Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

scottishstuart · Finding Ma' Way Joined: 17 Nov 2006 Posts: 18

After reading up on this ancient doctrine, I have come to ask myself if the people of Scotland and England did not perform contradictory acts to the will of God, for a King/Queen Regnent is King/Queen ordained by God, as stated on Wikipedia

mairead · Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:09 am Post subject:

History shows that religion was ever used as a means to an end in endless power struggles. Hence I am not religious. Mankind invented Gods.
_________________
I fear not hell, nor English strife,
For Scotland, I will give my life

Babygael · Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:21 pm Post subject:

Hi Scottishstuart, I don't know what I'm talking about either! So don't worry as someone is sure to "enlighten" you/us at some point! Laughing

Here's what I think,as Miread said

wisnaeme · Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:08 am Post subject:

Chookie · Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:46 pm Post subject:

Divine Right?

Read this and tell where the so-called divine right comes into it:-

But from these countless evils we have been set free, by the help of Him Who though He afflicts yet heals and restores, by our most tireless Prince, King and Lord, the Lord Robert. He, that his people and his heritage might be delivered out of the hands of our enemies, met toil and fatigue, hunger and peril, like another Macabaeus or Joshua and bore them cheerfully. Him, too, divine providence, his right of succession according to or laws and customs which we shall maintain to the death, and the due consent and assent of us all have made our Prince and King. To him, as to the man by whom salvation has been wrought unto our people, we are bound both by law and by his merits that our freedom may be still maintained, and by him, come what may, we mean to stand.

Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.
_________________
The proper study of mankind is Man

mairead · Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 10:50 am Post subject:

In the Scottish Declaration of Independence signed at Arbroath in April 1320, it states, in effect, that the people of Scotland have the right to remove any king who does not have the welfare of the people at heart. That King can be removed and replaced by another who will defend the rights of the Scots and defend Scotland.
The Scots opposed regicide unlike the English who not only killed their own monarchs, but Mary, Queen of Scots as well.
_________________
I fear not hell, nor English strife,
For Scotland, I will give my life

scottishstuart · Finding Ma' Way Joined: 17 Nov 2006 Posts: 18

After catching up on my history, sumthing i've unfortunately not been able to do in a little while I have come to realise that ur rite - The devine right of Kings - Was upheld by the Scottish people, and as u said it was the English who killed HG Mary I and I have reently discovered that the Pope Sixtus V renewed the solemn bull of excommunication against Elizabeth I of England for executing Mary I. Also after reading up on it - I found that Charles I was found guilty on an English law technicality (no-plead then being treated as a guilty plead). The final fact that I apologise for being too ignorant to research before posting was that James VII was deposed within the realm of England, and still had many Scottish followers and supporters and was not formally deposed in Scotland until some months later. So I apologise for gettin my facts mixed up Smile

A rather interesting fact in the so called Glorious Revelution which saw th deposing of James VII in favor of Mary II & William II is the bill of rights, which states that no English monarch could marry a catholic and no catholic could ascend to the English throne - No mention of a Scottish monarch - Rather insulting ? lol

Anthropos · I Love 'Our Scotland' Joined: 15 Jul 2006 Posts: 323

RFM · Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:38 pm Post subject:

It is probably the unspoken story behind William Wallace; but the doctrine of divine right was started with the coronation of King Charles the Great (Charlemagne) in the year 800 AD. Pope Leo essentially cut a deal that went briefly as: Charlemagne was crowned king by God's representative on earth (the Pope), it was therefore by divine right and grace that he ruled. That was a new doctrine, completely unknown up to that time, and since the church was selling religion to the illiterate masses, it helped immensely to have God on your side. Particularly when the King's tax collectors came around. It also gave the church a big say in who could be king, which translated into donations. Since a number of the wars and fighting within nations concerned the question of who would be king, divine right was a handy way to settle that question.
The Scandinavians, that is the Vikings and Norwegians and Icelanders on the other hand elected their kings from the best and strongest among them.
When David became king of Scotland, he decided the Frankish (Divine right) system was what was needed in Scotland. Just to make certain there was no opposition he brought a number of Norman nobility with him to help establish the new world order he intended to impose. Scotland before that time still had the Scandinavian tradition of electing its Kings. Wallace was a commoner in the sense he was not of the Norman nobility, but he was a warrior, a leader, and was able to inspire others to his cause. De Brys, or Bruce as his anglicized name has it, was a Norman and other than the devine right of the nobility to rule, had really nothing going for him as a leader compared to Wallace. Wallace was delivered to King Edward, Scots history tells us, but that history also is strangely silent about who it was that delivered him to Edward. Since Edward (a Norman himself) had already taken the position that he would decide who should be king of Scotland, and thereby owe loyalty to him, it is certainly not to difficult to guess who it might well have been who betrayed Wallace. After all, if the insurgency that Wallace was so successfully leading came to a successful completion, he, Wallace would probably have been elected king. Better to be a contender in a system that says once you are appointed king, you rule by God's grace and so do all of your male children than a system which required demonstrated ability.
So right down to the present day, all of the Kings and Queens of England, Great Britain, the British Isles or whatever they call it these days, still rule by divine right, and so will their children.

Highlander · I Love 'Our Scotland' Joined: 09 Apr 2006 Posts: 298

SLG · Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 3:31 pm Post subject:

Why does your signature say 'British to the end' - should it not say 'UKish to the end'?

RFM · Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 3:35 pm Post subject:

It is difficult when they are not certain what name they call themselves; Great Britain, the United Kingdom of Great Britain, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the British Isles, England and its dominions,the British Commonwealth or the British Empire.
Anyway whatever they call themselves, the English that is, has little to do with the topic of this thread.

RFM · Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 3:36 pm Post subject:

Bravo SLG!

RFM · Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 3:58 pm Post subject:

To Anthropos;
Actually the Claim of Right of 1689, the Scots legislation to complement the English Bill of Rights, same year, finessed hat problem by offering the Crown of Scotland to William and Mary. It is fairly clear from a reading of the two statutes that the Scots Bill of Rights was intended as "follow-on legislation" rather than as a separate enactment.

Highlander · I Love 'Our Scotland' Joined: 09 Apr 2006 Posts: 298

mairead · Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:02 pm Post subject:

Och, the chappie is just one of these deluded and ill educated folk who don't know their geography. None of his teachers ever taught him the difference between the countries. His user name amuses me more than his daft comments. His is typical of the attitudes which have given a reason for the Scots to go for independence.
Prosperity to Scotland and NAE union.
_________________
I fear not hell, nor English strife,
For Scotland, I will give my life

SLG · Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:06 pm Post subject:

RFM · Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:35 pm Post subject:

The truth is Highlander in many respects Scotland is an independent country. For example if you read the Act of Union 1706/07 it merges the two countries, Scotland and England into a country known as Great Britain, it does not abolish or eliminate Scotland a political or legal entity. Further Scotland retains it own banking system, its own legal system, and to some extent its own educational system, but I am not too certain how its educational system differs. Reading the Act of Union gives the clear impression that it was only the executive and legislative branches of the governments of two independent countries that were merged, in all other regards to remain the same. For instance the English maintained until 1999 a "Scottish Affairs" office at Westminister, subsequently transferred to the English Executive authority ( the Queen). The mere existence of such an office is the clear acknowledgment of a separate country whose governance is assumed by the Act of Union.
As another example, when American began expanding from its original 13 colonies, it required each independent colony to renounce and relinquish any other political existance other than to the Confederation and subsequently to the Union. That policy was continued after the American civil war with the doctrine that succession being illegal there was no succession of the southern states.
If the Act of Union intended the political abolition of Scotland and its merger into Great Britain as a county or territory of Great Britain it could have so stated. It did not

Highlander · I Love 'Our Scotland' Joined: 09 Apr 2006 Posts: 298

RFM · Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 6:38 pm Post subject:

No Highlander, you are simply unwilling to accept the fact that the English are much smarter and cleverer. The Act of Union openly acknowledges and states that the two independent countries of Scotland and England are united. You for reasons I can only guess choose to think that meant the end of Scotland as a country rather than as a single independent country. The English far more clear-eyed about the existence of their country, it is and will always be England. You on the other hand go about like a person who is afraid to speak of the existence of illegitimate offspring rather than admit the Act of Union was an act of political expediency which has probably outlived its usefulness.