Mary, Queen of Scots (46 page)

It is important to remember that almost all the evidence against Mary comes from her enemies and was produced some time after the murder, and that there are serious flaws in much of it, which proves that it was deliberately falsified. The men who were responsible for this evidence—chiefly Moray, Maitland, Morton and Balfour—had to justify the actions they had taken against their Queen and safeguard the continuance of their regime and their own power. They had also to emphasise that the blame lay wholly with Bothwell and Mary, so as to deflect suspicion from themselves, and in so doing they waged one of the most vicious and successful propaganda campaigns in history, the effects of which are still apparent today. These men were certainly clever at covering their traces, but they have left enough clues to condemn themselves. Not only were they guilty of the murder of Darnley, but, in killing a man under the Queen’s protection, and pinning the guilt for their crime on Mary, they were also responsible for one of the greatest injustices in history.

So how did Darnley die?

The plot to kill him was masterminded by Maitland and Moray, Maitland being the active partner, Moray the passive one but the ultimate beneficiary. Their motive was to rid Scotland of a troublesome Catholic activist and hopefully implicate their enemy, Bothwell, who had been brought into the plot, with Huntly and Argyll, at Craigmillar. Once Darnley and Bothwell were out of the way, Moray and Maitland would be restored to their former political eminence. Bothwell soon became the leading participant in the plot, having secretly conceived an ambition to marry the Queen once her husband was dead. What with the christening and Darnley’s illness, there had been no opportunity for the conspirators to carry out their plans until Darnley returned to Edinburgh. By then, Sir James Balfour had entered the conspiracy, and he suggested that Darnley lodge at Kirk o’Field, which the Lords soon realised was ideal for their purpose.

The Lords had decided to use gunpowder so that all the evidence of the murder would be destroyed, and it would also be easier to pin the deed on Bothwell. Balfour purchased the gunpowder and stored it at his house, whence it was moved to Kirk o’Field on the evening of 9 February. By then, Balfour had apparently left Edinburgh. Once the kitchen staff had gone home, the Old Provost’s Lodging was undermined, as perhaps was the Prebendaries’ Chamber adjoining it. The men who transported the powder and laid the explosives were those same henchmen of Bothwell’s who later made depositions as to their guilt, although these depositions were undoubtedly manipulated by men who had secrets to hide. Bothwell would almost certainly have returned to Kirk o’Field after midnight, and it is possible that Huntly and Balfour were there too. Bothwell must have returned to Holyrood prior to the explosion for, since he was Sheriff of Edinburgh, he could not guarantee that he would not be disturbed when the blast was heard. He could have gone back to the palace over the ruined wall near the Blackfriars monastery, and thence by the gardens along the Cowgate.

Gunpowder being unpredictable, Archibald Douglas and his men, perhaps with Morton’s blessing, were on hand to apprehend Darnley should he by any chance escape, which is what appears to have happened. Darnley may have been awoken by suspicious noises outside, which were probably caused by the assassins beating a hasty retreat after lighting the slow fuse(s), or by the “many armed men round the house.”
³²
Convinced that he was in danger, and fearing that there was no time to lose, Darnley panicked, awoke Taylor— if the latter were not already awake—and begged him to help him get out of the house. Together, by means of a rope and a chair, they climbed out of the window that rested on the Flodden Wall and lowered themselves to the ground about 14 feet below. Darnley took with him a dagger and Taylor his master’s nightgown and a quilt or cloak for himself. Before escaping, they may have tried to awaken Nelson and the others who slept in the gallery, but time was against them, and self-preservation uppermost in their minds.

It is possible that, in escaping from the window, Darnley either fell to the ground or jumped, and hurt himself—this would account for the internal injuries discovered during the post-mortem. Birrel speculated that Darnley and Taylor were thrown clear by the explosion then strangled outside, Darnley “with his own garters,” although there is no reason to think he was wearing any; being hurtled from the exploding house would also account for Darnley’s injuries, but while there is good evidence that a man can be thrown clear from an explosion and left unmarked, it is inconceivable that two men, who were sleeping in different places in the bedchamber, would have been blasted in the same direction and survive without a blemish. It is also inconceivable that several objects and items of clothing would have been found lying neatly beside them. Nau, however, and perhaps Mary, believed that “the King’s body was blown into the garden by the violence of the explosion, and a poor English valet of his, who slept in the same room, was there killed.” But this would not account for the witnesses overhearing a man pleading with his kinsmen for mercy.

Probably in great pain, Darnley, followed by Taylor, began making his way across the orchard, but Douglas and his men suddenly emerged from the nearby cottages and seized them. Realising that their intent was murderous, Darnley cried to them, “Pity me, kinsmen, for the love of Him who had pity on all the world!”—which is what the women in the cottages heard him say. But the Douglases were out for revenge, and in no way inclined to mercy. They suffocated both Darnley and Taylor, perhaps with the nightrobe and the quilt. Captain Cullen, who apparently later confessed to taking part in the murder, testified that “the King was long a-dying, and in his strength made debate for his life.”
³³
According to Correr, who had his information from Moretta, Taylor was heard to exclaim, “The King is dead! Oh, luckless night!”
³⁴
After the double murder, the assassins made off towards Blackfriars Wynd, where they were seen by Mrs. Merton and Mrs. Stirling. As soon as they had gone, the house blew up.

This theory of what happened in Darnley’s final moments is supported by Moretta, who later told Correr that the King had taken fright at the noise of armed men outside the house, trying the doors, and lowered himself from the window to the garden, where he was surrounded by his murderers; Moretta says they strangled him under the window “with the sleeves of his own shirt,” but strangulation would have left marks. After the killing, the assassins blew up the house, hoping people would think Darnley had been killed falling from the window while attempting to escape.
³⁵

Pietro Bizaro, the Italian visitor to Scotland who had reported Darnley’s affair with a lady of the Douglas family in 1565, asserted that the King had been alerted by the sounds of men in the house, and had hidden with Taylor in the cellar. After a while, they emerged into the garden, only to be murdered there. Oddly, there is no mention of them panicking at the sight of the burning fuses in the cellar. Furthermore, there was no entrance to the cellar from the inside of the house.

Clernault had a novel theory which he made known to Mondovi, that the King had been awakened by the smell of the burning fuse(s) but was suffocated by the smoke from the explosion while trying to escape,
³⁶
even though his body was found too far from the house for that to have happened. Melville heard rumours that “the King was brought down to a stable where a napkin was stopped in his mouth, and he therewith suffocated.” Lennox claimed that the napkin was soaked with vinegar. Lennox, the
Diurnal of Occurrents
, Herries and Buchanan all asserted, with stunning illogicality, that Darnley and Taylor had been strangled in their beds by murderers who then carried them outside then returned to blow up the house, “to cause the people to understand that this was a sudden fire.”
³⁷
If this was the case, why not leave the bodies to be consumed in it instead of going to all the trouble of carrying them to the south garden?

Buchanan claims that the murderers had themselves constructed the postern gate in the town wall in order to remove the bodies to the garden, as if such a breach in the city’s defences would not already have attracted attention. Ormiston, who was unaware of Darnley’s actual fate, was to declare, “As I shall answer to my God, I knew nothing but that he was blown up,” and swore that Hepburn and Hay thought the same. He was adamant that the King had not been handled by any man’s hands. Hepburn, before his execution, stated that there had been no more than nine people present at the murder, and if the King were handled by anyone, it was not one of them. Bothwell, when he went to view the bodies the next morning, seemed astonished that there was no mark on them, and was probably not aware at that point that the explosion had not killed them. Whether he ever found out the truth from the Douglases is uncertain and unlikely. Most official versions of the murder, and even Bothwell’s own account, which naturally makes no mention of his own involvement, asserted that Darnley had been blown up with the house.

The theory outlined above is grounded in a detailed study of the extensive evidence for Darnley’s murder. There can be little doubt that his assassination was a political crime dictated by motives of ideology, self-interest and revenge, and that its aim, and ultimate result, was the securing of power by a faction dedicated to establishing the reformed faith and wielding exclusive influence. But this is not the whole picture. The events that followed the murder also have a bearing on the detection of those responsible, and Mary’s subsequent behaviour raises questions that need to be answered.

On 1 March, one Thomas Barnaby wrote from Paris to the Earl of Leicester, “Your letters tell me of the strange and sudden disaster which of late hath happened in Scotland. Pray God the tragedy may have no more acts but one.”
³⁸
His prayer was not to be answered.

“GREAT SUSPICIONS AND NO PROOF”

BY DAWN ON 11 FEBRUARY, news of Darnley’s murder had reached Berwick,
¹
and Drury passed it on immediately to Cecil.
²
Soon, the scandalous tidings would spread throughout Scotland and across Europe, giving rise to universal horror, wild rumours and fevered speculation. Suspicion attached initially to Moray and Maitland,
³
and then, within a short time, to Bothwell. “All Scotland cried out upon the foul murder of the King.”
⁴

Clernault left for Paris on 11 February, bearing the Council’s letter to Catherine de’ Medici and Mary’s to Archbishop Beaton, the Council having authorised him to answer any questions that the Queen Mother might ask about the murder. That same day, or the next, Moretta left Edinburgh, apparently travelling with Father Hay. With Darnley dead, there was nothing to keep him in Scotland, and Hay’s mission had been an abject failure.

On the morning of 11 February, Mary emerged briefly from her black-hung apartments to attend the wedding of her favoured servant, Margaret Carwood, to John Stewart of Tullipowreis in the chapel royal at Holyrood. Two days before Darnley’s murder, Mary had paid for black satin and velvet for the bride’s wedding gown, and she also paid for the nuptial banquet,
⁵
although she did not attend it. Her presence at the wedding drew scathing comments from Buchanan, who professed shock that she had emerged from her mourning chamber so soon, and on such a frivolous pretext. Mary may well have been honouring a promise to attend Margaret’s wedding, but in doing so, she displayed poor political judgement.

Later that day, on the advice of her Council, who shared her view that the plot had been directed at her, and were concerned for her security, Mary took the Prince to Edinburgh Castle, and retired into seclusion.
⁶
In her absence, Bothwell took control of the government and acted as the virtual ruler of Scotland. It was Mary’s misfortune that she misguidedly placed her trust in a man who had conspired to kill her husband, for, as suspicion attached to him, many people would come to deem her guilty by association. In her conviction that she had been the intended victim, Mary would not have credited that the ever-loyal Bothwell could have been involved in Darnley’s murder, but the fact that he and Maitland had broached the matter with her earlier must have given her pause for thought. It is more likely, however, that she suspected Morton, who had had good reason to seek revenge on Darnley. But proving it was another matter.

Nau asserts that “diligent inquiries were made about the murder on all sides, especially by those who were its authors,” but, since the latter were in control, evidence was bound to be suppressed. In his memoir, Bothwell innocently claimed that “some Lords of the Council, fearing lest the Queen and myself should make inquiries respecting them, united themselves and manoeuvred against the Queen and the rest of us, in order to prevent our arriving at any certainty.” It appears to have been Bothwell, however, who was guilty of this. On the afternoon of 11 February, the Council met again, and questioned several more people, including the only independent witnesses, Barbara Merton, Mary Stirling and the surgeon, John Pitcairn,
⁷
whose evidence was discounted as mere scandal-mongering. Buchanan refers to Mrs. Merton and Mrs. Stirling as “poor silly women, who, when they had blabbed out something more than the judges looked for, were dismissed again as fools that had indiscreetly spoken.” According to Thomas Wilson, “a few poor folks, the next dwelling neighbours to the King’s lodging,” were so intimidated by their august interrogators that they “neither dared tell what they had seen or heard.” The inquiry was then adjourned until the following day.

Atholl, who was a friend of Lennox, had been deeply distressed by Darnley’s murder, for, “among other reasons, he had been the chief worker in the marriage.”
⁸
But Atholl had other grounds for distress. On the night after the murder, he and his family had been awakened in their Holyrood apartment by a strange noise, which sounded “as if the foundation of the wall were being quietly undermined.” In terror, “they passed the night without sleep,” and the next day, “the Earl moved into the town, and shortly afterwards went home, in fear of his life.”
⁹
Tullibardine went with him.
¹⁰
Both men’s loyalties were with the Lennoxes, and Buchanan says that Bothwell and the other Councillors sitting on the commission of inquiry felt that they were probing too deeply for comfort, and, “perceiving the peril, grudged at Atholl and the Comptroller in such sort that it behoved them, for fear of their lives, to leave the court.”

It was probably on 11 February that Lennox, at Linlithgow, received the appalling news of his son’s murder. Later on, he would be in no doubt that the person responsible for it was his daughter-in-law the Queen, “this tyrant, who brought her faithful and most loving husband, that innocent lamb, from his careful and most loving father to the place of execution, where he was a sure sacrifice unto Almighty God.”
¹¹
We have no record of Lennox’s initial suspicions, however.

Mary wrote to Lennox on the day after the murder, promising him justice, and inviting him to Edinburgh to take part in the inquiry.
¹²
Her letter is lost, as is his reply. The
Book of Articles
alleges that she illegally appropriated the earldom of Lennox for her son, as Darnley’s heir, and granted a portion of the lands to Lord Boyd. There is no other evidence for the former, but a gift of the ward of some of the Lennox lands to Boyd appears in the
Register
of the Privy Seal of Scotland
. This can only have increased Lennox’s undoubted animosity towards the Queen.

On 12 February, Darnley’s embalmed body was laid in state before the altar of the chapel royal at Holyrood,
¹³
and the Councillors resumed their inquiry. Mary later informed her European allies that she “could not but marvel at the little diligence they used, and that they looked at one another as men who wist not what to say or do.”
¹⁴
She expected them to take a more vigorous approach to tracking down the murderers, but since they already knew who had killed Darnley, there was little point in prolonging the inquiry. Buchanan says “there was in the days following [the murder] more travail for the inquisition of certain money stolen from Margaret [Carwood] nor [than] for the King’s murder recently committed.” He added that “further examination was postponed, or rather the affair was dropped altogether, for they feared that if they proceeded further, secrets of the court would be revealed to the people.”
¹⁵

However, the Council did, on that same day, issue a proclamation in the Queen’s name, and perhaps at her behest, offering a handsome reward of £2,000 Scots, “an honest yearly rent” and even a free pardon to anyone identifying Darnley’s murderers. “The Queen’s Majesty,” it read, “unto whom of all others the case was most grievous, would rather lose life and all that it should remain unpunished.” The proclamation was signed by Argyll, and fixed to the Mercat Cross of Edinburgh by a herald.
¹⁶

That day, Clernault passed through Berwick. Soon afterwards, Drury sent Joseph Lutini back to Edinburgh. Mary had no further interest in pursuing inquiries into his conduct, so Bothwell gave him thirty pieces of silver and sent him away rejoicing. Three days later, Sandy Durham was awarded a post at court and a pension, payment no doubt for services rendered to Bothwell on the night of Darnley’s murder.
¹⁷

In Paris, Mondovi was fretting about the delay in Father Hay’s arrival. The Nuncio had not yet abandoned hope of a Catholic revival in Scotland, but the Pope was now insisting that he return to his See, and he wanted to see Hay before he left France. He was also expecting to receive Hay’s written account of his visit to Scotland—he could not yet have heard about Darnley’s murder—but it had not so far arrived, and may never have done so, for no record of it exists. Mondovi hoped to receive an encouraging report from Hay that would pave the way for he himself to go to Scotland, and it was for this reason that he was reluctant to leave Paris. But on 17 February, Pope Pius, having given up hope that Mondovi’s mission would succeed, recalled him.
¹⁸

Robert Melville, having left for London a day or so before Darnley’s murder for the purpose of entering into the all-important negotiations concerning the English succession, heard about Kirk o’Field on his way south and immediately returned to Edinburgh to obtain further news and fresh instructions. When he arrived on 13 or 14 February, Mary was “too much distressed” to receive him, “but had ordered him to continue his journey as he had been previously instructed,”
¹⁹
so, armed with an official account of the murder furnished him by the Council, he set off again for London at once.

But the news had already reached the English court by means of Cecil’s spies, for on 14 February, Mr. Secretary informed de Silva that Queen Elizabeth was aware of Darnley’s assassination. De Silva reported, “The Queen expresses sorrow at the death of the King, and she thinks that, although he married against her wish, yet, as he was a royal personage and her cousin, the case is a very grave one, and she signifies her intention to punish the offenders.” Soon afterwards, de Silva noticed that Elizabeth, realising that she herself was vulnerable to a similar fate, had ordered the keys to all the doors of her apartments to be removed from the locks and the men guarding her to be vetted.
²⁰

Moretta, and perhaps Hay, passed through Berwick on 14 February,
²¹
and it was on this day that Drury reported that Mary had to hand letters and ciphers from the Cardinal of Lorraine and de Alava warning her to take heed of whom she trusted with her secrets and that her husband would shortly be slain. These warnings are similar to that in Archbishop Beaton’s letter urging Mary to be on her guard, but Drury was probably reporting garbled rumours, for he could not have had access to Mary’s private correspondence, and nor could Moretta.

Late in the evening of 15 February, Darnley was buried in the royal vault of James V in the chapel royal at Holyrood.
²²
This was a beautiful sanctuary, with stained glass windows, rich hangings, oak furnishings and a carved, gilded and ribbed ceiling with pendants. But the
Book of Articles
claims that the body was, “without any decent order, cast in the earth without any ceremony or company of honest men,” while the
Historie of James the Sext
says that the funeral was conducted “quietly, without any kind of solemnity or mourning.” Buchanan also alleges that Mary had Darnley buried beside Rizzio, as she had promised after the latter’s murder, but he was in fact buried next to her father. The vitriol in these accounts probably stems from the fact that Darnley was buried according to Catholic rites; Leslie states that his interment was ill-attended because so many of the nobles were Protestants. The
Diurnal of Occurrents
and Birrel both confirm that the funeral was quiet. Custom precluded the monarch attending the obsequies of a consort, so the Queen’s absence was not remarked upon.

Lennox and Buchanan claimed that Darnley’s “armour, horse and household stuff were bestowed upon the murderers” by the Queen, and Buchanan adds that “a certain tailor [Dalgleish?], when he was to re-form the King’s apparel to Bothwell, said jestingly he acknowledged here the custom of the country, by which the clothes of the dead fall to the hangman.” Had Mary been guilty of Darnley’s murder, she would surely not have been so stupid as to openly reward her partner in guilt in this way, and it seems likelier that she felt that Bothwell was more deserving of these rich perquisites than anyone else.

On 15 February, du Croc reached Dover, where he was overtaken by “an express messenger sent him by the French ambassador with the Queen of England” who informed him of the deaths of Darnley and Lennox and delivered “an urgent commission to use all speed” to return to the French court and be the first to communicate the news.
²³
That day or the next, du Croc sailed for France.

Robert Melville,
en route
to London, received word from his brother James that Lennox had left Linlithgow by 16 February and returned to Glasgow. It seems strange that Lennox did not go to Edinburgh to pay his respects to his dead son, but he probably felt he would have been putting himself in danger by doing so. Nor had he any idea how much the Queen or others knew about his involvement in Darnley’s plots.

Mary was apparently in no fit state to receive anyone. By 16 February, there was serious concern for her health, and it may be that the reality and horror of Darnley’s death and its implications had finally come home to her. Her dreadful illness of October and November was still fresh in everyone’s minds, and it was understood that being shut up in black-shrouded rooms was not conducive to her well-being. She herself would have “a longer time in this lamentable wise continued had she not been most earnestly dehorted by the vehement exhortations and persuasions of her Council, who were moved thereto by her physicians’ informations, declaring to them the great and imminent dangers of her health and life if she did not, in all speed, break up and leave that kind of close and solitary life, and repair to some good, open and wholesome air, which she did, being thus advised and earnestly thereto solicited by her said Council.”
²⁴
Mary’s emergence from mourning so soon after her husband’s death was later to attract scathing criticism from Buchanan, who asserted that she had “brazenly resisted the comments of the people” in doing so. But this is not borne out by the contemporary evidence.

On 16 February, Mary went to Seton,
²⁵
which had proved a refuge before. She took with her Maitland, Livingston, Archbishop Hamilton and an entourage of one hundred persons, having left the Prince in Edinburgh Castle in the care of Bothwell and Huntly.
²⁶
Captain Cullen is said to have been one of those guarding the Queen at Seton.
²⁷