Your cart is currently empty!
The Queen’s Son, The Power’s Pawn: The Betrayal of Mary, Queen of Scots

Summary
History is shaped as much by what is erased as by what is recorded. Mary, Queen of Scots was not just a tragic figure. She was a powerful ruler whose influence threatened the balance of power in Britain. Her greatest loss was not her crown but her son, James VI, who was taken from her as an infant and raised by those who sought to erase her legacy. His education ensured he would serve their interests, not hers.
Under James, Protestant rule was solidified, Scotland’s independence weakened, and the King James Bible became not just a religious text, but a tool of political control. His story is not just about a king. It is a lesson in how power removes strong women, isolates their heirs, and rewrites history to serve its own ends.
The Theft of a Son: How James VI Was Taken from Mary, Queen of Scots
In 1567, Mary, Queen of Scots was forced to abdicate after being accused of involvement in the murder of her husband, Lord Darnley. The charges were politically motivated, and much of the so-called evidence, including the infamous Casket Letters, was likely forged by her enemies to justify her removal. Her thirteen-month-old son, James VI, was taken from her and crowned King of Scotland, ensuring she would have no role in shaping his future. She was imprisoned in Loch Leven Castle, held under strict confinement, and completely cut off from her child.
James was raised by a council of Protestant lords who worked to erase Mary’s influence and shape his loyalty to their cause. His education was led by George Buchanan, a scholar who openly despised Mary and taught James that kings should answer to their subjects, a principle applied only when it served those in power. Buchanan portrayed Mary as a failed ruler and an unfit mother, ensuring that James saw her as a danger rather than his own mother.
For nearly nineteen years, Mary, Queen of Scots, remained in captivity, first in Scotland and later in England under the orders of Queen Elizabeth I. She wrote numerous letters pleading for the chance to see her son, James VI. In one such letter to Elizabeth, she lamented, “What advantage and honour can you hope for in allowing them to keep us, my son and me, so long separated, and him and me from you?” But her requests were ignored, and James was raised in a tightly controlled environment where he was repeatedly told that his mother was not only a failure as a ruler, but was also unfit as a mother.

Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, at Fotheringhay Castle, by Albrecht de Vriendt, 1867, Public domain in the United States and its country of origin, via Wikimedia Commons
Despite being raised to see his mother as a political liability, James VI attempted to intervene before her execution. In January 1587, he wrote to Elizabeth I, urging her to spare Mary’s life, warning that the execution of an anointed queen would set a dangerous precedent:
“What law of God can permit that justice shall strike upon them whom He has appointed supreme dispensators of the same under Him?”
He appealed to Elizabeth’s reputation, arguing that mercy would bring her honor and strengthen her standing among European rulers:
“Honor were it to you to spare when it is least looked for… to take me and all other princes in Europe eternally beholden unto you.”
But his appeals went unanswered. Elizabeth signed the death warrant, and Mary was executed on February 8, 1587. Though James had pleaded for her life, he did little to restore her legacy after her death. Whether his letter was a genuine effort or a calculated move to protect his own future remains uncertain, but in the end, he allowed history to be written by those who had orchestrated her downfall.
Mary’s removal from James’s life was not just a personal tragedy. It was a calculated strategy to sever their bond and consolidate the power of those who had overthrown her. This method of control has been used throughout history, not just in royal courts but in colonial regimes and political power struggles across time.
The Figures Who Shaped James VI
When James VI was taken from his mother and she was imprisoned, his future was no longer his own. He may have been crowned King of Scotland as an infant, but real power rested with the men who raised him. His education was carefully designed not just to prepare him for rule, but to erase Mary’s influence and ensure his loyalty lay with those who had overthrown her.
Mary, having spent most of her youth in France, had little personal connection with many of the Scottish nobles who now controlled her son. To them, she was an outsider, someone who had never truly belonged in Scotland, let alone deserved to rule it. This distance made it easier for them to frame her as a reckless and dangerous queen, unfit for both the throne and motherhood.
The most powerful figure in James’s early life was James Stewart, Earl of Moray, his mother’s half-brother and Scotland’s first regent. Moray controlled the government in James’s name and worked to sever any remaining bond between mother and son. His rule ensured that Mary was cast as a failed monarch whose removal had been necessary for Scotland’s stability.
George Buchanan, James’s tutor, was equally influential. A strict Calvinist and outspoken critic of monarchy, Buchanan drilled into James the idea that kings should be accountable to their subjects, a principle selectively applied to justify Mary’s downfall while reinforcing Protestant control over Scotland. Through Buchanan’s teachings, James was encouraged to see his mother not as a rightful queen, but as a ruler whose mistakes had cost her the throne.

John Knox debating with soldiers, by Karl Schorn, via Wikimedia Commons
Though John Knox, the firebrand Protestant reformer, died when James was still a child, his influence was far from diminished. Knox had spent years denouncing Mary as a Catholic threat and declaring that female rulers were an affront to divine order. His writings and sermons continued to shape the worldview of those raising James, ensuring that his reign would be positioned as a divine correction to his mother’s supposed failures.
Meanwhile, the Earl of Mar, who physically controlled James’s upbringing at Stirling Castle, ensured that Mary had no access to her son. Her letters were intercepted, and those loyal to her were kept away. James was raised in an environment where his mother was little more than a distant memory, and even that memory was carefully curated by the men who had betrayed her.
Finally, Patrick Adamson, Archbishop of St. Andrews, reinforced Protestant theology in James’s education, preparing him not just to rule but to use religion as a tool of governance. James would later assert his divine authority as king, despite being raised on Buchanan’s teachings of limited monarchy, an ironic contradiction that would define much of his reign.
By the time James reached adulthood, the foundation had been laid. He had been raised to reject his mother’s rule, to embrace Protestant supremacy, and to see himself as a king whose duty was not just to govern Scotland but to uphold the power structure that had shaped him. Whether he ever questioned the version of history he had been taught remains unknown.
The Psychological Impact: How Maternal Separation Shapes Lives
Taking children from their mothers has been used as a weapon for centuries, leaving lasting effects on individuals, families, and entire communities. Research shows that early separation from a primary caregiver, especially a mother, has profound and long-term consequences on psychological development, emotional regulation, and overall well-being. From historical examples like James VI of Scotland to modern policies that separate families, the consequences of this practice are well-documented.
The long-term impact of maternal separation can be seen even in historical figures. James VI of Scotland, later James I of England, was taken from his mother, Mary, Queen of Scots, as a baby and never saw her again. Raised by a revolving door of guardians, he grew up in an emotionally unstable environment where he was constantly manipulated for political purposes. Contemporary accounts describe him as anxious, socially awkward, and highly paranoid. He exhibited a deep mistrust of those around him, an obsessive fear of betrayal, and an extreme need for control, which are traits that researchers now recognize in children who endure early separation from their mothers.
Modern psychology confirms what history has long suggested. A study published in Preventive Medicine found that adverse childhood experiences, including forced separation, significantly increase the risk of chronic diseases, depression, and anxiety in adulthood. Another study in Attachment & Human Development found that early mother-child separation leads to higher levels of aggression, emotional distress, and attachment issues in children. These findings align with historical cases, demonstrating that separation is not simply a traumatic childhood event but a formative experience that shapes a person’s entire life.

Alaska Native girls in boarding school uniforms between 1908 and 1918 after the forced separation from their families, 1913, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
The same patterns appear today in children forcibly separated from their families due to immigration policies and mass incarceration. A 2023 study on migration policies found that children taken from their parents experience much higher rates of anxiety, PTSD, and emotional distress. The intergenerational trauma of forced separations has also been documented in indigenous communities, where descendants of boarding school survivors continue to experience high rates of depression, substance use disorders, and difficulty forming secure attachments.
Historical and contemporary evidence consistently show that maternal separation has long-term psychological effects. The bond between a mother and child is not just emotional, but foundational to a child’s ability to trust, form relationships, and regulate emotions throughout life. When that bond is broken, the damage is often lifelong, affecting not only the individual but also future generations.
The Union of the Crowns: How James VI Prioritized England Over Scotland
James VI was born to rule Scotland, but his upbringing ensured his loyalty lay elsewhere. After his mother, Mary, Queen of Scots, was forced to abdicate, he was separated from her and raised under Protestant regents who molded him into a ruler sympathetic to their cause. Historian Jenny Wormald notes that his education and governance were shaped by advisors who prioritized Protestant and English-aligned policies, distancing him from Scotland’s traditional power structures.
When James became King of England in 1603, he increasingly favored England’s ruling elite over Scotland’s nobility. Pauline Croft details how he surrounded himself with English courtiers, granting them influence while sidelining Scottish leaders. Though Scotland and England remained technically separate, James’s policies placed Scotland under English influence. His English Parliament resisted full union but supported measures that reinforced English control over shared governance. Meanwhile, James rarely visited Scotland, instead delegating authority to royal officials, further weakening Scottish political influence.
Scotland’s nobility, including its powerful noblewomen, had long shaped politics through marriage, estate management, and court influence. However, James’s preference for centralized monarchy disrupted these traditional power structures, aligning Scotland more closely with English political norms. In Basilikon Doron, a treatise written for his son in 1599, James promoted absolute rule, a model that better suited English governance than Scotland’s historically decentralized system. By advocating this approach, he ensured that Scotland’s political framework would evolve to serve English interests.

King James VI of Scotland and King James I of England, by John de Critz, 1604, via Wikimedia Commons
James’s reign set the stage for the Acts of Union in 1707, which permanently ended Scotland’s sovereignty. His own writings and policies reflect a long-term strategy to consolidate power under England, a shift that had lasting consequences for Scotland’s autonomy. Had James been raised under Mary’s guidance, he may have pursued a different path, one that protected Scotland’s sovereignty rather than paving the way for English dominance.
The King James Bible and Demonology: James VI’s Lasting Influence
While James VI is often remembered for the King James Bible, published in 1611, this translation was more than a religious text. It was a political tool that reinforced monarchical authority, Protestant doctrine, and state control over religious interpretation. To align the biblical canon with his vision, James and his advisors ensured that books containing themes of resistance or Catholic influence were excluded, including Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. These books, known as the Apocrypha, had been included in earlier versions of the Bible but were later removed from Protestant editions to solidify doctrinal control.
One of the most significant theological shifts in the King James Bible was the translation of Isaiah 14:12, which altered the original Hebrew reference to a Babylonian king and introduced the name Lucifer. The verse originally read, “How you have fallen from heaven, O Helel, son of the dawn,” but the King James translators rendered it as, “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning.” This mistranslation, influenced by the Latin Vulgate, reinforced the idea of Lucifer as a fallen angel, a concept that had not existed in earlier biblical texts. Over time, this single word change shaped Christian theology, permanently associating Lucifer with Satan.
Beyond biblical translation, James was deeply fascinated by witchcraft and the supernatural, culminating in his 1597 treatise Demonology. This text justified witch hunts and fueled the persecution of those accused of sorcery in both Scotland and England. His writings encouraged the belief that witchcraft was a direct threat to both the monarchy and religious order, contributing to the widespread fear that led to trials and executions.
Through both the King James Bible and Demonology, James VI used religious texts to shape belief systems, reinforcing a version of Christianity that served the interests of the ruling elite. His influence continues to be felt today, as interpretations of scripture and attitudes toward the supernatural still reflect the theological and political choices of his reign.
Erasing the Past to Control the Future
James VI’s rule reinforced the power structures that had removed his mother. Separated from Mary and shaped by those who overthrew her, he prioritized political stability over personal loyalty, governance over lineage, and obedience over autonomy.
Though framed as a religious conflict, the struggle was about power. Erasing influential women, severing maternal bonds, and rewriting history have long been tactics to maintain control. James’s advisors ensured his rule served their interests, not his mother’s legacy.

Mary, Queen of Scots Escaping from Lochleven Castle, by William Craig Shirreff, 1805, via Wikimedia Commons
Mary understood this. During captivity, she embroidered “In my end is my beginning,” a quiet defiance against those who sought to erase her. Though executed and cast from her son’s world, history has not forgotten her.
The past is often rewritten by those in power, but some stories refuse to be erased. These tactics persist today, silencing voices, controlling narratives, and reshaping history to serve those in control. Yet, as Mary’s legacy proves, truth has a way of resurfacing.
Share Your Perspective
Subscribe to Truthlytics today to stay informed and dive deeper into the issues that matter.
Already subscribed? Log in to join the conversation and share your thoughts in the comments below!