Mary Queen of Scots
Page 11
After the battle Huntly died probably of a stroke; his heir George was imprisoned, but Gordon of Findlater was executed in November at Aberdeen. The axe man was so inept that Mary, probably witnessing her first beheading, fainted while observing the bloody deed. In France Châtelard surmised that her presence was required to prove she lacked passion for Findlater, but others remarked that she needed to witness it to confirm that the execution was not merely Moray’s avenging himself on the Gordon family. Randolph believed Findlater meant to kill Mary, but Knox more realistically claimed Huntly intended to seize her and murder Moray. The Herries memoirs also state Huntly wanted to match her with his son, Findlater.
A controversial aspect of these events was that Huntly headed the most prominent Catholic family in Scotland, and scholars have charged that Mary destroyed him because of his opposition to her plans for meeting with Elizabeth. That she invited Randolph to join her progress does seem to lend credence to this claim. It remains true, however, that Huntly and his sons defied her, seized the master of her household’s inheritance, refused her admission into Inverness Castle, threatened to abduct her, and rallied their allies, including John Gordon, 11th earl of Sutherland, to attack her forces. Since she delayed ordering Huntly declared a traitor until mid-October, she undoubtedly hoped to obtain his submission and avoid violence. Disregarding traditional practice, the Gordons chose not to retreat and end the conflict after encountering a larger armed force. The family’s ruin created a power vacuum in the northeast that was not filled until 1565 when Mary responded to the challenge of the Chaseabout raiders by releasing Huntly’s heir, who resumed control of his inheritance as the fifth earl and remained thereafter her loyal supporter. Later, as an English prisoner, she recalled that Huntly blamed Moray not her for his father’s and brother’s deaths.
THE CHTELARD INCIDENTS
That November while Mary was still on this progress, Châtelard reached Scotland, ending a one-year absence. Although he declared at his departure that he was leaving Scotland forever, he changed his mind and returned via London where he reportedly confided to a friend he was going to see his lady love. Having found Mary at Montrose on the 12th, he delivered to her from Damville a long letter, which according to Randolph, greatly pleased her. Indeed, she longed to receive news from France, and James Melville remembered that she enjoyed conversing with individuals returning from abroad. In late December Randolph reported that only one packet and two letters from France had arrived since Châtelard’s return and that no prince received fewer messages from there than she. Lethington also complained about not hearing much news in their corner of the world. It is no wonder then that she rewarded Châtelard for bringing Damville’s letter to her with a ride on a gelding presented to her by her half brother Lord Robert. Randolph did not report, as did others, who were not witnesses to their exchanges, that she gave her horse to the poet. Continuing toward Holyrood, she reached the palace by the 21st and succumbed to the influenza, called the New Acquaintance. There she was to face still another challenge to her honor.
In the next few weeks Randolph revealed no more information about Châtelard, although he noted that an illness kept Mary in bed for several days in January 1563. He later discovered that on 12 February before she left Holyrood on another progress, two chamberlains found Châtelard under her bed armed with his sword and dagger. After learning about this intrusion the next morning, Mary banished him from court. Undeterred he followed her to Dunfermline and apparently became persuaded that her anger had abated. On the 14th en route to St Andrews, she stopped at Rossend Castle, Burntisland, where, having hidden in a corner of her bedchamber, according to Randolph who was not present, Châtelard set upon her with such force and impudence that she and her two attendants cried for help. When Moray came to her rescue, she allegedly demanded that he stab Châtelard but her half brother arrested him instead, and on the 22nd the poet was executed at St Andrews. Meanwhile, Mary Fleming began sleeping in her mistress’s bedchamber.
When Châtelard returned to France in 1561, he fought in the religious wars on behalf of the Huguenots, but his Protestantism did not prevent him from obsessing about his feelings for Mary. Knox and others charged her with somehow leading the poet on, accusations that highlighted the ambivalence about women at court, who were expected to please men but somehow to demonstrate a modesty that kept them at bay. It is noteworthy that although Randolph, unlike Knox, observed some of Mary’s interactions with Châtelard, he did not accuse her of over-familiarity with the poet until after learning about the bedchamber confrontations.
In his writings Châtelard revealed that he played the lute for her, that she gave him a book by Petrarch, and that he read to her some of Ronsard’s and Petrarch’s poetry, the latter bringing tears to her eyes. He never referred to any beguilement on her part but confessed only to suffering an unrequited passion for her. His obsession seems to have led him to follow or tail her; today we would say that he stalked her. Such individuals do not require encouragement; they inhabit a deluded world, focusing on their inner feelings and harassing their victims even after courts issue restraining orders. If he had ulterior motives for following her, the belief of Mary’s Catholic friends that he meant to assassinate her seems implausible. He did admit, however, to attempting to sully her reputation in hopes of preventing her from remarrying. Perhaps he even thought that the bedchamber intrusions might make her feel compelled to wed him. Randolph regretted these attempts to dishonor Mary on whom he predicted a scar would ever remain.
Indeed, females often believe lewd attacks pollute them. Earlier in August 1562 when Mary was walking in Holyrood’s garden with Sir Henry Sidney, who was sent by Elizabeth to explain why she was postponing their conference, a Captain Hepburn delivered a document to her. She handed it to Lord James, who opened it to discover four ribald verses and crude sketches of women’s and men’s genitalia. To provide a context for her offended reaction, candid treatments of sexual matters in medical books even horrified some members of the medical profession. The outraged Mary ordered the captain’s arrest because she feared his lewd gift would in some sense cast doubts upon her honor, prompting individuals to wonder if she deserved to be so insulted.
Confirming Mary’s concern for her honor, Lethington reported to Cecil in December 1564 that her reputation was dearer to her than her life. In May 1565 when outraged by her plans to wed Darnley, Randolph even claimed he previously had deemed her to be prudent, wise, and honorable in all matters and James Melville recalled in his memoirs that she detested all lewd and vicious people. In the future, she would have to deal with even more damaging attacks on her honor and reputation that would result in her flight to England and life imprisonment.
5: RULING SCOTLAND, 1563–66
In early 1563 Randolph reported that from the beginning of her sorrows, Mary had ridden restlessly from place to place hawking and hunting. During the previous six months, she had faced troubling times: Huntly’s defeat at Corrichie, Châtelard’s execution for secretly entering her bedchamber twice, and the duke of Guise’s death on 24 February during the first of the French religious wars. After accompanying her to Falkland on 19 March, Randolph departed for St Andrews. Six days later Mary journeyed to Petlethie, Moray’s residence some four miles from St Andrews. As Randolph dined with her there on the 29th, a packet arrived from France notifying her of the death on 6 March of her uncle, Francis, the Grand Prior, which her concerned attendants had been concealing from her. She shed tears during the reading of his testament, displaying grief that was undoubtedly sincere although his high rank also deserved this emotional reaction. When Catherine de’ Medici learned of Guise’s death, for example, she wept and fainted.
Because of her French upbringing, it is appropriate in judging Mary’s personal rule to examine a schedule Catherine recommended to Charles IX that was based on his father’s routine. After the morning lever, he met for an hour or two with the conseil des affaires, a small advisory body, to hear despatches requirin
g his attention. At 10:00 a.m. he attended mass and by 11:00 a.m. had dined. Then, twice weekly he held audiences for an hour or two; at that same time theconseil privé, his larger council, convened, but he needed to attend it only occasionally. In the afternoons when unengaged in these affairs, he enjoyed free time, although at 3:00 p.m. on two or three days, he entertained his nobility with sports and other exercises. Every evening he supped with his family and twice weekly gave a ball.1
This document not only informs about Mary’s understanding of how French kings obtained counsel but also offers evidence that is useful in highlighting the diversity of early modern royal routines. Unlike France, England had only one small advisory council, called the privy council, the meetings of which its queens regnant, Mary and Elizabeth Tudor, rarely attended. When Philip II was resident in England, he met with his wife’s privy council, pointing out that this was a masculine task. Scotland also had only one small advisory council, the privy council, sometimes called the secret council.
During Mary’s personal rule, she did not substitute French governmental practices for Scottish ones. To be sure, her household continued to be largely Catholic and French, although containing some Italian members, but her realm was already familiar with French culture; her father’s court, especially after his marriages, has been described as Franco-Scots. Her mother Mary of Guise had also served as her regent from 1554 to 1560.
Like their French counterparts, Scottish rulers were more visible and accessible to their subjects than English rulers. Beginning in Henry VII’s reign, Tudor monarchs routinely withdrew at mealtime to their privy chamber, its staff carefully monitoring those approaching the royal presence. Neither the French nor the Scottish court developed a department equivalent to the English privy chamber. Like the Valois kings, Mary dined daily in open court. She also conducted much of her business in her bedchamber, conferring with her council and even ambassadors while resting in bed. In contrast to her mainly French household, she filled governmental offices, including the privy council, mostly with Protestant Scotsmen.
No agenda comparable to the above French royal schedule exists for Scotland, but two extant documents are revealing about its monarchs’ activities.2 The first is a poem in the Bannatyne Manuscript, an invaluable collection of late medieval Scottish poetry, which confirms that rulers should entertain their nobility with sports and games. In January 1560 Makgill, clerk register, and Bellenden, justice clerk, composed the second manuscript, the Discours Particulier D’Écosse, which Mary of Guise sent to French officials, who were considering a charge of treason against Châtelherault after he joined the Congregation. Besides treason law, the document details crown revenue and the legal system.
Whether or not Mary was aware of these documents, she gained a practical understanding of royal procedures from observing her father-in-law’s and husband’s habits. Indeed, when her mother notified her in France that Huntly was petitioning for the reversion of an office, Mary responded that Henry always waited until possessors died before designating their successors. Even so she did not require a routine for council meetings echoing French custom.
In 1561 her privy councilors agreed to meet daily from 8:00–10:00 a.m. and from 1:00–3:00 p.m. in the council chamber unless she summoned them to her. They decided that six of their noble members should reside at court, but it was difficult for so many to be present especially during the summertime; on 10 August 1562, for example, only one was in attendance. To remedy this problem, eight councilors amended the procedures on the 15th, naming three slates of four noblemen to alternate staying at court for two-month periods. Their meeting times were rescheduled to 8:00–11:00 a.m. and 2:00–5:00 p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. Unfortunately, the privy council register is incomplete; in 1563, for example, it contains one meeting for April and none for May. Nevertheless, it seems likely that noble participation remained erratic in Scotland as it did in other realms, partly because the men understood they could gain more from personal attendance on the monarch than sitting for long periods at the council table.3
Although the guidelines did not address Mary’s presence in the council chamber, historians have concluded that she was an unsuccessful ruler partly because she appeared at only a few of the meetings listed in the register. A comparison of her record to her son James VI’s, who is usually judged a competent Scottish ruler, casts serious doubts on the register’s use as negative evidence for her governance. From 1585 for several years when he was about her age, his attendance at the sessions printed in the register was not much greater than hers. Only in the 1590s did he meet with his council regularly.
The condemnatory studies of Mary’s rule have overlooked Randolph’s references to her habit of seeking her councilors’ advice. Although her motivations and the rationale behind her comments frequently eluded him, he usually knew her whereabouts and sometimes the nature of her business. He observed that she often attended part of the council meetings and sewed while listening to the discussions. She may have learned this practice from observing Catherine, who embroidered every afternoon while heeding conversations around her. A non-threatening female activity, it afforded her opportunities to hear as well as to conceal her reaction to others’ opinions.
The register’s inadequacies become more obvious when searching in it for the specific meetings Randolph identified. In late 1561 he named five occasions when Mary sat with her council that are missing from the register. On 22 October he reported that he was with her and the councilors in the council chamber, but the register lacks an entry for that date. Subsequently, he referred to other unrecorded gatherings.
When absent, she could have been disposing of more pressing business. On 17 February 1566 she informed Sir Robert Melville, her English ambassador and the brother of James, that she had just pardoned John Johnston, an Edinburgh lawyer, for delivering funds the previous summer from Randolph to Lady Moray for the use of her husband, who was organizing a rebellion to protest Mary’s wedding to Darnley. Since Randolph was conferring with the council during her audience with Johnston, Mary continued, she was able immediately to remind him of Elizabeth’s promise not to aid her rebels and to banish him from her realm.4 Randolph’s meeting with the council is missing from the register.
Sir Thomas Craig, a Protestant and the crown advocate in Mary’s reign as well as the justice depute for the justice general in criminal cases, praised both his queen’s and Elizabeth’s interactions with their councilors. In a treatise defending James’s accession as king of England, which was written before 1603 but not published until the eighteenth century, Craig reminisced about Mary:
I have often heard the most serene Princess Mary queen of Scotland, discourse so appositely and rationally in all affairs which were brought before the privy council, that she was admired by all; and when most of the councillors were silent; being astonished, or straight declared themselves of her opinion, she rebuked them sharply, and exhorted them to speak freely, as becomes unprejudiced councillors, against her opinion, that the best reasons only might overrule their determinations: And truly her reasonings were so strong and clear, that she could turn the hearers to what side she pleased...;
He further complimented her understanding of equity and justice:
She had not studied Law, and yet by the natural light of her judgment, when she reasoned of matters of equity and justice, she oft times had the advantage of the ablest Lawyers, her other discourses and actions were suitable to her great judgment, No word ever dropped from her mouth that was not exactly weighed and pondered. As for her liberality and other virtues, they were well known.5
Best known for claiming a common origin for Scottish and English feudal law in Jus Feudale, Craig was the only Scottish legal expert to gain a European audience. Recent academic historians, such as Jenny Wormald, who denounced Mary’s personal rule, and John Guy, who admired her governance skills but failed to discuss her council attendance, have ignored the importance of Craig’s comments.6