Mary, Queen of Scots, and the Murder of Lord Darnley Page 12

  Moray, intent on evading the royal army, retreated south-west towards Dumfries, to await the expected aid from Elizabeth. Randolph looked on in mounting perturbation as it failed to arrive. Argyll, having vengefully plundered Lennox’s lands in the west32 and failed to arrive in Edinburgh at Moray’s hour of need,33 fled north to the Highlands, while Knox sought refuge in the west. Soon afterwards, the Queen’s army, having “rode the whirlwind” across the country, occupied Edinburgh. Not for nothing did the campaign become known as the “Chaseabout Raid.”

  On 4 September, Mary was back in Glasgow, awaiting reinforcements from the north to deal with the rebels, her lieges having been summoned to rendezvous at Stirling on 30 September.34 On 6 September Mary and Darnley appointed Lennox Lieutenant of the South-West,35 and on the same day Argyll’s fortress, Castle Campbell, near Dollar, surrendered to the Queen.

  Mary had sent William Chisholm, Bishop of Dunblane, to Rome to beseech the Pope for financial aid against her enemies, in return for which she would “restore religion in splendour.”36 On 10 September, Darnley’s English secretary, the Catholic Francis Yaxley, who had formerly been in the service of Mary I and had recently returned to Scotland, was sent back to Brussels carrying letters from both the King and Queen asking Philip II for help against the rebels and support in re-establishing the Roman Church in Scotland;37 there can be little doubt that both hoped, with Spanish aid, to overthrow Elizabeth and establish Mary as the Queen of a united Catholic Britain. It was being said at the English court that Mary’s support for Catholicism was becoming increasingly ill concealed; she had released Archbishop Hamilton from prison, and was currently using all her persuasions to make her Protestant nobles attend Mass. Later that year she wrote to James Beaton, Archbishop of Glasgow, her ambassador in Paris, that she might soon be able to do “some good anent restoring the old religion.”

  There were at this time rumours of a Catholic League between France, Spain and the Papacy against the Protestants in Europe, but there is no evidence that it ever existed, let alone that Mary was contemplating joining it. Yet it was believed in both Spain and Rome that she was sincere in her desire to restore the faith in Scotland; the Pope was so overjoyed at the prospect that he promised to send her 200,000 crowns and urged King Philip to provide her with military assistance. Yet although Philip undertook to send Spanish troops to Scotland, he never did so because he feared the English would retaliate, for which he was unprepared; instead he sent a subsidy of 20,000 crowns. Then the Pope had second thoughts and sent Mary only 40,000 crowns, having decided to withhold the rest until her intentions became clearer.

  Moray had reached Dumfries on 6 September, having dispatched several increasingly urgent messages appealing to England for help. The English Council was at that time debating military intervention in Scotland in order to overthrow Darnley, but the French were threatening a counter-invasion on Mary’s behalf, and it was prudently decided that there was no just cause to interfere; thus war between the two countries was narrowly avoided.

  Mary was travelling around, raising support for a final push against the rebels. She was at Dunfermline Abbey in Fife from 7 to 9 September, then left for St. Andrews, stopping on the way for dinner at Lochleven Castle, where she threatened Moray’s mother and stepfather with sequestration, before visiting Falkland Palace.38 On 12 September, she imposed a bond of obedience on the barons and gentlemen of Fife.39 After a stay at St. Andrews, she visited Dundee, Perth and Innerpeffray Abbey, then, from 16 to 17 September, lodged once more with Ruthven at Ruthven Castle. She was again at Dunfermline, staying in the Abbey guest house, from 17 to 18 September, before making her way back towards Edinburgh.

  Bothwell returned to Scotland on 17 September, having evaded the English warships that had been sent to intercept him. After landing at Eyemouth, he at once made his way to Edinburgh to see the Queen and make plans to settle old scores with his enemy Moray. With him rode a loyal adherent, David Chalmers, who had shared his exile. Chalmers, a lawyer and historian, had been educated for the Church in France, where he first met Bothwell, who later obtained for him the provostry of Creithtown.40 Randolph wrote spitefully: “To speak good of him for virtue, knowledge, truth or honesty, would be as great a slander to him as reproof to myself.”41 Nevertheless, he later came to enjoy the Queen’s favour.

  Like Randolph, the Earl of Bedford, Governor of Berwick, was anxious to discredit Mary in every way, and thus propel Elizabeth into aiding Moray, and on 19 September he hinted that Mary was Rizzio’s mistress: “What countenance the Queen shows to David I will not write, for the honour due to the person of a queen.”42 This was the first time that such an allegation had been made, and it is not known on what information it was based, but although there is no other hint in any source at this time that anything was amiss between Mary and Darnley, the latter’s jealousy of Rizzio made itself manifest only a month later.

  It was around this time that Mary conceived a child that was to be born nine months later. She herself apparently believed for a time that conception had taken place earlier than this, for she later stated that on 9 March 1566 she had been seven months pregnant,43 yet on 4 April 1566 she wrote to Elizabeth: “I am so gross, being well advanced in my seventh month, that I cannot stoop.”44 Some people would later express doubts that the infant was Darnley’s child, as will be seen.

  The baby was conceived before the dispensation arrived. It was granted in Rome on 25 September and backdated to 25 May, but did not reach Scotland until six weeks later, and it was not made public in case any wished to point out that the royal marriage had been made only on the assumption that it would be granted.

  As her army waited at Stirling, Mary returned to Holyrood on 19 September, intending to raise more men to counteract the possible threat of an English invasion. Randolph reported that there was little hope of an accord between Mary and the rebels because “the Queen is determined to deal with them in all extremity,” and added that Bothwell had arrived in Scotland to do mischief.

  Maitland had now left court and was skulking at Lethington. In his absence, there were two contenders for the vacant office of Secretary: John Leslie, who would become Bishop of Ross in 1566, and Sir James Balfour, both Catholics. Leslie, now thirty-eight, was a learned, gallant and cunning priest and canon lawyer, an opponent of Knox and a Lord of Session, who had been a faithful servant to Marie de Guise and was later to become one of her daughter’s closest confidants. He was conscientious and hard-working, but impulsive, quick-tempered, tactless and sometimes lacking in sound judgement, as Mary would one day find to her cost.

  Sir James Balfour of Pittendreich is one of the most enigmatic figures in Mary’s story, and was to be heavily implicated in the murder of Darnley. Born around 1525, he was the son of Sir Michael Balfour of Montquharie, Fife, a cousin of the Earl of Bothwell, and had been an early convert to Protestantism. With his brother Gilbert he had been implicated in the murder of Cardinal Beaton, and for this had served time on the galleys with Knox. In 1549, he purchased his freedom by reverting to the Catholic faith, for which Knox called him an “apostate and traitor.”

  After returning to Scotland, Balfour became an outstanding ecclesiastical lawyer and judge. In 1561, Mary appointed him a Lord of Session and Clerk Register of the Council, but he had the reputation of being a notorious blasphemer and cynic who, according to Knox, neither feared God nor loved virtue, and he seems to have used religion merely to further his own interests. He was untrustworthy, treacherous and corrupt, and, like Moray, adept at covering his tracks. The French ambassador Philippe du Croc was later to call him “a true traitor.”

  Through his wife, Margaret, Balfour inherited Burleigh Castle in Fife, where Darnley, with whom he had speedily ingratiated himself, stayed whilst hunting in the area. In July 1565, Darnley persuaded Mary to admit Balfour to the Privy Council.45 It was through Darnley that Balfour came to political prominence. Darnley, however, wanted Leslie, the better Catholic, to replace Maitland and, behind the Quee
n’s back, signed an order in Council giving him the office, but Mary, when she found out, cancelled it.46 In the event, neither got the post.

  On or soon after 19 September, Bothwell arrived at Holyrood with men and munitions and, his former alleged offences having been pardoned and forgotten, was warmly received by Mary, who immediately reappointed him Lieutenant-General of the Borders. Darnley, of whose arrogance and lack of tact he had been forewarned, was “very gracious and polite” to him.47

  Bothwell was easily the most powerful magnate in south-eastern Scotland and, given his enmity towards the English, could be relied upon to defend the border. His appointment made good political sense, for it secured the loyalty of many Border families for the Queen. During his lieutenancy he established his headquarters at Hermitage Castle and proceeded to deal effectively with disorder and lawlessness in the region. He also allied himself with Huntly against their mutual enemy, Moray, and both raised legions of men for the Queen. On 2 October, Bothwell was given back his seat on the Council, and thereafter both he and Huntly attended regularly.

  That day saw the first recorded quarrel between Mary and Darnley. It was over the appointment of a Lieutenant-General of the royal army. Darnley wanted Lennox, Mary, Bothwell, “by reason he bears an evil will against Moray, and has promised to have him die or exiled.”48 Mary got her way, which aroused Darnley’s resentment against Bothwell, and she had to placate him by agreeing to let Lennox lead their forces into battle. As a result of having to wait a week for Lennox to join it, Mary’s army arrived too late to confront the rebels.

  At the end of September, Elizabeth had written to inform Moray and his companions that she would never maintain a subject in disobedience to his prince and could give them no further support. In reality, she feared that hostile action on her part might drive Mary into the arms of the French. With his diminishing forces, Moray was in no position to withstand an attack by the royalist army and, on 6 October, as the Queen’s forces closed in on Dumfries,49 he realised his cause was hopeless and fled with his companions into England, in the hope of claiming asylum from Elizabeth. At Carlisle, he received a letter from her offering him her protection “out of her private love and clemency,”50 which emboldened him to move to Newcastle. Chatelherault had already fled to France, while Argyll was still in hiding in the western Highlands. On 14 October, Moray bitterly complained to Leicester that, due to Elizabeth’s “cold feeling,” he and his friends were ruined, and they had been brought to “this extremity . . . by following Her Majesty’s and her Council’s advice.”51

  Mary’s victory was a blow to the Protestants and the English, and enhanced her standing in Catholic Europe. She had married the man of her choice, in defiance of her nobles and Queen Elizabeth, and secured the support of Spain, France and the Vatican. She had shown courage and resolve and retained the good will of her people. Yet it was not a complete victory, for Moray and the other rebel Lords were still at large, and would almost certainly continue to make mischief for her. The Pope wrote warning Mary and Darnley not to compromise with the rebels, and enlisted Rizzio’s help in ensuring that they remained fiirm.52

  Mary owed her triumph in part to the staunch support and leadership of Bothwell, who was now firmly back in favour. On 4 October, Randolph had observed sourly that Bothwell was already taking great things upon himself;53 nine days later, he reported his increased influence, saying that Mary was “now content to make much of him, to credit him, and to place him in honour above any subject she hath.”54

  In the same letter, Randolph also reported that Mary hated Moray “neither for his religion, nor yet that he would take the crown from her, as she said lately to myself, but that she knoweth he knoweth some such secret fact, not to be named for reverence’s sake, that standeth not with her honour, which he so much detesteth, being her brother, that neither can he show himself as he hath done [i.e., affectionate towards her], nor can she think of him but as one whom she mortally hateth.” He added that he was sure that “very few know this grief,” and that, in order to have this obloquy and reproach to Mary removed, Moray “would quit his country for all the days of his life.” Randolph was unable to commit all he knew to paper, but confided the rest to his messenger, Tamworth, who was to take the letter to Cecil.55 This dispatch was written at a time when Randolph felt it necessary to discredit Mary; he had already hinted at her improper relations with Rizzio, and it has been suggested that this letter may refer to the same thing, which may be said to be corroborated by Darnley’s jealousy of Rizzio becoming manifest less than a fortnight later. An alternative explanation is that Moray knew that Mary had long cherished strong feelings for Bothwell, which would explain his violent antagonism. Mary had all along favoured Bothwell and had seen him in secret during the years of Moray’s dominance, and as soon as Moray defected she had recalled him. There had been nothing to suggest any attraction between them, but Moray may have been aware that such existed. A third, and surely far-fetched, theory is that Mary and Moray had indulged in an incestuous relationship that had turned sour, but there is not a shred of evidence for this. Given the events that would soon follow, the Rizzio theory is the likeliest explanation.

  This is perhaps borne out by the fact that, in London, on the same day that Randolph wrote his dispatch, the French ambassador, Paul de Foix, was informed by Queen Elizabeth that Mary hated Moray because he “would gladly have hanged an Italian named David that she loved and favoured, giving him more credit and authority in her affairs than was consistent with her interest or her honour.”56

  Darnley was certainly resentful of Bothwell, but this was not the reason why, as Randolph reported, “jars are risen between [the Queen] and her husband,” for that was over preferments at court. The agent added that he wrote these things “more from grief of heart than that I take pleasure to set forth any purchase of shame, especially such as we ought to reverence if they know their duty. I should trouble you too long if I wrote everything I hear of Darnley’s words and doings, and his boasting to his friends here and assurance of them who would, if they knew, be the first to seek revenge in false reports.”57 Cecil informed Sir Thomas Smith that “the young King is so insolent that his father, weary of his government, has departed from the court.” Mary’s victory, so dearly bought, was proving to be a hollow one.

  It was celebrated, however, by a banquet held at Lochmaben Castle, near Dumfries, on 14 October, which was presided over by the King and Queen. The next day, the royal couple, having disbanded most of their army, left for Edinburgh, staying at Callendar House on the way. Bothwell, in command of 1,500 men, remained at Dumfries to guard the western border.

  The honeymoon period was over.

  7

  “THERE IS A BAIT LAID FOR SIGNOR DAVID”

  MARY WAS BACK IN EDINBURGH by 19 October, free of Moray’s tutelage and ready to rule Scotland with the support of Darnley and her chief advisers, Atholl, Lennox, Huntly and Bothwell, the only four earls who were willing to attend court regularly. None of them, however, enjoyed the political stature and experience of Moray, and Maitland, with his acute understanding of statecraft, was still out of favour. In his absence, Mary turned to Rizzio and other “crafty vile strangers,”1as well as lesser men like Balfour, for counsel and advice. With the majority of the other Lords hostile to Darnley, Lennox, Bothwell and Rizzio, Mary was in a very precarious situation, and her future success depended greatly on Darnley’s character and his ability to help her control the nobles, as Moray had done so effectively. A pessimistic Randolph wrote scathingly: “How she, with this kind of government, her suspicion of her people and debate with the chief of her nobility, can stand and prosper passes my wit. To be ruled by the advice of two or three strangers, neglecting that of her chief Councillors, I do not know how it can stand.”2

  Matters were made worse by the fact that, after less than three months of marriage, relations between Mary and Darnley were already deteriorating. Lennox claims that this first became apparent after the Chaseabout
Raid,3 while the Book of Articles declares that marital harmony “lasted not above three months.” Mary soon became aware of the defects in her husband’s character, and had to come to terms with the fact that she had married a “wilful, haughty and vicious”4bully who was not only frequently drunk but also essentially weak in character. Far from being her support, he was more likely to provoke the antagonism of the Lords and further alienate them from her. Clearly, she had made a dreadful mistake in marrying him.

  No longer was Mary content to play the role of adoring, submissive wife, for it was obvious that Darnley did not return her love and probably never had done. As soon as he returned to Edinburgh, he began making nightly forays to the city’s taverns and brothels with young “gentlemen willing to satisfy his will and affections,”5without bothering to conceal his activities from his wife, in whom disgust and disillusionment quickly quenched the fires of infatuation. To add to her humiliation, in late 1565 Darnley had an affair with a lady of the Douglas family, and also made a lady of the court pregnant, according to a report by an Italian visitor to Scotland, Pietro Bizari. Darnley’s promiscuity, his insolence towards the Queen and his vile temper only served to diminish her respect for him. Too soon, they were drifting apart and spending less and less time in each other’s company, Darnley often being away hunting and hawking around Peebles or in Fife.

  Darnley’s elevation to kingship had turned his head. He believed that his marriage had taken place “with the consent of the nobility, who thought him worthy of the place,” and “that the whole kingdom would follow and serve him upon the field, where it was a shame a woman should command. These conceits were continuously buzzing in the young man’s head.” Mary, however, took the view that “all the honour of majesty he had came from her,” and that “she had made choice of him by her own affection only.”6The Spanish ambassador later opined that Darnley would not have been “led astray” and antagonised the Queen had his mother been present, “as the son respects her more than he does his father,”7who was unable to control him.