elizabeth 1 for me was a hero in her time. As a woman she did what she had to do. She and Queen Victoria are two of my favorite Royals; and also Queen Elizabeth II. Religion was evil back then and perhaps it still is in lots of places. But at least we have a choice and are not forced to be a part of it.
I Respect your opinion .....but as time goes by maybe you will find out that it's much ,deeper than a lot of us think....full of mystery and intrigue, Alex Guinness "smileys people " is nothing compared to the Elizabethans ..Victorians..Saxe Coburg dynasty !!!
Elizabeth according to historic rumours didn't want several executions to go ahead or expressed regret at them, which is probablably English historians trying to clean her image up a bit, but they still went ahead. Alot of her executions were botched or heinously sadistic, she was a chip off the old block a sadistic cunning Tudor.
How sad...... I 've always admired this incredibly strong woman and still furious about her execution, it was barbaric and inhuman especially since the 1st stroke didn't kill her. Eliz 1st crocodile tears/furiousness was too late, as queen she had the ultimate authority to stop this but my personal opinion is that the greediness of status/glory/greediness exeeds empathy as are still the sick norm today. Only my personal belief/opinion! Gerda
I see a lot of comments about this so I kind of wanted to add my 2 cents: Beheading by axe was the traditional method in England at the time. Other nations were more likely to use a sword but the English thought that the weight of the axe would drive it through easier and its use required almost no training since anyone who could chop wood was thought to be a capable executioner with an axe. This means that the executioner chosen could have been some regular joe with no prior experience. This would lend itself to the clumsy manner of his first and second stroke. Was the axe dull too? Maybe but using a dull axe would have been visible to the crowd as the sharpness was often illustrated to them before the condemned was brought out. I'm more inclined to believe he was an amateur. This could be further evidenced by how he held up the head. While it was customary to show the head to crowd a seasoned executioner would never have gripped a woman's head, especially a queen's, by what he knew full well would have been a wig. I think he was a major novice and that was the real insult to Mary by Elizabeth, a death by someone who didn't know how to do so properly.
Double agent Gifford delivered the mail by Babington which was written for Mary to the principal secretary of Queen Elizabeth and Mary was sent a counterfeit copy instead , though this message was encrypted with a sophisticated encryption but a guy working under Principal secretary was able to crack it through the frequency analysis of the characters used in the message. After that they waited for Mary's reply which actually came and she basically approved of Babington's plan and that effectively sealed her fate..
I can't imagine anyone gets through this with dry eyes😥 I know life was very different then, especially for women, but I can't help but wonder why she never tried to escape and go far far away, create a new identity.... surely SOMEONE would have helped her...
According to the history I studied, her own subjects turned on her because they were disgusted with her marriage to Bothwell who was suspected of killing her first, husband, Darnley
@@dorettakirk1445 suspicion,suspicion,suspicion,nothing was ever proven against her in Scotland. She was unlucky to have been born a possible successor to the English Throne with a heavy score to settle with Scottish nobles, which would have brought war to Scotland and England, when her disposal meant union and peace. Elizabeth1 was in a dilemna and didn't want to leave the legacy of war between 2 such bitter rivals.
@@bill5328 Why are we arguing about something that happened almost 500 years ago? All of the parties involved are long, long dead. Nothing we say or do can change anything.
The execution was not done by a bad headsman. For when Mary got down on the block she went into an uncontrolled panic attack and she couldn't stop shaking from head to toe. This made the target area for the axe hard to hit. We are told that the second executioner needed to hold her down. The fact the lips were moving afterwards proves this was correct. Though we will never know the real reason Mary was executed even a court of law today would have found her guilty. Also Mary had resigned from the throne of Scotland before she left for England. Therefore she was no longer a Queen. However the English court did not except the forced resignation and Mary was placed in protective custody rather like those in murder trials where there was strong risk to the person giving evidence. Indeed the Scots would have equally wanted her dead, more than Elizabeth. This didn't stop Mary's plots and the result of the last but one plot resulted in a law being passed that would insure the death penalty for anyone found guilty of trying to take Elizabeth's life. At her final trial she refused council for she was a Queen. The court however declared that she was a private woman and not a Queen. She was asked if she knew Babbington and first denied it. Later she admitted she had written to him. That convicts her. Elizabeth however being pestered to execute her, signed the warrant. But she had no intention of using it. The warrant even signed was no use. It had to have the Great Seal attached. Elizabeth (I believe) wanted to use the signed warrant to stop the plotters using Mary as an excuse to kill her. Making it public knowledge that it had been signed. Do anything and she dies! However Walsingham was ill. And Davidson was in charge. He took the warrant to have Great Seal attached and showed it the Queen. She played bloody hell with him. He took the warrant to Cecil who organised a meeting (without the Queen) of the Privy Council. Cecil told them the signed warrant can be sent off without the Queen's permission and due to the 1586 Act that it was legal and she couldn't execute them for having done so. So they did. But when the Queen found out Davidson was sent to the tower for a time - even so. But he lived as the 1586 protected him and the rest. Cecil however went into disgrace. And Walsingham died broke. We also forget that Elizabeth could have died of natural causes at any time. And therefore all Mary had to do was wait. But she wasn't prepared to do that. Elizabeth wasn't concerned about who took the throne after her death, as long as that death was natural! In her mind Mary had the right to it as much as anyone else. The Catholics also were not that keen on Mary, being a woman, having the throne and they would have got rid of just as quick if she proved to be the wrong person for the job.
They couldn't have selected a more cross-eyed and Moronic Executioner if they tried. Poor Mary. That was gut-wrenching to listen to. Bless Her sweet delicate Soul.
Uh Rob i feel bad for mary and all but are we forgetting why she is named “bloody mary” ?? don’t forget all of the pregnant protestant women she burnt to death, not to mention the men too. I almost feel bad for what happened to her but then i remember the deaths she caused & how their final moments were and it escapes me. No monarch in history scares me more than she does.
The conclusion of this posting is entirely incorrect, as is he title. By the standards of the time, Mary Queen of Scots was given a 'clean' execution, not a brutal one at all. She was convicted of plotting the monarch's death, which was treason. The normal method of execution for that offense was hanging, drawing and quartering, which consisted of hanging the condemned person by the neck, but not until they were dead. The condemned was then taken down and revived. They then had their stomach cut open and their entrails removed (drawing), which were burnt before their eyes as they slowly bled to death in screaming agony. The corpse was then cut into separate quarters and the head removed. The body parts were disposed of in different ways to different places. This meant, in the theology of the time, that on the day of judgement, the executed person would not rise, because their body was not whole. Personally, I'd rather have my head chopped off, even if it wasn't done particularly competently.
@@twilightzone3632 It's Funny you should say that...when the Zulu's fought the British ...the Zulu's cut their hearts out so their spirits would not rise e to haunt them....a lady in the comment ....said "how barbaric" not thinking of the history of humankind ....every humankind is capable of brutal and barbaric act ....it been that way since the dawn of time ....regardless of race!!!
So how was this any more "BRUTAL" than other beheadings of the era...(?)...especially given the fact executioners were not 100% perfect, for all sorts of reasons. If this execution is considered BRUTAL then what adjective would one use for someone being drawn & quartered(?) I suspect the video would have had a lot more likes had the title of the video not been borderline clickbait.
I was looking forward to watching Netflix's offering of "Mary Queen of Scots". Then I saw that one of Queen Elizabeth's councillors was acted by a black man. Its a new term called "colourblind casting" The next step is "genderblind casting" The the next step is "age blind casting" A few years from now we can look forward to a biopic of Mike Tyson where he is portrayed by a 3 year old white girl. Hooray!!
Only colorblind casting for white historical characters. If a white guy played an African slave you'd bet your ass there would be uproar. Justified uproar but a double standard is no standard at all.
European colonists' tendency to destroy the recorded histories of those they oppressed, while spreading their own as common knowledge, made historical roles off-limits to minorities for many years. Colour-blind casting is a step towards a less discriminatory environment for actors and a more inclusive experience for the audience. However, colour-blind casting can also be historically misleading and inaccurate, which led to the push for colour-conscious casting. Something that wasn't really considered when non-white roles were being given to white actors. Johnny Depp as Tonto, John Wayne as Genghis Khan, Tilda Swinton as the Ancient One, Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily, Scarlett Johansson as Motoko Kusanagi, Jake Gyllenhaal as the Prince of Persia, literally every black character in Birth of a Nation, etc. The practice of whitewashing non-white roles has been around for far longer than the practice of colour-blind casting and neither practice would lead to the ridiculous fantasy that you're speculating about. If you were turned away from a show that interested you by the presence of a black man....you might just be racist.
It is very stranger that those letters from Mary to Babington and vice versa were not produced in court. In fact nothing in Mary's handwriting was produced in court. Mary drew attention to this during the trial. It would be interesting in one historian at least asked to see the evidence of that trial which I am sure is hidden in some archives. Most historians quote from many sources too prove this and that but on the trial of Mary there is silence.
From what I understand, Queen Elizabeth tried to later say that she was "conned" into believing by her advisors, that Mary Queen Of Scotts was going for England's throne. I think as some others do, Elizabeth was jealous of Scotland's queen, and just wanted her dead. So she probably concocted this story to justify Mary's execution...
@@Deborahtunes To be fair Mary was a catholic pawn The catholic’s world didn’t want Elizabeth on the throne,the pope had in fact called for Elizabeth to be assassinated So you can’t just blame her
@@johnbaird4912 ~ But that was still no excuse to have Scotland's queen executed. Elizabeth wasn't the innocent miss, historians want everyone to believe...
@@Deborahtunes No I totally agree but because of all these plots against her,she became very paranoid . Mary had already announced that she was queen of France,Scotland and England while Elizabeth was on the throne,So you can understand Elizabeth wanting to keep her at arms length because the catholic’s wanted Mary as queen ,While the Protestant’s didn’t
Not white true. The Pope claimed both Spiritual and Temporal sovereignty and so a Catholic country was not an independent country, it was subject to the Vatican and the Vatican played international politics. Henry 8th made England both a Protestant and an independent country and Elizabeth intended to keep it that way. If you read the English Bill of Rights 1689 you will see why the ruling class were opposed to Roman Catholicism - the Pope could excommunicate a King and the people were then free to kill him.
@@dnstone1127 James VI (Scotland) and I (England) was highly educated and intelligent man ...he would bring the bible to the common man by converting it to English..while influencing it poetically...power was his absolute therefore being Protestant was convenient to his many titles and crowns...he however loved his mother and would avenge his mother's death in different ways...
Mary never comprehended her peril, not at the hands of the wishy-washy Elizabeth, but at the hands of Walsingham, Elizabeth's utterly ruthless spy and guardian.
So much drama to this passage of English/Scottish history. Faith, power and control an unholy trinity. So much suffering in the name of all three. Are we more "civilised" and "enlightened" now....?
@Luke Dixon it seems correct English has not been taught since the 80s. all these progressive americanese educational stupidities in the name of a false equality. "let's make everything easier so everyone can be equal". this ignores the reality that genius exists, at least it used to, now people are far more stupid than I remember in the 1970s.
Mary Stuart is one of my favorite people from the past. It’s an absolute shame that religious freedoms have only been a thing for a relatively short period of time, because who knows how the world would be if it were a thing for a longer time.
The real shame is most people just bow to a "leader". Almost like an "owner". They idolize people and make them out to be more (or less) than they really are.
I wonder if they thought beheading was a painless form of execution, and if so, did they wonder if it wasn't because their face would sometimes still move? Maybe they still did it anyway because they didn't care or because beheading is symbolic.
Thank you for this video. I an avid reader about all the Kings, Queens and "Royalty" dating back to the Vikings first conquests yet today I learned something new. Mary wore a wig. 🤔
@Hel V - Naa-ah - there was never ENOUGH nobles - or royalty - executed. There should have been executions on a regular basis; if there wasn't any capital crimes, the crowd would've loved lesser(but still visually exciting) sins punished in a bloody way, with screaming and that kind of stuff. Put it on "Pay for View" at a regular time, each week, so that TV watchers could know when some reliably bloody show can be enjoyed by the whole family.
@Hel V It wasn't called the dark ages for nothing. It was dark and then it got darker and when you looked around all the brilliant people who stood up against the shit were dead. Killed by an angry mob, who were motivated by a criminal mastermind only to cover his tracks. Then the mob were killed. There, mischief managed he would say. Then the criminal mastermind would move on to the next country. Only to repeat himself, from 850 AD to what's the date.
