Mary, Queen of Scots (44 page)

The
Book of Articles
alleges that the Archbishop purposely took up residence in the Duke’s House to prevent Darnley from lodging there. This is impossible to substantiate, and may be the product of Buchanan’s prejudiced imagination, for he was a staunch Lennox man and hated the Hamiltons. Furthermore, in his
History
, Buchanan, having elsewhere alleged that the murder was the work of Bothwell and Mary, asserts that the Archbishop, “when the proposition of killing the King was made to him, willingly undertook it, both by reason of old feuds between their families, and also out of hopes thereby to bring the kingdom nearer to his family. Upon which he chose out six or eight of the most wicked of his vassals and commended the matter to them.” In the earlier account there were four vassals, and they were sent to assist the murderers, not do the deed. The Archbishop gave them “the keys to the King’s lodgings [and] they then entered very silently into his chamber and strangled him when he was asleep. And when they had so done, they carried out his body through a little gate into an orchard adjacent to the walls, and then a sign was given to blow up the house.” In his eagerness to incriminate an old enemy, Buchanan temporarily forgot about Bothwell, and about the depositions of the Earl’s accomplices, which he himself had published. But Lennox was Regent at the time this was written, and it was politic to blacken the reputation of the Hamiltons.

It is unlikely that the Archbishop could have seen what was going on at the Old Provost’s Lodging from the Duke’s House because the north and east sides of the quadrangle stood in the way. Aside from Buchanan’s vitriol, there is little reliable evidence to connect Hamilton with the crime. However, he did have every reason to loathe and resent Darnley, and rumours of his guilt were circulating as early as June 1567. Much later, a priest called Thomas Robinson asserted that one John Hamilton, on his deathbed, had confessed to him that he had been present at Darnley’s murder on the Archbishop’s orders.

That there was a degree of self-interest in the killing is indisputable. It is significant that, in the Parliament held in December 1567, when Mary had reached twenty-five and, had she not by then been deposed, would legally have been able to revoke grants made during her minority, both Moray and Morton were confirmed in their titles and estates, and the earldom of Angus was conferred on Morton’s nephew; it had been Darnley’s intention to claim it himself.
¹⁰

Most significant of all, Moray and Maitland were soon to be in a position where they could suppress any evidence of their involvement in the crime. That evidence was suppressed we know for a certainty, and we know also that it was manufactured under the auspices of these men. This alone is enough to condemn them, for if the evidence against Bothwell and Mary was sound, why tamper with it or embroider it?

There has been speculation that the Lords who devised the plot had the covert backing of Cecil. Moray and Maitland had striven for years for a closer relationship with their southern neighbour, and it would have suited the English to have a Protestant government in Edinburgh. The Queen of Scots had been a constant thorn in England’s side ever since Elizabeth’s accession, and her marriage to Darnley had only made matters worse. Despite her fair words, Elizabeth had no intention of naming Mary her successor—she feared her too much for that. The removal of Darnley would therefore remove a potential threat and devalue Mary’s claim to the English throne. The French certainly believed that England had been involved in Darnley’s murder, and Archbishop Beaton “affirmed that the assassination was controlled from England, where the intention had been to kill the Queen as well.”
¹¹
Mary believed this too. In 1581, after Morton’s execution, she wrote to Elizabeth and made reference to the secret agents and spies employed by England to bring about her ruin. “I will not at present specify other proof than that which I have gained of it by the confession of one [Morton] who was afterwards amongst those that were most advanced for this good service.”

During the twentieth century, another suspect was added to the list of those who might have plotted the explosion at Kirk o’Field: Darnley himself.

As we have seen, there is sufficient evidence to show that, from before the Prince’s birth, Darnley had been trying to enlist the support of the Catholic powers for his bid to set himself up as the champion of Catholicism and, with their aid, establish himself as a crusading ruler of Scotland. At one stage, his grandiose plans had also embraced the conquest of England.

There is very little evidence that Darnley actually secured much influential support. Although he seems to have been in contact with Francisco de Alava, King Philip’s ambassador in Paris, there are no grounds for believing that the Spanish monarch was interested in his plans. Catherine de’ Medici may have known something of them, or may even have encouraged Darnley, and it is possible that he had promised to send Prince James to be brought up in France; nevertheless, Catherine remained noncommittal. Late in 1566, however, Mondovi had informed the Pope that Darnley was just the man to bring about the deaths of the six leading Protestant nobles in Scotland, which Mary had refused to sanction. Once this had been achieved, the Counter-Reformation could proceed apace.

There is no proof, but Darnley may well have fallen in with this plan; indeed, it may have been the reason he intended to return with Mary to Edinburgh. His calumniation of Mary as a dubious Catholic in letters to her European allies had been designed to demonstrate that he, by comparison, was zealous in the faith. But he had his own agenda as well. By the end of 1566, he was apparently planning to overthrow his wife, much as he had intended to do after Rizzio’s murder, rule in the name of their son, and reestablish the Catholic faith in Scotland. The murder of the Lords would be a preliminary to this and would remove the chief obstacles in his way. Moretta and Lutini may have been employed as emissaries between Darnley and Mondovi, while de Alava, who had probably shown himself friendly to Darnley until he learned how unreliable and indiscreet he was, realised that something nefarious was afoot and warned Archbishop Beaton. It was probably for this reason that, on 5 April 1567, Sir Henry Norris, the English ambassador in Paris, confided to Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, “As at first I thought, therein I remain not to be removed, that the original of that fact [i.e., Darnley’s murder] came from hence [i.e., Paris], for besides that their [the French rulers’] desire is to have the Prince hither, so do I see that all they that are suspected for the same fact make this their chief refuge and sure anchor.”
¹²
Furthermore, Cecil, in a letter to Norris dated 21 March, referred to “the French attempt for the Prince.”
¹³
However, given their mutual animosity, it is entirely predictable that the English should blame the French for Darnley’s murder.

At home, Darnley was concentrating on building up support, hence his recall of Ker, and his involvement with Balfour, whom he probably accounted his chief ally; Balfour, after all, owed his political prominence to Darnley’s patronage, and he was a Catholic. The younger Anthony Standen was also in Edinburgh at this time. Darnley’s staunchest support, however, came from his father, Lennox.

It has been claimed by several recent writers
¹⁴
that it was Darnley, with the support of Balfour and Lennox, who plotted the explosion at Kirk o’Field, in an attempt to murder some of the Lords and perhaps the Queen too, then seize the Prince from nearby Holyrood. It would not have been the first time that Darnley had plotted Mary’s ruin.

But there are essential flaws in this supposition. Darnley himself had chosen Kirk o’Field, probably at the suggestion of Balfour, yet he could not have guaranteed that the people he wished to destroy would visit him there at all. Moreover, the theory hinges on the fact that Darnley expected the Queen and the Lords to return to Kirk o’Field after the wedding masque on 9 February, so that he could blow them up in the house, but all the evidence shows that Mary had made it very clear that she was not returning, and that there could have been no misunderstanding on Darnley’s part. The circumstances in which Darnley was found indicate surprise and haste; furthermore, he had very few servants, no armed support and none of his friends nearby; Balfour had left Edinburgh, and Lennox was in Linlithgow, allegedly on hand to hear of the success of the coup. How was Darnley to consolidate his position after it had taken place?

Buchanan and Wilson claimed that some of Darnley’s servants had “gone out of the way as fore-knowing the danger at hand.” It has been speculated that Darnley warned them. It is strange, therefore, that he did not warn the servants who intended to stay in the house that their lives were in danger, and far more likely that there was no warning, for if there had been, no one would have dared to stay behind, and we know that six people did. Darnley is said to have left the powder barrel in the garden as a clue that would incriminate the Protestant Lords; just what the connection was is not adequately explained, and in any case, the barrel was probably nothing to do with the murder. Because it was found nearby, an elaborate tale was concocted around it in order to incriminate Bothwell.

Drury later recorded that Ker of Fawdonside was waiting near Kirk o’Field with other mounted men on the night of the murder, his intention being to give aid in that cruel enterprise.
¹⁵
It has been suggested that he was there to help Darnley make his escape. Darnley had probably issued Ker’s pardon in a bid to buy his forgiveness and gain support, but although Ker seems initially to have played along with this, he had as much reason as Morton to wreak vengeance on Darnley, and, having perhaps been apprised by Douglas or Morton of the murder plot, he may have gone to Kirk o’Field as part of, or in support of, the Douglas contingent. The treacherous Ker also had good reason to hate Bothwell, and perhaps hoped to kill him too.

It has been suggested that the Lords somehow discovered Darnley’s plot, which was possibly betrayed to them by either Balfour or Sandy Durham, and that this was what prompted Bothwell’s midnight meeting with the Queen and Traquair, at which it was decided that Bothwell should return to Kirk o’Field and turn the tables on Darnley. In fact, the midnight meeting was probably held to discuss the future security of the Prince, now that his father was returning to Holyrood. Given the Queen’s busy schedule, there would have been no time to hold this meeting earlier in the day. The matter was almost certainly one relating to James’s security, for Traquair was Captain of the Queen’s Guard and Bothwell was Captain of the Prince’s Bodyguard.

There is no evidence in Mondovi’s correspondence that he had pursued his plan for Darnley to bring about the deaths of the Protestant Lords. Of course, Mondovi might have used Moretta as a messenger for intelligence that was too sensitive to commit to paper, but he can hardly have expected Darnley to act when he was still convalescent, nor did Darnley see Moretta whilst he was at Kirk o’Field.

The fact remains that, during the period after Darnley’s murder, although there was intensive speculation as to who had committed it, not one person suggested that Darnley himself might have been culpable, despite the fact that several people, including the Queen herself, suspected that he had been plotting to seize power. It was nearly four centuries before anyone suggested that he had been involved.

Sir James Balfour’s role in the murder conspiracy is one of the most obscure and mysterious. Balfour was pragmatic as far as religion was concerned. He had early on embraced the Protestant faith, but after being sentenced to the galleys for his part in Cardinal Beaton’s murder in 1546, he had turned Catholic in order to buy his freedom. Thereafter he had remained a Catholic, but probably only because it served his interests to do so. He had come to political prominence through Darnley’s friendship and patronage, but was soon admitted to the secret counsels of the Protestant Lords. Although he was not involved in the plot against Rizzio, he profited from it, being appointed Clerk Register in place of the disgraced James MacGill in March 1566. By June, however, he was out of favour with the Queen, probably because of his association with her increasingly estranged husband.

In December 1566, Balfour probably drew up and signed the Craigmillar Bond for Darnley’s murder, which suggests that he had by then detached himself from the King. At the same time, he may have maintained the pretence of being Darnley’s friend. The fact that he lent his house to Moretta may be significant, and may suggest that he was to some degree involved in Darnley’s schemes, but only circumstantial evidence supports this theory. We may infer from all this that Balfour was perhaps playing a double game in order to safeguard his own position whoever triumphed. Du Croc, after all, had described him as “a true traitor.”

It was almost certainly Balfour who, after Moretta’s arrival and the possible revelation of Darnley’s plans, suggested that the King stay at Kirk o’Field in a house owned by Robert Balfour. He may have realised that this remote house was suitable for an assassination attempt. Yet by the night of the murder, Balfour had left his Edinburgh house and gone to ground, probably because he did not wish to be associated in any way with the crime, and when he returned he kept a low profile for a time.

However, there is ample testimony that Balfour was involved with his cousin Bothwell—Melville says they “were great companions”—in the Lords’ plot to kill Darnley. As we have seen, Hepburn (in the suppressed part of his deposition), Hay, Paris, the report in the secret Jesuit archives, Nau and Buchanan all incriminated Balfour. Buchanan says that both Bothwell and Balfour “were privy to the plot to murder the King” and calls Balfour “one of the chief regicides. He was either the author of, or a participator in” the murder. Balfour was named as one of the murderers in placards that appeared soon after the crime was committed.
¹⁶
On 12 March, Lennox accused him of being one of his son’s assassins,
¹⁷
and on 19 April, Drury reported to Cecil the murder of Balfour’s servant, and supposed that the motive had been “very lively presumptions for utterance of some matter either by remorse of conscience or other folly that might tend to the whole discovery of the King’s death.” De Silva reported to Philip II on 6 September, “It is believed for certain that this man [Balfour] was one of the principal actors in the murder of the King.”
¹⁸
Later, in 1581, Lord Hunsdon wrote that Balfour was “well known throughout the realm to be one of the principal murderers.”
¹⁹
Balfour himself would later admit to Sir William Drury that he did know about the murder before it happened, but not until 7 February; later still, he claimed that Mary had asked him to kill Darnley but that he had refused; little credence can be given to either of these stories, which are not borne out by the other evidence and were probably concocted in order to deflect blame from himself.