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

by Alison Weir

  The theory outlined above is grounded in a detailed study of the extensive evidence for Darnley’s murder. There can be little doubt that his assassination was a political crime dictated by motives of ideology, self-interest and revenge, and that its aim, and ultimate result, was the securing of power by a faction dedicated to establishing the reformed faith and wielding exclusive influence. But this is not the whole picture. The events that followed the murder also have a bearing on the detection of those responsible, and Mary’s subsequent behaviour raises questions that need to be answered.

  On 1 March, one Thomas Barnaby wrote from Paris to the Earl of Leicester, “Your letters tell me of the strange and sudden disaster which of late hath happened in Scotland. Pray God the tragedy may have no more acts but one.”38His prayer was not to be answered.

  19

  “GREAT SUSPICIONS AND NO PROOF”

  BY DAWN ON 11 FEBRUARY, news of Darnley’s murder had reached Berwick,1and Drury passed it on immediately to Cecil.2Soon, the scandalous tidings would spread throughout Scotland and across Europe, giving rise to universal horror, wild rumours and fevered speculation. Suspicion attached initially to Moray and Maitland,3and then, within a short time, to Bothwell. “All Scotland cried out upon the foul murder of the King.”4

  Clernault left for Paris on 11 February, bearing the Council’s letter to Catherine de’ Medici and Mary’s to Archbishop Beaton, the Council having authorised him to answer any questions that the Queen Mother might ask about the murder. That same day, or the next, Moretta left Edinburgh, apparently travelling with Father Hay. With Darnley dead, there was nothing to keep him in Scotland, and Hay’s mission had been an abject failure.

  On the morning of 11 February, Mary emerged briefly from her black-hung apartments to attend the wedding of her favoured servant, Margaret Carwood, to John Stewart of Tullipowreis in the chapel royal at Holyrood. Two days before Darnley’s murder, Mary had paid for black satin and velvet for the bride’s wedding gown, and she also paid for the nuptial banquet,5although she did not attend it. Her presence at the wedding drew scathing comments from Buchanan, who professed shock that she had emerged from her mourning chamber so soon, and on such a frivolous pretext. Mary may well have been honouring a promise to attend Margaret’s wedding, but in doing so, she displayed poor political judgement.

  Later that day, on the advice of her Council, who shared her view that the plot had been directed at her, and were concerned for her security, Mary took the Prince to Edinburgh Castle, and retired into seclusion.6In her absence, Bothwell took control of the government and acted as the virtual ruler of Scotland. It was Mary’s misfortune that she misguidedly placed her trust in a man who had conspired to kill her husband, for, as suspicion attached to him, many people would come to deem her guilty by association. In her conviction that she had been the intended victim, Mary would not have credited that the ever-loyal Bothwell could have been involved in Darnley’s murder, but the fact that he and Maitland had broached the matter with her earlier must have given her pause for thought. It is more likely, however, that she suspected Morton, who had had good reason to seek revenge on Darnley. But proving it was another matter.

  Nau asserts that “diligent inquiries were made about the murder on all sides, especially by those who were its authors,” but, since the latter were in control, evidence was bound to be suppressed. In his memoir, Bothwell innocently claimed that “some Lords of the Council, fearing lest the Queen and myself should make inquiries respecting them, united themselves and manoeuvred against the Queen and the rest of us, in order to prevent our arriving at any certainty.” It appears to have been Bothwell, however, who was guilty of this. On the afternoon of 11 February, the Council met again, and questioned several more people, including the only independent witnesses, Barbara Merton, Mary Stirling and the surgeon, John Pitcairn,7whose evidence was discounted as mere scandal-mongering. Buchanan refers to Mrs. Merton and Mrs. Stirling as “poor silly women, who, when they had blabbed out something more than the judges looked for, were dismissed again as fools that had indiscreetly spoken.” According to Thomas Wilson, “a few poor folks, the next dwelling neighbours to the King’s lodging,” were so intimidated by their august interrogators that they “neither dared tell what they had seen or heard.” The inquiry was then adjourned until the following day.

  Atholl, who was a friend of Lennox, had been deeply distressed by Darnley’s murder, for, “among other reasons, he had been the chief worker in the marriage.”8But Atholl had other grounds for distress. On the night after the murder, he and his family had been awakened in their Holyrood apartment by a strange noise, which sounded “as if the foundation of the wall were being quietly undermined.” In terror, “they passed the night without sleep,” and the next day, “the Earl moved into the town, and shortly afterwards went home, in fear of his life.”9Tullibardine went with him.10Both men’s loyalties were with the Lennoxes, and Buchanan says that Bothwell and the other Councillors sitting on the commission of inquiry felt that they were probing too deeply for comfort, and, “perceiving the peril, grudged at Atholl and the Comptroller in such sort that it behoved them, for fear of their lives, to leave the court.”

  It was probably on 11 February that Lennox, at Linlithgow, received the appalling news of his son’s murder. Later on, he would be in no doubt that the person responsible for it was his daughter-in-law the Queen, “this tyrant, who brought her faithful and most loving husband, that innocent lamb, from his careful and most loving father to the place of execution, where he was a sure sacrifice unto Almighty God.”11We have no record of Lennox’s initial suspicions, however.

  Mary wrote to Lennox on the day after the murder, promising him justice, and inviting him to Edinburgh to take part in the inquiry.12Her letter is lost, as is his reply. The Book of Articles alleges that she illegally appropriated the earldom of Lennox for her son, as Darnley’s heir, and granted a portion of the lands to Lord Boyd. There is no other evidence for the former, but a gift of the ward of some of the Lennox lands to Boyd appears in the Register of the Privy Seal of Scotland. This can only have increased Lennox’s undoubted animosity towards the Queen.

  On 12 February, Darnley’s embalmed body was laid in state before the altar of the chapel royal at Holyrood,13and the Councillors resumed their inquiry. Mary later informed her European allies that she “could not but marvel at the little diligence they used, and that they looked at one another as men who wist not what to say or do.”14She expected them to take a more vigorous approach to tracking down the murderers, but since they already knew who had killed Darnley, there was little point in prolonging the inquiry. Buchanan says “there was in the days following [the murder] more travail for the inquisition of certain money stolen from Margaret [Carwood] nor [than] for the King’s murder recently committed.” He added that “further examination was postponed, or rather the affair was dropped altogether, for they feared that if they proceeded further, secrets of the court would be revealed to the people.”15

  However, the Council did, on that same day, issue a proclamation in the Queen’s name, and perhaps at her behest, offering a handsome reward of £2,000 Scots, “an honest yearly rent” and even a free pardon to anyone identifying Darnley’s murderers. “The Queen’s Majesty,” it read, “unto whom of all others the case was most grievous, would rather lose life and all that it should remain unpunished.” The proclamation was signed by Argyll, and fixed to the Mercat Cross of Edinburgh by a herald.16

  That day, Clernault passed through Berwick. Soon afterwards, Drury sent Joseph Lutini back to Edinburgh. Mary had no further interest in pursuing inquiries into his conduct, so Bothwell gave him thirty pieces of silver and sent him away rejoicing. Three days later, Sandy Durham was awarded a post at court and a pension, payment no doubt for services rendered to Bothwell on the night of Darnley’s murder.17

  In Paris, Mondovi was fretting about the delay in Father Hay’s arrival. The Nuncio had not yet abandoned hope of a Catholic revival in Sc
otland, but the Pope was now insisting that he return to his See, and he wanted to see Hay before he left France. He was also expecting to receive Hay’s written account of his visit to Scotland—he could not yet have heard about Darnley’s murder—but it had not so far arrived, and may never have done so, for no record of it exists. Mondovi hoped to receive an encouraging report from Hay that would pave the way for he himself to go to Scotland, and it was for this reason that he was reluctant to leave Paris. But on 17 February, Pope Pius, having given up hope that Mondovi’s mission would succeed, recalled him.18

  Robert Melville, having left for London a day or so before Darnley’s murder for the purpose of entering into the all-important negotiations concerning the English succession, heard about Kirk o’Field on his way south and immediately returned to Edinburgh to obtain further news and fresh instructions. When he arrived on 13 or 14 February, Mary was “too much distressed” to receive him, “but had ordered him to continue his journey as he had been previously instructed,”19so, armed with an official account of the murder furnished him by the Council, he set off again for London at once.

  But the news had already reached the English court by means of Cecil’s spies, for on 14 February, Mr. Secretary informed de Silva that Queen Elizabeth was aware of Darnley’s assassination. De Silva reported, “The Queen expresses sorrow at the death of the King, and she thinks that, although he married against her wish, yet, as he was a royal personage and her cousin, the case is a very grave one, and she signifies her intention to punish the offenders.” Soon afterwards, de Silva noticed that Elizabeth, realising that she herself was vulnerable to a similar fate, had ordered the keys to all the doors of her apartments to be removed from the locks and the men guarding her to be vetted.20

  Moretta, and perhaps Hay, passed through Berwick on 14 February,21and it was on this day that Drury reported that Mary had to hand letters and ciphers from the Cardinal of Lorraine and de Alava warning her to take heed of whom she trusted with her secrets and that her husband would shortly be slain. These warnings are similar to that in Archbishop Beaton’s letter urging Mary to be on her guard, but Drury was probably reporting garbled rumours, for he could not have had access to Mary’s private correspondence, and nor could Moretta.

  Late in the evening of 15 February, Darnley was buried in the royal vault of James V in the chapel royal at Holyrood.22This was a beautiful sanctuary, with stained glass windows, rich hangings, oak furnishings and a carved, gilded and ribbed ceiling with pendants. But the Book of Articles claims that the body was, “without any decent order, cast in the earth without any ceremony or company of honest men,” while the Historie of James the Sext says that the funeral was conducted “quietly, without any kind of solemnity or mourning.” Buchanan also alleges that Mary had Darnley buried beside Rizzio, as she had promised after the latter’s murder, but he was in fact buried next to her father. The vitriol in these accounts probably stems from the fact that Darnley was buried according to Catholic rites; Leslie states that his interment was ill-attended because so many of the nobles were Protestants. The Diurnal of Occurrents and Birrel both confirm that the funeral was quiet. Custom precluded the monarch attending the obsequies of a consort, so the Queen’s absence was not remarked upon.

  Lennox and Buchanan claimed that Darnley’s “armour, horse and household stuff were bestowed upon the murderers” by the Queen, and Buchanan adds that “a certain tailor [Dalgleish?], when he was to re-form the King’s apparel to Bothwell, said jestingly he acknowledged here the custom of the country, by which the clothes of the dead fall to the hangman.” Had Mary been guilty of Darnley’s murder, she would surely not have been so stupid as to openly reward her partner in guilt in this way, and it seems likelier that she felt that Bothwell was more deserving of these rich perquisites than anyone else.

  On 15 February, du Croc reached Dover, where he was overtaken by “an express messenger sent him by the French ambassador with the Queen of England” who informed him of the deaths of Darnley and Lennox and delivered “an urgent commission to use all speed” to return to the French court and be the first to communicate the news.23That day or the next, du Croc sailed for France.

  Robert Melville, en route to London, received word from his brother James that Lennox had left Linlithgow by 16 February and returned to Glasgow. It seems strange that Lennox did not go to Edinburgh to pay his respects to his dead son, but he probably felt he would have been putting himself in danger by doing so. Nor had he any idea how much the Queen or others knew about his involvement in Darnley’s plots.

  Mary was apparently in no fit state to receive anyone. By 16 February, there was serious concern for her health, and it may be that the reality and horror of Darnley’s death and its implications had finally come home to her. Her dreadful illness of October and November was still fresh in everyone’s minds, and it was understood that being shut up in black-shrouded rooms was not conducive to her well-being. She herself would have “a longer time in this lamentable wise continued had she not been most earnestly dehorted by the vehement exhortations and persuasions of her Council, who were moved thereto by her physicians’ informations, declaring to them the great and imminent dangers of her health and life if she did not, in all speed, break up and leave that kind of close and solitary life, and repair to some good, open and wholesome air, which she did, being thus advised and earnestly thereto solicited by her said Council.”24Mary’s emergence from mourning so soon after her husband’s death was later to attract scathing criticism from Buchanan, who asserted that she had “brazenly resisted the comments of the people” in doing so. But this is not borne out by the contemporary evidence.

  On 16 February, Mary went to Seton,25which had proved a refuge before. She took with her Maitland, Livingston, Archbishop Hamilton and an entourage of one hundred persons, having left the Prince in Edinburgh Castle in the care of Bothwell and Huntly.26Captain Cullen is said to have been one of those guarding the Queen at Seton.27

  Drury, whose source is unknown, reported that Mary led a gay and care-free life at Seton, but his information was probably inaccurate, for he also claimed that the Queen and Bothwell visited Dunbar on 17 February, which is untrue.28However, Mary’s enemies were later to make up all kinds of scurrilous tales about her visit to Seton. Buchanan and Knox alleged that Bothwell was with her there and “never absent from her side,” and that the Queen spent her time “plainly abusing her body with Bothwell” or in going out “to the fields to behold games and pastimes,” shoot at the butts and play golf or pell-mell. Buchanan claimed, with vicious irony, that Bothwell was “given a chamber next to the kitchen, yet this was not entirely unsuitable for assuaging their sorrow, for it was directly beneath the Queen’s chamber, and if any sudden wave of grief overcame her, there was a stair which was wide enough for Bothwell to get up to console her.”29Bothwell, of course, was in Edinburgh at the time.

  Clernault arrived in London on 16 February, and there wrote his report of Darnley’s murder, which concluded, “It has not been discovered, still less is it known, who is the author of it.” A copy of the report was left with Cecil, whose clerk endorsed it.30

  That night, the first of a number of accusatory and defamatory placards was pinned to the door of the Tolbooth in Edinburgh; its anonymous author claimed to have “made inquisition by them that were the doers thereof” and affirmed that “the committers” of Darnley’s murder were Bothwell, Balfour, David Chalmers and one Black John Spens, “who was the principal deviser of the murder, the Queen assenting thereto, through the persuasion of the Earl of Bothwell and the withchcraft” of Bothwell’s former mistress, Janet Beaton, the Lady of Buccleuch. “And if this be not true, [ask] Gilbert Balfour,” brother of James.31Drury reported the appearance of this placard to Cecil on 19 February, saying that it was written as if by the Queen and stated, “I and the Earl of Bothwell were doers of the [murder].”32

  John Spens was the Queen’s Advocate;33he was later arrested for Darnley’s murder, but his role i
n the conspiracy is unknown. In the “Notes concerning David Chambers” [sic] preserved amongst Cecil’s papers at Hatfield, and probably collated by one of his agents during Mary’s captivity in England, it is claimed that Chalmers “was a great dealer betwixt the Queen and Bothwell”—it will be remembered that Buchanan claimed they had used his lodging as a trysting place—which “gave cause to my Lord Lennox in his letters to the Queen to accuse David as culpable and participant in the murder of the King his son.” On 17 March, Lennox did name Chalmers as a party to Darnley’s murder, but there is no other evidence of his involvement.

  On 17 February, de Silva informed Philip II of that same murder. He had waited three days since being told the news by Cecil in case word came that the murderers had been apprehended, “but no news has come as to who had been the author of the crime.” “The case is a very strange one,” he wrote, “and has greatly grieved the Catholics. I think that more must be known than Cecil tells me, because when I sent to ask him if he had any further particulars, he told me he had not but we should soon know more because the Earl of Moray was coming hither, and two gentlemen also whom the Queen of Scotland was sending respectively to France and England, who would no doubt bring further details.” That night, Cecil received his spy’s drawing of the murder scene at Kirk o’Field.