THE “ifs” of history are indeed intriguing, but Rosemary Goring’s speculations regarding Mary, Queen of Scots lead her altogether too far into the realms of fantasy ("So, what if Mary, Queen of Scots had stayed in France?", The Herald, January 16).
Though James VI no doubt had something of a bee in his bunnet concerning witches, that his witch hunts “devastated the country” is a ridiculous exaggeration. And it is even more ridiculous to suggest that the two wholly unrelated facts of Mary’s political ineptitude and James’s propensity for burning witches contributed to “blackening women’s reputation indelibly for centuries”. Attitudes to women in general were far too deep-rooted to be affected by the failures of one woman (even a queen) or the idiosyncrasies of one man (even a king – and overall, let us remember, a highly successful one): if this were possible, it is to be expected that such imposing and momentous figures as Isabella of Castille and Elizabeth Tudor would have done far more to enhance the status of women than a minor figure (as in the context of European history she certainly is) like Mary, Queen of Scots to diminish it.
Derrick McClure,
4 Rosehill Terrace, Aberdeen.
ROSEMARY Goring is way off the beam.
The problem was not Mary, Queen of Scots, but her son, James, who may not have turned out to be such a disaster if he had not been taken from his mother in infancy and brought up by cruel fanatics.
Mary may have made mistakes, but she was not given a chance because of her faith. She was the victim of cruel adversaries and it is sad that Ms Goring shows no pity for her.
Anti-Catholic sentiment still exists. Ask the midwives who were sacked for refusing to have anything to do with abortion, despite the law against discrimination on grounds of religion.
John Kelly,
87 Roxburgh Street, Kelso.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel