Union Of The Crown: 400 Years Anniversary

Forums: History
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The union between Scotland and England is "a model for parliamentary democracy the world over", according to (the Scottish) First Minister Jack McConnell.
(Mr McConnell's comments came as he hosted a dinner attended by the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh marking the 400th anniversary of the Union of the Crowns., on July 1, 2003.)

The 400th anniversary of the Union of the Crowns has been marked by the launch of a website, a mixture of history and high technology.

(The crowns came together on 24 March, 1603, when Queen Elizabeth died and King James VI of Scotland also became King James I of England.)

Website: 400th Anniversary Of The Union Of The Crowns

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,696 • Replies: 12

No top replies

Some more links

Scotland's Written History

(America's Gateway to) British History

British Royalty (megalink)

(Historic) Maps Of Scotland

Hereditary Titles

0 Replies

Scotland and England were united under one crown with the coronation of James I (James IV of Scotland) in 1603 but they did not become a single nation (Britain) until the Act of Union in 1707. The union was widely disliked in Scotland resulting in the Jacobite rebellions of 1715 and 1745. The controversy surrounding that Union was one of the reasons the American Colonies choose a federal system for their organization of a national government in 1789.

0 Replies

I didn't doubt that.
The crowns of Scotland and England had become one in 1603: that's why I called this thread
Union Of The Crown: 400 Years Anniversary. :wink:

0 Replies

Walter, it was not really a "union of the crown" there were two separate governments and parliaments and two separate crowns The King or Queen of England was the King or Queen of Scotland also (double dipping as it where) This continued until 1707 when the governments were combined. From that point onward there has been only one monarch (British) The Jacobite rebellions were an attempt to but a Stuart back on the thrown of Scotland.

0 Replies

Hmmh, you surely might know that better, Acquiunk.

0 Replies

It's the main reason that there has never been the kind of animosity between the English and the Scots that exists to this day between the English and the Irish. England never conquered Scotland. It was a peaceful union. Today, it seems, they are drawing apart again, however. While the Scots recognize the Queen as theirs as well as England's, they now have a separate Parliament, I understand.

0 Replies

And alternatively Scotland never conquered England (though not for the want of trying). I somehow think that the Scots got the worst of the bargain myself.

Historical anomoly: The town of Berkshire on the Scot/Eng borders passed from English to Scots control so much that in any treaties, etc the usual form was "England & the town of Berkshire". I think their enemies must have thought the Berkshirites must have been mighty tough folk!

0 Replies

Mr Stillwater, I think the town you are thinking of is Berwick (upon tweed) Berkshire is just a little bit west of London.

0 Replies

Mr Still when I read my post back it sounded a little patronising, I assure you it wasn't meant to be.

0 Replies

kev, noted and forgiven. I suspect you have more local knowledge than me!!

Either way, I'd like to imagine the kind of negotiation where the bottom line is, "Well, we've managed to keep Berwick OUT of this till now........!.

Union Of The Crown: 400 Years Anniversary

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know