Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Martina Jelínková

Mary Queen of Scots vs. Elizabeth I: Manipulating or Manipulated Bachelor’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: PhDr. Lidia Kyzlinková, CSc., M.Litt.

2013

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

…………………………………………….. Martina Jelínková

Acknowledgement

I wish to express my gratitude to PhDr. Lidia Kyzlinková, CSc., M.Litt. for her invaluable advice and the time she dedicated to supervision of this thesis. I would also like to thank my friends for their support and encouragement.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...... 2 2. Historical Background ...... 4 2.1 Introduction to the Political Situation before Mary’s Accession ..... 4 2.2 Mary Queen of Scots: Matrimonial Alliances and Claims ...... 6 2.3 Negative Queenhood and Knox ...... 9 3. Mary vs. Elizabeth ...... 13 3.1 The Mysterious Case of Amy Robsart ...... 13 3.2 The Murder of Lord Darnley ...... 19 4. Fictional Representation: Fiction and Faction ...... 28 5. Conclusion ...... 36 6. Works Cited ...... 41 7. Résumé ...... 46

8. Resumé ...... 47

1

1. Introduction

Sixteenth century England experienced a phenomenon sometimes referred to as the Age of Queens. The decisive power of the country was placed in women’s hands and their reigns were watched with a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, the main aim of this thesis is not primarily to defend women’s right to rule; on the contrary, it is to analyse the primary aspects undermining the power of the Queens, of Mary Queen of

Scots and Elizabeth I, both of whom were engaged in a protracted struggle for the

English throne. Beside the legitimacy of their claims, there are more significant considerations which predestined them to either increase or lose their power. The rule and attitudes of the two monarchs bore significant influence upon the times in which they lived, including social, political and legal precedents which were being challenged and in some cases reversed.

A closer analytical comparison is drawn between the actions of the two Queens during the most critical moments of their personal lives which resulted in a far-reaching political impact. Specifically, the analysis is concerned with the scandal that emerged on the political scene in England after Amy Robsart, the wife of Elizabeth’s alleged favourite lover, died. And broad hints appeared about the contextualization with a conspicuously similar affair surrounding Mary Queen of Scots after the death of her husband and King, Henry Darnley. These behavioural patterns, whilst often overlooked in historical reconstructions, were seen to be demonstrative of the political competence.

The aforementioned examination is preceded by an outline of historical background to provide a general notion of the predicating circumstances which surrounded this particular phase in history. It includes the prejudicial anti-Catholic and anti-feminist sermons of the Protestant leader, John Knox, who was at the centre of a contentious debate regarding the ruling women and queenhood.

2

In the last chapter, a parallel analysis is based upon interpretations in the novels by two prominent contemporary writers, Royal Road to Fotheringay (1955) by Jean

Plaidy (1906-1993) and Mary Queen of Scots and the Isles (1992) by Margaret George

(born 1943). It is taken into account that the authors of historical novels and those of biographies base their research of many of the same texts of which there is a limited number. This does however still offer a reasonable possibility of different interpretations.

Methodically, the present work proposes a systematic exploration of the selected aspects cardinal for a successful female ruler in male surroundings, with particular relevance to enticements that women, for innate reasons, are inclined towards.

Subsequently, the crucial moments of this complex phenomenon are minutely examined within its fictional illustrations.

3

2. Historical Background

Since the principle figure of this work is Mary Queen of Scots, her life is sketched in greater detail. Her contemporary, Elizabeth I, which cannot be left out is accentuated only in crucial moments of the course of events in the British Isles with the emphasis on her intervention in Scottish affairs.

2.1 Introduction to the Political Situation before Mary’s Accession

Prior to Mary’s birth, her father, James V, managed to keep the country strong despite facing a constant threat from England. According to Roger Mason, he encountered a difficult situation in Scotland after the defeat at Flodden when the country was challenged by uneasiness (98-104). Although believed to be severe, vindictive and sadistic, James V proved to be a competent renaissance ruler since he managed to restore the authority of the Scottish crown, uplift the kingdom and stay favourably disposed to cultural influences (101). The Scots then believed that Scotland was an empire comparable to other European monarchies (98). By his marriage to

Madeleine of Valois and, after Madeleine’s death, to Marie de Guise, James V also strengthened the so-called ‘Auld Alliance’ concluded between Scotland and France in

1295 (Bonner, “Naturalization” 1085-6). However, according to Godefroy, this strategic alliance may be dated even back to Achaius 65th King of Scotland and the alliance he formed with Charlemagne in the 9th century (qtd. in Bonner, “Auld Alliance” 7). Thus, the treaty brought significant benefits to the countries over several centuries, under the condition that “neither the French nor the Scots would make a separate peace with

England” (Boner, “Auld Alliance” 11), rendering the later Henry VIII’s marriage proposal unattainable. Altogether, James’s rule posed a serious jeopardy to England as he strengthened the Scottish position inside the British Isles by aptly managing his

4 country and supporting an alliance that eventually forestalled Henry VIII’s plans to seize Scotland.

The stability of the alliance between Scotland and France remained untouched during the time of Henry VIII’s reign in spite of his attempts to achieve the opposite.

After James V’s death, Henry tried to avail himself of the opportunity to finally reunite

Scotland and England through the betrothal of his heir, prince, Edward VI and Mary, the Queen of Scotland, born 8 December 1542, who was only six days old when she became the Queen of Scotland in 1542. Caroline Bingham adds that Mary’s betrothal to

Edward as well as the peace between Scotland and England was negotiated and attained by the Treaty of Greenwich in July the following year (190). This concluded Treaty infringed the long-standing French-Scottish alliance and was perceived as a violent enforcement of the English ambitious political interests. Through George Gordon, 4th

Earl of Huntly, the first reference to coercion becoming known as a 'rough wooing' is revealed: “We lik’d not the manner of Wooing and me could not stoop to being Bully’d into Love [sic]” (qtd. in Abercromby lii). The marriage was proclaimed by Henry VIII to be an opportunity sent down by God in order to create the desired British union governed by a Protestant (Mason 106), thus an English sovereign. The Scottish regent

James Hamilton, who was supposed to approve the proposed document, hesitated to do so since this strong pro-English campaign spread a pessimistic mood of resignation throughout Scotland with respect to the intense religious factions (Head 23). Twenty years later, words of a Scottish lawyer, Adam Otterburn, expressing the Scottish opinion of the marriage were reported:

. . . though the Governor and some of the nobility have consented to the

marriage yet I know that few or none of them do like of it; and our

common people do utterly mislike of it. I pray you give me leave to ask

5

you a question: if your lad was a lass, and our lass were a lad, would you

then be so earnest in this matter? . . . And lykewise I assure you that our

nation will never agree to have an Englishman king of Scotland. And

though the whole nobility of the realm would consent, yet our common

people, and the stones in the street would rise and rebel against it. [sic]

(Otteburn, qtd. in Strickland 16)

Throughout Scotland, popular discontent was expressed about the repeated

English attempts, and the tools chosen, to submit the rival country. Scotland set a defiance but manifested it more likely in a broad resignation than in open revolt, after the signing of the Treaty of Greenwich sealed the future union via Edward VI’s marriage to Mary Queen of Scots.

2.2 Mary Queen of Scots: Matrimonial Alliances and Claims

Beauty so wonderful that it shed around her a charm which no one whom

she wished to please could escape, and which was fatal to almost

everyone. (Dumas n. pag)

Canonised Mary Queen of Scots, the heir to the throne after James V, awoke interest of many European suitors. Her task was, however, to continue the strong alliance with France against England through a strategic marriage of which her French mother took care. Profoundly anti-English Marie de Guise, the regent in Scotland from

1554 to 1560, spared her 5-year-old daughter from a violated marriage to Edward VI, by sending her to France (Mason 104-10). As a girl, Mary had been idolised by the French court as apparent from Dumas’s exaltedness of her. She married French Dauphin

Francis II in 1558, and the following year, when Henry II died, Francis became King and Mary became Queen consort of France. Their marriage substantially strengthened the long-standing Scottish-French alliance and increased the threat towards England and

6 the English crown. When Mary I, Tudor Queen, died in 1558, Mary Queen of Scots asserted with her husband their right to the English crown. However, as Jone Lewis points out, the English recognised Elizabeth as the successor to the throne. Many

Catholics perceived her seizure as illegitimate since the divorce of Henry VIII from his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, and his marriage to Anne Boleyn, Elizabeth’s mother, was in their opinion invalid. Mary Queen of Scots, the granddaughter of Margaret

Tudor who was the older sister of Henry VIII of England, was therefore considered the rightful heir (n. pag.). The promising expectations of Mary’s imminent dominance over

England were terminated by the death of the French Dauphin in 1560, which resulted in her departure to chaotic Scotland. Nevertheless, Mary’s second Catholic marriage in

1565 to Henry, Lord Darnley, great-grandson of Henry VII, was another attempt to deflect the constant menaces of the English and focused on the subjugation of Scotland.

The Scottish royal couple in was entitled to a double claim to the English throne

(Mason 106). Unfortunately to Mary, by the strengthening of her right for the succession via her marriage to Darnley, but simultaneously denying him the Crown

Matrimonial, she undermined Darnley’s ability to govern with sufficient authority.

Rosalind Marshall concludes that such constraint eventually enraged the King which culminated in the murder of Mary’s Secretary, David Riccio, on 9 March 1566 inside the Palace of Holyrood House in presence of the heavily pregnant Queen (n.pag.). The impudence of his deed deprived Mary of any prospect of their active cooperation in the struggle with England, despite the religious concerns which they also shared.

Fundamentally, the positive reception and approval of the claim to throne of the

Queens was substantially formed by the religious faith they espoused. Mary was a

Roman Catholic, but her Protestant half-brother, later the Earl of Moray was the regent in Scotland during her sojourn in France. After the death of Francis, Mary left for

7

Scotland, then an officially Protestant country as a subsequent result of religious reforms led by John Knox (n. pag.). Elizabeth, Mary Stuart’s rival, successfully invigorated, as stressed by Marshall, the Protestant reformation in Scotland as well as its re-establishment in England, which made Mary’s situation virtually untenable. Moray, nevertheless, assured Mary that she would be allowed to worship as she wished (n. pag.) and Oliver Richardson stresses in his study that she did not enter Scotland as “fixed as the stars to undo the Reformation” (124). With the first Parliament, which concerned with the religious settlement (Goodare 55), she managed to ensure her Catholic faith and, in addition, willingly deferred to the Protestantism settlement within Scotland which provided her with a reasonable prospect of negotiations with England – standing broadly on a Protestant footing – about the succession to the throne (75).

By the birth of Mary’s and Darnley’s son, James VI, a future intermediary for the union of Scotland and England was provided, however, without contribution to the improvement of the personal relationship of the royal couple. Marshall explains that eventually, after Darnley was murdered at Kirk o’ Field, just outside the walls of

Edinburgh on 10 February 1567, people suspected that the Queen herself was implicated in the crime (n. pag.) Mary then married the unprincipled ruffian, Earl of

Bothwell, who allegedly planned and managed the murder (Skelton 187). The judgement that she was forced into the third marriage is seriously doubted (Bell, “Life”

169). The Queen avoided physical intercourse with her second husband, who was, according to Keith’s medical study, suffering from syphilis prior to his death (457), but aborted twins more than five months after Darnley was murdered (Nau 60), which gives rise to momentous inkling of an intimate relationship between Mary and Bothwell.

Consequently, Protestant Lords rose against the Queen and her army confronted theirs at Carberry Hill, on 15 June 1567. Against all advice, Mary had a narrow escape south

8 and sought support from Elizabeth. Marshall follows that as James's godmother and a fellow independent Queen, Mary felt certain that Elizabeth would provide her with help.

She was instead, kept in captivity in England for 19 years (n. pag.). The focus of a long series of Roman Catholic plots against Elizabeth culminated in Mary’s execution in

1587 with English excuse that “so long as there is life in her, there is hope; so as

[Scotts] live in hope, we live in fear” (n. pag.). There are non-typical schemes to be observed, namely in a captivity of a Queen and her sentence to death, all condemned by another Queen from a different country. Allegorically hidden in artificial obstacles, incessantly created by a jealous and threatened Elizabeth, Michael Graham stresses that excuses were produced for why it was not possible to enable the personal meeting of the two Queens (1174) and thus accomplish a constructive debate on the appropriate level which would bring the coveted resolution of their dispute. The situation consequently took its course in a rather insidious womanly manner as Elizabeth’s unwillingness to allow a diplomatic meeting combined with Mary’s determination to enforce her both political and personal interests, annihilated the triumph achieved by the Scottish Queen through a tactical marriage and provision of a male heir.

2.3 Negative Queenhood and Knox

The difficult situation persisting on the European political scene was amplified through the prominently raising number of female rulers, “many of whom were singularly lacking in political skills” (Taylor-Smither 48). The merit of their reign was not of a crucial importance; it was rather the general concern about the female dominance in the highest posts which appeared to be perilous to their male councillors as well as their counterparts. Chiefly, they doubted the capability of women to effectively fulfil their acquired role since the political stability was jeopardized by women’s attributes such as emotiveness, irresolution and guile. Surprisingly, these

9 women, the Queens in the British Isles being no exception, did not lack determination, courage and harshness. However, unlike men, they inclined to succumb to their femininity and chose other tools than fair play, which aggravated the cooperation and created a potentially volatile political scene as well as causation for shifts in historical developments.

The negative reception of the female rulers was the most expressive in connection to the religious belief, as it is accurately summarized in John Knox’s aggressive work The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of

Women. Here, this radical leader of the Protestant Reformation declared that women were by nature “weak, fraile, variable, impatient and foolish, lacking the spirit of counsel and regiment” (Knox, qtd. in Richards 116) and therefore found inadequate for the role of a monarch. His sermons were principally targeted at Catholics and Catholic ruling Queens such as Mary Guise, Mary I and Mary Queen of Scots in particular. As

Anne McLaren emphasises, Mary’s blood status, combined with Elizabeth’s failure to marry and produce a legitimate male heir, confronted Protestants with a nightmare vision of a world turned permanently upside down: feminized and Catholic

(“Nationalism” 740). Though these fears transpired justified, in regard to the actions of the Queens, there were also convictions which were not so unilateral.

Despite the general opinion which prevailed, claiming that according to conventional Christian, political and social paradigms, the natural subordination of women to male authority was reinforced (Richards 101), Sir Thomas Smith stated in

1583 that “the authorities is annexed to the blood and progenie ... for there the blood is respected not the age nor the sexe [sic]”, continuing by claiming that they “have the same authoritie although they be women . . . as they should have had if they had bin men of full age [sic]” (64) Smith experienced the flourishing reign of Elizabeth as well

10 as a position in her office. On the one hand, it provides an imminent view on her, apparently satisfying, administration, but on the one hand, suggests a slight misrepresentation based on his loyalty. Fundamentally, Elizabeth distinguished herself from other female rulers through the lack of femininity in her behaviour as well as appearance. Her tutor, Ascham, summarised that “her mind had no womanly weakness and her perseverance…was equal to that of a man…” (Giles, qtd. in Taylor-Smither 47).

Although Elizabeth seriously challenged the social, religious, legal and gender stereotypes (Richards 121), her success was owing to her ability to function on a masculine level (Taylor-Smither 71). According to the contemporaries quoted above; the acceptance of female rulers was not at the core of the problem. Attaining recognition in the male surrounding was more of an issue. The Queens could markedly reduce this gender bias through the capability to assimilate the men’s way of rule as it is illustrated by Elizabeth.

The English Queen, unlike Mary Queen of Scots, was endowed with the ability to lay aside her personal interests in favour of the country welfare and therefore, as proved in the following chapter, withstood the daunting challenge to retain her dubious claim to the throne. Her disposition virtually freed her from the suggested gender bias.

John Aylmer also defended Elizabeth’s claim to the throne by assuming that because the monarch is given the country by birth, it is in God’s power to decide the sex of the child. The right to rule then should not be taken away from the legitimate heir, even if it is a woman, for it would mean breaking the God’s will and order. If the God did not consider women fit to rule, he would provide an heir of male sex (Aylmer, qtd. in

Richards 119). The indisputable successor to the English throne was, however, Mary

Queen of Scots. She had the legitimate right to rule established on her genealogy but it did not need to provide her with a security of her political position. In contrast to

11

Elizabeth, Mary Queen of Scots was perceived and portrayed to be more emotive than

Elizabeth which was seen to be detrimental to her ability to rule. For example, in her fourth meeting with John Knox, she was witnessed during the negotiation to be

“womanly weeping,” with tears in great abundance (Healey 385). Such handling of political business diminished her prospect of success and stressed the advantage of

Elizabeth’s rather masculine way of government. This divergence in attitudes is reflected not only in the political sphere, but also in her private life, which turned out to be of a reciprocal impact. It is clearly demonstrated on one of the crucial affairs in the lives of both Queens into which personal and political interests were hazardously interwoven in respect to the future of their countries.

12

3. Mary vs. Elizabeth

The fact that both Queens encountered situations of striking similarity, serves as a suitable example for a remarkable comparison, helping to analyse the lives of the two

Queens and how their lives diverged as a result of such encounters and their actions thereafter. They were both Queens, struggling for the throne, they were women as well as rivals; they both had affairs with married men, however, one managed a narrow escape from the disgraceful situation, while the other failed to do so.

3.1 The Mysterious Case of Amy Robsart

Concerning Queen Elizabeth, she was believed to be hiding an amorous relationship with Robert Dudley, her privy counsellors and her Master of the Horses

(McLaren, “The Quest” 282). Therefore her previously solid reputation suffered a scandal in 1560 after the death of Amy Robsart, Dudley’s wife. As Mary Robertson suggests, Amy’s death gave rise to intense speculations about a possible plan to assassinate Dudley’s wife. Yet as it was emphasised later, the result of the investigation does not actually play the crucial part for the solution for in the solution for the alleged passive involvement of Queen Elizabeth in the death of Dudley’s wife. The profound impact is to be observed in the action of investigation itself. This fact is highlighted by the consequences that followed Elizabeth’s and Mary’s deeds concerning the attitudes they adopted towards their individual situations.

Aware of the inherent political risk that the incident entailed, Dudley was urged by the Queen to examine the case, this encouragement strengthened his resolve to be exonerated and have his innocence validated. His innocence may be suggested by the fact that he also sent for Appleyard, Amy’s half-brother, who doubted the “death by misadventure” as a possible verdict following the investigation into Amy’s death, and requested his presence at the inquiry (Aird 69). Dudley also withdrew from the scene to 13 avoid suspicion that he tried to influence the court in his favour. Though the final verdict was ruled in Dudley’s favour, he demanded an additional inquiry to be conducted, “considering what the malicious world will bruit” (Hibbert 81). The Queen too became intensely aware of the hazardous situation and the danger that her reputation was exposed to that she “wasted no time in sending Dudley away from court until the matter of his wife’s death had been fully investigated” (Plowden 53). In spite of the harm inflicted upon the relationship between Elizabeth and Dudley, they were both willing to sacrifice their gratification, though only temporarily, in favour of the future.

Dudley needed to remain respected in order to be able to continue his service at the court, which applied, nevertheless to Elizabeth too. Had they not had the case minutely investigated, the public disparagement would prevent the couple from co-existence.

Dudley’s adversaries made use of the accusation which was stated in a controversial work that successfully spread through England. It proclaimed that Dudley was imputed for sending his henchmen to Walter Baily, who was a professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, for a potion for his first wife, the ill-fated Amy Robsart.

“The doctor . . . seeing their great importunity, and the small need the lady had of physics, and therefore he peremptorily denied their request; . . . if they had poisoned her under the name of his potion, he might after have been hanged for a colour of their sin”

(Ashmole 151). Elias Ashmole then then provides further detail by proclaiming that

Baily became physician of Queen Elizabeth and that Leicester endeavoured, unsuccessfully, to displace him in the Queen's favour (qtd. in MacNalty 1181). This is a highly controversial statement which was engineered to bring Dudley’s reputation into disrepute. However, the source of this accusation deserves a more detailed examination: in fact, it is stated in Ashmole’s Antiquities of Berkshire. The adherents of the theory that Amy was murdered, namely poisoned by Dudley, widely use this source as the

14 main argument to support their theories of conspiracy. However, the author does not cite authorities in his text and so his proclamations are of a questionable validity.

Adlard, is his study, also proves that the part on Amy Robsart, in which the above mentioned statement of doctor Baily is to be found, is Ashmole’s plagiarized Leicester’s

Commonwealth (1584). The authorship of Leicester’s Commonwealth, “one of the most inveterate and scurrilous libels, which the religious dissensions of the times, prolific of animosity as they were, had produced” (Gray 45) is, moreover, ambiguous. Since it intended to challenge Dudley and the Queen, it is important to bear in mind the subjectivity and prejudice of the author(s). Ashmole also claims in his work, that Amy was found “with a nail driven to her head” (qtd. in Aird 73) but such a discovery would never lead to an unequivocal verdict of the jury that Amy did not die in an act of violence (Aird 73). Ashmole also states that her father, Sir John Robsart, demanded her exhumation in order to examine the case once more – an utterance curious enough since he died in 1554 (Aird 74). Because of these discrepancies, the source appears to be inaccurate in its reliability and the targeted attacks on Dudley will therefore be not taken as relevant.

Nevertheless, there are also hints made by the Secretary of State, William Cecil,

Baron Burghley, suggesting to a certain extent that Dudley and the Queen could possibly try to dispose of Amy. Burghley asserted that “they were thinking of destroying Lord Robert’s wife. They had given out that she was ill but she was not ill at all; she was very well. . . ” (qtd. in Aird 75), but this proposition is in contradiction with the evidence of eyewitnesses who, unlike Cecil, lived with Amy in Cumnor Place. For if the Queen knew that Amy was seriously ill, she would let nature take its course instead of risking her reputation by being implicated in such a suspicious deed. It is not surprising that Cecil was intensely concerned about this matter, but it further supports

15 belief about his discontent for the authority with which the Queen unwittingly laid in

Dudley’s hands because of her affection for him. Cecil and Dudley disliked one another, each man viewing the other as his main rival for the Queen’s attention. Cecil was convinced that Elizabeth should not wed Dudley because “the kingdom would gain nothing by it; he would seek to promote his friends; he is suspected of the death of his wife; he is in debt and that he would prove unkind and jealous” (Haynes, qtd. in Lingard

414). It has to be taken into consideration that although there had been a rivalry between these two men, not only did Cecil prove to be a successful advisor to the Queen and thus gained a respected as well as established position within the political scene, but he also knew Elizabeth for her lifetime. She herself laid on him the responsibility concerning this when she named him her Privy Councilor: “. . . without respect of my private will you will give me that counsel which you think best” (Hanson n. pag.). Inevitably Cecil did learn to understand her personal character well enough over the decades to be able to make such judgement. On the other hand, as mentioned above, his views of Dudley were not only clouded with rivalry but also influenced by the threat of power division which Cecil feared – for the reasons of state as well as his personal aspirations.

Altogether, the utterances and disquiet of Cecil are understandable.

Apart from this detection however, there are other facts speaking contradictory to accusations of Dudley and deserve close examination. In the Spanish Calendar for the reports of the ambassadors, there are also records concerning Amy’s death. It was mentioned by two different Spanish ambassadors at different times and also by one

Venetian that Amy suffered from cancer of the breast for at least eighteen months prior to her death (Boucher n. pag.). This did not completely clear Dudley but the mention of the cancer is immensely important. In contrast to Cecil’s conjectures, there is scientifically supported evidence regarding the development of cancerous disease. Aird

16 affirms that a cancer was not well-known to 16th century doctors, emphasising that the first jury autopsy was performed in 1662 in France (75). Nevertheless, as a professor of medicine, he managed to put forward a scientifically plausible theory in 1956 that

Amy’s death was likely to be caused by the fracture of diseased bones in the spine as an effect of metastasis of the cancer, a process which was certainly unfamiliar to

Elizabethan coroners juries (76). “The malignant cells settle in the bones and multiply there, destroying the normal structure of the affected bone, decalcifying and softening it so that it is predisposed to fracture sometimes with very slightest strain” (Waldeyer, qtd. in Aird 76). Aird also adds that any doctor now called to a patient suffering from the effect of broken neck without any evidence of violence would be automatically be examined for breast cancer (76). Her demise is today medically explicable.

Unfortunately, due to the insufficient level of scientific knowledge and medical practice of the mid-16th century, juries were not able to provide the country with this logical elucidation which gave rise to damaging rumours.

The Spanish government was displeased about the assassinations being made upon the English Queen’s character. Remarks about Elizabeth’s reputation in this context were contemptuous to the same extent as those in the case of Mary Queen of

Scots. For example, Mary faced following screams: “Burn the whore! Burn the murderess of her husband!” (Mears 6), and Elizabeth was addressed with similar attacks, such as “I heard from a certain person who is accustomed to give veracious news that Lord Robert has sent to poison his wife. . . . Not a man in this country but cries out that this fellow [Dudley] is ruining the country with his vanity” (Lang 163); although, according to Andrew Lang, the original Spanish version states “is ruining the country and the Queen” (163). Hanson takes a stand on this in a more humane way, claiming that Elizabeth was no less flirtatious than her father Henry VIII, but the simple

17 and unavoidable fact of her gender meant that her flirtations of far-reaching political implications. (Hanson n. pag.) There cannot be any doubt that the perception of

Elizabeth’s reputation suffered during those days which put a decisive strain of her political career. Disapproval was overtly expressed in the courts of Europe as

Elizabeth’s innocence or lack thereof was brought into sharp relief. The reactions of discontent and their impact on the Queen’s reputation were fundamentally identical with those that appeared after the suspicious death of Henry Darnley, Mary’s husband.

If the rumours that circulated through Europe in the time of inquiry were not averted, or if they turned out to be true, then England’s reputation would be gone forever, wars would follow and then an utter subversion of the Queen and country.

(Plowden 57) Alvaro de Quadra, writing on 11 September 1560 remarked, that “the cry is that they do not want any more women rulers” (de Quadra, qtd. in Hibbert 80) which was supported by Cecil who told the Spanish ambassador in a burst of calculated indiscretion that “he clearly foresaw the ruin of the realm through Robert’s intimacy with the Queen, who surrendered all affairs to him and meant to marry him”

(Plowden 53). That Elizabeth really intended to marry Dudley, and that this was evident from the fact that, as Simon Adams states, she had assured Dudley that he would be her choice in case she changed her mind and decided to marry (139). To Cecil’s relief, also displayed in de Quadra’s letters, “the Queen decided not to marry Dudley”

(Plowden 57). This statement confirms that she was seriously considering marriage in general, and since she decided not to marry him, it implies that she changed her mind or at least forbade herself from thinking from the possibility of marrying Dudley once and away. The incident brought noticeable grief into her life which is expressed in Cecil’s evidence that he saw Elizabeth, a skilled and capable politician able to evaluate most situations with dispassionate clarity, “in one of her most tiresome moods, refusing to

18 attend to any business” (Plowden 53). However, since she made the decision not to marry Dudley after the investigation into Amy’s death, the imminence of the marriage may be suggested. Nevertheless, Amy’s decease did not contribute to Dudley’s marriage to Elizabeth. Right on the contrary, in the years following Amy's death Dudley did not remarry for the monarch's sake – a gesture of protection and honour. The scandal most likely the reason which led to Elizabeth’s being crowned the Virgin

Queen.

The consensus of opinion in Europe was summarized in Mary’s statement that was supposedly exclaimed by the Queen “The Queen of England is going to marry her horse-keeper, who has killed his wife to make room for her” (Merouda n. pag.), even thought it was her of who did hypocritically marry Bothwell, a man reputed to have committed a similar act by murdering Mary Queen of Scots’ husband seven years later.

Elizabeth was intensely aware of the paramount importance of public opinion and she verily worked with meticulous fervour and tenacity to be a sovereign venerated by the people. Marriage with a suspected accomplice to murder, would have surely guarantee a public relations disaster. There were times when members of her Council, like Cecil, in sheer desperation, considered the possibility of the Queen marrying Dudley, but they were also conscious of the fact that such a marriage would utterly destroy the Queen's prestige in the country. Such a phenomenon would weaken the position of England

From a political standpoint within Europe and threaten the status quo of England of the country at that time. Both situations would have been objectionable to say the least and in direct conflict with the best interest of a responsible monarch.

3.2 The Murder of Lord Darnley

An almost identical situation was brought about in a neighbouring country seven years later, in which Mary Queen of Scots experienced a similarly considerable strain,

19 too. In contrast to Elizabeth, she was married and gave Scotland an heir, James VI. She chose her husband, Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley according to her own wish, which was perceived as a symbolic breaking away from the control of other authorities who substantially influenced her personal, and also political, life so far. However, it was also critical for the strengthening of her position on both domestic as well as international political level because it left her at the mercy of Scottish noble factions (Mueller 709).

The marriage to her cousin, who also disposed of a claim to the English throne, aroused heated debates in Europe and issued a threat to England. Hume refers to that marriage as based on “irresistible allurement, amorous passion which overrode her judgement and brought about a union, unnecessary and unwise” (Hume, qtd. in Richardson 126).

Nevertheless, as it showed later, the connection turned out to be unnecessary, but it was certainly not unwise. The period after the wedding and after delivering of the male heir was considered the most promising, simultaneously strengthening the position of

Scotland in regard to England and intensifying the threat of succession to the English throne. Major Hume regards Mary as representing “in her own person the principle which, if she had succeeded, would have destroyed the Reformation and established the supremacy of Spanish Catholicism in Europe” (qtd. in Richardson 126). Thus Mary found herself in an advantageous position from which she could enforce her rightful claim to the throne.

From a humane point of view, Mary was allowed to experience a legitimate relationship built on mutual affection. In sixteenth-century Europe, a marriage of this kind was rather an unprecedented dispensation. After the birth of James VI, Mary entered into negotiations with the English to name Elizabeth as the boy’s “protector” in the event of his mother’s death. According to Guy, this was a “masterstroke” (266) that brought the English Queen over to Mary’s side, even to the extent that Elizabeth was

20 willing to review Mary’s claim to the English throne. Darnley’s murder stopped these negotiations in their tracks (Mueller 710). Mary’s choice of marrying Darnley was therefore an act linking the personal wish and political asset, the first evoking uproar for the subjectivity of the decision, the latter triumphing against her rivals through the heir that she provided.

Mary’s reputed passivity and her apparent apathy toward the subsequent investigation was suggested by other politicians to whom a power division would be advantageous. As James Ormiston, one of Bothwell's men confessed, James Hepburn,

Earl of Bothwell and the third husband of the Scottish Queen, and James Douglas, Earl of Morton plotted against Darnley: “It was thought expedient and most profitable for the common wealth . . . that such a young fool and proud tyrant should not reign or bear rule over them; . . . that he should be put off by one way or another; and whosoever should take the deed in hand or do it, they should defend.” (qtd. in Bell, Life 33) The murder which followed is according to Alison Weir “the most celebrated mystery in

Scottish history” (21). The official story, vouched for by the Commission held in

England, and still accepted by some, is that on the night of Sunday, Feb 9, 1567, when

Darnley was asleep in the house at Kirk o’ Field, gunpowder was poured into the

Queen's chamber – the room below his own – and exploded there about two o’clock in the morning. His body and that of his servant were flung out by the explosion, and came to rest at a point about forty feet from the house. The conspirators were few in number, and Bothwell was their leader (Wright 230-31). Weir then remarks that there were no visible marks of strangulation or violence on the body. John Knox claimed the surgeons who examined the body were lying, and that Darnley had been strangled, but all the sources agree there were no marks on the body (255), which can be perceived as an argument perfectly expectable from such a strong opponent to female rulers.

21

Nevertheless, Darnley was proved to die in a violent act (Graham 1174), unlike

Amy Robsart, but the noticeably similar circumstances are undeniable. In England, there was Elizabeth and Dudley, who were maintaining some romantic liaisons and faced accusation of participation in the death of Amy in order to prolong their personal interests. In Scotland, there was Queen Mary, suspected of keeping an amorous affair with James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell and commanding him to dispatch Henry Darnley.

Just like Elizabeth, Mary became an object of defamation and her image was jeopardized by popular public verdict.

The zeal with which both cases were investigated came to have a decided impact on the future political activity of these Queens. As stated in the previous sub-chapter,

Elizabeth took a tactful stand towards the issue. She sent Dudley away from the court, urging him to investigate the case and actively supported the investigation until a solid verdict could be verified. Such behaviour proved to be prudent forethought and

Elizabeth subsequently managed to conclude the case and recall Dudley back into service. Unfortunately Mary did not manage to contain the rumours surrounding her own behaviour with the same level of discretion and so ensued a scandal and tarnished

Mary’s reputation with irrevocable results. Instead of intense investigations, Mary remained in steadfast in her position, allowing murderous accomplices to abscond without trial following a verdict of a death by natural causes, thereby exonerating

Bothwell of direct blame, much to be astonishment of her peers. One audacious action was followed by another when Mary remained resolute that she would not dismiss

Bothwell from her service. On the contrary, Mary chose to reward the loyalty he expressed when Darnley killed her Secretary in her presence (in a high stage of pregnancy) and the loyalty that Bothwell confirmed now by getting rid of her undesirable brute husband. It is stated in a biography by Stefan Zweig that Bothwell

22 was a man possessing “the aura of virility that radiates from him, his arrogant savagery, ruthless violence, the atmosphere of war and victory, arouses sensual seduction (Zweig n. pag.). His aggressively ambitious character is indicative of a man who most likely used his knowledge to extort that which he wanted from the Queen. Nevertheless,

Bothwell, now Duke of Orkney, gained the coveted power and brought the Queen to consent to marriage with him. As the Spanish ambassador Guzman de Silva wrote to his

Majesty Phillip II: “The Queen had indeed consulted two or three Catholic bishops on the matter before she married, and they gave it as their opinion that she could do so, because Bothwell’s wife was related to him in the fourth degree. He, however, had told her that she could not and should not attempt it” (Pollen 520). He continued with a meaningful statement that “he would affirm, upon his solemn oath, that until the overtures for the marriage with Bothwell began, he had never seen a woman of greater virtue, courage and honesty” (Pollen 520). This Spanish opinion on the matter, which was in Elizabeth’s case perceptibly more uncompromising now appears more restrained and guiding.

Her scandalous decision to marry a man suspected from the murder of her husband, the King, unleashed indignation throughout the country. Marry suddenly found herself without the virtuous reputation she used to possess and was confronted with gross derision in the streets of Edinburgh. By lowering her esteem, she unwittingly allowed the rebels and discontent nobility to gain ground.

On the 20th of June 1567, a casket with letters of dubious authorship was discovered and ascribed to Mary. The discovery of the letters by Mary’s enemies strengthened the rebels’ position in the critical situation. Among the most engaged accusers were the Earl of Lennox, Henry Darnley’s father, and Mary’s half-brother

James Stuart, Earl of Moray. They both fostered an interest in political affairs on the

23 grounds of their personal concerns. Lennox was compelled to restore the forfeited property of his family and Moray’s regency was afflicted by Mary’s return to Scotland from France, which markedly limited the power he previously commanded.

However to clarify, within the bounds of possibility, the speculations that circulated around the casket letters, it is crucial to summarize what has been discovered so far. It is known that the casket letters are the only significant proof against Mary concerning the Kirk o’ Field incident. Moreover, this relates namely and only to Letter

2, commonly known as the “Long Glasgow Letter”. “Therefore, if the letter is false, there is no proof of her complicity” (Villius 518). Despite the shadow of doubt cast, the letter was used as a proof convincing enough to declare Mary’s guilt.

The straightforwardness of the trial ordered against the Scottish Queen provoked sharp disagreement of many historians. For example Markham Thorpe, who prepared the Calendar of State Papers relating to Scotland during Mary’s reign, declared that “the documents were generally open to the gravest suspicion – abundance of insinuation, much assertion of guilt, but proof nowhere” (xxvi). The members of the Historical

Commission arrived at the same conclusion that none of the series could be used as direct evidence against Mary, and some of them have been suspiciously manipulated

(Skelton 334). In the whole letter, which counts about 3500 words, there are only two sentences which could possibly relate to the murder plot: “Think also if you will not find some invention more secret by physick, for he is to take physick at Craigmillar and the baths also. And shall not come forth of a long time” (qtd. in Henderson 138). As mentioned above, by the session of the court there was not only the casket but several documents produced as a guaranteed proof of Mary’s guilt. Beside the letters, there was

Moray’s journal, Crawford’s declaration, Morton’s deposition and Lennox’s indictment.

It is remarkable that during Mary’s stay in Glasgow – a period, in which are the

24 discrediting letters believed to originate, the Queen was met on her way to Glasgow by

Crawford who was in service of Lennox, Darnley’s father. The reason why Lennox sent him there was to “convey his master’s [Lennox] apologies for not coming to meet her himself” (Villius 524). After that a conversation followed, which was in detail forwarded to Lennox and from Lennox to Moray. Hans Villius argues that Crawford was Lennox’s informer and Moray was dependent on Lennox for his information.

Moreover, it was again Lenox who persistently collected evidence against Mary. The fact that the casket letters were provided by Moray; deposited and copied by Lennox, by whom they also disappeared after the conferences concluded with the verdict in favour of the accusers, suggests a trace of an aimed campaign against Mary (528).

There are also historians who attempted to substantiate the authenticity of the letters. Henderson, a famous dissenter of the forgery-theory, points out that in the letter in question there are references to Mary's private affairs, and to other circumstances which could not have been known to any but those in her company at Glasgow. It would be hazardous to detail such conversations if they never took place. Hamilton and

Livingstone would have detected the forgery as soon as the letter was produced (76).

Contradictory to this argument is, however, the fact that a portion of the letter was founded on Crawford's deposition as it is clarified below.

Crawford’s evidence was enriched with several alternations with a purpose to establish a prejudice against the Queen. Villius emphasizes that there are apparent mistranslations of the French “ne” and “ne-pas” which causes the sentences not to make sense, and by examining the rough draft of the document in the University Library in

Cambridge it was found out that Crawford originally crossed out the nonsensical part of the sentence and continued with additions and alternations to make the text logical and understandable (525). Hence the deposition is found out to be almost entirely taken

25 from the Long Glasgow Letter. It is written in obvious favour to Darnley and Lennox, depicts Darnley as a devoted, loving husband who does all in his power to please the

Queen. Lennox even asserts in his indictment that Darnley was an innocent lamb

(MacRobert 22). Such a provocative black and white illustration of the King and Queen calls for an insight into the methods that the Queen’s enemies used. Every document put forward by the Queen’s enemies at the conference contains a clear assertion of her guilt; the casket letter discussed is the only exception. (Villius 334) Although Henderson advanced a cogent argument in favour of the genuineness of the letter, the overriding line of reasoning articulated by Villius reveals some crucial facts that can hardly be omitted. They are continued by MacRobert’s survey that the conference was not utterly a judicial process but rather a political one (95) and based the verdict that these testimonies provided. These proofs however, originated from a rebel source which was biased towards the Queen for personal as well as political reasons. By eliminating Mary from the scene, these interests could have been either avenged by Lennox, or achieved by Moray. The fact that the administration was willing to suspend the conference in order to wait for supporting evidence which only produced documents containing similar passages, phrases and word order, portrays the accusers together with the jury in a rather unflattering counterfeited light.

The assumption of some historians that the Queen forgot to sign the letter contributed to the ambiguity circulating around the casket letters. In fact, the letter has not only not been signed, but also never addressed, nor pierced in order to be fastened together by the corner of the cover. There is no trace of a seal (Pollen 535). Since the syntax, pronunciation and spelling of the particular words in the letter have been examined with no specific result, the absence of the signature offers a loophole. There was an attempt to examine the authenticity in a scientific way, just as it was contrived in

26

Amy Robsart’s case. The scientific test of the authenticity of letter fails because, as

Sallis stresses, all disputed and undisputed letters consist of less than 4000 words show the translators’ style, not the original authorship (456). However, today’s expert examination of the authenticity of the signature is based on the supposition that no one is able to sign twice with complete precision. A verdict can be achieved upon the detailed examination of correspondence of the natural variability of the writer’s script

(PČR n. pag.). Therefore, a scientist should be provided with the opportunity to conduct an expert examination of the handwriting of the signatures. It is more likely to provide a reliable result from which a more detailed analysis can be formed. The fact that the signature is absent in the casket Letter 2 casts doubt on the whole scurrilous campaign against Mary with the aim of removing her from the throne and placing the political power back in Moray’s hands, who was, nevertheless, suspiciously active throughout the whole incident and its investigation.

Although the analysis is inclined toward a conclusion that Mary was a victim of injustice, the actual verdict is to her detriment is not the key aspect of the problem.

Comparably to Elizabeth’s case and investigation, Mary did not decide the issue at the conference either. Regrettably, her future political facilities were determined in the period after the incident and before the proceedings. While Elizabeth endeavoured to keep the mishap at arm’s length, Mary did not succeed in showing sufficient interest into the inquiry which followed the death of her husband which threw doubts on her innocence. By marrying the presumable murderer, though maybe involuntarily, her reputation suffered irrecoverable degradation.

27

4. Fictional Representation: Fiction and Faction

The turmoil which surrounded the lives of the two Queens represented a significant turning shift in the history of the two nations within the British Isles. The version of events propounded to the public merits critical attention because over time, opinion and hypothesis has become widely accepted as historically accurate, but one has to ponder the question whether such acceptance deserves to be unquestioned.

Although not clarified with ultimate result so far, the version propounded to public merits critical attention because it forms the general opinion. The most popular historical novels analysed here, which probed this issue are those of Jean Plaidy, namely

Royal Road to Fotheringay, whose work is put into contrast with Mary Queen of Scots and the Isles, compiled by Margaret George who also wrote a similarly extensive biography of Elizabeth I.

In Plaidy’s novel, a testament is made to a warm-hearted nature resplendent in her Mary’s character. This portrayal of her character appears to be of a particular importance to the author throughout the eight hundred plus pages of her work. There is great empathy conveyed toward Mary, her character, feelings and thought processes, which are crucial for the reader to ascertain an understanding of the woman behind the legend. Her positive initial position is, in any case, highlighted by her sojourn at the

French court where she attracted and carried remarkable favour, furthered by her sympathetic and kind nature. However, there are also insinuations regarding the manipulation of the child Queen, particularly such acts as the signing of treaties, the gravity of which the young Queen may have struggled to understand in its entirety.

There were also insinuations about abuse by Cardinal de Lorraine; Plaidy depicts

Lorraine’s demands upon Mary to experience sexual intercourse in order to provide an heir: “remember the duty as I have taught it . . . . You can hide nothing from me . . . the

28 woman I see behind those gentle eyes, ah, what pleasure, what transcendent joy for the one who would be fortunate enough to be your lover!” (119). Thus, strong enchantment with the teenage Queen is revealed.

Given the inevitable impact of such early physical and a mental exploitation of the Queen’s innocence that unsurprisingly resulted in an adult woman of such emotional ferocity, this fact goes a long way to provide an explanation and potential justification for the personal slips which led to such detrimental political distastes. This again relates to the condemnation of a match with Darnley and Bothwell which was so fervidly rejected. Mary was indeed a matriarch but she was first a human being. It is important to bear in mind that the young Queen experienced the death of her father, her mother and also her husband. She grew up in a foreign country and lived in a hospitable, yet rather impersonal and constrained sphere of existence, constantly limited by the instructions to meet her reputation as a Queen. To further reduce the child’s development to such a great extent within strict social and political is assured of creating a mind with a maligned prospective due to the suppression of natural emotional evolution and growth.

To paraphrase Plaidy; Francois himself revealed to Mary that his mother, Catherine de

Medici, loved him, because he was the King. She also loved Charles, his younger brother, for if Francois died, he would become King. However, the other members of the family, she would decide whether to love or not according to their prospect of political success (134). Apparently, both love and life were of little importance in such circles unless they served to extension of power. Family ties as they are known today were seemingly absent, since the key aspect of such ties – the emotional connection and reinforcement – was imperceptible.

Nonetheless, the powerful effect of oxytocin and other such hormones present in a woman’s body, particularly during ovulation and pregnancy, are impossible to repress,

29 irrespective of rank and social standing. When Mary met Henry Darnley, also a devoted

Catholic and a claimant to the English throne, her subsequent marriage to Darnley proved to be a politically prudent endeavour, because the union strengthened Mary’s position and represented a significant to England and Protestant Reformation. Mary was very fortunate and privileged to be able to marry a man she was enamoured of, a luxury seldom afforded to those with such political standing. When Plaidy outlines the conversation between Darnley and his father, Earl of Lennox, the Earl warns his son that “your looks are fine enough... but if [the Queen] should discover your drinking habits and how violent you become when you indulge them; if she learns of your adventures with village girls and tavern sluts” (319), and is unexcitedly disclaimed with

Darnley’s words that “she shall not. I will be angelic and then Her Majesty will give me the crown” (319). This quotation, however, provides a simplified and perhaps somewhat distilled depiction of reality. However, Mary was in truth overwhelmed by Darnley’s youthful allure and counted this fact among reasons as to why to marry Darnley over and above the many potential suitors from whom she could choose. According to

Plaidy, Mary’s feelings for Darnley were far more potent than simple lust: “she was eager to fall in love...tremulously eager for passion to overtake her” (321). Plaidy further clarifies that “Mary’s sensuality was clamouring for expression” (321).

Although the author does not dwell on this point for long, she underlines the importance of the physical and sexual attraction of the Queen toward Darnley, particularly in their courtship. The suppression of Mary’s natural proclivities was further protracted by her assumption of Scottish rule and her marriage to Darnley provided companionship and intimate connection she craved. Prior to her marriage, the frustration endured by the young Queen is sure to have clouded her judgement.

30

The marriage with Darnley helped to recover Mary’s poise and allowed her to function on a standard base until she met Bothwell, “a man who had the appearance of

Norse warrior, over-powering vitality, flashing eyes, sensual mouth which suggested that he was a man of many adventures, sexual and warlike” (Plaidy 159). Both authors take the passionate romance between Mary and Bothwell for granted, however,

Margaret George perceptibly more daring when compared to Plaidy’s writings on this matter. Although the first consummation between the lovers was perhaps more akin to an assault than a seduction, Plaidy suggests that Mary did at first resist Bothwell’s advances. However, it seems that such turgid advances were exactly what the Queen longed for, and thus began their affair. Plaidy mentions in her text that Mary “tried to kick and bite, which is all she could do for she was pinioned” (Plaidy 410). The event is portrayed rather differently by George for in her writings he characterises the Queen as sexually confident and perhaps even the protagonist. When Bothwell attempts to seduce the Queen “for there is magic in her” (George 404) and his thoughts of her husband are

“drowned in desire” (405), the Queen “gives a sweet laugh” (405) and asks him to block the door to ensure privacy. The act itself is described in explicit detail comprising of some four pages or so in George’s book, undoubtedly intended to capture the reader’s attention. Both authors made very different illustration of the same event, neither of which may ever prove to be validated as truth. To understand the implications of the union which followed thereafter, it is important to consider the violations on Mary’s psychological developments in early life if a thorough analysis and conclusion is to be arrived at.

This claim does not question Mary’s educational years in France for she was obviously satisfied with the comfort she experienced at the French court. However, it is evident that Mary’s immature understanding of her femininity is due to the absence of

31 fundamental elements denied her during her formative years. Such an objection could be possibly raised against all the ruling Queens of that time but, surprisingly, few were exposed to this risk to a comparable extent. Mary de Guise was appointed the regent of

Scotland after she bore five children, Mary I was incapable of bearing a child.

Elizabeth, furthermore, was not only infertile but also avoided the humiliation that was subjected to her sister Mary I, after she failed in this respect in her marriage with

Spanish King Philip II. Plaidy points out Elizabeth’s intrigue when stating that

“[Elizabeth] being a virgin” (336) could scarcely speak of the sins of the Scottish

Queen; the latter opposing that “the English Queen protests her virtue continually. It is understandable that she should protect what is left for her, for that virtue has been much besmirched by rumour” (336). The fertility or lack thereof became obviously a subject of jealousy which both Queens endured. Whilst Elizabeth may have envied Mary’s ability to bear children, this have also allowed Elizabeth to escape the humiliation of bearing a bastard child.

Such jeopardy cast fundamental doubts on the eligibility of female rulers for this precise reason. The occurrence of royal bastards was commonplace as long as they were conceived by Kings. However, in the case of female rulers, such a desire could not be satisfied in the same manner which led to prevailing tensions about the stability of the sovereign and their possible inclination to misdemeanour. When Mary sought a way to rid herself of Darnley in order that she make room for her affection for Bothwell, she lamented the inequity that her uncle could yield to any intimate relationship, “activities restricted to men and forbidden to women” (George 263), but she could not do so.

In order that a sovereign may be fervently discouraged from such transgressions, several political philosophies were introduced to curb the behaviours of those responsible for political stability for the nation. The underlying ethics of the political

32 philosophies claim that human conduct cannot be dependent on affection to something or someone, although it admits that the heart is driven by motives without rational explanation (Dohnal n. pag.). Hence it is not reasonable to obey inexplicable and unwitting impulses because such a conduct cannot be entirely controlled and is inevitable that the person would struggle to bear complete responsibility and justify conducts based primarily on feelings and emotions. According to Machiavelli’s Prince, published shortly before Mary’s birth, “the assessment of human conduct, especially that of a sovereign, is indicated by the result and contribution to the country.

Nevertheless, the subjects are expected to obey meekly and have proper respect for the sovereign as long as he or she does or demands something downright degenerated.”

(n. pag.) The result and contribution – the decisive aspect of this theory– are in the case of Mary profoundly negative. Bothwell manipulated her by using her jealousy,

“[Bothwell] have a greater regard for [other women] than for me!” (Plaidy 429), against his other mistresses, a well pointed attack on her femininity, and thus beguiled the coveted power from Queen’s hands “I could give you what she never can. A crown”

(429). This Mary’s blatant display of weakness and supplication corroborates

Machiavelli’s theory. This too is supported in Mary’s conversation with John Knox: “So you believe that if subjects have the power, it is right and proper for them to resist the crown?”, to which he answers “if princes exceed their bounds and do that which God demands should be resisted, then I do, Madam” (Plaidy 240). From this point of view, she could not possibly escape the public judgment. George uses the words of Maitland,

Mary’s Secretary of State, to highlight the derision on her humiliation: “due to the anger of the people . . . it may prove necessary to alleviate the burden you carry. I see the crown has proven too weighty for that slender neck” (George 543). At this point, Mary quickly realized the gravity of what she had done and the implications therein. She was

33 aware of her failure in respect to God, and the cause she gave her folk to call her a whore and suspect her of murder (561).

The crucial proof of her guilt was, nevertheless, omitted slightly in both novels.

The authors seek to avoid the controversy connected with the romantic affairs of both

Queens. Elizabeth’s amorous relationship is taken for granted, for Mary’s sake, however, at least a partial authenticity of the casket letters is also admitted. The way these fact are represented by each author, varies considerably. While Plaidy suggests the prevailing version that Mary arranged Darnley’s stay at Kirk o’Field where he was murdered (441), George is rather unconventional. According to George, Darnley announced to the Queen’s astonishment, that “he wished to go to Kirk o’ Field” (439).

If true, this statement noticeably degrades a likelihood of Mary ever being an accomplice and thus weakens the theory of conspiracy significantly.

Bothwell’s expectations of achieving the supreme power in Scotland, achieved by murdering the Queen’s husband, turned out to be extremely short-lived. Despite

Mary’s wish to marry him, she soon became aware of the catastrophe they were both heading to. In the novels examined, both authors state that she was heard uttering “I wish I was dead” for she feared they would remain prevented from the life together. The utterance, nevertheless, needs to be examined in a specific context. It was pronounced when Bothwell was injured in a combat, that if she lost such a courageous, redoubtable man, the only one in whom she entirely laid her faith, it would deprive her of her position and enable the adverse, Protestant and rational party to grow in strength, audacity and potentially threaten her own stature. After rumours of Queen’s utterance spread, it became apparent that the marriage was one of necessity and desperation, what was in spite of all odds inevitable, as she was already pregnant. The Queen allowed herself to be manipulated from the very first day when she relented to Botwell’s

34 advances, both physically and psychologically. George repeats three times the emphasis on Mary carrying Bothwell’s child and that she “would never allow the child to be branded bastard, dishonouring all three of them” (560). This fact, in context with the above stated utterance, provides a strong hint of Mary’s no-win situation. However, such a claim does not intend, and cannot, justify Mary’s yield to amorous passion since she – according to the uncompromising chronology – did not conceive during the first sexual intercourse with Bothwell. Therefore, she obviously wilfully succumbed to the romance some time later. It would be fair, on the other hand, to indicate her inherent physical dispositions that induced her to that act, without her being able to rationally assess of the risk due to the constant suppression in adolescent maturing caused by political obligations and manipulations.

35

5. Conclusion

The famous period of Tudor England was accompanied by many sharp policy reversals, such as the establishment of the Church of England, simultaneous Protestant

Reformation and the phenomenon of elevated concentration of female monarchs. These political, religious and social changes had a significant impact on the perception of political development and evoked general doubt about the stability in the British Isles.

A serious doubt loomed over the eligibility of women to rule effectively because it implies a cardinal interface for the future of the country. With Elizabeth’s failure to marry and inability to produce a legitimate heir, the previous bias that Queens are predestined to the role of a child-bearer was challenged. Therefore, alternative expectations were posed with regard to the successful fulfilment of her role as a Queen.

She met these expectations by developing a firm position among her male counsellors, owing to the zeal, vigour and ambition which that she had to adopt during childhood when the Parliament proclaimed her illegitimate. As an instinctive reaction to her probable infertility, she strategically placed the political interests above the personal ones in her range of values, by which she managed to persuade her advisors of her devotion to the country.

Her rival, Mary Queen of Scots, enjoyed quite a contrasting initial position. She was literally born a Queen and since her very first days, the most favourable conditions for appropriate education of the future Queen of the three countries mentioned were created. This advantage, nonetheless, induced incidental repercussions on the heavily burdened child. Conversely, Mary seized the opportunity to nurture her unique talents, and fostered her natural warm-hearted, deferential disposition. This kindness was seen as weakness by her peer within the French court and she subsequently became a victim of the pressure inherent to her position. This proved to be a powerful negative influence

36 which surely hindered the Queen’s ability to make appropriate choices in difficult situations. Elizabeth exploited the perceived differences between the two women to great effect, simultaneously seeking to strengthen her position whilst weakening that of

Mary. Whilst the two women differed in many ways, it seems apparent that the most significant differences in their characters stand from their dramatically different upbringings. The inverse proportion of the actual power in hands of the rivalling Queens seems then to have its causation in the influence of their early girlhood formations.

One such illustration of this divergence of mind-set is the way in which each

Queen conducted their affairs surrounding the murder of each Queen’s husbands. When

Amy Robsart died under suspicious circumstances and Elizabeth’s affair with Robert

Dudley was jeopardized, the Queen demonstrated her political potential by renouncing her intimate association with him to the benefit of maintaining the stability in the country. The couple, aware of the threat of being discredited in public, effectively supported a number of investigations to quieten the circulating rumours. These slanders were, additionally, far more vicious that those targeted on similar, however, also more serious, slips of Mary Queen of Scots. The Catholic European countries appeared to be more permissive to Mary – an alleviation that did discourage her from putting her own desired before the good of the nation. When her husband, Henry Darnley, was assassinated on the grounds of his unwished intervention at the court, Mary, without grief or proper investigation, married the suspected accomplice of the murder. The core of these two comparable situations with an alarmingly dissimilar evaluation is to be found in the intended or non-intended division of power. Basically, the substantial amount of executive power was confided to the counsellors with the sovereign as a representative. In the case of Elizabeth, it was her that assumed the majority of responsibility and decision-making. Though criticized by aggrieved William Cecil for

37 distributing her power, she deliberately maintained the attitude that divested her of affectionate Dudley but wittingly avoided the risk of deprivation of the political position she had achieved. A dramatic contrast is drawn with Mary’s action, in which she was heavily influenced by her observations of how court operated in France. The assignment of power to a loyal and redoubtable noble proved to be a tool for securing dominance in her restless country. However, the insistence on the marriage is a relatively vain concern in respect to the political obligation of a responsible monarch. The womanly inclinations to emotive behaviour in high offices was expected and seriously feared by men; the respect to the unavoidable fact that the female gender made personal affairs far more politically charged nevertheless fell within the prerequisites of a successful female ruler.

To provide both Queens, within the bounds of possibilities, with a defence regarded to some biased incriminating materials or testimonies, an analysis of Amy

Robsart’s death and the authenticity of the casket letters which has now been introduced. Amy’s mortal disease is today, scientifically explicable, thanks to tremendous progress made in the field of modern medicine. In the contemporary investigation, an accident of this kind is primarily examined as a result of cancerous metastasis, which rules out the suspicion of a violent death. Therefore, the steadfastness of Elizabeth and Dudley during the inquiry gains a solid ground and highlights the

Queen’s anxiety of her reputation and political stability although it is manifested that she faced an unjustified suspicion of complicity.

Unfortunately, to examine the casket letters in a similar way and provide an ultimate result is not entirely possible since the original letters were destroyed during the reign of James VI, Mary Queen of Scots’ only son. Only copies of the letters survived. The so far published historical studies agree, nevertheless, on the fact that

38 some sections of the incriminating Letter 2 are alternated and added. The other documents produced against Mary include texts of a similar structure, word order and content in general, all depicting the wickedness of the Queen and proclaiming unquestionable innocence of her ever having killed her husband. Moreover, all such papers were submitted by Mary’s adversaries, namely those nobles who again struggled to seize the opportunity to deprive Mary of her weakening power in Scotland. Since the documents are likely to be partly genuine and partly forged, it is expedient not to base judgement on a proof that had been obviously alternated on purpose. This outer analysis hence alludes back to the principal exploration of the behavioural patterns determinative for the ruler, from where the impulses for a particular action emerge.

Finally, the concept of reputation based on the psychological influences and dubious accusation is analysed in connection with the interpretations of historical novels examined, both dealing with the story of Mary Queen of Scots. The authors lay a special emphasis on the emotional and visual depiction of the Queen to provide a deeper insight into her train of thought and inducements that demarcate her action. As a result, they both seem to negatively depict Mary’s emotional stability and counterpoint Elizabeth’s masculine attributes in both behaviour and appearance. The prevailing conviction of the mutual affection between Mary and Bothwell appears that Margaret George may have exaggerated the facts to support their own findings and conclusions. The undeniable affection between Mary and Bothwell is corroborated in both novels, however, each author seems to have adopted a very different prospective of quite how their affair began.

The illustration of the decision-making process suggests an analogy between

Mary, or Elizabeth, and a man of today. One’s decision is hardly ever free of any outer influences such as the social or moral aspects, and therefore, every decision-making

39 pattern is correlative of rather psychological features of each individual. In the period discussed here, the deeds and their consequences were cardinal for the reputation of respective countries and its record in historical annals. Exploration of the motives of acts, also criminal, from the psychological point of view was basically unknown way of investigation and focused rather on the final implications for the country, which resulted, for example, in canonisation of Elizabeth, but tragic destiny, despite intrigued circumstances, for Mary. Hence it is suggested by the result of this thesis to not only discuss the extant proofs and reports of trials, but also to adopt a more psychological viewpoint of the compelling reasons for the analysed historical shifts, since it was human beings who created them.

40

6. Works Cited

Abercromby, Patrick. Preface. History of the Campaigns of 1548 and 1549. By Jean de

Beaugué. 1707. lii-lxix. Google Books. Web. 7. Apr. 2013.

Adams, Simon. “Queen Elizabeth’s Eyes at Court.” Leicester and the Court: Essays in

Elizabethan Politics. Manchester: Manchester UP, 2002. 133-50. Google Books.

Web. Manchester University Press. 9 Apr. 2013.

Adlard, George. Amye Robsart and the Earl of Leycester. Memoirs and Correspondence

of Sir Robert Dudley. A History of Kenilworth Castle. Teddington: Wildhern

Press, 2007. Google Books. Web. 7 Apr. 2013

Aird, Ian. “The Death of Amy Robsart.” English Historical Review 71.278 (1956):

69-79. JSTOR. Web. 23 Mar. 2013.

Ashmole, Elias. The Antiquities of Berkshire. London, 1719. Google Books. Web.

7 Apr. 2013

Bell, Henry Glassford. “The Life of Mary Queen of Scots.” The North American Review

34.74 (1832): 144-77. JSTOR. Web. 13 Mar. 2013.

---. The Life of Mary Queen of Scots. Vol. 2. Edinburgh, 1830. Google Books. Web. 7

Apr. 2013.

Bingham, Caroline. “Flodden and its Aftermath.” Who are the Scots?: And, The Scottish

Nation. Ed. Gordon Menzies. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2002. 177-91. Google

Books. Web. 7 Apr. 2013.

Bonner, Elizabeth. “French Naturalization of the Scots in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth

Centuries.” Historical Journal 40.4 (1997): 1085-115. JSTOR. Web. 17 Apr.

2013.

---. “Scotland’s ‘Auld Alliance’ with France, 1295-1560.” History 84.273 (1999): 5-30.

Wiley Online Library. Web. 7 Mar. 2013.

41

Boucher, Elise C. “Amy Robsart, Lost and Never Found.” Merouda.com. Merouda

Pendray, n.d. Web. 7 Apr. 2013.

Dohnal, Vojtěch. “Ekonomie a mravní poznání – oheň a voda nebo dvě strany téže

mince?” Výpočetní centrum VŠE 2008. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.

Dumas, Alexandre. Mary Stuart. 1910. Project Gutenberg. Web. 17 Apr. 2013.

George, Margaret. Mary Queen of Scotland and the Isles. New York City: St. Martin’s

Press, 1997. Print.

Goodare, Julian. “The First Parliament of Mary, Queen of Scots.” The Sixteenth Century

Journal 36.1 (2005): 55-75. JSTOR. Web. 7 Apr. 2013.

Graham, Michael F. Rev. of Queen of Scots: The True Life of Mary Stuart, by John

Guy. The Sixteenth Century Journal 36.4 (2005): 1173-75. JSTOR. Web. 7 Apr.

2013.

Gray, William. “Life of Sir Philip Sidney.” The Miscellaneous Works of Sir Philip

Sidney, knt. Boston, 1860. 1-58. Google Books. Web. 7 Apr. 2013.

Guy, John. My Heart is My Own: The Life of Mary Queen of Scots. New York: Harper

Perennial, 2004. Print.

Hanson, Marilee. “Queen Elizabeth I: Biography, Portraits, Primary Sources.” English

History. Marilee Hanson, n.d. Web. 7 Apr. 2013.

Head, David M., “Henry VIII’s Scottish Policy.” Scottish Historical Review 61.171

(1982): 1-23. JSTOR. Web. 7 Apr. 2013.

Healey, Robert M. “Waiting for Deborah: John Knox and Four Ruling Queens.” The

Sixteenth Century Journal 25.2 (1994): 371-86. JSTOR. Web. 28 Mar. 2013.

Henderson, Thomas Finlayson The Casket Letters and Mary Queen of Scots. Edinburgh,

1890. Internet Archive. Web. 7 Apr. 2013.

42

Hibbert, Christopher. The Virgin Queen: A Personal History of Elizabeth I. London,

Penguin Books: 2010. Print.

Keith, Arthur. “The Skull of Lord Darnley.” British Medical Journal 2.3531 (1928):

456-58. JSTOR. Web. 7 Apr. 2013.

Lang, Andrew. The Valet’s Tragedy and Other Studies. Whitefish, 1903. Google Books.

Web. 7 Apr. 2013.

Lewis, Jone Johnson. “Mary, Queen of Scots: Tragic Figure in the History of Scotland

and England.” About.com. About, 2008. Web. 7 Apr. 2013.

Lingard, John. A History of England from the first Invasion by the Romans. Vol. 7.

Paris, 1826. Google Books. Web 7 Apr. 2013.

Machiavelli, Nicolo. The Prince. Trans. W. K. Marriott. 1532. Project Gutenberg. Web.

27 Mar. 2013.

MacNalty, Arthur S. “Medicine in the Time of Queen Elizabeth I.” British Medical

Journal 1.4821 (1953): 1179-85. PMC. Web. 7 Apr. 2013.

MacRobert, A. E. Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters. London: I. B. Tauris,

2002. Print.

Marshall, Rosalind. “Mary Queen of Scots.” The Official Website of the British

Monarchy. The National Archives, n.d. Web. 7 Apr. 2013.

Mason, Roger. “Renaissance and Reformation: The Sixteenth Century.” Scotland: A

History. Ed. Jenny Wormald. Oxford: OUP, 2005. 93-122. Print.

McLaren, Anne. “Gender, Religion, and Early Modern Nationalism: Elizabeth I, Mary

Queen of Scots, and the Genesis of English Anti-Catholicism.” The American

Historical Review 107.3 (2002): 739-67. JSTOR. Web. 28 Mar. 2013.

---. “The Quest for a King: Gender, Marriage, and Succession in Elizabethan England.”

The Journal of British Studies 41.3 (2002): 259-90. JSTOR. Web. 7 Apr. 2013.

43

Mears, Natalie. “Mary, Queen of Scots.” State Papers Online, 1509–1714. Cengage

Learning, Reading, 2009: 1-12. Gale. Web. 7 Apr. 2013.

Mueller, Robert J. Rev. of Queen of Scots: The True Life of Mary Stuart, by John A.

Guy. Reaissance Quarterly 58.2 (2005): 709-10. Muse. Web. 7 Apr. 2013.

Nau, Claude. The History of Mary Stewart. Ed. Joseph Stevenson. Edinburgh, 1883.

Brittle Books Project. Web. 7 Apr. 2013.

Plaidy, Jean. Royal Road to Fotheringay. London: Arrow Books, 2007. Print.

Plowden, Alison. Two Queens in One Isle. Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 1999. Print.

Policie České republiky (PČR). “Kriminalistické identifikace.” Policie. Kriminalistický

ústav Praha, n.d. Web. 2. Apr. 2013.

Pollen, John Hungerford. Papal Negotiations with Mary Queen of Scots. Edinburgh,

1901. eBooksRead.com. Web. 7 Apr. 2013.

Richards, Judith M. “‘To Promote a Woman to Beare Rule’: Talking of Queens in

Mid-Tudor England.” The Sixteenth Century Journal 28.1 (1997) 101-21.

JSTOR. Web. 27 Mar. 2013.

Richardson, Oliver H. “Mary Queen of Scots in the Light of Recent Historical

Investigations.” The Washington Historical Quarterly 3.2 (1912): 124-30.

JSTOR. Web. 7. Apr. 2013.

Robertson, Mary L. Rev. of Power and Politics in Tudor England, by G. W. Bernard.

Albion 34.2 (2002): 295-97. JSTOR. Web. 7 Apr. 2013.

Sallis, P. and S. Shanmuganathan. “A Blended Text Mining Method for Authorship

Authentication Analysis.” The Second Asia International Conference on

Modelling & Simulation (AMS). DC: IEEE Computer Society 2008. 451-56.

Geoinformatics Research Centre. Web. 6 Apr. 2013.

44

Skelton, John. Maitland of Lethington, and the Scotland of Mary Stuart: A History.

Vol. 2. Edinburgh and London, 1888. eBooksRead.com. Web. 7 Apr. 2013.

Smith, Thomas. De Republica Anglorum. London, 1583. Internet Archive. Web. 7 Apr.

2013.

Strickland, Agnes and Elizabeth Strickland. Lives of the queens of Scotland and English

Princesses Connected with the Regal Succession of Great Britain. Edinburgh,

1852. Online Library. Web. 7 Apr. 2013.

Taylor-Smither, Larrisa. “Elizabeth I: Psychological Profile.” The Sixteenth Century

Journal 15.1 (1984): 47-72. JSTOR. Web. 7 Apr. 2013.

Thorpe, Markham John. Calendar of the State Papers, Relating to Scotland, Preserved in

the State Paper Department of Her Majesty’s Public Reecord Office. London,

1858. Internet Archive. Web. 7 Apr. 2013.

Villius, Hans. “The Casket Letters: A Famous Case Reopened.” The Historical Journal

28.3 (1985): 517-34. JSTOR. Web. 7 Apr. 2013.

Weir, Alison. Mary, Queen of Scots and the Murder of Lord Darnley. Westminster:

Ballantine Books, 2003. ProQuest. Web. 7 Apr. 2013.

Wright, Cuthbert. Rev. of Marie Stuart, by Paule Henry-Bordeaux. The Catholic

Historical Review 32.2 (1946): 230-32. JSTOR. Web. 5 Apr. 2013.

Zweig, Stefan. Mary Stuart. London: Pushkin Press, 2011. Kindle AZW file.

45

7. Résumé

The present work analyses the fundamental aspects undermining the power of sixteenth century female rulers in the British Isles, focusing particularly on Mary Queen of Scots and Elizabeth I. It provides an exploration of selected aspects that are vital for a successful female ruler in male surroundings. A comparison is drawn between the actions of the two Queens during the critical moments of their personal lives which resulted in a far-reaching political impacts. Moreover, a number of social, political, religious, as well as legal challenges posed by the rule of Mary, and Elizabeth, is examined. The prospect of representation of the investigated facts and convictions is reflected upon the interpretations by two prominent contemporary writers. Jean Plaidy‘s and Margaret George’s novels Royal Road to Fotheringay (1955) and Mary Queen of

Scots and the Isles (1992) respectively, are utilized for the case study.

46

8. Resumé

Tato práce zkoumá hlavní aspekty, které podrývaly moc žen-panovnic na

Britských ostrovech v 16. století, přičemž se zaměřuje na Marii, Královnu Skotskou a

Alžbětu I. Poskytuje analýzu vybraných prvků, které byly stěžejní pro úspěšné prosazení těchto panovnic, neustále vystavovaných kritice svých mužských stoupenců i nepřátel, jimiž byly obklopeny. Pro lepší znázornění konkrétních ženských atributů ve vládě předkládá práce srovnání výše zmiňovaných královen a to v situacích, kdy vývoj jejich osobních životů vyvolal dalekosáhlý dopad na politické dění. Práce dále upozorňuje na významné nabourání sociálních, politických, náboženských i právních konvencí, které vláda těchto královen přinesla. V závěru je pak zkoumáno, jakým způsobem jsou fakta a teze analyzované napříč touto prací znázorňovány v různících se interpretacích moderních spisovatelů, konkrétně v románech od Jean Plaidy, Royal

Road to Fotheringay, a Margaret George, Mary Queen of Scots and the Isles.

47