Mary, Queen of Scots (27 page)

Between 12 and 15 November, Mary visited Langton Castle, home of the Cockburns, and Wedderburn, another of Lord Home’s properties. On the 15th, as she passed Berwick, Sir John Forster, its Deputy Governor, crossed the border to pay his respects, and the English guns fired a salute in her honour. The occasion was sadly marred when Forster’s horse suddenly reared and kicked Mary in the thigh.
⁸⁷
Mary made light of the incident, but Forster was deeply embarrassed and begged her forgiveness, which she readily gave, although she was in pain for the next two days.

Forster and his men escorted Mary part of the way to Eyemouth, where she stayed on 16 November. On the next night, she was at Coldingham Priory. Buchanan hints at some further scandal while the Queen was there, alleging that “Lady Reres passed through the guard, was recognised and was allowed to pass. Whom she was with, and where she went at that time of night, was not unknown to the Queen.”
⁸⁸
Buchanan seems to be hinting that Lady Reres was once more acting as procuress, but, again, there is no corroboration of his tale.

Mary reached Dunbar on 18 November, and Tantallon Castle, a Douglas stronghold, the following day. On the 20th, she arrived at Craigmillar Castle, three miles south of Edinburgh;
⁸⁹
here, according to Maitland, she intended “to stay until her passing next to Stirling to the baptism, which is deferred to December 12 because of the long tarrying of the ambassador of Savoy.”
⁹⁰
It was here also that the fateful train of events that led to Darnley’s murder would be set in motion.

“UNNATURAL PROCEEDINGS”

CRAIGMILLAR CASTLE LAY IN THE parish of Liberton, and dated from the early thirteenth century but, by Mary’s day, thanks to considerable rebuilding, it was a spacious, luxurious residence, large enough to accommodate the entire court. It commanded an elevated position looking out across Edinburgh and the Forth, and its lands extended as far as the royal hunting park of Holyrood. It had been in the hands of the Preston family since c.1374, and its present owner was the elderly Sir Simon Preston, a wealthy merchant, member of Parliament, Privy Councillor and that same Provost of Edinburgh who had briefly fallen from favour for his failure to aid Mary on the night of Rizzio’s murder. Although Knox described him as “a man of very wicked life and no religion,” he had otherwise distinguished himself by his loyalty and service to the Queen, which is why she had forgiven him and come to stay with him. She was probably lodged in the recently built range of buildings surrounding the courtyard to the east of the fifteenthcentury central tower, which were ornamented with Renaissance features.

In Mary’s state of health, Craigmillar was a far more attractive residence in which to recuperate than Holyrood with its horrific memories. Yet her stay here was to be far from tranquil for, at the end of November, Darnley arrived unannounced and pleaded with her to resume conjugal relations.
¹
Mary could not bring herself to have anything to do with him; Buchanan claims that she even refused to give him money for his day to day expenses unless he returned to Stirling, and says that “this greatly increased people’s suspicion, already aroused by the Queen’s daily familiarity with Bothwell.” There is still no supporting evidence of this in contemporary sources; even Lennox merely claims that Mary used Darnley “but strangely.”

Nau says that, after leaving Jedburgh, Mary had “gradually recovered until she returned to Edinburgh, where she vomited a great quantity of corrupt blood, and then the cure was complete.” This probably took place on 2 December, for on that date, according to du Croc,
²
the Queen was “in the hands of the physicians, not at all well.” Such was her mental anguish at the time that du Croc was convinced that “the principal part of the disease consists of a deep grief and sorrow. Nor does it seem possible to make her forget the same. Still she repeats these words, ‘I could wish to be dead.’ The injury she received is exceeding great, and Her Majesty will not soon forget it.” The ambassador did not expect, “on several accounts, any good understanding between [the King and Queen], unless God especially put His hand in it. I shall name only two reasons against it: the first is, the King will never humble himself as he ought; the other, that the Queen cannot perceive him speaking with any noblemen but presently she suspects some plot among them.”

Since Rizzio’s murder, she had, with good reason, become paranoid. That she was aware of Darnley’s latest treasonable schemes is most unlikely, but she certainly knew him well enough to realise that, left to his own devices, he was dangerous.

On 3 December, a disappointed Darnley left Craigmillar for Dunbar. After his departure, his relieved wife, now physically restored to health, threw herself with energy into preparations for the christening. But her mental state undoubtedly remained fragile.

In Paris, Mondovi had received word from the Cardinal of Lorraine’s gentleman that Mary would not, after all, consent to his going to Scotland because “she could not stain her hands with the blood of her subjects” and dared not risk offending Elizabeth, who had “begun to show herself a friend”; on 3 December, the Nuncio informed the Vatican of this,
³
yet on that very day, Father Hay and the Bishop of Dunblane sailed from Dieppe for Scotland, not knowing that their mission was destined for failure before it had even begun.

Darnley had only been gone a matter of hours when he sent a message asking du Croc to meet with him “half a league” outside Edinburgh. The ambassador complied and the two men talked for a long while. Afterwards, du Croc reported to Beaton: “Things go still worse and worse. I think he intends going away tomorrow, but I am assured that he is not to be present at the baptism.” This was serious, and an outrageous public insult to his wife, because the King’s absence would undoubtedly cast doubts once more on James’s paternity and undermine the unity that Mary had worked so hard in recent months to achieve. Du Croc felt that Darnley hoped he would sort out his problems for him, but in the face of such obduracy, there was little the ambassador could do. In the event, Darnley did not go abroad, but rode to Dunbar and thence, after a few days, to Stirling.
⁴
Mary herself planned to go there for the baptism, which was set for 12 December.
⁵

It seems likely that du Croc informed Mary and her Lords of Darnley’s intentions, and that it was this knowledge that precipitated what happened next. For soon after the King’s departure, and probably on 4, 5 or 6 December, a conference was held to discuss the problem of Darnley, who was becoming more than a liability, and an increasing embarrassment to everyone. We know about this mainly from a document entitled “The Protestation of Huntly and Argyll,”
⁶
which Mary and her advisers drew up in England on 5 January 1569 to be sent to those two Lords with a request that they sign and attest to it as a true record of what had taken place at Craigmillar. The information in it must have come from Huntly and Bothwell. This document never reached its intended recipients: it was intercepted by Cecil’s spies and taken to Westminster. Naturally Mary was eager to exonerate herself from all blame for Darnley’s murder, and conversely to emphasise Moray’s role, but she could hardly have expected Huntly and Argyll to put their signatures to a blatant distortion of the facts, as some of her detractors have suggested. Moreover, this document is supported by other evidence.

According to the Protestation, the chief Lords in attendance on Mary at Craigmillar were Moray, Bothwell, Maitland, Huntly and Argyll. One morning, as Huntly and Argyll lay in bed,
⁷
Moray and Maitland came into their chamber, where Maitland, lamenting the banishment of the Earl of Morton, Lords Lindsay and Ruthven, with the rest of their faction, said that the occasion of the murder of David was for to trouble and impeach the Parliament wherein Moray and others should have been forfeit and declared rebels; and, seeing that the same was chiefly for the welfare of Moray, it should be esteemed ingratitude if he and his friends, in reciprocal manner, did not enterprise all that were in their puissance for relief of the said banished. Wherefore they thought that we should have been as desirous thereto as they were.

Huntly and Argyll agreed “to do all that was in us for their relief, providing that the Queen’s Majesty should not be offended thereat.” Maitland averred “that the best way to obtain Morton’s pardon was to promise to the Queen’s Majesty to find any means to make divorcement betwixt Her Grace and the King her husband, who had offended Her Highness so highly in many ways.” It is significant that this came from Maitland, to whom Mary had confided at Jedburgh her desperation to escape from her intolerable marriage.

Argyll said he “knew not how that might be done,” but Maitland, with Moray listening, answered, “My Lord, care you not thereof. We shall find the means well enough to make her quit of him, so that you and my Lord of Huntly will only behold the matter, and not be offended thereat.” Turning to Huntly, Maitland and Moray reiterated what had been said, “promising, if we would consent to the same, that they should find the means to restore us in our own lands and offices,
⁸
and they to stand good friends unto us, and cause Morton, Ruthven and the rest to do the like in time coming.” Huntly and Argyll assured them that they would not put any obstacles in the way of a divorce, which “might be profitable and honourable both for them and us, and especially where the pleasure, will and contentment of the Queen consisted.”

Thereupon, Moray, Maitland, Argyll and Huntly went to Bothwell’s chamber “to understand his advice on this thing proposed, wherein he gainsaid not more than we.”

It is clear from this that Bothwell was not the originator of this plot to rid Mary of Darnley. It was Moray and Maitland who devised it, and who may have intended, even at this early stage, to make Bothwell, whom they hated and resented, their scapegoat, and perhaps make an occasion for getting rid of him too. As a loyal subject, Bothwell must have shared the Lords’ revulsion against Darnley, and his Scottish pride, like theirs, would have been outraged at the public embarrassment that the King was causing. It has also been alleged that he readily chose to support his former enemies in their schemes because he already had ambitions to marry the Queen, but that must have come later, after he had had time to reflect on the implications of a royal divorce.

After Bothwell had agreed to the plan, the five Lords sought out Mary. Maitland reminded her “of a great number of grievous and intolerable offences the King, ungrateful of the honour received of Her Highness, had done to Her Grace, and continuing every day from evil to worse,” and proposed that, “if it pleased Her Majesty to pardon Morton, Ruthven and Lindsay with their company, they should find the means, with the rest of the nobility, to make divorcement betwixt Her Highness and the King her husband, which should not need Her Grace to meddle therewith.” He added, ominously, that Mary should “take heed to make resolution therein, as well for her own easement as well of the realm,” for Darnley had already troubled Her Grace and them all, and, “remaining with Her Majesty, would not cease till he did her some other evil turn.”

The other Lords all brought pressure to bear on Mary to make her agree to Maitland’s proposals. At length, she said she might consent on two conditions: “one, that the divorcement were made lawfully; the other, that it was not prejudicial to her son; otherwise Her Highness would rather endure all torments and abide the perils that might chance her. Bothwell answered that he doubted not but the divorcement might be made without prejudice in any way of my Lord Prince,” reminding Mary that he had succeeded to his earldom despite his parents having been divorced.

After further discussion, it was proposed—by whom is not known—that, after the divorce, Mary and Darnley should live in different parts of the country, or he should retire abroad. Mary said that, in case Darnley changed his mind about that arrangement, it might be better if she herself went to live in France until such time as he came to terms with the divorce. That she should suggest such an impractical and unrealistic solution suggests that she was now living in fear of Darnley.

Mary was still having doubts about the effect a divorce would have on James’s legitimacy, but Maitland smoothly reassured her, “Madame, fancy you not we are here of the principal of Your Grace’s nobility and Council, that shall find the means that Your Majesty shall be quit of him without prejudice of your son. And albeit that my Lord of Moray here present be little less scrupulous for a Protestant nor Your Grace is for a Catholic, I am assured he will look through his fingers thereto, and will behold our doings, saying nothing to the same.”

Mary could have interpreted this speech in more than one way. They had been talking about divorce, and she could have understood it to mean that Moray would not interfere if her Lords sanctioned her applying to the Pope for an annulment. Yet the only ground on which one could have been obtained was consanguinity, for which Mary had already obtained a dispensation; however, the fact that it had not been granted until after the wedding made the union technically invalid, and, since the marriage had not been made in ignorance of any impediment, the legitimacy of its issue would be brought seriously into doubt were an annulment to be sought, which was what Mary feared. Therefore Maitland and the other Lords could not have resorted to this means without prejudicing James’s title to the succession.

Maitland, however, had not specifically referred to divorce, but merely to finding a means of ridding Mary of Darnley without prejudice to James. There were only a few options open, since neither Mary nor Darnley would have acknowledged the validity of a Protestant divorce, and a separation sanctioned by the Catholic Church, for which the only possible ground could be Darnley’s adultery, would prevent either party from remarrying, since both would still be united in the eyes of God.

One option was to have Darnley arrested and charged with treason, which he had committed more than once and for which the penalty was death. Leslie was to claim that, even if Darnley was Mary’s “head in wedlock, yet was he otherwise subject to her, as to his principal and supreme governess, and to her laws, by the due and ordinary process and course whereof he might justly have been convicted, condemned and executed, as well for the murder committed upon her secretary, in whose body his dagger was found stabbed, as for the imprisoning of the Queen and attempting to move her from civil government, to intrude himself thereto, and for divers others the like pageants by him played.” But, as the law then stood in Scotland, a king could not technically be guilty of treason; secondly, even if this could be circumvented, the arrest of the father of the Prince just as the foreign ambassadors were arriving for the christening would create a humiliating and potentially explosive scandal: Darnley was, after all, of the blood royal of England. The only other option, therefore, was murder.

Mary must have understood that Maitland was not just referring to divorce, for she answered firmly, “I will that you do nothing by which any spot may be laid to my honour or conscience, and therefore I pray you rather let the matter be in the estate as it is, abiding till God of his goodness put remedy thereto, than you, believing to do me service, may possibly turn to my hurt and displeasure.” She was, it seems, prepared to wait until either she or Darnley died, rather than permit her Lords to remove her husband by underhand means, and the fact that she insisted that nothing be done that was detrimental to her honour proves that she feared that it might be.