Mary Queen of Scots

by Retha Warnicke

  She was so eager to gain the greater freedom that the proposed treaty with her son seemed to promise, that in late November she sent word to Elizabeth that she would agree to further concessions: she would renounce her right to the English crown and deny the validity of the papal bull in so far as it was interpreted in her favor. She also pledged to refrain from entering into any agreement that might endanger England and pledged not to leave the realm without Elizabeth’s license.

  After discovering Gray’s betrayal, Mary futilely requested Elizabeth’s permission to send Nau to meet with James and pleaded for a less stringent confinement. Emphasizing that her health required regular exercise, Mary asked to go eight to ten miles beyond Chartley and for additional horses so that her guards could ride with her to enable her to move at a faster pace. Because of her chronic illness, the symptoms of which were then mainly a weakness or swelling in her right arm and hand and in her left foot and leg, which had become shorter than her right leg, she also petitioned for more servants to assist her. She could no longer turn herself over in bed.

  She sent several dispatches to James pleading for a clarification of his intentions unaware that his councilors were advising him to reject the treaty with her. In January 1585 his privy council concluded in his presence that the association would disadvantage him and his realm. In March James accepted this advice, and in May English and Scottish commissioners began negotiations for the Treaty of Berwick that was finally ratified in July 1586. This defensive and offensive Anglo-Scottish league that excluded Mary ended all hopes of her restitution and resulted in his becoming Elizabeth’s pensioner. By 1602 he had received from her £58,500. Initially, Mary characterized her son as a usurper of her crown but eventually blamed traitors around him, especially Gray, for his betrayal. She also assumed inaccurately that Walsingham had corrupted Gray with hints of English aid in ruining James, earl of Arran, who had served as Scotland’s lieutenant general since February 1585. Elizabeth’s agreement to release Arran’s enemies, the Ruthven raiders, who had been banished to England, did, however, contribute to Arran’s loss of power in late 1585.

  ENTERPRISES

  While seeking the association, Mary promised Elizabeth to eschew agreements unfavorable to England, but as usual she kept her options open. In October 1584 the same month that Gray reached London, she requested Allen to expedite Guise’s enterprise. The invaders should not, she confided, worry about her well-being, as she could not give her life for a better cause than the liberation of the oppressed of the Catholic Church.2 Upon learning that Walsingham had gained custody of Father Crichton, who was captured in September on his way to Scotland, bearing evidence about the enterprise, she sent him denials that she ever had any contact with the priest. As Walsingham was still obtaining information from his spies in the French embassy, he knew she was a party to that conspiracy.

  Events were underway in France that caused the enterprise’s leadership to shift from Guise to Philip and his regent in the Netherlands, Alexander Farnese, duke of Parma. Six months after the death in June 1584 of Henry III’s brother and heir, the duke of Anjou and Alençon, Philip and Guise signed a secret treaty at Joinville to prevent Henry of Navarre, the heir presumptive who was a Protestant, from succeeding the childless Henry III as king of France. Civil war broke out in the spring of 1585, distracting the Guises from the enterprise.

  At this time Mary still distrusted Beaton. In January 1585 seemingly contradicting her charge to Allen the previous November to promote the enterprise, she instructed the archbishop to refrain from all political activities. She had resolved, she explained, to use peaceful means to obtain her liberation. Undoubtedly, she meant to deceive him. Diplomatic rumors claimed that if Beaton were informed about the enterprise, he would reveal it to Henry III, who was a supporter of Mary’s association with James but was not a party to the Guise schemes for invading England. Earlier in a letter of February 1583 to Mendoza, Mary even accused the allegedly ambitious archbishop of attempting to obstruct the duke’s plans.

  Besides encouraging her suspicions about Beaton, Morgan became involved in intrigues with a fellow Welshman, Dr William Parry, who toured the continent in 1582 with a license to travel for three years. As one of Walsingham’s spies, Parry sought to debate with various Catholic exiles whether or not assassinating Elizabeth was justified. Allen and Persons avoided him but Morgan allegedly approved the scheme. While Parry may have had an authentic Catholic conversion, he could also have been a double agent.

  Back in England in 1584 he not only reported on Catholic conspiracies to Elizabeth but also conversed about assassinating her with Edmund Neville, a returned Catholic exile. Later that year, as a member of parliament, Parry gained notoriety by denouncing a bill that required Jesuits and seminary priests to leave England within 40 days or be treated as traitors. In February 1585 Walsingham learned about Neville’s and Parry’s earlier conversations and ordered the doctor’s arrest. He discovered in Parry’s possession a letter from Cardinal Galli, relating that Pope Gregory granted the “Indulgence and remission” of his sins that he requested for completing his “service and benefit public,” presumably Elizabeth’s assassination.3

  Parry was convicted and executed although he denied his guilt and identified Morgan as the author of the plot. Elizabeth demanded Morgan’s extradition from France, but Henry placed him under house arrest on 9 March and had him transferred to the Bastille five days later. It is unlikely that Mary was involved in the Parry conspiracy. When Mauvissière sent her a copy of the cardinal’s letter, she responded that the doctor was unknown to her. Since Parry’s plot contained no specific plans for her liberation, she was probably stating the truth to Mauvissière, even though she deemed him a blunderer because he rejected her warning that someone in his household was leaking information.4

  In March 1585 parliament passed the Act for the Safety of the Queen’s Person, which was based on the Bond of Association that Burghley and Walsingham drafted the previous October in reaction to William the Silent’s assassination in July, as well as to Throckmorton’s conspiracy. The bond obligated its endorsers to respond to a murderous attack on Elizabeth by killing not only the perpetrators but also the claimants to the throne and their heirs for whom the traitors acted. Thousands of Englishmen subscribed, swearing to avenge all assassination attempts against her. The major differences between the bond and the statute were that the latter exempted the claimants’ heirs, unless they were involved, and authorized a state trial rather than a private assassination. This was the statute by which Mary would be tried and executed.

  When informed about the bond, she realized that she was the intended claimant and denounced it as a conspiracy fomented by her public enemies to obtain pardons for murdering her under the pretext of preserving their queen’s life. Mary, herself, endorsed it in January 1585, officially repudiating attacks against Elizabeth. In a letter dated in March, Mary assured Elizabeth that she had nothing to do with Parry’s schemes and predicted that if her cousin’s life were taken, the new associates (signatories of the bond) would assassinate her. Another concern of Mary’s was that as a prisoner she would be extremely vulnerable to attack in the event of Elizabeth’s death whether by natural causes or foul play. This concern gained momentum after Sir Amyas Paulet took charge of her in April 1585; she feared that when Elizabeth died, her new custodian or another bond signatory would kill their prisoner before she could escape from captivity. Indeed, Guillaume de l’Aubespine, baron of Châteauneuf-sur-cher, Mauvissière’s successor, later confirmed that Mary’s would-be liberators well understood that they must free her first before attacking Elizabeth. Otherwise, Paulet or his agent would kill her.5 Meanwhile, Mary’s friends on the continent, like her agent, Sir Francis Englefield in Spain, were claiming that Elizabeth and her councilors were secretly working to take her life.

  REMOVAL TO TUTBURY AND PAULET’S CUSTODIANSHIP

  By the time Paulet succeeded Sadler as her custodian, Mary had changed residences. Shortly
after arriving at Wingfield, Sadler commenced plans to remove her to Tutbury, where he could more easily monitor her communications. He and Somer not only needed to order repairs, such as window glazing, but also to furnish the royal castle. They could no longer utilize Shrewsbury’s household effects except for some plate he loaned to Mary. Besides supervising these arrangements, their concerns about the queen’s health and the decision to await Nau’s return from London delayed their departure until January 1585.

  To furnish Tutbury Walsingham transferred to it Lord Paget’s confiscated belongings. Because some had been sold and those that arrived were fewer in quantity and of lesser quality than anticipated, Sadler and Somer had to request additional sheets, blankets, lined wall hangings, silver vessels, and floor coverings. They ordered these items well before the move, but Mary’s rooms were still inadequately furnished at her arrival. Two months after entering Tutbury, she lacked Turkish carpets to lay around her bed and under her seat in the dining chamber where the plaster floor although scattered with rushes was exceedingly cold. In April a shipment with plate and the hangings, which needed lining, did reach Tutbury, but without the three Turkish carpets for her bedchamber. Finally, as to her horses, which Shrewsbury had provided, Elizabeth would bear the charges for four coach horses and two geldings but not for the ten others Mary required.

  Sadler seemed satisfied with her Tutbury accommodations: she had a fair dining chamber, 36 feet long, with a cabinet that had a chimney, and a bedchamber, 27 feet long, with two beds, a pallet, and a closet. In addition, she possessed a room for a close-stool and suitable servants’ quarters. Disagreeing with his assessment, Mary complained her lodgings consisted of two wretched small rooms and some closets that were suitable only for a close-stool. From the 16 members allowed in 1571, her household had increased to 48, half of them women and children some of whom were quite young. At least from late 1584 Mary had acquired the services of Camille de Préau, a Jesuit priest, probably without Sadler’s knowledge as to his true vocation. De Préau may have arrived secretly with Father Samerie the previous summer, intending to remain when his colleague departed.

  While assisting with the housing arrangements, Somer reported on her diet. She ate capons, rabbit, partridge, various other wild fowl, and venison in season and especially liked mutton. Because Wingfield was so far from the sea, it was impossible for her to obtain the good seafood, such as the plaice, turbot, sole and lobster that she enjoyed. Throughout her imprisonment, Mary continued the hierarchical arrangements for dining that she utilized in Scotland. She was served, for example, 16 dishes at the first and second courses while her master of the household and her chief officers were served 10 dishes at the first and second courses.

  Her ill health continued to cause concerns. Even during the journey to Wingfield in September 1584, she suffered from a swelling in her left leg. In the next few weeks, her left foot became swollen and by early November she was bedridden with swellings in her right arm and hand and left foot and left leg. Sadler noted that insomnia further weakened her condition. By the end of November her health had improved except for her sore foot, which, he thought, she could rest on a pillow in the coach during the journey. Her sickness plus her promise to cooperate in the move at Nau’s return led Sadler to postpone their departure. On 13 January 1585 about two weeks after Nau’s arrival, they began the 16-mile trip, spending that night at Derby and entering Tutbury on the 14th. The coach ride may have further aggravated her problems. In February she was bedridden for six days with chronic pain in her side and hips and could walk only with assistance.

  While planning the transfer, Sadler pleaded for release from the custodianship. He described the country as a cold and miserable place with foul weather that prevented the exercise necessary for his health, thus unwittingly validating Mary’s claims about her captivity’s adverse effects on her physical well-being. In October 1584 Elizabeth had appointed a reluctant nobleman, John, second Lord St John, of Bletsoe, Bedfordshire, to succeed Sadler, but on 4 January citing St John’s ill health, she replaced him with Paulet, her former French ambassador who was originally scheduled to serve as St John’s deputy. For personal reasons Paulet did not reach Tutbury until 17 April.

  The instructions of her new guardian, which were dated 4 March, permitted Mary for the first time officially since the Ridolfi Plot to take air either on horseback or on foot for up to two miles from the castle. It is likely, however, that Shrewsbury had occasionally allowed her to do some limited horseback riding; in an October 1584 note is the information that when Mary exercised, the earl’s soldiers were always at hand to lead her horse through difficult terrain.

  Whether or not Sadler was aware of Paulet’s instructions granting Mary the privilege of horseback riding within two miles of the castle is unknown. Chafing from lack of exercise while awaiting his replacement, Sadler sent for his hawks and falcons to help pass the time. He decided to permit Mary to join him because she took great delight in the sport. On 22 March, consequently, he had to respond to Walsingham’s charge that he had taken her riding six or seven miles from Tutbury. Sadler explained that he allowed her to join him on two or three occasions only and traveled no more than three miles from the castle. When furthest away from it, 40 or 50 servants on horseback, some armed with pistols, accompanied him. Sadler further groused that if he had known he must continue in this office so long, he would have refused it as others had, apparently a gibe at St John. Somer also assured Walsingham that had she attempted to escape she would have placed her life in great jeopardy.

  Sadler left two days after Paulet’s arrival and Somer departed in May. Mary dreaded Paulet’s custodianship because she feared that, as a Puritan, he might inflict personal injury on her. She was also aware that when he served as English ambassador to France, he condemned the activities of her Guise relatives. In their first interview, she confided that she believed he was ill-affected toward her, but as she had recently learned of his good qualities, she was content to have him serve as her guardian. It was not long before their disagreements led her to describe him as one of the most bizarre and cruel (bizarres et farouches) persons she had met and to avow that he was fitter to be in charge of criminals than of someone of her rank and quality.6

  Paulet was soon corresponding with Walsingham about Mary’s claims that he was treating her and her household too rigorously. For security reasons, he confirmed, he prohibited her coachman from leaving Tutbury without his permission and from eating with his staff, since he preferred to keep the two households separate. He also admitted forbidding her attendants to walk on the walls overlooking the gates to prevent them from observing those entering and departing the castle but emphasized he allowed them to accompany her abroad. Most of his comments concerned his removal from the great chamber of her cloth of estate with the arms of France and Scotland. He explained that he believed it was inappropriate for a canopy with foreign insignia to hang in the governor’s dining room and that she had supped under it only once at which time Sadler had eaten at the lower end of the chamber, a familiarity Paulet deemed inappropriate. He later reminded Walsingham that a cloth of estate continued to hang in her personal dining chamber and that since she had been taking physic for several days and planned to follow a diet that would keep her confined in her bedchamber for about six weeks, she would not have an opportunity to eat in his great chamber for some time.

  In May he justified forbidding de Préau, whom he suspected was a Catholic priest, from distributing alms to the town’s poor because he believed Mary was using the funds to win local friends. Mary protested that her only goal was to encourage the paupers to pray for her better health. Later, when she went to watch her new greyhound chase a deer in Stockley Park, less than one mile from the castle, Paulet further angered her by denying her almoner permission to accompany her because she had to pass through the town to reach the park.

  Paulet’s duties also included monitoring her correspondence. From October 1584 until January 1586, Walsingh
am intercepted all her secret communications and sent them to Paulet to decide which to distribute to her and her household. Paulet delivered to her reports from her French council, unimportant letters from Scotland, and unciphered messages from Mauvissière, Beaton, and other officials. The cessation of her secret correspondence made even more unpleasant her incarceration at Tutbury, which she described as a dungeon fit only for the worst criminals.

  After suffering from Tutbury’s damp and cold for several months, she began to insist that Elizabeth order the repair of its lath and plaster walls that were riddled with cracks. In August Mary complained to Mauvissière that she had hoped her special diet would restore her health, but for 15 days she suffered chills, especially in one thigh, and sciatica. Paulet commented insensitively that her crippled legs made his supervision of her easier. He blamed her illness on her emotional state but did admit that her lodgings were extremely cold even in August.

  When she requested the repairs to Tutbury, she made other demands of Elizabeth, who returned mixed responses. She agreed thereafter that Mary could remove to another dwelling to permit the regular cleansing of Tutbury, that she would have access to a dining hall and a gallery in her temporary residence during Tutbury’s renovation, that she could distribute alms but only with Paulet’s knowledge, and that she could ride a mile or two from the castle. Since Paulet’s instructions had permitted his prisoner this last privilege, Mary’s request may have been an allusion to his strict supervision of her. He later defensively informed Walsingham that at least three times when Mary had gone into the little park one-half mile away, she had ridden from it into another park, traveling in all almost two miles. Elizabeth offended Mary, however, by refusing to permit annual visits from her councilors, Fontenay and Chérelles, although the latter was allowed to meet with her in early 1586. She also denied Mary’s request for the attendance of a Scottish noblewoman, Margaret Fleming, the widowed countess of Athol, who assisted her at James’s birth. Finally, Elizabeth was undecided about whether to permit her French embroiderer to return home, possibly from concerns that he might act as Mary’s messenger.