History VS Hollywood: Annie Laurie

In a recent commemoration of St. Andrews Day the Glasgow Film Theatre (GFT) had a day of films based in Scotland. The theme was called 'Hollywood dreams of Scotland'. The itinerary featured Disney Pixar's Brave, followed by silent film Annie Laurie and ending with cult classic Highlander. But I will focus solely on one film: Annie Laurie.

Originally released on 11th May 1927, the historical drama stars silent icon Lillian Gish in the titular role. Writing credits go to oscar nominated screenwriter Josephine Lovett; the film was directed by John S. Robertson, director of Dr. Jeckyll & Mr. Hyde (1920); and the film was well edited by William Hamilton, editor of classics Suspicion (1941) and Top Hat (1935).

The story itself was inspired by a scottish folk song which in turn was inspired by a poem by William Douglas. In typical Hollywood fashion it is a love story set in the Scottish highlands; only all scenes were filmed at MGM Studios, with sets built from scratch. The crew did a great job in creating the 17th century in a studio but it is a bit of a shame that nothing was filmed on location.

The initial story is of a young woman named Annie Laurie who falls in love with Ian MacDonald of Clan MacDonald, rivals of Clan Campbell whom she is affiliated with. This leads to a love triangle with Annie and her two suitors, both of who are from rival clans. What makes it interesting is that it takes place in the lead up to the massacre of Glencoe, an infamous Scottish tragedy where Clan Campbell soldiers massacred many MacDonalds on the orders of King William III.

The build up to the final act is well put together, with some interesting scenes involving Annie looking to help secure Clan MacDonald's safety. But the question is how much of the film is fact and how much is fiction?

The Fiction:

Although the characters are indeed fictional takes on real people there are many instances of genuine emotion. The rivalry for Annie's affections does lead to a face off between the two men; with Ian forced to walk through a crowd of Campbell men who slash his flesh as he makes his way through them, his arms tied as Donald Campbell looks on jeering. It is a great scene to watch; obviously it is easy to see the fakeness of the sword against the flesh of the hero but the scene itself speaks volume of the contempt between the two clans.

And then Campbell's treachery in not telling the MacDonald's the full facts behind the oath that they are to swear to the King. The MacDonalds would have received their original lands as a token of appreciation, but Campbell's desire to be rid of his rival causes the chain of events leading to the massacre.

As a result it is up to Annie Laurie to race to Glencoe to warn her love of the betrayal which leads to the chief races against a heavy snow storm to make it by the first of January to sign the oath of allegiance to the King. This is based on fact as the MacDonalds were delayed by snow storms.

And it is shown in the following scene that it doesn't matter when the oath was signed. Campbell wants blood. So the Campbell soldiers, led by their chief's son, arrive at MacDonald's home seeking shelter. It's a scenario that is somewhat reminiscent of a storyline from current TV drama Game of Thrones involving a certain 'Red Wedding'.

It is once Annie Laurie has left the MacDonalds that the Campbells strike, with Donald Campbell shooting the chief. This leads to a full scale attack of the fortress that is held by the MacDonalds as Annie learns the truth and fights her way to the top of a mountain to light the beacon to signal the other clans to arms. This is intercut with battle scenes in the castle walls as well as the brutal murder of villagers and children. The scenes are really well put together, with everything coming to a head with a faceoff between Ian and Donald, Ian killing his father's killer while proclaiming 'a Campbell for a MacDonald!'

Of course such a scene never took place as far as we know for the real leader of the Campbell party, Robert Campbell lived on for another four years. But for a sword fighting drama it is a good scene to satisfy the audience. It's not reality, but back then especially, the movies were a way of escaping reality. So in the tradition of Hollywood our heroine survived and went on to marry Ian MacDonald, new chief of the MacDonald clan.

The Players:

The movie's heroine is inspired by the Scottish folk song Annie Laurie which in turn was inspired by a poem by William Douglas based on his love for the real Annie Laurie who was born on 16th December 1682 so would have been almost 10 years old when the Glencoe Massacre took place. so in fact she would never have been there when the fued reached its conclusion. The real woman went on to marry an Alexander Fergusson in 1709. But the song itself features in several inter-titles in the film as Donald Campbell attempts to woo her.

As for Donald Campbell, no such man led the attack on Glencoe. The Campbell soldiers were led by Robert Campbell of Glenlyon, a soldier who looked to clear his gambling debts. A man of roughly sixty years old, he in no way resembles the antagonizing Douglas Campbell, son of the Campbell Chieftain, in the film.

The other man after Annie's affections in the film is Ian MacDonald, played by Norman Kerry, who succeeds his father as clan chief at the end of the film. The character's name is actually a shortened version of the real successor John MacIain Macdonald, 13th chief of Glencoe.

The Massacre:

The Massacre of Glencoe took place in the early hours of 13th February 1692. It was a brutal attack that shocked the whole of Scotland. The clan Campbell soldiers were guests under the roofs of the MacDonalds and their people throughout different settlements when they slaughtered 38 unarmed people. They call it Murder Under Trust and was considered a much more heinous crime than any other kind due to Scots law, where you honour the hospitality bestowed upon you under another's roof.

The attack resulted in risings in several settlements in Glencoe, with homes destroyed and burned. As a result many more people perished in the mountains from hunger or the cold, including many women and children. Indeed, in one scene during the film this horror is alluded to when a child is picked up by a soldier and then his lifeless body is placed on top of his dead father. It is a subtle but harrowing way of showing just how monstrous an attack this was.

The Result:

In spite of many inaccuracies the film is an entertaining romp, a historical drama with a love story at its core. Although we wouldn't agree that Ian MacDonald is the epitome of a romantic hero for todays standards, the film does hold up.

And with the recent musical score by Shona Mooney and her band, it made the film so much more memorably entertaining, the soundtrack featuring some beautiful examples of Scottish music at its best. Hopefully a DVD with this soundtrack accompanying it is in the works. A great combination.

Links:

http://www.shonamooneymusic.com/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0017632/

http://glasgowfilm.org/glasgow-film-festival/shows/hollywood-dreams-of-scotland

The Winter Queen: The Story of Elizabeth Stuart

Today when we think of being a princess we imagine a romantic adventure reminiscent of Cinderella who lives happily ever after in a fantastical castle. The life of a woman was precarious at best; with intrigue, war and disease rife throughout the centuries. The prospects of a princess were no different, but sometimes these royal women proved to be more resourceful than the average Disney heroine in their strength of will to survive the harshest obstacles. One of these princesses was Elizabeth Stuart.

Born into Scottish royalty, Elizabeth Stuart was the daughter of King James VI of Scotland and I of England. As such she was given greater advantages than most girls. She was taught to read and write, to play music, to perfect horse riding and etiquette. But she was also a pawn in her father's political prospects, betrothed to the Elector Palatinate of the Rhine without ever having met him. Marriage was a business, love had nothing to do with it.

Yet Elizabeth was lucky for when she finally met her betrothed, Count Frederick, they fell deeply in love. So the couple were happily wed on 14th February 1613. The wedding itself was a beautiful affair, designed to emphasize the wealth of King James VI & I. So the bride was perfectly dressed in white gown embroidered with cloth of silver. It inspired many poems and such, poet John Donne wrote:

Come forth, come forth, and as one glorious flame
Meeting another grows the same,
So meet thy Frederick, and so
To an inseparable union go

The couple left for Germany two months later, where they settled into a happy family life. If not for the changing political climate they may have remained there happily. But fate intervened. 

In March 1619 Ferdinand of Styria was deposed by the Bohemian government, who then elected Frederick to take the crown. After much deliberation he eventually accepted. Upon hearing of his decision King James forbade his subjects from recognizing Frederick or Elizabeth as King or Queen. King James was shrewd enough to recognize the foreseeable troubles that lay ahead. Frederick was crowned on 4th November, followed by Elizabeth's coronation on 7th. 

Despite the triumphant beginning, things soon went downhill. One of the major issues being cultural differences; raised in the Protestant faith, Elizabeth may not have been well informed on Catholic saints. Mere days after her coronation she was presented with flower shaped loves, a commemoration of her name sake, saint Elizabeth of Hungary. Elizabeth didn't get the reference, causing offence. Over time she would become lonely and depressed, as her husband's hectic duties kept them apart for long periods and the Bohemian people coming to slowly resent the outsiders. But Frederick was also naive, resulting in his enemies sacking his Rhine lands and eventually routing his armies forcing the couple to flee from Bohemia, which was doubly dangerous for Elizabeth who was six months pregnant at the time. Despite the situation she remained a source of strength and support for her husband.

In exile she garnered many supporters for this strength, a majority of which would have fought on her behalf. Though whether they would have fought for the cause in Frederick's name alone is questionable. He had become an object of pity, referred to as the 'King of Hearts', meaning no real king. While Frederick was prone to depressive episodes Elizabeth remained optimistic, writing to powerful leaders trying to gain support for his cause. But as the years went on it became more obvious that they would never regain their throne.

Despite their troubles they remained faithful to one another, writing when apart. King James VI died in 1925; Frederick died in 1632. And when her brother Charles I met his untimely death by beheading in 1649 she had no strong support in her corner. But she became something of a protector to Charles' daughter Mary, wife of the Prince of Orange. She remained a strong character in her final years, living to see fortune's wheel turn in her family's favour once again; her eldest son regained the Lower Palatinate that once belonged to his father; and her nephew returned to England in 1660, crowned as King Charles II.

Elizabeth Stuart died on 13th February 1662, with her son Rupert at her side. Prior to her death she had returned to England and upon her death she was interred in the Henry VII Chapel at Westminster Abbey beside her brother Henry, whom she was closest to in life. 

She died with very little in the world but it was through her that her grandson inherited the British crown in 1714, and crowned King George I.

Further Reading:

The Winter Queen: The Life of Elizabeth of Bohemia, by Rosalind K. Marshall

'WHY HIM?': Rape Culture Has To End!

The story of Brock Turner has been all over the media; Facebook is bombarded with constant updates on the story. And it's one we should be using as a cautionary tale for future generations because it has happened too often. A young man with a bright future throws it all away by raping a young woman. It's a story that we see too often. But what came next is worse.

The mother of Brock Turner wrote a letter to the Judge who sentenced him to 6 months in jail, declaring 'please be kind and merciful to my beautiful son'.

Does she understand that her son is a rapist? When she wakes up in the morning she asks herself 'Why him?' Does she see him as the victim?

Brock Turner did have a bright future ahead of him. And quite possibly Olympic glory lay in his future if he worked hard enough, is something any parent would be proud of. Then he was arrested. For rape. He attacked and violated a young woman who will have to live with the trauma of that attack for the rest of her life.

He's already serving a paltry six month sentence that will be shortened to three. To women everywhere that sentence is a joke. So why is his mother begging the judge to be merciful? Because he 'made a mistake'? I don't buy it. And here's why.

All our lives women have been pigeon-holed by their gender; told to smile more - and we do it because it's easier than saying no. We're told by society how we should dress; fashion magazines constantly throwing new trends before our eyes and telling us we need this new dress or these new heels. And when we wear them we're instantly a target for catcalling; if we wear it too short then we're asking for 'it'. What? What are we asking for? To be forced into a situation that we don't feel comfortable with? Women do not get dressed up for the the pleasure of men. We do it because we feel good about ourselves. Why does that suddenly mean we're asking for it? What are we asking for? Humiliation? Degradation? No, no one asks for that.

Today we are still facing horrible stereotypes. No matter how you're dressed you're judged; if you have large breasts you are constantly leered at, often times pretending not to see it because you're scared that you'll cause a scene by standing up to their bullshit.

But these are cultural stigmas that start early. They start with the parents and what they teach their children on the boundaries of respect. And Brock Turner's parents are a huge case and point.

The father can't understand why his son is being punished for '20 minutes of action' and his mother wants to know why this is happening to her son. The '20 minutes of action' was RAPE. The young woman, the ACTUAL VICTIM was assaulted and those 20 minutes of assault will forever haunt her. The mother's reaction is worse in my opinion because she is a woman, she should be aware of the way women are treated in society, yet she writes to the judge as if her son was a victim here.

Yes, his dreams of a bright future are gone. But that is all his own fault. He saw that woman as nothing but a toy; and that is partly down to his parents! How can the mother not be appalled by her son's actions? How can she plead for her son? Because she is a mother? Perhaps. But she is also a woman. She says she knows what a broken heart feels like. So does his victim. And yet people are calling it a mistake. He wasn't in an exam, he was in a position where he had a clear choice of whether to respect that woman's boundaries or gratify his own perverted sense of authority. Because that is what sexual assault is about: Power.

It is time we stopped making excuses. Claiming that they made one mistake is not good enough. If they get away with it once then they'll think they can do it again.

Assault, whether it be full on penetration or someone placing their hands on you in a way that makes you uncomfortable is not acceptable. Women have rights. And it's time authorities respected those rights rather than look for reasons to let the man off the hook. Drink is no excuse. The length of a woman's skirt is no excuse. There needs to be a cultural change within our society, beginning with how parents raise their children; it is a parents responsibility to teach their sons that a woman is a human being worthy of respect. Start here and perceptions can shift over the next generation and our sisters, nieces and daughters will be safer than our own generation is today.

A Forgotten Consort: Margaret of Denmark, Queen of Scots

Queen Margaret

On 14 July 1486, Queen Margaret of Denmark died at Stirling Castle. By her side was her son James, Duke of Rothesay, the future King James IV of Scotland. One source claimed that on her death bed Margaret said to her son, 'I pray you, through your obedience as my son, to love and fear God, always doing good, because nothing achieved by violence, can endure.' If indeed Margaret did speak such words then they would prove tragically prophetic for within two years her son would depose his father, King James III of Scotland, who would die in mysterious circumstances; twenty five years later James IV would meet his own end at the Battle of Flodden against the English in 1513.

Prince James was born on 17 March 1473, four years after Margaret married King James III. The marriage of course was arranged, with the twelve year old Danish princess betrothed to James through the Treaty of Copenhagen. King Christian I of Denmark, founder of the Oldenburg Dynasty, looked to settle old debts and expand his territories, so he agreed to pay 60,000; 10,000 florins upfront before the Scots set sail with his only daughter and a further 50,000 over the next few years. But he only managed to raise 2,000; Already he had agreed to concede the Orkney Islands to Scottish rule as surety for the 50,000 already promised, but now he offered the Shetland Islands as well to satisfy the Scottish envoys. The Danish would never raise the whole amount owed in part of Margaret's dowry and the Orkney and Shetland Isles would become a permanent part of Scotland.

When Margaret finally arrived in Scotland in July 1469 she was married to James at Holyrood Abbey. Over the next couple of years Margaret would settle into her new surroundings well, making Edinburgh her main home. The early years of her marriage to James III were successful; she produced three sons that survived to adulthood. They were both pious, offering homage to Shrines around Scotland such as St. Ninian's in Whithorn. The marriage seemed to be amicable for the most part, with the King granting Margaret wardship of their son and heir James, Duke of Rothesay. Though it appears that James was already under his mother's care from a young age, she would be a strong influence on him as he grew up.

As well as James, she also had her two younger sons, James, Marquis of Ormond and John, Earl of Mar; together they resided in Edinburgh until June 1482 when they were moved to the impregnable Stirling Castle just weeks before the King was taken and later imprisoned in Edinburgh Castle. Held under his uncles, James' nobles aired their grievances with the King - the rise of unknown men among the noble ranks while the true nobility was sidelined; the degradation of the coinage that became known as black money; his casting aside his Queen in favour of less noble company; and the banishment of his younger brother, the Duke of Albany.

Cambuskenneth Abbey

Of course once Albany heard of his brother's incarceration he returned from France, intent on overthrowing his brother and declaring himself King Alexander IV with the help of Edward IV of England. After realising that the nobles would not support him he looked to gain a position through his nephew, the Duke of Rothesay. He visited the Prince and the Queen at Stirling, inquiring about the Duke's education. Afterwards, Albany returned to Edinburgh, recruiting help he lay siege to Edinburgh castle, releasing his brother. But what did happen at Stirling?

Some sources have speculated that Margaret was a great instigator in her husband's release; that she negotiated a deal with Albany, promising a high position if he aided the King. She also had connections within Edinburgh castle through John Stewart, who she had made Keeper of castle during her own stay. Through his position he had regular access to the King. And so the King was released on 29 September 1482 through a successful coup. Afterward, some sources claimed that the relationship between Margaret and James deteriorated even further, despite the likely support she gave him. But there is no proof of this, and the year after her death the King sent an application to the Pope to have Margaret nominated for sainthood.

King James IV

She died at Stirling Castle in July 1486 with her eldest son by her side. The cause of death has been a subject of debate over the years, some believing she was poisoned by the King; others that she likely suffered from ill health for some time before dying. She was buried at Cambuskenneth Abbey, in Stirling, and two years later joined by her husband.

Upon her death her eldest son was left to become a pawn in the political upheaval between James III and his nobles, resulting in the battle of Sauchieburn two years later where James III perished; his murderer was never discovered, and Rothesay was declared King James IV of Scotland.

As for Margaret, her legacy lived on through her son, raised and educated under her supervision. When he did take over the running of his Kingdom, King James IV proved to be an intelligent, and wise ruler. But he tragically died too early in his personal rule, leaving a one year old son to take his place.

Queen Margaret's Coat of
Arms at Stirling Castle

Did the words believed to be spoken by Margaret prove prophetic after all? One source wrote 'Despite his demands', she could 'curb [the King's] unseemly desires by good sense and restraint'. Within two years of her death her husband was dead, and James IV would be haunted by the battle of Sauchieburn for the remainder of his life; he would wear a chain of penance around his waist for the remainder of his life, adding a new link each year. If Margaret had lived it may not have come to such a tragic outcome, likely she may have been the voice of reason in a male dominated world. But it was not to be.

Margaret died at around 30 years old, young by today's standards, but in her short life she proved a successful consort. She provided an heir and two spares for the Scots; participated in saving her husband and the true line of succession through her own intelligence and common sense; and she raised a future King who to this day is considered one of Scotland's better rulers. Sadly, she is often forgotten, with few reminders of her Queenship. The most noticeable tribute to her can be found in her coat of arms set in a stained glass window at Stirling Castle.


Further Reading:

Scottish Queens by Rosalind K. Marshall

James III by Norman MacDougall

James IV by Norman MacDougall

Dumbarton Castle: Rock Of The Clyde

The Impregnable Dumbarton Castle

In July 1548, four French ships sailed from Dumbarton Castle. Aboard one of these vessels was the six year old Queen of Scots. It would be thirteen years before she returned to her country. Just like Mary's story, Dumbarton Castle has played a major role in Scotland's history.

Dumbarton's History:

View of the volcanic rock     

Dumbarton Castle itself stands guard over the point where the river Leven meets the river Clyde and its history dates back at least 1, 500 years. Today it is a prime tourist attraction for Historic Scotland.

Very little of the medieval castle survives besides the Portcullis Arch and the ruins of the Wallace tower. Today, a visitor will see the gun batteries, Governor's House, French Prisons and powder magazine; all built during the Jacobite rising in the 18th century. According to the official souvenir guide, Dumbarton Rock was 'the strongly fortified British city of Alt Clut'. Built upon an ancient volcano, the 'Rock of the Clyde' has gone through many significant changes up to the 20th century.

It has been a strategic battlement during the reign of King alexander III during his war with King  Håkon IV of Norway. Upon defeating the Norsemen relatively little was known about the castle's development other than it being a royal residence.

Wallace is said to have been held prisoner
in this very room

It was here during the Wars of Independence that the castle housed its first named prisoners, as William Wallace had three English knights sent there clapped in irons. It is believed that Wallace himself was later held prisoner in 1305 before being transported down to London for his execution; it is believed the Wallace Tower within the castle grounds is named so in honour of Scotland's national hero. It is here that Mary Queen of Scots resided in 1548 during the 'rough wooings'.  

Foundations: All that survives of the Wallace Tower

The Castle & Mary Queen of Scots:

Mary Queen of Scots

Mary was brought here in February 1548 by her mother for her own safety as the English troops ransacked Scotland under the orders of the Duke of Somerset, uncle to King Edward VI. The 'Rough Wooing' itself began almost as soon as King James V died; his uncle King Henry VIII of England sought the match for his son Edward for it would be a great alliance against the French and would bind the Scots to Edward as the future King of both England and Scotland upon marrying Mary. 

Of course, such an alliance would go against French interests and Mary's French mother, Marie de Guise, would not accept such an alliance; especially once Henry demanded that Mary be sent to England and brought up in the new Anglican faith. Marie refused and turned to King Henri II for support. Eventually they agreed that Mary would marry his son, Francis. As the situation became more precarious it was decided that Mary would be sent to France and raised there. 

The Clyde river as it is today

When the French arrived Mary had been living at Dumbarton for six months with her mother. It was here that four French galleys came in July 1548 and spirited the little Queen of Scots to France while her mother remained behind to defend her daughter's crown.  

Upon her return Mary only visited the Castle once in 1563 during a royal progress. When she was overthrown in favour of her son, a group of supporters took up residence inside the castle in 1568, remaining there for three years before a raiding party scaled the castle's precipitous slope at night, taking them by surprise.

A model of the castle during Mary's stay

After Mary:

The French prison built around 1790

Dumbarton later carried on as a state prison, guarding such men as Patrick Stewart, 2nd Earl of Orkney. From supporters of Bonnie Prince Charlie to French Generals of the Napoleanic wars were housed within the grounds of Dumbarton. By the 19th century the castle had become a prime tourist attraction despite still being a garrison. Even as recent as WWII an anti-aircraft battery was set up at the top of the rock itself; on 5-6 May 1941 that Dumbarton Castle saw its first enemy attack in over 300 years when the German Luftwaffe dropped four high explosive bombs upon the rock. 

Today:

The Gunpowder Battery

Visitors to the castle can witness several ages of history with the Rock's defenses, as well as viewing spectacular sights around the Clyde and over the Dumbarton town itself. It has seen so much war and peace over the centuries from the Viking raids to Mary's departure to France; from Queen Victoria visiting in 1847 to its attack in 1941. To this day it stands, emersed in history and a testament to its enduring impact today.

A beautiful view of the rock

Further reading:

Dumbarton Castle Souvenir Guide; Historic Scotland, 2007
Historic Dumbarton; P Dennison and R Colman, 1999
Excavations at Alt Clut, Clyde Rock, Strathclyde, 1947-1975; L & E Alcock, 1990

Mary Queen of Scots: A Queen Who Lost It All & Became A Legend

A Queen who lost three kingdoms. A wife who lost three husbands. A woman who lost her head.

This is the tagline of the European produced movie Mary Queen of Scots by director Thomas Imbach. And it sums up the life of Scotland's tragic Queen perfectly.

Director Imbach wrote the film based on a biography by Stefan Zweig, a biographer and playwright, who's approach to Mary's story was told with more dramatic flair than the average biography. One of the main viewpoints from Zweig was that Mary had been in a position of power and command for so long that it drained her; when Bothwell caught Mary's eye he was commanding and took control of the situation taking the burden of rule from Mary's shoulders.

Indeed, this is a main theme of the film, as Mary struggles to gain control of her Scottish Kingdom, where all the lords are backstabbing and power hungry, an issue that Mary hasn't dealt with before. This is highlighted very early on when Elizabeth Tudor becomes Queen of England. Mary is determined that the new English Queen will love her, and when asked how she would get that she simply responds that she will charm her into loving her.

This is one of Mary's weaknesses that she believes will win over the Scottish Lords but sadly her charm is not what they want. They want her to command, and do what they want her to do. It's through this struggle of queenship and authority that Imbach gives us a human portrait of Scotland's Queen. A woman facing stress, rebellion and betrayal. And as she struggles through it we can see her pain; we can feel it as she rides along the Scottish grounds screaming at the top of her lungs. It's a relatable moment for anyone who has struggled to keep control of their life.

The film highlights Mary's struggle to rule

Imbach's version gives the story of Mary a fresh perspective; not a woman who was too busy enjoying herself to rule, but a woman who was ill prepared for ruling her own Kingdom for she was raised a French princess, prepared for French Queenship. The contrast between the French court and the Scottish is shown almost immediately through the harsh landscape of Switzerland, which substitutes for Scotland very well. The landscape is beautiful, as Imbach does show some beautiful aerial shots, using long shots of the vast landscape to emphasize Mary's growing isolation throughout the film.

Camille Rutherford portrays a well rounded Queen of Scots

Mary herself is played by Camille Rutherford, an up and coming French actress who's beauty and physique is possibly the closest to the true image of the real woman that any film or TV project has come close to. Mary was said to be close to six feet tall, and Rutherford is the first actress to resemble the queen of Scots in height, colouring and beauty. She proves to be a strong actress in the part. Rutherford captures her character wonderfully, exuding sensuality, wit and charisma that were famous characteristics of Mary. But she gives us a more complex individual; she is strong willed, confident and beautiful but she becomes isolated, she is betrayed and in her bid for happiness she loses everything. It's a tragic story of a woman born to rule but with all the odds stacked against her; ill prepared for Scottish rule after a French upbringing.

It is also a refreshing take on history for its historical accuracy, compared with the recent Hollywood series Reign, based on Mary's time in France. Mary Queen of Scots is a well made production with a strong lead performance that captures the woman behind the myth. For any history fan or period drama fan, this is a must see but is not recommended for a more mainstream crowd. If you're looking for The Tudors I suggest looking elsewhere, or waiting for the upcoming Hollywood production of Mary Queen of Scots written by Michael Hirst (Elizabeth, Vikings, The Tudors). For a human portrait on an iconic tragedy this is worth at least one viewing.

* Mary Queen of Scots will be released on DVD & Blu-ray 27 October. You can pre-order a copy on Amazon now.

Linlithgow: The Pleasure Palace

James VI's North range from outside

Linlithgow Palace rests roughly 18 miles from Edinburgh and is a popular tourist attraction associated with Mary Queen of Scots. Today you will see only ruins; a fire in 1746 robbed the castle of its former splendour. Yet, within its stone walls there remains a glimmer of its former glory.

Hallway through East Range

Origins

The castle first existed as a manor house that once stood as an important strategic point for Edward I of England during the Scottish Wars of Independence until 1424 when a great fire the building and surrounding village. Six years later, King James I of Scotland commissioned a new palace to be built in its place. In his lifetime the East range was built; the main attraction here is the Great Hall where many celebrations were held. There is also a kitchen and at that time royal lodgings,  which were later rebuilt in the West range of the palace.

Over the years the palace was expanded; James IV added a chapel and new royal lodgings within the West range; James V added the exquisite fountain and the Southern entrance. Indeed, much of what stands today was completed at the time of Mary Queen of Scots' birth in December 1542. Mary herself added little to the palace decor, but she is closely associated with the visitor attraction today.

James I to James IV

James I's Great Hall

The Great Hall in the East range still stands as an example of stunning medieval interiors; it was built during James I's reign, but was updated under James IV who added the great fireplace at the end of the hall. Historic Scotland's official souvenir guide describes the interior as 'festooned with statues (although only the stone brackets remain) and decorated with tapestries or hangings.' The north-east corner houses the kitchens, with serving hatches leading straight into the hall.

Aside from the great hall, James I also had royal lodgings fitted and a grand entrance way in its centre. His grandson, James III went on to extend the royal lodgings, but it was James IV who completed the full quadrangle of the palace, During his reign James IV had a Chapel installed within the palace; its location the former royal lodgings of James I. He then expanded the palace further, adding lodgings to the West Range that are still visible today; a visitor can walk through the King's Hall to the Presence Chamber and then into the Bedchamber where the King slept which lead out onto the North Range.

King James IV's Presence Chamber

An illustration in the Souvenir guide shows the King's Hall as the largest and most public part of the lodgings, whereas the further in you go the smaller the rooms get. While no floors exist above these chambers, it is believed that in its prime, the Queen's lodgings sat above the King's, but there is no definitive proof of this and it is still debated today where exactly Mary Queen of Scots was born. The above floor in the West Range is considered a possibility, but there is the possibility that the North Range may have housed the Queen's private lodgings before its collapse in 1607.

The North Range commissioned by James VI

The Forced Contribution of James VI

As James IV's North Range no longer exists there is no way to know for sure, but the North Range that stands today was built during the reign of James VI after he had moved down to England. The style of the building indeed differs from the rest; according to Linlithgow's souvenir guide the building is designed similar to the Danish architecture of the time, which is possible as James VI's Queen was a Danish princess. He may have been influenced by the architecture when he journeyed there to meet his bride. There are indeed similarities within the building's wall structure and windows which resemble the works of Hans van Steenwinckel the Younger, architect to King Christian IV of Denmark (brother of Queen Anne).

Example of Steenwinckel's architectural style.

James V's Fountain before East range entrance

James V's Palace

James V added a new southern entrance around 1535 that today is the main access point to the Castle ground. He also had a fountain built in the centre of the courtyard, a decorative display of James V's power and sophistication to the world. The Historic Scotland guide book explains that the fountain is a symbol of the union between Scotland and France through his first wife Madeleine de Valois, daughter of King Francis I,

'The tiered arrangement of three basins is surmounted by a crown is surmounted by a crown, representing the king's superiority. Water, symbolising the benefits of his rule, pours from the mouth of the sun-face on the underside of the crown... This is decorated with sculpted figures; these figures conveyed James' status as a patron of the arts.'

Tragically, Madeleine died within days of setting foot in Scotland.

The palace went on to be a part of his second wife's, Marie de Guise, dower lands and she gave birth to Mary Queen of Scots on 8 December 1542. It was here that she received word that James V died; history was repeating itself as James V had been born here in 1512. One year later, his father died at Flodden field; his mother was in residence at Linlithgow when she received word of James IV's death. Today, the highest point in the palace is still associated with his wife, known as Queen Margaret's Bower, where she is reputed to have lay in wait everyday for word of her husband as he headed south of the border to face the armies of Henry VIII.

View of the East range from the cellars

Mary and Beyond

Mary spent the first six months of her life here and didn't return for another 20 years, when she stayed only for a handful of days at a time. She had stayed here before setting off for Edinburgh when she was intercepted by the Earl of Bothwell and forced into a marriage that led to her forced abdication and imprisonment.

Upon James VI's move south, the palace began to decline. It was temporarily renovated when Charles I stayed for one night in 1633 on his progress through Scotland. This was the last time the palace was used as a royal residence. Bonnie Prince Charlie visited briefly on his journey to reclaim the throne in 1745. It was then destroyed on the the orders of the the Duke of Cumberland in January 1746.

Despite only the stone of the palace remaining today it still stands as a beautiful example of Scottish history with each subsequent Stewart King each engraving their own personal style upon the place for us to glimpse into their world.


Further reading:

Linlithgow Palace: The Official Souvenir Guide published by Historic Scotland.

I Beg Your Pardon: The Story of Catherine of Braganza

Queen Catherine of Braganza

On Thursday 5^th February, King Charles II of Britain took his last breath. It was a shock to everyone that the King became ill so suddenly, and upon his final hours he received many people bidding their final farewells. The Queen was one of these, but she was so distraught she had to be taken back to her apartments. After she recovered from her grief she sent a message unto the King, begging his pardon if she had ever offended him.

‘Alas, poor woman’, her husband replied, ‘She beg my pardon! I beg hers with all my heart.’

For she had stood by her husband’s side through his many ups and downs; and his many affairs which the Queen endured for the whole of their married life. And although she had built a good rapport with some of the King’s women, it was not an easy life for Catherine of Braganza. The Portuguese princess had been raised in a strict household, so the decadence and debauchery of Charles’ court may have come as a shock. 

The marriage of Charles II and Catherine was a matter of state, the idea of love had never entered the equation. For Charles, Catherine was a great prize for she came with a dowry worth £2 million cruzados (£320,000). And for a King with very little money, it was a very lucrative offer; even despite the Spanish trying to prevent the match, describing the princess as ‘sickly, ugly and deformed.’

But Charles didn't listen; the dowry was too good. Indeed it proved too good to be true as the Portuguese begged to be allowed to pay it off later as they found their funds a little dry. It was eventually paid off in 1670. Alas, Catherine arrived at Portsmouth on 14^th May 1662, greeted by the King’s brother James Duke of York. The King eventually turned up on the 20^th to officially meet his new bride; and the next day they were married.

The first couple of months passed by well enough; the honeymoon stage getting the newlyweds off to a good start. Even some of the nobility praised the queen for her pious and virtuous behaviour. But, as with all honeymoons, it came to an end. Charles' mistress, Lady Barbara Castlemaine, had given birth to the King's illegitimate child.

Lady Castlemaine

Even before she left Portugal Catherine had been warned by her mother of Charles’ mistress, Lady Barbara Palmer, who did not like the idea of Charles having a wife; indeed her aggressive nature made her determined not to bow to the Queen at all. She wanted a high position within the Queen’s household – Lady of the Bed Chamber. The new Queen refused, crossing her name off a list of prospective candidates.

Sadly, the King wasn’t taking no for an answer; for Charles this was a question of marital authority, he couldn't have Europe saying he was ruled by his wife. He brought Lady Castlemaine into the Queen’s presence; the Queen unaware of her identity. When she realised who she was she broke down in tears, her nose bleeding and she had to be carried to her chamber upon fainting.

One writer describes the character of Lady Castlemaine as that of ‘a lovely, unblushing 19-carat bitch with a deadly instinct for the jugular.’ In this regard, Castlemaine must have relished the distress she caused the Queen, knowing that she had the King’s favour. And Catherine’s own reaction of rage gave many at court the opinion that she was impossible. It didn’t seem to occur to anyone that such a request would be a great insult to Catherine.

The King especially believed that he was right in his pursuance of the matter, regardless of the cost to Catherine. She threatened to return to Portugal; the King threatened to send her servants back, believing them responsible for her ‘perverseness’  in refusing to have his mistress as her Lady of the Bedchamber. Today we would see such a man as abusive, but back then he had all his courtiers on side, encouraging him to stand firm. And so he did.

He removed the majority of Catherine’s servants, leaving only a few minor ladies to wait upon her. She was left in almost total isolation, submitted to cruel psychological pressure as the Lady Castlemaine was openly given chambers next to the King’s own.  Even when the King did join the Queen for a meal, the Lady Castlemaine was by his side. One can only imagine the pain that Catherine suffered under psychological abuse. As a result she eventually gave in to the King’s desires.

Many were disappointed in the Queen for conceding when she did. There were rumours that the King was on the verge of giving in to her. But without any council how could she know if she was in a losing battle or not? But concede she did, and she was judged by the courtiers as a ‘tiresome neurotic’ who had ‘been brought to heel’. After this episode the only way that the Queen could regain any form of influence was through bearing a child; a child that sadly would never come.

King Charles II

Between 1663 and 1665 Lady Castlemaine produced three children, most likely the King’s offspring. But Catherine remained without, going to special baths in hopes that the waters would produce a miracle. But she would never produce an heir, sadly miscarrying at least twice. In October 1665 she became dangerously ill; even deliriously speaking of children that she and the King had. When she believed herself to be dying she comforted herself in the knowledge that in dying she made a place for a new consort, one worthy of the King’s affections. It reveals so much of how Catherine valued her own self worth, a trait that would be seen as a form of depression today. But back then no one knew of such things, and the Queen was willing to face her own death like a martyr.But she would never be one, she eventually came out of the delirium and her health improved.

Upon her recovery there was also a question of the succession, with many attempting to convince Charles to divorce Catherine in preference for a more productive wife. It is likely that Charles considered it, weighing the pros and cons before declaring before parliament that he would not divorce his wife. After 1665 the relationship garnered a surmountable amount of affection and trust on both sides.

When the Queen was attacked by malicious rumours of conspiracy the King immediately dismissed them. He would not credit his Queen of such acts. And when the King's illegitimate son, the Duke of Monmouth, attempted to gather support for the throne, there was another call by parliament to put Catherine aside; the King demonstrated his growing loyalty towards his wife, making it clearer than ever that she could not be attacked by the vipers of his court. The King had placed his own pleasure above the feelings of his wife for the majority of their marriage; but when Parliament attempted to discredit her in any way he stood firm, standing up for her as his wife and Queen. Perhaps he was propelled by guilt, remembering his treatment of her with Lady Castlemaine; she was eventually banished from court, leaving a sort of tranquility to replace the aggressive atmosphere she left behind.

Perhaps it’s the optimist in me, but perhaps the King did grow to resent his early treatment of Catherine, especially as she stood by him through the many tribulations he faced throughout his reign; and never once saying a negative word against him. She had proven herself a loving and understanding wife; a good companion who had gained the affections of the British people; a confidante in the ways that his many mistresses could never be. And in recognition of the great duty that this sweet and affectionate woman did him over the years, it was only fitting that his final words in regards to her were to beg her pardon for his own faults.

Resources:

King Charles II; Fraser, Antonia; Orion Books, 1979

The King's Wife: Five Queen Consorts; Gray, Robert; Secker & Warburg, 1990

History vs Hollywood: Execution of Anne Boleyn

The Tudors are possibly the most famous royal family in British history. And they are consistently the subject of various dramatic works. Since the beginning of the 21st century alone there have been numerous TV serials and movies released, focusing on Henry VIII and his passion for the infamous Anne Boleyn, mother of Elizabeth I.

Here I will discuss the execution of Queen Anne and its portrayal in two very different drama series.

Wolf Hall: Anne Boleyn's final moments are played out through the eyes of Thomas Cromwell, the lead character of the series. We see her exit the tower and make her way to the scaffold, the whole time distracted and looking up towards the tower. She then makes her final speech and is subsequently beheaded.

The Tudors: The final moments of Anne Boleyn are told through her eyes, From her exit onto Tower Green through the throng of a large crowd to the scaffold where she makes her final speech and is subsequently beheaded.

Both series create a riveting scene that is memorable, but which one is more accurate?

The Facts:

Anne Boleyn is the most famous wife of Henry VIII. She gained the crown by supplanting Henry's first wife Catherine of Aragon and she gave him his daughter, Queen Elizabeth I.

Their love story is one of the most fascinating points in English history, a cornerstone that changed the direction of England forever. Henry disgarded his first wife, shunned his only legitimate daughter; brought down his most loyal minister; executed one of his closest friends and tore England away from the Catholic faith; all for the love of one woman.

The Fiction:

Her rise and fall has fascinated people for 500 years. In the wake of the 20th century came the media revolution. Over the next 110 years the exploits of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn have been romanticized on screen, mostly as a tragic love story to entertain the masses.

Anne Boleyn's first on screen appearance was in 1911 in the short silent Henry VIII played by Laura Cowie who reprised her role in the 1914 short Anne Boleyn. After the German production of Anna Bolena (Lubitsch) in 1920 Anne remained a supporting character in films such as The Private Lives of Henry VIII (Korda, 1933) and A Man For All Seasons (1966).

One of the most celebrated films centering on the love story of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn is Anne of the Thousand Days (Jarrott, 1969) starring Richard Burton and Gieneve Bujold, which chronicled their romance from its fiery beginning to its tragic end. After BBC's miniseries The Six wives of Henry VIII it was 37 years before a drama brought Anne Boleyn into the foreground in the same way as Anne of The Thousand Days.

A Modern Queen:

The Tudors (Hirst, 2007) first aired on the subscription channel Showtime and is the first in a long time to truly challenge the perception of Anne Boleyn and the factors behind her pursuit of Henry VIII. Actress Natalie Dormer played the iconic role of the Jezebel who bewitched a King; a woman who loved her husband so much it destroyed her. It's the first sympathetic portrayal that shows a multi-dimensional woman that is just as hard today to define in one category as it was 500 years ago. Dormer's performance is regarded as one of the greatest portrayals of Anne Boleyn in recent memory, leaving a hard act to follow.

January 2015 saw the BBC return to the story of Henry VIII, this time with Claire Foy as Anne Boleyn. Wolf Hall is based on the Pulitzer prize winning novel of the same name and its sequel Bring Up The Bodies by Hilary Mantel. It is told from the POV of Thomas Cromwell, one of Anne's strongest supporters and greatest enemies. Through this view the audience receive a very limited view of Anne Boleyn, a haughty and temperamental woman who's difficult for an audience to relate to.

Anne's Story:

Both series take very different approaches to the dramatization of the Tudors. Where The Tudors concentrates on the dramatic influence of events, often taking liberties with the timeline and period details, Wolf Hall expresses a strong emphasis on the historical facts above the drama, in the belief that the facts themselves are enough to entertain an audience.

With that in mind, both series take a very different take on Anne's final moments. It is certain that Wolf Hall wins in historical accuracy, showing the execution from an audience stand point, building up the tension as everyone waits for the final blow.

However, dramatically The Tudors gives a more emotionally charged scene, sympathizing with Anne as she lives out her final moments, making her way through a judgmental crowd towards the scaffold and giving her final speech, the camera offering a POV shot to give the viewer a glimpse of what Anne may have experienced in her final moments.

'I have come here to die': 

Overall, both series are well made and their creative differences both offer up scenes that are emotionally affecting. Despite the different POVs both scenes do follow the historical backdrop rather well. However, Wolf Hall does prove much more authentic. The execution itself with the executioner removing his shoes and Anne Boleyn having a blindfold over her eyes, to the accuracy of her final speech word for word. The Tudors alters the final speech slightly  and omits the blindfold, instead distracting Anne with 'Boy, fetch my sword'. As she turns she looks up to see birds flying away from the Tower. It's an effective scene that reinforces the image of Anne as a tragic heroine.

Where the BBC created a historically authentic costume piece, Showtime offered up a dramatic interpretation that modernized the story for a 21st century audience to relate to, which made the history easily accessible to those who didn't know anything about the Tudors to those who know and have a passion for their stories. This is where I feel that Wolf Hall falters slightly, because we see everything through Cromwell's eyes it changes the perception of Anne, making her less sympathetic, simplifying her character to that of a cold and arrogant person without much depth. I won't deny that these were aspects of her character but they were not the only traits she possessed. She believed in reform, desired to help unfortunate people and did much charity work, but Wolf Hall omits so much of Anne's various facets that it is hard to see how she managed to seduce the King of England with so little charm.

In the end, Wolf Hall does well with historical facts, but The Tudors succeeds in creating multi-dimensional characters for a modern audience. Therefore, Natalie Dormer's performance, for me, is by far the most affecting of the two portrayals, giving an opinionated, seductive, arrogant and at times sympathetic performance that stays with the viewer longer than Claire Foy's performance; though in her defense she worked with what she was given and did play the role well in Wolf Hall. But historically I think Dormer captured that complex nature of England's most infamous Queen.