by John Guy
Ruble (1891) and Stoddart (1908) remain useful, but Stoddart is garbled. Romier (1913–14) and Croze (1866) offer the best accounts of the Guises apart from Carroll (1998), who is definitive on their clientage. In the absence of recent works, Diane de Poitiers is followed in Lettres Inédites de Dianne de Poitiers (1866). Bryce (1907) discusses Mary’s voyage and reception. The Rouen fête is fully discussed by Merriman (2000). Bonner (1999a) offers much on Henry II’s policy in Scotland. The foiled plot to murder Mary and her mother’s return to Scotland are from CSPF, Edward VI (1861), Merriman (2000) and Ritchie (2002).
4. ADOLESCENCE
The Cardinal of Lorraine’s letters about Mary to her mother are taken from Labanoff (1844), vol. 1, and Foreign Correspondence (1925). The latter also contains the letters of Antoinette of Bourbon, Anne d’Este, Lady Parois and Mary’s administrative officials; a key letter from d’Oysel about the decision to end her minority is printed as appendix A. Mary’s own letters are from Labanoff (1844), vol. 1, apart from two letters in vol. 7, one to Antoinette and the other to Elizabeth I. The last is wrongly dated May 1566; the correct date is Nov. 1562, as is clear from internal evidence, not least the references to the Earl of Huntly’s death at the battle of Corrichie. Details of Mary’s officers are from BNF, MS NAF 9175. Further details about payments and the treasurer’s accounts are from Ruble (1891), while Stoddart (1908) fills in some gaps. Melville’s comment on Mary’s generosity is from his Memoirs (1827).
Mary’s holograph letter to Mary Tudor is PRO, SP 51/1, no. 7. Her health is worked out from Foreign Correspondence (1925), Turnbull (1845) and [British Medical Journal] (1968). “The sweat” or “quartan ague” is described by Caius (1552) and Thwaites, Taviner and Gant (1997). Her unexplained attacks are from PRO, SP 52/8, no. 76, and SP 52/10, no. 59. As to whether she really had porphyria, we can never know. Fraser (1969) resolves the issue with particular success. Mary’s ring is from Scarisbrick (1995).
Material on the resumption of war with Spain, Guise policy and the loss of Calais is derived from Croze (1866), Romier (1913–14), Carroll (1998) and Potter (1983). Mary’s betrothal to the dauphin is from Discours du Triumphe (1558), described more fully by Ruble.
5. EDUCATION
Mary’s education is described by Ruble (1891) and Stoddart (1908), supplemented by Robertson (1863) and Durkan (1987). Her themes are edited by Montaiglon (1855). Further details are from Ambrogini (1520), Selve (1543), Fouquelin (1557), Amyot (1559). General background on the humanist curriculum is from Skinner (1978). Reports on Mary’s progress are printed in Foreign Correspondence (1925). Barwick (1901) discusses her copy of Ptolemy’s Geography, about which the Quaritch sale catalogue (1906) at HEH provides invaluable further information. A copy of the same edition as that owned by Mary is HEH 31230.
Mary’s letters are edited by Labanoff (1844), vol. 1, but the letter at pp. 5–8 belongs to the early months of 1556, not 1552 as stated (see also Stoddart, appendix B). A further letter is printed by Hay Fleming (1897), appendix A. Mary’s links to the Pléiade are summarized by Ruble and Stoddart, supplemented by Plattard (1947), Phillips (1964), Fraser (1969), Garrisson (1995), Davidson (2001).
Ruble discusses fashion and embroidery with lists of Mary’s clothes and accessories, but Swain (1986) is essential on embroidery and emblem books. The chalk drawings of Mary at nine and a half (from Musée Condé at Chantilly), at twelve or thirteen (from the library of the Ossolinski National Institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Wroclaw), and shortly before her first marriage (from BNF) are discussed (apart from the recently discovered Wroclaw drawing) by Cust (1903). Background is from Stoddart and Foreign Correspondence. Art historical information is from Joliet (1997).
Mary’s concern for discretion and the use of codes is from her letters, as is her supplying blanks to Mary of Guise. Her handwriting is discussed by Stoddart and Robertson, but the quotations are from Mary’s own letters. The emblem of the marigold is from Paradin (1557), with explanation by Swain. Examples of the use of her motto, anagram and impresa are taken from Barwick (1901) and Way (1859).
6. A DYNASTIC MARRIAGE
The accounts of Mary’s marriage, the processions and state banquet are based on Discours du Triumphe (1558) and the civic records of Paris, printed in Teulet (1862), vol. 1. An English translation of the Discours by Weber (1969) is seriously mangled. Ruble (1891), Stoddart (1908) and Strickland (1888), vol. 1, are useful, but garbled in different ways. Mary’s letter to her mother on her wedding day is printed in the appendix to Hay Fleming (1897). Phillips (1964) provides a full account of the panegyric literature and points up the differences of emphasis in France and Scotland.
The account of the Scottish commissioners and parliamentary proceedings is from Keith (1844–50), vol. 1, and Hay Fleming (1897) and Ritchie (2002). The marriage contract is from BNF, MS FF 4781. Copies of Mary’s deeds, dated April 4, concerning the marriage are from BNF, MS FF 6606, also printed in Labanoff (1844), vol. 1.
Merriman (1987) offers a summary of the Scots and English reactions to Guise dynastic policy. The documents are cited from CSPF, Elizabeth (1863–1950), vol. 1, CSP Scotland (1898–1969), vol. 1, and Mary’s letters in Labanoff, vol. 1. The account of Mary’s heraldic arms, from Throckmorton to Cecil, is taken from the dispersed portion of Cecil’s papers in BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10.
Further background on the Guises, French foreign policy, the treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis and the death of Henry II is derived from Croze (1866), Ruble (1891), Romier (1913–14), Knecht (1984), Garrisson (1995) and Carroll (1998).
The documents for the treaty of Upsettlington are from CSPF, Elizabeth, vol. 1. Reports on Mary’s health in the final months of Henry II’s reign are from CSPF, Elizabeth, vol. 1, and CSPS, Series 2 (1892–99), vol. 1.
7. BETRAYED QUEEN
The politics of Francis II’s reign and of the Guise ascendancy are badly covered by the literature, but sketches by Croze (1866), Knecht (1984 and 1989), Garrisson (1995) and Potter (1995a) provide an outline. Régnier de la Planche (1836) is full but undiscriminating. The outstanding treatment of the Guises in Normandy is Carroll (1998).
Attempts to characterize Mary by Stoddart (1908) and Strickland (1888), vol. 1, are anecdotal and of limited value. Ruble (1891) is better, since he read the important section of documents (the “series K”) from the Estado series in the Archivo General at Simancas, which were removed to Paris in 1810 on the orders of Napoleon. He consulted these documents at AN, where they were kept until returned to Simancas in 1941. Transcripts and (now illegible) photocopies are retained in the AN.
The events of 1558–60 in France, Scotland and England are worked out from the documents printed by Forbes (1741), vol. 1; CSPF, Elizabeth (1863–1950), vols. 1–3; CSP Scotland (1898–1969), vol. 1; Sadler State Papers (1809), vol. 1; Stevenson (1837); [Négociations] (1841); Diurnal of Occurrents (1833). Francis II’s coronation is worked out from Menin (1727 and 1775), with key MSS at Rheims from [Négociations] and Throckmorton’s dispatches from Forbes, vol. 1. Background for Francis II’s reign comes from Régnier de la Planche, vol. 1, and on his coronation from Jackson (1984).
William Cecil’s memos are taken from BL, Cott. MSS, Calig. B.9 and B.10; Lansdowne MS 4. French diplomacy over Scotland is from Teulet (1862), vols. 1–2, used in conjunction with CSPF, Elizabeth. Mary’s letters are from Labanoff, vol. 1. Dispatches of the Spanish or Venetian ambassadors, including reports of Mary’s health and Jane Dormer’s visit to the French court, are from CSPS, Series 2 (1862–1954), vol. 1; CSPV (1864–1947), vol. 7. Essential for establishing the political contexts, especially the revolt of the Lords of the Congregation, are Keith (1844–50), vol. 1; Read (1955); MacCaffrey (1969); Alford (1998a); Dawson (1989 and 2002). Marshall (1977) and Ritchie (2002) are useful on Mary of Guise.
Throckmorton’s later dispatches, notably his account of Mary’s deuil blanc portrait and his audiences, are from Forbes, vols. 1–2; CSPF, Elizabeth, vol. 3. The chalk drawing (BNF) and oil panel portr
ait (Royal Collection) are discussed by Cust (1903). Later dispatches about the ratification of the treaty of Edinburgh and related matters are from CSPF, Elizabeth, vols. 3–4, and BL, Add. MSS 35830–31. The ambassador’s playful aside is printed by Stevenson (1837), correctly attributed in CSPF, Elizabeth, vol. 3. The Cecil quotation is from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10.
8. RETURN TO SCOTLAND
The death of Francis II, the fall of the Guises and the ascendancy of Catherine de Medici are described by Croze (1866), Romier (1913–14), Garrisson (1995), Carroll (1998). On Mary’s conduct, Ruble (1891) is more useful than Stoddart (1908), but both accounts cross the line to the romantic. The notes in Hay Fleming (1897) are a valuable corrective, but Mary’s role (as opposed to that of her uncles) has never been properly established and must be pieced together from Chéruel (1858), her own letters in Labanoff (1844), vol. 1, and the diplomatic reports. The most accessible are from Teulet (1862), vol. 2; CSPF, Elizabeth (1863–1950), vols. 3–4; CSPF(1864–1947), vol. 7; CSPS, Series 2 (1862–1954), vol. 1. Catherine de Medici’s interventions are taken from [Negotiations] (1841). The meeting between Mary and Darnley, described by Strickland (1888), vol. 1, is fanciful.
The inventory of Mary’s jewels is BNF, MS FF 5898, and a sample account for her jointure is from BNF, MS FF 3335. The ordinance establishing it is in Teulet (1844), vol. 2, and its arrears have been studied by Greengrass (1987).
Mary’s audiences with Bedford and Throckmorton are described in the latter’s words in CSPF, Elizabeth, vol. 3, and Throckmorton’s later interviews in vol. 4. D’Oysel’s role in Mary’s household as dowager queen of France is noted by Throckmorton and described by Melville (1827).
The missions of Lesley and Lord James and their contexts are reconstructed from CSP Scotland (1898–1965), vol. 1; Rose (1905); and Hay Fleming. Rose prints Lord James’s letter to Mary from BL, Add. MS 32091. Events in Scotland, in particular the role and aspirations of Lord James and his allies, were established from PRO, SP 52/6, especially nos. 16–17, 21–22, 28, 35, 42. Mary’s letter to Maitland is SP 52/6, no. 45. Morton’s letter, memo and draft are from BL, Add. MSS 23108–9. Keith (1844–50), vol. 2, has extensive background, but is not completely reliable. Donaldson (1983) is precise, if impenetrable, on the factions in Scotland.
The accounts of Throckmorton’s final meetings with Mary and of d’Oysel’s mission are from CSPF, Elizabeth, vol. 4, and his correspondence with Cecil and Elizabeth is in BL, Add. MSS 35830–31. Cecil’s letter of July 14 is printed (not entirely accurately) in CSPF, Elizabeth. I am grateful to Dr. Stephen Alford for the reference to the manuscript and for a transcript.
Mary’s last weeks in France and the preparations for her voyage are worked out from CSPF, Elizabeth, vol. 4, and the extensive notes in Hay Fleming. The quotation from Castelnau’s Memoirs is translated from Castelnau (1838), also cited by Mignet (1852), vol. 1.
9. INTO THE LABYRINTH
Mary’s arrival at Leith is from Diurnal (1833) and Hay Fleming (1897). Knox’s account is contradicted by the Diurnal, while that of Strickland (1888), vol. 1, is fanciful. The pageants for the triumphal entry are from Diurnal (1833); Robertson (1863); Keith (1844–50), vol. 2; supplemented by Randolph’s descriptions in BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10, and PRO, SP 52/6, no. 63, the latter supplying the full text of the verses. Knox’s version of his clash with Mary is from Knox (1949), vol. 2, complemented by Randolph’s report (which establishes the correct date) in BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10.
Accounts of Mary’s first Mass at Holyroodhouse and the subsequent proclamation are from Keith, vols. 2–3, and Hay Fleming. The summary of Knox’s political theory is from his own writings, especially those in [Knox] (1994). The best interpretation of Knox’s resistance theory is by Mason (1998a and 1998b). Mary’s progress is worked out from Hay Fleming and Randolph’s reports in BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10, and PRO, SP 52/6, no. 66. The vignettes of Buchanan and Randolph rely on Mason (2000), Phillips (1948–49) and Randolph’s own dispatches, in particular BL, Cott. MSS, Calig. B.9–10; SP 52/6, nos. 75, 79, 82, 89; NLS, Advocates MSS 1.2.2, 6.1.13, 31.2.19.
Mary’s letters are from Labanoff (1844), vol. 1, but more important for these months are documents arising from the debate on the treaty of Edinburgh: SP 52/6, nos. 58, 61–62, 73–74, 84, 86A, 88, 91. Other detail is from CSP Scotland (1898–1969), vol. 1.
The diplomacy of Lord James and his allies in advance of Mary’s return and their letters to Elizabeth and Cecil are from SP 52/6, nos. 52–53; BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10; Keith, vol. 3, appendix to book 2; [Haynes and Murdin] (1740–59), vol. 1; CSPF, Elizabeth (1863–1950), vol. 4; [Salisbury MSS] (1883–1976), vol. 1. Extracts from the Privy Council registers are printed by Keith, vol. 2. Mary’s letter commissioning Maitland for his visit to London is printed by Stevenson (1837), and the account of his proceedings by Pollen (1904), appendix 1. The diplomatic context, notably the position of the Guises, is established from BL, Add. MSS 35830–31; SP 52/7, nos. 4, 6, 15; Chéruel (1858); supplemented by Pollen. Cecil’s letter to Throckmorton is from CSPF, Elizabeth, vol. 4. Maitland’s revised assessment of Mary is from SP 52/6, no. 81.
10. A MEETING BETWEEN SISTERS
Mary’s court at Holyroodhouse has been surprisingly neglected, but the gist can be pieced together from Randolph’s reports in PRO, SP 52/6–12, and BL, Cott. MSS, Calig. B.9–10, supplemented by the inventories printed by Robertson (1863). Also essential are Hay Fleming (1897), Durkan (1987) and Lynch (1990). Mary’s conversation in the garden at Holyroodhouse is from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10; her letter to the Duke of Guise is edited by Pollen (1904), which also includes Maitland’s account of his earlier diplomacy with Elizabeth at appendix 1.
Maitland’s request for the interview is SP 52/6, no. 88. The meeting is from SP 52/7, nos. 3–7, and Randolph’s reports in SP 52/7, nos. 2, 9–10, 15, 19, 25, 31, 36–37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 51, 53, 56, 58, 62. Additional reports are from BL, Cott. MSS, Calig. B.9–10. Mary’s letters are from SP 52/7, nos. 3–4, 6, 42, 88, and Pollen, appendix 9, rather than Labanoff, vol. 1. Elizabeth’s correspondence is from SP 52/6, no. 86A (also printed in Pollen, appendix 8); SP 52/7, nos. 7, 81, 84 (also printed in Pollen, appendix 11). Further detail is from CSP Scotland (1898–1969), vol. 1.
The exchanges of tokens and verses is from SP 52/7, nos. 7, 56, 58, 62. Mary’s verses are from the facsimile of the manuscript printed in Mary Stuart (English National Opera: London, 1998); the translation is my own. Maitland’s departure for London is from SP 52/7, no. 42, and Diurnal of Occurrents (1833). Background on the succession issue and the Wars of Religion is taken from Read (1955), MacCaffrey (1969), Levine (1973), Knecht (1989), Garrisson (1995), Carroll (1998) and Alford (1998a). The dispatches of Cecil and Throckmorton regarding the intervention in Normandy and consequent delay of the interview are from CSPF, Elizabeth (1863–1950), vols. 4–5, supplemented by BL, Add. MS 35831.
Cecil’s memos and the details of the interview and the decision to postpone it are from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10, and SP 52/7, no. 63. Sir Henry Sidney’s report of his audience with Mary is from SP 52/7, no. 65.
Mary’s progress to the northeast is largely based on Randolph’s reports, supplemented by the full account by Hay Fleming. Randolph’s reports are from SP 52/7, nos. 74, 76–77, 79, 82, 85, 86–87. A condensed “news” report is SP 52/7, no. 90.
The reports of the Privy Council’s deliberations on Elizabeth’s attack of smallpox are from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10; CSPS, Series 2 (1892–99), vol. 1; Keith (1844–50), vol. 2. Maitland’s own intelligence and subsequent diplomacy are from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10; SP 52/8, no. 1; and Keith, vol. 2. Randolph’s reports are from SP 52/8, nos. 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, and in particular his assessment of Mary dated Dec. 3, 1562, which is from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.9, printed in full by Stevenson (1837). Moray’s letter to Cecil is from SP 52/8, no. 11.
11. A SEARCH FOR A HUSBAND
Maitland’s first and second instructions are printed in Labanoff (1844), vol. 1, and Keith (18
44–50), vol. 2. His departure is recorded in Diurnal of Occurrents (1833). Cecil’s view of Elizabeth’s marriage is from a memo of 1572 in BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.3, and his parliamentary experiment of 1563 to find a constitutional mechanism to exclude Mary is from PRO, SP 12/28, no. 20, discussed by Guy (1988) and Alford (1998a). Sadler’s speech to Parliament is from [Proceedings in Parliament] (1981–95), vol. 1, also cited by Neale (1953–57), vol. 1.
The changed situation at Mary’s court is described in Randolph’s reports, especially PRO, SP 52/8, nos. 4, 6, 14, 16–17, 30, 31, 35–38, 42, 45–46, 52, 59, 67–68, 75; and BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10. Mary’s letters to the cardinal and the pope are printed by Labanoff, vol. 1, and Turnbull (1845).
The account of Maitland’s negotiations with de Quadra is pieced together from Hay Fleming (1897), CSPS, Series 2 (1892–99), vol. 1, and Maitland’s report in BL, Add. MS 32091. His fascinating report from Chenonceaux is from NLS, Advocates MS 6.1.13.
The rival diplomacies of Mary and the cardinal are taken from Labanoff, vol. 1; CSPS, Series 2, vol. 1; CSPF, Elizabeth (1863–1950), vol. 6; MacCaffrey (1969); Doran (1996). The account of du Croc’s mission is from Randolph’s reports, SP 52/8, nos. 36–38.
The clash with Knox is from his own account in Knox (1949), vol. 2. The Chastelard incident is from Randolph’s reports, SP 52/8, nos. 13–14, supplemented by Hay Fleming and Keith, vol. 2. The adultery of Mary’s French chaplain is from SP 52/8, no. 42.
Randolph’s conversations with Mary about the Duke of Guise and Elizabeth’s letter of condolence are from SP 52/8, nos. 17 and 30. Smith’s letter to Cecil is from CSPF, Elizabeth, vol. 6. Randolph’s new (Aug.) instructions are from SP 52/8, no. 53, and Keith, vol. 2. His account of his audience with Mary is from SP 52/8, no. 59. His further (Nov.) instructions are from SP 52/8, nos. 70–71, the documents where the respective contributions of Elizabeth and Cecil are made plain and the scorings out and alterations become crucial. A fair copy in Cecil’s hand, signed by Elizabeth, is in BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10. An unsatisfactory text maybe found in Keith, vol. 2. Mary’s comment on her uncle’s betrayal of her diplomacy is from SP 52/9, no. 69.
