Was Britain in 1707 more convincingly a nation than it had been in 1603?
Creating Britain was a task that would involve a tenacious and often tyrannous effort by monarchs, politicians and defenders of England.This essay willfirstly give an account of how the unification of the kingdoms of England and Scotland was succeeding in 1603 and then compare and contrast this with the situation in 1707.The two dates mark an optimistic view of what James wanted to be a'perfect union'.However a closer analysis indicates that Scotland and England would not prove to be an easy union.This period in history shows that you cannot simply impose yourself on a nation that has little or no wish to accept your invitation to unite.This unification is one characterised more by legislation than any noticeable bond between the two kingdoms, showing little harmony or depth to show for itself.In the next century however changes would be made to allow for a more convincing union of the kingdoms in 1707.This second act of unification however was still somewhat of a farce, but did mark a time where England and Scotland seemed to be working together, even if a large degree of altruism was involved on both sides of the boarder.
When in March 1663, Elizabeth I, Queen of England and Ireland died; James VI of Scotland was proclaimed her successor in London.This was a remarkably unproblematic accession that united the Scottish crown with that of England and Ireland. The union of the crowns in 1603 was achieved with deceptive ease and yet over a century elapsed before it was followed by a full-scale'union of the kingdoms' in 1707.The multiple kingdoms over which James now ruled were far more diverse and contrasted than their relatively limited geographical area might suggest.In terms of political traditions, institutions and of government, legal systems, and economic social structures, the three kingdoms of Engla…