In a message dated 97-05-04 11:59:11 EDT, [log in to unmask] (Stephanie Steely)
Deborah L. Krueger wrote:
> Anyway, in readings recently one source, different from the others, made
> reference to Elizabeth [I] being tricked into or unable to prevent Mary
> [Queen of Scot's]
> execution, instead of planning ahead and terminating her captive's length
> imprisonment. Why all of a sudden did the execution take place?
Imprisonment made Mary far more a threat to Elizabeth than she
ever was before. There were a number of attempts by her supporters to
free Mary and the plots were likely to continue as long as Mary was captive.
Since Mary was Catholic and Elizabeth Protestant, these plots carried with
them religious overtones that had the potential to spill over into English
society. Some of Elizabeth's ministers used forged letters which they
represented as coming from Mary which spoke of a plot to depose Elizabeth.
It was this "evidence" that caused Elizabeth to sign the execution
order. But Elizabeth wasn't a stupid woman. She likely knew the letters
were forged. But being able to claim Mary was a threat to the monarchy (and
hence a threat to England) relieved Elizabeth of any moral responsibility
in the decision to execute and allowed her to relieve herself of an 18-year
burden and financial drain.
And what a wonderful son she had!!! Hardly a gurgle from him. He had his
sights set on the overall prize! Where there any kings after The Bruce that
were truly involved in the people's wellfare, bettering the country, etc, or
just on ruling England AND Scotland? In the history I've read, I don't find
one that stands out above the others.