January 12, 1519: Death of Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor

Tags

Charles V Holy Roman Emperor, Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I, Holy Roman Empire, King Louis XI of France, Mary of Burgundy, Pope Julius II

Maximilian I (March 22, 1459 – January 12, 1519).

Maximilian was the son of Friedrich III, Holy Roman Emperor, and Eleanor of Portugal, a Portuguese infanta (princess), daughter of King Duarte of Portugal and his wife Eleanor of Aragon.

He ruled jointly with his father for the last ten years of the latter’s reign, from c. 1483 until his father’s death in 1493.

Maximilian was elected King of the Romans on 16 February 16, 1486 in Frankfurt-am-Main at his father’s initiative and crowned on April 9, 1486 in Aachen. Much of th Austrian territories and Vienna were under the rule of king Matthias Corvinus of Hungary, as a result of the Austrian–Hungarian War (1477–1488). Maximilian was now a king without lands. After the death of king Matthias, from July 1490, Maximilian began a series of short sieges that reconquered cities and fortresses that his father had lost in Austria.

Maximilian was never crowned by the pope, as the journey to Rome was blocked by the Venetians.

In 1508, Maximilian, with the assent of Pope Julius II, took the title Erwählter Römischer Kaiser (“Elected Roman Emperor”), thus ending the centuries-old custom that the Holy Roman Emperor had to be crowned by the Pope.

Maximilian expanded the influence of the House of Habsburg through war and his marriage. In 1477 Maximilian married Mary of Burgundy, the only child of Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, and his wife Isabella of Bourbon, she inherited the Burgundian lands at the age of 19 upon the death of her father in the Battle of Nancy on 5 January 1477. She spent most of her reign defending her birthright; in order to counter the appetite of the French king Louis XI for her lands.

Maximilian and Mary’s wedding contract stipulated that their children would succeed them but that the couple could not be each other’s heirs. Mary tried to bypass this rule with a promise to transfer territories as a gift in case of her death, but her plans were confounded. After Mary’s death in a riding accident on March 27, 1482 near the Wijnendale Castle, Maximilian’s aim was now to secure the inheritance to his and Mary’s son, Philipp the Handsome.

Maximilian lost his family’s original lands in today’s Switzerland to the Swiss Confederacy. Through marriage of his son Philipp the Handsome to eventual Queen Joanna of Castile in 1498, Maximilian helped to establish the Habsburg dynasty in Spain, which allowed his grandson Charles to hold the thrones of both Castile and Aragon, and he was the eventual successor to the Imperial Throne of the Holy Roman Empire.

The historian Thomas A. Brady Jr. describes him as “the first Holy Roman Emperor in 250 years who ruled as well as reigned” and also, the “ablest royal warlord of his generation.”

After 1517 Maximilian began to focus entirely on the question of his succession. His goal was to secure the throne for a member of his house and prevent François I of France from gaining the imperial throne.

In 1501, Maximilian fell from his horse and badly injured his leg, causing him pain for the rest of his life. Some historians have suggested that Maximilian was “morbidly” depressed: from 1514, he travelled everywhere with his coffin.

Maximilian died in Wels, Upper Austria, on January 12, 1519 at the age of 59. The death of Maximilian seemed to put the succession at risk. However, The Fugger family provided Maximilian a credit of one million gulden, which was used to bribe the prince-electors. However, the bribery claims have been challenged. At first, this policy seemed successful, and Maximilian managed to secure the votes from Mainz, Cologne, Brandenburg and Bohemia for his grandson Charles.

Maximilian’s son, Philipp the Handsome (King Felipe I of Castile by right of his wife) had died in 1506. The resulting “election campaign” was unprecedented due to the massive use of bribery. Within a few months the election of his grandson as Holy Roman Emperor Charles V was secured. Charles had also succeeded his maternal grandfather, King Fernando II-V of Aragon and Castile in 1516 and became King Carlos I of a united Spain. With his election as Emperor, Charles V ruled an empire as vast and as powerful as that of Charlemagne ‘s centuries earlier.

Archduchess Margaret of Austria, Governor of the Austrian Netherlands

Tags

Archduchess Margaret of Austria, Carlos I of Spain, Felipe I of Castile and Spain, Governor of the Austrian Netherlands, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I, King François I of France, Pope Julius II, The Holy League

By 1504, however, Margaret’s husband, Philiberto II of Savoy, died of pleurisy. Grief-stricken, Margaret became suicidal and she threw herself out of a window, but was saved. After being persuaded to bury her husband, she had his heart embalmed so she could keep it with her forever. Her court historian and poet Jean Lemaire de Belges gave her the title “Dame de deuil” (Lady of Mourning).

Governor of the Habsburg Netherlands

Queen Isabella I of Castile died in late 1504, and Archduke Philipp and Infanta Juana went to Castile to claim the crown. Archduke Philipp of Austria is considered Felipe I of Castile (Spain).

At the death of Philipp (Felipe) in 1506, Charles was recognized Lord of the Netherlands with the title of Charles II of Burgundy. During his childhood and teen years, Charles lived in Mechelen together with his sisters Mary, Eleanor, and Isabella at the court of his aunt Margaret of Austria, Duchess of Savoy. Despite being at his aunt’s court Charles was young and alone. Juana could not return to act as regent because her unstable mental state and her Castilian subjects would not allow their ruler to abandon the kingdom.

Fernando II of Aragon took control of all the Spanish kingdoms, under the pretext of protecting Charles’s rights, which in reality he wanted to elude, but his new marriage with Germaine de Foix failed to produce a surviving Trastámara heir to the throne. With his father dead and his mother confined, Charles became Duke of Burgundy and was recognized as Prince of Asturias (heir presumptive of Spain) and honorific Archduke (heir apparent of Austria).

Preoccupied with German affairs, Margaret’s father, ruler of the Holy Roman Empire Maximillian I, named Margaret governor of the Low Countries and guardian of Charles in 1507, along with her nieces Eleanor, Isabella and Mary. She became the only woman elected as its ruler by the representative assembly of Franche-Comté, with her title confirmed in 1509.

Some report that Margaret was considered a foreigner because of her childhood at the French court. According to Blockmans and others though, Margaret, Philip as well as Charles were considered autochthonous; only Maximilian was always a foreigner. The Governess served as an intermediary between her father and her nephew’s subjects in the Netherlands from her newly built palace at Mechelen. During a remarkably successful career, she broke new ground for women rulers.

Margaret soon found herself at war with France over the question of Charles’s requirement to pay homage to the French king for the County of Flanders (which was outside the Empire; and while a long-standing portion of the inherited Burgundian titles & provinces, legally still within France).

In response, she persuaded Emperor Maximilian to end the war with King Louis XII. On November 1508, she journeyed to Cambrai to assist in the formation of the League of Cambrai, which ended (for a time) the possibility of a French invasion of the Low Countries, redirecting French attention to Northern Italy.

By 1512, she told her father that the Netherlands existed on peace and trade, and thus she would declare neutrality while using foreign armies and funds to wage wars. She played the key role in bringing together the participants of Holy League: Pope Julius II, the Swiss, Henry VIII of England, Fernando II of Aragon and her father Maximilian (he joined the League only as Emperor, as not as guardian of his grandson Charles and thus, the Low Countries’ neutrality was maintained). The league targeted France. The treaty also would not prevent the more adventurous Netherlands seigneurs from serving under Maximilian and Henry when they attacked the French later.

The Spanish inheritance, resulting from a dynastic union of the crowns of Castile and Aragon, included Spain as well as the Castilian West Indies and the Aragonese kingdoms of Naples, Sicily, and Sardinia. Joanna inherited these territories in 1516 in a condition of mental illness.

Charles, therefore, claimed the crowns for himself jure matris, thus becoming co-monarch of Joanna with the title of Carlos I of Castile and Aragon or Carlos I of Spain. Castile and Aragon together formed the largest of Charles’s personal possessions, and they also provided a great number of generals and tercios (the formidable Spanish infantry of the time). However, at his accession to the throne, Charles was viewed as a foreign prince.

In 1519, Margaret’s father, Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I died and his grandson, Charles II of Burgundy (Carlos I of Spain) inherited the Austrian hereditary lands in 1519, as Charles I of Austria, and obtained the election as Holy Roman Emperor against the candidacy of the French King François I. Since the Imperial election, he was known as Emperor Charles V even outside of the Empire and the Habsburg motto A.E.I.O.U. (“Austria Est Imperare Orbi Universo”; “it is Austria’s destiny to rule the world”) acquired political significance.

In 1520, Emperor Charles V made Margaret his governor-general in gratitude for her services. She was the only regent he ever re-appointed indefinitely from 1519 until her death in on 1 December 1530.

Her queenly virtues helped her to play the role of diplomat and peace-maker, as well as guardian and educator of future rulers, whom Maximilian called “our children” or “our common children” in letters to Margaret. This was a model that developed as part of the solution for the emerging Habsburg composite monarchy and would continue to serve later generations. As an older relative and former guardian, she had more power with Emperor Charles V than with her father Maximilian, who treated her cordially but occasionally acted in a threatening manner.

On November 15, 1530, Margaret stepped on a piece of broken glass. She initially thought little of the injury but gangrene set in and the leg had to be amputated. She decided to arrange all her affairs first, designating Charles V as her sole heir and writing him a letter in which she asked him to maintain peace with France and England. On the night of November 30, the doctors came to operate on her. They gave her a dose of opium to lessen the pain, but the dosage was reportedly so strong that she did not wake up again. She passed away between midnight and one o’clock. So basically her doctors accidentally overdosed her.

She was buried alongside her second husband at Bourg-en-Bresse, in the mausoleum of the Royal Monastery of Brou that she previously commissioned

December 5, 1496: King Manuel I of Portugal and the Expulsion of the Jews of Portugal.

Tags

antisemitism, Expulsion, Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, Jews, John II of Portugal, King Manuel I of Portugal, Lisbon Massacre, Pope Julius II, Pope Leo X, The Golden Rose

Manuel I (May 31, 1469 – December 13, 1521), known as the Fortunate was King of Portugal from 1495 to 1521. A member of the House of Aviz, Manuel was Duke of Beja and Viseu prior to succeeding his cousin, João II of Portugal, as monarch.

Manuel was the ninth child of Ferdinand, Duke of Viseu and Beatriz of Portugal. His father, Ferdinand, was the son of Duarte, King of Portugal and the brother of Afonso V of Portugal, while his mother, Beatriz, was granddaughter of King João I of Portugal. In addition, his sister Eleanor of Viseu was the wife of King João II of Portugal.

As King Manuel ruled over a period of intensive expansion of the Portuguese Empire owing to the numerous Portuguese discoveries made during his reign. His sponsorship of Vasco da Gama led to the Portuguese discovery of the sea route to India in 1498, resulting in the creation of the Portuguese India Armadas, which guaranteed Portugal’s monopoly on the spice trade.

Manuel began the Portuguese colonization of the Americas and Portuguese India, and oversaw the establishment of a vast trade empire across Africa and Asia. He was also the first monarch to bear the title: By the Grace of God, King of Portugal and the Algarves, and the Sea from Both Sides of Africa, Lord of Guinea and the Conquest, Navigation and Commerce in Ethiopia, Arabia, Persia and India.

Manuel was a very religious man and invested a large amount of Portuguese income to send missionaries to the new colonies, among them Francisco Álvares, and sponsor the construction of religious buildings, such as the Monastery of Jerónimos. Manuel also endeavoured to promote another crusade against the Turks.

His relationship with the Portuguese Jews started out well. At the outset of his reign, he released all the Jews who had been made captive during the reign of João II. Unfortunately for the Jews, he decided that he wanted to marry Infanta Isabella of Aragon, then heiress of the future united crown of Spain (and widow of his nephew Prince Afonso).

Infanta Isabella’s parents were Fernando II of Aragon and Isabella of Cashad and they had expelled the Jews in 1492 and refused to marry their daughter to the king of a country that still tolerated their presence. In the marriage contract, Manuel I agreed to persecute the Jews of Portugal.

On December 5, 1496, it was decreed that all Jews either convert to Christianity or leave the country without their children. However, those expelled could only leave the country in ships specified by the king. When those who chose expulsion arrived at the port in Lisbon, they were met by clerics and soldiers who tried to use coercion and promises in order to baptize them and prevent them from leaving the country.

This period of time technically ended the presence of Jews in Portugal. Afterwards, all converted Jews and their descendants would be referred to as “New Christians”, and they were given a grace period of thirty years in which no inquiries into their faith would be allowed; this was later extended to end in 1534.

During the course of the Lisbon massacre of 1506, people invaded the Jewish Quarter and murdered thousands of accused Jews; the leaders of the riot were executed by Manuel.

The Lisbon massacre (alternatively known as the Lisbon pogrom or the 1506 Easter Slaughter) took place in April, 1506, in Lisbon in the Kingdom of Portugal. A crowd of Catholics, and foreign sailors who were anchored in the Tagus, persecuted, tortured, killed, and burnt at the stake hundreds of people who were accused of being Jews, and consequently deemed guilty of deicide and heresy.

Ironically Manuel I was awarded the Golden Rose by Pope Julius II in 1506 and by Pope Leo X in 1514. Manuel I became the first individual to receive more than one Golden Rose after Emperor Sigismund von Luxembourg.

The Golden Rose is a gold ornament, which popes of the Catholic Church have traditionally blessed annually. It is occasionally conferred as a token of reverence or affection. Recipients have included churches and sanctuaries, royalty, military figures, and governments.

Henry VIII: What did he really know and believe. Conclusion.

Tags

Anne Boleyn, Arthur Prince of Wales, Catherine of Aragon, hantavirus, King Henry VIII of England, Pope Julius II

I think my background in psychology is helping me understand Henry VIII during this crucial time in history. I will not bore you with the psychoanalysis but I will mention some of what I think is at play for Henry. Henry VIII certainly was a man for his times. A stated in my initial post on this subject, the way women were seen and treated played a large role in the circumstances. What really surprised me about the role in which women played not only at court but in all society at the time, which was a rigid social hierarchy, was that they too bought into the belief system that they were the inferior sex and that their place in life was divinely ordained. The truth is all saw that their station in life was divinely ordained. So if you were a man or a woman, a Pauper or a Prince, you were obligated to function in that role as a means of carrying out God’s ideal of an ordered and civilized society.

I think this did shape and form much of Henry VIII’s worldview and thinking. In the hierarchy of civil society the King was there on his throne by the Will of God. That is why, centuries later, the killing of King Charles I was such a cultural shock and a demonstration that people’s thinking was changing. With Henry at the top of the proverbial food chain he was not answerable to his subjects but to God only. It does seem that Henry did have strong religious convictions. He also saw his role as being King be the Grace of God and ultimately he was only answerable to him. This is what placed the king in a quandary.

The politics of early to mid 16th century England was that of a country still reeling from the results of the Wars of the Roses, a civil war for the throne of England. Although he had a daughter, the future Queen Mary I, he was still convinced that a woman was not strong enough to rule England. He needed sons to secure the succession and to stabilize the Tudor family on the English throne fearing that without a son the country would quickly relapse into a civil war. Henry also had quite the eye. Breaking his marriage vows and having a mistress was easily justified. Justification and denial are classic defense mechanisms which Henry employed. With women viewed as property they were there just for Henry to use as he pleased. After all, he was the King.

Although I do not blame Anne Boleyn for her execution, she certainly does seem like a victim of Henry’s authority, I do place some responsibility on her for the divorce from Catherine of Aragon. Anne was not content, like her sister, Mary Boleyn, to be Henry’s mistress. Anne did have higher ambitions. However, that does bring me to one of those unanswerable questions of history. Would Henry have divorced Catherine had Anne agreed to be his mistress? In many ways this question is unanswerable, however, my opinion is that the divorce would have happened anyway because the ultimate goal for Henry was to beget sons. Anne just provided the motivation to pursue the divorces

In the end Henry saw that his kingly duty to God and his country was to provide for a stable throne and to secure a peaceful transition of government upon his death. He was a man of his times and acted in accordance to those beliefs that many in society held at the time. This divorce can also been seen as the first step in the downward spiral of Henry VIII. Prior to that he was the embodiment of an early Renascence King. However, as he grew in power that power corrupted him to be come the bloody tyrant known to history.

Henry VIII: What did he really know & believe? Part 2

Tags

Anne Boleyn, Arthur Prince of Wales, Catherine of Aragon, hantavirus, King Henry VIII of England, Pope Julius II

Last week I examined how Henry VIII justified his divorce from Catherine of Aragon from a Scriptural point of view. One of the issues hinging on that Scriptural point of view was whether or not Catherine’s marriage to Arthur, Prince of Wales was consummated or not. For her entire life Catherine maintained that her marriage to Arthur was never consummated. I really do not doubt her much…however there are some questions I want to examine.

Arthur was 15 at the time of his marriage to Catherine in November of 1501. Catherine was one month shy of turning 16. After a 5 day wedding feast the couple were bedded together in which most of the court put the young couple to bed in an elaborate ceremony. The next morning Arthur is alleged to have said that he was “in Spain” that night suggesting that the marriage had indeed been consummated. However the marriage did not last long. Arthur died the next spring on April 2, 1502. The cause of his death is unknown but it has been theorized that he may have had consumption, diabetes, or the mysterious sweating sickness, which some modern theorists tie to a hantavirus a virus that has entirely been linked to human contact with rodent excrement.

Was Arthur too sick at the time to consummate his marriage? If not that first night than any of the nights over the next 5 months they were together? (Arthur’s illness)

Another question, and I apologize if this seems crass, wouldn’t Henry VIII himself know that his wife was a virgin when he married her? That is a difficult question to answer. Only Catherine and Henry truly knew. However, if Henry knew that his was, Catherine, was indeed a virgin, then that really paints a picture of his character. For if he knew, through personal experience, that Catherine was indeed a virgin then his lies and attempts to paint her as a liar are cruel and heartless.

Henry VIII: What did he really know & believe? Part 1

Tags

Anne Boleyn, Arthur Prince of Wales, Catherine of Aragon, King Henry VIII of England, Pope Julius II

I have been reading a lot about the Tudor period of English history. It is a rich mine for historians to delve into. What has been very interesting to me are the circumstances surrounding his divorce of his first wife, Catherine of Aragon. One of the major points that Henry used in justifying this divorce was that Catherine was never his legal wife because she indeed did have sexual relations with her first husband, Arthur, Prince of Wales, elder brother of Henry VIII. Even though Pope Julius II granted the couple a dispensation in December of 1503 (6 years before the actual marriage) Henry VIII stated that despite the Pope’s dispensation God was punishing him for marrying his brother’s widow, something forbidden in the Book of Leviticus. In Henry’s mind this punishment took the form of no sons resulting from the union and many miscarriages and still-births.

This justification from Henry has always raised several questions for me. Did Henry truly believe that God was punishing him, or was that just the excuse he needed to divorce his wife to marry Anne Boleyn? Catherine maintained all her life that she and Arthur never consummated their marriage. Would Henry have been able to tell if his wife was a virgin when they married? These are a couple of the questions I want to examine. Was it possible that Catherine was lying?

I will look at the first issue today: What were the religious beliefs of King Henry VIII? First of all, today we know that it is the male sperm that determines the sex of the baby. Henry blamed everyone but himself. I guess the ego of a powerful King of England would allow him to see that maybe he was part of the problem? Society was much more religious than it is today. In those days religious superstitions were more rampant as science had yet to supplant these age-old wives tails. Therefore attributing the lack of sons as evidence of divine punishment.

However devout Henry’s religious beliefs were, and I have no doubt he was a sincere Catholic, he does exhibit inconsistencies in his beliefs. Those inconsistencies are pretty easy to explain. Although devout as a Catholic and his faith in God it was easy for him to justify his affairs and his natural children because that was his right as a man and a king. Underwriting much of his beliefs were societies attitude toward woman and the need for social order. At the time Henry lived women were seen as inferior to men and their property with only the rights allowed them by men. Therefore this societal view gave Henry every right to use women for his sexual proclivities. As you go up in the hierarchy of society this behavior was not frowned upon..at least when it remained private.

Another important belief of Henry’s was the belief in social order and social structure. These beliefs also had divine origin. Henry was a supporter of the theory of the divine right of kings in that he was on the throne by the Will of God and that he was answerable only to God himself and not any man. Henry also believed that this belief lead to the stratification of society and that everyone was born to a certain station to fulfill God’s will and maintaining this social order was vitally important to the stabilization of a civil society.

Therefore in light of all of this Henry believed that it was the right of the woman to obey him in all areas including his desire to divorce. He saw his lack of thriving sons as divine punishment and he saw that it was his wife’s duty to step aside to allow him to sire healthy sons to continue the succession. For at the heart of this matter was keeping his realm stable. The Tudors had come to the throne after decades of civil war over who should possess the throne. Despite having a thriving daughter Henry feared that without a son the throne would be vulnerable for reigniting the War of the Roses.

Henry also believed in the sanctity of marriage…despite his affairs divorce was seen as a sin. Therefore he needed to find scriptural justification to divorce his wife. This justification was found in Leviticus 20:21 “‘If a man marries his brother’s wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.” Even though Pope Julius II gave the couple a dispensation to marry, Henry firmly believe that no man could undo God’s laws.  Therefore to Henry he was never his wife’s legal husband and he was free to marry.

There was one other related issue that assured Henry that Catherine of Aragon was not his lawful wife. For in order for the Levitical injunction to apply to Catherine and himself would be the fact that Catherine indeed consummated her union with his brother, Arthur, Prince of Wales. If the union was never consummated, as Catherine claimed, than Henry and Catherine were legally wed. If the marriage had been consummated than Henry did have scriptural grounds for a divorce as he saw it.

This leads us to our next question which I will examine next week: Was the union between Catherine and Prince Arthur consummated?

The Honours of Scotland

Tags

James IV King of Scots, James V King of Scots, James VII King of Scots, kings and queens of Scotland, Oliver Cromwell, Pope Alexander VI, Pope Julius II, Roderic de Borja, The Honours of Scotland

The Honours of Scotland

I wanted to continue my examination of regalia. There are so many more examples of regalia that I like that I will feature more in the coming weeks. This week I wanted to view the Honours of Scotland. Many people know of the crown jewels of England that are sitting in the Jewel House in the Tower of London. However, those are not the only Crown Jewels in the British Isles. Up in the Crown Room of Edinburgh Castle are the regalia of Scotland known as the Honours of Scotland. They consist of the Crown of Scotland, the Scepter, and the Sword of State. These three elements also are depicted on the crest of the Royal coat of arms of Scotland. The red Lion representing the King of Scots wears the Crown while holding both the Sword and the Scepter. The regalia in this collection is older than the ones in London.

The Crown of Scotland.

The Crown of Scotland was made in 1540 for James V, King of Scots (1515-1542) and was made from an existing crown built in 1503. The original crown was damaged and falling apart. The King ordered e royal goldsmith, John Mosman to fashion a new crown. The old crown was dismantled and the gold was melted down and used for the new crown. Made from solid gold, the crown has a base that is set with four alternating fleur-de-lis and four strawberry leaves. Four arches that cap the crown are decorated with gold and red oak leaves. Where the four arches intersect at the top of the crown is a a gold monde that is painted blue with gold stars. On top of the monde is a large cross decorated in gold and black enamel and pearls. The crown is bejeweled with 22 gemstones, ranging from arnets and amethysts and 68 Scottish freshwater pearls. James V had included a purple and ermine bonnet from inside the crown but James VII changed the bonnet from purple to red. I personally would like the purple bonnet which has been changed though the centuries as they have worn out. The present bonnet was made in 1993. The crown weighs 3 lb 10 oz.

This crown was used during the reign of James V (he wore it for the coronation of his second wife Mary of Guise the year the crown was manufactured) and subsequent coronations including Charles II as King of Scots in 1651. While the English regalia was destroyed during the Commonwealth period after the abolition of the monarchy in 1649 some resourceful and smart thinking Scot had the regalia buried until the restoration of the monarchy in 1660. In 1707 the Honours of Scotland were packed away in Edinburgh Castle where they were forgotten for over a century. They were found in 1818 by Sir Walter Scott and since 1819 they have been placed on display in the Crown Room of Edinburgh Castle. The crown has been used from time to time on State occasions such as the first opening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999.

The Sword of State

The Sword of Sate was a gift to James IV, King of Scots (1473-1513) from Pope Julius II (1443-1513). The blade of the sword is 4 ½ feet long and carved with the figures of St. Peter and St. Paul along with the name of Pope Julius II. The handle is made of silver is carved with figures of oak leaves and acorns. The sword was broken in half in order to be hidden from Cromwell’s men in 1652 and was repaired afterward.

The Scepter.

The Scepter was also a gift to James IV, King of Scots by Pope Alexander VI (the infamous Roderic de Borja) (1431-1503). The scepter was given as a gift in 1494, and has gone through some renovations and remodeling such as in 1536 when it was lengthened. The scepter is made of silver gilt and contains many Christian symbol, ranging from dolphins which are symbols of the Church, images of the Virgin Mary holding the baby Jesus. Also depicted are St. James the Great and St. Andrew (the patron saint of Scotland) holding a saltire. The head of the rod is topped by a finial with polished rock, experts theorize it is a Cairngorm, and a Scottish pearl.

This simple yet elegant collection of regalia is simply beautiful. If ever Scotland achieves independence and shares a monarch once again with England (or perhaps a monarch of their own) I would love to see the crown once again sit atop the head of a King or Queen of Scots.