MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS:

THE POLITICAL CAREER OF A QUEEN DETERMINED TO RULE

by

Jessica Sealy

Thesis

submitted in partial fulfillment of

requirements for the Degree of

Bachelor of Arts with

Honours in History

Acadia University

April, 2010

© Copyright by Jessica Sealy, 2010

This thesis by Jessica Sealy

is accepted in its present form by the

Department of History and Classics

as satisfying the thesis requirements for the degree of

Bachelor of Arts with Honours

Approved by the Thesis Supervisor

Dr. Jennifer MacDonald Date

Approved by the Head of the Department

Dr. Paul Doerr Date

Approved by the Honours Committee

Dr. Sonia Hewitt Date

ii

I, Jessica Sealy, grant permission to the University Librarian at Acadia University to reproduce, loan or distribute copies of my thesis in microform, paper or electronic

formats on a non-profit basis. I however, retain the copyright in my thesis.

Signature of Author

Date

iii

Acknowledgements

There are several people without whom I could not have completed this thesis. I would like to extend thanks...

To Beth and Doug Sealy, for twenty two years of encouragement, support, love and proof reading, and for always believing I could accomplish everything I set out to do and for reminding me when I stopped believing in my capabilities.

To Alyssa Sealy, for giving me a reason to set high standards for myself and for inspiring me to challenge myself.

To the Sealy and the Coles families, for setting exceptionally high standards for themselves and for teaching me to do the same, and for never once allowing me to believe I could not meet those standards.

To the Acadia University History Department for keeping me on track and for the encouragement and enthusiasm they exude that kept my interest these past four years, and to Dr. Verstraete, for encouraging me to pursue an honours degree.

To Heather MacDonald for lighting the spark, Leigh Whaley for fanning the flame, and Jennifer MacDonald for working tirelessly to keep the fire blazing.

iv

Table of Contents

Title Page i

Approval Page ii

Permission for Duplication Page iii

Acknowledgements iv

Abstract vi

Chapter One Historiography: The Life of Mary, Queen of Scots 1 16 th to 19 th Century Scholarship: The Growth of a Scandalous Reputation 2 20 th Century Scholarship to the 1970s: The Impact of the Casket Letters 5 1960s Scholarship: Mary’s Web of Humiliation 10 Post 1970s Scholarship: The Impact of Feminism 15 Conclusion: The Political Career of Mary, Queen of Scots 24

Chapter Two A Queen Determined to Rule 26 Introducing the “Reluctant Ruler” 26 Political Decisions Made during Mary’s Time in France 27 Establishing Herself in Scotland 29 Mary’s First Scottish Parliament 37 The Politics behind the Darnley Marriage 40 The Not-So-Reluctant Ruler 45

Chapter Three A Turn Toward Inactivity 47 The Distracted Ruler: Domesticity Distracting the Scottish Queen 48 The Desperate Ruler: A Queen without a Realm 59 The Not-So-Active Ruler 65

Chapter Four Conclusion: The Political Career of the Queen of Scots 67

Appendices A- Mary, Queen of Scots: Chronology 71 B - Mary, Queen of Scots: Family Trees 72

Bibliography 74

v

Abstract

Mary, Queen of Scots, has been portrayed as an ineffective ruler who had no interest in Scottish politics. In reality, she was not a reluctant monarch. Despite having a short and relatively uneventful political career, Mary demonstrated her resolve to rule through three distinct phases of involvement in Scottish politics. Her time as queen began with a period of determination, lasting from 1561 to 1565. During this time, Mary nominated her Privy Council, developed a policy of religious acceptance and held an extremely successful Parliament. She also established positive foreign relations with England while maintaining those established through her first marriage with

France. Mary attempted to use her second marriage as a political bargaining chip to solidify her alliances, marrying Lord Darnley and improving her position in the English succession, in 1565.

However, with this marriage began her phase of domestic distraction. Her decision to focus on her queenly duty to maintain the royal line by producing an heir distracted her from the legislative process. This was the only period of Mary’s political career during which she was reluctant to take an active role in governing, as she became focused on handling her husband and the scandalous events he brought into her life, rather than on maintaining the level of involvement she had previously had in her government. Two tumultuous years later, Mary abdicated as queen in favour of her infant son. At this time, she realized how deeply she cared about leading her kingdom and entered a period of desperation, spent imprisoned in England. This phase was characterized by frantic pleas to be released, followed by plots to escape and reinstate herself in

Scotland. Mary did not give up on her desire to regain her position as Queen of Scotland until the day of her execution. This thesis will conclusively illustrate that Mary Stewart was not politically indifferent through an extensive examination of each of these phases of her political career.

vi

Nemo me impune lacessit

No one provokes me with impunity

vii

Chapter 1 – Historiography: The Life of Mary, Queen of Scots

Mary Stewart, popularly known as ‘the Queen of Scots,’ has been discussed at great length in historical scholarship. The vast majority of the writing about Mary has focused on her tumultuous relationship with her cousin and neighbour, Queen Elizabeth I of England. As a result, Mary is remembered in comparison to her cousin, rather than in her own right. Scholars have portrayed her as a “reluctant ruler,” 1 in contrast to Elizabeth, the strong, confident, independent queen.

While it is true that Mary spent a great deal of time focused on her personal life, she did assert herself politically. 2 Closer examination of different phases of her queenship will reveal that she was, at times, power hungry, in both her personal and political life. Through an investigation of her reigns in France and Scotland and of her pursuit for power in England, I intend to prove that

Mary Stewart was in fact not a reluctant ruler.

Chapter One will familiarize the reader with the secondary literature written about Mary.

This chapter will introduce this “queen in three kingdoms”3 through an analysis primarily consisting of 20 th and 21 st Century scholarship. It will investigate how the analyses of Mary have changed over time. Crucial to the historical scholarship is the changing perception of Mary before and after the feminist movement. This chapter will introduce Mary and the views put forward about her by scholars to date.

There is no shortage of literature about Mary Stewart. One explanation for the vast resources on this subject is her reputation as a scandalous queen. Significantly more scholarship has been written about Mary during the 20 th and 21 st centuries than was written earlier. It is upon

1 Jenny Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots: Politics, Passion and a Kingdom Lost, (London: Tauris Parke Paperbacks, 2001), 103. 2 Please see Appendix A for a chronology of Mary’s personal life and political career. 3 Michael Lynch, ed, Mary Stewart: Queen in three kingdoms (Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell Ltd, 1988), title. 1 this writing that I will rely as few earlier writings exist. This literature follows one of two main trends. The first is most visible in the literature published before the 1970s. Up to this point, she is discussed as a scandalous queen, as that literature focuses on the shameful events in her personal life. The literature published after the 1970s deviates from that trend. From the 1980s onward, the tendency in scholarship was to focus on Mary’s political incompetence. The feminist movement heavily influenced this shift in literature, as will be discussed later in this chapter. Mary was no longer viewed as a foolish female ruler. Her political career became significant to proper studies of her reign. The remainder of this chapter will discuss these two trends.

16 th to 19 th Century Scholarship: The Growth of a Scandalous Reputation

While I will be relying primarily on 20 th and 21 st Century material, it is important to consider texts written during Mary’s lifetime and in the decades and centuries following her death. George

Buchanan’s work is valuable as it is one of the few contemporary sources available. He worked for a time as Mary’s tutor and was her loyal supporter until he joined the Protestant Reformation and became a fervent anti-Marian scholar. He attempted to justify the rebellions against Mary and prove her guilt in the murder Lord Darnley, Mary’s second husband. He believed Mary’s reign was tyrannical and reckless. 4 In his book, The Tyrannous Rule of Mary Stewart, Buchanan accuses

Mary of attempting to poison Darnley after their son James’ baptism and plotting, with conspirators, to murder him. He goes so far as to say “the Queen... had planned the murder for that day.” 5 Buchanan states that Mary allayed Darnley’s suspicions, luring him to Kirk O’Field, all the while planning to place the blame on her brother. Buchanan believed that Mary’s hasty

4 W.A. Gatherer, 1958 preface of George Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign of Mary Stewart: George Buchanan’s Account, translated by W.A. Gatherer (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1978, reprint Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1958), vii – viii. 5 George Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign of Mary Stewart: George Buchanan’s Account, translated by W.A. Gatherer (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1978, reprint Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1958), 114. 2 retreat from the palace so close to the time when the explosion occurred and her failure to remain in private mourning after the death undeniably implicated her in the murder. 6 He states that Mary believed “if she could not be rid of the King by some means, her life would not be worth living.” 7

Buchanan also discusses Mary’s alleged affair with the Earl of Bothwell prior to this murder, alleging that Mary spent as much time as possible with Bothwell during her marriage to

Darnley and that Bothwell was able to divorce his first wife because he had been unfaithful.

Buchanan says that Mary entered Edinburgh where she was met with cries of “Burn the whore!

Burn the murderer!” 8 This is consistent with Buchanan’s belief that Mary was an adulteress. It has been said that Buchanan was largely responsible for painting this image of Mary as a “lascivious whore and vicious tyrant” 9 as part of his attempt to develop a theory of what a proper sovereign should be. He did not believe that Mary fit this 16 th Century mould, leading him to attempt to defame her. 10 Buchanan’s assertions were adopted by scholars writing on the subject into the

1970s, rendering him the authority upon which later writers built in developing Mary’s tainted reputation.

Another contemporary author was James Melville, who wrote about Mary during her reign in Scotland. Melville spent time with Mary in France and Scotland and also with Elizabeth while Mary was in England. His memoirs were edited and published by A. Francis Steuart in

1929. In these memoirs, Melville offers a comparatively pro-Marian narrative, when placed next to Buchanan’s, discussing Mary’s reign and other aspects of Marian Scotland. 11

6 Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign, 105 - 120. 7 Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign , 170. 8 Buchanan attributes this citation to Sir William Drury, on 20 June 1567 (see The Tyrannous Reign, footnotes p. 145). 9 Sir John Sinclair, “George Buchanan (1506 – 1582): Political Thought and History in Early Modern Europe and the Atlantic World,” Stirling Smith Art Gallery and Museum, http://specialcollections.st- and.ac.uk/Buchanancompletetext.pdf, 14 January 2010. 10 Sinclair, “George Buchanan.” 11 James Melville, Memoirs of Sir James Melville of Halhill, A. Francis Steuart, ed. (London: George Routledge & Sons, Ltd., 1929). 3

As has been mentioned, the vast majority of the sources written prior to the 20 th Century are not readily available to scholars.12 Antonia Fraser, a historical biographer, addressed this issue.

In Mary Queen of Scots and the Historians , she briefly outlines what was written on the subject before the 20 th Century. Fraser divides the early scholarship into three categories and mentions the authors who wrote about each. The first category she identifies is the “Scarlet Woman Issue [in which] the first blasts of the trumpet against Mary [appear].” 13 The sole scholar she places in this group is George Buchanan. The second category Fraser discusses is the “Martyr Queen Issue,” 14 in which she places Adam Blackwood,15 who wrote about Mary’s personal Catholicism. The final category Fraser identifies in early Marian scholarship includes numerous scholars. The “Dynastic

Issue” 16 group includes authors from the 18 th and 19 th centuries such as: John Leslie 17 and Samuel

Jebb 18 who defended Mary’s political integrity; Walter Goodall 19 who first discussed the potential forgery of the Casket Letters 20 ; William Robertson 21 and David Hume 22 who rejected Goodall’s assertion; and William Tytler 23 who presented the history of the letters, as well as Goodall’s argument, followed by his own examination proving the letters to have been forgeries.24 In addition to these 18 th Century scholars, this category also includes several 19th Century scholars

12 Determined after a thorough search of the Acadia collections, Worldcat (OCLC) database, and the University of Toronto library catalogue. 13 Antonia Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots and the Historians (Ilford: Royal Stuart Society, 1974), 2. 14 Fraser, Mary and the Historians , 2. 15 Fraser, Mary and the Historians, 2. Blackwood wrote Martyr de la Royne d’Ecosse and Mort de la Royne d’Ecosse both in 1587. 16 Fraser, Mary and the Historians, 2. 17 Fraser, Mary and the Historians, 2. Leslie wrote A Defense of her Honour in 1569 and History in 1578. 18 Fraser, Mary and the Historians, 3. Jebb wrote Innocence of the very illustrious, very chaste et debonnaire Princesse, Madame Marie, Royne d’Ecosse in 1725. 19 Fraser, Mary and the Historians, 4. Goodall wrote Examination of the Letters said to be written by Mary Queen of Scots to James Earl of Bothwell in 1754. 20 Walter Goodall, An Examination of the Letters said to be written by Mary Queen of Scots to James Earl of Bothwell, vol.1 (Edinburgh: T. and W. Ruddimans, 1754). Accessed at http://books.google.com, 11 March 2010. 21 Fraser, Mary and the Historians, 5. Robertson wrote History of Scotland in 1759. 22 Fraser, Mary and the Historians, 5. Hume wrote History of England in 1762. 23 Fraser, Mary and the Historians, 5. Tytler wrote Inquiry into the Evidence against Mary Queen of Scots in 1790. 24 William Tytler, An Inquiry, historical and critical, into the Evidence against Mary Queen of Scots, 4th ed. (London: T. Cadell, 1790). Accessed at http://books.google.com, 11 March 2010. 4 such as: Malcolm Laing 25 who discussed Buchanan’s ideas and discussed as well as the events surrounding the Darnley murder 26 ; F.A. Mignet 27 who wrote a religiously based biography about

Mary; and John Hosack 28 who furthered the Casket Letter debate.

20 th Century Scholarship to the 1970s: The Impact of the Casket Letters

The literature written about Mary Stewart published before the 1970s focused on the scandalous personal life she led. Until the 1960s, the historians writing about Mary hoped to discredit her, believing her scandalous personal life outweighed her political career, therefore taking a harsh tone in their writing. There was a shift in the 1960s when the literature, while still focused on these scandals, became more factual. This literature is decidedly more sympathetic toward Mary.

It offers a less judgmental approach to the study of Mary. 29 Written by scholarly biographers, the literature of the 1960s intends to discuss Mary’s life in a way that will be interesting and non- offensive for readers.

Prior to the 1960s, the majority of the literature written about Mary was based on the

Casket Letters. This series of letters, allegedly written by Mary to Bothwell, her third husband and alleged lover, was brought before Elizabeth I during the 1568 Conference of York, at which

Elizabeth sought to determine Mary’s involvement in the Darnley murder. This murder, and her involvement in it, was the first blemish on Mary’s previously untarnished reputation. J.J. Foster noted that, “had she died in 1566, she would have left the record of a happy and prosperous

25 Fraser, Mary and the Historians, 7. Laing wrote The History of Scotland in 1804. 26 Malcolm Laing, The History of Scotland, vol. 2, 2 nd ed. (London: J. Mawman, No. 22 Poultry, 1804). Accessed at http://books.google.com, 11 March 2010. 27 Fraser, Mary and the Historians, 8. Mignet wrote The History of Mary Queen of Scots in 1851. 28 Fraser, Mary and the Historians, 8. Hosack wrote Mary Queen of Scots and her Accusers in 1870. 29 Julian Goodare, “Mary Stewart,” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://oxforddnb.com/view/article/18248?docPos=3, compiled in 2004, 1 February 2009. 5 time,” 30 indicating that he believed that had she died just after her second wedding, she would have left an immaculate reputation behind. Instead, he purports that she went on to participate in numerous scandalous events, which would “[sully] her reputation even to the present day.”31

In his 1889 book, The Casket Letters and Mary Queen of Scots, Thomas Finlayson

Henderson asserts that the letters were written by Mary herself and proved her unfavourable reputation to be deserved . Henderson was a Scottish historian who wrote primarily about Mary

Stewart and Robert Burns, as well as on the subject of general Scottish history. He acknowledged that there was ongoing debate surrounding the validity of the letters, identifying Hume,

Robertson, Laing, Mignet, Tytler, Burton and Froude as scholars who accepted their genuineness and Goodall, Chalmers, Whitaker, Strickland, Hosack and Philippson as scholars who believed they were forgeries. He then stated that he believed the letters to be valid, discounting those scholars who disagreed with his opinion as uninteresting and unskilled. Henderson concluded that

Mary’s denial of having written the letters “is deprived of all validity by the fact that [she] denied much more emphatically her authorship of the letters to Babington, the genuineness of which has now been conclusively established.” 32 He states that Elizabeth believed the letters to be genuine, written by a “hopelessly incorrigible” 33 queen trying to escape the “perversity” 34 of her husband.

He concluded that “Mary was a co-conspirator with Bothwell in the murder of her husband.”35

Henderson’s analysis is in keeping with the majority of scholars writing before the 1970s in that he accepted the Casket Letters as valid evidence in constructing his arguments.

30 J.J. Foster, The Stuarts: Being Outlines of the Personal History of the Family ( London: Dickinsons, 1907) , 39. 31 Sir Arthur Salusbury MacNalty, Mary Queen of Scots: The Daughter of Debate (London: Johnson Publications Limited, 1960) , 64. 32 T.F. Henderson, The Casket Letters and Mary Queen of Scots: With Appendices (Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1890), 105. 33 Henderson, The Casket Letters, 109. 34 Henderson, The Casket Letters, 109. 35 Henderson, The Casket Letters, 4. 6

Andrew Lang refuted Henderson’s assertion, discussing the events that sullied Mary’s reputation through an examination of the Casket Letters. Lang was a well known poet, novelist and historian in the late 1800s. He was novel for his time, as most other authors were writing negatively and accusatorily about Mary. In the opening to his 1902 book, The Mystery of Mary

Stuart, Lang indicates his intention to look carefully at details and untangle complex questions.

He used the Lennox manuscripts, which reinforce Mary’s innocence by examining the disloyalty of her accusers, to shine a new light on Mary and a more critical one on her accusers. Lang softens the critique of Mary by suggesting that Mary was perhaps not aware of the entirety of the

Kirk O’Field plan. However, because she brought Darnley to the right place at the right time, she was definitely aware that a plot existed. 36 He draws several conclusions about the Casket Letters and identifies several possible forgers which combined, in his opinion, prove that these letters were not written by Mary. Lang states that although the letters used phrases Mary would have used, forgers would have had access to these. He also states that there is disunity in tone, suggesting that they were not all written by the same author. Mary’s attitude toward Bothwell in the letters is “perhaps beyond belief.” 37 Lang directly states that he believes the letters to be either forgeries or to have been tampered with. He then goes on to suggest that Lethington, Mary’s secretary, directed the forgeries, but states that this is just conjecture. 38 Lang’s hypothesis was not accepted during his career and scholarship until the 1970s continued to rely upon these letters, accepting them as valid.

Forty years after Lang’s work, there would be another attempt to discredit the Casket

Letters. Clifford Bax, an English writer and editor, discusses the validity of the letters. His 1947 compilation of the letters begins with an introduction identifying the letters as possible forgeries.

He allows readers to decide for themselves but states that the letters and sonnets attributed to

36 Andrew Lang, The Mystery of Mary Stewart (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1902), 118-119. 37 Lang, The Mystery of Mary Stewart, 352. 38 Lang, The Mystery of Mary Stewart, 346 – 352. 7

Mary Stewart may have been written by her or may have been forged by an enemy. He identifies the Earl of Morton as Mary’s primary enemy who most likely authored, or at least altered, the letters before sending them to Elizabeth. Bax states that the validity of the letters is suspect because “the Scottish lords never produced the original manuscripts.” 39 Bax outlines the scholarly debate surrounding the letters, discussed fifty-five years earlier by Henderson. He states that

Mary’s 20 th Century supporters claimed the letters were fabricated by hostile lords, citing the language used, the absence of the originals, the dates the letters were written, Mary’s fervent insistence that she did not write them, and their time in the hands of Morton, a member of the nobility who opposed Mary. Anti-Marian scholars claimed the letters were penned by Mary herself in the hopes of discrediting her. 40 Bax does not state his own opinion as to who the true author was, leaving readers to draw their own conclusions through his publication of modernized versions of the letters. The attempts by Lang and Bax to prove the letters as forgeries were not accepted, as they were among the few trying to discredit the letters which had been considered valid for so long.

Scholarship continued to use the Casket Letters when discussing Mary’s character; however, she was not universally condemned. J.J. Foster is less assertive than Lang in his writing, and hesitates to defame Mary. Foster wrote extensively on Western European art and, in 1907, wrote The Stuarts: Being Outlines of the Personal History of the Family. He says that while most scholars did not believe Mary helped with the murder of her trusted advisor, David Rizzio, they were split over her involvement in the murder of Darnley.41 Noting that “vindictiveness seems to

39 Clifford Bax, “What the Reader Must Know,” in Letters and Poems by Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots (New York: Philosophical Library, 1947), 5. 40 Bax, “What the Reader Must Know,” 1 – 16. 41 Foster, The Stuarts, 40. 8 have been foreign to her nature,”42 Foster seems to be unwilling to cast blame, which is atypical of writers before the 1960s.

Foster’s scholarship is more mainstream in discussing Mary’s adultery, as the scholars of the early 20 th Century were less assertive than they were when accusing her of murder. This may be because adultery was common among 16 th Century royalty. Mary’s own father had numerous illegitimate children and her uncle, Henry VIII, undoubtedly had numerous affairs throughout his six marriages. Lang adds that it was believed at the time that Mary was forced to marry Bothwell because he “had ravished her by force, fear, and other unlawful means.” 43 Henderson mentions that Mary’s “attitude toward the chief conspirator [Bothwell] was not of a merely passive kind...

[and] she used every sale effort to prevent his detection and condemnation... [as she] intended to marry Bothwell.” 44 This belief contributes to the charge that Mary was a participant in an adulterous affair, even if it was not willingly.

In addition to these discussions of her personal life, there has been much study done on her captivity in England. English historian, G.R. Elton, a Regius Professor of Modern History at

Cambridge University, Publication Secretary of the British Academy, and President of the Royal

Historical Society, furthers this discussion of Mary being a threat to Elizabeth. As an expert on the

Tudors, he focused on Mary’s flight to England. He asserts that Mary’s “wilful pride,”45 something she had learned from Darnley, was what urged her to make the decision to flee to

England. He asserts that her divorce from Bothwell marked her end, as “Catholic Europe stood horrified... the Scots went further. A murderous and adulterous queen tainted moreover with the wrong sort of religion, was more than they could stomach.” 46 Elton states that in captivity Mary

42 Foster, The Stuarts, 41. 43 Lang, The Mystery of Mary Stewart, 206. 44 Henderson, The Casket Letters, 6. 45 G.R. Elton, England Under the Tudors (London: The Folio Society, 1997, reprint London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1955), 288. 46 Elton, England Under the Tudors, 288. 9 became a “permanent and lively danger”47 to Elizabeth. Nevertheless, Elton cites Elizabeth’s compassion in pardoning Mary for the Ridolfi and Babington plots, insisting on concrete proof before condemning her. He firmly asserts that Mary was guilty of plotting against Elizabeth while in prison. Elton states that Mary’s execution would have been an international matter, as she had maintained links in France. 48

A great change would come with the discrediting of the Casket Letters. M.H. Armstrong

Davison’s 1965 book definitively disproved Mary as the author of these letters. Davison, a

Lecturer at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne until his death in 1970, is renowned for his profound knowledge on Mary. In his book, Davison indicates that the letters were forged, offering several possibilities as to who may have been the true author or authors. His book is divided into four parts which introduce Mary and Bothwell and the circumstances surrounding Darnley’s murder and analyze each of the twenty-one documents found in the Casket sentence by sentence.

The book also contains a chronology of the events in the six months surrounding the death of

Darnley and an appendix which discusses the medical life of Mary and her husbands. He focused on the appearance, manipulation and production of the letters, concluding that the Casket Letters were not penned by Mary.49 Davison cites Lang extensively in his bibliography, thus Lang’s work was not in vain. Although Lang made the same assertions sixty-three years earlier, the allegation that the letters were forged was not widely accepted until Davison’s book was published.

1960s Scholarship: Mary’s Web of Humiliation

In contrast to the writing done before the 1960s, in which earlier scholars tended to judge Mary based on her scandalous life choices, the literature written during the 1960s explains these same incidents of murder, adultery and plotting in a more dispassionate manner. 1960s literature is

47 Elton, England Under the Tudors, 290. 48 Elton, England Under the Tudors, 364. 49 M. H. Armstrong Davison, The Casket Letters: A Solution to the Mystery of Mary Queen of Scots and the Murder of Lord Darnley (London: Vision Press Limited, 1965), 227 – 247. 10 written in biographical format and is therefore more factual and less argumentative. It offers detailed descriptions of the events which sullied her reputation. Scholars writing at this time reserve judgment of Mary in their analyses, choosing instead to describe events, rather than criticize her involvement in them. Although there are numerous events that are mentioned briefly in the literature, the focus tends to be on three main episodes: the murder of Lord Darnley, the marriage between Mary and the Earl of Bothwell, and the plotting against Queen Elizabeth I.

These events are intertwined in that each led to the next. It would appear that Mary got caught up in a web of humiliation and in attempting to clear her reputation, she continued to tangle herself in that web. These three events combined to give Mary a reputation of scandal.

The scholarship written about the murder of Darnley cannot be fully understood without a short explanation of his marriage to Mary. Mary chose to marry Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley, for strategic reasons, as it kept her in Scotland and kept foreign influences out of the country. 50 It would have been impossible for Mary to have chosen a husband who would have been unanimously accepted. 51 Despite opposition, the couple became engaged. 52 The authors of this time cite this as one of Mary’s first scandalous decisions because she had not secured Elizabeth’s approval before announcing her engagement. Nevertheless, Darnley became King of Scotland. 53

In discussing the marriage, the authors state that Darnley’s character changed after becoming king. Sir Arthur S. MacNalty, a renowned biographer of British royalty, asserts that Darnley became “foolish and headstrong... [and Mary’s affection had served to foster] his pride, selfishness and uncontrolled temper.” 54 Antonia Fraser builds on this idea, saying that although

50 Elaine Finnie Greig, “Henry Stewart,” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://oxforddnb.com/view/article/26473?docPos=4, compiled in 2004, 10 September 2009. 51 Greig, “Henry Stewart.” 52 Greig, “Henry Stewart.” 53 Antonia Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1969), 226 – 230. 54 MacNalty, Mary Queen of Scots , 54. 11

Mary soon became pregnant with Darnley’s child, it was evident that she had begun to lose affection for him. 55 The marriage took a turn for the worse.

MacNalty goes on to explain that Darnley grew increasingly agitated with his wife because she would not bestow upon him the Crown Matrimonial, as she had upon her first husband, Francis. He also grew jealous of her confidant and political advisor, David Rizzio.

McNalty’s vivid description of the Rizzio murder on 4 March 1566 at Holyrood Castle 56 forces readers to view Darnley as a jealous husband. It has been speculated that Mary’s presence at the murder, in her condition, was an attempt by Darnley to induce a miscarriage, hoping to kill the queen and her child, securing control of Scotland for himself. 57 Although she wrote decades later,

Elaine Finnie Greig furthers McNalty’s portrayal of Darnley, illustrating the value in his writing.

The details of the resulting 1567 murder of Darnley 58 have never been proven, but

Donaldson, Fraser and MacNalty have discussed the extent of Mary’s involvement. They agree on

Mary’s sudden departure from the castle earlier that night and that the gunpowder that caused the explosion had been placed in Mary’s bedroom. They conclude that Bothwell, accepted as Mary’s lover, lit the fuse, creating the explosion, and that Mary had prior knowledge of the evening’s events. 59 Gordon Donaldson is a renowned Scottish-Canadian historian at the University of

Edinburgh. He has stated that “there is other evidence which strongly suggests Mary’s complicity in, or at least knowledge of, schemes against her husband.” 60 This event earned her the reputation of ‘murderer.’

55 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 241. 56 MacNalty, Mary Queen of Scots, 54 – 56. 57 Greig, “Henry Stewart.” 58 Gordon Donaldson, The First Trial of Mary, Queen of Scots (New York: Stein and Day Publishers, 1969), 29; Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 302. 59 Donaldson, The First Trial, 29 – 73; Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 282 – 304; MacNalty, Mary Queen of Scots , 64-74. 60 Donaldson, The First Trial, 37. 12

Donaldson’s sympathetic, objective writing, characteristic of the 1960s literature argues that there are numerous other possibilities for how Darnley’s murder could have come about, without Mary’s involvement, despite numerous claims to the contrary. 61 The strongest argument against Mary’s involvement is, according to Donaldson, “her complete breakdown after [the murder],” 62 which would not be expected of someone who had known about or planned it. This more sympathetic description of Mary did not replace the popular assumption that she aided in the murder, developed by the harsh pre-1960s literature. Despite Donaldson’s arguments for Mary’s innocence, popular belief tends to accept the blame cast by the authors who wrote before the

1960s, supported by the infamous Casket Letters. Therefore, Mary is commonly believed, by the general public, to have conspired with her lover to murder her husband, as it is difficult to change ideas held for centuries.

Donaldson states that Mary formally pardoned Bothwell, in an unjust trial, 63 acquitting him of any involvement in the murder and on 15 May 1567 she married him.64 This marriage became the second popularly discussed scandal in the writings. Rosalind Marshall hypothesizes that it was scandalous because, in addition to being unwanted by the nobility, it took place under

Protestant rites, despite Mary’s devout Catholic lifestyle. 65 Other scholars do not mention this. In addition, Mary’s haste in remarrying furthered suspicions that she had been involved in the

Darnley murder, and had helped her lover remove her husband from the picture.

This idea of Bothwell being Mary’s lover led the scholars to discuss Mary’s alleged infidelity. In the first of her nine acclaimed historical biographies, Antonia Fraser states that

61 Donaldson, The First Trial, 41-53. 62 Donaldson, The First Trial, 41. 63 Donaldson, The First Trial, 65. 64 Rosalind K. Marshall, “James Hepburn,” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://oxforddnb.com/view/article/13001?docPos=3, compiled in 2004, 10 September 2009; Goodare, “Mary Stewart.” 65 Marshall, “James Hepburn.” 13

Darnley had accused Mary of having an affair with Rizzio. 66 Humphrey Drummond’s 1975 book about Bothwell furthers Fraser’s hypothesis, asserting that Mary’s swift marriage to Bothwell led to suspicions that she had been engaging in another affair during her second marriage, this time with Bothwell. 67 This marriage led Donaldson to her accuse Mary of being a whore in his 1969 book. 68 Quickly, ‘adulteress’ was added to her increasingly scandalous reputation put forth by the literature.

Many scholars have debated over the precise nature of Mary’s plots in England, the third scandal discussed by 1960s scholars. Sir J. E. Neale, an English History professor at the

University College of London, focused on Elizabethan England. He is known for his traditionalist view of history and for pioneering new methods of study of Tudor England.69 In his 1960 book,

Queen Elizabeth I, Neale discusses Mary’s involvement in the well known and well documented

Ridolfi Plot, in which she was to be rescued from captivity and Elizabeth was to be taken hostage.

He states that funding for this was intercepted and that this plot aroused Elizabeth’s suspicions about Mary’s activity and marked the end of her plans to restore Mary. 70 He does not add new insight into Mary’s penchant for plotting. As opposed to continuing this discussion of the Ridolfi

Plot, to which nothing new could be added, Antonia Fraser focused on Mary’s involvement in a different plot. She analyzes the Babington Plot, in which Mary was to be liberated from prison and Elizabeth was to be assassinated. She states that letters from Babington explaining this plot to

Mary were intercepted by the English government and given to Elizabeth. Fraser states that this was what aroused Elizabeth’s annoyance with Mary’s scheming. 71 Neale and Fraser agree that

Mary’s hopes for freedom were dashed by the failure of these plots to be realized and although

66 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 252. 67 Donaldson, The First Trial, 30. 68 Donaldson, The First Trial, 66. 69 The Institute of Historical Research, “Sir John Earnest Neale,” University of London, http://www.history.ac.uk/makinghistory/historians/neale_john.html, 12 January 2010. 70 J.E. Neale, Queen Elizabeth I (Edinburgh: Penguin Books, 1960), 194-207. 71 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots , 475-500. 14 she was blamed, she was not accused of treason. As a result of these scholars’ emphasis on

Mary’s scheming, Mary has been remembered as a traitor.

Through the above analysis of the literature written about Mary in the 1960s, it is evident that the experts have concluded that Mary had a scandalous life. The authors of the 1960s focused on these scandals but did so in a factual manner. Although they, for the most part, viewed her as guilty of the charges levelled against her, they presented their arguments sympathetically. They built upon the literature written before the 1960s, which did not hesitate to judge Mary on these scandals, focusing primarily on her reputation of being a murderer. The collection of scholarship discussed here is an excellent sample of what was written about Mary during the 1960s. It is evident that the 1960s marked a turning point in the literature about Mary. While earlier scholarship judges Mary harshly for her (unproven) involvement in the Darnley murder, the literature of the 1960s takes a more sympathetic approach to this event, describing the murder, as well as Mary’s reputation for being an adulteress and a threat to Elizabeth, in a more factual manner. Together, it is obvious that the trend leading up to the 1970s in Marian and anti-Marian scholarship was to focus on Mary’s scandalous personal life. The 1965 discrediting of the Casket

Letters led to a shift in scholarly focus, as scholars moved to focus on her politics rather than her personal life.

Post 1970s Scholarship: The Impact of Feminism

The literature about Mary Stewart written after the 1970s has a very different focus from that written earlier. The later scholarship about Mary has a tendency to focus on her political mistakes.

The authors of this period have shifted their focus from her personal life to her political career. It is not a coincidence that this shift coincided with the development of feminism through the 1960s.

Prior to this, if studied at all, women were studied as men’s subordinates. Women’s rights and

15 abilities to rule were disregarded on the basis of sex alone. 72 The feminist movement played a pivotal role in changing historiography. As Gale Cengage argues,

By the end of the 1950s and the beginning of the 1960s, with the rise of the second wave feminist movement, women artists began expanding their repertoire of creative expression to openly include, and even celebrate their power and experiences as women… Eventually, many women writers in the 1960s and later broke through the stereotypical and restrictive paradigm of female authorship, creating and publishing works that abounded in an open celebration and exploration of issues that were central to women's existence, including sexuality. 73

A change in emphasis occurred with the feminist movement. Scholars would no longer focus on women’s private lives. The feminist movement allowed women to be visible in the public sphere. 74 This laid the groundwork for Mary to be no longer simply a woman with a scandalous personal life. She was now seen as a political figure worthy of study. By studying her political career, these later scholars offer a more complete picture of Mary Stewart, including her policy making, foreign relations and role as a queen. The following pages will deal with this new trend in literature.

Jenny Wormald, a British historian who focuses on late medieval and early modern

Scotland and is recognized for her scholarship on Mary Stewart, suggests that the literature written earlier neglects a great deal about Mary’s reign by focusing primarily on the Darnley murder, as she believes that the murder has incorrectly marked Mary’s political downfall. She addresses this issue by identifying three other key political mistakes made by Mary, which she feels combined to lead to Mary’s demise. The first of these mistakes was her marriage to Darnley,

72 Katherine L. French and A. M. Poska, Women and Gender in the Western Past, Volume II – Since 1500 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2007), 235. 73 Gale Cengage, "Women's Literature From 1960 To The Present – Introduction," in Feminism in Literature, Jessica Bomarito and Jeffrey W. Hunter, eds. Enotes.com 2006, http://www.enotes.com/feminism-literature/ women-s-literature-from-1960-present, 21 November 2009. 74 Johanna Alberti, Gender and the Historian (Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited, 2002), 1; Susan C. Karant-Nunn, “The Reformation of Women,” in Becoming Visible, Renate Bridenthal, Susan Mosher Stuard and Merry E. Wiesner, eds. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1998), 175 – 199. 16 which Wormald asserts was simply a political marriage. The second was her marriage to

Bothwell, which Wormald believes curtailed Mary’s political options. She says this marriage cost

Mary her international reputation, explaining that France, Spain and Rome gave up on her afterward. The final mistake Wormald discusses was Mary’s flight to England. Had she remained in Scotland, she would have had a better chance of being restored. Her absence meant that she was immediately at a disadvantage had there been any hope of restoration. Although it was Jenny

Wormald who stated this explicitly, 75 these political mistakes are also the focus of the scholars writing during this time period. As we can see, these are the same incidents on which the earlier writers focused; however, after the feminist movement, they were viewed from a different angle.

In his biography of Mary, Julian Goodare notes that Jenny Wormald essentially reduces the study of Mary to a story of political incompetence, common to post-1970s literature. Wormald notes that Mary’s story of “romance, sex and violence” 76 is not the whole story, an idea supported by

Michael Lynch’s 1988 collection of essays about Mary’s political life. This political side of her life is the focus of the scholars writing after the 1970s.

Feminist scholars have also focused on Mary’s political errors but, at the same time, they deal with the problems faced by a female monarch in a patriarchal society. 77 Before endeavouring to discuss Mary’s second and third marriages, which Wormald deemed political mistakes, it is important to recognize that Mary was a ruling queen which was relatively unprecedented at the time of her reign. Mary’s consistent reliance on a man is a common theme in the post-1970s literature. Male superiority would have been challenged by an unmarried female monarch, as a

“regnant queen endangered the state because of her inferior physical cum spiritual

75 Jenny Wormald, Court, Kirk and Community (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981), 143. 76 Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 197. 77 Anne McLaren, “Queenship in Early Modern England and Scotland,” Historical Journal 49.3 (2006): 937; Judith M. Richards, “To Promote a Woman to Beare Rule: Talking of Mid-Tudor England,” Sixteenth Century Journal 28.1 (1997):101. 17 endowments.” 78 However, both England and Scotland were being ruled by female monarchs at this time. The norm was to attach the queen to the king, with him as the ultimate authority both in their marriage and over their kingdom. 79 According to Katherine French and Allyson Poska, two leading authors on women and gender, Mary succumbed to the gender expectations that had been placed upon her, allowing herself to be controlled to a certain degree by the men in her life. They cite her love life as evidence of this, stating that “unlike Elizabeth I, Mary never found a way to move beyond the negative expectations of her sex.” 80 Mary and Elizabeth ruled in notably different fashions. Elizabeth proved the feminists’ argument that a woman could be powerful on her own. Mary subordinated herself to her first husband, but did not bestow the Crown

Matrimonial on either Darnley or Bothwell, maintaining some degree of authority over them.

Anne McLaren, who wrote at the same time with a focus on female rulers, explains that society expected “women at every social level to remarry if they became widows,” 81 which offers an explanation of Mary’s habit of quick remarriages. Pressure on her to remarry increased after her first marriage left her childless, as without a son she could not ensure the continuation of the

Stewart monarchy.

Societal norms held that men were capable of being more powerful than women. If a woman was to hold more power than the man in her life, it was seen as suppressing him. This was unacceptable in Marian Scotland. Judith M. Richards also wrote on the subject of female monarchs, focusing on Mary Tudor. She stated that the Scots subscribed to the “universal principle that no woman could ever be allowed to rule,” 82 which led them to believe that Mary was unsuitable to rule without a husband. 83 It would seem that Mary understood this.

78 McLaren, “Queenship,” 939. 79 McLaren, “Queenship,” 941. 80 French and Poska, Women and Gender, 236. 81 McLaren, “Queenship,” 947. 82 Richards, “To Promote a Woman to Beare Rule,” 116. 83 Richards, “To Promote a Woman to Beare Rule,” 101-121. 18

As a result of this, scholars began to focus on Mary’s reliance upon the men in her life.

During the debate about who her second husband should be, she spent a brief time without her chief advisors, Moray and Maitland. They had advised her to carry out a “policy of friendship with England and moderate Protestantism in Scotland.” 84 In offering this quotation, Dawson indicates that Mary was heavily influenced by their advice and was unable to set policy without them. In addition to this heavy reliance on her advisors, Mary moved quickly from one husband to the next. This further illustrates her need to have a man in her life. Jenny Wormald asserted that

“Mary put marriage before monarchy.” 85 Wormald’s book indicates that although she did not neglect her duties as queen, she certainly split her focus between these duties and on finding politically suitable mates. Therefore, based upon the scholarly research done on Mary after the

1970s, the Queen of Scots subscribed to the societal notion that to be an effective female monarch, a queen must surround herself with knowledgeable men to help her rule.

Jane E.A. Dawson, who has written a number of books and articles focusing on 16 th

Century Scottish history, 86 underscores Wormald’s assertion that “the celebrated episodes of the

Rizzio murder, Kirk O’Field, and Carberry Hill in 1566-7 have all but monopolized [scholarship about Mary].” 87 She believes that too much emphasis had been placed in the literature written prior to the 1970s, which “obscures the significance of the events of 1565 and, in particular, the implications of Mary’s marriage to Lord Darnley.” 88 This leads one to suppose that Dawson, like

Wormald, believes the political implications of the marriage were more important than the actual details of the marriage, which was the earlier scholarly focus.

84 Jane E.A. Dawson, “Mary Queen of Scots, Lord Darnley, and Anglo-Scottish Relations in 1565,” The International History Review VIII.I (February 1986): 11. 85 Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 107. 86 Dawson has written The Politics of Religion in the Age of Mary, Queen of Scots (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002) and Scotland Reformed (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007). She has also written “Mary Queen of Scots, Lord Darnley, and Anglo-Scottish Relations in 1565,” which has been used in this thesis. 87 Dawson, “Mary Queen of Scots,” 1. 88 Dawson, “Mary Queen of Scots,” 1. 19

Dawson discusses the political advantages and consequences of the marriage between

Mary and Darnley. 89 She argues that the marriage would pose a problem for England’s succession, as Mary’s claim would be strengthened through the marriage to a fellow claimant, which would, in turn, threaten Elizabeth’s reign. 90 Dawson claims that Mary used her marriage as a political bargaining chip in an attempt to secure a place in the English succession.91 Dawson’s article illustrates that Mary was certainly not averse to making decisions that would benefit her politically. However, by making decisions for her personal life with her political interests in mind,

Mary began to confuse the two and began to make mistakes.

Dawson continues to discuss the politics behind Mary’s second marriage, saying Darnley was welcomed in Scotland, as he was a member of the Scottish nobility. She asserts that the union was politically advantageous as it would keep her in her subjects’ favour. However, raising a member of the nobility to the royal family had proved dangerous in the past and, as Dawson points out, the fear that his family would try to usurp political control was not dismissed. This fear was allayed when Mary looked at his recent involvement in Scottish political life. 92

Post-1970s scholarship has determined that, although politically based, Mary’s decision to marry Darnley was detrimental to her political alliances overall. Her choice is seen as an attempt to pressure Elizabeth to name an heir. 93 Julian Goodare, author of the entry on Mary Stewart in the

Dictionary of National Biography, is a Reader at the University of Edinburgh with a focus on early modern Scottish government, finance and politics. In his biography of Mary, Goodare builds on Wormald’s ideas, pointing out that this decision destroyed Elizabeth’s influence over Mary, ending Anglo-Scottish harmony. Clearly, the Darnley marriage was a strictly political choice but

89 Dawson, “Mary Queen of Scots.” 90 Goodare, “Mary Stewart.” 91 Dawson, “Mary Queen of Scots,” 4. 92 Dawson, “Mary Queen of Scots,” 6. 93 Goodare, “Mary Stewart”; Roger A. Mason, “Scotland, Elizabethan England and the Idea of Britain,” Royal Historical Society 14 (2004):287. 20 ultimately cost Mary her alliance with England and a great deal of popular support. Both Goodare and Dawson assert that Mary attempted to make her decision in her best interest politically, but did so against the advice of Elizabeth and of several Scottish nobles, therefore making an unwise political decision. Dawson believes the downfall in Anglo-Scottish relations was a direct result of

Mary’s decision to marry Darnley. She asserts that Elizabeth developed an exceptionally inflexible policy towards Scotland in response to the marriage, which in turn ruined Anglo-

Scottish relations. 94 The formerly positive relationship between the two queens was now “in tatters.” 95 The Darnley marriage was portrayed as Mary’s first political blunder.

Finally free from the influence of the Casket Letters, scholars were able to create new discussions about Mary’s role in the Darnley murder. According to James Sadler, Mary’s political influence began to unravel after this event. Shortly after the murder, as is discussed in great depth by the scholars who wrote before the 1970s, Mary pardoned and married the Earl of Bothwell, deeply upsetting the Scottish Lords. 96 Mary and Bothwell, according to Humphrey Drummond, were believed to have collaborated on the Darnley murder, an assertion that was “accepted for four hundred years”97 in scholarship. For this decision, Anne McLaren accuses Mary of lacking judgement, agreeing with other modern historians in making this assertion. 98 They cite Mary going against her advisors in making this decision as their reasoning for this accusation. Once again, this event would be classified in the literature as a political mistake that would eventually lead to her downfall. Mary was forced to abdicate on 24 July 1567, 99 in favour of her son, James.

It would appear that, as a result of her unfavourable marriage, Mary lost all remaining political

94 Dawson, “Mary Queen of Scots,” 21. 95 Goodare, “Mary Stewart.” 96 Humphrey Drummond, The Queen’s Man (London: Leslie Frewin Publishers Limited, 1975), 137; James Sadler, Border Fury: England and Scotland at War, 1296 - 1569 (Harlow, England: Pearson Longman Ltd., 2005) , 516; Marshall, “James Hepburn.”; Goodare, “Mary Stewart.” 97 Drummond, The Queen’s Man , 125. 98 McLaren, “Queenship,” 948; McLaren cites modern historians in stating that Mary lacked judgement in marrying Bothwell, most famously Jenny Wormald. 99 Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 168; Goodare, “Mary Stewart.” 21 influence. Therefore, her third marriage was her second major political mistake. These scholars approached Mary’s relationship with Bothwell differently than the scholars who documented the relationship earlier. They have chosen to discuss the ramifications of the marriage rather than the supposed details of the affair. This shift held through the late 20 th Century scholarship.

Scholars such as Goodare, Mason, and Greengrass go on to discuss Mary’s third key political blunder. Late 20 th Century scholars discuss several logical options Mary could have taken after signing over her kingdom to her son. She could have remained in Scotland and pressed for her restoration or for a joint rule with her son. Mark Greengrass, a historian of 16 th Century

France, points out that she also could have relocated to France, where Mary continued to hold some influence as dowager queen, 100 in the hopes that her relatives would use their influence to help restore her. Unlike British focused scholars, Greengrass points out that, realistically, France could only have offered a slightly more comfortable refuge as Mary would still be an exile had she chosen to go there. 101 Instead of taking one of these logical options, Sadler explains that she decided to put herself at Elizabeth’s mercy, hoping Elizabeth would help her regain control of

Scotland. 102 This decision cost her what may have been left of her political reputation.

The above discussion of Mary’s political mistakes makes it clear that the scholars of the late twentieth Century have discussed the same events in Mary’s life that earlier authors focused upon. These authors built upon the descriptions of Mary’s personal scandals published by the earlier scholars by turning their focus to how Mary’s decisions affected her political career.

“It is with the return of Mary to Scotland that her story usually begins for English readers.” 103 Alexander Wilkinson and Mark Greengrass’ articles challenge this, offering a glimpse into Mary’s political relationship with France. In his 2004 article, Alexander Wilkinson discusses

100 M. Greengrass, “Mary, Dowager Queen of France,” in Mary Stewart: Queen in Three Kingdoms, Michael Lynch, ed. (Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1988), 195 – 218. 101 Goodare, “Mary Stewart.” 102 Sadler, Border Fury, 518. 103 Foster, The Stuarts, 22. 22

Mary’s controversial political career after she left France that resulted in this disintegration of her political reputation. He states that from the time Mary left France until her execution, the French press failed to mention her. This was a direct result of the “turbulent and sensational history of

Mary’s career following her arrival in Scotland.” 104 Wilkinson notes that the French press did not report the Darnley murder or her supposed affair with Bothwell. Although her imprisonment in

England was not neglected, it was not met with notable interest among her former subjects in

France. Wilkinson asserts that these three critical political errors on which the late 20 th Century historians have focused their writing about Mary were of no interest to the people who raised

Mary, who now saw her as “something of an embarrassment.” 105 Wilkinson states that discussions about Mary were kept out of the public sphere because her career was too scandalous and the

French press did not want to offend Elizabeth. 106 It is clear from his description of France’s attitude toward her political choices that it was these decisions that cost Mary her international reputation. Wilkinson’s writing is significant as it is about France. Few scholars focus on Mary’s time in France or her connection with France after her return to Scotland.

Mark Greengrass’ essay is significant for the same reason. Like Wilkinson, he was writing about Mary after she returned to Scotland but he focuses on her relationship with France, which is not often discussed. Greengrass emphasizes Mary’s continued, albeit limited, influence in France as dowager queen which provided her with a viable alternative to the 19 years she spent in prison that may have been otherwise forgotten in scholarship. Wilkinson’s article accentuates the true attitude of France toward their former queen which is not discussed in the literature and, without a detailed reading of Mary’s correspondence, is often unknown. Although Wilkinson does not directly debate Mary’s political mistakes, he does mention them as topics avoided by the

French press. Greengrass does not discuss her mistakes either, but does mention Mary’s options in

104 Alexander Wilkinson, “Mary Queen of Scots and the French Connection,” History Today 54.7 (2004): 39. 105 Wilkinson, “The French Connection,” 39. 106 Wilkinson, “The French Connection,” 39. 23 lieu of fleeing to England, which builds upon Goodare’s assertions and indicates that Greengrass saw the flight as a political mistake. 107

Through this analysis of the literature written about Mary after the 1970s, it is clear that the focus of Marian scholars had changed. The authors no longer looked solely at Mary’s personal life. While examining the scandalous events, they focus on their political implications, which they believe was the reason for Mary’s downfall. They also discuss her heavy reliance on male advisors and on her husbands in making political decisions. The literature of this time seems to paint Mary as politically foolish. However, it also discusses her political policies. Although these policies may have been influenced by the men in her life, some were effective policies and were attributed to her.

Conclusion: The Political Career of Mary, Queen of Scots

This chapter has served to introduce the scholarship written about Mary Stewart to date which focused on her personal life and on her political career. In neither case has she been looked upon favourably. Although the earlier literature focuses on Mary’s personal life and the later literature, affected by the feminist movement, discusses her as a political figure, there is a unifying theme across the literature: Mary was outrageous and incompetent. The fact that her personal life was filled with scandal is indisputable. However, through the analysis of her political career, it is evident that Mary did not take her role of queen lightly. As a queen, Mary’s personal life inevitably had political implications. Therefore, events in her personal life are inseparable from a discussion of her political career. The remainder of this thesis will explore her political career to continue this discussion. It will dispel certain myths about Mary by focusing on her politically based decisions for her country and her quest for power.

107 Greengrass, “Dowager Queen of France,” 195 – 218. 24

Chapter Two will focus on Mary’s rule in Scotland and will address the argument that

Mary was indifferent toward her country. Through an investigation of her 1561-1567 reign in

Scotland, this chapter will directly challenge Jenny Wormald’s assertion that Mary was a reluctant ruler through a discussion of Mary’s determination to be an active queen. Although she was not an effective ruler, this chapter will illustrate that she was making an active attempt to be one. Her actions in Scotland were not the actions of a disinterested ruler, but rather a determined queen attempting to make her mark.

Chapter Three will focus on the shift from Mary’s period of active rule in Scotland to her period of inactive rule, which began in 1565 with her marriage to Darnley and lasted until her death in 1587. During the period from 1565 to 1568, Mary entered a period of distraction from her role as queen by her tumultuous personal life. Her focus had shifted from governing to another queenly role: producing a male heir to continue the royal family line. During this phase in her life,

Wormald’s assertion that Mary was reluctant to rule is more fitting. Following this period, during her captivity in England, she became desperate to rule. This chapter will focus on Mary’s attitudes and circumstances during this period of inactivity.

A brief conclusion will decisively disprove the widely believed fallacies about Mary

Stewart through a discussion of the three distinct phases of Mary’s political career. In particular, it will argue that Mary was not indifferent toward ruling but instead, eager to prove herself and maintain, and later regain, an active role in government. It will prove that Mary was not a reluctant ruler, but rather went through various phases of life during her reign, some more obviously active in politics than others, but none completely indifferent to ruling Scotland.

25

Chapter 2 – A Queen Determined to Rule

Jenny Wormald identifies the Queen of Scots as a “reluctant ruler,” 1 citing Mary’s rule in

Scotland as evidence. Although Wormald presents a convincing case, Mary was, in fact, trying to rule her kingdom. It is evident from Mary’s political decisions regarding Scotland prior to her return from France that she never forgot her responsibilities as the Queen of Scots. While many of

Mary’s decisions during her initial rule in Scotland did not ultimately succeed, they were politically based. Her attempts to please her Scottish subjects upon her return indicates her desire to be a popular monarch. Although she delayed naming her Parliament, the prompt appointment of her Privy Council illustrates her determination to rule. The debate surrounding her choice for her second husband indicates her efforts to make strategic decisions that would be beneficial to her kingdom. However, shortly after her second marriage, she became distracted from this initial determination leading her down a path that may be described as disinterested. This chapter will conclusively prove that Mary was not initially reluctant to rule Scotland, but rather started out determined to take charge of her kingdom upon her return in 1561 after a twelve year absence.

Introducing the “Reluctant Ruler”

To refute Wormald’s claim that Mary was a reluctant ruler, it is necessary to first explore why she made the accusation. Mary’s rule in Scotland officially began with her coronation at nine months of age as a result of her father’s death in 1542.2 However, in August 1548, the six year old queen was sent to France 3 as part of a political alliance between Scotland and France in which she was to

1 Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 103. 2 George Buchanan, The History of Scotland, vol.II, James Aikman, ed. (Glasgow: Blackie, Fullarton & Co., 1827), 325, 334; Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots , 21; Goodare, “Mary Stewart”; Womald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 43. 3Buchanan, The History of Scotland, 371; Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 76. 26 marry the Dauphin. 4 Mary spent her childhood in France, being raised in the French courts.

Wormald asserted that this upbringing was detrimental to Mary later in life, as she had been raised in one kingdom to rule another. She was geographically separated from her kingdom and felt no real attachment to her subjects. Instead, she grew increasingly fond of France. 5 Herein lies the root of her reputation of lacking interest in Scotland. However, despite her love for the country in which she had been raised, Mary did not forget her duties as Queen of Scotland.

In addition to arguing that Mary was not interested in ruling, Wormald has also cited three crucial political mistakes made by the Queen of Scots while ruling Scotland. These mistakes were the Darnley marriage, the Bothwell marriage and Mary’s flight to England. 6 In making this argument, Wormald has contradicted herself, as political mistakes cannot be made by someone who is ruling inactively. John Guy stated that “Mary ruled from her heart, unlike her cousin

Elizabeth, who always ruled from her head,” 7 which illustrates that, while she was not a queen of the same calibre as her cousin, in the very least, she was ruling. Wormald has illustrated that Mary did not succeed in her political attempts but has failed to prove that Mary was in fact reluctant to rule Scotland.

Political Decisions Made during Mary’s Time in France

By the age of 12, Mary had already begun to make political decisions for her Scottish kingdom, which indicates she was, in fact, eager to take the reins and lead her country. Although she was still a minor, she chose a new regent to rule in her absence. She chose her mother, Mary of Guise,

4 Melville, Memoires of Sir James Melville , 27; W.A. Gatherer, ed., George Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign of Mary Stewart: George Buchanan’s Account (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1978, reprint Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1958)Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 62. 5 Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 77. 6 Wormald, Court, Kirk, and Community , 143. These are discussed in depth in chapters 1 and 3 of this thesis. 7 John Guy, Queen of Scots: The True Life of Mary Stuart (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004), 170. 27 expelling the Earl of Arran from the position. 8 Then, following her mother’s advice, she declared her minority over, an unprecedented act at such a young age in Scotland. Mary of Guise quickly began building up the relationship between Scotland and France, redeveloping the “auld alliance”. 9 Mary’s marriage to the future French king, Francis II was based on political calculation. 10 By marrying Francis on 24 April 1558, his father, the French King Henri II, was given a degree of control over Scotland, as his son now held the Crown Matrimonial. 11 Mary signed two marriage contracts, stating that Scotland would be governed by her mother, but that she and Francis would be the King and Queen of Scotland and France. In addition, if Francis outlived her and the couple had no children, Mary’s rights in Scotland and England would be given to Francis. It was a decision that completed efforts to unite France and Scotland, arguably her first major political decision, one that was influenced by her father-in-law. 12 Interestingly, in discussing this, Wormald has called Mary “a politician of great skill.” 13

Once married to Francis, Mary asserted her claim to the English throne. She declared

Elizabeth illegitimate and herself, therefore, next in line for the English throne. 14 This was Mary’s first attempt to assert herself as a powerful queen and expand her kingdom. Henri II subsequently declared her to be the Queen of France, Scotland, England and Ireland, though this title was not widely accepted. 15 However, the assertion offended England and led to an anti-French uprising in

Scotland, aided by the English military. Peace was declared in the Treaty of Edinburgh in July

1560. England forgave Mary’s claims, as the treaty stated Mary would not be allowed to call herself the Queen of England or Ireland and that Mary and Francis would from then on refrain

8 “Royal Contract, A1552/2/29,” Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, http://www.rps.ac.uk/, 13 February 2010. 9 Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 83 – 84. 10 Fraser; Mary Queen of Scots, 70; Goodare, “Mary Stewart”; Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 87. 11 Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 87. 12 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 67 – 68; Goodare, “Mary Stewart.” 13 Wormald, Court, Kirk, and Community , 115. 14 Buchanan, The History of Scotland, 401. 15 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 84 – 85; Goodare, “Mary Stewart”; Melville, Memoirs of Sir James Melville , 58-59. 28 from bearing title and arms of the kingdoms of England and Ireland. 16 With that, French troops left Scotland. 17 Nevertheless, it was another attempt by Mary to advance her political power, indicating a desire to rule.

Fifteen months after her marriage, Mary was given a chance to rule more autonomously.

King Henri II of France died on 10 July 1559, 18 making Francis the King of France and Mary, in turn, the legitimate queen of two kingdoms, increasing her political importance. Shortly after the death of her father-in-law, Mary was forced to begin to make political decisions alone. On 10 June

1560, her mother (and regent) died in Scotland 19 and just six months later, on 5 December, Francis died in France. 20 Mary’s rule in France ended with the death of her husband. Her two year reign had been uneventful and inconsequential. However, it was in France that Mary had learned about ruling and these were lessons she retained. She decided not to remain in France as Dowager

Queen, instead, choosing to return to Scotland, 21 a country foreign to her after a twelve year absence. For the first time, she chose to stand on her own feet and rule her own country. This was not the decision of a hesitant monarch.

Establishing Herself in Scotland

Wormald indicates that Mary’s reign in Scotland began “with a vacuum, which lasted for fourteen months [in which she was] not only... absent, but throughout that period, as lord James Stewart

16 Gordon Donaldson, ed., “1560 Treaty of Edinburgh,” Scottish Historical Documents (Glasgow: Neil Wilson Publishing, 1974), 121. 17 Donaldson, ed., “1560 Treaty of Edinburgh,” Scottish Historical Documents, 121; Elizabeth Tudor, “IV. To Mary, Queen of Scots, 16 August 1561,” The Letters of Queen Elizabeth I, G.B. Harrison, ed. (London: Cassell and Company Ltd., 1968, reprint of 1935 edition), 33-35; Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 84 – 85, 104; Goodare, “Mary Stewart.” 18 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 87; Goodare, “Mary Stewart.” See also Buchanan, The History of Scotland, 413. 19 Buchanan, The History of Scotland, 430; Marshall, “Mary of Guise”; Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 102. 20 Buchanan, The History of Scotland, 435; Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign, 48; Foster, The Stuarts, 18; Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 107; Goodare, “Mary Stewart”; Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 105. 21 Buchanan, The History of Scotland, 437; Melville, The Memoirs of Sir James Melville, 62. 29 pointed out to her, she left her kingdom without any legally constituted government at all.” 22 Mary spent these first few months in France, preparing to leave the country in which she had grown up and to return to her home country of Scotland, completely foreign to her. Wormald also indicates that Mary allowed the Protestant rebels to institute themselves as the Great Council of the Realm, effectively controlling the country, stating that even the most incompetent monarchs at least attempt to assert themselves. 23 Wormald seems to have forgotten that Mary was undoubtedly struggling with the consecutive deaths of the three people to whom she was closest. 24

Wormald then states that, instead of emerging from her mourning period ready to rule her country, Mary immediately began to search for her next husband. 25 Wormald ignores the fact that

Mary attempted to align herself politically, through marriage, to another powerful country, which would be beneficial to Scotland overall. Instead, Wormald implies that Mary hoped to remarry someone who would please Elizabeth and therefore secure her own position as Elizabeth’s heir, basing her policy toward her kingdom upon that. 26 Clearly, maintaining positive foreign relations was critically important in Mary’s point of view. In an attempt to create this alliance with England even before returning to Scotland, Mary strove to build a friendship with her cousin, writing:

The English have made good mention of the friendship borne to me by the Queen of England, my sister, of which she has, indeed, made me indications on so many occasions, that I dare not and will not doubt it; and I hope well she will give me more sure demonstrations of it. 27

This passage indicates Mary’s desire to align herself with Elizabeth in order to secure a positive

Anglo-Scottish relationship which, in addition to her attempts to marry strategically, points to her

22 Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 103. 23 Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 103. 24 Buchanan, The History of Scotland, 440; Guy, Queen of Scots, 116. 25 Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 105. 26 Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 109. 27 Mary Stewart, “The Queen of Scots to the Constable de Montmorency, 1563” Letters of Mary, Queen of Scots, v.1, Agnes Strickland, ed. (London: H. Colburn, 1842), 4. 30 desire to advance her political status during her Scottish reign. As it was written while Mary was still in France, it also illustrates her political interest in Scotland before her return.

Although she was eager to take control of her country, Mary had been aware, even before arriving in Scotland, that she would have “three strikes against her: her gender, her religion, and her knowledge and understanding of Scotland. In addition, she also had to face a group of men who had become used to holding the reins of government since the death of Mary of Guise.” 28

Mary realized she had to find a way to rule “in conjunction with these... aspects of sixteenth- century life.” 29

Mary arrived in Scotland where she was expected by many, notably John Knox, to be “a feeble puppet,” 30 based on her career in France. Knox wrote:

To promote a Woman to beare rule, superioritie, dominion, or empire above any Realme, Nation or Citie, is repugnant to Nature... woman in her greatest perfection was made to serve and obey man, not to rule and command him... the authoritie of a woman is a corrupted foutein, and therefore from her can never spring any lauful officer. 31

He did not believe Mary, or any other woman, could be a capable monarch. Knox soon realized this was not the case, stating that Mary had “a proud mind, a crafty wit and an indurate heart,” 32 which would lead her to be a force to be reckoned with. While this assessment may not have been true in the end, Mary was not a puppet of her Protestant lords. Sir Arthur MacNalty notes that

28 Kristen Post Walton, Catholic Queen, Protestant Patriarchy (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007), 15. See also David Hay Fleming, Mary Queen of Scots: From her Birth to her Flight into England (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1898) , 56. 29 Walton, Catholic Queen, 47. 30 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots , 156. Fraser cites John Knox’s History of the Reformation in Scotland, volume II, W. Croft Dickinson, ed. (Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson, 1949), 20. 31 John Knox, The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrvovs Regiment of Women (Geneva, 1558) in Jayne Elizabeth Lewis, The Trial of Mary Queen of Scots: A Brief History with Documents (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1999), 53-63. Knox wrote this two years before Mary’s return to Scotland, anticipating the reign of a queen. John Knox, The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrvovs Regiment of Women, number 471 (Amsterdam: Theatrvm Orbis Terrarvm Ltd., 1558). 32 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 156. Fraser cites Knox’s History of the Reformation in Scotland , 20 31

Mary “ruled wisely and well at this time under most difficult conditions... [and] desired to rule with toleration and justice,” 33 as well as understanding.

In particular, she was aware that there would be tension between her Protestant subjects and herself, a Catholic monarch. 34 Scottish politics in Mary’s twelve year absence had been dominated by the Protestant nobility. When it became evident that Mary was going to be returning to Scotland following the death of Francis and of her mother, the nobility launched into a flurry of anti-Catholic activity in anticipation of the reinstitution of Catholic policy. Two months after the death of Mary of Guise, Parliament was called and four anti-Catholic bills were pushed through. 35

The Protestant nobility ratified Protestantism, 36 revoked Papal authority, 37 abolished idolatry and superstition, 38 and forbade Catholic Mass. 39 These bills mentioned Mary in passing but were not written on her behalf nor was she consulted. In contrast, acts passed prior to Mary of Guise’s death had been proclaimed in the name of the regent on behalf of the queen. 40 Melville notes that

Catherine de Medici, Mary’s French mother-in-law, feared that the Protestant nobles would usurp

Scotland during Mary of Guise’s regency. 41 This fear was not present during Mary’s reign in

Scotland, suggesting that her international confidants believed in her capabilities as queen.

Although the nobility had been restrained by Mary of Guise, there were evidently strong desires to institute official Protestantism. It felt that the return of the Catholic queen would hinder this process, therefore proclaiming these anti-Catholic bills in anticipation of her return. Upon her

33 MacNalty, Mary Queen of Scots , 38, 40. 34 Buchanan, The History of Scotland, 441; Peter Davidson, “The entry of Mary Stewart into Edinburgh, 1561, and other ambiguities,” Renaissance Studies 9.4 (1995), 416. 35 Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, “Mary I,” University of St. Andrews, http://www.rps.ac.uk/, 22 January 2010. 36 “Confession of Faith ratification, A1560/8/3,” Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, University of St. Andrews, http://www.rps.ac.uk/, 22 January 2010. 37 “Papal Jurisdiction, A1560/8/4,” Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, University of St. Andrews, http://www.rps.ac.uk/, 22 January 2010. 38 “Abolition of Idolatry, A1560/8/5,” Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, University of St. Andrews, http://www.rps.ac.uk/, 22 January 2010. 39 “Abolition of Mass, A1560/8/6,” Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, University of St. Andrews, http://www.rps.ac.uk/, 22 January 2010. 40 Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, “Mary I.” 41 Melville, Memoirs of Sir James Me lville, 52. 32 return, Mary declared that any laws proclaimed in Scotland between 6 March 1558 and 1

September 1561 to be void, as they were made without her consent, 42 thus nullifying all Protestant directed acts. It became clear that Mary was determined to direct politics during her reign.

On her first Sunday in Scotland, she heard mass at Holyrood which confirmed her

Protestant nation’s greatest fears and led to confrontation. 43 This led Mary to devise a strategy for dealing with this religious tension. Three weeks after she arrived, Mary toured her kingdom to learn about the country with which she was so unfamiliar, taking her determination to a new level.

She was met with enthusiastic subjects and Protestant demonstrations. She showed a “determined optimism and gracious behaviour towards her subjects, whatever their religious opinions.” 44

Clearly, Mary wished to be a popular monarch, as she had been in France. 45 Had she been indifferent toward her country, she would not have cared about her subjects’ opinions of her. On that journey, she decided that it was in the best interest of Scotland “that the Protestant status quo should be preserved, so long as she herself could worship in private the way she pleased.” 46 This leads us to believe that she was not willing to change who she was but would make decisions in the best interest of her subjects which, again, would not have been the policy of a monarch who did not care about ruling.

Her control over religion was strong and she successfully kept the Protestant nobility under control during her time as Queen of Scotland; her abdication would open the door to a

42 “Act of Oblivion, A1563/6/1,” Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, University of St. Andrews, http://www.rps.ac.uk/, 22 January 2010. See also Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign, 46. 43 Davidson, “The entry of Mary Stewart,” 419; Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 152; Fleming, Mary Queen of Scots , 55; Guy, Queen of Scots , 134. See also Buchanan, The History of Scotland, 449. Buchanan describes the initial private masses celebrated by Mary and her transition into more public celebrations of mass in November. 44 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 157. See also MacNalty, Mary Queen of Scots , 37; Melville, Memoirs of Sir James Melville , 102. 45 MacNalty, Mary Queen of Scots , 35. 46 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 157. See also Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign , 54; Ian B. Cowan, “The Roman Connection: Prospects for Counter-Reformation during the Personal Reign of Mary, Queen of Scots,” in Mary Stewart: Queen in Three Kingdoms, Michael Lynch ed. (Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1988), 105 – 119. 33 second flurry of Protestant legislation. On 12 December 1567, James VI’s Protestant nobility once again passed a collection of anti-Catholic bills. James’ first Parliament resulted in the passing of

42 bills, including nine that dealt directly with religion. 47 It became evident that many of the nobility had been waiting for Mary and her policy of religious tolerance to be removed. As soon as she was, they pushed through bills similar to what had been passed prior to her return to

Scotland in 1560, officially instating Protestantism. 48 This second flurry of activity conclusively proves that Mary did succeed in holding the reins of power during her time as Queen of Scotland.

In addition to keeping the Protestant nobility under control and attempting to align

Scotland with England during her reign in Scotland, Mary endeavoured to employ the governmental practices she had learned in France. Although her household was comprised of largely French Catholic members, she filled governmental positions primarily with Protestant

Scots. 49 She interacted positively with these councillors, 50 despite having little in common with them. She also wished to distinguish herself, becoming “the first Scottish monarch to use regularly the imperial title of majesty rather than grace, adopting, as were other contemporary monarchs, the style and protocol of the Holy Roman Emperor,”51 indicating her desire to be assert herself as a serious monarch. The following passage demonstrates that Mary maintained interactions with her French contacts, mainly over matters that pertained to her ability to govern

Scotland, particularly financially.

Monsieur de Gonor, having been informed by the S r. De Puiguillon, who paid me a visit for the purpose of giving me an account of my affairs, that he had not yet received the remainder of my dowry, notwithstanding all the diligence he had used, not even been indemnified for the law expenses incurred, I cannot but feel greatly astonished at this; having always promised myself so much from your goodwill towards me, that I am sure it is not your fault. I know that you can greatly assist me, and I beg of you to lend a hand,

47 Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, “James VI.” 48 Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, St. Andrews University, http://www.rps.ac.uk/ , 2 February 2010. 49 Retha Warnicke, Mary Queen of Scots (London: Routledge, 2006), 88. 50 Warnicke, Mary Queen of Scots, 90. 51 Warnicke, Mary Queen of Scots, 99. See also Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, “Mary I.” 34

with the assurance that any service you may render, in this or any other affair, will not be done for an ungrateful princess. 52

This indicates that she maintained her connections with her French relatives and used her French dowry to live on after returning to Scotland, as opposed to becoming a burden on her country.

Upon her return to Scotland, Mary had to establish her government. On 6 September

1561, she nominated her Privy Council. Of the sixteen men chosen, ten were earls, two were lords and four were officers of state. Six were to be her constant companions and help her with routine business. 53 Although the identity of these men is unknown due to “a gap in the records from 22

January 1554 until September 1561,” 54 it is known that only four of these men were Catholic.

Therefore, Mary’s Privy Council was Protestant dominated. These officers of state were simply retained from earlier governments. 55 These men were given full executive powers, and instead of being ruled by Mary, which would have followed tradition, were directed by Lord James and

Maitland. 56 Mary did place significant confidence in some of these men57 in an attempt to gain their support. 58 Wormald believes that this proves Mary made no decision at all. She asserts that

Mary was “treading carefully” 59 because she had no other choice than to pacify the Protestants. In reality, it was a strategic decision to appease the Protestants, as they constituted the majority of

Mary’s kingdom and a large portion of her nobility. Alienating them would not have been a wise political decision. Mary chose to create a representative Privy Council rather than one that would have suited her personal affiliations. Although Wormald states that Mary showed “indifference to

52 Mary Stewart, “The Queen of Scots to M. de Gonor, 10 August 1562,” Letters of Mary, Queen of Scots , v.1, Agnes Strickland, ed., 10. 53 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 174. 54 Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 115. See also Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, “Mary I.” 55 Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 115 – 116. 56 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 174 – 175. 57 MacNalty, Mary Queen of Scots, 40. 58 Walton, Catholic Queen, 90. 59 Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 116. 35 domestic political matters,” 60 she was in fact showing that she recognized the domestic situation and adjusting accordingly. 61

Wormald goes on to discuss Mary’s lack of attendance at the Privy Council sessions.

These sessions, known as sederunts, were dominated by the Protestants and Mary only attended between 10% and 31% of these annual meetings. 62 To Wormald, this indicates idleness on the part of the queen. However, it may suggest that Mary placed a great deal of trust in her chosen advisors. Wormald also points out that little of what was brought forward was “clearly inspired by the queen.” 63 This is unsubstantiated. Elizabeth saw Mary’s presence in Privy Council meetings as critical and hoped that her presence would lead to the ratification of the Treaty of Edinburgh, at which time Elizabeth would be willing to negotiate with her cousin. Elizabeth wrote:

Upon your coming home to follow herein the advice of your Council of Scotland, and herein to proceed to the ratification, we are content to suspend our conceit of all unkindness... by this delay offered unto us and we are resolved upon this being as it ought to be performed, to live in neighbourhood with you as quietly, friendly, yea, as assuredly in the knot of friendship as we be already in the knot of nature and blood. 64

This letter implies that Elizabeth was willing to work with Mary and her Council, indicating that

Mary was active in Council, as long as they were pleasing for England. The fact that Mary did not ratify this treaty proves that she was unwilling to let the politics of her country be controlled by foreign powers.

Mary has often been criticized for not calling her first Parliament until two years after her return to Scotland but it is important to note that, according to the parliamentary acts declared by

King James II and King James IV, Mary did not reach the age of majority until 1564, when she

60 Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 117. 61 Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, “Mary I.” Mary passed bills which did not alienate her Protestant nobility and would please her subjects. 62 Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 119. See also Warnicke, Mary Queen of Scots, 89. 63 Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 120. 64 Elizabeth Tudor, “IV. To Mary, Queen of Scots, 16 August 1561,” The Letters of Queen Elizabeth I, G.B. Harrison, ed, 34 – 35. 36 became “the lawful and perfect age, so that her highness, her predecessors and successors after the said age of 21 years complete might have done and may do all things that thereafter a prince of lawful and perfect age might have done or may do of the law.” 65 Mary first called Parliament in

1563, a year before reaching the age of majority. Despite not being of age, she had already declared her minority to be over and was actively taking control of her country. These actions illustrate her determination to be a true head of state.

Mary’s First Scottish Parliament

Mary assembled her first Parliament on 26 May 1563, two years after her return from France. 66

This delay is significant since, previously, it had been called on average more than once per year.

It would have been naturally expected that Mary assemble Parliament immediately upon her return to “meet her leading subjects, hear their advice, and to have legitimacy conferred on her policies by a broad political forum.” 67 Nevertheless, she did immediately name her Privy Council, through whom governing continued until she was prepared to call Parliament.68 Goodare adds that

Mary could have summoned Parliament when she returned to Scotland but was otherwise occupied with other aspects of returning. Taking her position at the head of the Protestant regime which had attempted to overthrow her mother with English support proved to be challenging for the Catholic monarch. Parliament had forbidden Catholic mass and adopted Protestantism as the official religion of Scotland. 69 In addition, Mary was occupied by negotiations with Elizabeth concerning Anglo-Scottish relations, particularly her personal desire to be named heir to the

65 “Queen’s Majority, A1564/12/2,” Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, St. Andrews University, http://www.rps.ac.uk/, 22 January 2010. 66 Julian Goodare, “The First Parliament of Mary, Queen of Scots,” Sixteenth Century Journal 36.1 (2005): 55; Warnicke, Mary Queen of Scots, 91. See also Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, “Mary I.” 67 Goodare, “The First Parliament,” 55. 68 Goodare, “The First Parliament,” 55. Goodare cites Mary’s proclamation on religion dated 25 August, 1561. 69 “Confession of Faith Ratification, A1560/8/3,” Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, http://www.rps.ac.uk/, 22 January 2010. 37

English throne. This developed into the attempted organization of a meeting between the two queens, further delaying Parliament. 70 Mary’s advisors did not press her to call Parliament, which suggests that the delay was acceptable at the time. Nevertheless, by November 1562, Mary’s hesitation was seen as reluctance. 71 However, Parliament had to be summoned from Edinburgh and given the time of year, this was not possible as it had to be done by messenger and winter travel was difficult. 72

On 15 February 1563, Mary summoned Parliament upon the advice of the Earl of

Moray. 73 In doing so, Mary had protected the Protestant status quo, making a political decision to keep her Catholicism private in an attempt to remain in her Protestant subjects’ favour. This was likely a difficult decision for such a devout Catholic to make, thereby proving that she was willing to make political decisions.

Mary’s 1563 Parliament was well-attended, particularly by Protestant nobility, who were pleased by her religious toleration. 74 Mary “was making it clear that she wished to work with the

Protestant church, but the promotion of her half-brothers shows that she was doing so with the aid of the people connected to her personally. It was very much her Parliament.” 75 A reluctant queen would not have held this sort of Parliament. Mary’s policy was “dictated by an opportunism and self-interest aimed at making her acceptable to both parties in Scotland, to both parties in England and to continental princes...[and] had gone some way towards achieving its purpose.” 76 During this parliamentary meeting, Mary “boldly decided to push for a minimalist religious program and

70 Goodare, “The First Parliament,” 57; MacNalty, Mary Queen of Scots, 38; Melville, Memoirs of Sir James Melville, 94. 71 Goodare, “The First Parliament,” 57 - 58. 72 Goodare, “The First Parliament,” 59. 73 Goodare, “The First Parliament,” 61 - 63. 74 Goodare, “The First Parliament,” 64; Julian Goodare, “The Scottish Political Community and the Parliament of 1563,” Albion 35.3 (Autumn 2003):376 – 385. Goodare discusses the parliamentary attendance in detail. 75 Goodare, “The First Parliament,” 64. 76 Gordon Donaldson, All the Queen’s Men: Power and Politics in Mary Stewart’s Scotland ( New York: St. Martin’s Press , 1983). 54. 38 to avoid any irrevocable Protestant commitments” 77 and “successfully asserted her will against one of her two most prominent Protestant advisers at a time when the other (Secretary Maitland) was absent.” 78 Any ruler willing to make bold decisions against or without the advice of her advisors cannot be described as reluctant. The 1563 parliamentary meeting resulted in legislations addressing religious, political, moral, social and economic issues facing Scotland. 79 Each piece of legislation was passed in Mary’s name 80 with her consent. Some were controversial, such as the legislation in which Mary decided not to tax royal burghs. 81 Disinterested sovereigns would not issue controversial legislation but rather would attempt to appease their subjects. This Parliament was the most important one that Mary summoned, as it was the only one that included notable legislation. 82

According to Goodare, “parliament [in 1563] was a triumph for Mary. It was not the greatest or most dramatic triumph of her personal rule, but compared with others it was perhaps the most positive and unequivocal.” 83 Mary succeeded in suppressing a religious coup and avoided becoming unpopular among her subjects and nobles. These are the kinds of successes monarchs hope for and Mary was able to achieve them in her first political assembly. The bills passed prove that she was not averse to making political decisions, despite the fact that it may have taken her some time to do so. Although Mary’s Scottish political career was not successful overall, she was determined to have one.

77 Goodare, “The First Parliament,” 66. See also Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, “Mary I.” The bills listed under the 4 June 1563 Parliament illustrate this. 78 Goodare, “The First Parliament,” 67. 79 Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, “Mary I.” See also Goodare, “The Scottish Political Community,” 375. 80 Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, “Mary I.” The bills each begin with “Our sovereign lady...” or “the queen’s majesty...” indicating that the bills were made with her input. 81 Goodare, “The First Parliament,” 70 - 71. See also “Burghs, A1563/6/20,” Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, St. Andrews University, http://www.rps.ac.uk/, 22 January 2010; “Burghs, A1563/6/21,” Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, St. Andrews University, http://www.rps.ac.uk/, 22 January 2010. 82 Goodare, “The Scottish Political Community”, 375. See also Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, “Mary I”; Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 122. 83 Goodare, “The First Parliament,” 74. See also Goodare, “The Scottish Political Community,” 389. 39

Mary’s domestic policy resembled this first Parliament as it favoured the Protestant reformers. 84 During the 1563 Parliament, she passed an Act of Oblivion, 85 excusing the period of

Protestant rebellion. She also formally recognized the reformed church and reflected Protestant values in her legislations, constantly reassuring her Protestant subjects. While she did protect

Catholics from harassment, her policies favoured Scottish Protestants. Gordon Donaldson asserts that this sprang “from a sheer desire for good government.” 86 Therefore, although her policies were not complete successes, they do illustrate Mary’s aspiration to lead an effective government, which is characteristic of a keen monarch. In fact, her tolerant policies “went a long way to neutralise opposition,” 87 indicating her desire for peace within her kingdom. This desire to please her subjects and the nobility would diminish shortly after her second marriage, as she became distracted from her political goals by events in her personal life, as will be discussed in Chapter

Three.

The Politics behind the Darnley Marriage

Having established herself in Scotland, Mary turned her attention to a second marriage and the future of the Stewart line. She believed that an unmarried female monarch at this time could not be a powerful one. For this reason, she felt she had to remarry and, subsequently, produce a son and maintain her family line. She saw producing an heir as one of her primary responsibilities as queen. She faced significant pressure from the nobility to do so. 88 Her first marriage had been a politically based alliance between France and Scotland, and Mary hoped that her second marriage would be a similar coalition. 1563 marked the beginning of negotiations to find the best political

84 Donaldson, All the Queen’s Men, 54. 85 “Act of Oblivion, A1563/6/1,” Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, http://www.rps.ac.uk/, 22 January 2010. See also Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign, 46; Donaldson, All the Queen’s Men, 54; Goodare, “The First Parliament,” 69. 86 Donaldson, All the Queen’s Men, 54. 87 Donaldson, All the Queen’s Men, 55. 88 Guy, Queen of Scots, 163; MacNalty, Mary Queen of Scots, 45. 40 alliance for Scotland through the marriage of the queen, 89 and from then until her marriage, the options for her husband “was the most discussed aspect of Scottish politics.” 90

Immediately, this process was complicated by Mary’s relationship with her cousin

Elizabeth, who declared Mary would be her enemy should she choose to marry someone

Elizabeth deemed unsatisfactory. Mary was pressing “her claims to be recognized as Elizabeth’s successor,” 91 and knew that she had to please her cousin to achieve this. Mary had based her foreign policy upon being recognized as the successor to the English throne, 92 and therefore,

Elizabeth’s demands were important for Mary to consider if she wanted to achieve her political goal of uniting England and Scotland under one crown – her own. Still, she entertained numerous alternate possibilities.

Mary favoured an alliance with Spain, as Spain was extremely prestigious at the time due to its powerful troops and vast wealth. 93 In addition, it was a Catholic nation. Her goal was to

“connect her realm and ultimately England to the Netherlands by marrying Don Carlos [of Spain in the hopes that]... the resulting composite monarchy [would have] the potential of becoming even grander when he succeeded his father as Spain’s monarch.” 94 In addition to Don Carlos,

Mary entertained other foreign Catholic options, including Archduke Charles of Germany,

Charles IX and Henry III, both of France. Further evidence that she was not unaware or disinterested in her Scottish kingdom is found in the fact that she decided she would not marry into a position of subordination and risk losing Scotland nor enter a marriage that would breed

“jealousy [or] trouble betwixt [her] Majesties and [her] countries, as did the marriage with the

French King,” 95 through a second French marriage. She believed returning to France would

89 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 211. 90 Walton, Catholic Queen, 91. 91 MacNalty, Mary Queen of Scots, 43. See also Guy, Queen of Scots, 178. 92 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 210; Walton, Catholic Queen, 47 – 48, 115. 93 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 211. 94 Warnicke, Mary Queen of Scots, 96. 95 Melville, Memoirs of Sir James Melville, 81. See also Warnicke, Mary Queen of Scots, 97. 41 subordinate Scotland to the French kingdom, which she was unwilling to do. In addition, she

“flatly refused to consider a marriage to a prince who she believed... had no prospect of ever inheriting a throne.” 96

When it became apparent that Mary favoured Don Carlos, Elizabeth forbade the union, suggesting instead her own suitor, Lord Dudley. Elizabeth was opposed to marriage; otherwise she would have married Dudley herself as she believed him to be an ideal match. 97 Mary was concerned about Dudley’s tarnished reputation and intensely disliked him, 98 and chose instead to continue her search for a foreign Catholic husband. 99 While doing so, she wrote to Elizabeth in a tone that Elizabeth “considered rather rude,” 100 indicating her desire not to marry Dudley.

Mary kept Dudley as an option provided Elizabeth name her heir to the English throne, deceiving Elizabeth several times into thinking she had agreed to the marriage in attempts to trick her into naming Mary as her heir. 101 However, Elizabeth refused to be manipulated into giving

Mary precedence for the English throne, 102 and declined to discuss the succession or her own marriage plans, ensuring that negotiations with England went nowhere. Despite Elizabeth’s obvious refusal to be coerced into naming an heir, Mary continued to implore her cousin and the

English court to name Mary as next in line in the English succession.103 Elizabeth’s refusal to name an heir forced Mary to find a new option to better her place in the succession. 104

96 Guy, Queen of Scots, 189. 97 MacNalty, Mary Queen of Scots, 45; Melville, Memoirs of Sir James Melville, 91. 98 Mary Stewart, “The Queen of Scots to the Archbishop of Glasgow, 2 November 1564,” Letters of Mary, Queen of Scots, v.1, Agnes Strickland, ed., 13; MacNalty, Mary Queen of Scots, 45. 99 Fleming, Mary Queen of Scots, 83; Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 214; Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 136. 100 Mary Stewart, “The Queen of Scots to the Archbishop of Glasgow, 2 November 1563,” Letters of Mary, Queen of Scots, v.1, Agnes Strickland, ed., 13. See also Melville, Memoirs of Sir James Melville, 92. 101 MacNalty, Mary Queen of Scots, 45; Warnicke, Mary Queen of Scots, 104. 102 Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 136. 103 Mary Stewart, “The Queen of Scots to the Lords of Queen Elizabeth’s Council, 18 November 1566,” Letters of Mary, Queen of Scots, v.3, Agnes Stickland, ed. (London: Henry Colburn, 1843), 12 – 14. 104 Mason, “Scotland, Elizabethan England and the Idea of Britain,” 287. 42

As it became evident that Elizabeth was not going to name Mary as her heir, Henry

Stewart, Lord Darnley entered the running. 105 He was Mary’s cousin through the Tudor and

Stewart lines, 106 and therefore a member of the English royal family, as well as of the Scottish nobility. The couple represented “by the strict laws of heredity... [the] two best claims to the

English throne.” 107 Mary saw this as an answer to her succession problem, as it would strengthen her position. As a member of the Scottish nobility, he was politically significant in her own kingdom as well, although he was not entirely well liked.108 Despite the disdain of some of the nobility, who saw him as a man “who resembled a woman more than a man...for he was handsome, beardless and lady-faced,” 109 the union was approved by the Catholic monarchs in

France and Spain, as well as the papacy and by the majority of the Scottish nobility, 110 despite the fact that he was not a particularly devout Catholic. 111 George Buchanan stated that “great advantages...seemed likely to result from such a marriage.” 112 In addition, “his constant attentions won her affection and the rumour was [soon] spread that she would choose him for a husband.” 113

The nobles hoped that Mary would be able to receive Elizabeth’s blessing for this match, resulting in a great political advantage for Scotland. 114

Marriage with Darnley would have made perfect political sense if Mary had been able to secure Elizabeth’s blessing. 115 It would have eliminated the concern over a foreign marriage, which would have removed Mary from Scotland as her first marriage had, and could potentially

105 Strickland, ed., Letters of Mary, Queen of Scots, v.1, 15; Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign, 81. 106 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 218; Melville, Memoirs of Sir James Melville, 92. 107 Dawson, “Mary Queen of Scots,” 4. See also Fleming, Mary Queen of Scots, 104. 108 Guy, Queen of Scots, 187; MacNalty, Mary Queen of Scots, 45 – 46. 109 Melville, Memoirs of Sir James Melville, 92. 110 Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign, 81; Cowan, “The Roman Connection,” 109; Guy, Queen of Scots, 187; Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 152. 111 Dawson, “Mary Queen of Scots,” 5; Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 153. 112 Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign, 81. 113 Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign, 81. 114 Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign, 81. 115 Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign, 81; Melville, Memoirs of Sir James Melville, 101, 110. 43 have resulted in Scotland being treated as a satellite of her husband’s kingdom. 116 As has been mentioned, it would also have strengthened Mary’s claim to the English line of succession. After careful consultation with her most trusted advisors, and despite opposition from several nobles,

Mary wed Darnley on 29 July 1565, by Catholic rites, 117 in Holyrood House, naming him Duke of

Albany. 118 The marriage resulted in the birth of a son, James, which maintained the Stewart line. 119 This was seen as the duty of the queen.120 This was a major political accomplishment, one that neither of Mary’s female Tudor cousins accomplished in England.

Mary “saw marriage at this point very much in terms of power politics,” 121 which she demonstrated in the choosing of her second husband. She had used her marriage as a political bargaining chip, attempting to bribe Elizabeth into naming Mary as her heir, which would vastly extend Mary’s political authority and improve Scotland’s political clout. When this failed she, in a sense, attempted to auction herself off to the next best political ally. In choosing Lord Darnley, she chose a man who she believed would strengthen her claim to the English succession and who would allow her to remain in her kingdom, ruling from within. An unenthusiastic head of state would have worried much less about the political ramifications of her marriage and would have chosen a husband based on personal affection rather than consequences for her kingdom. Despite

Mary’s efforts to make a good political choice, the Darnley marriage would be disastrous for her personally and politically.

116 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 209. 117 Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign, 87; Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 230; Greig, “Henry Stewart;” MacNalty, Mary Queen of Scots, 48-51; Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 13. 118 MacNalty, Mary Queen of Scots, 51. 119 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 267; Melville, Memoirs of Sir James Melville, 130; Jenny Wormald, “James VI and I,” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://oxforddnb.com/view/article/14592/15492?back=,18248 , compiled in 2004, 4 February 2009. 120 Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 135. 121 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 211. 44

The Not-So-Reluctant Ruler

Jenny Wormald’s assertion that Mary Stewart was a reluctant ruler is unsubstantiated for the period between 1561 and 1565 given Mary’s determined start to her reign. It must be stated, however, that Mary was certainly not a powerful, independent queen like Elizabeth. Many of her policies and attempts to assert herself politically failed. In stating that Mary was not an indifferent monarch, I do not propose that she was a successful one. Although she “may not have stood a chance because of the political and religious circumstances [under which she ruled]... she certainly thought that she was going to rule the country for herself.” 122 Even her biggest critic,

John Knox realized she was not going to be a feeble puppet, but rather a political entity unto herself. Mary’s domestic policy, geared “towards the maintenance of peace and order, and the religious status quo” 123 proves that she attempted to rule her country. Her decisions to maintain peace and order imply that she strove to maintain international alliances 124 and rule in a manner that would please her subjects. These are not the actions of a hesitant queen.

Considering these numerous political actions, Jenny Wormald’s claim that Mary was a reluctant ruler is erroneous, at least for the initial portion of her reign in Scotland, although it could be more appropriately attributed to her period of distraction, which will be discussed in the next chapter. A more accurate claim for Wormald to have made could have been “the ineffective

122 Robert Smith, “Mary Queen of Scots: Four Hundred Years After Her Death,” British Heritage 8.4 (1987):23. 123 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 210. 124 Mary Stewart, “To Queen Catherine of Medicis, 12 March 1565,” Letters of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, Prince Alexander Labanoff, ed., William Turnbull, translator (London: Charles Dolman, 1847), 147-148, accessed at http://books.google.ca, 9 February 2010. This letter illustrates the continuing relationship between Mary and the French queen. The book also contains numerous other letters to Mary’s international confidants. See also Harrison, ed., The Letters of Queen Elizabeth I . This book contains numerous letters which illustrate the continuing relationship between Mary and the English Queen; Mary Stewart, “The Queen of Scots to her Aunt, Duchess of Guise, 1566,” Letters of Mary, Queen of Scots, v.3, Strickland, ed., 6. This letter illustrates Mary’s continuing relationship with her mother’s family in France; Mary Stewart, “The Queen of Scots to the King of France, Charles IX, 16 October 1566,” Letters of Mary, Queen of Scots, v.3, Strickland, ed., 11. This letter indicates Mary’s continuing relationship with her first husband’s family; Strickland, ed., Letters of Mary, Queen of Scot, v.1. This book contains letters from Mary to her various international confidants. 45 ruler,” or perhaps, as Kristen Post Walton put it, the “malleable ruler,” 125 as Mary’s political actions did not often result in the outcomes she had hoped for and were often influenced by others. As a female monarch at a time when this was essentially unprecedented, Mary did her best to rule Scotland, attempting to rule her country to the best of her ability, making her a not-so- reluctant ruler.

125 Walton, Catholic Queen, 89. 46

Chapter 3 – A Turn Toward Inactivity

Shortly after her marriage to Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley, in July1565, 1 Mary’s active, albeit not completely effective, rule in Scotland took a turn toward inactivity. In contrast to her behaviour during her reign as a widow, after her second marriage, Mary became distracted by her domestic situation and by societal expectations for women, creating a period of political idleness. These societal expectations, as well as a change in her personal life, seem to be the causes of Mary’s change of focus. She became focused on her queenly responsibility to bear a son, thus maintaining the royal line. Not long after her son was born, in February 1567, Darnley was murdered. 2 Mary again became sidetracked from her role as queen by a developing relationship with James

Hepburn, the Earl of Bothwell, whom she wed on 15 May 1567. 3 Shortly after the marriage, the

Queen of Scots was forced into exile, first within Scotland where she was forced to abdicate, 4 and then in England where she was imprisoned under Elizabeth I. 5 It was not until Mary found herself facing a powerless life in prison that she realized how desperately she wanted to rule. Passive distraction turned to desperation. After a three year period where her attention was diverted from ruling, the only period in her life she can truly be described as being reluctant to rule, she became determined to rule once again and remained determined until her death. Further proving her desperate desire to rule, Mary remained politically active during her imprisonment in England.

1 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 230; Greig, “Henry Stewart”; Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 13. 2 Greig, “Henry Stewart.” 3 Goodare, “Mary Stewart”; Marshall, “James Hepburn.” 4 Marshall, “James Hepburn.” 5 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 363-384.

The Distracted Ruler: Domesticity Distracting the Scottish Queen

The three year period of Mary Stewart’s rule from 1565 to 1568 can be best described as tumultuous for her personal life. This personal turmoil distracted her from her royal duties.

According to the parliamentary records that have survived, 6 after her July1565 marriage, Mary called Parliament only once, in April1567. 7 During this three year period, Mary married twice, gave birth to a son, experienced the murder of her husband, was imprisoned and forced to abdicate. Understandably, Mary was distracted by these significant events in her private life and showed “indifference... to her kingdom.” 8

As has been discussed, Mary’s decision to marry Darnley was primarily a political one.

She believed his social standing, 9 his claim to the English throne, 10 his personal Catholicism

(albeit not very devout), 11 and his ability to allow her to remain present in Scotland 12 made him the best strategic choice. She also hoped that this marriage would result in an heir to continue the

Stewart family line, which she felt was her duty, not only as a queen, but as a woman. 13

The day before the marriage took place a proclamation was issued at Mercat Cross, declaring that the government would be run jointly by Mary and Darnley. 14 Despite opposition to the match, the couple wed on 29 July 1565 by Catholic rites, 15 making Darnley King of

6 Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, University of St. Andrews, http://www.rps.ac.uk/, 22 January 2010. 7 Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, “Mary I.” 8 Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 129. 9 Guy, Queen of Scots, 187; MacNalty, Mary Queen of Scots , 45 – 46. 10 Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign, 21-22; Dawson, “Mary Queen of Scots,” 4; Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 218. 11 Dawson, “Mary Queen of Scots,” 5; Melville, Memoirs of Sir James Melville , 109. Melville states that Darnley formerly identified with English Protestantism. 12 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 209. 13 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 267; Wormald, “James VI and I”; Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 135. 14 Greig, “Henry Stewart.” 15 Buchanan, History of Scotland vol. II, 471; Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign, 87; Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 23 0; Grieg, “Henry Stewart”; Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 153. 48

Scotland. 16 In addition to naming him king, Mary also bestowed upon her husband the titles of

Earl of Ross and the Duke of Albany. She declared that all royal documents would be signed

‘Marie and Henry.’ 17 The order of their names is noteworthy because, although she was allowing him to be the King of Scotland, she would still sign documents with her name before his, giving her a more prestigious position than she had in her first marriage to Francis.

Mary returned from her honeymoon ready to resume the task of ruling Scotland in the same manner she had prior to the marriage. 18 However, Darnley quickly showed his true colors, proving to be “foolish, ignorant, ill-conditioned, vicious and without a single manly quality.” 19

Members of the court called Darnley disinterested in and unfamiliar with 20 government; nevertheless, he wanted Mary to bestow the Crown Matrimonial upon him, 21 fulfilling the promise made at Mercat Cross. Mary refused, as this would make him her equal and would allow him to rule Scotland after her death. 22 Granting him Crown Matrimonial could have also caused a change in dynasty, if she had died before he did. 23 Finding him to be unfit to rule Scotland, she claimed this had to be postponed until he was of the age of majority and that it must be bestowed upon him by Parliament. This upset Darnley, as the Crown Matrimonial had been bestowed upon her first husband, Francis. Still attempting to rule her kingdom on her own terms, she was determined not to become inferior to another husband, especially one unsuited to ruling.

Despite her intention to continue the rule she had begun before her marriage to Darnley,

Mary’s focus on controlling her Protestant nobility became secondary to dealing with her husband. She continued to tolerate the Protestant religion, but allowed it parliamentary recognition, something she had not done prior to the marriage. Although, she did refuse the

16 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 230; Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 153. 17 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 232; Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 153. 18 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 238. 19 Foster, The Stuarts, 39. See also Greig, “Henry Stewart”; Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 159. 20 Melville, Memoirs of Sir James Melville, 121. 21 Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign, 29. 22 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 238 – 239; Greig, “Henry Stewart.” 23 Greig, “Henry Stewart.” 49 parliamentary petition from 1560 which requested that Mass be abolished 24 with the 1563 Act of

Oblivion, she was making more concessions to Protestantism than she ever had. 25 Mary made the active decision to make concessions to the Protestants to prevent a political uprising while she dealt with the negative repercussions of her choice of husband. By December, a mere five months after the marriage, it became evident that the distraction was an attention seeking Darnley. Mary attempted to handle this, subordinating him, referring to him solely as ‘the queen’s husband’ on royal documents and began to rely, as George Buchanan points out, increasingly on other members of her household rather than on him for advice, which he believes humiliated Darnley.26

It would seem that dealing with Darnley had distracted her from continuing to maintain control over her country. Eventually, the nobility would become divided between those who sympathized with Mary and those who sided with Darnley.

During this time, Mary came to rely on someone other than her husband to help her in her attempt to rule. This man became more than just her advisor, leading to anger on the part of

Darnley. Contemporaries noted that David Rizzio, her secretary in charge of France,27 became her confidant. Rizzio rose to the occasion and grew close to Mary. Mary’s contemporaries, Melville and Buchanan, said that Rizzio was not skilled in French, insinuating that the relationship may have been more than purely professional. 28 Her reliance upon him fuelled Darnley’s resentment toward his wife. 29 On 9 March 1566, 30 at a dinner party held by Mary for several of her nobility,

Rizzio was brutally murdered by a jealous Darnley and a group of nobility notably including

24 “Abolition of Mass, A1560/8/4,” Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, St. Andrews University, http://www.rps.ac.uk/, 22 January 2010. 25 Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 156 – 157. 26 Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign, 92. See also Greig, “Henry Stewart.” 27 Buchanan, History of Scotland, 475; Melville, Memoirs of Sir James Melville, 83. 28 Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign, 22, 83; Melville, Memoirs of Sir James Melville, 105. 29 Greig, “Henry Stewart”; Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 160 – 161. See also Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 245, which speculates that the nobility told Darnley that Mary and Rizzio were lovers, fuelling his jealousy. This has never been proven. 30 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 249 – 252; Greig, “Henry Stewart.” 50

Morton, Lindsay and Ruthven. 31 This indicates that the Scottish nobility was experiencing

Parliamentary factionalism. Mary had allowed a political rift to divide her nobility, evident in the willingness of some of her nobles to murder another member of the nobility. 32 Darnley’s conspirators fled to England, leaving Darnley with the blame for the murder. It has been speculated that Darnley had hoped that Mary, newly pregnant, would miscarry, 33 dying in the process, leaving him to rule Scotland. Morton, Ruthven and Lindsay each had motivates for wanting to see the queen dead, likely wishing to regain their parliamentary influence which had been lost when Mary returned from France. Melville argued that they believed Darnley was unacquainted with governing and could easily be manipulated. 34 Despite the involvement of other people, Mary’s anger was aimed specifically at her husband. The two quickly became alienated.

Mary’s pregnancy and her growing hatred for her husband distracted her from official business once again, this time more completely. She grew focused on her baby, losing affection for her husband who, without her and without the Crown Matrimonial, became powerless. 35 In

June 1566, Mary created a will in preparation for the birth of her child, naming the baby as her primary heir in case of her death. Darnley was included, though only slightly, as she left most of her estate to her French relatives, who “possessed her true heart,” 36 and to the Scottish Stewarts. 37

On 19 June 1566, 38 Mary gave birth to a son whom she named James. This was, according to

Jenny Wormald, “the one great success of Mary’s queenship.”39 It ensured the continuation of the

Stewart monarchy and, as Elizabeth remained childless in England, improved the Stewart claim to

31 Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign, 94, 97; Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 249 – 252; Greig, “Henry Stewart”; Melville, The Memoirs of Sir James Melville, 122. 32 Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 162. 33 Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign, 30. 34 Melville, The Memoirs of Sir James Melville, 120 – 121. 35 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 239. 36 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 265. 37 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 264 – 265; Harrison, ed., The Letters of Queen Elizabeth I, 55. Although the will has not survived in collections of Mary’s writings, Harrison includes Elizabeth’s response to this will. 38 Buchanan, History of Scotland, 484; Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 267; Wormald, “James VI and I”; Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 163. 39 Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 163 51 the English succession. This succession was, from Mary’s point of view, a critical responsibility of the state leader. In focusing on this aspect of her queenly responsibilities, Mary was certainly not ruling reluctantly.

Mary attempted to maintain her French and English relations, choosing the King of

France, Charles IX, and Queen of England, Elizabeth I, to serve as godparents for her son. 40

Darnley, in a final attempt to portray himself as the King of Scotland, wrote to the Cardinal de

Guise, echoing his wife’s request:

I would not omit to inform you that the queen, my wife, has just been delivered of a son, which circumstance, I am sure, will not cause you less joy than ourselves; and also to inform you how, on this occasion, I have, on my part, as the queen, my said wife, has also on hers, written to the king, begging him to be pleased to oblige and honour us by standing sponsor for him, by which means he will increase the debt of gratitude I owe him for all his favours to me, for which I shall always be ready to make every return in my power. 41

As is evidenced by this letter, Mary and her husband continued to have contact leading up to their son’s birth and Darnley was seemingly involved in the choosing of his son’s godparents.

However, as the godparents were the King of France, Mary’s relative through her mother’s family, and the Queen of England, Mary’s cousin, one can surmise that Mary had the final say in the matter, retaining a degree of control over her husband. Although Darnley was also Elizabeth’s cousin by the same degree, it was Mary and Elizabeth who maintained a relationship through correspondence. This leads one to believe that Elizabeth would be doing this favour for Mary, not for Darnley. By choosing foreign heads of state as godparents, Mary was making diplomatic ties for herself, her son and her country. Therefore, even in this period of distraction, she was still endeavouring to maintain her international relations.

40 Strickland, ed., Letters of Mary, Queen of Scots, v.1, 27. See also Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 280; Harrison, ed., “XXV. To Mary, Queen of Scots, 20 February 1570,” The Letters of Queen Elizabeth I, 66; Neale, Queen Elizabeth I , 157. 41 Henry Stuart, “King Henry Darnley to Monsieur the Cardinal de Guise, 19 June 1566,” Letters of Mary, Queen of Scots, v.1, Strickland, ed., 21. 52

During the early months of her son’s life, Mary became entangled in a marital battle with

Darnley, pulling her attentions further from her political responsibilities. 42 James was sent to be raised in a nursery in Stirling away from his feuding parents. 43 Darnley attempted, in retaliation, to defame his wife by writing to the pope and the kings of Spain and France, accusing her of failing to restore Scotland to Catholicism. He became a dangerous adversary, one who had to be dealt with, further diverting Mary from her duties as queen. She and her advisors began to discuss how to remove Darnley from the picture. 44 Mary feared divorcing him or dissolving her marriage would jeopardize her son’s legitimacy. Distressed, she debated retiring to France and became suicidal. 45 The fact that she considered leaving Scotland indicates how disengaged she had become from ruling as a result of her personal turmoil.

Mary and her confidants searched for a way to deal with the Darnley situation, occupying themselves with this issue rather than with state business. After earlier negotiations for a murder or removal of Darnley from Scotland were dismissed, a new plan to murder Lord Darnley took root. 46 The Earl of Bothwell, a man thought to be Mary’s lover, 47 is widely accepted to have orchestrated the murder. 48 On 9 February 1567, Mary lured Darnley to Kirk O’Field under the pretence of being ill. She acted affectionately toward him that evening and slept in the room below his. Late that night she excused herself, claiming to have forgotten an event she had

42 Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign, 108-109; Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 281; Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 163. 43 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots , 285. 44 Laird of Ormiston, “The Confession of the Laird of Ormiston, 13 December 1578,” in Robert Pitcairn, Ancient Criminal Trials in Scotland (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1833), 511-512, accessed at http://books.google.ca, 9 February 2010; Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 163 – 164. Wormald states that a murder bond may possibly have been drawn up at Craigmillar, given to Mary by Bothwell in June 1567, although this has not been proven. See also Greig, “Henry Stewart,” who cites the Laird of Ormiston, explaining that Mary met her lords near Edinburgh where bonds, which have not survived, were signed committing the lords to the murder of Darnley in direct response to the murder of Rizzio. 45 Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 163 - 164. 46 Donaldson, The First Trial , 29 - 67; Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 289. 47 Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign, 110; Donaldson, The First Trial , 31; Neale, Queen Elizabeth I, 158. 48 Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign, 67; Donaldson, The First Trial, 67. 53 promised to attend. At 2:00 AM, the building exploded, killing Darnley and three servants. 49

Darnley’s body was found outside in a curious condition:

with his shirt covering the upper part of his body, the rest naked. Next to him lay the rest of his clothes, even his slippers... on his whole body there was no fracture, wound or bruise... and the clothes lying next to him were not only not burned or marked with the powder, but seemed to have been put there not by force or chance, but by hand. 50

This suggested foul play and the participation of more than just Bothwell. The involvement of numerous nobles in the murder, namely Argyll, Huntly, Bothwell and Lethington, 51 further illustrates the growing political divide amongst the Scottish nobility mentioned earlier. The extent of Mary’s involvement in the plot is still being debated today; however, it is widely acknowledged that she was at least aware of the plan as she was directly responsible for Darnley being present that night. 52 It is easy to speculate that Mary’s involvement would have been out of revenge for

Darnley murdering Rizzio, as Mary had never forgiven him for this. 53 It would appear that Mary spent her time, which ought to have been spent on Scottish matters, dealing with her personal situation, distracting her from her royal duties.

Elizabeth responded to the murder, which indicates that Mary had at least on some level maintained her international correspondence. Her letter, veiled in condolence, was an attempt to warn Mary of the dangers of her involvement in this murder.

My ears have been so astounded and my heart so frightened to hear of the horrible and abominable murder of your husband and my own cousin that I have scarcely spirit to write: yet I cannot conceal that I grieve more for you than him. I should not do the office of a faithful cousin and friend, if I did not urge you to preserve your honour, rather than look through your fingers at revenge on those who have done you that pleasure as most people say. I counsel you so to take this matter to heart, so you may show the

49 Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign, 111-116; Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 302 – 303. 50 Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign, 116; Fraser cites this passage from Buchanan, Mary Queen of Scots, 302 – 303. 51 Donaldson, The First Trial, 34. 52 Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign, 100; Donaldson, The First Trial of Mary, Queen of Scots, 30; Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 289; Goodare, “Mary Stewart”; Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 164 – 165. 53 Donaldson, The First Trial, 30; Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 253. 54

world what a noble Princess and loyal woman you are. 54

This excerpt indicates Elizabeth’s attempts to persuade Mary to act the part of innocent bystander.

She was urging Mary not to avoid reprimanding the murderers, despite the fact that they may have done her a great favour. Elizabeth advised Mary to portray herself as a loyal wife and not to hide from what happened, believing that any other course of action would make Mary look guilty. It was believed, as is clearly put by Catherine de Medici, that Mary was better off without the foolish king in her life. 55 However, both Catherine and Elizabeth encouraged Mary to maintain an aura of innocence and not implicate herself in the murder. Scots felt that the murder brought shame upon the nation and were therefore angry about Mary’s involvement. 56 This was a turning point in Mary’s relationship with the Scottish nobility.

Moreover, despite having this distraction removed from her life, Mary’s focus did not return to governing. Shortly after the murder, Mary suffered a nervous breakdown. Having been depressed, allegedly to the point of becoming suicidal, prior to the murder, this is no real surprise.

Her breakdown has been attributed to guilt or to melancholy. Out of concern for her physical well being, her mourning period was less secluded than it was expected to be. 57 She ordered her court into mourning, as was the royal custom, but remained personally composed, causing speculation as to the true depth of her sadness. 58 Soon, she left seclusion to attend a wedding then travelled to

Seton, calling her mourning period into question.

In an attempt to re-establish normality, Mary ended her mourning period early. She then went on to hold Parliament in April 1567. However, she went about this incorrectly as well,

54 Queen Elizabeth I, “XV. To Mary, Queen of Scots, 24 February 1567,” The Letters of Queen Elizabeth I, Harrison, ed. (London: Cassell & Company Ltd, 1935), 49. 55 Catherine de Medici, « A Mon Compère Monsieur le Conestable, le 27 février 1566,» Lettres de Catherine de Médicis, Tome Troisième: 1567 – 1570, M. le C th Beguenault de Puchesse, ed. (Paris : M. Le C te Hector de la Ferrière, 1887), 14, accessed at http://www.archive.org/details/lettresdecatheri03cathuoft , 9 February 2010. 56 Neale, Queen Elizabeth I, 160. 57 Goodare, “Mary Stewart”; Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 165. 58 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 306 – 307. 55 choosing to create pieces of legislation that focused on the positive aspects of her rule and refute anti-Marian propaganda which appeared following the murder. 59 The six acts issued on 14 April

1567 60 were intended to prove her determination to maintain her rule. In addition to reaffirming her authority over Parliament, 61 proclaiming Earldom, 62 and forbidding slander, 63 she responded to the question of religion, a contentious topic in Scotland, issuing the following bill:

On the which day the queen's majesty, having considered the state of her majesty's realm as it stood at the time of her arrival from France and yet presently stands, foreseeing also the common welfare of her country greatly to be increased and established by the keeping of the common peace and quietness amongst all her good subjects, and as her highness, since her foresaid arrival, has attempted nothing contrary to the state of religion, which her majesty found publicly and universally standing at the time of her arrival foresaid, whereby her majesty is most worthy to be served, honoured and obeyed, rightly so her majesty intends to continue in the same goodness and government in all time coming, whereby all her good subjects, professors of the religion foresaid, shall have occasion to praise God for her good, happy and gracious government, and to crave from God from the bottom of their hearts that he would, of his infinite goodness, prosper and bless her majesty and her posterity with long life, good and happy government, to rule and reign over them. 64

It is evident that Mary was attempting to return to the level of involvement she had prior to her second marriage. She also endeavoured to maintain her positive relationship with her Scottish subjects by allowing them the freedom to worship as they pleased as opposed to imposing a national religion as many other monarchs of the time did. By ratifying the Act of Oblivion, proposed four years earlier, 65 she proclaimed that any decisions made between 6 March 1558 and

59 Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 166. 60 Records of the Parliaments of Scotland, “Mary I.” 61 “Act of Oblivion, 1567/4/11,” Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, St. Andrews University, http://www.rps.ac.uk/, 8 February 2010. 62 “Not public and general, 1567/4/7-10,” Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, St. Andrews University, http://www.rps.ac.uk/, 8 February 2010. 63 “Bill Posting, 1567/4/12,” Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, St. Andrews University, http://www.rps.ac.uk/, 8 February 2010. 64 “Act Concerning Religion, 1567/4/6,” Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, St. Andrews University, http://www.rps.ac.uk/ , 22 January 2010. 65 “Act Concerning the Law of Oblivion, 1567/4/11,” Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, St. Andrews University, http://www.rps.ac.uk/, 22 January 2010. Buchanan also mentions the importance of this Act, but with a slightly different date range in Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign, 46. 56

1 September 1561 on her behalf were invalid.66 Mary then became the first signature at the end of the acts, declared in the name of the “sovereign lady.” 67 Although she was trying to re-establish normalcy, trying to once more rule her kingdom by herself, she was unable to do so effectively as she again became sidetracked by events in her personal life.

Shortly after Darnley was removed from Mary’s life, she adopted a new distraction.

Almost immediately after the murder, James Hepburn, the Earl of Bothwell became a serious candidate to become Mary’s third husband. He had been the primary suspect in the Darnley murder, but was quickly pardoned. The Earl of Lennox, Darnley’s father, was meant to prosecute him but did not attend the hasty trial, 68 as it took place in Edinburgh among his enemies and he had been forbidden to bring more than six allies with him. 69 Therefore, Bothwell was easily acquitted. 70 Buchanan states that their union was initially supported by the Scottish nobility, demonstrated by the Ainslie bond, a document signed under coercion from Bothwell in support of the his marriage to Mary.71 But, when Bothwell proposed to her, Mary refused him. Determined to become the next King of Scotland, Bothwell allegedly kidnapped and raped Mary when she was on her way to visit James in April 1567. 72 It was accepted at the time that if he raped her, she would have been expected to marry him. 73 It has been speculated that this ‘kidnap’ was prearranged by both parties. 74 Soon after, Mary issued a promise of marriage to Bothwell stating:

We, Mary, by the grace of God, Queen of Scotland, Dowager of France &c., promise faithfully, sincerely, and without constraint, James Hepburn, Earl of Boduil, never to have any other spouse and husband but him, and to take him for such whenever he shall require, in spite of the opposition of relation,

66 “Act of Oblivion, A1563/6/1,” Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, St. Andrews University, http://www.rps.ac.uk/, 22 January 2010. 67 “Edinburgh Castle, 1567/4/4,” Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, St. Andrews University, http://www.rps.ac.uk/, 8 February 2010. 68 Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign, 123. 69 Marshall, “James Hepburn.” 70 Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign, 124. 71 Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign, 126; Marshall, “James Hepburn.” 72 Goodare, “Mary Stewart”; Marshall, “James Hepburn.” 73 Humphrey Drummond, The Queen’s Man (London: Leslie Frewin Publishers Limited, 1975), 134. 74 Goodare, “Mary Stewart”; Marshall, “James Hepburn.” 57

friend, or any others; and as God has taken my late husband, Henry Stewart, called Darnley, and in consequence I am free, not being under the authority of either father or mother; I, therefore, protest that... I shall be ready to perform the ceremony requisite for marriage, which I promise him before God, whom I call to witness. 75

On 15 May 1567, Bothwell became Mary’s third and final husband, diverting her once again from her responsibilities as Queen. 76

This hasty marriage startled Mary’s international confidants, who had not been expecting a third marriage to occur without political deliberation.77 Elizabeth expressed her astonishment, writing:

Madam, to be plain with you, our grief hath not been small that in this your marriage no slender consideration has been had that, as we perceive manifestly no good friend you have in the whole world can like thereof, and, if we should otherwise write or say, we should abuse you. For how could a worse choice be made for your honour than in such haste to marry such a subject who, besides other notorious lacks, public fame has charged with the murder of your late husband, besides the touching of yourself in some part, though we trust in that behalf falsely. And with what peril have you married him, that hath another lawful wife alive, whereby neither by God’s law not man’s yourself can be his lawful wife nor any children betwixt you legitimate? Thus you can see plainly what we think of the marriage. 78

As is clear in this excerpt, Bothwell’s negative reputation, his involvement in the Darnley murder and divorce from his first wife rendered the marriage undesirable.

The Bothwell courtship and marriage happened very quickly, considering Mary had spent two years as a widow before embarking on a three year project to find the most suitable second husband. Darnley had only been dead for three months before Mary wed Bothwell. This whirlwind of activity undoubtedly distracted her from her official duties. A queen’s personal life is strongly tied to her politics; thus these events are inseparable.

75 Mary Stewart, “Promise of Marriage given by Mary to Bothwell, undated” Letters of Mary, Queen of Scots, v.1, Strickland, ed., 33 – 34. See also Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign, 130. 76 Goodare, “Mary Stewart”; Marshall, “James Hepburn.” 77 Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign, 131. 78 Queen Elizabeth I, “XVI. To Mary, Queen of Scots, 23 June 1567,” The Letters of Queen Elizabeth I, Harrison, ed., 50. 58

Despite the events in her personal life that were necessitating her attention, Mary continued to attempt to rule Scotland. She held the aforementioned April 1567 Parliament, which would be her last Parliament, as she was soon forced into prison in Lochleven Castle by nobility who had withdrawn their support from as a result of her marriage. There, she was forced to abdicate in favour of her son, effectively ending her political career. 79 She escaped eleven months later after extensive correspondence with her French relatives and with Elizabeth, 80 who had lobbied on Mary’s behalf. 81 With the end of her political career came the beginning of her period of desperation. The loss of the ability to rule led Mary to transition from what may be called a reluctance to rule to a period of desperation to rule something, anything. Unsure of how to go about restoring her power, Mary panicked and sought refuge in England. She believed her life was in danger if she remained in Scotland. Moreover, as she was unable to secure assistance from her

French relatives, she saw no other option but to flee to England. 82 Mary entered the country without permission and unknowingly placed herself at Elizabeth’s mercy for the remainder of her life. 83

The Desperate Ruler: A Queen without a Realm

Upon Mary’s arrival in England, Elizabeth was unsure how to handle her cousin. She responded by holding the Conference of York in October 1568. She intended to use this conference to determine whether or not Mary should be reinstated in Scotland. The Duke of Moray, Mary’s half brother and James VI’s regent, used the forged documents now known as the Casket Letters to try

79 Buchanan, History of Scotland, 527; Marshall, “James Hepburn.” 80 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 354 – 355; Goodare, “Mary Stewart”; Sadler, Border Fury , 518-519 81 Goodare, “Mary Stewart.” 82 Mary Stewart, “Instructions to Lord Fleming, Harlay MSS No. 189, fol. 209, 30 May 1568,” Letters of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, Prince Alexander Labanoff, ed., William Turnbull, translator (London: Charles Dolman, 1847), 159 – 162, accessed at http://books.google.ca, 9 February 2010. See also Mary Stewart, “The Queen of Scots to Catherine de Medicis, queen mother of France, 1567 or 8,” Letters of Mary, Queen of Scots, v.3 (London: H. Colburn, 1843), Agnes Strickland, ed., 25-26. 83 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 363-384. 59 to prove Mary’s involvement in Darnley’s death. 84 The outcome of the trial was Mary’s detainment in England, while Moray returned to Scotland to rule on behalf of James. Thus began

Mary’s nineteen year captivity and period of desperation in England. 85 Neither Elizabeth nor

Mary had anticipated this imprisonment.

It was not until she was forcibly detained in England that Mary realized she had unintentionally become Elizabeth’s prisoner, with no chance of restoration, leading her to realize how desperately she wanted to rule. She spent the last nineteen years of her life being moved from castle to castle passing her time scheming to regain power; this would be her ultimate undoing.

She considered nullifying her third marriage, planning a fourth marriage to the Duke of Norfolk, a member of the English nobility, whom she believed could restore her in Scotland. With considerable outside input, she plotted escapes and made plans for her own restoration in

Scotland. The majority of Mary’s plans were for her own restoration, rather than for the usurpation of the English throne, as has been popularly believed. 86

Having lost the privilege to correspond with the outside world as a result of her scheming,

Mary’s most ardent supporter and ambassador to England, John Leslie, Bishop of Ross, took it upon himself to write several treatises during Mary’s imprisonment, endeavouring to help free her. His most notable treaty was written in 1569, entitled Defence of the Honour of the Right

High, Mighty and Noble Princess Marie Queen of Scotland. It contained three parts; the first part promotes Mary as the definition of female virtue; the second part asserts that Mary rightly deserves the English throne after Elizabeth’s death; the final part promotes the rule of women as

“conformable both to the law of God, and the law of nature.” 87 This support built up Mary’s

84 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 385. 85 Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 183. 86 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 489. 87 John Leslie, “Defence of the Honour of the Right High, Mighty and Noble Princess Marie Queen of Scotland, 1569,” in Jayne Elizabeth Lewis, The Trial of Mary Queen of Scots: A Brief History with Documents (Boston: The Bedford Series in History and Culture, 1999), 68. 60 confidence in Scotland’s desire to see her reinstated, leading her to take more drastic steps toward freeing herself.

While being held in captivity Mary begged Elizabeth through correspondence to release her, frantically trying to tap into her cousin’s sympathy and sense of obligation, hoping to obtain her personal freedom. 88 She also implored her cousin to meet her in person in an attempt to convince Elizabeth she was not a threat, offering:

if you do not find the statement of the Bishop of Ross satisfactory, you will permit me to satisfy you in person...you will be pleased, without longer putting me off for the sake of others, to restore me to my own kingdom and authority by your support, or to permit me, according to my former request, to retire to France to the Most Christian King my brother-in-law. 89

Mary wrote many letters like this, 90 suggesting options for her release, hoping one would satisfy

Elizabeth and result in her freedom.

In May 1570, Elizabeth began to plan to restore Mary to the Scottish throne but took too long in doing so, leading Mary to take matters into her own hands. She began to work with potentially dangerous allies. The Bishop of Ross and Italian banker Roberto Ridolfi planned to have Spain invade England from the Netherlands, assisted by the English Catholics. Ridolfi’s letters to Leslie were intercepted at Dover and, under scrutiny, Leslie placed the blame upon Mary and Norfolk, insisting they had orchestrated the whole plot. Norfolk was tried for treason and was executed in 1572. Mary vehemently denied involvement in the scheme, but did admit to giving

88 Lewis, The Trial, 78. 89 Mary Stewart, “From Tutbury, the 1 October 1568,” in Lewis, The Trial, 80 – 81. This letter was written to Elizabeth. 90 Mary Stewart, “Mary Stuart and Elizabeth Tudor: Letters, 1569 – 1587,” in Lewis, The Trial, 78 – 90. See also letters dated 16 October 1570, 29 October 1571, 24 February 1567, 21 December 1568, 25 May 1569, and 1 February 1572. See also Harrison, “XVIII. To Mary, Queen of Scots,” The Letters of Queen Elizabeth I, 52. 61

Ridolfi a financial commission. 91 After the plot was exposed, Mary appeared to believe she would be put to death, writing to Elizabeth:

There remains still another request, of little importance to you, but of extreme consolation to me; it is that you will please, having compassion on a desolate mother, from whose arms has been torn her only child and hope of future joy in this world, to permit me to write at least open letters, to enquire into the real state of his welfare, and recall to him his sad mother. 92

When continued written pleas to Elizabeth failed to win Mary her freedom, Mary allegedly partook in a second major plot against her cousin and captor.

This second plan, in the works from 1573 to 1586, would involve Sir Francis

Walsingham, one of Elizabeth’s advisors, who sought to destroy Mary, enabling her to send coded correspondence to her French relatives, which was otherwise forbidden. These messages were intercepted by her jailor, Sir Amyas Paulet, and forwarded to Walsingham. They were decoded and sent on to her relations. Sir Anthony Babington, a Catholic Marian supporter, wrote to Mary, reviving her hopes for freedom. One of Babington’s letters alluded to the removal of Elizabeth, to which a frustrated Mary agreed. Although Mary did not wish to see her cousin dead, she was desperate to be free to rule once more. Walsingham made this letter public and Babington was arrested and executed. This time, Mary was also arrested and soon taken to Fotheringhay where she would be tried for treason. 93 Mary entreated Elizabeth to believe that she had nothing to do with the alleged plots. She wrote to her cousin, swearing:

upon my faith that they have heard nothing about them [referring to her commissionaires], and that I myself have never seen their contents...as to the other letters, I know nothing about them, and have never written such silly things, even if I had imagined them; wherefore, if you please to

91 Anne Hall, ed., “Captivity and Plots,” The Marie Stuart Society, http://www.marie- stuart.co.uk/England.htm, 25 January 2010. 92 Mary Stewart, “From Sheffield, the 29 October 1570,” in Lewis, The Trial, 85. This letter was addressed to Elizabeth from Sheffield prison. 93 Hall, ed., “Captivity and Plots”; Lewis, The Trial of Mary Queen of Scots, 93 – 94. 62

enquire, you will find nothing either of my ordering, or of my hand, or letters. 94

It has never been determined whether Mary was involved in the plots in which she so ardently insisted to have had no part. Mary’s participation in these plots leads to the inference that she was desperate to have the opportunity to rule again, be it in Scotland by escaping or in England by removing Elizabeth. Mary was not disinterested in ruling but rather was desperate to find some way to do so.

In an earlier letter, written before she went into exile, Mary addressed the very situation she was now in herself. One of Darnley’s servants, Foulart, had fallen into the hands of

Elizabeth’s officers and was ordered to be put to death. Mary urged Elizabeth to “delay the punishment of death, unless he has plotted or done anything against your crown or your person, or against any of your ministers; for, if you find him guilty on the least of these points, I do not ask that you do so.” 95 It is ironic that Mary would encourage her cousin to inflict the penalty of death upon someone who plotted against her person or her crown. Her correspondence with Elizabeth was a final desperate attempt to clear her name and have the opportunity to get back in her cousin’s good graces so that she would eventually be freed and able to return to rule her kingdom or be named her cousin’s heir. With her two ‘conspirators’ dead, her fate lay in the hands of

Elizabeth.96

In September 1586, Mary was tried for her involvement in the plots on Elizabeth’s life.

Extensive proof of Mary’s guilt was presented:

94 Mary Stewart, “To Queen Elizabeth, 27 January 1569: Cotemporary Copy – British Museum, London, MSS. Harl. 4643, fol. 30,” Letters of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, Labanoff, ed., Turnbull, translator, 169 – 170. This letter was written to Elizabeth while Mary was in prison concerning the plots made against Elizabeth, alleged to have involved Mary. 95 Mary Stewart, “To Queen Elizabeth, 2 February 1566: Autograph – State Paper Office of London; Royal Letters, Scotland, vol. ii,” Letters of Mary Stuart, Labanoff, ed., Turnbull, translator, 155 - 156, accessed at http://books.google.ca, 9 February 2010. This letter was written by Mary to Elizabeth concerning the fate of Foulart. 96 Lewis, The Trial, 94. Lewis notes that there was no prosecuting lawyer, judge or jury in any modern sense present at the trial. The members of the English commission acted as prosecutor and jury and Elizabeth had the final say. 63

The most part of [the] Commissioners came the 11 th of October to Fotheringay Castle, in the county of Northampton, seated upon the bank of the river Nen, where the Queen of Scots was then kept. The next day the Commissioners sent to her Sir Walter Milfmay, Paulet, and Edward Barker, a public notary, who delivered into her hands Queen Elizabeth’s letter, which, when she read, she, with a countenance composed to royal dignity, and with a mind untroubled, said ‘It grieveth me that the Queen, my most dear sister, is misinformed of me; and that I, having been so many years straitly kept in prison, and grown lame of my limbs, have lien neglected, after I have offered so many reasonable conditions for my liberty’... the next day there returned unto her this Answer drawn in Writing, and asked her whether she would persist in the same. When she had heard it distinctly read she commended it as rightly and truly conceived, and said, she would persist therein... from hence she fell into other speeches, that she had intended nothing to the destruction of the queen; that she had been incensed with injuries and indignities; that she should be a stone of offence to others, if she were so unworthily handled;... that she would have defended her innocency by letter, but it was not allowed her. 97

Although she realized she had no real chance of being acquitted, Mary vehemently denied knowledge of the schemes and asserted that the only claim she had ever made on Elizabeth’s throne as a child and had been directed by her first father-in-law, Henri II. 98

At the end of the trial, Elizabeth deliberated for twelve days while being petitioned by her

Commissioners to sentence Mary to death. 99 Wracked with indecision she spoke to her

Commissioners, stating:

I have this day been in greater conflict with myself than ever in my life whether I should speak or hold my peace... but since now it is resolved that my surety is most desperate without her death, I have a most inward feeling of sorrow, that I, which have in my time pardoned so many rebels, winked at so many treasons, or neglected them in silence, must now seem to show cruelty upon so great a princess. 100

Evidently, something in Mary’s last desperate letters to Elizabeth had struck a chord with her cousin. The English queen was hesitant to render a decision, suffering “the torments of

97 “Record of the State Trial of Mary Queen of Scots, 1586,” in Lewis, The Trial, 94 – 107. 98 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 501 – 512. 99 Lewis, The Trial, 110. 100 Elizabeth Tudor, “Second Speech to Parliament, 1586,” in Lewis, The Trial of Mary Queen of Scots, 111 – 113. 64 indecision.” 101 Ultimately, on 25 October 1586, Mary Stewart was declared guilty and on 1

February 1587, Elizabeth signed Mary’s death warrant. 102 Hearing her fate, Mary wrote her final letters 103 and consigned herself to death.

Mary’s death illustrates her complete fall from power. Her closest allies had been executed, another indication of her fall from power, as her name and prestige could not save them.

Despite her desperate pleas, no Scottish or French nobility or family stepped forward to defend her. 104 She had not only lost her ruling power, but also her international value. Her death on 8

February 1587 105 is the ultimate proof of her loss of influence. Despite having lost all her royal influence, Mary’s final acts were not desperate. She was the picture of a strong queen, walking into the hall and onto the platform herself. She was not forced up the scaffolding; she remained composed even on this most terrifying day. Melville believed she was resigned to her fate, put on her queenly face and accepted her destiny. 106

The Not-So-Active Ruler

Mary never ceased to try to free herself from her captivity with the hopes of reinstatement and a glorious return to power until the day of her death. In the brief period from 1565 to 1568, Mary was married for the second time, gave birth to a son, experienced the murders of her confidant and of her husband, was (allegedly) kidnapped and raped, remarried for a third time to the alleged murderer of her second husband, was imprisoned and was forced into exile. Although it is understandable why she became distracted or reluctant to rule, her attitude during this period of

101 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 522. 102 Patrick Collinson, “Elizabeth I,” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/8636/8636?back=,18248, compiled in 2004, 4 February 2009. 103 Lewis, The Trial, 86; Melville, The Memoirs of Sir James Melville, 314. 104 Catherine de Medicis, “The Queen-mother of France, Catherine de Medicis, to Queen Elizabeth, May, 1568,” Letters of Mary, Queen of Scots, v.3, Strickland, ed., 36. 105 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 534. 106 Melville, The Memoirs of Sir James Melville, 314. See also Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 537. 65 her life is in sharp contrast to her attitude upon her initial return to Scotland, discussed in Chapter

Two. Mary’s decision to become a mother and carry on the royal line impacted upon her commitment to the legislative process in Scotland. Once she was imprisoned in England, she seemed to have realized just how passionate she was about ruling and became desperate to do so by any means necessary, but was not politically active. She begged for her freedom until her correspondence was forbidden. In desperation, she then turned to plotting her own escape, possibly even going so far as to plan to have her cousin murdered. If this had been her intention, perhaps she intended to then extend her kingdom into England or rule the two kingdoms jointly.

These are not the actions of a reluctant ruler. Mary’s political career went through various phases.

Jenny Wormald’s assertion that Mary was a “reluctant ruler” can be loosely attributed to Mary in the period of 1565 – 1568. After her second marriage, Mary entered a phase of being a ‘distracted ruler’ and then became a ‘desperate ruler.’

66

Chapter 4 – Conclusion: The Political Career of the Queen of Scots

Mary Stewart, Queen of Scots, was by no means a powerful and successful queen. Nor was she the reluctant ruler historians have portrayed her as. The political career of Mary Stewart can be divided into a period of activity and a period of inactivity. The period of inactivity can be further divided into a period of distraction and a period of desperation. Clearly, her political career occurred in phases, beginning with a foundation of political interest developed during her time in

France. From 1561 to 1565, Mary attempted to rule Scotland in a positive, active manner. With her marriage to Darnley in 1565 began the phase in which she prioritized the queenly responsibility of producing an heir to continue her family line over the legislative process.

However, she became distracted by this and other domestic occurrences until 1568, when she fled to England, beginning her period of desperation to return to Scottish politics. An assessment of her political career reveals that Mary Stewart was not a reluctant monarch.

During a twelve year hiatus spent in France, Mary did not neglect her kingdom. Despite having spent her childhood in France and becoming the Queen of France for a brief two year period, she did not forget her responsibilities to Scotland during her time away. At a young age, she was making decisions for her country with input from her father-in-law, King Henri II of

France, and her mother, Mary of Guise. At the unprecedented age of twelve, Mary declared her minority over and chose her mother as her regent. 1 The age of majority, as declared by her predecessors, was twenty-one. 2 Henri II went on to declare Mary to be the Queen of Scotland,

1 Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots, 83 – 84. 2 “Queen’s Majority, A1564/12/2,” Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, St. Andrews University, http://www.rps.ac.uk/, 22 January 2010. 67

England and Ireland and influenced her to assert this claim. 3 Therefore, during her time in France,

Mary declared Elizabeth illegitimate, proclaiming herself next in line in the English succession.

Although this did not amount to anything, it was her first of numerous attempts to extend her rule to include England. These are the actions of a power hungry ruler, not a timid one. It is clear that

Mary valued her role of Queen of Scots.

Upon arriving in Scotland, Mary is criticized for her hesitation in calling Parliament.

However, she immediately toured the kingdom she had grown unfamiliar with and began her official policy of religious acceptance. 4 She proved from the beginning, notably to John Knox, that she was not going to be easily manipulated by the Scottish nobility,5 who had stepped in and passed numerous anti-Catholic bills in anticipation of the return of the Catholic queen. Within a month of her arrival, she nominated her Privy Council, consisting mostly of Protestant nobility, to whom she gave executive power and a great deal of her trust. This illustrates her desire to be a popular queen rather than her desire to assert her own personal politics upon her country. Two years after her return to Scotland, Mary called Parliament. Although she had delayed calling

Parliament, she did not leave her country without any means of government in the interim. Mary took the two years to acquaint herself with her nobility and with the Scottish political system, indicating her desire to be an effective ruler. The 1563 Parliament passed many pieces of legislation concerning social, religious and political life, all in Mary’s name. In addition, she ratified the Act of Oblivion, nullifying all bills made by the Protestant nobility without her consent. 6

3 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 84 – 85; Goodare, “Mary Stewart”; Melville, Memoires of Sir James , 58-59. 44 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 157. See also MacNalty, Mary Queen of Scots , 37; Melville, Memoirs of Sir James Melville , 102. 5 Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots , 156. Fraser cites John Knox’s History of the Reformation in Scotland, volume II, W. Croft Dickinson, ed. (Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson, 1949), 20. 6 Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, “Mary I.” 68

As well as leading her court, Mary also made personal decisions with foreign relations in mind. She maintained her relationship with her French relatives and her English cousin, establishing positive relationships for Scotland. In 1563, when she began the process of choosing a second husband, she kept these relations in mind. This decision was politically based for Mary, as she wanted to choose someone who would please her allies and allow her to remain in Scotland as an active monarch, in contrast to her first marriage which removed her from her kingdom. After years of deliberation and negotiation, Mary chose Darnley, who she believed would better her position in the English succession, which would be pleasing to her Scottish subjects. 7 It is evident that Mary Stewart was determined to rule Scotland of her own right in a manner that would make her a popular queen. She was not reluctant or disinterested in Scotland; she was resolute in her desire to lead her country politically.

Following her marriage to Darnley, her determination to rule weakened as she became distracted from her role as queen by her personal life, as she opted to focus on queenly role of producing an heir rather than on more obvious governmental practices. When she was ruling, she did so with determination, but her gender and her own fateful decisions led to her less than illustrious rule. The period from 1565 to 1568 marked the only period of Mary’s political career that may be described as reluctance. Dealing with Darnley, an ignorant, immature man, became a full time responsibility. Mary began making concessions to her Protestant nobility; she likely would not have made these concessions had she been able to give politics her full attention.

Instead, her tumultuous personal life prevented her from calling Parliament between 1563 and

1567, despite coming of age during that time. 8 She grew dependant on her advisors, particularly

David Rizzio, which added further grief to her marriage. Following the brutal murder of Rizzio by

Darnley, Mary focused her attention on removing Darnley from her life, occupying herself with

7 Guy, Queen of Scots, 187 MacNalty, Mary Queen of Scots, 45 – 46. See also Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign , 21-22;. Dawson, “Mary Queen of Scots,” 4; Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 218; Melville, Memoirs of Sir James Melville, 109. 8 Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, “Mary I.” 69 this rather than with governing. She became distracted from ruling by domestic disruptions. It is clear, from examining her private life, that Mary allowed herself to be sidetracked from her political responsibilities after her second marriage.

Within a year of her abdication, Mary fled to England where she became desperate to rule once more. She realized that she had inadvertently placed herself in captivity at the mercy of

Elizabeth. She immediately began to beg her cousin to help reinstate her in Scotland. 9 From the beginning of her captivity, it is evident that she would have done anything necessary in exchange for the ability to rule once more. When her pleading failed to elicit a response from Elizabeth,

Mary turned to more desperate measures. She is accused of having participated in the Ridolfi and

Babbington plots, which, had they come to fruition, would have resulted in the assassination of the English queen and the liberation of the Scottish queen, thereby extending Mary’s kingdom to include England. Instead, the plots were exposed and Mary’s political clout disintegrated. She no longer had the power to save herself. Elizabeth signed execution papers and Mary was killed for treason. 10 It was not until the day of her death that she ceased to try to liberate herself and let go of her hopes for reinstatement. These desperate attempts to free herself are not the actions of a reluctant ruler. Mary Stewart was determined to rule.

Mary Stewart was a more effective ruler than conventional wisdom has maintained.

Despite her brief reign, she was able to have many bills passed in her name. She ruled with toleration and acceptance. Jenny Wormald’s assertion that Mary was a reluctant ruler may only be loosely attributed to Mary’s period of domestic unrest. More appropriately, Mary Stewart ought to be remembered as an ineffective, yet determined, ruler whose political career moved through various phases, some of which may have appeared less active than others.

9 Harrison, ed., The Letters of Queen Elizabeth I; Strickland, ed., Letters of Mary, Queen of Scots. 10 Lewis, The Trial, 110. 70

Appendix A – Mary, Queen of Scots: Chronology

1542 December Birth of Mary Stewart December Death of King James V of Scotland

1543 September Coronation of Mary Queen of Scots

1547 September Betrothal of Mary to Francis, dauphin of France

1548 August Mary moved to France

1554 April Replacement of the Earl of Arran by Mary of Guise as Regent of Scotland

1558 April Marriage of Mary and Francis, dauphin of France

1559 July Death of King Henry II of France Coronation of Francis and Mary as King and Queen of France

1560 June Death of Mary of Guise December Death of King Francis II of France, leaving Mary as Dowager Queen

1561 August Return of Mary, Queen of Scots to Scotland September Pronouncement of Mary’s Privy Council

1563 May Assemblage of Mary’s first Scottish Parliament

1565 July Marriage of Mary to Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley

1566 March Murder of Mary’s French secretary and confidant, David Rizzio June Birth of James, who would later become James I and VI

1567 February Murder of Lord Darnley May Marriage of Mary to James Hepburn, Early of Bothwell June Imprisonment of Mary at Lochleven Castle July Abdication of Mary; Coronation of James as King James VI of Scotland

1568 May Escape of Mary from Lochleven Castle May Flight of Mary to England and beginning of her captivity

1586 October Trial of Mary for her involvement in the plots against Elizabeth October Declaration of Mary as guilty

1587 February Signing of Mary’s death warrant by Elizabeth February Death of Mary Stewart

71

Appendix B – Mary, Queen of Scots: Family Trees 1

1 John Guy, Queen of Scots: The True Life of Mary Stuart (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004), xv, xvi. 72

73

Bibliography Primary Sources

Buchanan, George. The History of Scotland, v. 2 James Aikman, ed. Glasgow: Blackie, Fullarton & Co., 1827.

Buchanan, George. The Tyrannous Reign of Mary Stewart: George Buchanan’s account , translated by W.A. Gatherer . Westport Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1978. (Reprint of 1958 edition by George Buchanan. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1958.)

De Medici, Catherine. « A Mon Compère Monsieur le Conestable, le 27 février 1566.» Lettres de Catherine de Médicis, Tome Troisième: 1567 – 1570. M. le C th Beguenault de Puchesse, ed. Paris : M. Le C te Hector de la Ferrière, 1887. Accessed at http://www.archive.org/details/lettresdecatheri03cathuoft , 9 February 2010.

Donaldson, Gordon, ed. Scottish Historical Documents. Glasgow: Neil Wilson Publishing, 1970.

Knox, John. History of the Reformation in Scotland, v. 2, W. Croft Dickinson, ed. Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson, 1949.

Knox, John. The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrvovs Regiment of Women, Number 471 . Amsterdam: Theatrvm Orbis Terrarvm Ltd., 1558.

Labanoff, Prince Alexander, ed., William Turnbull, translator Letters of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland. London: Charles Dolman, 1847. Available at http://books.google.ca.

Laird of Ormiston. “The Confession of the Laird of Ormiston, 13 December 1578.” In Pitcairn, Robert. Ancient Criminal Trials in Scotland. Edinburgh: William Tait, 1833. Accessed at http://books.google.ca, 9 February 2010

Lewis, Jayne Elizabeth. The Trial of Mary Queen of Scots: a brief history with documents . Boston: St Martin’s Press, 1999.

Melville, Sir James. Memoirs of Sir James Melville of Hal-hill, A. Francis Steurt, ed . London: George Routledge & Sons, Ltd., 1929 (Reprint of original found in 1660).

Queen Elizabeth I of England. The letters of Queen Elizabeth I. G. B. Harrison, ed. London: Cassell and Company Ltd., 1968. (Reprint of 1935 version edited by G.B. Harrison. London: Cassell and Company Ltd., 1935.)

Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707. University of St. Andrews. http://www.rps.ac.uk/. 22 January 2010.

Strickland, Agnes, ed. Letters of Mary, Queen of Scots, v.1. London: H. Colburn, 1842.

Strickland, Agnes, ed. Letters of Mary Queen of Scots, v.3. London: H. Colburn, 1843. Secondary Sources

Alberti, Johanna. Gender and the Historian. Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited, 2002.

Bax, Clifford. “What the Reader Must Know.” In Letters and Poems by Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots . New York: Philosophical Library, 1947.

74

Cengage, Gale. “Women’s Literature from 1960 to the Present – Introduction.” In Feminism in Literature, Jessica Bomarito and Jeffrey W. Hunter, eds. Enotes.com 2006. http://www.enotes.com/feminism-literature/women-s-literature-from-1960=present . 21 November 2009.

Collinson, Patrick. “Elizabeth I.” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/8636/8636?back=,18248. 4 February 2009.

Cowan, Ian B. “The Roman Connection: Prospects for Counter-Reformation during the Personal Reign of Mary, Queen of Scots.” in Mary Stewart: Queen in Three Kingdoms, Michael Lynch ed. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1988. Pp 105 – 122.

Davidson, Peter. “The entry of Mary Stewart into Edinburgh, 1561, and other ambiguities.” Renaissance Studies 9.4 (1995): 416- 425.

Davison, M.H. Armstrong. The Casket Letters: A Solution to the Mystery of Mary Queen of Scots and the Murder of Lord Darnley. London: Vision Press Limited, 1965.

Dawson, Jane E.A. “Mary Queen of Scots, Lord Darnley, and Anglo-Scottish Relations in 1565.” The International History Review 8.1 (1986): 1- 24.

Donaldson, Gordon. All the Queen’s Men: Power and Politics in Mary Stewart’s Scotland. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1983.

Donaldson, Gordon. The First Trial of Mary, Queen of Scots. New York: Stein and Day Publishers, 1969.

Drummond, Humphrey. The Queen’s Man: James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell and Duke of Orkney. London: Leslie Frewin Publishers Limited, 1975.

Elton, G.R. England Under the Tudors. London: The Folio Society, 1997. (Reprint of 1955 edition. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1955.)

Fleming, David Hay. Mary Queen of Scots: From her Birth to her Flight into England: A Brief Biography: with Critical Notes, a few Documents hitherto unpublished, and an Itinerary. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1898.

Foster, J.J. The Stuarts: being outlines of the personal history of the family. London: Dickinsons, 1907.

Fraser, Antonia. Mary, Queen of Scots. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1969.

Fraser, Antonia. Royal Stuart Papers, VII: Mary Queen of Scots and the Historians. Ilford, Essex: The Royal Stuart Society, 1974.

French, Katherine L. and Allyson M. Poska. Women and Gender in the Western Past, volume II – since 1500. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2007.

Goodall, Walter. An Examination of the Letters said to be written by Mary Queen of Scots to James Earl of Bothwell, v. 1. Edinburgh: T. and W. Ruddimans, 1754. Available at http://books.google.com, accessed 11 March 2010.

Goodare, Julian. “Mary Stewart.” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/18248?docPos=3. 1 February 2009.

75

Goodare, Julian. “The First Parliament of Mary, Queen of Scots.” Sixteenth Century Journal 36.1 (2005): 55 – 75.

Goodare, Julian. “The Scottish Political Community and the Parliament of 1563.” Albion 35.5 (Autumn 2003): 373-397.

Greengrass, M. “Mary, Dowager Queen of France.” In Mary Stewart: Queen in three kingdoms, ed. Michael Lynch. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell Ltd. Pp. 171 – 194.

Greig, Elaine Finnie. “Henry Stewart.” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/26473?docPos=4. 10 September 2009.

Guy, John. Queen of Scots: The True Life of Mary Stuart. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004.

Hall, Anne, ed. “Captivity and Plots.” The Marie Stuart Society http://www.marie- stuart.co.uk/England.htm. 25 January 2010.

Henderson, T.F. The Casket Letters and Mary Queen of Scots: With Appendices . Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1890.

Institute of Historical Research. “Sir John Earnest Neale.” University of London. http://www.history.ac.uk/makinghistory/historians/neale_john.html. 12 January 2010

Karant-Nunn, Susan C. “The Reformation of Women.” in Becoming Visible: Women in European History, 3rd edition, eds. Renate Bridenthal, Susan Mosher Stuard and Merry E. Weisner. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1998.

Laing, Malcolm. The History of Scotland, v. 2, 2 nd ed. London: J. Mawman, No. 22 Poultry, 1804. Available at http://books.google.com , accessed 11 March 2010.

Lang, Andrew. The Mystery of Mary Stuart. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1902.

Lynch, Michael. “Introduction.” In Mary Stewart: Queen in three kingdoms, ed. Michael Lynch. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell Ltd. Pp. 1 – 29.

MacNalty, Sir Arthur Salusbury. Mary, Queen of Scots: the daughter of debate. London: Johnson Publications Limited, 1960.

Marshall, Rosalind K. “James Hepburn.” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/13001?docPos=3. 10 September 2009.

Marshall, Rosalind K. “Mary of Guise.” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/18250?docPos=2. 1 February 2009.

Mason, Roger A. “Scotland, Elizabethan England and the Idea of Britain.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 14 (2004): 279-293.

McLaren, Anne. “Queenship in Early Modern England and Scotland.” Historical Journal 49.3 (2006): 935-952.

Neale, J.E. Queen Elizabeth I and her Parliaments. Miteham, Victoria: Penguin Books, 1960.

76

Richards, Judith M. “To promote a woman to beare rule: Talking of Queens in Mid-Tudor England.” Sixteenth Century Journal 28.1 (1997): 101-121.

Sadler, John. Border Fury: England and Scotland at War, 1296 – 1568. Harlow, England: Pearson Education Ltd., 2005.

Sinclair, Sir John. “George Buchanan (1506 – 1582): Political Thought and History in Early Modern Europe and the Atlantic World.” Stirling Smith Art Gallery and Museum. http://specialcollections.st-and.ac.uk/Buchanancompletetext.pdf. 14 January 2010

Smith, Robert. “Mary Queen of Scots: Four Hundred Years after her Death.” British Heritage 8.4 (1987): 16 – 25.

Tytler, William. An Inquiry, historical and critical, into the Evidence against Mary Queen of Scots, 4th ed. London: T. Cadell, 1790. Available at http://books.google.com, accessed 11 March 2010.

Walton, Kristen Post. Catholic Queen, Protestant Patriarchy. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007.

Warnicke, Retha M. Mary, Queen of Scots. Abington, Oxen, New York: Routledge, 2006. Available at www.myilibrary.com?id=52179 , accessed 4 February 2009.

Wilkinson, Alexander. “Mary, Queen of Scots and the French Connection.” History Today 54.7 (2005): 37-43.

Wormald, Jenny. Court, Kirk, and Community. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981.

Wormald, Jenny. “James VI and I.” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/14592/14592?back=,18248. 4 February 2009.

Wormald, Jenny. Mary, Queen of Scots: Politics, Passion and a Kingdom Lost. London: Tauris Parke Paperbacks, 2001.

77