There is hardly outright hostility in Scotland to Union of 1603, which would likely have turned out differently if an English king had been on Scottish throne, but truth is that Scots can and do celebrate. The ancient Stuart dynasty, a family of kings dating back to distant prehistoric times, has greatly expanded its ancestral heritage.
However, this celebration is overshadowed, so to speak, by fears and anxieties. Indeed, while publications discussed below trumpet antiquity and succession of Scottish crown in terms of optimism and certainty, they can also be seen as symptoms of anxiety about Scotland's future place in Union.
This fear is hardly allayed by king's expressed desire for a "full" or "perfect" union that would unite Scots and English into something more than sum of their parts. James's New Britain and New British Subjects, as proclaimed in his oft-quoted speeches to British Parliament, would unite ancient racial identities and hatreds into a new, presumably unified, British kingdom and nation.
However, as Conrad Russell put it, James' "ideal" union did not conflict, at least in short term, with continued existence of separate political and legal institutions in his multiple monarchy.
James was preoccupied with issue of indivisible succession, anticipating possibility of collapse of Union, and consequently insisted that his ascension to the British throne virtually created a unified political institution : he would not be, as he famously said, "a polygamist and a husband of two wives."
However, for British MPs practicing law, and no doubt for their Scottish MPs, he used royal prerogative to carry out his British plans - minting new British coins, inventing a new Union Jack and, above all, adopting a new British title - one that smacks of despotism and threatens authority of parliament and law.
The new British title of king, "King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of Faith," has become a bone of contention in both countries because British MPs fear they won't be named after Great Britain. Scots, known to British as English.
As already implied, UK is not a neutral geographic descriptor for Scots. On contrary, it is imbued with connotations of British superiority which originated in Geoffrey Monmouth's 12th-century History of Britain and is deeply rooted in so-called history of Britain, which is based on Geoffrey's work and reaches Tudors in successive editions of Raphael. Chronicle of 1577 and 1587 Hollingshed. Mythology of Late Dynasty.
If Hollingshade's text is polyphonic, his strident voice, William Harrison, is not ashamed to see Britain as Anglo-centric and Scotland as British crown territory.
Even scientific work of William Camden Britain, first published in 1586, was met with hostility by Scots, because it does not disprove this assumption - in fact, it largely idea that Britain is just England contributes to degree.
Such fears of British rule and annexation of Scots by British into a greater British Empire were not uncommon after 1603. an unabashed antipathy towards British further fueled this fear and did little to further King's British plans.
The Scottish fears were perhaps best expressed by Edinburgh jurist John Russell, who in 1604 wrote Unionon's Treatise on Happiness and Happiness, in which he expressed his sincere concern that Scotland might lose your sovereign. status and become "canopy of England".
While few spoke so clearly of potential loss of Scottish sovereignty, union was marked by a series of patriotic publications that highlighted Stuart dynasty and made a determined effort to educate Scotland and Scots about Scotland and its uniqueness, especially to British audiences.
Actually, this is a slightly revised version of Waldgrave's book, published in Edinburgh in 1594, which follows tripartite organization of original, that is, it begins in Scotland. "Family tree" of kings, from Fergus I, who supposedly founded kingdom in 330 BC, to his 108th direct successor, James VI.
This series of kings is backbone of Scotland's useful past, which was designed and deployed to showcase kingdom's history and continued independence from England. It is not surprising that it is included as a mark of Scotland's uniqueness, although it is even more surprising that series of royal editions that appeared in 1603 edition owes much to George Buchanan, king's former tutor, whose Rerum Scoticarum Historia first appeared in 1582, but was outlawed by King James two years later due to his deeply subversive policies and cruel portrayal of James' mother, Queen Mary: Scots as bloodthirsty prostitutes.
Despite toxicity of his policies, Buchanan was a cultural giant among educated Scots, and his influence, though often unacknowledged, was widespread and, in fact, Cetena constitute first volume of his History.
Although his authorship has never been acknowledged, authentic accounts of all of Canteria, Scotland complete royal genealogy, providing a detailed account of kingdom that Fergus's descendants ruled for nearly two millennia.
In between these two derivatives, however, lies another piece of evidence of a more original and Scottish uniqueness. This includes a detailed "who's who" breakdown of Scotland's landed elite, from nobles to a long list of barons, lords and nobles compiled by magistrates, and then miscellaneous information relating to local administrations, royal boroughs and legal institutions.
Despite fact that there are no systemic irregularities in Scottish government, it provides important information about a self-evident independent kingdom. In addition to Certeine Matters, other publications appeared around time of founding of Union announcing ancient status of Kingdom of Scotland and hinting at an independent sovereign status.
In 1602, John Johnston, Andrew Melville's colleague at St. Mary's College, St. Andrews, published his Historical Inscriptions in Amsterdam. It consists of an elegant collection of neo-Latin verses celebrating (and moralizing) life of every Scottish king from Fergus I to James VI, including his sons and would-be successors Prince Henry.
Johnston follows Buchanan's list of kings with one exception that will no doubt make his sources very happy. Although Mary, Queen of Scots is included in list, she is not listed, but appears innumerable between her father James V (106th King of Scotland) and her son James VI (107th).
In addition, inscription is especially notable for nine engraved portraits of Stuart monarchs from Robert II to James VI, including Mary, and a tenth portrait of Anne of Denmark. Not surprisingly, Johnston's book was reprinted after Union, but portrait took on a life of its own outside of the inscription.
In 1602 Andro Hart, an Edinburgh bookseller, organized publication in Amsterdam of a small book called Vera Description Augustissimae Stewartorum Familiae Booklet, which includes ten engravings and a brief description of what they depict .
However, image of James himself is completely new, and he is now depicted as more mature, in full armor. The same image also appears in True Description of Steward Noble Race, again printed in Amsterdam, this time with a description of each Stewart in vernacular, accompanied by their portraits.
It was reissued in 1603 with addition of a cartouche over portrait of James VI and following caption: "Now he is England, Scotland, France and present King Ireland., he was first ruler, as well as 37th year of his reign in Scotland".
This does not exhaust range of publications that brought about events of 1603 to flatter Stuarts and/or provide information about their historical kingdom. As we shall see later, Thomas Craig also wrote a large number of eulogies.
In addition, Fowler's True Report of Henry's baptism has been reprinted, and, more commonly, James' own Basilicon Doron. Several publications appeared in London press.
However, no matter how much ruling elite of England knew about their new king and his Scottish kingdom, Scots themselves were still very worried about their place in Stuart composite monarchy. Before 1607the Scottish Parliament, gravely alarmed at way in which English MPs such as Edwin Sandys seemed eager to advance coalition, wrote to King expressing their grave concern:
Her Majesty and kindred souls of kingdom would not be so ridiculous, and maidens, turning it into a conquered and Slavic province, ruled by a viceroy or viceroy, king of province of Spines. Right or wrong, Scots seem to have considered practice of Spanish monarchy to appoint viceroys, who represented crown in many of its dominions, as a symbol of conquest and unification, and therefore quite inconsistent with principles of union.
In fact, word "province" itself is seen as a pejorative connotation, degrading and erasing Scotland's true status. Three years earlier, in July 1604, Scottish Parliament had made its position very clear by appointing a Commissioner who would meet with his English counterparts to advance king's plans for closer union.
Since it was task of Commissioners at time to ensure that any closer "pairing" should not "prejudge or prejudice fundamental laws of realm, ancient privileged offices and liberties", since any such violation would mean that " it will not be a Friulian monarchy.” Among more than three dozen high-ranking peers, clergy and government officials who were appointed to committee and helped draft joint document later that year was "Master Thomas Craig, Attorney".