Topic: Parliamentary Evidence of Anti-English Sentiment in Scotland from 1424-1707
Primary Source Collection: Records of the Parliaments of Scotland
My paper is going to be examining the Records of the Parliaments of Scotland (1424-1707) as well as other secondary sources to find evidence of Anti-English sentiment in the Scottish government, with the intent of showing that Scotland's tension with English rule is a longstanding sociopolitical climate. Though Scottish government did at times unite with English rule and unionize with English government, I believe there is evidence enough to support that the underlying causes were monarchial bullying, self-interest of noble lords in securing their status and prosperity, and corruption within parliament, all of which did not accurately reflect the feelings of Scottish people on the monarchy of England and its attempts to secure an empire. Given the current state of affairs in Scotland and the recent vote on independence which has since stirred up debate, this is a fascinatingly relevant topic and one I think worth exploring.
Current Investigation: Did Parliament's attitudes always reflect that of the people at large?
Thoughts: I've encountered several statutes that technically fall into my database as "pro-monarchial"--meaning that they technically reflect the best interests of the King--but seem to be indicative of an anti-monarchial sentiment at large. In retrospect, this makes a lot of sense and I think I can use it to inform my research from a better perspective--additionally, this is where secondary sources will come into play. For example, here's an interesting one regarding the usage of poisons. The language itself protects the King (and others in his service) from assassination attempts, but doesn't that mean that there has to have been a reason to prohibit it? People don't just write anti-poison laws out of the blue. I think this is actually more supportive of my original thesis that anti-monarchial sentiment was the prevailing social climate in Scotland even as far back as the 1400s. That's exciting! And it leaves me a lot more optimistic about my research from here.
Primary Source Collection: Records of the Parliaments of Scotland
My paper is going to be examining the Records of the Parliaments of Scotland (1424-1707) as well as other secondary sources to find evidence of Anti-English sentiment in the Scottish government, with the intent of showing that Scotland's tension with English rule is a longstanding sociopolitical climate. Though Scottish government did at times unite with English rule and unionize with English government, I believe there is evidence enough to support that the underlying causes were monarchial bullying, self-interest of noble lords in securing their status and prosperity, and corruption within parliament, all of which did not accurately reflect the feelings of Scottish people on the monarchy of England and its attempts to secure an empire. Given the current state of affairs in Scotland and the recent vote on independence which has since stirred up debate, this is a fascinatingly relevant topic and one I think worth exploring.
Current Investigation: Did Parliament's attitudes always reflect that of the people at large?
Thoughts: I've encountered several statutes that technically fall into my database as "pro-monarchial"--meaning that they technically reflect the best interests of the King--but seem to be indicative of an anti-monarchial sentiment at large. In retrospect, this makes a lot of sense and I think I can use it to inform my research from a better perspective--additionally, this is where secondary sources will come into play. For example, here's an interesting one regarding the usage of poisons. The language itself protects the King (and others in his service) from assassination attempts, but doesn't that mean that there has to have been a reason to prohibit it? People don't just write anti-poison laws out of the blue. I think this is actually more supportive of my original thesis that anti-monarchial sentiment was the prevailing social climate in Scotland even as far back as the 1400s. That's exciting! And it leaves me a lot more optimistic about my research from here.
No comments:
Post a Comment