Was Mary Stuart's execution not accompanied by attainder?
score:17
Part One: Chronology.
King James VI & I did become king of England and Ireland on 24 March 1603 about 16 years after Mary Queen of Scots was beheaded on 8 February 1587.
But James became King of Scotland on 24 July 1567, about 20 years before his mother Mary Queen of Scots was beheaded 8 February 1587. The enemies of Mary Queen of Scots revolted against her, defeated her, and forced her to abdicate, and then made her one-year-old son James the King of Scotland, ruling for him until he came of age.
So since James became King of Scotland almost 20 years before any hypothetical act of attainder against his mother Mary Queen of Scotland, such a hypothetical act of attainder wouldn't prevent James from becoming King of Scotland in 1567.
Part Two: England and Scotland Were Separate & Independent Countries.
I also note that Mary was beheaded for treason against Queen Elizabeth I of England and Ireland. Thus any hypothetical act of attainder against Mary for treason against the Queen of England would not make her guilty of treason against the monarch of Scotland, whether that she herself was considered to be still the rightful monarch of Scotland or James VI was considered to be the rightful monarch of Scotland.
Neither Mary herself or James VI was disbarred from the throne of Scotland by any real or unreal treason she might have committed against England.
As far as I know Mary was never accused of acts of treason against herself while she was Queen of Scotland. And possibly the supporters of those who deposed her in favor of her son James could consider her attempts to regain her throne treason against the king who replaced. But obviously they would not consider such efforts to regain the throne reason to disbar her heir from the crown, because they had put her heir on the throne in place of her, so it would be illogical to assume that James inherited any sort of legal guilt as a result of treason committed by another against him.
So this establishes that any hypothetical act of attainder against Mary for Treason against Elizabeth of England would have had absolutely no effect in removing James from the throne of another kingdom, Scotland, where he had been the monarch for almost 20 years already.
Part Three: No Bill of Attainder.
The answer by Mark Olson shows that no act of attainder was passed against Mary, and thus that a nonexistent act of attainder could have no effect in keeping James from the Throne of England.
An act of attainder was a special law decreeing that someone was guilty of treason "because we say so" and confiscating all their property and "corrupting their blood", making their heirs unable to inherit their property.
Considering the present state of politics in the USA, it would be terrible if the majority in Congress at a moment could pass bills of attainder against members of the other party. That is why the US Constitution forbids bills of attainder.
As Mark Olson says, Mary was convicted by a jury of English nobles and so no bill of attainder was passed against her, there was no corruption of blood, and James's hereditary right to the throne of England was not affected.
Part Four: What One Parliament Has Done, Another Parliament Can Undo.
If I remember correctly, bills of attainder were often eventually reversed, so that heirs of the attained could inherit titles and property.
So if the English parliament had passed a bill of attainder against Mary Queen of Scots, a later English parliament which desired James to become King of England & Ireland could have passed a bill reversing the corrupution of blood in the earlier bill of attainder.
Conclusion:
King James was not disbarred from becoming king of either Scotland or England by the sentence against Mary Queen of Scots.
Upvote:23
Three points:
- Mary was not the subject of a Bill of Attainder. She was convicted of treason by a jury of English noblemen.
- The rules about succession rules were still vague in 1600. Succession was set by the monarch and rubber-stamped (usually) by Parliament. No one disputed that Queen-in-Parliament could overturn any taint of that sort that existed. What rules there were favored legitimate descent with a very strong bias towards Protestants.
- In any event, Elizabeth never named a successor or succession rules for Parliament to approve. James was selected more-or-less by unanimous consent of the political elite surrounding Elizabeth. Once they had become convinced that Elizabeth was not going to name James -- or anyone else -- as her successor, many of her advisors began corresponding with James in secret when it became obvious that her death was near. (No one wanted a return to Wars of the Roses days!) Basically, everyone who mattered -- i.e., could muster enough force to interfere -- said, "Yup. Hooraw for King James!"
The bottom line is that James was the absolutely obvious choice by descent, he had already shown himself to be a competent king in Scotland, he was Protestant, most of the political elite favored him, and there was no legal impediment. I suppose, technically, this was a coup, but there was no one around to object to it.
More post
- 📝 What wars or other serious crises have been caused by translation?
- 📝 Has the Scythe ever been used as a weapon?
- 📝 When has the U.S. refused to pay its debts?
- 📝 Why Did the Founding Fathers Create the Electoral College?
- 📝 Religious sectarianism as the primary cause of the Bosnian War
- 📝 What would've been the outcome of the Yom Kippur War had the UN not intervened?
- 📝 How did people count before Fibonacci published Liber Abbaci?
- 📝 Did France send ships to the Indian Ocean in 1971 in support of Pakistan?
- 📝 How did Scipio Africanus recruit his army for Zama?
- 📝 What caused the decline of the Spanish empire?
- 📝 Were there in the USSR monasteries decorated with Soviet orders?
- 📝 What battle of WW2 is depicted in this Battlefield V level?
- 📝 Is there a biography of Pavel Mif?
- 📝 What is the source for this quote from the French Revolution?
- 📝 Is there a common name for periods between Medieval and 19th century?
- 📝 What is the origin of "Crévier's supplement" in William A McDevitte's 1850 translation of Livy's Ab Urbe Condita Libri?
- 📝 Marc Bloch's "Feudal Society"; Why do nobles have this vocation?
- 📝 Under German-Nordic heraldic tradition, can arms pass through the female line?
- 📝 How was Christian intermarriage with the Muslim Turks viewed by the Byzantines?
- 📝 How accurate was rocket artillery in the 18th and 19th centuries?
- 📝 Did ancient miners have ways of predicting ore/stone deposits?
- 📝 Why are the buildings built in classical style in the first half of the 19th century in Russia so frequently yellow-and-white - coloured?
- 📝 Is there any short summary of John Rowe's theory of horizons about the Incas?
- 📝 Is the entire history, we read, accurate?
- 📝 Well poisoning: time frame until usable again?
- 📝 Did the Portuguese Crown sponsor Brazilian gold-seeking expeditions (bandeiras) in the 17th century?
- 📝 Did anyone in ancient times want to abolish slavery?
- 📝 Government started within another government
- 📝 Why did the First and Second Industrial Revolutions start in Europe?
- 📝 To what extent has the United States become (in 1870) the nation that it originally set out to be?
Source: stackoverflow.com
Search Posts
Related post
- 📝 Was Mary Stuart's execution not accompanied by attainder?
- 📝 Why did archery not make a comeback when armor was phased out in the 18th century?
- 📝 Why China was able to unify and not Europe?
- 📝 Why was Britain willing to return Hong Kong but not Gibraltar?
- 📝 Was it militarily possible to "island hop" the Philippines if not for MacArthur?
- 📝 Why was Switzerland not attacked during the two World Wars?
- 📝 Why was Germany not as successful as other Europeans in establishing overseas colonies?
- 📝 Why was PTSD not written about as much before the 20th century?
- 📝 Why was language not used to establish dominance throughout England 1066 AD–1360s CE?
- 📝 Why was Napoleon not executed or imprisoned?
- 📝 Why was Iceland not a part of the Danish-Swedish deal in Kiel in 1814?
- 📝 What was Palestine before, if not a country?
- 📝 Why was China not colonized by any country?
- 📝 Why was gold so popular and valuable back when it did not have many real world uses?
- 📝 Who was the last US president who did not start a war?
- 📝 Why was the Greek alphabet not adopted by other languages, given the Greek influence?
- 📝 Why was Germany unified in Versailles not Berlin?
- 📝 Was the European slave market in the East during the colonial era similar to the transatlantic slave market? If not (less brutal, etc), why?
- 📝 Why was 19th-century Japan able to modernize and not China?
- 📝 When was it discovered that the stars are not all lying on the same plane?
- 📝 Was it not clear to the WWI allies that they were over-reaching with the treaty of Sevres?
- 📝 Is there convincing evidence that the language of Bulgars (proto-Bulgarians) was not Turkic, but Indo-European?
- 📝 Why was slavery profitable in the Southern colonies and not New England?
- 📝 Under what legal theory was Mary Surratt hanged as an assassin of President Lincoln in 1865?
- 📝 Why did Japan not withdraw from China as its pacific front was crumbling and the threat of US invasion imminent?
- 📝 What was (if at all) Hitler's Plan B if Molotov-Ribbentrop had not worked out?
- 📝 Why was New Guinea not colonized by Austronesians the way Indonesia was?
- 📝 Why was Kentucky not admitted to the Union in 1789?
- 📝 Is there evidence that working for the Pony Express was dangerous, or not dangerous?
- 📝 Why was Copernicus not persecuted by the church, but Galileo was?
