by Alison Weir
I have shown unto this bearer that which I have learned, to whom I remit me, knowing the credit that you give him, as sure does that will be for ever unto your humble, obedient, lawful wife, that forever dedicates unto you her heart, her body, without any change, as unto him that I have made possessor of heart, of which so may hold you assured, yet unto the death shall no ways be changed, for evil nor good shall never make me go from it.56
The original French copy of this letter is endorsed “To prove the affections.” Mary’s enemies offered it as evidence that she was involved in an adulterous relationship with Bothwell. The reference to Paris, which could be an interpolation, indicates that it was sent by Mary to Bothwell, but there are no other clues as to the writer’s identity. It was certainly written by a woman to her lover. The couple are engaged in an illicit affair, perhaps a secret marriage since she refers to herself as his lawful wife, and the writer is longing for the time when the “marriage of our bodies” can be made public; in the meantime, she is lamenting her lover’s absence and forgetfulness. The tone of the letter is self-abasing and wholly submissive. If not entirely forged, it could have been written by Mary to Darnley, before their marriage, or even by another woman, possibly Anna Throndssen, to Bothwell. It could not refer to Mary’s marriage to Bothwell since, from this time onwards, far from being absent, he was constantly in attendance on her. Much of this letter refers to the symbolism in a jewel that the writer has sent to her lover, which represents a tomb, and was probably a memento mori, a type of jewel that reminded the wearer of his or her mortality; such jewels were fashionable in the sixteenth century. This jewel has been identified as the black ring set with a diamond that Mary had promised Bothwell in her Will of 156657but, since the writer was also sending “the ornament of the head,” which was almost certainly a lock of hair, the jewel is more likely to have been a locket in which her lover could enclose it. The word used in the original French is “bague,” which now means a ring or collar, but was used in Mary’s Will to describe various jewels.
On Saturday, 8 February, Lennox left Glasgow for Linlithgow. It has been conjectured that he was making his way to Holyrood to greet Darnley on the successful conclusion of the latter’s coup against Mary, but Lennox might have been travelling simply with the object of visiting his son, who was now restored to health and favour. He might also have hoped that Darnley would effect a reconciliation between himself and the Queen. According to the Seigneur de Clernault, Lennox was attacked in Glasgow on Sunday evening and was saved from death only by the intervention of Lord Sempill.58However, as Lennox was then in Linlithgow, this incident must have happened before he left Glasgow on the 8th, if it happened at all, for Lennox makes no mention of it. There has been conjecture that Clernault was attempting to establish an alibi for Lennox in case Darnley’s plans went wrong.
According to de Silva, Darnley had asked to see Moretta, but Mary was still apparently suspicious of Darnley’s motives; she had no intention of giving him any chance to liaise with his friends abroad, and had told him that he could not receive Moretta because the latter’s master, the Duke of Savoy, still bore resentment towards him, Darnley, because of the murder of his former servant David Rizzio. Moretta, too, had asked to see Darnley, ostensibly to discuss horses, but Mary would not let him.59
Mary’s chief reason for preventing their meeting may have been to avoid giving any offence to the English that might prejudice her chances of the succession. Darnley had proved himself untrustworthy and had already publicly proclaimed her a bad Catholic to her allies, and she was not entirely sure that he was not still working against her. Her chief preoccupation at this time was the new concord with England, and on 8 February, she announced that she was at last willing to ratify the Treaty of Edinburgh and would be sending Robert Melville to London to open the negotiations; he left the next day.60It is hardly likely that, at such a crucial time, Mary would have been contemplating murdering her husband. That night, she dined with Darnley, Bothwell and others at Kirk o’Field.
By 9 February, Sir James Balfour seems also to have left Edinburgh. His departure was perhaps significant. Having seen Darnley installed at Kirk o’Field, at his own suggestion, and Moretta in his Edinburgh house, and having perhaps laid plans with both of them, he may have felt that it was wise to absent himself while those plans came to fruition. Or he was playing a double game with both Darnley and the Lords, and did not wish to stay around to risk betrayal.
Sunday, 9 February was the last Sunday in Lent and therefore a day of carnival and feasting; Mary had a full programme of engagements planned. Darnley began this last day of his convalescence by hearing Mass.61Later that morning, Moray came to Mary at Holyrood and told her he had received news that his wife was very ill after a miscarriage62and that he must go to her without delay; with the Queen’s permission, he left Edinburgh immediately for St. Andrews. In view of what was to happen the next night, it is hard to escape the conclusion that Moray was deliberately absenting himself so as to avoid being implicated, especially since he did not return as soon as his wife had recovered. Nau says that he left “after having matured all his plans necessary for his success in seizing the crown and ruining the Queen.” Leslie claims that, on the journey to St. Andrews, Moray told his servant, “This night, ere morning, the Lord Darnley shall lose his life,” but it seems that Leslie was trying to fabricate a case against Moray in the absence of other evidence, for this remark is entirely out of character. Moray was normally cautious and highly secretive and it is beyond credibility that he would have let slip such an indiscreet and incriminating remark to a servant.
Meanwhile, Darnley was having his last medicinal bath, and doubtless looking forward to returning to Holyrood the following morning63and there resuming full marital relations with Mary.
If Mary’s enemies are to be believed, she took time out on this busy day to write Casket Letter V to Bothwell; this is surprising, as he was in almost constant attendance on her that day. The French version64is endorsed “Anent the dispatch [dismissal] of Margaret Carwood, which was before her marriage; proves her [Mary’s] affection”; Buchanan, in his Detectio, entitles the Scots version, “Another letter to Bothwell concerning the departure of Margaret Carwood, who was privy and a helper of all their love.” Some writers have identified Margaret Carwood with a maid-of-honour who is known to have incurred the Queen’s displeasure at this time by becoming pregnant out of wedlock; this was an embarrassment to Mary because of the severe view that the Kirk took of such matters. However, the letter may not refer to Margaret Carwood at all, for on 8 February Mary granted her a handsome pension, and two days later, on the eve of Carwood’s wedding, paid out a lavish sum for a wedding dress for her. She would not have acted thus towards a servant who had incurred her displeasure. Casket Letter V reads:
My heart, alas! Must the folly of one woman whose unthankfulness toward me ye do sufficiently know, be occasion of displeasure unto you, considering that I could not have remedied thereunto without knowing it? And since that I perceived it, I could not tell it you, for that I knew not how to govern myself therein. For neither in that, nor in any other thing, will I take upon me to do anything without knowledge of your will, which I beseech you let me understand; for I will follow it all my life, more willingly than you shall declare it to me. And if ye do not send me word this night what ye will that I shall do, I will rid myself of it, and hazard to cause it to be enterprised and taken in hand, which might be hurtful to that whereunto both we do tend. And when she shall be married, I beseech you give me one, or else I will take such as shall content you for their conditions; but, as for their tongues, or faithfulness towards you, I will not answer. I beseech you that are opinion of other person, be not hurtful in your mind to my constancy. Mistrust me, but when I will put you out of doubt and clear myself, refuse it not, my dear love, and suffer me to make you some proof by my obedience, my faithfulness, constancy and voluntary subjection, which I take for the pleasantest good that I might receive, if
ye will accept it, and make no ceremony at it, for ye could do me no greater outrage, nor give more mortal grief.
The likelihood is that this note was sent by Mary to Darnley during his sojourn at Kirk o’Field, and that it concerns the maid who had got pregnant. The letter is written in the spirit of the reconciliation that had taken place between the royal couple. Mary would have had no cause to write to Bothwell on such a matter, for her maid’s pregnancy would have been of little interest to him, but Darnley would have been concerned lest it cast a stain upon his wife’s honour. Mary is worried because, if he does not tell her what she should do about it, he might not approve if she insists on the maid marrying her lover; if Darnley does not approve of that, however, it might prejudice the good relations between him and Mary, yet he must bear in mind that she is willing to be ruled by him in all things. The letter has an abrupt ending and appears to have been cut in the interests of making it look as if the recipient of such loving sentiments was Bothwell.
Late that Sunday morning, Mary attended the marriage of two of her favourite servants, Sebastien Pagez and Christina Hogg, at Holyrood, and was the guest of honour at the wedding breakfast that began at noon. Before leaving, the Queen promised to attend a masque that Pagez had devised in celebration of his nuptials, which was to be staged late that evening.
By 4 p.m., Mary had arrived at a house in the Canongate65where the Bishop of the Isles was hosting a farewell banquet for Moretta, who was returning to Savoy the next day. Bothwell, Argyll and Huntly were among those who accompanied the Queen, and all were attired in the magnificent costumes that they were to wear at the masque that evening; Bothwell’s was of black satin fringed with silver.66
At around 7 p.m., Mary, “masked”67and “accompanied with the most part of the Lords that are in this town,”68left the banquet and rode to Kirk o’Field to spend the evening with Darnley. While the Queen chatted to her husband, Bothwell, Argyll and Huntly played at dice with a Catholic Privy Councillor, Gilbert Kennedy, Earl of Cassilis, a brutal young thug who once held a man’s legs in the fire to make him give way in a property dispute. Maitland appears also to have been present. Buchanan claims that Mary spoke with Darnley “more cheerfully than usual for a few hours” and “often kissed him.” She was doubtless in a convivial mood after the day’s festivities. Given the large number of people present, it is likely that they all gathered in the Prebendaries’ Chamber, which Darnley was using as a presence chamber: his bedchamber would probably not have been big enough to accommodate them all. There is no reason to believe that he was still confined to bed at this time.
It is not certain how long Mary and her courtiers remained at Kirk o’Field that evening because the sources are conflicting. Both Mary and her Councillors stated, in letters written only a day later, that she left around midnight. Lennox states they stayed until 11 p.m., the Seigneur de Clernault says they left after two or three hours, at either 9 p.m. or 10 p.m.,69while de Silva heard that they stayed for three hours.70Mary and the Lords were probably correct.
Thomas Nelson, Buchanan and Lennox all claimed that Mary intended to stay the night at Kirk o’Field, and the Lords of the Council, in a letter to Catherine de’ Medici, written after Darnley’s murder, stated that “it was a mere chance that Her Majesty did not remain there all night.” Moretta also told the Venetian ambassador in Paris that Mary intended to stay the night.71 But Buchanan alleges that, “in the middle of the evening’s proceedings, the Frenchman Paris, one of her rascally attendants, entered the King’s chamber and placed himself silently, so that he could be seen by the Queen. His arrival was the sign that all was prepared for the crime. As soon as she saw Paris, the Queen pretended that she had just remembered Bastien’s wedding, and blamed herself for her negligence, because she had not gone to the masked ball that evening, as she had promised, and had not seen the bride in her bed. With this remark, she rose and went home.” Yet Mary had come masked, in costume,72ready to attend the masque, so it is highly improbable that she forgot her promise, although she may have left Kirk o’Field later than planned. Lennox does not mention this episode, but offers a different explanation for Mary sleeping at Holyrood, as will be seen.
Darnley certainly expected her to return after the masque and stay the night. He expressed chagrin when, as she made ready to leave for the masque, she apparently changed her mind, possibly in view of the lateness of the hour, and said she would sleep at Holyrood. Bothwell, who had reasons of his own for wanting to keep Mary away from Kirk o’Field, reminded her that she had arranged to ride to Seton in the morning, and added that, in view of the early start she wished to make, it would be more convenient for her to stay at Holyrood.73Mary later wrote to Archbishop Beaton that it was “of very chance” that she “tarried not all night, by reason of some masque in the Abbey,”74while Leslie recorded, “She returned thanks to God for her preservation from so great a peril, for it looked as though the contrivers of the plot had expected that she would pass the night there with the King, and they planned the destruction of them both.” Cecil was informed by one Captain Cockburn that, “were it not for Secretary Lethington and Bastien, Her Grace would not fail to have lain in that same house, and been utterly destroyed.”75 Maitland’s role in all this is not clear, but some writers have regarded it as strange that he should have tried to save Mary’s life when he had perhaps been plotting her ruin. Yet there is no evidence that Maitland or Moray ever conspired to bring about Mary’s death; had that been so, they would have had her executed when they had the power to do so. But there is plenty of evidence that Moray at least wanted the Catholic Queen removed from her throne.
Mary attempted to mollify Darnley by reminding him that, on the morrow, they would be together again on a permanent basis, and promised him that the next night she would sleep with him.76As a token of this pledge, she gave him a ring.77According to Lennox, she also “called the King to remembrance that David, her servant, was murdered about that same time twelve months.”78If Mary was conspiring to murder Darnley that night, this seems an indiscreet remark to make.
As Mary mounted her horse in the quadrangle, she espied Paris and, “noticing that his face was all blackened with gunpowder,” exclaimed, “Jesu, Paris, how begrimed you are!” He said nothing, and after she had stared at him for a moment, she rode away, having noticed that “he turned very red.”79 As she was observing him by torchlight, this was not surprising, and was probably fanciful thinking on her part, in the light of what she afterwards discovered. Had she been aware that Paris had been helping to shift gunpowder, she would hardly have drawn attention to the fact, so her remark must have been made in genuine innocence. Only later would she have realised the significance of Paris’s dirty appearance.
Probably around midnight, Mary and her train of nobles, with Bothwell among them, returned to Holyrood via the Cowgate, Blackfriars Wynd and the Canongate. Lennox claims that Mary had a sackbut, an early form of trombone, sounded as a signal to the waiting assassins, but no other account mentions this. The weather was very cold, with a light frosting of snow, and the night very dark; the new moon would not appear until 6 a.m.
Back at Kirk o’Field, some of Darnley’s servants were preparing to leave for the night. One was Alexander, or “Sandy,” Durham, Master of the Prince’s Wardrobe and the son of Alexander Durham the Elder, silversmith and Argenter80of the Royal Household. Sandy Durham features largely in the Oration, a treatise by one of Mary’s English detractors, Dr. Thomas Wilson.81 Wilson alleges that Durham made several attempts to obtain leave of absence from Kirk o’Field that night, implying that he knew what was planned and was even a party to the plot; he is said to have been so desperate that he set his bedding alight, a rash thing to do if he was aware that there was gunpowder nearby. In the end, he was given permission to go home. Both Wilson and Buchanan claim that Durham was a spy, planted in Darnley’s household by his enemies.
Darnley was by no means alone in the house that night. His valet, William Taylor, was in attendance,
as were Nelson, McCaig, Glen, Symonds and Taylor’s boy.82This gives the lie to Buchanan, who claims that “most” of the King’s servants “were gone out of the way, as foreknowing the danger at hand.” If this were the case, they might fear reprisals if they warned the King, but why did they not, at the very least, warn their colleagues?
Meanwhile, the Queen had arrived at Holyrood, where she put in a brief appearance at the wedding masque and attended the ceremony of putting the bride and groom to bed.83At around midnight, she retired to her apartments. There, she held a private conference with Bothwell and John Stewart of Traquair, the Captain of her Guard. After fifteen minutes, Traquair left, leaving Bothwell and Mary talking alone “for a considerable time.” After a while, Bothwell was dismissed and the Queen went to bed.84
There is no record of what was discussed on this occasion, and Buchanan no doubt wished to imply that it was Darnley’s murder, but there was never any suggestion that Traquair was involved in the Kirk o’Field plot. It has been conjectured that Bothwell and Traquair came to Mary with intelligence that Darnley was plotting to murder her.85In his memorial, Bothwell says nothing of this, but merely states that he was in the building, “in that part normally allotted to the guard, on this occasion, fifty strong.”86In 1568, Bothwell was busily accusing the Protestant Lords of murdering Darnley, and it would not have helped his case to brand Darnley himself a would-be regicide. Of course, there is no proof that Darnley’s conspiracy was the subject of this private conversation, but the presence of the Captain of the Guard, the fact that Bothwell was in the part of the palace occupied by the guards, and the late hour of the meeting, all suggest that the matter was urgent and that it was crucial to Mary’s security.