by John Guy
12. “MY HEART IS MY OWN”
Reports of the gift of a jewel to Mary, her reaction to the English conditions for her marriage, and her illness in late 1563 and early 1564 are taken from Randolph’s dispatches in PRO, SP 52/8, nos. 75–76, 79; SP 52/9, nos. 1, 4–5, 11, 13, 15, 18–21, 22–24. The Shrovetide masque is from Robertson (1863) and Keith (1844–50), vol. 2. The scene in which Mary and the lords taunted Randolph is from SP 52/8, no. 79. Mary’s words quoted from Randolph’s letter to Elizabeth are from SP 52/9, no. 18.
Knox’s trial is from his own account in Knox (1949), vol. 2, and the aftermath as reported in SP 51/9, nos. 15, 22. The membership of the working Privy Council is deduced from CSP Scotland (1898–1969), vol. 2, and Keith (1844–50), vols. 2–3. Essential background on these advisers is provided by Donaldson (1983) and Goodare (1987).
The reforming ordinance for the Court of Session is from SP 52/9, no. 19. Kirkcaldy of Grange’s letter is from SP 52/9, no. 27(1). Further speculation on Darnley’s candidacy is from SP 52/8, no. 79; SP 52/9, nos. 15, 26; further evidence is from CSPS Scotland, vol. 2, and Knox (1949), vol. 2. Elizabeth’s earliest letter requesting Lennox’s recall is SP 52/8, no. 43. The most compelling recent accounts of Darnley’s release and its consequences are by Dawson (1986) and Adams (1987). Hay Fleming (1897) and MacCaffrey (1969) offer important background and references.
The key documents concerning Mary’s proposed marriage to Dudley and the meeting at Berwick are SP 52/9, nos. 22–24, 31, 34, 54, 57, 67, 69, 72, 75, 78–79. Cecil’s abstracts of these and other (in some cases now missing) documents are from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10. References to the events leading up to Dudley’s suit are from the notes to Hay Fleming. Mary’s incredulity at the initial suggestion is from SP 52/9, no. 24, which includes Moray’s joke.
Castelnau’s missions to Elizabeth and Mary are described in his own words in Castelnau (1838); further detail is from Chéruel (1858). Melville’s embassy to Elizabeth is described by himself in Melville (1827). Lennox’s reception and restoration are worked out from SP 52/9, nos. 52–53, 62, and the notes in BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.9. The presentation of Lennox’s jewel (possibly the Lennox Jewel) and other gifts is from SP 52/9, no. 62. Further detail on the jewel is from Way (1859). Cecil’s letter to Maitland and Moray after the Berwick meeting is SP 52/9, no. 78, to which their reply is no. 79.
13. A MARRIAGE OF CONVENIENCE
Elizabeth’s note to Cecil of Sept. 23 is from PRO, SP 52/9, no. 48. The collapse of English policy is described by MacCaffrey (1969) and Dawson (1986), and the evidence of Cecil and Dudley’s role in Darnley’s release is from SP 52/10, nos. 15–16. Cecil’s report of a “device” is from Ellis (1824–46), 2nd series, vol. 2. Dudley’s “uncertain [i.e., double] dealing” is criticized by Randolph in NLS, Advocates MS 1.2.2. Throckmorton’s assessment of Mary is from CSPF, Elizabeth (1863–1950), vol. 3. Dawson makes an excellent case for Throckmorton as Darnley’s advocate, citing the postscript to SP 52/10, no. 31A.
Mary’s remarks at St. Andrews are from SP 52/10, no. 11. Several different sets of Cecil’s abstracts of Scottish papers are found in BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10, and the one in his own hand that includes the contents of his reply at Elizabeth’s request to Moray is also printed in Stevenson (1837). Raulet’s dismissal and Rizzio’s employment are from SP 52/9, no. 76, and SP 52/10, nos. 5, 22.
Darnley’s arrival, his reception by Mary, her game of billiards, her nursing of him during his sickness, the wedding and his proclamation as king are taken from Randolph’s reports, scattered among three different archives: BL, Cott. MSS, Calig. B.9–10; SP 52/10, nos. 16–17, 20, 22–23, 27–29, 31, 31A, 32, 35–37, 39, 39(1), 42–44, 46(1), 54–55, 55(1), 56, 59–61, 65, 73–75, 78, 83, 85; NLS, MS 3657. The NLS MS dispatch to Dudley is printed by Frescoln (1973–74) and is essential for Mary’s reaction to Elizabeth’s letter of March 5.
Randolph’s letter of March 31 to Sir Henry Sidney is from NLS, Advocates MS 1.2.2. Further abstracts of Randolph’s dispatches, some in Cecil’s hand, are from BL, Cott. MSS, Calig. B.9 and (especially) B.10, which include some documents not otherwise extant. One set from Calig. B.10 is printed by Stevenson (1837). Randolph’s report on Mary’s marriage from Cott. MS, Calig. B.9, is printed (partially only) in Ellis (182446), 1st series, vol. 2.
Melville’s account of Darnley’s arrival is from Melville (1827). The summary of Darnley’s symptoms at Stirling is from SP 52/10, nos. 32, 37(1), and the diagnosis of syphilis is based on the opinion of the medical expert who examined his reputed skull and thigh bone in the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons, printed by Armstrong Davison (1965), appendix A. Reports of Mary’s ill health are from SP 52/10, nos. 54, 59, which also illustrate Darnley’s bad behavior. Further detail is from the notes to Hay Fleming (1897) and Keith, vol. 2. The intimacy of Darnley and Rizzio is from SP 52/10, nos. 42, 59; Keith, vol. 2; Read (1955).
Elizabeth’s letter to Mary recalling Lennox and Darnley is SP 52/10, no. 70, but those to Lennox and Darnley are not extant. They are known from abstracts in BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10, and their recipients’ reactions as reported in Keith (1844–50), vol. 2. Throckmorton’s two sets of instructions are from SP 52/10, nos. 38, 41. His reports are from SP 52/10, nos. 46, 48, 52–53, 53(1).
Mary’s Spanish diplomacy is from Chéruel (1858). Her conversations with Castelnau are described by Castelnau (1838) and briefly summarized by Chéruel. Castelnau’s activities were noticed by Randolph in SP 52/10, no. 26. Mary’s letters are from Labanoff (1844), vol. 1, but unfortunately for these months they are entirely formal, often requests for diplomatic passports. Her retrospective memo on the Darnley marriage, in SP 52/11, no. 80, is unrevealing, although it does confirm that both Protestants and Catholics were behind it, leaving Moray and his allies on a limb (printed in Labanoff, vol. 1, and Turnbull [1845]).
Maitland’s love for Mary Fleming is from SP 52/9, nos. 47A, 62; SP 52/10, no. 53(1); Keith, vol. 2. The “Determination” of the Privy Council is from SP 52/10, no. 40. The minutes of the June 4 Privy Council meeting are from SP 52/10, nos. 62–63, and BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10. Thomworth’s two sets of instructions are from SP 52/10, no. 90, and SP 52/11, no. 1. Mary’s answer to Thomworth is from SP 52/11, nos. 9–10, and Keith, vols. 2–3. Mary’s offer to Elizabeth on the succession and other issues is from SP 52/11, nos. 11–13.
A useful breakdown of the noble factions at the time of the return of the Lennoxes is SP 52/10A. The report of Darnley looking at a map of Scotland is from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10. The letters of Moray, Argyll and Châtelherault to Cecil and Throckmorton are from SP 52/10, nos. 80, 80A, and their appeal to Elizabeth is documented by no. 81.
By far the best modern interpretations of the period before and shortly after the Darnley marriage, summarizing Mary’s political and religious aims and the rival factional alliances, are Dawson (1986) and Goodare (1987). Still invaluable are the notes to Hay Fleming and Keith, vol. 2.
14. ENTER BOTHWELL
Mary’s reassurances to the Protestants on her religious policy and her skillful use of propaganda against Moray and his allies are explained by Dawson (1986 and 2002), supported by Goodare (1987). Her letters and a few proclamations are from Labanoff (1844), vols. 1, 7. Other documents are from Keith (1844–50), vols. 2–3; CSP, Scotland (1898–1962), vol. 2. The notes to Hay Fleming (1897) are invaluable. The Palm Sunday incident is from PRO, SP 52/10, nos. 37A, 39(1), discussed by Lynch (1981) and Dawson (1986). The dispositions of the rebel forces are discussed by Hay Fleming and Dawson (2002). Moray’s appeal to Cecil through Robert Melville is SP 52/11, no. 41.
Cecil’s memo on Bothwell’s recall is from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10, printed by Stevenson (1837). Bothwell’s backstory is worked out from a wide range of primary sources. Schiern (1880) and Gore-Brown (1937) must be used with caution and have been avoided. Background is from CSP, Scotland, vols. 1–2; CSP, Borders (1894–96), vol. 1; CSPF, Elizabeth (1863–1950), vols. 1–7; Keith, vols. 1–2. Detail and quot
ations are from the original documents in BL, Cott. MSS, Calig. B.9–10; SP 52/7, nos. 32, 32A, 36, 77, 93; SP 52/8, nos. 4, 6, 14, 31, 38, 75, 79; SP 52/9, nos. 5–8, 15, 17, 27(1); SP 52/10, nos. 22, 27, 31, 31A, 39(1), 60; SP 52/11, nos. 45, 60, 63, 84; SP 59/9, fos. 13–14, 15–16, 17–18, 37–38, 73–74.
The recall and restoration of Lord Gordon is from SP 52/11, nos. 2, 60, 63; PCS, 1st series (1877–98), vol. 1; Diurnal of Occurrents (1833); and the notes to Hay Fleming. The Chase-about Raid is from Randolph’s reports in SP 52/11, nos. 20, 22, 24, 28–29, 35–36, 45, 49, 54, 59, 60, 63–65; PCS, 1st series, vol. 1; Hay Fleming; Dawson (2002). The minutes of the English Privy Council meetings of Sept. 24 and 29 are from SP 52/11, no. 52. Mary’s message for Elizabeth is taken from SP 52/11, no. 30 (English version is no. 31), quoted verbatim with Elizabeth’s reaction to it—in a dispatch from Paul de Foix, the resident French ambassador in London, to Catherine de Medici—in Teulet (1862), vol. 2. Châtelherault’s submission and the heralds’ proclamation summoning Moray and his allies are from Hay Fleming and the report in Diurnal of Occurrents.
15. A MARRIAGE IN TROUBLE
Castelnau’s “Discourse” and his letters to Charles IX and Catherine de Medici, and to Paul de Foix, are from BNF, MS FF 15971. Many of these documents are printed, with some textual variants, in Teulet (1862), vol. 2. Chéruel (1858) offers a brief discussion. Castelnau (1838) is relevant from the standpoint of hindsight.
Darnley’s role, his relations with Rizzio, Yaxley and others, and his conspiratorial activities and pro-Catholic policy are pieced together from Randolph’s reports in BL, Cott. MSS, Calig. B.9–10; PRO, SP 52/10, nos. 42, 59; SP 52/11, nos. 44–45, 59–60, 65, 82–85, 84A, 93, 96, 101–3; SP 52/12, nos. 5, 6A, 9, 11, 17, 21. Several dispatches from Cott. MSS, Calig. B.9–10, are printed by Ellis (1824–46), 1st series, vol. 2; Stevenson (1837). A few are printed or summarized in Keith (1844–50), vol. 2, whereas Randolph to Dudley (Feb. 14, 1566) is now found only in Edinburgh as part of NLS, MS 3657. Bedford’s dispatches of Feb. 8 and 14, 1566, are printed by Stevenson. Drury’s dispatch of Feb. 16, 1566, is from Keith, vol. 2. Yaxley’s visit to Spain and Philip II’s reaction (including a series of documents printed from the archives at Simancas) are from Mignet (1852), vol. 1, and appendix E. Invaluable are Dawson (1986 and 2002) and Lynch (1981 and 1990).
Mary’s claim to be queen of England and switch to a Catholic policy after the arrival of her uncle’s agent is worked out from Randolph’s dispatches (as above), and in particular the rediscovered reports of Feb. 7 and 10, 1566, from Randolph to Throckmorton from NLS, Advocates MS, 1.2.2, nos. 39–40. Sir James Melville’s advice is from Melville (1827). Further background is from Keith, vol. 2; the best modern treatment of Mary’s so-called Catholic interlude is Goodare (1987), which also has an invaluable discussion of the origins of the Rizzio plot.
Bedford’s report of Mary’s attempt to lead Bothwell and Huntly by the hand is from Stevenson. Her ill health and pregnancy are from SP 52/11, nos. 85, 87, 93, 96; SP 52/12, no. 9; NLS, Advocates MS, 1.2.2, no. 39; BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10. The details of her marital breakdown are from the reports of Randolph and Bedford as indicated above.
Maitland’s smoking gun and recommendation for Robert Melville are from SP 52/12, nos. 10, 12. The plot is from Randolph’s dispatches (as above); those written jointly by Randolph and Bedford are from SP 52/12, nos. 26, 27, 28, 30. The bonds for the plot are from SP 52/12, nos. 28(1–2). Further background is from CSP Scotland (18981969), vol. 2; CSPF, Elizabeth (1863–1950), vols. 7–8; Hay Fleming (1897). The charge against Randolph and his dismissal from Scotland is from SP 52/12, nos. 17, 29.
16. ASSASSINATION ONE
There are six more or less independent accounts of the Rizzio plot and its aftermath: those by Mary, Ruthven, Randolph and Bedford, Sir James Melville, the Diurnal of Occurrents and Claude Nau. Some invaluable comments are from the slightly later chronicle known as the Historie and Life of King James the Sext. The notes to Hay Fleming (1897) are useful. Brief but important analysis is by Goodare (1987) and Dawson (2002).
The fullest and most valuable accounts are Ruthven’s and Mary’s. Ruthven’s narrative is in several manuscripts, of which the three most important are BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.9; Add. MS 48043; Lansdowne MS 9. Printed texts include Keith (1844–50), vol. 3, appendix to book II; and [Ruthven] (1891). I have used Keith and [Ruthven] and Add. MS 48043. Mary’s fuller account is from her letter of April 2, 1566, to James Beaton, Archbishop of Glasgow, in Labanoff (1844), vol. 1. Her angry and condensed comments to Elizabeth dated March 15 are from the same volume, as is her letter of early May to Anne d’Este.
Randolph and Bedford’s extensive report to Cecil of March 27 with a list of the names of the conspirators is from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10, printed in Ellis (1824–46), 1st series, vol. 2. A further report of the same date to Dudley and Cecil is from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.9. The chronology of the discharge of Parliament and the aftermath of the plot is from Diurnal of Occurrents (1833).
The accounts of the plot by Sir James Melville and Claude Nau, from Melville (1827) and [Nau] (1883), should be treated cautiously. Nau’s is retrospective and far from accurate. The Historie and Life of James the Sext links Maitland to the plot. I have used the manuscript in NAS, MS GD 1/371/3. A less satisfactory printed version is [James VI] (1825). There are three Italian reports relating to Rizzio in the Medicean Archives in Florence, printed in Labanoff, vol. 7, but their value is slight.
Other reports by Randolph and Bedford are from PRO, SP 52/12, nos. 33, 35, 36, 39, 40, 44, 47. Darnley’s declaration protesting his innocence is from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.9, printed in Ellis, 1st series, vol. 2. Morton’s and Ruthven’s letters to Cecil, Dudley and Throckmorton are from SP 52/12, nos. 41, 45; NLS, Advocates MS 22.2.18. Randolph’s report on the reconciliation of lords at the end of April is from SP 52/12, no. 51.
17. RECONCILIATION
Castelnau’s role is documented by Castelnau (1838) and discussed by Chéruel (1858), with documents and extracts printed by Labanoff (1839) and Keith (1844–50), vol. 2. Bothwell’s political comeback and the tensions among the lords despite Mary’s efforts at reconciliation are from PRO, SP 52/12, nos. 49A, 51, 64, 68, 75, 89, 94A, 99; BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10, of which extracts are printed by Stevenson (1837).
The account of Mary’s deteriorating relationship with Darnley is from SP 52/12, nos. 47, 51, 61, 64, 65, 75, 77; BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10, where the story of the dog is found. The report of Bedford’s anonymous source is from SP 52/12, nos. 99A, 99A(l), extracts of which are printed by Hay Fleming (1897).
Mary’s pregnancy and delivery are from SP 52/12, nos. 71, 74, 75–76, with further detail from Armstrong Davison (1965) and Dawson (2002). Information about her will is from SP 52/12, nos. 68, 77. Her inventory, at NAS, is edited with sample facsimiles and introduction by Robertson (1863). Modern analysis is by Donaldson (1983).
Mary’s letter to Cecil rebuking him for his role in the Rokesby affair is SP 52/12, no. 106, printed in Labanoff (1844), vol. 7. Darnley’s plotting and letters to European rulers and the pope are from SP 52/12, no. 82; SP 52/13, no. 6; [Nau] (1883); CSP Scotland (1898–1969), vol. 2; Keith, vol. 2; Hay Fleming. The Rokesby affair is pieced together from SP 52/12, nos. 56, 61, 65, 70, 70(1), 71, 72, 75–76, 79, 81–82, 88, 92, 106.
Killigrew’s instructions are from SP 52/12, no. 72. His interviews with Mary and visits to Prince James are from SP 52/12, nos. 75–76, 80. His meeting with Moray is from SP 52/12, no. 77.
Mary’s visit to Alloa and hunting trips are described by Keith, vol. 2, where documentary extracts are given. Further detail is from SP 52/12, no. 99, and the notes to Hay Fleming. The removal of Prince James to Stirling and Mary’s reconciliation with Maitland are from SP 52/12, nos. 99A(1), 102–3, 105; Keith, vol. 2. Darnley’s arrival at the gates of Holyrood and the Privy Council proceedings with du Croc in attendance are from Keith, vol. 2.
The account of Mary’s planned Justice Ayre and the collapse
of her health at Jedburgh and its aftermath is worked out from SP 52/12, nos. 108–9, 112; SP 59/12, fos. 52–145v, where the reports of Lord Scrope, Sir John Forster and the Earl of Bedford provide reliable information far the period between Aug. 9 and Dec. 11, 1566. Keith, vols. 2–3, is invaluable, especially the letters of du Croc and Lesley in the appendix to book 2 in vol. 3. Keith was unfortunately misled by the forged “Crawford” chronicle. This was an embellishment of the Historie of King James VI in [James VI] (1825), of which the earliest and possibly the most authentic manuscript is NAS, MS GD 1/371/3. The discussion in Armstrong Davison has the benefit of medical expertise.
Du Croc’s further reports from Jedburgh and Craigmillar, the latter essential for Mary’s mental depression, are from Teulet (1862), vol. 2, and Keith, vol. 1. Maitland’s insinuations to the Archbishop of Glasgow are from Hay Fleming. The lords’ view of the advantages of Mary’s rule is established by Lynch (1990).
