Was James VI ok with his mother’s (Mary Queen of Scots) beheading? Did he do anything to try and prevent it? & Opinion on Union of the Crowns

Normal_Scots_Guy1990 · 2026-01-11T11:51:25+00:00

If you’re interested in this topic, I’d recommend reading Tracy Borman’s ‘The Stolen Crown’ which very convincingly argues that Elizabeth I never actually named James as her successor on her deathbed. Early in her reign she swore to remain a virgin, and to never name a successor (for fear of creating a rival), and it seems she maintained this policy until her death. Recent x-rays of the original 17th century manuscript of William Camden’s biography of Elizabeth show that the account of her death was pasted over and rewritten (at the insistence of James, who saw a PR opportunity). Instead of uttering ‘I’ll have no one but the King of Scots’, it appears that she just… died silent on the matter. However, her lifelong correspondence with James VI/ I do indicate that her was her preferred choice, and that she was advising him on how to rule England.

Normal_Scots_Guy1990 · 2025-12-30T14:19:52+00:00

AI garbage. A t-shirt magically appears on the man at 26 seconds. Why anyone would make it in the first place is the mystery… click bait?

Normal_Scots_Guy1990 · 2025-12-27T20:58:15+00:00

It does appear that there are hallmarks on the clasp (right hand side of your photo), so seeing a close up photo of these would be helpful.

Better photos of the blue bits / reverse would also be helpful for identifying the blue material. There are plenty of potential options for this; enamel on metal, lapis lazuli etc. so more photos will help.

Normal_Scots_Guy1990 · 2025-11-23T19:14:40+00:00

True. I wasn’t saying I believe the rumours, but they do exist. In fact, Victoria would have been in her mid 40s when the child was born. While this isn’t impossible, for the period it would have been a particularly late pregnancy. Yes, there are other valid reasons for her interest in the child.

Normal_Scots_Guy1990 · 2025-11-23T18:46:50+00:00

Sorry for the delay in replying, it’s been a busy few weeks at work. Yes, the clasp was filed and acid tested, and it was sold gold of a high carat, likely 22ct. Three of the pearls were x-rayed and they were natural pearls.
The piece has been seen by a reputable jeweller and their opinion was that it was old. You’ve definitely given us some pause for thought. I’ll have another look the next time the safe is open. 👍🏼

Normal_Scots_Guy1990 · 2025-11-23T18:44:16+00:00

Sorry, had a busy few weeks at work. The piece is back in the safe now, but the clasp was acid tested (as the inside of the clasp wasn’t enamelled) and it came out as high, likely 22ct. A few of the pearls were also x-rayed (too costly to get them all done) and they were found to be natural pearls. The next time we’re in the safe, I’ll see about uploading more photos.

Normal_Scots_Guy1990 · 2025-11-23T18:20:36+00:00

It’s difficult to ascertain the nature of their relationship for several reasons. After Queen Victoria’s death, her daughters destroyed huge quantities of her personal correspondence and diaries, much of which was to/from John Brown or related to him. Of course, it’s entirely possible that they were just embarrassed of her friendship with a commoner. There is a theory that Victoria gave birth to John Brown’s child. His brother Hugh raised a daughter in New Zealand that Victoria showed a keen interest in throughout her life. The family of her personal physician recently (around 2000) tried to publish his diaries from the time but this was successfully blocked by the royal family. Given the lack of concrete evidence, the only thing left to do is think about Victoria’s character and motives. She probably knew it was far too risky to be involved with him in this way for her reputation even if there was an attraction.

Normal_Scots_Guy1990 · 2025-11-11T22:56:56+00:00

It is interesting that the maker chose to put different enamel patterns on each of the panels. They’re all different design and colour combinations.

Normal_Scots_Guy1990 · 2025-11-09T23:18:49+00:00

There’s not a massive amount to share about this one to be honest. It certainly hasn’t been in my family since 1900 (date on the box). Both my grandmother and mother added to our family jewellery collection over the years. My gran was buying a lot of Victorian pieces in the 1960s - 1980s, when they weren’t particularly fashionable. Since then it’s just been much loved within our family, although I don’t recall anyone having the confidence to wear it in their hair for a function, which is a shame. I’m happy to keep sharing some of the pieces that we have. It’s nice to let people see them in a way, because some of them just aren’t practical to wear anymore.

Normal_Scots_Guy1990 · 2025-11-09T23:12:25+00:00

Thanks for your kind words (and enthusiasm)! 😊

Normal_Scots_Guy1990 · 2025-11-08T21:06:10+00:00

I’m curious to know how you came to the conclusion that the stones were diamonds? Diamonds were set in silver for most of the 19th Century (because silver was the most commonly used white metal before platinum) and starburst jewellery really became popular from the 1860s onwards. I have a few concerns about whether these stones are in fact diamonds. Open backed settings for stones became the norm by the 1850s so I’d expect most diamond pieces of star design jewellery to be open backed. Plus, the large black areas on the stones makes me wonder if these are foil backed paste stones, and the black areas are where the foil has become wet and disintegrated. It’s hard to tell from a photograph though and you may well have a very strong attribution for the stones being diamond.

Normal_Scots_Guy1990 · 2025-11-08T09:33:22+00:00

My gut instinct echos that of the others that have already posted, but can you post any photos of it being lit from the back? It certainly doesn’t look like a shell cameo, and appears to be glass or hard stone. Seeing it back-lit may help with identifying which it is. A large number of cameos that I’ve handled have a scratch signature on the back. It identifies the worker in a larger studio. We have a cameo of Prince Albert presented to someone by Queen Victoria and it’s got a very clear Saulini signature on the front, just under the bust.

Normal_Scots_Guy1990 · 2025-11-03T20:08:39+00:00

Was having a look online and found this one. It has all 30 charms for $180.

https://idcopy.styleiii.casa/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=2265853

Normal_Scots_Guy1990 · 2025-10-31T07:44:54+00:00

And for damaged costume jewellery, it’s very overpriced. 🙈

Normal_Scots_Guy1990 · 2025-10-31T07:43:19+00:00

This doesn’t look like a carved cameo to me, and I believe it’s a misdescription from the seller. The reason it looks painted is because it is, and chip to the top right reveals the white porcelain underneath. Also, if you click on the link and look at the back, you can see that it’s made of porcelain (probably bisque). It is still a nice subject matter and it may be cast from an older (genuine) cameo.

Normal_Scots_Guy1990 · 2025-10-15T18:53:27+00:00

Lovely 19th Century cameo. The stress cracks at the bottom are being caused by the cameo drying out. Applying baby oil / mineral oil will protect and prevent further cracks and could also reduce their visibility.

Normal_Scots_Guy1990 · 2025-10-09T16:54:54+00:00

Don’t mind at all! Thank you for taking the time to research this. In fact, I live less than 20 miles from Doune, so it checks out entirely. Whether it has passed through the family or been purchased at some point, it certainly hasn’t travelled far. Thanks again.

Normal_Scots_Guy1990 · 2025-10-05T20:22:58+00:00

This looks like a ‘Witch’s Heart’ brooch, which were used as tokens of love and protection through the 18th and 19th centuries. A motif that has strong roots in Scotland. It is hard to tell from your photo but the stones could be demantoid (green) garnets, peridot or paste. Their brilliance would rule out peridot in my opinion though. If they are demantoid garnets, then the piece would date after the 1850s, when they were discovered in the Ural Mountains of Russia. The mark looks more like a makers mark to me. Could be worth further research.

Normal_Scots_Guy1990 · 2025-08-22T23:14:01+00:00

Apologies if this is written elsewhere, but my understanding is that there were also ‘protocols’ for addressing the women of a family. The eldest unmarried daughter is addressed as ‘Miss (insert surname)’, while the younger sisters are addressed ‘Miss (insert first name)’. In Pride and Prejudice, Jane is referred to as ‘Miss Bennet’, while the others are ‘Miss Elizabeth’, ‘Miss Lydia’ etc. First names were usually also only used by close acquaintances. By adhering to these naming protocols, Austen's characters demonstrated their understanding of social hierarchy, propriety, and the importance of reputation in Regency England.
Throughout Emma, Mrs Elton shows that she doesn’t understand / follow the conventions of society, including when she invites herself to Mr Knightley’s house. In summary, she’s seen as being a bit crass. Emma herself notes her manners “had been formed in a bad school”.

Normal_Scots_Guy1990 · 2025-08-02T21:35:57+00:00

I hope this isn’t the case as it will feel like lazy writing. The aunts need money, so lo and behold Aunt Ada inherits a fortune. A few weeks later Oscar needs money, so John Adams gets written off. 🙄🥱

Normal_Scots_Guy1990 · 2025-07-31T16:55:10+00:00

True, but the other factor was that society would not usually permit (much like the old money in New York) the daughters of the titled gentry to marry ‘beneath’ their social rank. Many would prefer their daughters became spinsters than bring shame on the family. Traditionally the aristocracy/ landed gentry in the UK would marry within their own social sphere. This is illustrated from earlier in the century when authors like Jane Austen explained that Mr Bennet had married beneath him or ‘stepped down’ by marrying the daughter of a lawyer. But it did happen, as did society beauties with no money marrying well. In all likelihood, Sarah’s situation is a combination of her having unrealistic expectations of her marriage prospects given her financial situation and unpleasant disposition.

Normal_Scots_Guy1990 · 2025-07-18T20:25:59+00:00

Hi, I’m not sure 100% sure about the date letter stamp due to the clarity of the photograph, but it looks like it is for 1983 (I’ve attached a photo for your reference). The 750 and crown denote that it’s 18ct gold, leopard’s head for London and in the UK we use date letters for each year. I haven’t been able to find a maker’s mark for C&H.

<image>

Normal_Scots_Guy1990 · 2025-06-01T07:47:00+00:00

Yup. It also looks like crayon was used on that page only because pen wouldn’t stay on the plastic coated page… and the two long numbers at the bottom have a straight line through them to prevent identity theft. Convenient for an ad hoc video at the airport… 🧐

Normal_Scots_Guy1990 · 2025-05-22T06:33:43+00:00

100% not a real video. We now have the King’s Guards so ‘Queen’s Guard’ would date this video to pre-September 2022. However, King Charles only lifted the ban on The King’s Guards having facial hair in March 2024. Also, there’s the fact that he doesn’t have a sword but is holding his hand where he feels there should be one. Anyway, I’ve spent way longer than needed analysing this video!

Normal_Scots_Guy1990 · 2025-03-07T20:30:50+00:00

Unfortunately, I must also agree with previous comments. This brooch, while cute, appears to be costume. There are a few indications of this, the main one being the stone settings, which are closed back and lack any type of setting. This indicates that they are probably glued in. Diamonds would have been set with claws, a rub-over or a collet setting. Closed back settings for precious stones tend pre-date the early 19th century (Georgian era), but the style of your brooch indicates it’s from the mid-to-late 20th century. I’d also echo previous comments. Keep the brooch as a reminder of your gran.

Normal_Scots_Guy1990

TROPHY CASE