by Alison Weir
The letter continues:
To be short [summa], for that I can learn, he hath great suspicion, and yet nevertheless trusteth upon my word, but not to tell me as yet anything; howbeit, if you will that I shall avow him, I will know all of him; but I shall never be willing to beguile one that putteth his trust in me. Nevertheless, you may do all, and do not esteem me the less therefor, for you are the cause thereof. For, for my own revenge, I would not do it.
He giveth me certain charges, and these strong, that I fear even to say that his faults be published, but there be [some] that commit some secret faults and fear not to have them spoken of loudly, and that there is speech of great and small. And even touching the Lady Reres, he said, “God grant that she serve to your honour.” And that any may not think, nor he neither, that mine own power was not in myself, seeing I did refuse his offers. To conclude [summa], for a surety, he mistrusteth of that that you know, and for his life. But in the end, after I had spoken two or three good words to him, he was very merry and glad.
This passage presumably refers to Darnley’s fear of Morton and his reliance on Mary to protect him. She goes on:
I have not seen him this night for ending your bracelet, but I can find no clasps for it; it is ready thereunto, and yet I fear lest it should bring you ill hap, or that should be known if you were hurt. Send me word whether you will have it, and more money, and how far I may speak. Now, so far as I perceive, I may do much with you;25guess you whether I shall not be suspected. As for the rest, he is mad when he hears of Lethington and of you and my brother. Of your brother [in law? Huntly?] he sayeth nothing, but of the Earl of Argyll he doth. I am afraid of him to hear him talk; at the last, he assured himself that he [Argyll] hath no ill opinion of him. He speaketh nothing of these abroad, neither good nor ill, but avoided speaking of him. His father keepeth his chamber: I have not seen him.
All the Hamiltons be here, who accompany me very honestly. All the friends of the others do come always when I go to visit him. He hath sent to me and prayeth me to see him rise tomorrow in the morning early. To be short, this bearer shall declare unto you the rest, and if I learn anything, I will make every night a memorial thereof. He shall tell you the cause of my stay. Burn this letter, for it is too dangerous, neither is there anything well said in it, for I think upon nothing but upon trouble26if you be at Edinburgh.
Now, if to please you, my dear life, I spare neither honour, conscience nor hazard, nor greatness, taking it in good part, and not according to the intepretation of your false brother-in-law [Huntly], to whom I pray you, give no credit against the most faithful lover that ever you had or shall have.
See not also her [the Countess Jean] whose feigned tears you ought not more to regard than the true travails which I endure to deserve her place, for obtaining of which, against my own nature, I do betray those that could let [prevent] me. God forgive you, and give you, my only friend, the good luck and prosperity that your humble and faithful lover doth wish unto you, who hopeth shortly to be another thing unto you, for the reward of my pains.
I have not made one word, and it is very late, although I should never be weary in writing to you, yet will I end, after kissing of your hands. Excuse my evil writing, and read it over twice. Excuse also that I scribbled, for I had yesternight no paper when [I] took the paper of a memorial. Pray remember your friend, and write unto her and often. Love me always, as I shall love you.
The phrase “my evil writing” is one that Mary often used.
The Scots version ends:
Remember you of the purpose of the Lady Reres. Of the Englishmen. Of his mother. Of the Earl of Argyll. Of the Earl Bothwell. Of the lodging in Edinburgh.
It is this paragraph that has given rise to the theory that there were two letters, for Mary would hardly be reminding Bothwell to remember himself, and it was careless of a forger—if there was a forger—to leave in such a detail. It is significant that the English translator omitted it. It has been put forward that these were directions to the messenger, but that cannot be the case, and the words “remember you” preclude them from forming part of an aide-mémoire to the writer, such as appears in the middle of the letter. Furthermore, Bothwell is quite low down in the list of remembrances, which suggests he was not uppermost in Mary’s concerns. This paragraph, therefore, must be the end of the report that was perhaps written to Moray or Maitland. Had this letter been genuine in its entirety, it could not have been written to Bothwell. Neither, however, would certain sections of it appear to have been intended for anyone else. As this letter was produced as the most compelling evidence of Mary’s collusion with Bothwell, we can only conclude that it had been tampered with or at least partially fabricated.
If genuine, Casket Letter II incriminates Mary not only in an adulterous relationship with Bothwell, but also in helping him to plot Darnley’s murder. It offers plausible evidence of the behaviour of two people who were later suspected of being guilty of a murder that certainly took place. But, tampering aside, is the letter in substance genuine?
Let us consider what we know of Mary. She was at a low ebb emotionally, and must have felt panicky and beset by rumours of conspiracies. She had every reason to despise and fear her husband. She had agreed to a reconciliation that may well have been distasteful to her. She was a woman who needed a strong man to lean and rely upon. She had so far refused to become embroiled in plots against Darnley. However, she was now faced with the prospect of resuming sexual relations with her syphilitic husband. The circumstantial evidence against Mary would appear to be strong, but it must be remembered that the overriding objective in her life was the English throne. Marriage to Darnley had strengthened her title to it, and any scandal, such as the murder of her husband or adultery on her part with another man, would seriously prejudice her chances of achieving that objective.
Bothwell, with his long record of service to the Crown, also had every reason to despise Darnley, and was almost certainly plotting to do away with him, in concert with Maitland, Douglas and (probably) Moray. Bothwell was the man who was closest to the Queen, the man on whom she relied implicitly, and he was telling other potential conspirators that she had sanctioned the removal of Darnley. His taste of greatness had bred in him an ambition to seek for higher things and to hope that, once Darnley was out of the way, he might persuade the Queen to marry him. The rapidity with which he put himself forward, after Darnley’s murder, as the ideal candidate for Mary’s hand, suggests that the desire to be King was the driving force behind his determination to do away with Darnley. Livingston’s remark to Mary suggests that he had guessed Bothwell’s intentions towards her, but also implies that this was news to her.
It is, of course, quite possible that Bothwell and Mary had already become lovers, as this letter implies. But there is no evidence for it apart from Casket Letter II and the later malicious libels of Buchanan and Lennox.
It has been said that Casket Letter II is a masterpiece in the science of human nature27and that this argues its authenticity, but it is possible that anyone with a vivid imagination and the benefit of hindsight could have invented the incriminating passages. As a portrayal of a woman so in thrall to her lover that she is willing to commit murder against the dictates of her conscience for his sake this letter is indeed a masterpiece, and there is evidence that Mary did become in thrall to Bothwell, but only after Darnley’s murder. There were several clever men at court with a good insight into the Queen’s character and sufficient knowledge of her literary style to reproduce it convincingly—Maitland was one such, Moray another—who could have been the inspiration behind such a forgery.
The fact remains, however, that Casket Letter II has certainly been tampered with—the reference to Bothwell is proof of this. This in itself must cast doubt on the veracity of its contents. The fact that Thomas Crawford copied passages of it almost word for word in order to give evidence against Mary in 1568 is further grounds for suspicion, for if Crawford’s testimony was genuine, why could it not
have stood alone?
There can be little doubt that the section of the letter reporting the interview with Darnley is mostly genuine—it fits in with all the other evidence and is a convincing portrayal of Darnley’s character.
If the rest of the letter was a forgery, it was brilliantly done, with enough seemingly irrelevant detail, such as the memorial in the middle, to make it appear utterly genuine. The forger must have had access to other letters of Mary’s in order to imitate her style and, doubtless, her handwriting, which she later claimed was easily copied. It is now impossible to check this, since the original Casket Letters have long since vanished.
As will be seen later, Casket Letter II was produced by Mary’s enemies at a time when it was crucial for them to present evidence justifying the action they had taken against her, their anointed sovereign. For that reason alone, it must be suspect. However, the fact that it recounts in convincing detail events that are known to have taken place has led many to conclude that it must be genuine. Yet the reference to Bothwell at the end strongly suggests that it was not entirely so. Given this, and the circumstances in which the letter was produced, it cannot be regarded as reliable evidence of Mary’s guilt.
On 23 January, Sir William Drury returned to Berwick to find Joseph Lutini there, who told him he had been dispatched with Mary’s “good favour” to France on “certain of Her Grace’s affairs,” but claimed he was too unwell to proceed on his journey. Drury also found awaiting him the letter from Queen Mary asking him to apprehend Lutini because he had stolen goods and money from his colleagues, and insisting that it was not these that she wished to recover so much as Lutini’s person, “for now the Queen mistrusteth lest he should offer his service here in England, and thereby might, with better occasion, utter something prejudicial to her.” Drury thought it best to keep Lutini in Berwick until Queen Elizabeth’s pleasure was made known to him, and sent a copy of Mary’s letter and the forged passport to Cecil.28
That same evening, Moretta arrived in Berwick. He was already more than a month late for the christening, which some have seen as suspicious. Moretta certainly met Lutini in Berwick, for Rizzio was to accuse Lutini of divulging to Moretta the fact that he, Rizzio, had been the cause of Lutini’s journey. As a result of the meeting, Lutini resolved never to return to Edinburgh for fear of meeting “a prepared death.”29The evidence suggests that Lutini had been instructed by Darnley, through the good offices of Rizzio, to make contact with Moretta, whom Darnley perhaps hoped might serve as his link with Mondovi and the Vatican in his grandiose scheme to seize power and restore the Catholic faith in Scotland and England. If Casket Letter II is to be believed, Darnley may already have been in contact with Mondovi. Moretta might also be a means of enlisting the support of Spain, Savoy’s ally. The fact that Lutini was to go on to France suggests that Darnley may have intended him to make contact with de Alava in Paris.
The hopes invested by the Pope in Mary had been raised by news of the Prince’s lavish Catholic baptism, and on 22 January, Pius had written her a joyful letter, praising her for making such a good start and telling her that he was counting on the future salvation of Scotland.30But on 24 January (and again on 13 February), Mondovi wrote to him to report the failure of the mission of Father Hay and the Bishop of Dunblane to Scotland. Hay, moreover, had called Mary a sinner for her want of zeal in the Catholic cause.
On 24 January, du Croc, on his way south, met Moretta travelling north from Berwick, and turned back to accompany him to Dunbar, since they were old acquaintances and Moretta was “desirous of the other’s company.”31After staying a night at Dunbar, du Croc resumed his journey to London.
On that same day, Bothwell left Edinburgh for Liddesdale. It was later alleged that, prior to his departure, he had been “overseeing the King’s lodging that was in preparing for him,”32the implication being that Bothwell had finalised his murder plans. The Book of Articles claims that Bothwell went to Kirk o’Field “to visit and consider the house prepared for the King” and was not pleased when others came seeking him out there. But Kirk o’Field had not yet been chosen as a suitable lodging for Darnley: the plan was to take him to Craigmillar. It would have been perfectly logical for Bothwell to have checked that preparations for the King’s lodging at Craigmillar were proceeding smoothly before leaving Edinburgh; after all, it was on his way south.
Bothwell remained in the Borders for the next few days, and Mary stayed in Glasgow until 27 January. It will be remembered that Casket Letter I was dated “From Glasgow, this Saturday morning.” The only Saturday on which Mary was in Glasgow was 25 January. This letter would scarcely have been sent on this date because the writer is complaining that she has not had news from Bothwell, and had hoped to hear from him “yesterday.” But Bothwell had left her only four days earlier and had not yet reached Liddesdale. He had several days of hard riding and a short sojourn in Edinburgh, so would hardly have had time to write, which Mary must have known. Furthermore, “the man” must refer to James: Mary is unlikely to have written so warmly of Darnley at this time. Hence it must be concluded that the postscript “From Glasgow, this Saturday morning” was probably added by a forger to an earlier letter.
Moretta finally arrived in Edinburgh on 25 or 26 January.33Father Hay appears to have made himself known to him.34According to Buchanan, Moray came to Edinburgh to receive Moretta, and Maitland remained in the city to entertain him.35Sir James Balfour lent his house in the Canongate to Moretta during his stay. Balfour, a Catholic, was a friend of Darnley, and may well have been acting as Darnley’s agent.
On the 26th, Moretta had a meeting with Joseph Rizzio, and disclosed details of his conversation with Lutini in Berwick, whereupon Rizzio, in a panic, wrote to Lutini in Berwick, recounting how it had come to the Queen’s attention that Lutini had absconded with her bracelets and other people’s money, and how Moretta had told him “that you told him that I was the cause that you took this journey. Take heed of what you say, for if you say for whom you have gone, we shall both be in real trouble.” Who in Scotland, but Darnley, would have used foreign Catholic agents at court to make contact on his behalf with the Catholic powers in Europe?
Rizzio continued:
I have always said that you had gone because you had taken money, and to let the anger which the Queen had against you die down, and that I had advised you to do so, and that I had lent you money to make this journey, so that you can still say the same. And I said that the money which you have taken from me you would give back when you were returned from France, and thus shall you and I both be excused. And if you do otherwise, you will be the cause of my ruin. For the love of God, act as if I were your son, and I pray you for the love of God and of the good friendship which you have borne me, and I you, to say as I tell you, which is that you are making this journey to bring back your money, and to let the Queen’s anger subside and the suspicion which she has of you; and the money which I said you have taken from me, that you have taken it for fear that you should happen to lack in your journey, and that you would restore it when you were returned; and that you are a man of wealth, and that you would not have taken it without returning it to me, because I was always your friend and you would never have thought that I would have made such a fuss of it. And I pray you not to want to be the cause of my ruin.
Rizzio went on to say that the Queen had told him she wanted to speak with Lutini in private, and he urged him to “take care to speak as I have written, and not otherwise” and not let Mary “rattle you with her speech”—evidently Lutini was a volatile fellow. Again, Rizzio begged him, “I pray you to have pity on me and not to be the cause of my death. If you say otherwise than that which I have written, you will be in trouble as well as I.” Beneath his signature, he added, “I beg you to burn this letter as soon as you have read it.”
It is almost certain that the money that Lutini took with him had been raised by Darnley or stolen on his behalf; it is even possible that it was Darnley who appropriated Mary’s brac
elets. Rizzio had forged Lutini’s passport— a crime for which he could be executed—and was now terrified that the loose-tongued Lutini would betray him. There is no evidence that Lutini received his letter, which seems to have been intercepted by Drury, for it was later found among Cecil’s papers. With Lutini now held under guard at Berwick, it is no wonder that Rizzio was frantic with anxiety.
Drury reported on 26 January that, if there was no danger from the cold weather to Darnley’s health, Mary would leave Glasgow with him the next day.36
Around this time, news of affairs in Scotland was causing some consternation in Paris. On 26 and 30 January, Catherine de’ Medici reported to her envoy in Brussels that the Spanish ambassador, Francisco de Alava, had shown “great choler.” She charitably put this down to illness, but added that, when he recovered, he would doubtless be more polite. As a precaution, she had had his diplomatic bags searched.
De Alava’s irascibility may have been born of anxiety, for it was at this time that he warned Archbishop Beaton that Mary was in danger; it will be remembered that de Alava was reputedly friendly with Darnley, and that he had informed the Duchess of Parma of a Scottish plot against Mary back in December. It seems strange that he had waited until now to get a warning to Mary, but it may be that his new information was sufficiently credible and alarming to prompt him to act. Nor did Beaton waste any time, for, on the 27th, he wrote informing Mary that de Alava had “specially advertised” her “to take heed of yourself.” Beaton added that he had “heard some murmuring in like wise by others, that there be some surprise to be trafficked to your contrary.” De Alava, he said, “would never let me know of no particular, only assured me he had written to his master to know if by that way he can try any farther, and that he was counselled to cause me haste towards you herewith.”