The True Life of Mary Stuart: Queen of Scots

by John Guy

  The terms of the reconciliation between Mary and Elizabeth are pieced together from the following documents: (1) Mary’s letter to the English Privy Council of Nov. 18, 1566, from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10, and BL, Add. MS 48043, printed in Ellis (182446), 1st series, vol. 2, and Labanoff (1844), vol. 1. (2) Elizabeth’s instructions to Bedford dated Nov. 7 and her letter of the 9th from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10, printed in Keith, vol. 2. (3) Mary’s letter to Elizabeth of Jan. 3, 1567, from SP 52/13, no. 1, printed in Labanoff (1844), vol. 1. (4) Mary’s “heads” of proposals for Bedford from SP 52/13, no. 5, printed in Keith, vol. 2. Melville’s instructions of Feb. 8, 1567, are not extant.

  18. PLOT AND COUNTERPLOT

  Darnley’s assassination is treated in literally thousands of books and articles. The most reliable sources are the manuscripts, chiefly PRO, SP 52, 53 and 59 (see below for document nos. or fos.), and BL, Cott. MSS, Calig. B.9–10 and Calig. C.1 and C.6. Classes SP 52 and 53 are based on those portions of Cecil’s original working archive now held in the PRO, from which the documents in the Cottonian MSS were extracted in the seventeenth century, ending up in the BL. Both SP 52 and 53 are artificial classes, carved out of Cecil’s archive by Victorian archivists.

  Class SP 59 comprises the so-called Border Papers, the documents sent by Bedford and Drury from Berwick-upon-Tweed to London, but papers were indiscriminately pulled out to fill in gaps in SP 52 and SP 53. The Border Papers are only sketchily calendared in CSPF, Elizabeth (1863–1950), vols. 1–9, and thereafter in CSP Borders (1894–96). They are not included in CSP Scotland (1898–1969), which has caused massive confusion. When SP 52, 53 and 59 were put into their present arrangement, the original order of the documents was completely destroyed and papers were shamelessly moved around to shape the different classes.

  Cecil’s further collections in the Cecil Papers (CP) at Hatfield House provide additional material (see also notes to chapters 25 and 26). Other portions of his archive are in the Lansdowne MSS at the BL, but these contain little of significance for Darnley’s murder. Other information is taken from Robert Beale’s collections on Mary, now BL, Add. MSS 48027, 48043 and 48049, and from NLS, Advocates MS 31.2.19.

  Further printed primary sources are the Diurnal of Occurrents (1833), essential for dates; [Nau] (1883), which is far from reliable; Melville (1827); CSPS, Series 2 (189299), vol. 1; CSPV (1864–1947), vol. 7. Mary’s letters are from Labanoff (1844), vol. 1. Other printed collections are by Anderson (1727–28), vols. 1–4; Keith (1844–50), vols. 2–3 and the “Advertisement to the Reader” in vol. 1; Teulet (1859). Modern discussions include Henderson (1890), Peyster (1890), Hay Fleming (1897), Lang (1902), Mahon (1930), Turner (1934), Diggle (1960), Armstrong Davison (1965), Fraser (1969) and Villius (1985).

  The plotting at Craigmillar is from Huntly and Argyll’s protestation in BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.1, as critiqued by Moray in the same volume, and printed in Keith, vol. 3, appendix to book 2, no. 16. The aftermath is from the Dumbarton declaration, printed in Strickland (1888), vol. 2, appendix 3, which exonerates Mary.

  The baptism of Prince James is from SP 52/12, nos. 121–23, 126, 128–30, 132; SP 59/12, fos. 146–47; Diurnal of Occurrents; Melville (1827); Keith, vol. 2 and the “Advertisement” in vol. 1; Lynch (1990). Forster’s gibe at Bothwell is from SP 59/12, fo. 146.

  The pardon of the Rizzio conspirators is from SP 52/12, no. 133; SP 52/13, no. 3; notes to Hay Fleming, and documentary appendix, pp. 502–4; see also Lynch (1990). Morton’s letter to Cecil is from SP 52/13, no. 4. Bedford’s to Cecil is from SP 52/13, no. 3. Du Croc’s account of Mary’s illness at Stirling is from Keith, “Advertisement” in vol. 1. The passage from the enlarged edition of Holinshed’s First and Second Volumes of Chronicles is from Holinshed (1587), vol. 2, p. 429 (BL copy, LR.400.b.23), where it is inserted into Morton’s 1581 confession.

  The meeting at Whittingham Castle is from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.6, with other versions in BL, Add. MSS 48027 and 48049; printed by Calderwood (1842–49), vol. 3. Drury’s reports to Cecil between the baptism and the murder, including the report of Jan. 23, are from SP 52/12, fos. 146–210. His report on the links between Morton and Bothwell is SP 59/13, fos. 5–7.

  Darnley’s syphilis is from Armstrong Davison (1965), appendix A. Mary’s offer to have sex with Darnley is from her own statements in genuine passages of the longest of the Casket Letters (the long Glasgow letter), cited from the handwritten transcript at SP 53/2, no. 65. For a full discussion of the provenance of the Casket Letters, see chapters 25 and 26.

  Mary’s movements are from the Diurnal of Occurrents and Drury’s reports (the dates are close, if not exactly the same). Mary’s letter to the Archbishop of Glasgow, her ambassador in Paris, is from Keith, ‘Advertisement” in vol. 1. Her journey to Glasgow is from the Diurnal of Occurrents and the notes to Hay Fleming.

  Detail on Kirk o’Field and its layout is from Mahon (1930); Anderson, vols. 1–2; Keith, vol. 2 (which is useful but very inaccurate); Robertson (1863). That it was Darnley’s decision to lodge there is proved by Mahon (1930). The location and movement of furniture and tapestries are from the inventories edited by Robertson, also discussed in his introduction. Darnley’s letter to Lennox and the background to the murder plot are from Mahon. Drury’s reports on the gunpowder transactions and explosion are from SP 52/12, especially fos. 192, 201–2, 207–10; see also Anderson, vols. 1–2.

  19. ASSASSINATION TWO

  The facts of Bastian’s marriage were established by Robertson (1863) and Hay Fleming (1897). Mary’s movements and the last hours at Kirk o’Field before the explosion are pieced together from CSPS, Series 2 (1892–99), vol. 1; CSPV (1864–1947), vol. 7; the first deposition of “French Paris”; the deposition of Thomas Nelson; and other confessions, especially that of John Hepburn. These are far from ideal sources. Paris’s first deposition is from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.9, and BL, Add. MS 48027, printed in Teulet (1859); Nelson’s deposition is from NLS, Advocates MS 31.2.19, printed by Anderson (1727–28), vol. 4, and Howell (1816), vol. 1. Others are printed by Anderson, vol. 2, and Howell, vol. 1. Mary’s remark to Paris is from [Nau] (1883).

  The explosion and Darnley’s murder are worked out from Diurnal of Occurrents (1833); NAS, MS GD 1/371/3, printed unsatisfactorily in [James VI] (1825); and the reports of Moretta, Clernault and Drury. Moretta’s evidence is taken from Labanoff (1844), vol. 4, and CSPV, vol. 7, in the first case as reported by the Bishop of Mondovi, in the second by Giovanni Correr, which may explain the inconsistencies. Clernault’s report dated Feb. 16, 1567, is from PRO, SP 52/13, no. 13. Drury’s extensive and detailed reports, which also cover the placards and the night prowler, are from SP 59/12, fos. 192, 201–2, 207–10, 211, 222–25v, 235, 243–44, 245–46v; SP 59/13, fos. 5–7, 19–20, 31–34, 37–38v, 81–85v. The references to Andrew Ker of Fawdonside are from SP 59/13, fos. 84, 136. Drury’s colored drawing of Kirk o’Field and the events of the murder is PRO, MPF 366. Drury’s report on the links between Morton and Bothwell is SP 59/13, fos. 5–7, and Melville’s comment on Bothwell is from Melville (1827). For Shakespeare’s use of “pack,” see Titus Andronicus, IV.ii.155; Comedy of Errors, V.i.219; Much Ado, V.i.308.

  Mahon (1930) is invaluable, but his theory that the explosion was a plot by Darnley to kill Mary is fanciful and unsupported by the evidence. His interpretation of Ker of Fawdonside is wrecked by failure to notice the reference (SP 59/13, fo. 136) to Ker as “a great carrier of intelligences and letters” for Bothwell. Ker also took Bothwell’s side at Carberry Hill before fleeing (SP 59/13, fo. 159). The depositions of the women in the cottages are from BL, Add. MS 33531, fos. 37–38, a volume of the papers kept by Alexander Hay, clerk of the Privy Council, that includes the “Book of Articles” and other documents shown to Cecil in 1568. The quotation about the women’s “blabbing” is from Buchanan (1571c).

  Mary’s letter to her ambassador in Paris after the explosion is from Keith (1844–50), “Advertisement to the Reader” in vol. 1, and Labanoff (1844), vol.
2. Both editors date it Feb. 11, but Mary’s letter of the 18th shows that it was written on the 10th. Mary’s letter of the 18th is from Labanoff, vol. 2, and Stevenson (1837). Her move back to Edinburgh Castle and the proclamation are from Keith, vol. 2; PCS, 1st Series (1877–98), vol. 1; and Hay Fleming.

  The Venetian report of Feb. 21 is from CSPV, vol. 7. De Silva collected suspicions about Mary’s role in CSPS, Series 2, vol. 1. The letter from her ambassador in Paris warning of the accusations against her is from Stevenson (1837) and Keith, “Advertisement” in vol. 1, dated March 11 by Stevenson and the 9th by Keith. The letter from Catherine de Medici and Charles IX is from SP 59/12, fos. 243–44. The letter from the Cardinal of Lorraine to Moray is from SP 59/13, fo. 84. Mary’s letter to the Duke of Nemours is from BNF, MS FF 3637. The Bishop of Mondovi’s letter is from Labanoff (1844), vol. 7.

  Elizabeth’s letter to Mary is from SP 52/13, no. 17, printed by Labanoff, vol. 7.Killigrew’s report to Cecil is from SP 52/13, no. 19. Lennox’s letter to Cecil (dated March 9) is from SP 52/13, no. 21. Morton’s letter (dated March 10) is SP 52/13, no. 22, and letters from Moray and Maitland to Cecil (dated March 13) are from SP 52/13, nos. 25–26.

  20. A LOVE MATCH?

  The essential facts are established by Tytler (1828–42), vol. 7; Hay Fleming (1897), especially the notes; Keith (1844–50), vol. 2; Donaldson (1983); Wormald (1985 and 1988); Dawson (2002). Beyond this, I have drawn extensively on the State Papers, Scotland (PRO, SP 52), and more importantly the originals of Drury’s handwritten reports in the Border Papers (PRO, SP 59). Hay Fleming cited the Border Papers only from the brief printed extracts in CSPF, Elizabeth (1863–1950), vol. 8, where a mass of relevant detail is omitted or garbled.

  Mary’s letters to Lennox and the Bishop of Mondovi are from Labanoff (1844), vol. 2, where her marriage contract of May 14 is also printed. The key chronicles, which also record the bare facts of Darnley’s funeral, are Diurnal of Occurrents (1833) and the Historie and Life of King James the Sext in [James VI] (1825). The Diurnal is invaluable for establishing dates. I have used the original manuscript of the Historie in NAS, MS GD 1/371/3, where the earliest and fullest version of the text is given, confirming the facts of Mary’s abduction and the proximity of her and Bothwell’s bedrooms.

  De Silva’s assessment of Mary is from CSPS, Series 2 (1892–99), vol. 1. Killigrew’s report of his dinner with the lords and audience with Mary is from SP 52/13, no. 19. Drury’s reports of Mary’s and Bothwell’s movements, including the archery contest, are from SP 59/12, fos. 198, 201–2, 207–10. Hostile public opinion and the placards, in particular the mermaid and the hare, are from SP 59/12, fos. 211, 222–25v, 235; SP 59/13, fos. 81–85v; the drawing itself is SP 52/13, no. 60. A rougher sketch is SP 52/13, no. 61. Mary’s interview with the minister of Dunfermline is from SP 59/12, fos. 243–44. Bothwell’s attack on Darnley’s ex-servant is from SP 59/13, fo. 85. The alignments of the lords before they assembled at Stirling, including Moray’s exile, are from SP 59/12, fos. 234, 235, 243–44; SP 59/13, fos. 55–56, 62–63v. Mary’s remark that Moray went away for debt is from SP 59/13, fo. 84. Her illness in late March is from SP 59/12, fos. 245–46v. Her gifts of clothes to Bothwell are from Robertson (1863) and the notes to Hay Fleming.

  Bothwell’s military deployments are from SP 59/12, fos. 245–46v; SP 59/13, fos. 1920, 45–46. Morton’s interview with Mary and assurances to Bothwell are from SP 59/12, fos. 222–25v; SP 59/13, fos. 5–7. Lennox’s appeals to Mary, his request for Elizabeth’s intervention, and Bothwell’s trial are from SP 52/13, nos. 28–30; SP 59/12, fos. 243–44; SP 59/13, fos. 5–7, 8, 19–20, 31–34, 85v. The English Privy Council meeting is from SP 59/13, fos. 13–14. The report of Drury’s officer is extracted from SP 59/13, fos. 31–34, 92–93.

  The meeting of Parliament, the Ainslie’s Tavern Bond, the soldiers’ mutiny and the defection of Bothwell’s allies are from SP 59/13, fos. 37–38v, 41–42v, 81–85v; SP 52/13, no. 33. Wormald (1985) settles the bond’s correct signatories from the Leven and Melville muniments. NLS, Advocates MS 22.2.18, fixes the most likely date but has additional signatories. Cecil’s mistaken version from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.1, is printed in Keith, vol. 2. Kirkcaldy’s report of Mary’s supposed infatuation is from SP 52/13, no. 35. His later reports are from SP 52/13, nos. 37, 40. Drury’s reports of the abduction and Bothwell’s divorce are from SP 59/13, fos. 45–46, 52–53, 62–63v, 64–65, 84v. Summaries of documents on Bothwell’s divorce are from Stevenson’s introduction to [Nau] (1833). Sir James Melville’s comment is from Melville (1827). His brother Robert’s report to Cecil, with an account of the lords’ assembly at Stirling, is from SP 52/13, no. 42. Drury’s report of the assembly is from SP 59/13, fos. 55–56, 64–65, 68–69; Kirkcaldy’s report is SP 52/13, no. 43.

  The masque of boy actors at Stirling is from SP 59/13, fo. 88. Drury’s reports of Craig’s calling of the banns, his sermon and Bothwell’s reaction are from SP 59/13, fos. 88–89, 90, 91. Bothwell’s pardon is from NLS, Advocates MS 31.2.19. His creation as Duke of Orkney and the wedding are from SP 59/13, fos. 91, 94, 98, 99, 103. The account for Mary’s clothes is printed in the appendix to Hay Fleming. Du Croc’s account is from Teulet (1862), vol. 2.

  21. DENOUEMENT IN SCOTLAND

  The wide disparity of interpretations of the events in the weeks between Mary’s third marriage and her imprisonment in Lochleven are shown by Tytler (1828–42), vol. 7; Keith (1844–50), vol. 2; Strickland (1888), vols. 1–2; Hay Fleming (1897); Froude (1912), vol. 2; Fraser (1969); Wormald (1988). I have gone back to the archives to reconstruct an account based on PRO, SP 52; PRO, SP 59 (avoiding the inaccurate and often misdated summaries in CSPF, Elizabeth [1863–1950], vol. 8); Teulet (1862), vol. 2; Labanoff (1844), vol. 7; Stevenson (1837). Melville (1827) is essential but not always accurate, as are Diurnal of Occurrents (1833) and the Historie and Life of King James the Sext in [James VI] (1825), which I have cited from the manuscript NAS, MS GD 1/ 371/3.

  Cecil’s and Throckmorton’s comments are from Alford (1998a); Elizabeth’s remarks on Grange are from Tytler (1828–42), vol. 7. The placard quoting Ovid is from MS GD 1/371/3 and Keith, vol. 2. Drury’s reports on Mary’s rows with Bothwell and her threat to kill herself are from SP 59/13, fos. 81 (correctly dated), 82 (incorrectly placed and misdated—it belongs after the marriage), 103 (correctly dated after the marriage), 114–15; du Croc’s report of May 18 to Catherine de Medici from Teulet, vol. 2 (reprinted in Labanoff, vol. 7); Melville (1827); Keith, vol. 2. Drury’s comments on Mary and the horse are from SP 59/13, fos. 82 (misdated), 103.

  Mary and Bothwell’s keeping up appearances and the triumph are from SP 59/13, fos. 106–7, 108–9, 114–15. Her renewed bouts of sickness and the prophecies are from SP 59/13, fo. 104. Her harsh words about the lords are from SP 59/13, fo. 105. Bothwell’s ambition to be king is from SP 59/13, fo. 103. The views and dispositions of the lords are from SP 59/13, fos. 103, 105–6, 110–11, 112–13, 114–15, 134–35. The coining of Mary’s plate and the font at the mint are from SP 50/13, fos. 112–13, 114–15. Bothwell’s official acts are from SP 59/13, fos. 106–7, 112–13, 116; Keith, vol. 2. His letters to Elizabeth and Cecil are from SP 52/13, nos. 50–51.

  The rival musters and events leading up to Carberry Hill are pieced together from SP 59/13, fos. 120–21, 134–35, 136, 140–41, 144–45, 146–47; SP 52/13, no. 65; Keith, vol. 2; Dawson (2002). The report of the captain of Inchkeith is from Teulet, vol. 2. The lords’ proclamations and act of “Secret Council” are from SP 52/13, nos. 64–67; Keith, vol. 2. Mary’s slanging match with the lords is from SP 59/13, fos. 140–41. The sacking of the mint is from SP 59/13, fos. 144–45.

  The description of the battle of Carberry Hill is worked out from SP 59/13, fos. 157, 159, 165; SP 52/13, no. 64; the report of the captain of Inchkeith covering June 7–15; Melville (1827); Keith, vol. 2; and especially du Croc’s reports of June 17 to Charles IX and Catherine de Medici, printed in Teulet, vol. 2; Labanoff, vol. 7. The colored drawing o
f Mary’s surrender is PRO, MPF 366. Mary’s pregnancy is from SP 59/13, fos. 148–49. Her return to Edinburgh and committal to Lochleven are from SP 59/13, fos. 156–58; SP 52/13, no. 65, 69; du Croc to Catherine de Medici in Teulet, vol. 2; Diurnal of Occurrents; [James VI] (1825), cited from manuscript NAS, MS GD 1/371/3; [Nau] (1883); Keith, vol. 2. The warrant for Mary’s imprisonment is from the notes to Hay Fleming. Further insights into the lords’ mindset are from Stevenson (1837).

  22. MARY’S STORY

  Mary’s instructions to the Bishop of Dunblane are from NAS, MS GD 1/371/3, fos. 277v–79v, and BL, Royal MS 18.B.6, fos. 242v–66, printed in Labanoff (1844), vol. 2, and Keith (1844–50), vol. 2. Her instructions to Melville were printed in Labanoff, vol. 2, and Keith, vol. 2, from what Keith calls a “shattered MS.” This usually relates to one of the Cottonian MSS burned in the fire of 1731, which damaged or destroyed a quarter of the collection. Keith first published in 1734, which makes this explanation likely. I have been unable in this case to track down the original MS, but as Keith’s transcript bears all the marks of authenticity, and Melville’s mission was independently reported by Drury, there is no reason to question the text. The spelling and orthography is modernized, and I have occasionally altered the word order or turned archaic Scots usages into modern English to make the transcripts comprehensible.

  Since the copy of Mary’s letter to Elizabeth given to Melville as part of her explanation is lost, I have used her extracts from it, given to the Bishop of Ross and her commissioners in England in 1568, from BL, Cott. MS, Titus C.12, printed in Labanoff, vol. 2. Drury’s notes establishing the dates of the missions are from PRO, SP 59/13, fos. 114–15, 120–21.