Mary, Queen of Scots, and the Murder of Lord Darnley

by Alison Weir

  Because part of the eastern gable wall of Darnley’s house was left standing and the back door of the New Provost’s Lodging was damaged, it is possible that the vaults beneath the eastern end of the Prebendaries’ Chamber, where the ceiling was higher, were also mined, so as to effect the greatest possible damage. The Prebendaries’ Chamber was destroyed in the explosion.

  For more than four centuries, there has been speculation that Mary, Queen of Scots was a party to her husband’s murder, or at least had foreknowledge of it. Even today, the matter is controversial, with Mary’s detractors insisting she was guilty and her partisans proclaiming her innocence, much as happened during her own lifetime.

  It is indeed possible to construct a convincing case against Mary, even without reference to the Casket Letters and the works of Buchanan and Lennox, for the circumstantial evidence is strong. Mary did want to be rid of Darnley. His treasonable conspiracies were grounds enough to justify his murder. The most telling evidence against Mary is the fact that she took him from the safety of his father’s power base at Glasgow to Edinburgh, where he had powerful enemies who had good reason to seek vengeance on him or even kill him; she herself had sanctioned the return of some of these men from exile less than two months earlier. According to the later libels, she was having an adulterous affair with Bothwell at the time, and wanted to marry him, but whether this was true or not, and there is no contemporary evidence to show that it was true, she certainly continued to show favour to Bothwell after he had asked her to sanction the murder of Darnley; Bothwell had earlier told Morton that Mary had given her consent to it.25Mary had agreed to a surprising reconciliation with Darnley, which may have been a pretence calculated to divert suspicion from herself. It was perhaps more than coincidence that the syphilitic Darnley was murdered the very night before he had been due to resume carnal relations with his wife. Mary herself had fortuitously—or deliberately—left Kirk o’Field about two hours before the explosion. Finally, she was quite capable of sanctioning the murder of someone who had become inconvenient: there is no escaping the fact that, in 1586, she authorised the assassination of Queen Elizabeth by Anthony Babington and his associates as a preliminary to seizing the throne of England.

  On the face of it, this is all pretty damning, but it is not the whole picture. There is no evidence that Mary ever contemplated freeing herself from Darnley by other than legal means. When Maitland suggested that other ways might be found, she insisted that they must not conflict with her honour and conscience. When Mary took Darnley away from Glasgow, she was in possession of compelling evidence that he was plotting against her in order to seize power and rule through their child; she was therefore in some peril, and it would have been unthinkable for her to have left him where he was, with an English ship waiting in the Clyde and his father at hand to raise troops. That Darnley was dangerous was later confirmed by de Alava, who later opined that Mary had had to get rid of him, otherwise he would have killed her.26But Mary would hardly have connived at the killing of her husband, who was Queen Elizabeth’s cousin, on the eve of the hoped-for settlement of the English succession question. In bringing him back to Edinburgh, however, she unwittingly gave his enemies the opportunity of bringing their plans to fruition.

  Mary had indeed recalled the exiles who were out for Darnley’s blood, but only after months of being pressured to do so by their friends; she must have known that these men posed a danger to Darnley, but she took measures to prevent them from coming anywhere near him, banning them from court for two years. She may have been lulled into a sense of false security by the fact that Bothwell and other Lords accompanied her on her visits to cheer the invalid at Kirk o’Field.

  Mary did continue to show favour to Bothwell after he asked her to sanction Darnley’s murder; she also continued to favour Maitland and Moray, even though they had hinted at getting rid of Darnley by underhand means. She was no innocent, and knew the turbulent nature of her nobles. In both cases, she had made it categorically clear that she did not approve of the suggestions put to her, and she doubtless naïvely expected her embargo to be sufficient. Bothwell’s loyalty had been proven again and again; she could have imputed his suggestion to an excess of zeal for her welfare, and even if she had taken offence at it, she could not have afforded to alienate him.

  With regard to her reconciliation with Darnley, this is in keeping with other evidence that suggests that Mary had come to realise that there was no lawful means of ridding herself of her husband and that, given the imminent hoped-for accord with England, it would be more advantageous to her to stay married: her union with Darnley had greatly strengthened her claim to the English succession, since many members of the English Parliament felt that he had the better claim. Without him, she would have been far less acceptable to Elizabeth’s subjects. This apart, it is unthinkable that Mary would have prejudiced these longed-for negotiations by committing murder just as they were about to begin. Instead, she had probably resolved to make the best of her marriage. She had forgiven men who had committed worse crimes against her, so there was no reason why she should not have been reconciled to Darnley. The reconciliation may not have been heartfelt, but Mary may have hoped that, as a result of it, she would be able to wean her husband away from his plotting and prevent him from going abroad, for his abandonment of her at this time would have been a serious embarrassment.

  Mary may have left the gathering at Kirk o’Field at a fortuitous time, but she herself would always maintain that she had been the intended victim, and that it was only by a lucky chance that she had not returned to the Old Provost’s Lodging to stay the night. In the letters written the day after the murder, both she and the Privy Council stated this belief, and it would be repeated in a report sent to Cecil on 19 March,27although soon the official line would change. Mondovi was of the opinion that Mary, by “being too prone to pity and clemency,” had become “a prey to those heretics, with danger even to her life.”28Bishop Leslie, who was in Mary’s confidence, later recalled, “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.” Even after Mary’s death, the belief that she had been the intended victim persisted, as was manifest in the funeral sermon preached in Notre-Dame de Paris by Renauld de Beaulne, Archbishop of Bourges, in March 1587.29

  As for Mary’s capacity for murder, by the time she connived in the plot to assassinate Elizabeth, she had been a prisoner in England for eighteen frustrating and miserable years, during which she had plotted ceaselessly for her release and her elevation to her cousin’s throne. She was then an ageing, embittered woman, worn down by injustice and ill health, and a shade of the girl of twenty-four she had been in 1567. In addition, after 1570, the Pope had sanctioned and urged the assassination of Queen Elizabeth as a means of furthering the counter-reformation. Moreover, while there is good evidence of Mary’s complicity in the Babington Plot, there is no reliable evidence of it in the Kirk o’Field plot, and prior to 1567, nothing to show that she had the makings of a murderess. She had seen murder and bloodshed at first hand, and been profoundly shocked by it.

  There are other good reasons for believing Mary innocent. She did not choose Kirk o’Field as a lodging for Darnley. She had intended that he stay at Craigmillar, where he would be more secure from his enemies. Bothwell allegedly asked Paris, rather than Mary, to bring him the keys to the Old Provost’s Lodging; had Mary been in league with Bothwell, it would have been easier, and more logical, for her to supply them. If Mary had been involved in the conspiracy allegedly described by Lord Robert Stewart to Darnley, she would hardly have allowed Darnley to confront Lord Robert. It is also highly unlikely that she would have consented to become involved in a Protestant plot against a fellow Catholic, because, given Darnley’s highprofile protestations of faith, the outcry among her co-religionists would have been great. Furthermore, if Moray and Mait
land were behind the conspiracy, which seems almost certain, they would hardly have taken Mary into their confidence; she was certainly in ignorance of it when Maitland warned her not to remain at Kirk o’Field on 9 February. It has been suggested that, as so many people were involved in the plot against Darnley, Mary could not have failed to be aware of it; but even more people were involved in the conspiracy against Rizzio, and she, Bothwell and others had still remained in ignorance of it. With the murder of a king being high treason, the conspirators had even more compelling reasons for maintaining secrecy. Finally, Hay, Hepburn and others had “declared the Queen’s innocence” in their confessions,30and, in July 1567, her own confessor confided to de Silva that she had had no knowledge of Darnley’s murder and was greatly grieved by it.31

  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.”32Convinced 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.”33According to Correr, who had his information from Moretta, Taylor was heard to exclaim, “The King is dead! Oh, luckless night!”34After 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,36even 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.”37If 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.