Who Killed Lord Darnley?
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Royal Society of Edinburgh A Sixteenth Century Murder Mystery: Who Killed Lord Darnley? 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 Scotland; Dr Karly Kehoe - Senior Lecturer in History at Glasgow 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 Reformation 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 Earl of Lennox, 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 Holyrood Palace 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.