Formation of Britain
Was Britain in 1707 more convincingly a nation than it had been in 1603?Creating Britain was a task that would involve a tenacious and often tyrannous effort by monarchs, politicians and defenders of England. This essay will firstly give an account of how the unification of the kingdoms of England and Scotland was succeeding in 1603 and then compare and contrast this with the situation in 1707. The two dates mark an optimistic view of what James wanted to be a 'perfect union'. However a closer analysis indicates that Scotland and England would not prove to be an easy union. This period in history shows that you cannot simply impose yourself on a nation that has little or no wish to accept your invitation to unite. This unification is one characterised more by legislation than any noticeable bond between the two kingdoms, showing little harmony or depth to show for itself. In the next century however changes would be made to allow for a more convincing union of the kingdoms in 1707. This second act of unification however was still somewhat of a farce, but did mark a time where England and Scotland seemed to be working together, even if a large degree of altruism was involved on both sides of the boarder.
Smith indicates further that, 'in 1603, not only did James's three kingdoms each possess their own distinctive religions; they were themselves divided over religion'. This was a union then, between the nobility and 'top brass' of two nations, not one that encompassed the common people who held resentment in their social and cultural expression. This was a remarkably unproblematic accession that united the Scottish crown with that of England and Ireland. in March 1663, Elizabeth I, Queen of England and Ireland died; James VI of Scotland was proclaimed her successor in London. Bullying tactics naturally cause resentment and Britain did little to earn the long-term respect of the Scottish. '(2) The legislation that was passed in 1707, supposedly uniting the kingdoms, was a misleading act, which, whilst laying hope for the future, held little meaning at the time amongst the everyday people. ' (3) So by the summer of 1705 a growing number of Scottish nobility were coming round to the idea that this was the best thing for Scotland. The multiple kingdoms over which James now ruled were far more diverse and contrasted than their relatively limited geographical area might suggest. He not only wanted those born in either England or Scotland after his accession to the English throne to be granted legal rights in both kingdoms; he also wished those born before March 1603 to be naturalised by statute. There was no great affection between the two countries and they were indifferent to each other. The concept of Britain was looking laboured and improbable. It is difficult to really see the two nations as coming together to form a united Britain in 1707. Far from being a natural end-point the 1707 Union was the result of a complex combination of short-term factors. The Act Anent Peace and War required that Scotland's Parliament should control her foreign policy regardless of who sat on the throne. Accounts of resistance to James's proposals have generally stressed the concerted opposition of the English Parliament, but it is also worth noting there was also much scepticism north of the boarder.
Common topics in this essay:
Union Crowns,
England Scotland,
Seton Pitmedden,
England Indeed,
Robert Burns,
Scotland England,
England Ireland,
Union Kingdoms,
Britain Bullying,
Darien Panama,
union crowns,
england scotland,
union crowns 1603,
crowns 1603,
union kingdoms,
kingdoms england scotland,
support union,
'union kingdoms',
kingdoms england,
legal systems,
scotland england,
'perfect union',
|
Acceptance Essays
