by Alison Weir
It was all too apparent that Darnley was unfit for kingship and would never give Mary the vital support that she needed. His arrogance had already alienated the nobility, his loose tongue was a political liability, and he was more interested in the rights and privileges, rather than the duties and obligations, of his position. Although Mary had made every effort to associate him with her in the government of the kingdom, he was not interested in state affairs or the everyday responsibilities of a ruler, and preferred field sports to attending Council meetings. This meant he was not available to sign the official documents that were supposed to bear both his signature and Mary’s, which caused unreasonable delays; in the end Mary had to resort to having a stamp of his signature made, which was held by Rizzio and used in the King’s absence. Mary was now largely shouldering the burden of government alone,8and Darnley’s behaviour was giving her enemies a means of making political capital against her. Moray, in exile, was openly lamenting “the extreme folly of his sovereign” which could only lead to the “utter ruin” of Scotland.9
Darnley was also disillusioned with his marriage, chiefly because of Mary’s adamant refusal to bestow upon him the Crown Matrimonial, which was the thing he wanted above all else. His resentment continued to fester, not only because he felt he was being denied his proper share of royal authority as Mary’s equal, but also because he had his eye on the crown, which would be his if Mary died childless after having given him the Crown Matrimonial. But, despite his bitter and frequent complaints and remonstrances, the Queen insisted that he was too young and had yet to prove himself worthy of the honour. In truth, she may have feared that his ambitions implied a threat to her sovereign rights and even her life.
Darnley’s other cause for grievance was Rizzio, whom he blamed for Mary’s obstinacy over the Crown Matrimonial. Rizzio had been Darnley’s friend, but as Darnley’s credit with Mary declined, Rizzio’s increased and he came to enjoy the political influence that should have been Darnley’s, which aroused the latter’s bitter resentment and jealousy and put an end to the friendship. Daily, the Queen showed more and more favour to the upstart Italian and spent many of her leisure hours with him, sometimes making music or playing cards late into the night. It was unwise but understandable: her husband was a disappointment and she could not trust most of the Lords who should have been in attendance as her chief advisers, so in her isolation she turned to the faithful Rizzio, in whose lively and witty company she could relax and on whose advice she was beginning to rely heavily.
Yet there were those, Randolph among them, who suspected that her relationship with Rizzio was more than that of monarch and secretary. Darnley, given his wife’s behaviour, had every reason to share his suspicions, and certainly did. Randolph was a hostile witness, and although he referred to Rizzio as “a filthy wedlock breaker” who indulged with Mary in “such filthy behaviour whereof I am ashamed to speak,” there is no conclusive contemporary evidence that Mary and Rizzio were in fact lovers, although circumstantial evidence makes it a possibility. What is more important is that many people believed, or affected to believe, that they were.
In March 1566, Paul de Foix, the French ambassador in London, reported to Catherine de’ Medici that one night, between midnight and 1 a.m., Darnley arrived up the secret stair to Mary’s bedchamber and found the door locked. He knocked, but there was no answer and it was only when he shouted that he would break down the door that Mary opened it. At first, it appeared that she was alone, but Darnley’s suspicions had been aroused and he went straight to a closet, where he found a quailing Rizzio wearing only a shirt covered by a furred robe.10Buchanan, whose brief was to discredit Mary, later wrote of a similar incident in which Darnley, having been informed that Rizzio had gone to Mary’s bedchamber one night, went to investigate and found the door bolted on the inside. In this version, Darnley did not force his way in, but spent a sleepless night in an agony of suspicion and jealousy.
But Darnley never alleged any such thing against Mary or Rizzio, even when it was imperative that he justify his conduct, and Lord Ruthven’s contemporary eyewitness account does not refer to either incident, stating only that Darnley complained to Mary in March 1566 that he had good reason to be angry because “since yonder fellow David came in credit and familiarity with Your Majesty, you neither regarded me, entertained me nor trusted me after your wonted fashion. For every day before dinner you were wont to come to my chamber, and passed the time with me, and this long time you have not done so; and when I came to Your Majesty’s chamber, you bore me little company except David had been the third person. And after supper Your Majesty used to sit up at cards with David till one or two after midnight. And this is the entertainment I have had of you this long time.” Her Majesty answered that it was not a gentlewoman’s duty to come to her husband’s chamber, but rather the husband’s to come to the wife’s. The King answered, “How came you to my chamber in the beginning, and ever till within these six months that David fell into familiarity with you? Or am I failed in any sort in my body?”
Randolph and Bedford’s account of this quarrel has Darnley saying “that David had more company of her body than he, for the space of two months.” When Mary replied that it was not the wife’s part to seek out the husband, and that the fault was his own—which was probably true, for it must be remembered that Darnley was not blameless in this affair—he answered “that when he came, she either would not, or made herself sick.”11Few men would have tolerated such a situation, and in the circumstances it was logical for Darnley to experience intense sexual jealousy. By the double standards of the age, his was the greater grievance.
Lennox’s Narrative is the only one of the later libels against Mary to give a full account of the Rizzio affair. The others were written under the auspices of the Lords involved, who naturally did not want their role in it publicised. Lennox wrote independently, and much of his information must have come from Darnley himself, whose murder Lennox was doing his best at the time to avenge. Lennox makes much of Darnley’s jealousy of Rizzio, “whom the King might see increase in such disordinate favour to his wife, as he [Darnley], being in his lusty years, bearing such great love and affection unto her, began to enter into such jealousy as he thought he could not longer suffer the proceedings of the said David, she using the said David more as a lover than a servant, forsaking her husband’s bed and board very often, liking the company of David, as appeared, better than her husband’s.”12This corroborates Ruthven’s account of Darnley’s complaints.
Rizzio had usurped the Lords’ natural privileges, ensured that Maitland was sidelined, and was believed not only to be a papal agent working in secret for the restoration of Catholicism, but also to be blocking any ideas on Mary’s part of recalling the exiled Protestant nobles. He aroused more hatred than Darnley ever did, but Mary seemed oblivious to the Lords’ boiling resentment. She knew she could trust Rizzio absolutely. Yet in continuing to favour him above all others, she displayed incredible folly and an alarming lack of awareness of aristocratic sensibilities and of the scandal to which she was laying herself open by her conduct, which suggests that she was indeed infatuated with the Italian.
On 18 October, Randolph expressed his outrage that Rizzio, “a stranger, a varlet, should have the whole guiding of Queen and country.” As for Mary, “a more wilful woman, and one more wedded to her own opinion, without order, reason or discretion, I never did hear of.” Darnley was even worse, and her Councillors were “men never esteemed for wisdom or honesty.” Of course, Randolph was prejudiced, but he added, with what seems like a touch of sincerity, that “though I oftentimes set forth her praises wherever I could, she is so much changed in her nature that she beareth only the shape of that woman she was before” and was “hardly recognisable by one who had known her in the happy days when she heeded worthy counsel and her praise ran through all nations.” Without Moray’s guiding influence, Mary’s poor judgement and lack of political sense were becoming all too apparent.
Although Elizabeth had commanded Moray to remain in Newcastle, he had gone hotfoot to London to plead his cause in person, and on 22 October, the Queen agreed to see him in private with Cecil present. She was anxious not to provoke either Mary or the French by appearing to favour the Scottish rebels, and, according to Guzman de Silva, it was arranged at this meeting that she would publicly express her displeasure. The next day, therefore, a charade was staged in which Moray, kneeling before Elizabeth, was severely castigated for having rebelled against his anointed sovereign, in the presence of Paul de Foix, the French ambassador, and all the court. Afterwards, although the Queen had said she would not permit him to remain in England, he was allowed to return unmolested to Newcastle with Elizabeth’s assurance that she would mediate with Mary for his return to Scotland. Mary, for her part, rejoiced to hear from Randolph of Moray’s humiliation, not realising that it was mere duplicity.13From then on, relations between the two Queens were slightly warmer, although Mary adamantly refused to pardon Moray, even in exchange for Lady Lennox’s release.14
Bothwell returned to Edinburgh at the end of October, and was put in charge of reorganising Scotland’s artillery defences and keeping the border secure. But when Mary appointed him as one of her commissioners to negotiate with Bedford for a new peace treaty between England and Scotland, the English withdrew, insulted.
On 31 October, Randolph reported that members of Mary’s household had told him “that she is with child. It is argued upon tokens, I know not what, that are annexed to them that are in that case.” By 12 November, having spoken to Mary, he was able to announce: “She is with child, and the nurse already chosen. There can be no doubt, and she herself thinks so.” Two days later, Mary became unwell, suffering from a grievous pain in her side; while she was confined to bed, Darnley spent nine days hunting in Fife. By 1 December, Mary had recovered and was “taking as much exercise as her body can endure.”15Her pregnancy had not been officially announced, but most people drew conclusions when, on that day, she chose to travel to Linlithgow in a litter instead of on horseback, as usual.16Lennox wrote to inform his wife of their daughter-in-law’s pregnancy on 19 December, giving God “most hearty thanks for that the King our son continues in good health and the Queen great with child.”17
As far as Mary was concerned, her pregnancy was the crowning of her hopes, for her child would inherit the joint claims of its parents to the thrones of Scotland and England, and place her in a very strong position vis-à-vis the English succession.
At Linlithgow, Mary was reunited with Darnley, but it may not have been a happy meeting. Far from being overjoyed at the prospect of fatherhood, Darnley must have realised that the coming infant would block for ever his chances of succeeding to the throne, even if Mary did grant him the Crown Matrimonial, for its rights would take precedence in the succession. If, however, the Queen or her infant died in childbirth, Darnley would inherit the throne, but only if he had first secured the Crown Matrimonial. It was imperative now that he do so, and the matter became an obsession with him. But Mary continued to deny him what he wanted, which caused violent arguments between them. Randolph reported: “I cannot tell what misliking of late there hath been between Her Grace and her husband. He presseth earnestly for the matrimonial crown, which she is loath hastily to grant, but willing to keep somewhat in store until she knows how worthy he is to enjoy such a sovereignty.”18
Soon after the meeting at Linlithgow, Darnley left for Peebles on yet another hunting trip, and had not returned by 20 December, when Lennox set out to look for him. Buchanan alleges that Mary had sent the King to Peebles in the depths of winter with only a small following, and that he nearly perished of starvation, but this story is not corroborated by any contemporary account.
Mary was not pleased by her husband’s prolonged absence. On 20 December, Bedford reported: “The Lord Darnley followeth his pastimes more than the Queen is content withal. What it will breed hereafter I cannot say, but in the meantime there is some misliking between them” that was fast becoming public knowledge. When Darnley did return to court he received a very chilly reception.
How serious was the rift was confirmed on 22 December, when the coin giving Darnley precedence was suddenly withdrawn and replaced by a new one, the Mary ryal, on which Mary’s name came first. Randolph was certain that the change was indicative of Mary’s serious displeasure with her husband.19 Documents, however, would continue to be issued in the names of King Henry and Queen Mary until Darnley’s death.20
On Christmas Day, Randolph wrote: “A while ago there was nothing but ‘King and Queen,’ ‘His Majesty and Hers,’ but now ‘the Queen’s husband’ is more common. There are also private disorders amongst themselves, but may be lovers’ quarrels.”21 Mary’s inventories show that her gifts to Darnley, once so numerous, had virtually ceased by the beginning of 1566.22
The rebel Lords’ moveable goods, confiscated by the Crown, had now been publicly auctioned off. On 1 December, Glencairn, Ochiltree and Boyd were pronounced guilty in absentia of lèse-majesté, while on 18 December Moray and the remaining rebels were summoned to appear before Parliament in February 1566 to hear the formal forfeiture of their lands and estates. According to Randolph, it was now Darnley, rather than Mary, who was adamant that Moray should never be pardoned.23
That Christmas, Darnley made an ostentatious parade of Catholic piety, obviously intended to show that he was more staunch in the faith than the Queen. Randolph informed Cecil, “The Queen’s husband never gave greater token of his religion than this last night [Christmas Eve]. He was at Matins and Mass in the morning, before day, and heard the High Mass devoutly upon his knees, though she herself, the most part of the night, sat up at cards and went to bed when it was almost day.”24After Christmas, Darnley returned to Peebles to join Lennox for another hunting expedition,25and did not return until the middle of January.
On 2 January, in Darnley’s absence, and much to his disgust when he found out, Mary pardoned Chatelherault for his part in the Chaseabout Raid, on condition that he remain in exile in France for the next five years. One hundred and sixty members of the Hamilton faction received their remission at the same time.26 The Queen was softening in her attitude to the rebels, and on 24 January Randolph noted that her extremity towards Moray was partly assuaged. Moray, who was running out of money,27had written to her pleading to be allowed to return to Scotland, even undertaking to overlook her association with Rizzio. He and his friends had also offered Darnley a very fine diamond as an inducement to obtain Moray’s reinstatement,28 and had also dangled a bribe of £5,000 before Rizzio, only to be told that his price was nothing less than £20,000.29All these efforts proved to be in vain, and Moray grew increasingly desperate.
Pope Pius IV had died in December, and on 10 January 1566, his successor, Pius V, a fanatical champion of the faith who was to be an energetic force behind the Counter-Reformation, wrote—somewhat prematurely—praising Mary for her zeal in “restoring the true worship of God throughout your whole realm,” exhorting her to complete what she had commenced and congratulating her on her victory over the Protestants.30 The Pope’s letter was delivered in February by Clerneau de Villeneuve, an emissary of the Cardinal of Lorraine, who travelled to Scotland with James Thornton, who had been sent by Archbishop Beaton from Paris to urge Mary to proceed to the utmost against the rebel Lords.31
Although, on 10 December, Mary had again promised her subjects liberty of conscience, in a letter to the Pope dated 31 January, she informed him that she planned to restore Catholicism in Scotland and, later on, in England, when the time was ripe and her enemies were neutralised. On the same day she appointed the Bishop of Dunblane her orator at the Vatican, with instructions to ask for spiritual and financial aid from the Holy Father.
Mary had also been expecting monetary support from King Philip, who had granted Francis Yaxley an audience on 13 October. Ten days later, Yaxley had left Brussels with letters of congratulation on Mary’s marriage and the subsidy
of 20,000 crowns.32 But Yaxley drowned when his ship was wrecked off Northumberland in January 1566, and the money was seized by the Earl of Northumberland and claimed by Queen Elizabeth as treasure trove.33 Darnley took Yaxley’s servant, Henry Gwynn, into his service.
Cecil was annoyed that no letters had been discovered on Yaxley’s body when it was washed ashore, but Philip had prudently written separately to Mary and Darnley via de Silva in London, begging the Queen not to make any attempt on the English throne until he invaded the Netherlands, “where he can with greater facility assist them.” Because of the highly sensitive nature of this letter, de Silva was obliged to hold on to it for several months.34
On Candlemas Day (2 February), Mary and Darnley attended High Mass together at Holyrood, carrying candles in procession to the chapel royal. Mary “used great persuasions to divers of her nobility to hear Mass with her, and took the Earl of Bothwell by the hand, to procure him in.” Bothwell refused, and went off with Huntly to hear Knox preach, at which Mary was somewhat offended.35 Alarmed at this overt display of Catholicism, Randolph reported on 5 February that Mary had “said openly that she will have Mass free for all men that will hear it.” Darnley, Lennox, Atholl and others “now daily resort to it. The Protestants are in great fear, and doubt of what shall become of them. The wisest so much mislike [Darnley’s] government that they design nothing more than the return of the Lords.”