Mary, Queen of Scots (55 page)

Mary’s enemies claimed that Casket Letter VIII was the third of the series that Mary allegedly sent to Bothwell from Stirling, but it almost certainly relates to a different matter and belongs to a later date, because it refers to Huntly as “your brother-in-law that was,” which lends itself to the presumption that the letter must have been sent after Bothwell’s divorce.

The 158-line love poem in French from the Casket Documents, often erroneously described as a collection of twelve sonnets, was also alleged by some to have been written by Mary for Bothwell while she was at Stirling. Robin Bell, who edited Mary’s collected verse,
⁴⁴
believes that this poem is consistent with her authenticated style, and that any forger would have attempted to copy her youthful, better known poems, rather than guess how she would write in her maturity. He suggests, however, that the “sonnets” may have been tampered with in order to incriminate Mary: Buchanan claimed that they were composed “(as it is said) while her husband lived, but certainly before [Bothwell’s] divorce from his wife.” He also says they were written with tolerable elegance, but Brantôme and Ronsard declared that they were in such bad French, and in such an unpolished, fragmented style, that it was ludicrous to attribute them to Mary. It has been suggested that Buchanan himself wrote—or altered—them, since he was one of the few people in Scotland who knew how to compose courtly French verse; furthermore, he knew Mary’s style.

During the first night at Dunbar, according to Drury, Huntly quarrelled with Maitland and tried to kill him. Maitland’s life was saved only by the intervention of the Queen, who thrust her body in the way of the Earl’s drawn sword and warned Huntly that, “if a hair of Lethington’s head did perish, she would cause him to forfeit lands and goods and lose his life.”
⁴⁵
Melville also relates this incident, but states that it was Bothwell who attacked Maitland, giving no reason for this apart from the fact that Bothwell was not Maitland’s friend. Maitland himself later told Cecil that he had gone in fear of his life since Bothwell, in a fit of ungovernable rage, had tried to kill him, and would have succeeded if the Queen had not hastened to his assistance.

After the attack, Bothwell placed Maitland under guard and kept him a prisoner.
⁴⁶
The next day, Huntly and Melville were allowed to leave Dunbar. Before Melville left, he told Mary “that those who had advised her [to marry Bothwell] were betrayers of her honour for their own selfish ends, seeing her marrying a man commonly adjudged her husband’s murderer would leave a tash [slur] upon her name and give too much ground for jealousy.”
⁴⁷
Mary did not heed his warning.

On 25 April, Queen Elizabeth and her Privy Council, unaware of the dramatic events of the previous day, discussed the situation in Scotland. Elizabeth decided to send Lord Grey de Wilton to Edinburgh to express her displeasure at three things: Mary’s failure to bring to justice Darnley’s murderers, the favour shown by her to “such as have been by common fame most touched with the crime,” and “the contempt or neglect in the burial of the King’s body.” “So monstrous an outrage” as the Queen’s marriage to Bothwell “must be prevented”; but after issuing Grey with his instructions, Elizabeth changed her mind and immediately countermanded them. Instead, she sent another warning to Mary via Bedford, and asked the latter to make inquiries as to the possibility of Prince James being brought up in England.
⁴⁸
Nau believed—as, most probably, did Mary—that Elizabeth’s change of heart had been dictated by the realisation that, if Mary could be persuaded to marry Bothwell, “they might charge her with being in the plot against her late husband.”

The next day, Grange wrote again to Bedford, claiming that Mary had caused Bothwell to abduct her so that she could marry him.

The Queen will never cease until she has wrecked all the honest men of this realm. Many would revenge it, but they fear your mistress. I am so suited for to enterprise the revenge that I must either take it in hand or leave the country, which I am determined to do, if I get licence; but Bothwell minds to cut me off ere I obtain it. I pray you let me know what your mistress will do, for if we seek France, we may find favour; but I would rather persuade to lean to England. No honest man is safe in Scotland under the rule of a murderer and a murderess.
⁴⁹

On the 26th, Cecil was informed, by one of his agents in Paris, that Archbishop Beaton was openly saying “that the Lord James [Moray] was the author of the King’s death, and Lord Lennox is deluded and mocked by him.”
⁵⁰

Lady Bothwell’s suit for divorce came before the Protestant Commissary Court of Edinburgh on 26 April.
⁵¹
She “accused her husband, before the Queen’s judge, of adultery, which was the only case of divorce recognised by them,”
⁵²
and “therefore requires to be no longer reputed flesh of his flesh.”

To the Queen, a Catholic, this Protestant divorce was unacceptable, and on the following day, at the instance of Bothwell, Mary granted Archbishop Hamilton a commission to try the validity of Bothwell’s marriage, on the grounds that he and Jean were within the forbidden degrees of kinship and had not been granted a dispensation.
⁵³
This was blatant collusion, for they had indeed received a dispensation, and it had been granted by no other than the Archbishop himself.
⁵⁴
Furthermore, Hamilton’s consistorial powers had been revoked, after protests by the Kirk, in January, and never restored. Technically, therefore, as Buchanan points out, he had no authority to pronounce on matrimonial causes. Strictly speaking, the Queen should have applied directly to the Pope for an annulment, but that would have taken months, and there was no guarantee that he would grant her request, especially if he suspected that she meant to marry Bothwell, a notorious Protestant.

When news of these dubious and collusive proceedings leaked out, many of Mary’s loyal subjects turned against her. It was impossible for her to explain that what almost certainly drove her to these desperate measures was the fear of pregnancy and the consequent scandal, which in the present climate might well cost her her throne. She was also a prisoner, and had no choice but to do her captor’s bidding.

Mary was still being held at Dunbar, yet so far none of her subjects, Lords or commoners, had attempted to rescue her, which is an indication of how many people believed that she had connived at her own abduction. She herself wrote that she looked in vain for some of her subjects to come to her relief.
⁵⁵
Only the “highly offended” lieges of Aberdeen offered to help her escape, sending a message on 27 April, desiring to know what they should do “towards the reparation of the matter.”
⁵⁶
Whether Mary received this, or sent an answer, is not known. On 3 May, Robert Melville informed Cecil that Mary had sent asking Elizabeth for help, but had not obtained it.
⁵⁷

Drury reported on 30 April that Bothwell had cast off his mourning garments and was now sporting his finest clothes; he had also been seen out walking with Mary at Dunbar, with an escort of arquebusiers, and showing “tokens of mirth”; Mary’s response is not recorded.
⁵⁸
A few days later, Drury reported that she and Bothwell were amusing themselves with archery practice and equestrian exercises, and that the arquebusiers were no longer so much in evidence. The Queen was attended by Bothwell’s sister, Janet Hepburn, and by his former mistress, Janet Beaton, and her sister Margaret, Lady Reres, to whom she gave gifts.
⁵⁹

On 28 April, Archbishop Hamilton appointed a commission of two bishops and six clerics to inquire into the validity of Bothwell’s marriage. The next day, the Countess of Bothwell’s divorce suit came before the Commissary Court; as the case was defended, witnesses on her behalf were examined over the following two days; among them were George Dalgleish and Patrick Wilson. Neither of the parties appeared in person, but were represented by lawyers. On 1 May, the court found that Lady Bothwell had established her husband’s adultery, and adjourned the case until 3 May.
⁶⁰

Bothwell’s abduction of the Queen and his obviously collusive matrimonial proceedings had given the Lords the pretexts they needed to move against him, and they now declared their hand. On 1 May, an unlikely coalition comprising Morton, Argyll, Atholl, Mar, Tullibardine and others convened at Stirling and entered into a new bond to strive to the utmost of their power to liberate the Queen from Bothwell’s “cruel tyranny and thraldom,” preserve the life of the Prince, and bring Darnley’s killers, especially “that cruel murderer Bothwell,” to justice.
⁶¹
This was the first overt move on the part of Bothwell’s enemies. Interestingly, despite the fact that public opinion held that Mary had connived at the abduction, the official line was, for the time being, to be that Bothwell had “ravished and detained her” against her will.

According to Nau, “many of the Lords were told that the Queen hindered justice being done for the late King’s death.” Mar’s defection would be particularly hurtful to Mary, but his first loyalty was to the Prince, and it is unlikely that he was aware at this stage of the wider aims of the Lords. Nau says that, “to a certain extent, the Countess of Mar was the cause, a malevolent woman and full of the spirit of revenge.” Tullibardine, Lennox’s ally, was her brother.

Herries claims that the overthrow of Bothwell, and a plan to place the Queen under restraint, had been decided upon before Moray’s departure. As Moray was now in France,
⁶²
and it was undesirable anyway that he should appear involved, Morton was to “manage all.” Once the coup had taken place, Moray would return and assume the Regency.
⁶³
De Silva claims that, whilst at Stirling, the Lords “considered the raising of the child to the throne, the government being carried on by them in his name.”
⁶⁴
It is likely that the plot against Bothwell and Mary had the tacit backing of Cecil.

Drury heard that the Lords sent to Mary to ask whether she was held captive against her will, or with her consent, “for if she were held against her will, they would collect a force and rescue her.” She replied that “it was true that she had been evil and strangely handled,” but that she had since been treated “so well that she had no cause to complain, willing them to quiet themselves”;
⁶⁵
The Book of Articles states that she “plainly mocked” them and “showed no signs of discontentation.” However, it is unlikely that Bothwell would have allowed the Lords’ letter to reach Mary; later, she wrote scathingly of the “profound silence” of her nobles whilst she was at Dunbar.

News of Mary’s abduction and rape had now reached the English court. On 1 May, de Silva reported that Elizabeth had informed him of it herself, and that she had been “greatly scandalised” to hear that the Queen had surrendered to Bothwell. “Some say she will marry him, and they are so informed direct by some of the highest men in the country who follow Bothwell. They are convinced of this both because of the favour the Queen has shown him, and because he has the national force in his hands.”
⁶⁶
In Paris, the English ambassadors were alleging that Mary had arranged the assassination of Darnley in order to marry Bothwell.
⁶⁷

Early in May, Lennox joined his wife in London, where Elizabeth assured them, in response to their urgent pleas, that she would help them avenge their son’s murder. In the meantime, she was hoping to have Prince James brought to England to be raised by his grandmother, Lady Lennox; it may be inferred from this that Elizabeth had ruled out any prospect of the succession going to Mary. However, she was adamant that she would not countenance or approve any rebellion against the Queen of Scots.

Drury reported on 2 May that the Hamiltons, including the Archbishop, were furthering Bothwell’s divorce, “hoping to attain the sooner to their desired end.”
⁶⁸
Should Mary be deposed, only the infant Prince would stand in Chatelherault’s way to the throne.

Lady Bothwell’s divorce was granted by the Commissary Court on 3 May, and on that same day, Archbishop Hamilton’s Consistory Court began hearing Bothwell’s suit for an annulment.
⁶⁹
Irritated at the delay, Bothwell sent his henchmen to the chief commissioner, John Manderston, a canon of Dunbar Collegiate Church, with a warning that, if a decision were not given expeditiously, “there shall not fail to be noses and lugs [ears] cut off, and far greater displeasures...”
⁷⁰

On 5 May, Drury reported that the Lords at Stirling had now resolved that, if the Queen married Bothwell, they would crown the Prince, and that they had sent a warning to her to be careful of her conduct. He added that many of those who had signed the Ainslie’s Tavern Bond were now against the marriage.
⁷¹
De Silva informed Philip II that, whilst at Stirling, the Lords had diverted themselves with a drama performed by boy players, entitled “The Murder of Darnley and the Fate of Bothwell.” The actor playing Bothwell was “hanged” so enthusiastically that “hardly in a long time could life be recovered.”
⁷²

That day, witnesses in Bothwell’s suit were examined by John Manderston, sitting alone,
⁷³
while Bothwell, anticipating that he would soon be a free man, left Dunbar with Mary, Maitland and an armed force for Edinburgh. They spent the night at Hailes Castle in East Lothian, which had been a Hepburn stronghold since the fourteenth century.
⁷⁴
On the 6th, the Countess of Bothwell’s procurator appeared on her behalf in the Consistory Court.
⁷⁵

Prior to Bothwell’s departure, Maitland had been held prisoner at Dunbar; he later told the Lords that an attempt on his part to escape during an archery contest had proved abortive. But the Lords, who were expecting him to arrive any day at Stirling, had already begun to ask themselves if “his constraint of liberty is not altogether against his will.”
⁷⁶
It probably suited Maitland to remain a prisoner, for, if the Lords’ coup failed, he could not be accused of disloyalty to his sovereign. Furthermore, whilst working for the downfall of Bothwell, he may well have drawn the line at any treasonable act against Mary, for she was essential to the survival of his Anglo-Scottish policy with its long-cherished aim of political and dynastic union: his behaviour all along would appear to have been dictated by such considerations. His imprisonment enabled him to play for time.