Not really history's brightest lightbulb: Mary, Queen of Scots

 I'm taking a break from Victoria, this week, to write about one of history's lesser brains, Mary of Scotland.  Her story needs a book, Dear Reader, so I'm gonna try and provide you with the bare bones.  Here we go---.

She was born on the 9th of December, 1542 in Linlithgow, Scotland.  Her mother was the now-infamous Marie de Guise, who became regent upon her husband's death.  Mary was only six days old.  In 1548, she was engaged to the Dauphin of France, and was sent there to be brought up--ostensibly in safety.

In France, Mary gained a reputation for various 'feminine accomplishments' (i.e. singing, dancing, embroidery), and was also a reputed beauty.  She was certainly tall:  being almost six feet in height.  I know, right? Believe me this was unusual for the time, where the average height was around 5'7".  She was also a reputed beauty.  Was she? I don't know.  What do you think, Dear Reader?

Mary and the Dauphin Francis married in 1558, rising to be queen consort of France in 1559.  Francis was an unlucky guy, dying of mysterious causes a short time after becoming king.  So, what did he die of? Doctors at the time said 'ear disease,' (donnez-moi une break) but recently meningitis has been suspected of causing Francis' death.

Mary was not named regent in the wake of her king's death.  Instead, the job was taken over by Catherine de Medici, the Dowager Queen.  So, what was Mary to do? 

"oh you'll take the high road, and I'll take the low road and I'll be in ..."

well, we all know where.

This is the first clue, at least to me, of Mary's (lack of) qualities:  losing the regency to her mother-in-law.  However, if you know anything about Catherine de Medici, you'd agree that this was a no-contest situation.  Quite simply, Mary was completely out of her depth, when she tried to command French court politics.  So! Why shouldn't she try to sort out and dominate the Scots?

And so she went back to her childhood home, much to the relief of the French, who believed that this would be beneficial to the on-going alliance between the two countries.  Mary even began styling herself as queen of Scotland and England.  It was one of the cries of Catholic Europe, that "the bastard Elizabeth" should NOT rule England.  Ole Lizzie was seen, at least on the continent, as imminently replaceable by Mary.

Whoops.

I'm sure Liz was quaking in her tiny shoes.  But, she was not ever dismissive of Mary's presence on her northern border.  Elizabeth knew a potential rival when she saw one, and treated the Scottish queen accordingly.  

When Mary appeared willing to take on a husband (consort), she was widely considered to be one of the more eligible Catholic brides in Europe.  Elizabeth got into the game, sending Mary her favorite guy Robert Dudley (a.k.a. her almost lover).  Dudley, newly made an Earl, dutifully went North, but his heart wasn't in it.  Mary also wouldn't countenance a match with a Protestant she considered to be her inferior.  Dudley went back to his love, Elizabeth (with no small relief in his heart, I'll be bound).

Mary knew that Elizabeth wanted her to marry an English nobleman. So, eventually Mary considered a fellow Catholic (Tudor by blood and nobleman) Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley.  This was a dangerous match from Elizabeth's point of view--two Catholics ruling Scotland, and both in line for the Tudor throne.

Here's what Robert Dudley looked like:

Here's what Darnley looked like:

  OK.  Maybe Darnley was a little more decent looking.  The story goes that Mary quickly became infatuated with the young Catholic lord, who appeared to adore her.  She pronounced him 

‘The properest and best proportioned long man.’ It was ever the tradition that the queen would propose marriage, and so the question was posed to Darnley, who then replied 'hot diggity dog!'  Not really, but he did say yes.  Thus, a wedding quickly followed, and Darnley could relax now that he'd attained his goal.

Wait for it.

Almost immediately,  things began to go wrong.  Now that the ring was on the proverbial finger, Darnley demanded that Mary make him the 'king matrimonial'-- which I suppose would be a step toward making him a type of co-ruler with his wife.  She made him King Consort instead, which was not the same as making him a king in his own right.  Henry further revealed himself to be petulant, belligerent, and a drunkard.  But, what else? Many rumors surrounded Darnley, with little proof:  he had syphilis;  he was gay (not exactly an accepted life style at the time, Dear Reader--especially in Scotland);  he was insanely, embarrassingly arrogant.  

Whatever affection Mary had for her little lordling, quickly fizzled out.  She soon heard about his penchant for men (it was said she found him in bed with her secretary David Riccio (also spelled 'Rizzio), who had come with her from France, and was until then a great favorite with the queen).  His constant consumption of alcohol made him a daily embarrassment.  Adding to this, he began demanding (whining) that Mary should make him King, thus rendering her to the supportive role of wife.  It was also widely reported by malicious courtiers, that Darnley regularly went carousing about the town, bedding anything that moved, and drinking his weight in alcohol.  Dear Reader, a warning:  much of this was court gossip.  What we do know for certain about Darnley, is that he was vain (a.k.a. easily manipulated), weak, and pettily cruel.  However, Mary quickly made use of him, and she fell pregnant.  This was Henry's most important function.

What made matters worse, is that Mary's court was full of furious intrigue among the misogynist Scottish (largely Protestant) Lords. She was also widely preached against by John Knox, a popular and powerful Protestant minister in the country.  

I think he looks good with dreds.

Let's take a gander at some of Knox's lovelier quotes, from his charming work entitled "The First Blast of the Trumpet against the monstrous regiment of Women":

"A man with God is always in the majority...."

"I am assured that GOD hath revealed unto some in this our age, that it is more than a monster in nature that a Woman shall reign and have empire above Man."

"Woman in her greatest perfection was made to serve and obey man, not to rule and command him."

"After the fall, she was made subject to man by the irrevocable sentence of GOD. In which sentence there are two parts.
(a) A dolour, anguish and pain as oft as ever she shall be a mother.
(b) A subjection of her self, her appetites and will to her husband and his will."

"From the former part of this malediction can neither art, nobility, policy nor law made by man deliver women."

"THE FIRST BLAST TO AWAKE WOMEN DEGENERATE.

To promote a woman to beare rule, superioritie, dominion or empire aboue any realme, nation, or citie, is repugnant to nature, contumelie to God, a thing most contrarious to his reueled will and approued ordinance, and finallie it is the subuersion of good order, of all equitie and iustice."

If you want to read some more of this hateful bilge, go here:  https://www.gutenberg.org/files/9660/9660-h/9660-h.htm 

Schmuck.

It was unfortunate for Mary that Knox was one of the most powerful preachers (leaders) in Scotland,  Such was his power, that it was necessary for Scottish leaders to tacitly bow to Knox's will, in order to gain his approval.  Such was his power over the populace.  I don't have to tell you that the two didn't hit it off, when they finally met.  In fact they hated each other, as was abundantly clear from Knox's later writing on the 'evils' of a female ruler (vomit).

The ambitious lords of Mary's court were (at least in part) influenced by Knox's power over the people.  Further, they were not thrilled with Mary's increased independence from their opinions.  It wasn't long before Mary's half brother, James Stewart, 1st earl of Moray, and his supporters at court began to pressure Darnley to get rid of Mary's confidant David Riccio--not that he needed all that much convincing, the grasping sot.  The cabal of men drew up a sort of covenant, adding a pseudo 'legality' to the execution of the innocent Riccio.

It was while the Queen was at supper in Holyroodhouse on Saturday, 3/9/1566 with Riccio and a few of her ladies, that the deed was done.  The killers burst into the room, and ordered that Riccio be turned over. Mary refused. It was later said that the poor Riccio tried to hide behind Mary, but was dragged out of the room by his attackers. Later reports held that the intruders kept Mary from actively resisting, by holding a knife to her pregnant belly, but there is little evidence to support this. Riccio was summarily hauled into the Queen's ante-chamber where he was knifed (supposedly) 57 times. The murderers threw his body down a nearby staircase, where they robbed him of his ornament and clothes.

The Murder of David Riccio.

57 times

Despite all of these shenanigans, Mary gave birth to a healthy son she named James (ostensibly after her half brother). However, now that she'd given her fractious lords a son, did they really need her? Well, perhaps for the pardon.  

What pardon? Mary was forced to sign a document granting immunity to all who'd participated in Riccio's murder.

After the birth, Mary went from one mistake to the next, speeding her devolution from monarch to Protestant impediment.  I suppose one could say Mary kept trusting the wrong guys:  first Darnley, and then James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell.

Hepburn, known colloquially as 'Bothwell,' is an enigmatic figure.  He brought Mary from France, and later put himself forward as her protector against a hostile court.  He was instrumental in helping her put down civil unrest, but was later named as Darnley's killer.

Wait.  What?

I'm gonna tell you now about one of the more bone-headed murders in Scottish history.  Darnley was living alone in a house near her palace named "Kirk 'O the Field."  Apparently, some blindingly brilliant person filled the building's cellar with gunpowder, and lit the fuse....

None of these guys for Darnley:

It gets bloodier and dumber.  The blast didn't succeed.  Apparently Darnley made it out a window unscathed...at least until he was found in the gardens by someone... 

...and throttled to death.

What a horribly clumsy, ridiculous assassination.  I mean could the killers have been any louder or more incompetent?  Why didn't they poison him? Or quietly smother him in his sleep?

Darnley's death certainly didn't go unnoticed.  What a f&*cking shock. Bothwell was immediately blamed for the murder, as he was seen (and promoted himself) as Mary's 'protector.'  But, historians (as well as Bothwell's contemporaries) see him as the ahem, uh, cough, gag, 'mastermind' behind Darnley's death.  But, there was no conclusive proof of Bothwell's guilt.

Elizabeth took her 'cousin's' murder especially hard, and sent Mary a stark letter:  

Madam,

My ears have been so astounded and my heart so frightened to hear of the horrible and abominable murder of your husband and my own cousin that I have scarcely spirit to write: yet I cannot conceal that I grieve more for you than him. I should not do the office of a faithful cousin and friend, if I did not urge you to preserve your honour, rather than look through your fingers at revenge on those who have done you that pleasure as most people say. I counsel you so to take this matter to heart, that you may show the world what a noble Princess and loyal woman you are. I write thus vehemently not that I doubt, but for affection.

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/elizabeth-monarchy/elizabeth-i-to-mary-queen-of-scots-february-1567/

I don't know about you, Dear Reader, but I would have taken this seriously and paid heed to those words.  But, again Mary did not react.  The next events happened relatively quickly:  her Lords were in angry revolt, and she didn't have any support--so what to do?

'Uh, maybe I should go to see my son James!'  In April, 1567, Mary went to see her son James, who was living at Stirling castle.  It would be the final time she saw him.  

 

On her way back to Edinburgh on 4/24/1567, Mary was abducted, by Lord Bothwell and his men and who took her to Dunbar Castle--bis stronghold.  Leaving her baby behind.  I guess she felt powerless, for she didn't take James with her.  Now, the important question to ask here,  is: was she, in fact, abducted against her will, or did she go into hiding with her lover?

One thing that I haven't addressed yet, is the persistent rumor that Bothwell and Mary were lovers.  Were they?

I'm gonna have to say, yeah.  But, that is my opinion, Dear Reader.  This is the only thing that explains to me what happened next:  they lay together, and got married only months after her husband got lynched.  OOOPS, I meant to say murdered.

So, were Mary and Bothwell lovers before hand? We cannot know.  Or, did he rape her at his castle? Again, we don't know.  What I can tell you, is that she was soon pregnant again, with Bothwell's twins.

The next part of the story happened relatively quickly.  Mary's half-brother,The Earl of Moray and a bunch of guys calling themselves the 'Confederate Lords' rebelled, raising an army based in Edinburgh. 
The ensuing battle at Carberry Hill, 6/15/1567 didn't go well for Bothwell and Mary, and she was subsequently put into prison at Lochleven Castle.  On 7/24/1567, Mary was then forced to sign a letter of abdication in favor of her infant son James, who was declared King of Scotland.  The Earl of Moray was named regent until James reached his maturity. So, why did she abdicate? Now, that's a good question, Dear Reader.  One of the charges against Mary prior to her abdication was a purported correspondence now called "the casket letters" in which she was supposed to write to Bothwell both her love, and her complicity in her husband's murder.  Apparently, the letters were made public, and they turned against their queen.  These original letters are lost today, and what manuscripts we do have do not appear to be genuine--some of her contemporaries felt that they were not written in Mary's hand, and further contained poor grammar. Given all of that doubtful evidence, perhaps Mary should have stood firm, and yet she abdicated.  What is the truth? I don't know, Dear Reader.

There were other battles, other times, but what was Mary's story after her abdication? Well, she eventually escaped her prison at Lochleven Castle, and rode South, hoping to find asylum in England with Elizabeth.

Uh, that wasn't a wise decision.  And, you may ask, where in hell was Bothwell? Well, he escaped, leaving his 'wife' (who'd miscarried his twins).  

So, what happened to Bothwell? Well, after a convoluted series of adventures, he ended up in Denmark.  His appeals to the king were useless, and he was put in prison at Dragsholm Castle.  The conditions during his incarceration weren't great--it was a sad end to a man who'd once held so much power.  In his absence, his fellow lords in the Scottish parliament took away all of his titles. Bothwell died in April, 1578.

And Mary? Well, she made it to England, where she was promptly imprisoned.by Elizabeth, who couldn't risk having two queens (one being a good Catholic) in the same land.  At first, Mary was kept in comfort, with a castle to romp around in, and horses to ride.  Now, one would hope Dear Reader, that Mary would live quietly, hoping to escape further notice. You'd think she'd be wiser, but she wasn't.  She wrote letters, lots of them, to supporters on the continent. Additionally, William Cecil, Elizabeth's chief administrator, was obsessed with the dangers of having a Catholic queen, with a damned good pedigree, in England.  You see, Dear Reader, given the religious tensions in the land (and all over the place in Europe) between Protestants and Catholics, Cecil and Elizabeth's spymaster Francis Walsingham thought this might pose a challenge to Lizzie's throne. Believe me, there were indeed several plots to free Mary and replace Elizabeth, so Cecil and Walsingham weren't living in Disneyland.

I wish I could tell you that Mary was never dumb enough to involve herself in any plot, but I can't.

Walsingham finally laid a trap for her, using a group of idiots gathered by a renegade priest named John Ballard who hoped to rescue Mary.  Walsingham was aware of this plot, and used two guys Robert Poley and Gilbert Gifford as double agents--in order to gather enough evidence to convict the former queen.  

Once she'd been contacted by the Ballard gang, Mary began a dangerous correspondence with them.  She would send coded letters to her co-conspirators hidden in a compartment of a beer keg.  Remember, Dear Reader, that Walsingham engineered the whole thing.  Eventually, Walsingham intercepted the letter from Mary that he was waiting for.  He gave it to his cryptographer who had to work hard deciphering the thing.

Below is an example of one of the letters:

 One of Mary's responses was enough to condemn her.  In a letter, she ordered the assassination of Elizabeth, and her subsequent escape from prison.  She wrote "Let the great plot commence. Signed Mary." Walsingham finally had enough proof to kill the former queen.  There is a story, that when the cryptographer was finally able to crack the code and read Mary's letter, he drew a gallows at the end of his translation.

Babington, Ballard, and the whole gang were arrested.  Most of the conspirators were drawn and quartered.  Do you know what that means, Dear Reader? It wasn't at all a nice death, and was usually reserved for commoners.  Alright, don't worry, I'll tell you, and try to be brief.  The victim was first hung, but not enough to cause death.  Then said victim had his bowels removed (i.e. the stomach was cut, and the bowels slowly pulled out of the body) while they were still alive.  Finally (although techniques sometimes varied) our unlucky prisoner's four limbs were tied to four horses who were made to run in different directions, and voila.  It was an unspeakable way to execute someone..

As for Mary, her trial was held at Fotheringay Castle in 1586, where she was tried for treason by 46 of Liz's lords.  I don't have to tell you their verdict, do I Dear Reader? Yeah, they found her guilty after about 2 seconds.  Alright, I'm kidding, but hopefully you know what I mean.  Mary was sentenced to death by beheading.

February, 1587, in front of 300 witnesses, Mary, Queen of Scots, was executed at Fotheringay Castle .It was not an easy decapitation,  I wish I could tell you that  Witnesses later reported that it took three hits with the axe to finally sever her head from her body.  Ye Olympian Gods.  But, that wasn't all.  Some onlookers later reported that Mary's lips moved for several minutes.  Ewww.  But, for me, what was saddest about this brutal execution was when the executioner held up her head by the hair to show the audience, but the head slipped from his hand, for Mary was wearing a wig.  Then, people got another shock for Mary's skirt was moving.  It was quickly discovered that her little dog had been hiding under her skirt.  

How sad, and how totally gross.  Three strikes.  That little dog.  I head a story once, that the dog quickly sickened and died after the death of his mistress.

It was later reported that Elizabeth visibly grieved the death of her distant cousin and fellow queen.  It was also quite sad that her son James did nothing for his mother.  I guess both of them felt, in their different ways, kind of relieved that an inconvenient person had been tragically removed.

Here are some books to read if you're interested in the sad life of this queen:

A biography by Antonia Fraser

Mary Queen of Scots: A Study in Failure by Jenny Wormald
My Heart is my Own: The Life of Mary Queen of Scots by John Guy
Mary Queen of Scots by Retha Warnicke
Rival Queens: The betrayal of Mary Queen of Scots by Kate Williams