Stewart...preferred Scot spelling....Stuart...French preferred spelling...Mary Stewart/Stuart was briefly married to the heir of the French throne whose Medici mother allowed him to die rather than have a mastoid operated on. Siblings James II was raised at the French throne with his Catholic grandmother and Ann lived with her sister Mary in the Protestant Orange environs....thus the followed their youthful bent. Anything was better than returning to the days of the Cromwell spirit of suppression. Pat. -----Original Message----- From: lower-delmarva-roots-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:lower-delmarva-roots-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of John Polk Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 9:37 AM To: lower-delmarva-roots@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LDR] Address of loyalty 1689 You are right of course - Catholic Stewart (Stuart), singular, not plural. James II was perceived as a Catholic and his accession in 1685 led to turmoil and the fear of the reinstatement of Catholicism in England. This boiled over when James had the audacity to produce a son in 1688, raising the prospect of a Catholic dynasty. This precipitated the crisis that brought William and Mary to the throne, with the attendant repercussions in Maryland I was describing. John Polk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patricia Charron" <patricia7@cinci.rr.com> To: "'David Kearney'" <kearneyd@erols.com>; <lower-delmarva-roots@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 4:05 PM Subject: Re: [LDR] Address of loyalty 1689 > Let's keep in mind, of the 6 Stewarts only James II was a Catholic, and the > Mary of William and Mary was a Stewart as was her sister Queen Anne who > succeeded them. the Catholic Stewarts" is a myth...there was only one. > England was Protestant since Henry VIII got the country placed under > Interdict wherein the practice of the Catholic faith was forbidden in > England by the Church itself. ( Yes, Charles I is rumored to have requested > a priest at his death, but he was NOT a Catholic King, just a Catholic dead > man. Pat. > > -----Original Message----- > From: lower-delmarva-roots-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:lower-delmarva-roots-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of David > Kearney > Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 2:02 PM > To: lower-delmarva-roots@rootsweb.com > Cc: David Roberts; kathlingram > Subject: Re: [LDR] Address of loyalty 1689 > > John Polk wrote: >>> I had chance to visit British Public Records Office > (PRO) at Kew several years ago and took the opportunity to look at the > original Address of Loyalty document. It is archived in PRO, not Maryland > Archives, because it was, after all, sent to William and Mary and all the > royal records end up in PRO. If anyone else wishes to see it, it is found in > CO5-718, p.64. (CO refers to Colonial Office). I have a photocopy of it. The > Somerset Address is unfortunately not the actual document signed by the > citizens, but a "true coppy from the original" made by Peter Dent, Deputy > Collector of Customs for Somerset. ... The volume contains all of the > Addresses of Loyalty received from the Maryland counties - Somerset's was > not the only one. Not all of the counties wrote one, although the Associator > government that had seized power from Lord Baltimore in 1689 strongly > encouraged all to do so. William and Mary had just come to the throne in > England, displacing the Catholic ! > Stewarts, and it was their accession that triggered the Protestant faction > in Maryland - the Associators - to stage the bloodless coup which we now > call the Maryland Revolution. <<< > > _____________ > > > > John and All, > > > > I'm enjoying the discussion involving the Address of Loyalty. I'm interested > in how the Address fits into how the different religious groups in colonial > Maryland interacted during the period. In this regard, given Maryland's > Catholic-influenced roots, it's interesting to explore the colonial history > from a somewhat "Catholic-centric" perspective. Of course, as with most > everything, different angles of view exist. > > > > David Roberts, who I've "met" through another rootsweb list, has passed > along some interesting information about the interplay of the different > religions during Maryland's colonial days. David lives in St. Mary's County, > Maryland, and has studied local history for many years. > > > > Despite early Maryland's identification with the Catholic faith of the Lords > Baltimore, David cautions that except for Jesuits in Cecil County - Bohemia > Manor - and a few other spots on the Upper Eastern Shore, there really > wasn't much Catholic presence on the Eastern Shore of Maryland or Delaware > or on Virginia's Eastern Shore during the colonial period. He states that > Catholics were mostly in southern Maryland during the colonial period, > including St. Mary's County; Charles County; Prince George's County; and > Frederick County. All of these counties are on the Western Shore. > Nevertheless, given the Catholic faith of Maryland's proprietors through > much of the 1600s, the possible importance of Catholic influence in all of > Maryland, including the Eastern Shore, shouldn't be overlooked. > > > > Prior to the Revolution, Maryland was one of the few places in English > colonial America with a significant Catholic population. According to David, > some clusters of Catholics also existed in various places in colonial > Pennsylvania. Maryland as a whole in the 1600s reflected a somewhat uniquely > diverse mixture of religious faiths in the English American colonies. > > > > The English Jesuits held huge land-grant "manors" in Maryland through the > 18th century, with David indicating that the four largest were Bohemia on > the Upper Eastern Shore in Cecil County; St. Thomas at Chapel Point, Charles > County; St. Inigoes in lower St. Mary's County (present-day St. Inigoes); > and Newtown at Newtown Neck, near Leonardtown in St. Mary's County. > > > > The Jesuits have held St. Thomas since 1641, under a grant from Lord > Baltimore #2. The church there - St. Ignatius - claims to be the oldest > uninterrupted English-speaking Roman Catholic Church in the United States. > See www.chapelpoint.org. > > > > Under Maryland law the Jesuit Order didn't own the land, but the individual > priests did. When "popery" was outlawed in the 1690s, the priests could > continue on these manors since "Father X" owned the land - not as a priest, > but as a private white male English subject - thus this legal loop-hole > allowed the Roman Church to operate until Religious Freedom was restored in > 1776. Catholic churches were built on this "private" land, with St. Francis > Xavier at Newtown (1731) being the oldest one still standing, according to > David. > > > > David relates that the Jesuits ran mission churches all over Maryland & > preached into northern Virginia and southern Pennsylvania. He explains that > "popery" was illegal in Virginia, but that a Catholic group - the Brent > group - survived in Stafford County, Virginia from the 1640s. The Virginia > government left the Brent group alone because of its wealth & influence. > > > > David understands that some "Methodist migrations" from the Lower Eastern > Shore & the Virginia's Eastern Shore into southern St. Mary's County, > Maryland occurred circa 1820-1860, mostly watermen. He says that St. George > Island UMC on St. George Island (in the Potomac) and First Friendship UMC in > Ridge are both Eastern Shore-based, with the "local" members tending to have > descended from Eastern Shore Methodists, rather than from earlier, "native" > St. Mary's County stock. > > > > One of the groups involved in the 17th Century power plays in Maryland were > Puritans who had been persecuted in Virginia, found welcome refuge in more > tolerant Maryland, and then turned on the Catholic establishment. See, e.g., > Joseph L. Meek Manuscript, members.aol.com/chantery/Articles/JLM_3.htm. > Later, the "Glorious Revolution" in England that resulted in William and > Mary taking the throne, and that was the impetus for the "Address of > Loyalty" from the American subjects (and others?), had the ironic effect of > terminating what had been in Maryland a remarkable degree of religious > freedom and tolerance. > > > > See Let None Dare Call It Liberty: The Catholic Church in Colonial America, > by Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D., > www.traditioninaction.org/History/B_001_Colonies.html, for some very pointed > views: > > > > "The 'Maryland Experiment' began when Charles I issued a generous charter to > a prominent Catholic convert from Anglicanism, Lord Cecil Calvert, for the > American colony of Maryland. In the new colony, religious tolerance for all > so-called Christians was preserved by Calvert until 1654. In that year, > Puritans from Virginia succeeded in overthrowing Calvert's rule, although > Calvert regained control four years later. The last major political uprising > took place in 1689, when the 'Glorious Revolution" of William and Mary > ignited a new anti-Catholic revolt in Maryland, and the rule of the next > Lord Baltimore, Charles Calvert, was overthrown. > > "Therefore, in 1692 Maryland's famous Religious Toleration Act officially > ended, and the Maryland Assembly established the so-called Church of England > as the official State religion supported by tax levies. Restrictions were > imposed on Catholics for public worship, and priests could be prosecuted for > saying Mass. Although Catholics generally maintained their social status, > they were denied the right to vote or otherwise participate in the > government of the colony their ancestors had founded. This barebones history > is the real story of the famous religious liberty of colonial Maryland." > > > > [citation omitted] > > > > For more background, see also Colonial History of Maryland, from Our > Country, Volume 1, > www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/Our_Country_Vol_1/colonialh_ig.html; > Province of Maryland, > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Maryland#Maryland_and_the_English_Civil_Wa > r; History of the United States of America, by Henry William Elson, The > MacMillan Company, New York, 1904, chapter IV, pp. 75-83, transcribed by > Kathy Leigh, www.usgennet.org/usa/topic/colonial/book/chap4_2.html; and > Historic St. Mary's City, www.stmaryscity.org/History.html. > > > > I'm interested in the thoughts and other input of list members on the > interactions, both "good" and "bad," of people of different faiths in the > Lower Delmarva during the colonial period and how that might have influenced > our Delmarva ancestors' lives. For instance, does anyone have known > ancestors from the area who renounced their Catholic faith during the 1600s? > > > > Dave K > *************************************** > QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? > Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: > http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > *************************************** > QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? > Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: > http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message