Anglo-Scottish Parliamentary Union 100 years earlier - 1606

Thande

Donor
I'm currently reading A History of the Union Jack, and I wasn't aware that the first attempt at uniting the English and Scottish Parliaments was actually made in 1606 and, surprisingly, proposed by the Scottish Parliament and turned down by the English.

This was part of James VI and I's plan to create a united 'Kingdom of Great Britain' (which would not be realised in law for another 100 years). Our Parliament apparently opposed it on the grounds that it would destroy the unique 'English-ness'. (Interesting parallels with the EU there...)

In James' own words:

Do we not yet remember, that this Kingdom [England] was divided into seven little Kingdoms, besides Wales, and is it not now the stronger by their Union? And has not the Union of Wales to England added a greater strength thereto?

...

I desire a perfect Union of Laws and Persons, and such a Naturalising as may make one Body of both Kingdoms under me your King. That I and my Posterity (if it so please God) may rule over you to the World's End; Such a Union as was of the Scots and Picts in Scotland, and of the Heptarchy here in England.

Now we all know what happened in OTL and James' Posterity ruled for less than a century. But WI the English Parliament had accepted a Union in 1606?

It would be helpful, of course, if this kind of rhetoric was toned down (did I mention the echo with the EU?)... :rolleyes:

Shake Hands with Union, O thou mighty State
Now thou art all Great Britain and no more,
No Scot, no English now, nor no debate,
No borders but the Ocean and the shore.
 
Okay, a big problem I see. The Church.

IIRC, there's a significant difference between the Church of England, as it was, and the Kirk.
 
The wikipedia article on the union of the crowns (a misnomer by the way) has a bit more on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_the_Crowns

It would have been interesting but VERY difficult based on the info in that article.

It might mean that separate Scottish attempts at colonialism never occur, but it could also lead to dissatifaction in both England and Scotland which might well lead to the a reactionary end to the union before 1707.

Anyone care to do an outline? I wouldn't know how to overcome the opposition of both the Scottish and English parliaments (and I doubt James VI/I could either).
 
Okay, a big problem I see. The Church.

IIRC, there's a significant difference between the Church of England, as it was, and the Kirk.

But the problem was the Scots church resisting James and Charles attempts to impose episcopal forms on them. As it is the Scots who propose the Union, I don't think that would prove a political stumbling block. I wouldn't be surprised if the same religious fault-lines emerge as in OTL (Bishops War, Covenanters etc) but it wouldn't change the basic fact of Union.
 
As I understand it the reason the Westminster Parlimentarians opposed it was because, being a new Kingdom which disssolved the earlier ones (unlike the later union), all previous English law (Magna Carta, and more importantly, legal precedent) would become void. This would be bad news for laywers, who would loose their priviledged knowledge and hence their proffession.
 
As I understand it the reason the Westminster Parlimentarians opposed it was because, being a new Kingdom which disssolved the earlier ones (unlike the later union), all previous English law (Magna Carta, and more importantly, legal precedent) would become void. This would be bad news for laywers, who would loose their priviledged knowledge and hence their proffession.

What prevented Westminster from proposing their version of Union, with the Scottish parliament absorbed into Westminster, as was done 100 years later?
 
The fear in England was the James Staurt intended to make a run on absolutism with the new kingdom of Great Britain. If Great Britain was created James wouldn't be constrained by the English constitution, and could tax as much as he wished.

A better time for Great Britain to be created might be in the aftermath of the English Civil War. Once the New Model Army had executed Charles I and defeated Charles II they went on to subjugate Scotland. A Union could be imposed at that time, so that when Charles II retakes his throne in 1660 he retakes it as the "King of Great Britain".
 
The fear in England was the James Staurt intended to make a run on absolutism with the new kingdom of Great Britain. If Great Britain was created James wouldn't be constrained by the English constitution, and could tax as much as he wished.

A better time for Great Britain to be created might be in the aftermath of the English Civil War. Once the New Model Army had executed Charles I and defeated Charles II they went on to subjugate Scotland. A Union could be imposed at that time, so that when Charles II retakes his throne in 1660 he retakes it as the "King of Great Britain".

I repeat:

Why couldn't Westminster propose their own Act of Union, keeping the English constitution, and limiting James even more?
 
A better time for Great Britain to be created might be in the aftermath of the English Civil War. Once the New Model Army had executed Charles I and defeated Charles II they went on to subjugate Scotland. A Union could be imposed at that time, so that when Charles II retakes his throne in 1660 he retakes it as the "King of Great Britain".

A union was imposed, it was called the Commonwealth of Englans, Scotland and Ireland.
 
I repeat:

Why couldn't Westminster propose their own Act of Union, keeping the English constitution, and limiting James even more?

I think that in Parliament there was the impression that this was beyond the purview of the English Constitution. That is, Parliament did not have the power to create a new realm. I know that you have a very murky English Constitution, so who am I to say what they can and cannot do, but let me explain:

I know that later Parliament would feel that it did have the power to propose and create a new realm (the Acts of Union with Scotland and Ireland) but both these acts happened after the English Civil War and Glorious Revolution. I think that in 1606 the Parliament did not have enough power vis a vis the Monarchy to risk creating a new realm.

So if the power equation was better, than maybe they would do it. But as it was James I was a grasping king who wanted absolute power. Therefore, anything that could further those ambitions (and the creation of Great Britain would certainly further those ambitions) should be opposed.

So I feel that it was a power issue, that the Parliament probably dressed up as a constitutional issue.
 
Why couldn't Westminster propose their own Act of Union, keeping the English constitution, and limiting James even more?

Uhmm, because the King was the chief executive? Because he had to sign everything into law? Because Parliament in those days was not pre-eminent of the King? Etc.

Even post-civil war and post-1688, parliament didn't direct itself independently of the King, and wouldn't begin to until the 19th century. Even in the early 19th century, there were certain big issues (Catholic Emancipation, Parliamentary reform) which would never have passed without the personal consent (as opposed to rubber-stamping) of the King.

You couldn't have Union without the consent of Parliament, but equally you couldn't have it without the consent of the King.
 
Last edited:
Uhmm, because the King was the chief executive? Because he had to sign everything into law? Because Parliament in those days was not pre-eminent of the King? Etc.

Even post-civil war and post-1688, parliament didn't direct itself independently of the King, and wouldn't begin to until the 19th century. Even in the early 19th century, there were certain big issues (Catholic Emancipation, Parliamentary reform) which would never have passed without the personal consent (as opposed to rubber-stamping) of the King.

You couldn't have Union without the consent of Parliament, but equally you couldn't have it without the consent of the King.

Hmm, so what if parliament suggests keeping the English constitution, and the King accepts this as a compromise, because really it wasn't that limiting back then, as you've just described. If he really wanted the countries to unite, he would probably have accepted this if it got parliament on his side...
 
I think there could probably have been a compromise if people had kept hammering away at it, but it would have been very very difficult for the reasons which have already been described (national sensitivities, religious differences, etc) I think 1606 was just a little too early really. England and Scotland had only just been at war half a century before and there was centuries of mutual suspicion to overcome.

I think an earlier union is plausible, but probably not immediately on the back of the personal union.
 
Last edited:
Top