The Royal Society of A Sixteenth Century Murder Mystery: Who Killed ?

Professor Sue Black FRSE, Professor Niamh Nic Daeid FRSE, Professor Richard Shepherd, Dr S. Karly Kehoe and Mr John Dunn

Thursday 24 September 2015, Jedburgh Town Hall

Report by Kate Kennedy

A re-examination of the evidence alluding to the murder of Lord Darnley, husband of Mary Queen of Scots, at Kirk o' Field in February 1567. Professor Sue Black chaired a multidisciplinary team, including an historian, a pathologist and a fire and explosions expert, in an attempt to resolve the 'cold case' of Lord Darnley's murder in the light of modern investigative techniques.

Professor Sue Black opened the event and explained that the panel members are experts in their field. The panel comprised:

Mr John Dunn - Procurator Fiscal for the East of ;

Dr Karly Kehoe - Senior Lecturer in History at Caledonian University, specialising in religion, national identity and migration;

Professor Niamh Nic Daeid – Director of Research at Dundee University’s ‘Centre for Anatomy and Human Identification’; a forensic chemist specialising in fire and explosions; and

Professor Richard Shepherd - Consultant in forensic pathology.

Mr Dunn explained that the evening’s proceedings did not comprise a Fatal Accident Enquiry, in which the Sheriff seeks to determine where and when a death occurred, the cause of the death and any reasonable precautions whereby the death might have been avoided. This event was a discussion and consideration of the facts, circumstances and inferences relating to who killed Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley in February 1567. Indeed, the case of ‘Who Killed Lord Darnley?’ is short of facts and the context is largely historical hearsay. In reassessing this case using modern forensic methods, it is vitally important to consider the motivations of those reporting the case historically and to understand that, for the majority of the ‘facts’, it is possible to attach two or three different interpretations.

Mr Dunn asked Dr Kehoe to outline the social, political and religious context of the crime and asked whether, other than Lord Darnley, there may have been other intended victims. Dr Kehoe explained that in the mid-16th Century, the line of Royal succession in Britain was under threat; by the time of Darnley’s death, Mary Queen of Scots had a son, the future James VI, but Elizabeth I of England had no heir and was unlikely to produce one. Despite the of 1560, major tensions between Catholicism and Protestantism remained and Protestantism was in no way secure in Scotland or in England. There was a fear that Mary Queen of Scots would reverse the Reformation and bring the Church back to power in Scotland.

Furthermore, in the 16th Century, royal marriages were affairs of the State, not the heart, and it is purported that one of the reasons for Darnley’s murder was because the marriage

1 between Mary and Darnley was not a happy one. Mary’s earlier attempts to secure a high status European marriage had failed and Lord Darnley was somewhat a ‘last resort’. Darnley was born in England in 1545; his mother, a niece of Henry VIII and his father, the , which gave him credibility in England. He was raised in a Catholic household and noted for being handsome, tall and an accomplished lute player. However, many reports also describe him as spoiled, ambitious, self-indulgent, promiscuous and frequently drunk. Mary herself had not been raised in Scotland but in France, amid a very different culture. This somewhat undermined her power in Scotland and she certainly did not wield the same power as Elizabeth in England.

A number of theories exist relating to the possible perpetrators of the crime. High on the list of suggestions was James, Earl of Bothwell, who was close to Mary and may have wished to be rid of Darnley and marry the Queen in order to gain personal power and authority. It has been suggested that Mary was involved with Bothwell in a plot to kill Darnley, her motivation being the end of an unhappy and embarrassing marriage and to protect her son, the future King, and keep him legitimate. Divorce from Darnley was not an option for Mary Queen of Scots, as this would impact on the legitimacy of her son James to become King. Other potential perpetrators include the Confederate Lords, who wished to gain vengeance for Darnley’s betrayal after the murder of Rizzio. Killing Darnley would rid them of an embarrassing kinsman and enable them to gain control of Scotland through the removal of a Catholic Queen, thus cementing Protestantism in Scotland.

Dr Kehoe also stressed the need to consider the role of England and their Crown situation and the extent to which it would have benefited from the murder of Darnley or Mary when considering possible perpetrators. Furthermore, in the event of Darnley’s death and Mary’s abdication or death, Mary’s illegitimate brother, James Stewart, would be able to acquire the ability to rule on behalf of his infant nephew and thus influence the future direction of Scotland.

Mr Dunn asked who, in Dr Kehoe’s view, had the most to gain from Lord Darnley’s death. Dr Kehoe commented that in her opinion, if Darnley were the only intended victim, then this would be Bothwell and Mary Queen of Scots. However, following discussions with the panel members, she does not believe this to be the case and does not consider them to be the likely perpetrators.

Professor Black described the geography of the locus of the crime. The Kirk o’ Fields was about one mile from and close to today’s Chambers Street, where Edinburgh University Law School is now located. Amongst other buildings in the complex were the Old Provost’s House and the Salle, in which Lord Darnley and Mary were billeted respectively. The Flodden Wall had been built near these buildings a few years previous to the murder and the Old Provost’s House butted up directly to the Wall with no space in between. The Flodden Wall was extremely thick, six feet wide at its base and up to thirty feet high at different points. It tapered up to the banquette area, where there was a balustrade which could be walked along. There was also a window in the Old Provost’s House, at the same height as the banquette, which gave a view of the garden and orchard area situated beyond the Flodden Wall. At the gable end of the building, there was a window which gave a line of sight down the hill heading towards Holyrood Palace.

It is reported that the bodies of Darnley and his manservant Taylor were found in the garden/orchard area. This is depicted in a drawing of the scene of crime created for Lord Cecil, considered a spy for Elizabeth I, following the murder. Professor Black explained that this drawing is not a forensic photograph; it is a cartoon narrative of events, giving the viewer a lot of information about what had happened at the time of and after the event. It is not drawn in a realistic perspective; it is a story not a snapshot. The ‘cartoon’, in addition to showing the deceased, also depicts a number of other features, including a dagger and belt,

2 a chair, a cloth and a jacket. This is the depiction of the crime scene created from evidence seen and given by people, either voluntarily or otherwise, who may have had various political and religious motivations for the details they gave. Professor Black stated that, conversely, forensic science must be impartial.

Professor Nic Daeid considered the physical evidence at the scene, as depicted in Lord Cecil’s drawing, in terms of the explosion which occurred. Explosions, such as those created by gunpowder, are chemical reactions; an oxidising agent reacts quickly with a fuel and this reaction turns the material into a gas which expands and creates a shockwave. It is the shockwave which causes the damage. Gunpowder reacts differently when it is confined or unconfined. There are two main types of explosion, a detonation and a deflagrating explosion. In a detonating explosion, the shockwave moves outwards very quickly, causing significant damage to the surrounding area and the shattering and sheering of nearby materials, including rocks. Within a deflagrating explosion, the shockwave moves more slowly and the surroundings, for example walls of a building, are pushed outwards and upwards; a slower pushing force.

Gunpowder had been used on a large scale since the 14th Century and at the time of Darnley’s death much was known about the safe preparation of the explosive. Gunpowder was made by grinding together three materials in a dangerous process: charcoal, often formed by partially burning willow; sulphur, also used as a fuel; and potassium nitrate, also known as saltpetre, the source of the oxygen in the mixture. To lessen the danger, the materials were prepared with alcohol, water or urine to make a paste which was then formed into balls or pellets. These were left to dry and then gathered together into a pile or barrel; a barrel usually contained about one hundred pounds of material. Gunpowder explosions are set by placing the barrel near the intended explosion site and running an unconfined trail of powder away from this and lighting the trail. The trail of powder is unconfined and burns well until it reaches the barrel, which contains confined powder, causing it to explode. Gunpowder is a deflagrating explosive; a low-power explosive that does not detonate well unless in large quantities.

The Old Provost’s House and the Salle comprised a long narrow building, eighty to eighty- five feet long and built on a sloped area of land. Underneath the building, the cellars varied between seven and two feet deep at the Salle end. Professor Nic Daeid commented that the sources of factual evidential material suggest that the explosion caused no damage to the Flodden Wall and that the debris from the building was relatively confined. This assists in formulating a view in relation to the nature of the explosion. It is reported that about 200 pounds of gunpowder was used in the explosion which destroyed the Salle and most of the Old Provost’s House, with the exception of the end gable wall. The extent of the damage and the remaining structures leads Professor Nic Daeid to believe that the explosion occurred away from the gable end of the Old Provost’s House. Furthermore, the fact that the Flodden Wall appeared to be undamaged suggests that the gunpowder was placed low down in the building, where the Wall measured five to six feet thick. If it had been positioned higher up, the Wall would have been more susceptible to the shock wave of the explosion. Thus, the historical physical evidence suggests that the gunpowder was placed in the cellar or the ground floor of the Salle, rather than in the Old Provost’s House, causing a deflagrating explosion which destroyed the buildings, but not the wall or the gable end of the Old Provost’s House.

Mr Dunn asked, considering the likelihood of the explosion having been a deflagrating push force, whether the position of the bodies of Darnley and Taylor in the orchard could have resulted from them being pushed out of the King’s bedchamber in the Old Provost’s House, over the Flodden Wall, and deposited by the explosion. Professor Nic Daeid commented that it would depend on whether they were beside the window. Most people caught in a deflagrating explosion would suffer significant impact because of the collapse of the building.

3

Explosions happen very quickly and if the force of the explosion had blown the individuals out of the window, they would have needed to be right next to the window. Indeed, to be positioned similarly and next to each other in the orchard, they would also have to have been very close to each other when the explosion happened.

Mr Dunn asked why people at the time would have stressed that the gunpowder had been placed in the Queen’s bedroom in the Old Provost’s House, when modern science appears to be telling us otherwise. The implication being that Mary had been complicit in the crime. Professor Nic Daeid confirmed that if this crime were being investigated today, forensic scientists would reconstruct the explosions based on the suggested different positions of the gunpowder to ascertain which was most likely. Mr Dunn also commented that Mary Queen of Scots had left the building earlier in the evening to attend a party, but she was expected to return that evening. If she had returned when expected, she would have been in the Salle at the time of the explosion in its cellars.

Professor Richard Shepherd was then asked to discuss the position and condition of the bodies in the aftermath of the crime. “All we have to work with is a drawing created for a spy; there is very little physical evidence; indeed none.” However, as it is highly unlikely for the death of two relatively fit young men, found together in an orchard, to have occurred due to natural causes, we have to assume there were unnatural causes. But did the explosion cause the deaths? Within the drawing, Darnley is lying on his back in a slight state of undress. His servant Taylor is in a similar position. Furthermore, Darnley’s hands depicted over his genitalia and dark areas around his groin may imply syphilis or genital disease, or may also be intended to reaffirm the rumours surrounding Darnley’s promiscuous behaviour. In a detonation explosion, there is a flash and a large pressure wave; this causes significant damage to any people caught in the explosion, resulting in amputations, burns and extensive damage to the body. None of these are represented in Cecil’s drawing. The explosion in this case is likely to be a deflagration, but there is no damage on the bodies that would be consistent with this type of explosion either.

There are some historical suggestions that the men were suffocated. Suffocation leaves very few marks, but it is very difficult to suffocate two grown men. Other possibilities such as knives or daggers were a common method of murder at the time; but, again, there is no evidence of this type of injury. Professor Shepherd commented that the depiction of Darnley’s clothing rucked up to chest level often implies that a body has been dragged across the ground by its feet. Thus, from the evidence provided, it is not possible to link the men’s deaths to the explosion, either directly or as a result of the demolition of the building. It is also not possible to ascertain when the bodies arrived in the orchard; were they already dead when they were put there and was this before or after the explosion? Did they sense or hear about the explosion, try to escape and were caught and killed there? Were they killed in the bedchamber and taken out afterwards? But if this was the case “why spoil a good explosion by dragging someone out of it?”

Professor Shepherd concluded that whilst there are real problems confirming the cause of death, he certainly did not believe that they died as a direct result of the explosion. It is most likely that they were killed, moved and their bodies dumped together in the orchard so that they would be found. Mr Dunn asked whether it was possible that at 2 am, Darnley could have heard a party of people approaching the building, looked out of the window and, in fear of his life, attempted to escape through the window. It has been suggested that a chair was lowered to the ground by a rope or bed sheets for him to escape. Professor Shepherd commented that the collapse of the building wouldn’t have allowed time for escape at the time of the explosion.

Mr Dunn asked Dr Kehoe whether the dagger depicted in Lord Cecil’s drawing was significant and emblematic. Dr Kehoe stated that in this drawing, and in others of the time,

4 every item has meaning; and in terms of the dagger, it may relate to the murder of Rizzio by stabbing in the March of the previous year. Rizzio was killed as a result of a conspiracy plot between Darnley and the Protestant Lords. Rizzio was a favourite of Mary and Darnley was jealous of their close relationship. Darnley was responsible for the planning of the murder and he intended Mary to witness it in the hope that she would miscarry the child she was carrying (James VI) through stress. Darnley’s entire focus was to become King in his own right and the birth of a healthy baby would mean he was knocked out of the line of succession. Mr Dunn asked about Darnley’s response to his co-conspirators. Dr Kehoe confirmed that he had no integrity and in order to save himself he turned his back on them. However, they showed Mary the evidence that he was involved.

Mr Dunn then asked if Mary had died, what would have stood between Darnley and the Crown. Dr Kehoe replied that the future James VI, their baby, had been born healthy in June of the previous year. He would be King of Scotland. At the time of Darnley’s death, James was safe in Stirling, as Mary was concerned that Darnley would harm the child. Dr Kehoe commented that “many people were prepared to do extremely bad things for power, Darnley included, as shown by his previous actions with Rizzio. Darnley was more than ambitious; he was criminal”.

Dr Kehoe restated the importance of remembering and understanding that the evidence drawing was commissioned by Lord Cecil, who was loyal to the Queen of England, not to Scotland. This is important, as if people at the time wanted to implicate or exonerate anyone, it could be made clear within the evidence. Thus, this drawing as evidence could equally be misleading, or what people wanted others to believe, or even the rumours that Elizabeth wanted to spread; it was in her interest to let people believe that Mary killed her husband. Thus, the chair may be shown in the picture to get people to think a certain way; i.e., the story that Darnley was escaping by being lowered from the window on a chair, having been warned that the explosion would happen.

Professor Black summed up the findings by stating that there is some new evidence in this case, in that it is most likely that the explosive material was positioned below the Salle and not in the Old Provost’s House. Thus, it is necessary to consider, if it was placed there, who was most likely to be the victim of the explosion. Under these circumstances, it makes little sense that Darnley was expected to be the victim of the explosion. The more likely victim would be Mary herself. Indeed, it is also important to consider who would benefit from the death of the Queen. It is also possible that both Mary and Darnley were the intended victims, as the same persons may have benefitted from the loss of both.

Professor Black asked Mr Dunn how he viewed the evidence that had been placed before him this evening and how much weight he would attribute to this. He commented, “Rarely is there such a set of complicated circumstances that are so amenable to different interpretations. If prosecuting this case, I would be wary of asking the jury to convict anyone on the evidence presented”.

In conclusion, Professor Black asked the audience how many people still considered Mary Queen of Scots to be definitely responsible for the murder of Darnley. In an audience of around 200 people, this resulted in very few raised hands.

The Vote of Thanks was offered by Professor Jan McDonald FRSE.

Opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of the RSE, nor of its Fellows The Royal Society of Edinburgh, Scotland’s National Academy, is Scottish Charity No. SC000470

5