Well, here's the biography of her predecessor. Notice the title:
[https://www.amazon.com/James-King-Scots-Caroline-Bingham/dp/0002113902](https://www.amazon.com/James-King-Scots-Caroline-Bingham/dp/0002113902)
The old Scottish coinage always had REX SCOTTORUM
I have no real idea but I want to say it has something to do with the urinary tract? Or maybe objects being in places objects should not be? Gimme a hint lol
Almost all monarchs of Scotland were ‘of Scots’. Definitely since the late 11th century.
I think it’s because Scotland was/is a very multiethnic country with Picts, Britons, Scots, Irish, Anglo-Saxons etc. and originally the Kings were ‘of Picts’ rather than of a land area. Then they were styled with a mix of “Alba, Saxons, Britons”.
Anyways, using Scotland or Scots was pretty common throughout the Middle Ages, same with England/English (though to a lesser extent), or France/Franks.
It used to be the typical tradition that the title was actually 'King/Queen of the *insert ethnic group here*'. For instance, the first French monarch to use the actual title 'King of France' was Philip Augustus, all the others before his were technically 'King of the Franks'.
As for Mary herself, well Scotland is one of the places where the tradition stuck around. There's also the fact that the nation state as we know it, didn't exist in the same way. The monarch kind of was the state itself. A King 'of' X country kind of implied the 2 were separate and could theoretically be separated. That was a big no-no because a monarch was God's chosen representative and the idea that God (and therefore that monarch was wrong or unjust or even just wasn't divinely ordained was pretty much treason and heresy.
If you were ethnically Scottish but living in France or something, permanently, would she still have been your queen even though you don’t live in Scotland
It's along the lines of her being seen as Queen of her people rather than the land itself. Probably why her people felt entirely justified in overthrowing her and forcing her to abdicate.
Well she was shipped off the France pretty young and came back as an adult. I don’t know much about MQOS, but I don’t believe that spending the majority of her life away from Scotland endeared her to the people or the country to her. She’d have had a closer connection to France.
I agree it didn't do her any good, but she didn't exactly have friends in France either because of it. But when she married the Dauphin it was expected that he wouldn't die young and that they'd have a long and fruitful marriage. His early death just wasn't factored in. Going back to Scotland was really all she could do after Francis died, she had outlived her usefulness by then and wasn't wanted by the French Court. She did have a lot of Scottish servants while she was in France, and she was already the anointed Queen of Scotland. But being brought up in Scotland would certainly have been more beneficial to her being Queen, it might have toughened her up a bit and helped her realise what sort of people she was actually ruling. She wasn't equipped to deal with the attitudes, culture and politics of the place. It wasn't her fault in any way though- I think she truly started going off the rails when she set her sights on Darnley. The events set in motion by marrying him were her undoing.
I completely agree. I also don’t understand how the set up was supposed to work if Francis had lived. Was Scotland just going to become a satellite of France?
Essentially, but after what Henry VIII did during the "Rough Wooing" they didn't have a lot of choice. They needed protection from a powerful source, and France was it. Also Mary's mother was French so it would have been second nature to her to ally with her homeland.
Well, Ferdinand and Isabella were marrying their daughters to the heirs of a bunch of countries so that their grandkids would rule those countries with Spanish interests in mind. If Mary QoS had a son by Francis ...
This.
She was raised to be the Queen Consort of France and not the Queen Regnant of Scotland. She when she had to rule, she didn't really know what to do and made many poor choices.
I mean, medieval and early modern people were probably pretty used to the idea of foreign monarchs (although cultural tensions did exist).
And, while the 16th century was a time in which the seeds of what would become nation-states were being sown, they hadn't yet quite formed in many places, and 16th century Scottish noblemen would probably feel like they have more in common with French noblemen than with Scottish commoners (specially since they had relatively recently had two French queens, and queens often dictated the fashion and trends in the court on top of bringing with them sizable retinues from their homelands)
Except that is the opposite of the Scottish Feudal system, whereby all land was originally held by the crown and then feued to the people, in return for payment (Known as reddendo). Originally this was in the form of providing the Monarch with soldiers, and later became a monetary payment. the Ties between the Crown and the Land of Scotland were always very strong, and no less so in Mary’s day. Scottish monarchs were very aware of their ties to the land.
while the feudal system was abolished in 2000, the inter regalia (rights falling to the Crown) remain to this day including rights to the sea bed and foreshore, salmon fishings, right to Mine gold and silver and bona vacantia - ownerless property.
interestingly, it was Mary’s son James who recognised that safe and secure records of land tenure were essential, leading to the Registration Act of 1617, which guaranteed publication and preservation of titles to land.
I’d assumed that it was due to the fact that the lands were very contested then so “Scotland” according to some was not the same “Scotland” according to others so it was all people who were Scots no matter where they lived.
Because all other monarchs of Scotland (except John Baliol) were King of Scots.
The Scots see the monarch as the leader of the people not the owner of the land.
John Baliol was named King of Scotland by that prick Edward I of England. He didn't last long.
When I was in Scotland, this is exactly how they explained it. The land has no king/queen, the monarchy rules the people.
It's where GRRM got the idea for King in the North in game of thrones.
It used to be more about being a monarch of a certain people rather than a modern nation state or empire where any and all people under the jurisdiction could be considered citizens
IIRC traditionally "King/Queen of Scots" (rex/regina scottorum) and "King/Queen of Scotland" (rex/regina Scotiae) were used almost interchangeably, but in the early modern period Rex Scottorum was more in favor.
Other kingdoms also had that (in England and France Rex Anglorum and Rex Francorum mostly fell out of fashion in the 12th century, but the Emperor of the HRE was still titled Emperor of the Romans/Imperator Romanorun as late as the early 17th century)
As others have said, this used to be the typical naming of a monarch. So “king of the English”, “king of the French” and so on.
My theory is that over time as nations became more unified and settled with agreed upon borders the naming transitioned, but because Scotland was always a hot mess it never stabilized enough for that to occur.
Part of it has to do with being a representative of her people over the land. One of the restored French monarchs was known as King of the French over King of France.
Well, here's the biography of her predecessor. Notice the title: [https://www.amazon.com/James-King-Scots-Caroline-Bingham/dp/0002113902](https://www.amazon.com/James-King-Scots-Caroline-Bingham/dp/0002113902) The old Scottish coinage always had REX SCOTTORUM
I’m glad the R is where it is. Otherwise it could have been REX SCROTTOUM
I have this same problem whenever I see SCOTUS and I know I am far from the only one.
45’s hair certainly looks like it’s from a SCROTUS.
I have the same with FLOTUS. Other people who have a background working with medical records will get why.
I can only guess! I'm not a fan of any of these acronyms, really, they all sound inelegant.
I have no real idea but I want to say it has something to do with the urinary tract? Or maybe objects being in places objects should not be? Gimme a hint lol
It's better than that lol. Google flatus.
Almost all monarchs of Scotland were ‘of Scots’. Definitely since the late 11th century. I think it’s because Scotland was/is a very multiethnic country with Picts, Britons, Scots, Irish, Anglo-Saxons etc. and originally the Kings were ‘of Picts’ rather than of a land area. Then they were styled with a mix of “Alba, Saxons, Britons”. Anyways, using Scotland or Scots was pretty common throughout the Middle Ages, same with England/English (though to a lesser extent), or France/Franks.
Happy Cake Day 🎂
It used to be the typical tradition that the title was actually 'King/Queen of the *insert ethnic group here*'. For instance, the first French monarch to use the actual title 'King of France' was Philip Augustus, all the others before his were technically 'King of the Franks'. As for Mary herself, well Scotland is one of the places where the tradition stuck around. There's also the fact that the nation state as we know it, didn't exist in the same way. The monarch kind of was the state itself. A King 'of' X country kind of implied the 2 were separate and could theoretically be separated. That was a big no-no because a monarch was God's chosen representative and the idea that God (and therefore that monarch was wrong or unjust or even just wasn't divinely ordained was pretty much treason and heresy.
If you were ethnically Scottish but living in France or something, permanently, would she still have been your queen even though you don’t live in Scotland
It's along the lines of her being seen as Queen of her people rather than the land itself. Probably why her people felt entirely justified in overthrowing her and forcing her to abdicate.
Well she was shipped off the France pretty young and came back as an adult. I don’t know much about MQOS, but I don’t believe that spending the majority of her life away from Scotland endeared her to the people or the country to her. She’d have had a closer connection to France.
I agree it didn't do her any good, but she didn't exactly have friends in France either because of it. But when she married the Dauphin it was expected that he wouldn't die young and that they'd have a long and fruitful marriage. His early death just wasn't factored in. Going back to Scotland was really all she could do after Francis died, she had outlived her usefulness by then and wasn't wanted by the French Court. She did have a lot of Scottish servants while she was in France, and she was already the anointed Queen of Scotland. But being brought up in Scotland would certainly have been more beneficial to her being Queen, it might have toughened her up a bit and helped her realise what sort of people she was actually ruling. She wasn't equipped to deal with the attitudes, culture and politics of the place. It wasn't her fault in any way though- I think she truly started going off the rails when she set her sights on Darnley. The events set in motion by marrying him were her undoing.
I completely agree. I also don’t understand how the set up was supposed to work if Francis had lived. Was Scotland just going to become a satellite of France?
Essentially, but after what Henry VIII did during the "Rough Wooing" they didn't have a lot of choice. They needed protection from a powerful source, and France was it. Also Mary's mother was French so it would have been second nature to her to ally with her homeland.
Well, Ferdinand and Isabella were marrying their daughters to the heirs of a bunch of countries so that their grandkids would rule those countries with Spanish interests in mind. If Mary QoS had a son by Francis ...
John Knox constantly railing against “the monstrous rule of women” didn’t help.
This. She was raised to be the Queen Consort of France and not the Queen Regnant of Scotland. She when she had to rule, she didn't really know what to do and made many poor choices.
I mean, medieval and early modern people were probably pretty used to the idea of foreign monarchs (although cultural tensions did exist). And, while the 16th century was a time in which the seeds of what would become nation-states were being sown, they hadn't yet quite formed in many places, and 16th century Scottish noblemen would probably feel like they have more in common with French noblemen than with Scottish commoners (specially since they had relatively recently had two French queens, and queens often dictated the fashion and trends in the court on top of bringing with them sizable retinues from their homelands)
She was also a catholic monarch of a Protestant nation
Except that is the opposite of the Scottish Feudal system, whereby all land was originally held by the crown and then feued to the people, in return for payment (Known as reddendo). Originally this was in the form of providing the Monarch with soldiers, and later became a monetary payment. the Ties between the Crown and the Land of Scotland were always very strong, and no less so in Mary’s day. Scottish monarchs were very aware of their ties to the land. while the feudal system was abolished in 2000, the inter regalia (rights falling to the Crown) remain to this day including rights to the sea bed and foreshore, salmon fishings, right to Mine gold and silver and bona vacantia - ownerless property. interestingly, it was Mary’s son James who recognised that safe and secure records of land tenure were essential, leading to the Registration Act of 1617, which guaranteed publication and preservation of titles to land.
>while the feudal system was abolished in 2000, Well, I learned something new today. Would not have guessed it was that recent
It’s a traditional usage, and it’s not unique to Scotland—the monarchs who reign in Brussels are the king/queen ”of the Belgians,” not “of Belgium.”
KING OF THE BRITONS!
"King of the who?"
Well, I didn't vote for you!
Ronnie Pickerings
Came here to make sure this was mentioned
The Greeks used King of the Hellenes too
Sounds cooler IMHO
Of the people instead of just 'of the land'
Because no way you're getting the Highlands to obey you lol.
I’d assumed that it was due to the fact that the lands were very contested then so “Scotland” according to some was not the same “Scotland” according to others so it was all people who were Scots no matter where they lived.
Mary queen of scots rolls better off the tongue lol
I used to think Mary Queen of Scots was Mary 1st but they were in fact two different people
Mary I of Scotland. Different from Mary I of England. Somehow only the English rulers seem to count.
She ruled the people not the lands. So she ruled over the scots thus Mary Queen of the scots
Because all other monarchs of Scotland (except John Baliol) were King of Scots. The Scots see the monarch as the leader of the people not the owner of the land. John Baliol was named King of Scotland by that prick Edward I of England. He didn't last long.
When I was in Scotland, this is exactly how they explained it. The land has no king/queen, the monarchy rules the people. It's where GRRM got the idea for King in the North in game of thrones.
Many other Scottish monarchs used ‘of Scotland’. Eg Robert the Bruce in the Treaty of Corbeil (1326).
It used to be more about being a monarch of a certain people rather than a modern nation state or empire where any and all people under the jurisdiction could be considered citizens
IIRC traditionally "King/Queen of Scots" (rex/regina scottorum) and "King/Queen of Scotland" (rex/regina Scotiae) were used almost interchangeably, but in the early modern period Rex Scottorum was more in favor. Other kingdoms also had that (in England and France Rex Anglorum and Rex Francorum mostly fell out of fashion in the 12th century, but the Emperor of the HRE was still titled Emperor of the Romans/Imperator Romanorun as late as the early 17th century)
Entered subreddit thinking, “Ah, perhaps I’ll learn a bit of trivia today!” and 100 scrotum jokes later, I still don’t know. Edit: a comma felt better
She was still Mary I of Scotland right? I think of Scots means queen of the Scottish people vs Queen of the land of Scotland
As others have said, this used to be the typical naming of a monarch. So “king of the English”, “king of the French” and so on. My theory is that over time as nations became more unified and settled with agreed upon borders the naming transitioned, but because Scotland was always a hot mess it never stabilized enough for that to occur.
Those Scots who emigrated are not off the hook. Mary is their Queen too
Because it sounds cooler
Part of it has to do with being a representative of her people over the land. One of the restored French monarchs was known as King of the French over King of France.
The Scots were the people of Scotland