Tudor Queens of England

by David Loades

  T H E Q U E E N S W H O N E V E R W E R E

  167

  had much need of its Catholic ruler. Once the 40 days of her offi cial mourning were over, there was much talk of her remarriage, both Don Carlos, Philip II’s son and the Earl of Arran being mentioned, but Mary’s own thoughts were turning consistently to her northern kingdom, which had been without any sort of royal government since the death of her mother. She appeared to the English ambassador in Paris, Sir Nicholas Throgmorton, to be a very competent and self-possessed young woman:

  Since her husband’s death the Scottish Queen has showed … that she is both of great wisdom for her years, modesty, and also of great judgement … which increasing with her years, cannot but turn greatly to her commendation …

  23 Meanwhile, the Scots themselves were warming to the thought of her return, especially as she was beginning to acquire a reputation for fl exibility in matters of religion. It was Maitland of Lethington, who was keenly aware of the international dimension, and of Mary’s English claim, who urged that she be invited to return, so that that claim might benefi t Scotland rather than France. As early as January 1561 she had notifi ed an intention to return. The emissaries passed to and fro and by the beginning of August a deal had been struck. On 19 August her French galleys reached the port of Leith. And Mary, at the age of 19, returned to the country of her birth, which she had not seen for 13 years. Her deal had been with Lord James Stuart, her half brother, and had included an undertaking to ‘work along’ with the Protestant ascendancy. Within days she had issued a proclamation protecting that ascendancy, and established a council the leading members of which were Lord James and Maitland of Lethington.

  24 It was expected at fi rst that the Queen would be little more than a fi gurehead, but she soon began to demonstrate an unexpected intelligence and grasp of politics. Her willingness to work with a Protestant council had largely marginalized the fi ery John Knox and when she confronted him in a number of disputations, although his intransigence reduced her to tears, he gained no political advantage thereby. At fi rst, as Mary quickly realized, the Anglo-Scottish amity of 1560 was fundamental and she was happy to retain that for reasons of her own. Her eyes were fi xed on the English succession. This was not an immediate issue, because although she never withdrew her alternative claim, Elizabeth was a young woman not much older than herself. Mary’s intention was not to replace Elizabeth (least of all as a Catholic claimant), but to obtain an offi cial recognition of her position as heir should the Queen die childless. In this she made no progress at all. Elizabeth refused even to discuss the issue of the succession, and when she was seriously ill in 1562 it quickly transpired that Mary had no backing in the English Council. 168

  T U D O R Q U E E N S O F E N G L A N D

  Meanwhile, the Scottish Queen was proving as energetic as she was sensible. Between 1562 and 1564 she undertook numerous progresses, going to the Catholic stronghold of the north east in 1562 and getting as far as Inverness in 1564, where the court donned highland dress in honour of the place! The Gordons were so alienated by her pro-Protestant policies that the Earl of Huntly staged a smallscale rebellion during the 1562 progress, which only served to demonstrate the weakness of his following. He died (apparently of apoplexy) on the fi eld of

  battle.25 Lord James Stuart became Earl of Moray and the Huntly title was temporarily extinguished. The Anglo-Scottish amity was put under some strain, not only by Mary’s persistence over the succession issue but also by the failure of a planned joint initiative in Ulster involving the Earl of Argyll. However, that failure was largely William Cecil’s fault and the amity still held into 1565.

  26 At that point it was seriously disrupted by Mary’s need for a man. A widowed Queen, young and beautiful, was an inevitable subject for matrimonial speculation and all sorts of suitors were canvassed, including Eric of Sweden, who had failed with Elizabeth and had no desire to try again. Much more serious, particularly in its political implications, was the proposal of Don Carlos, Philip’s somewhat unpromising son. By 1563 Anglo-Spanish relations were coming under strain and the prospect was regarded in England with undisguised alarm. So exercised was she that Elizabeth decided to take an initiative with the ‘good sister’ and offered her the hand of Lord Robert Dudley. By the time that this happened the English Queen had abandoned any intention of marrying Lord Robert herself, but he was still unquestionably her favourite and the question of her sincerity in making this offer has often been discussed.27 Was she trying to do the best that she could for a man that she loved, but would never have? Or was she trying to establish a vicarious control over the Queen of Scots? Perhaps it was a bit of both. In any case Mary was not amused at being offered Elizabeth’s ‘cast off lover’, even when he was created Earl of Leicester in 1564. At this point, however, Mary’s shrewdness and political judgement, both of which had been much in evidence since her return to the north, appear to have deserted her completely. As a result of the manoeuvrings of Scottish aristocratic politics, and a dash of English intercession, the exiled Earl of Lennox returned to Scotland in September 1564 and was restored to the title that he had forfeited in 1545, on 4 October. Lennox’s countess was Margaret, the daughter of Eleanor, the younger sister of Frances Brandon, Duchess of Suffolk, and thus had a remote claim to the English throne. Both Eleanor and Frances were dead by 1564, and although Mary Tudor had taken Margaret’s claim seriously, Elizabeth and her council had never done so. However, the Lennoxes had a son, the 18-year-old Henry, Lord Darnley, and he was the only male with even a remote claim by that

  T H E Q U E E N S W H O N E V E R W E R E

  169

  time. Darnley joined his father in Scotland in January 1565 and shortly after met the Queen. He was, apparently, a ‘long lad’, boy

  ish but tall and handsome.28 Mary fell head-over-heels in love with him, and all her hard-earned common sense went out of the window. There was soon talk of marriage and the alarm bells began to ring in England. Darnley professed to be a Protestant, but his mother was a notorious Catholic (which was why Mary had approved of her) and his claim to the throne made him dangerous. If they should wed, two quite different claims would be united. It has been argued that, having rejected Dudley, there was no realistic alternative if Mary was determined on marriage but in fact she could have had her pick of the princely houses of Europe – even those currently pursuing Elizabeth. The fact is that she wanted him. Darnley was created Earl of Ross on 15 May 1565 and on 29 July Mary married him. He was proclaimed King the same day. The dispensation that the rules of the Catholic Church demanded did not arrive until September and Elizabeth was completely alienated: ‘All their sisterly familiarity was ceased…’ as one contemporary put it.

  29 There were even rumours of war. Even at this early stage, Darnley was not a popular choice in Scotland but the prevailing attitude was ‘wait and see’. The minor rebellion known as the Chaseabout Raid in September was premature and resulted only in the fl ight to England of the earls of Arran and Moray on 6 October. Meanwhile, Mary’s primary need had been satisfi ed because within a couple of months or so of her wedding she was pregnant. The Queen’s little weakness had been spotted, or presumed, as early as 1562, when in the course of her progress, she had been handed a ‘lewd bill’, which left nothing to the imagination. Elizabeth’s reaction to such presumption can only be imagined! The price that Mary paid for that gratifi cation, however, was high. The rupture with England remained at the diplomatic level but the Chaseabout raid left her with the need for a new Council and that saw the rise of David Rizzio. Rizzio was never a member of the council, but his appointment as French secretary gave him infl uence – and access. By October the Queen’s brief honeymoon with Darnley was over – a sure sign of its unstable foundation. He swiftly confi rmed what many had realized before: that he was both vain and stupid and had a unique talent for upsetting everyone. That included the Queen, who by the end of October had refused him the Crown Matrimonial, which left him with only the e
mpty title of King and a monumental gr

  udge.30 Whether it was Darnley’s behaviour or some other factor, Mary seems to have been thrown completely off balance by these events. By January 1566 she had abandoned plans to conciliate the exiles in England and bring them home. Instead she called a parliament for the express purpose of forfeiting them 170

  T U D O R Q U E E N S O F E N G L A N D

  and at the same time turned against the Protestant establishment with a plan to legalize the mass. The alarm that these moves created led to a plot against her, to which Darnley was recruited by a promise of the Crown Matrimonial. The plotters clearly intended to seize power but whether they aimed to replace Mary with Darnley seems much more problematical. On Saturday 9 March 1566 they invaded the royal apartments, seized the unsuspecting (and ill-protected) Queen, and they murdered David Rizzio. Rizzio was not the main target, but he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Mary was imprisoned and the parliament dismissed without having pronounced either on the forfeitures or the mass. The Queen was accused of listening to evil council, but whatever the plotters aim may have been it was quickly frustrated by her escape. With the aid of the Earl of Bothwell, she got away to Dunbar and swiftly raised an army, which swept her back to power. The plot had been only skin deep in terms of support, and the plotters (except Darnley) now fl ed in their turn. Their action, however, had not been entirely in vain, because the Queen did, in fact, pardon and recall the earlier exiles and no further attempt was made to legalize the mass. It was in the interval of calm following these events that Prince James was born on 19 June. The labour was diffi cult. Mary only recovered slowly, and was then ill again in October. It was November before she was fully operational again, and in a position to tackle the thorniest problem of all – what to do about Darnley?

  Despite Rizzio’s murder and her own rough handling, she seems to have decided to write off the events of the spring, perhaps as the only way of resolving the issue of her husband. Divorce was out of the question, and annulment would have jeopardized their child, so conciliation was in the air. Joseph Rizzio was appointed to his brother’s former position, and on 24 December the March plotters were pardoned.

  31 Religion seems not to have been an issue, although James was baptized on 17 December with full Catholic rites, a ceremony from which Darnley, most of the Scots Lords and the English ambassador conspicuously absented themselves. There was, however, another possible way to deal with Darnley. A conspiracy of some kind existed by the end of November, and then on 10 February 1567 he was spectacularly blown up at Kirk o’ Fields. James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell, the same man who had supported Mary the previous year, is generally held to have been responsible. Mary’s complicity is reasonably certain, although she may not have known that the plot extended to murder. There was an immediate and vociferous outcry, which owed nothing to Darnley’s popularity, and he suddenly became a cause. In this crisis, Mary’s wit and good sense seem to have deserted her again, leaving her a political and emotional wreck. Bothwell was duly tried on 12 April and acquitted by a rigged court, an event that did nothing to placate the furore. The Earl’s intention seems to have been clear. He wanted

  T H E Q U E E N S W H O N E V E R W E R E

  171

  to marry the Queen, and had hastily divorced his existing wife for the purpose. He tried to raise some support for such a project but made little progress and the Queen, with a last fl icker of good sense, rejected him. So fragile was Mary’s security, however, that he was able to kidnap her as she returned from Stirling to Edinburgh on 24 April, and he then proceeded to rape her. There is, it has been asserted, no evidence of love on her part, nor of any kind of collusion, but if collusion did not precede the fact, it certainly followed it. On 6 May she returned with Bothwell to Edinburgh, on 15 May proceeded to marry him with Protestant rites. One contemporary observed that ‘the Queen could not but marry him, seeing he had ravished her and lain with her against her will …’

  32 but it is hard to imagine Elizabeth being so supine if such an unthinkable event had occurred in England. Mary was ill, and understandably deeply distressed but she had now dug herself into a political hole from which there could be no escape. A powerful confederacy of outraged lords now combined against her and Bothwell. Even her loyal Catholic familiars were alienated by the circumstances of her marriage. Their pretext was to avenge Darnley, but their real purpose was to get rid of the Queen. She was defeated at Carberry Hill early in June, and Bothwell was allowed to withdraw into exile, making nonsense of the original reason given for their action. Mary, in a state of virtual collapse, was captured and taken to Edinburgh. The confederates then declared that their main purpose was to uphold Protestantism, and on 16 June they removed the Queen to Lochleven castle, where on 24 June she was forced to abdicate in favour of her year-old son. 33 Soon after she miscarried of twins, clearly the result of her enforced intercourse with Bothwell, and was for several weeks extremely ill. She would probably have been executed out of hand if it had not been for the fact that the English Council, with whom the confederates were clearly in close touch, had not interceded on her behalf. Emotions were running high in Scotland at that point and there was precious little sympathy for Mary – now an ex-Queen and seen by most as a fallen woman. However, although her judgement appears to have deserted her completely by this time, her courage and resilience remained unimpaired. Despite all that she had been through, she was still only 25, and remarkably tough. Through the winter of 1567–8 she gradually recovered, physically if not emotionally, and with the aid of a few loyal followers escaped from Lochleven Castle on 2 May 1568, and headed for Dumbarton, a stronghold of the sympathetic Earl of Argyll. Now that Bothwell was out of reach, it appears to have been the confederates intention to justify her continued imprisonment by charging her, belatedly, with the murder of Lord Darnley. However, her escape brought a temporary end to any such intention. Mary was not without supporters, from the Earl of Argyll to the countrymen who cheered 172

  T U D O R Q U E E N S O F E N G L A N D

  her as she made her way to the south-west, but it soon transpired that they were not enough. When they were worsted in a brief and almost bloodless encounter at Langside on 13 May, Mary (rather uncharacteristically) panicked and fl ed due south – over the Solway and into England. At fi rst Elizabeth appeared to be supportive. She had a very low opinion of Mary’s behaviour since the early part of 1565 – behaviour that she attributed (probably correctly) to a female weakness that the English Queen was only too familiar with, but always contrived to conquer. However, Mary was an anointed Queen and her abdication had clearly been enforced. Elizabeth therefore set out initially to negotiate her restoration in Scotland, on suitable terms and co

  nditions.34 Whether the Scots Queen herself would have found those conditions acceptable is highly problematic but, in any case, the Earl of Moray, now regent for the young James VI, would have none of them. Instead he caused the Casket letters to be concocted and sent into England as evidence of the Queen’s complicity in her husband’s death. The English Council was not convinced, and in any case its competence to judge in such a case was questionable. Mary’s fate was a political matter, which could not be decided judicially. Elizabeth had three options. Either she could use her political and military weight to enforce Mary’s restoration, which would have meant an end to the Anglo-Scottish amity; or she could let her withdraw to France, where she would have been welcome personally, but not politically; or she could keep her in England on one pretext or another. After a good deal of dithering, she decided on the last option, and laid up a store of trouble for herself in the process. It has been rightly pointed out that for several years Mary’s situation was that of house arrest rather than imprisonment. She had substantial revenues from her jointure as Queen Dowager of France and a household of about 40 persons for which she paid, including a confessor and a secretary. She also had a Council, which operated in France under the leadership of James Betoun, the exiled Arch
bishop of Glasgow. The Queen herself, however, saw her position as one of durance. She was moved from Bolton castle to Tutbury in Staffordshire late in 1569, to avoid any possible intention by the northern rebels to free her, and from Tutbury to Sheffi eld in 1570, where she was to spend the next 14 years under the watchful eye of the Earl of Shrewsbury. When the move from Bolton to Tutbury was proposed, she declared that she would have to be ‘bound hand and foot’ to make such a frightful journey in the middle of winter. Nevertheless – she went. In view of her later reputation as a Catholic martyr it is interesting to notice that her religious practice during her captivity was nothing if not ambiguous. Mass was said privately for her by her confessor, but she regularly attended Protestant services, and for several years after her Protestant wedding in 1567 was

  persona

  T H E Q U E E N S W H O N E V E R W E R E

  173

  non grata in Rome. Most, but by no means all of her servants were Catholics and it seemed for some time that her conversion was a distinct possibility. Mary’s own policy for coping with her situation was by no means consistent. On the one hand she professed friendship with Elizabeth and denied any intention of harming her but on the other hand she looked increasingly for Spanish support, and became involved in plots that were aimed at her ‘good sister’s’ life. In 1570 and 1571 she inclined with some enthusiasm to the plan to marry her to the Duke of Norfolk. Norfolk, although confused, was not a Catholic and such a marriage would probably have involved her conversion, but as the Protestant Duchess of Norfolk her position in respect of the English succession would (she believed) have been greatly strengthened. In fact Elizabeth was vehemently opposed to the whole idea, and the Ridolfi Plot muddied the waters irredeemably.