by John Guy
Throckmorton’s dispatches to Bedford, Cecil and Elizabeth were mostly printed by Stevenson (1837). Others are from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.1, and from Keith (1844–50), vol. 2. Elizabeth’s letter to Mary is from SP 52/13, no. 80; her letter to the lords is from SP 52/13, no. 82. Her instructions to Throckmorton are from SP 52/13, nos. 81, 83. Cecil’s memo to Throckmorton is SP 52/14, no. 1. Elizabeth’s subsequent outrage is from PRO, SP 52/14, nos. 39A, 53A, 53B. Cecil’s jotting is at the foot of SP 52/14, no. 1. He cites “4 Regum,” meaning the fourth book of Kings, which today is known as 2 Chronicles. The story of Athalia is from 2 Chronicles 23:11–21 and 2 Kings 11:1–20. Knox’s sermon was reported by Throckmorton. The documents of demission and abdication that Mary signed are printed by Anderson (1727–28), vol. 2; Keith (1844–50), vol. 2. They are discussed by Hay Fleming (1897). The account of Lindsay’s behavior is from Melville (1827), [Nau] (1883) and Anderson, vols. 3–4. James’s coronation is from Throckmorton’s reports in Stevenson (1837); Diurnal of Occurrents (1833); [James VI] (1825); Keith, vol. 2; Hay Fleming. Elizabeth’s dressing down of Cecil is from SP 52/14, no. 53B.
Moray’s visit to Mary is from Throckmorton’s dispatch of August 20 from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.1, printed by Keith, vol. 2. The proclamation of the regency is from Diurnal of Occurrents and Keith, vol. 2. Mary’s pastimes at Lochleven are from Throckmorton’s dispatches and Drury’s reports to Cecil in PRO, SP 59/14. The evidence for Mary’s escape from Lochleven is confused and contradictory. My account is pieced together from [Nau] (1883); Diurnal of Occurrents; a report to Cosimo I from Labanoff, vol. 7; the Venetian ambassador’s report in CSPV (1864–1947), vol. 7; Tytler (1828–42), vol. 7; Keith (1844–50), vol. 2.
Mary’s mustering of her forces and the battle of Langside are from Cecil’s notes in BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.1, supported by the sources printed by Keith, vol. 2, which include Drury’s reports. Further detail is from Diurnal of Occurrents; [James VI] (1825); Tytler (1828–42), vol. 7; Teulet (1862), vol. 2; Dawson (2002). Mary’s flight to England is from Keith, vol. 2; [James VI] (1825); Ellis (1824–46), 1st series, vol. 2. Cecil’s memos, in particular that of late May (fos. 97–100v), are from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.1, printed by Anderson (1727–28), vol. 4. Mary’s letters are from Labanoff, vol. 2, and Strickland (1844), vol. 1. Cecil’s position is treated at length by Alford (1998). The sale of Mary’s pearls to Elizabeth is from SP 53/1, no. 46; BNF, MS FF 15971 (fo. 112); [Nau] (1883); Labanoff, vol. 7.
23. BOTHWELL’S STORY
Bothwell’s escape is pieced together from Strickland (1844), vol. 1; Stevenson (1837); CSPF, Elizabeth (1863–1950), vol. 8. Schiern (1880), Peyster (1890) and Gore-Brown (1937) may be used with caution. Hay Fleming (1897) is accurate but brief. Strickland (1888), vol. 2, uses Danish sources, but her argument is biased toward Mary. Bothwell’s letter to Charles IX is from BNF, MS FF 15971 (fo. 168); Moray’s instructions to his envoy are from the same MS (fo. 84).
Bothwell’s “declaration” is from the Bannatyne Club edition, [Hepburn, J.] (1829). The translation is my own, but uses that by Strickland (1844), vol. 1, as a model. Other translations can be found in New Monthly Magazine 13, pp. 521–37, and Drummond (1975). My annotations adopt suggestions by Armstrong Davison (1965). Bothwell’s later years at Malmö and Dragsholm are from Schiern, Peyster and Gore-Brown. Captain Clark’s activities and reports to Cecil are from CSPF, Elizabeth (1863–1950), vols. 8–10. The report of the Confederate Lords’ ambassador about Bothwell’s communications with Mary is from PRO, SP 52/20, no. 5 (fos. 8–9).
There are two main versions of Bothwell’s deathbed “confession.” One was once apparently in Cecil’s papers, now in BL, Cott. MS, Titus C.7, edited by Strickland (1844), vol. 1; the other was said to be from “a merchant of good faith and reputation,” perhaps marketed as the equivalent of a “penny dreadful,” edited by Keith (1844–50), vol. 3.
Mary’s letter to her ambassador in Paris is from Labanoff (1844), vol. 4, and Keith, vol. 3. Mary’s protests about Elizabeth’s suppression of her full-length copy of the “confession” are from NLS, Advocates MS 22.2.18, no. 8; Keith, vol. 3.
The Countess of Lennox’s letter to Mary is from PRO, SP 53/10, no. 71. Mary’s inventory at Chartley in 1586 listing the prized piece of point tresse is from Labanoff (1844), vol. 7. Her letter of May 2, 1578, after the countess’s death, is from NLS, Advocates MS 22.2.18, no. 11, where no. 7 is the account of James Vi’s reaction to the “confession.” Biographical detail on James is from Croft (2003). Labanoff, vol. 5, and Keith, vol. 3, also printed Mary’s letter. The posthumous history of Bothwell’s corpse is from Gore-Brown and tourist offices at Malmö, Faarevejle and Dragsholm.
24. THE LORDS’ STORY
Buchanan’s life and political ideas are from [Buchanan] (1950), Burns (1992 and 1993) and Mason (2000). His dossier against Mary, in the version translated for Lennox into Lowland Scots as “An Information,” is from CUL, MS. Dd.3.66, edited with critical annotation by Mahon (1923). Moray’s communications to Elizabeth and Cecil contextualizing the dossier and the lords’ charges against Mary are taken from PRO, SP 52/15, nos. 39–41. The quotation about the incriminating “letters” is taken from no. 41.
Drury’s reports to Cecil on Lady Reres are from PRO, SP 59/13, fos. 84, 104. Modern works consulted were Henderson (1890), Read (1955), Diggle (1960), Armstrong Davison (1965), Donaldson (1969) and Villius (1985).
25 AND 26. CASKET LETTERS I AND II
The casket documents are discussed from the handwritten transcripts as follows: The eight letters are numbered 1–8 after the numbers allocated by Henderson (1890). Transcripts previously unknown, and discussed in this book for the first time, are marked with an asterisk. Letter 1 (English): PRO, SP 53/2, no. 62 (fos. 134–35v). Letter 2 (English): SP 53/2, no. 65 (fos. 139–42v). Letter 3 (Scots): *BL, Add. MS 48027, fo. 276r–v (a transcript in Beale’s papers from Cecil’s copy, with copies of his annotations also at fo. 279v). Letter 3 (French): SP 53/2, no. 66 (fos. 143–44v). Letter 4 (French): CP 352/3. Letter 4 (English): CP 352/4. Letter 5 (English): *SP 53/2, no. 64 (fo. 138r–v). Letter 5 (French—transcript supplied by the Scots): SP 53/2, no. 63 (fos. 136–37v). Letter 6 (French): CP 352/1 (italic hand). Letter 6 (English): CP 352/2. Letters 7 and 8: no handwritten transcripts (texts derived from Scots printed versions in [Buchanan] (1572a), BL C.55.A.26). Handwritten transcripts of the alleged marriage contracts between Mary and Bothwell are from *BL, Add. MS 48027, fos. 277–79v; BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.1, fo. 271 (supplied by the Scots, and in the same hand as SP 53/2, no. 63). The sonnets are from CUL, MS Oo.7.47, discussed with a sample facsimile by Davidson (2001). The sonnets have been counted variously by historians as twelve, eleven, or as one long poem. The “twelfth” is only six lines long and is either an unfinished sonnet or a postscript to the others.
The reported discovery of alleged incriminating letters by Mary is from CSPS, Series 2 (1892–99), vol. 1; Keith (1844–50), vol. 2; Henderson (1890). Moray’s affidavit is from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.1, fo. 354; Morton’s declaration is from BL, Add. MS 32091, fo. 216 (printed by Henderson, appendix A). Cecil’s minute with his description of the casket is from SP 53/2, no. 60. The key Cecil memoranda of Dec. 14–15, about the collation of the casket documents and the handwriting test, are from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.1, fos. 355–58v.
The earlier stages of the proceedings at York and Westminster, including the severe criticisms leveled against the Scots delegation and the Casket Letters by the Duke of Norfolk and Earl of Sussex, are from PRO, SP 53/2, nos. 5–10, 14–22, 55–60; BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.1, fos. 227–358v; BL, Add. MS 33531, fos. 41–70; CP 4/41, 42–43, 49–51; CP 138/44–48, 70–73; CP 155/123, 125, 128–29, 130–31, 140–44; CP 156/1–3, 7; CP 198/127; printed in CSP Scotland (1898–1969), vol. 2; [Haynes and Murdin] (174059), vol. 1; [Salisbury MSS.] (1883–1976), vol. 1. The final and revised charges against Mary as presented to Elizabeth and Cecil by Moray in the Book of Articles are taken from BL, Add. MS. 33531, fos. 51–63.
>
The later proceedings at Westminster and Hampton Court are from CP 155/141–42, 143, 144; CP 156/1–2, 3, 5; BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.1, fos. 317–58v; SP 53/2, nos. 55, 60, 74, 78, 81. Elizabeth’s letter to Mary is from SP 53/2, no. 79. Knollys’s reports to Elizabeth are at CP 155/74; SP 53/2, no. 82; SP 53/3, no. 1. Mary’s letters are from Labanoff (1844), vol. 2, and Strickland (1844), vol. 1. Other documents from Cecil’s papers are from [Haynes and Murdin] (1740–59), vol. 1. Summaries of CP documents are in [Salisbury MSS.] (1883–1976), vol. 1, and of PRO and Cott. Calig. C.1 documents in CSP Scotland (1898–1969), vol. 2.
The relevant entries from Moray’s journal of Mary’s and Bothwell’s movements between January 21 and 30, 1567, are printed in Turner (1934), pp. 166–67. Lord Scrope’s original handwritten report of Bothwell’s journey to Liddesdale, describing his fight with the Elwoods when the Glasgow letters were alleged to have been received by him in Edinburgh, is from SP 59/12, fos. 175–76v.
None of the modern works is definitive, but those I found most helpful are Henderson (1890), Diggle (1960), Villius (1985). Armstrong Davison (1965), with his theory of the “other woman,” on which Fraser (1969) heavily relies, is too fanciful to take seriously. Information about “French Paris” and the “confessions” extorted from him at St. Andrews on August 9 and 10, 1569, is from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.1; BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.9; BL, Add. MS 48027; Teulet (1859); Teulet (1862), vol. 2; Robertson (1863); Mahon (1930); Donaldson (1.983). Cecil’s draft of Elizabeth’s letter to Moray demanding that Paris’s execution be deferred is from SP 52/16, no. 52.
27. CAPTIVE QUEEN
Mary’s letters, including those sent to Castelnau, her uncle the Cardinal of Lorraine and her agent in Paris, are from Labanoff (1844), vols. 2–5 and 7. Those appealing to Catherine de Medici and Charles IX are from HEH, MSS HM 21712, 21716. Some are translated by Turnbull (1845), others by Strickland (1844), vol. 1, with a documentary appendix to vol. 2. HEH, MS HM 21712 was apparently unknown to Labanoff. Mary’s letter of Nov. 8, 1582, about her son is from a number printed by [Camden] (1624), p. 134f.
Mary’s domestic and household arrangements, including her attendants, clothes, diet and accounts, guards and surveillance, exercise, and the use of her coach after 1582, are put together from Lodge (1791), vol. 2; Robertson (1863); [Mary, Queen of Scots] (1867); Morris (1874); Leader (1880); Lang (1905); Collinson (1987a). Mary’s framed set of family miniatures is discussed byWay (1859) and listed in the inventories in Labanoff (1844), vol. 7. Way mistakes a single object for two separate ones.
Leader’s impressive study is by far the most detailed and invaluable for the years of Shrewsbury’s custody, printing in full the key documents from PRO, SP 53/3–13. Further information about the severity of Paulet’s regime is from Beale’s papers in BL, Add. MS 48027.
Knollys’s letters to Cecil are from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.9, printed by Strickland (1844), vol. 2. The account of Mary Seton’s “busking” is from fo. 345. Nicholas White’s description to Cecil of his interview with Mary is from CP 155/100–102, printed in [Haynes and Murdin] (1740–59), vol. 1.
Mary’s health is from SP 53/3, nos. 62, 80, 83, 88, 105; SP 53/4, nos. 4, 58, 59, 63; Morris (1874); Leader (1880); Armstrong Davison (1965). Her visits to Buxton are from Leader. Her needlework and use of animal templates are from Swain (1986) and Jones and Stallybrass (2000). Detail on her pets is from her letters; that on Bess of Hardwick, including the so-called scandal letter, from Lodge (1791), vol. 2; Strickland (1888), vol. 2; Chamberlin (1925); Girouard (1996). The Hardwick canvas and portrait miniatures of Mary are from Cust (1903) and Strong (1983).
28. AN AX OR AN ACT?
Mary’s letters are from Labanoff (1844), vols. 3–7; some were translated by Turnbull (1845), others by Strickland (1844), vols. 1–2. Key extracts concerning Guise, Spanish and papal intrigue were collected and collated by Beale, whose summaries in BL, Add. MS 48049, offer an invaluable index to the passages found to be incriminating. For Walsingham’s role, see Read (1925b), vol. 2; Read (1960), vol. 2; Bossy (2001). On Mary’s European diplomacy, Chéruel (1858) is invaluable, as is Castelnau (1838). Events in Scotland and the diplomacy leading to Elizabeth’s recognition of James as king of Scots are worked out from Chéruel (1858); Read (1925b), vol. 2; Basing (1994); Croft (2003).
My account of the Ridolfi plot relies heavily on the outstanding account by Parker (2002). Further detail is from Edwards (1968), Alford (1998a), Lockie (1954), Beckett (2002). Mignet (1852), vol. 2, appendix L, documents Philip’s intentions and the advice he received.
Norfolk’s warning to Cecil is from PRO, SP 53/2, no. 19. His letters to Moray, of which the second was leaked, are from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.1, fos. 429, 434; NLS, Advocates MS 31.2.19, fos. 235, 245. Background on the marriage plot is from [Haynes and Murdin] (1740–59), vol. 1. Further extracts from Mary’s letters to Norfolk are from [Nau] (1883). The gift of the diamond is from Mary’s letter of Nov. 23, 1586, to Mendoza, printed in Labanoff (1844), vol. 6. Cecil’s letter to Shrewsbury of Sept. 5, 1571, is from Lambeth, MS 3197, fos. 33–36. Mary’s intercepted letter to her foreign supporters is from BL, Add. 48049, fos. 266–67, printed in Basing (1994).
Cecil’s visit to Chatsworth is from BL, Add. 48049, fo. 157; Read (1960). Knox’s advice is from PRO, SP 52/17, no. 3. Wilson’s role in the Detection is from Mahon (1923) and the annotations on the documents in SP 53; what I have called a proof copy is perhaps a pilot first edition issued to the Privy Council alone. The imitation Scots edition in its approved form is BL, G.1724(1), HEH 59850. According to its title page, the book was “translated out of the Latin which was written by G[eorge] B[uchanan].” But Buchanan complained about the “over-officiousness of my friends” who “precipitated the publication of what was yet unfit to see the light.” The editors had “altered many things and corrupted others according to their several humors.” Cecil was finally forced to concede that the book was “written” by Buchanan “not as of himself, nor in his name, but according to the instructio ns given him . . . by the lords of the Privy Council in Scotland.”
Cecil’s memo on the eve of the 1572 Parliament is from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.3, fos. 457–60. Speeches are from [Proceedings in Parliament] (1981–95), vol. 1; Neale (1953–57), vol. 1; Collinson (1987a). The use of Killigrew and Beale by Cecil and Walsingham was established by Taviner (2000). My account of Scottish politics relies on Chéruel (1858), with selected documents in [Haynes and Murdin] (1740–59), vol. 2. Beale’s missions to Sheffield are explained by Basing (1994), who prints material from BL, Add. MS 48049.
Walsingham’s recruitment of Feron is from Bossy (2001). Those of Mary’s letters ending up with Walsingham via the mole to which I refer are SP 53/13, no. 1, and BL, Harleian MS 1582, fos. 311–13. The Bond of Association is from PRO, SP 12/174/1–11, 14–18; BL, Add. MS 48027, fos. 248–51v. The bond and the Act for the Queen’s Safety are printed by Howell (1816), vol. 1, discussed by Neale (1953–57), vol. 2; Cressy (1982). Cecil’s drafts of the act and his plans for a quasi-republican regency council to exclude Mary from the succession are from CP 205/128; CP 210/17; PRO, SP 12/176/ 22, 28–30; HEH, Ellesmere MS 1192, discussed by Collinson (1987b and 1995) and Guy (1995). Debates are from [Proceedings in Parliament], vol. 2.
29. NEMESIS
Mary’s letters are taken from Labanoff (1844), vols. 6–7; Tuarnbull (1845); Strickland (1844), vol. 2. Paulet’s letters to Walsingham and Cecil are from Morris (1874). The account of the Babington plot relies on the outstanding work of Pollen (1922), where most of the documents are edited. Bossy (2001) provides an invaluable brief overview, especially where the French embassy is concerned. Châteauneuf’s report to Henry III is from Turnbull (1845). Some background is taken from Read (1925b), vol. 3, and Read (1955), vol. 2. The key documents in the Babington plot are from PRO, SP 53/18, nos. 32–34, 38, 48, 51–56, 61; SP 53/19, nos. 9–12. The so-called gallows letter is SP 53/18, no. 53; the copy of the forged postscript is SP 53/18, no. 55, discussed by Re
ad (1909).
Mary’s removal to Tixall, the confiscation of her papers and money, and the arrest of her secretaries are mainly from Morris (1874) and Chantelauze (1876). The independent account of d’Esneval, the French ambassador to Scotland, is printed in Morris. Scott (1905) offers a modern summary of Bourgoing’s narrative, which must be used with caution.
Mary’s return to Chartley is from Morris (1874) and Strickland (1844), vol. 2. The preparations for her trial are worked out from Ellis (1824–36), 1st series, vol. 3; Morris (1874); Read (1955), vol. 2.
The proceedings at Fotheringhay and in the Star Chamber are taken from BL, Add. MS, 48027, fos. 492–510, 540–54, 557v–68; BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.9, fos. 477–95; BL, Harleian MS 290; Howell (1816), vol. 1; [Salisbury MSS.] (1883–1976), vol. 3; Chantelauze (1876). Cecil’s preparatory drawing for the trial is from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.9, fo. 635, printed by Dack (1889). Beale’s drawing of the actual events (which is not wholly accurate) is from BL, Add. MS 48196 C, art. 7 (formerly Add. MS 48027, fo. 569).
The Parliament of 1586 is from [Proceedings in Parliament] (1981–95), vol. 3, and Neale (1953–57), vol. 2. The battle for the wording of the petition is meticulously reconstructed by Heisch (1992); the key documents are HEH, Ellesmere MS 1191; BL, Add. 48027, fos. 651–53; BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.9, fos. 664–65.
The account of the struggle over whether to assassinate Mary using the Bond of Association or to publicly execute her comes from Beale’s papers in BL, Add. 48027, fos. 636–41, 642–58v; Morris (1874); Nicolas (1823). Beale tells his story at BL, Add. 48027, fos. 639v–40, partly printed in Read (1925a). In reconstructing these events I have greatly benefited from Taviner (2000), a masterly account of the sending of the warrant.
