Politics and protestant Lordship in North East Scotland during the reign of James VI: The life of George Keith, fourth Earl Marischal, 1554-1623

George Keith, fourth Earl Marischal is a case study of long-term, quietly successful and stable lordship through the reign of James VI. Marischal’s life provides a wholly underrepresented perspective on this era, where the study of rebellious and notorious characters has dominated. He is also a counter-example to the notion of a general crisis among the European nobility, at least in the Scottish context, as well as to the notion of a ‘conservative’ or ‘Catholic’ north east. In 1580 George inherited the richest earldom in Scotland, with a geographical extent stretching along the east coast from Caithness to East Lothian. His family came to be this wealthy as a long term consequence of the Battle of Flodden (1513) where a branch of the family, the Inverugie Keiths had been killed. The heiress of this branch was married to the third earl and this had concentrated a large number of lands, and consequently wealth, in the hands of the earls. This had, however, also significantly decreased the number of members and hence power of the Keith kindred. The third earl’s conversion to Protestantism in 1544 and later his adherence to the King’s Party during the Marian Civil War forced the Keiths into direct confrontation with their neighbours in the north east, the Gordons (led by the Earls of Huntly), a Catholic family and supporters of the Queen’s Party. Although this feud was settled for a time at the end of the war, the political turmoil caused by a succession of short-lived factional regimes in the early part of the personal reign of James VI (c.1578-1585) led the new (fourth) Earl Marischal into direct confrontation with the new (sixth) Earl of Huntly. Marischal was outclassed, outmanoeuvred and outgunned at both court and in the locality in this feud, suffering considerably. However, Huntly’s over-ambition in wider court politics meant that Marischal was able to join various coalitions against his rival, until Huntly was exiled in 1595. Marischal also came into conflict briefly with Chancellor John Maitland of Thirlestane as a consequence of Marischal’s diplomatic mission to Denmark in 1589-1590, but was again outmatched politically and briefly imprisoned. Both of these feuds reveal Marischal to be relatively cautious and reactionary, and both reveal the limitations of his power. Elsewhere, the study of Marischal’s activities in the centre of Scottish politics reveal him to be unambitious. He was ready to serve King James, the two men having a healthy working relationship, but Marischal showed no ambition as a courtier, to woo the king’s favour or patronage, instead delegating interaction with the monarch to his kinsmen. Likewise, in government, Marischal rarely attended any of the committees he was entitled to attend, such as the Privy Council, although he did keep a keen eye on the land market and the business conducted under the Great Seal. Although personally devout and a committed Protestant, the study of Marischal’s interaction with the national Kirk and the parishes of which he was patron reveal that he was at times a negligent patron and exercised his right of ministerial presentation as lordly, not godly patronage. The notion of a ‘conservative North East’ is, however, rejected. Where Marischal was politically weak at court and weak in terms of force in the locality, we see him pursuing sideways approaches to dealing with this. Thus he was keen to build up his general influence in the north and in particular with the burgh of Aberdeen (one result of this being the creation of Marischal College in 1593), pursued disputes through increasing use of legal methods rather than bloodfeud (thus exploiting his wealth and compensating for his relative lack of force) and developed a sophisticated system of maritime infrastructure, ultimately expressed through the creating of the burghs of Peterhead and Stonehaven. Although his close family caused him a number of problems over his lifetime, he was able to pass on a stable and enlarged lordship to his son in 1623.

Using an end-of-life care pathway in acute stroke: a mixed methods study of decision-making and care experiences

Background: The evidence base on end-of-life care in acute stroke is limited, particularly with regard to recognising dying and related decision-making. There is also limited evidence to support the use of end-of-life care pathways (standardised care plans) for patients who are dying after stroke. Aim: This study aimed to explore the clinical decision-making involved in placing patients on an end-of-life care pathway, evaluate predictors of care pathway use, and investigate the role of families in decision-making. The study also aimed to examine experiences of end-of-life care pathway use for stroke patients, their relatives and the multi-disciplinary health care team. Methods: A mixed methods design was adopted. Data were collected in four Scottish acute stroke units. Case-notes were identified prospectively from 100 consecutive stroke deaths and reviewed. Multivariate analysis was performed on case-note data. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 relatives of stroke decedents and 23 healthcare professionals, using a modified grounded theory approach to collect and analyse data. The VOICES survey tool was also administered to the bereaved relatives and data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis of free-text responses. Results: Relatives often played an important role in influencing aspects of end-of-life care, including decisions to use an end-of-life care pathway. Some relatives experienced enduring distress with their perceived responsibility for care decisions. Relatives felt unprepared for and were distressed by prolonged dying processes, which were often associated with severe dysphagia. Pro-active information-giving by staff was reported as supportive by relatives. Healthcare professionals generally avoided discussing place of care with families. Decisions to use an end-of-life care pathway were not predicted by patients’ demographic characteristics; decisions were generally made in consultation with families and the extended health care team, and were made within regular working hours. Conclusion: Distressing stroke-related issues were more prominent in participants’ accounts than concerns with the end-of-life care pathway used. Relatives sometimes perceived themselves as responsible for important clinical decisions. Witnessing prolonged dying processes was difficult for healthcare professionals and families, particularly in relation to the management of persistent major swallowing difficulties.