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.

It was all too apparent that Darnley was unfit for kingship and would never give Mary the vital support that she needed. His arrogance had already alienated the nobility, his loose tongue was a political liability, and he was more interested in the rights and privileges, rather than the duties and obligations, of his position. Although Mary had made every effort to associate him with her in the government of the kingdom, he was not interested in state affairs or the everyday responsibilities of a ruler, and preferred field sports to attending Council meetings. This meant he was not available to sign the official documents that were supposed to bear both his signature and Mary’s, which caused unreasonable delays; in the end Mary had to resort to having a stamp of his signature made, which was held by Rizzio and used in the King’s absence. Mary was now largely shouldering the burden of government alone,⁸and Darnley’s behaviour was giving her enemies a means of making political capital against her. Moray, in exile, was openly lamenting “the extreme folly of his sovereign” which could only lead to the “utter ruin” of Scotland.⁹

Darnley was also disillusioned with his marriage, chiefly because of Mary’s adamant refusal to bestow upon him the Crown Matrimonial, which was the thing he wanted above all else. His resentment continued to fester, not only because he felt he was being denied his proper share of royal authority as Mary’s equal, but also because he had his eye on the crown, which would be his if Mary died childless after having given him the Crown Matrimonial. But, despite his bitter and frequent complaints and remonstrances, the Queen insisted that he was too young and had yet to prove himself worthy of the honour. In truth, she may have feared that his ambitions implied a threat to her sovereign rights and even her life.

Darnley’s other cause for grievance was Rizzio, whom he blamed for Mary’s obstinacy over the Crown Matrimonial. Rizzio had been Darnley’s friend, but as Darnley’s credit with Mary declined, Rizzio’s increased and he came to enjoy the political influence that should have been Darnley’s, which aroused the latter’s bitter resentment and jealousy and put an end to the friendship. Daily, the Queen showed more and more favour to the upstart Italian and spent many of her leisure hours with him, sometimes making music or playing cards late into the night. It was unwise but understandable: her husband was a disappointment and she could not trust most of the Lords who should have been in attendance as her chief advisers, so in her isolation she turned to the faithful Rizzio, in whose lively and witty company she could relax and on whose advice she was beginning to rely heavily.

Yet there were those, Randolph among them, who suspected that her relationship with Rizzio was more than that of monarch and secretary. Darnley, given his wife’s behaviour, had every reason to share his suspicions, and certainly did. Randolph was a hostile witness, and although he referred to Rizzio as “a filthy wedlock breaker” who indulged with Mary in “such filthy behaviour whereof I am ashamed to speak,” there is no conclusive contemporary evidence that Mary and Rizzio were in fact lovers, although circumstantial evidence makes it a possibility. What is more important is that many people believed, or affected to believe, that they were.

In March 1566, Paul de Foix, the French ambassador in London, reported to Catherine de’ Medici that one night, between midnight and 1 a.m., Darnley arrived up the secret stair to Mary’s bedchamber and found the door locked. He knocked, but there was no answer and it was only when he shouted that he would break down the door that Mary opened it. At first, it appeared that she was alone, but Darnley’s suspicions had been aroused and he went straight to a closet, where he found a quailing Rizzio wearing only a shirt covered by a furred robe.¹⁰Buchanan, whose brief was to discredit Mary, later wrote of a similar incident in which Darnley, having been informed that Rizzio had gone to Mary’s bedchamber one night, went to investigate and found the door bolted on the inside. In this version, Darnley did not force his way in, but spent a sleepless night in an agony of suspicion and jealousy.

But Darnley never alleged any such thing against Mary or Rizzio, even when it was imperative that he justify his conduct, and Lord Ruthven’s contemporary eyewitness account does not refer to either incident, stating only that Darnley complained to Mary in March 1566 that he had good reason to be angry because “since yonder fellow David came in credit and familiarity with Your Majesty, you neither regarded me, entertained me nor trusted me after your wonted fashion. For every day before dinner you were wont to come to my chamber, and passed the time with me, and this long time you have not done so; and when I came to Your Majesty’s chamber, you bore me little company except David had been the third person. And after supper Your Majesty used to sit up at cards with David till one or two after midnight. And this is the entertainment I have had of you this long time.” Her Majesty answered that it was not a gentlewoman’s duty to come to her husband’s chamber, but rather the husband’s to come to the wife’s. The King answered, “How came you to my chamber in the beginning, and ever till within these six months that David fell into familiarity with you? Or am I failed in any sort in my body?”

Randolph and Bedford’s account of this quarrel has Darnley saying “that David had more company of her body than he, for the space of two months.” When Mary replied that it was not the wife’s part to seek out the husband, and that the fault was his own—which was probably true, for it must be remembered that Darnley was not blameless in this affair—he answered “that when he came, she either would not, or made herself sick.”¹¹Few men would have tolerated such a situation, and in the circumstances it was logical for Darnley to experience intense sexual jealousy. By the double standards of the age, his was the greater grievance.

Lennox’s Narrative is the only one of the later libels against Mary to give a full account of the Rizzio affair. The others were written under the auspices of the Lords involved, who naturally did not want their role in it publicised. Lennox wrote independently, and much of his information must have come from Darnley himself, whose murder Lennox was doing his best at the time to avenge. Lennox makes much of Darnley’s jealousy of Rizzio, “whom the King might see increase in such disordinate favour to his wife, as he [Darnley], being in his lusty years, bearing such great love and affection unto her, began to enter into such jealousy as he thought he could not longer suffer the proceedings of the said David, she using the said David more as a lover than a servant, forsaking her husband’s bed and board very often, liking the company of David, as appeared, better than her husband’s.”¹²This corroborates Ruthven’s account of Darnley’s complaints.

Rizzio had usurped the Lords’ natural privileges, ensured that Maitland was sidelined, and was believed not only to be a papal agent working in secret for the restoration of Catholicism, but also to be blocking any ideas on Mary’s part of recalling the exiled Protestant nobles. He aroused more hatred than Darnley ever did, but Mary seemed oblivious to the Lords’ boiling resentment. She knew she could trust Rizzio absolutely. Yet in continuing to favour him above all others, she displayed incredible folly and an alarming lack of awareness of aristocratic sensibilities and of the scandal to which she was laying herself open by her conduct, which suggests that she was indeed infatuated with the Italian.

On 18 October, Randolph expressed his outrage that Rizzio, “a stranger, a varlet, should have the whole guiding of Queen and country.” As for Mary, “a more wilful woman, and one more wedded to her own opinion, without order, reason or discretion, I never did hear of.” Darnley was even worse, and her Councillors were “men never esteemed for wisdom or honesty.” Of course, Randolph was prejudiced, but he added, with what seems like a touch of sincerity, that “though I oftentimes set forth her praises wherever I could, she is so much changed in her nature that she beareth only the shape of that woman she was before” and was “hardly recognisable by one who had known her in the happy days when she heeded worthy counsel and her praise ran through all nations.” Without Moray’s guiding influence, Mary’s poor judgement and lack of political sense were becoming all too apparent.

Although Elizabeth had commanded Moray to remain in Newcastle, he had gone hotfoot to London to plead his cause in person, and on 22 October, the Queen agreed to see him in private with Cecil present. She was anxious not to provoke either Mary or the French by appearing to favour the Scottish rebels, and, according to Guzman de Silva, it was arranged at this meeting that she would publicly express her displeasure. The next day, therefore, a charade was staged in which Moray, kneeling before Elizabeth, was severely castigated for having rebelled against his anointed sovereign, in the presence of Paul de Foix, the French ambassador, and all the court. Afterwards, although the Queen had said she would not permit him to remain in England, he was allowed to return unmolested to Newcastle with Elizabeth’s assurance that she would mediate with Mary for his return to Scotland. Mary, for her part, rejoiced to hear from Randolph of Moray’s humiliation, not realising that it was mere duplicity.¹³From then on, relations between the two Queens were slightly warmer, although Mary adamantly refused to pardon Moray, even in exchange for Lady Lennox’s release.¹⁴

Bothwell returned to Edinburgh at the end of October, and was put in charge of reorganising Scotland’s artillery defences and keeping the border secure. But when Mary appointed him as one of her commissioners to negotiate with Bedford for a new peace treaty between England and Scotland, the English withdrew, insulted.

On 31 October, Randolph reported that members of Mary’s household had told him “that she is with child. It is argued upon tokens, I know not what, that are annexed to them that are in that case.” By 12 November, having spoken to Mary, he was able to announce: “She is with child, and the nurse already chosen. There can be no doubt, and she herself thinks so.” Two days later, Mary became unwell, suffering from a grievous pain in her side; while she was confined to bed, Darnley spent nine days hunting in Fife. By 1 December, Mary had recovered and was “taking as much exercise as her body can endure.”¹⁵Her pregnancy had not been officially announced, but most people drew conclusions when, on that day, she chose to travel to Linlithgow in a litter instead of on horseback, as usual.¹⁶Lennox wrote to inform his wife of their daughter-in-law’s pregnancy on 19 December, giving God “most hearty thanks for that the King our son continues in good health and the Queen great with child.”¹⁷

As far as Mary was concerned, her pregnancy was the crowning of her hopes, for her child would inherit the joint claims of its parents to the thrones of Scotland and England, and place her in a very strong position vis-à-vis the English succession.

At Linlithgow, Mary was reunited with Darnley, but it may not have been a happy meeting. Far from being overjoyed at the prospect of fatherhood, Darnley must have realised that the coming infant would block for ever his chances of succeeding to the throne, even if Mary did grant him the Crown Matrimonial, for its rights would take precedence in the succession. If, however, the Queen or her infant died in childbirth, Darnley would inherit the throne, but only if he had first secured the Crown Matrimonial. It was imperative now that he do so, and the matter became an obsession with him. But Mary continued to deny him what he wanted, which caused violent arguments between them. Randolph reported: “I cannot tell what misliking of late there hath been between Her Grace and her husband. He presseth earnestly for the matrimonial crown, which she is loath hastily to grant, but willing to keep somewhat in store until she knows how worthy he is to enjoy such a sovereignty.”¹⁸

Soon after the meeting at Linlithgow, Darnley left for Peebles on yet another hunting trip, and had not returned by 20 December, when Lennox set out to look for him. Buchanan alleges that Mary had sent the King to Peebles in the depths of winter with only a small following, and that he nearly perished of starvation, but this story is not corroborated by any contemporary account.

Mary was not pleased by her husband’s prolonged absence. On 20 December, Bedford reported: “The Lord Darnley followeth his pastimes more than the Queen is content withal. What it will breed hereafter I cannot say, but in the meantime there is some misliking between them” that was fast becoming public knowledge. When Darnley did return to court he received a very chilly reception.

How serious was the rift was confirmed on 22 December, when the coin giving Darnley precedence was suddenly withdrawn and replaced by a new one, the Mary ryal, on which Mary’s name came first. Randolph was certain that the change was indicative of Mary’s serious displeasure with her husband.¹⁹ Documents, however, would continue to be issued in the names of King Henry and Queen Mary until Darnley’s death.²⁰

On Christmas Day, Randolph wrote: “A while ago there was nothing but ‘King and Queen,’ ‘His Majesty and Hers,’ but now ‘the Queen’s husband’ is more common. There are also private disorders amongst themselves, but may be lovers’ quarrels.”²¹ Mary’s inventories show that her gifts to Darnley, once so numerous, had virtually ceased by the beginning of 1566.²²

The rebel Lords’ moveable goods, confiscated by the Crown, had now been publicly auctioned off. On 1 December, Glencairn, Ochiltree and Boyd were pronounced guilty in absentia of lèse-majesté, while on 18 December Moray and the remaining rebels were summoned to appear before Parliament in February 1566 to hear the formal forfeiture of their lands and estates. According to Randolph, it was now Darnley, rather than Mary, who was adamant that Moray should never be pardoned.²³

That Christmas, Darnley made an ostentatious parade of Catholic piety, obviously intended to show that he was more staunch in the faith than the Queen. Randolph informed Cecil, “The Queen’s husband never gave greater token of his religion than this last night [Christmas Eve]. He was at Matins and Mass in the morning, before day, and heard the High Mass devoutly upon his knees, though she herself, the most part of the night, sat up at cards and went to bed when it was almost day.”²⁴After Christmas, Darnley returned to Peebles to join Lennox for another hunting expedition,²⁵and did not return until the middle of January.

On 2 January, in Darnley’s absence, and much to his disgust when he found out, Mary pardoned Chatelherault for his part in the Chaseabout Raid, on condition that he remain in exile in France for the next five years. One hundred and sixty members of the Hamilton faction received their remission at the same time.²⁶ The Queen was softening in her attitude to the rebels, and on 24 January Randolph noted that her extremity towards Moray was partly assuaged. Moray, who was running out of money,²⁷had written to her pleading to be allowed to return to Scotland, even undertaking to overlook her association with Rizzio. He and his friends had also offered Darnley a very fine diamond as an inducement to obtain Moray’s reinstatement,²⁸ and had also dangled a bribe of £5,000 before Rizzio, only to be told that his price was nothing less than £20,000.²⁹All these efforts proved to be in vain, and Moray grew increasingly desperate.

Pope Pius IV had died in December, and on 10 January 1566, his successor, Pius V, a fanatical champion of the faith who was to be an energetic force behind the Counter-Reformation, wrote—somewhat prematurely—praising Mary for her zeal in “restoring the true worship of God throughout your whole realm,” exhorting her to complete what she had commenced and congratulating her on her victory over the Protestants.³⁰ The Pope’s letter was delivered in February by Clerneau de Villeneuve, an emissary of the Cardinal of Lorraine, who travelled to Scotland with James Thornton, who had been sent by Archbishop Beaton from Paris to urge Mary to proceed to the utmost against the rebel Lords.³¹

Although, on 10 December, Mary had again promised her subjects liberty of conscience, in a letter to the Pope dated 31 January, she informed him that she planned to restore Catholicism in Scotland and, later on, in England, when the time was ripe and her enemies were neutralised. On the same day she appointed the Bishop of Dunblane her orator at the Vatican, with instructions to ask for spiritual and financial aid from the Holy Father.

Mary had also been expecting monetary support from King Philip, who had granted Francis Yaxley an audience on 13 October. Ten days later, Yaxley had left Brussels with letters of congratulation on Mary’s marriage and the subsidy of 20,000 crowns.³² But Yaxley drowned when his ship was wrecked off Northumberland in January 1566, and the money was seized by the Earl of Northumberland and claimed by Queen Elizabeth as treasure trove.³³ Darnley took Yaxley’s servant, Henry Gwynn, into his service.

Cecil was annoyed that no letters had been discovered on Yaxley’s body when it was washed ashore, but Philip had prudently written separately to Mary and Darnley via de Silva in London, begging the Queen not to make any attempt on the English throne until he invaded the Netherlands, “where he can with greater facility assist them.” Because of the highly sensitive nature of this letter, de Silva was obliged to hold on to it for several months.³⁴

On Candlemas Day (2 February), Mary and Darnley attended High Mass together at Holyrood, carrying candles in procession to the chapel royal. Mary “used great persuasions to divers of her nobility to hear Mass with her, and took the Earl of Bothwell by the hand, to procure him in.” Bothwell refused, and went off with Huntly to hear Knox preach, at which Mary was somewhat offended.³⁵ Alarmed at this overt display of Catholicism, Randolph reported on 5 February that Mary had “said openly that she will have Mass free for all men that will hear it.” Darnley, Lennox, Atholl and others “now daily resort to it. The Protestants are in great fear, and doubt of what shall become of them. The wisest so much mislike [Darnley’s] government that they design nothing more than the return of the Lords.”

Two days later, Darnley was again making a great display of Catholic devotion, swearing that he would have Mass celebrated in St. Giles and urging the same in Council, but more (thought Randolph) to test opinion than carry out his boast. Nevertheless, when several Lords resisted his attempts to make them accompany him to Mass, he “gave them all very evil words.” Bedford heard that he wanted to shut them all in their rooms until they did as he wished.³⁶On the same day, Randolph recorded another rumour that Mary had subscribed to a Catholic League “to maintain papistry throughout Christendom,”³⁷ while Melville believed that Rizzio “had secret intelligence” with the Vatican.

Mary was doing her best to maintain her pro-Catholic policy, but Darnley may have had an ulterior motive in his overt displays of piety, and was perhaps trying to enlist Catholic support in Scotland, England and abroad for his bid for the Crown Matrimonial. He may also have been trying to convince Mary’s Catholic allies that he was more vigorous in the faith than she was, and therefore more likely to be effective in bringing about a counter-reformation in Scotland.

In such a climate, Rizzio’s position was growing daily more dangerous. On 29 January, Randolph voiced the opinion that the Italian was the father of Mary’s unborn child, and warned Leicester: “Woe indeed to you when a son of David should bear rule over Scotland.”³⁸Randolph was not the only person, then or later, to express doubts about the baby’s paternity. In 1600, Alexander, Lord Ruthven, sneeringly referred to James VI as “thou son of Signor David,” and in the early seventeenth century, that same King James earned the nickname “the British Solomon” after Henry IV of France had said he deserved to be called the modern Solomon, since he was the son of David.

In January and February 1566, a plot to do away with Rizzio was hatched by a confederacy of Protestant Lords, who believed that he was the chief obstacle in the way of Moray’s return. It is not certain who instigated the conspiracy, and there are essentially four theories about it: the first, according to Melville, was that it was conceived by Morton, Ruthven, Lindsay and the Douglases, who drew Darnley into it by playing on his jealousy of Rizzio and his conviction that it was Rizzio who was preventing his receiving the Crown Matrimonial—this seems the most likely theory; the second theory, according to Ruthven’s deathbed account, was that the plot originated with Darnley, who was urged on and abetted by Lennox,³⁹which is less probable; the third theory is that Moray was the mastermind behind the plot and carefully orchestrated it from England, which was later alleged by Bothwell and is certainly possible; and the fourth, that it emanated from the clever brain of Maitland, who had every reason to detest the man who had supplanted him, an equal possibility.

One of the prime movers was Morton, who not only desired the return of his co-religionist Moray, but was also bound by ties of blood to Darnley and felt outraged that his kinsman had been ousted from Mary’s affections and counsels by a foreign upstart who had got too far above himself and was meddling in matters that were no business of his. Morton was also motivated by a degree of self-interest, for he had heard a rumour that, in the coming Parliament, the Crown meant to resume possession of certain lands he had improperly obtained, and he had no intention of allowing that to happen.⁴⁰

Anthony Standen, a gentleman of Darnley’s household whose younger brother, also Anthony, was the King’s cupbearer, told James I years later that “wicked Ruthven” was the chief conspirator,⁴¹ although Ruthven denied this.⁴²Ruthven was also related to Darnley, as was Lindsay, who was married to a Douglas. As far as Morton, Ruthven and Lindsay were concerned, therefore, the plot was a bid for familial advancement, for all would have benefited from Darnley receiving the Crown Matrimonial, which they would dangle before him like a carrot, and wielding sovereign power. In addition, these Lords, all Protestants, were anxious to see the return of Moray.⁴³ Ruthven was to justify the plot by claiming that Rizzio was preventing the return of Moray and, through his dominance over the Queen, excluding Darnley from her counsels.⁴⁴

Ruthven’s activities, and Morton’s, may have been a front for Moray’s machinations. Moray was seeking a return to power. He and other Protestants believed that Rizzio was responsible for the Bill of Attainder against the exiles that would shortly come before Parliament, and which would deprive them of everything they owned. Moray feared this consequence greatly, but the Protestant Lords in the plot were determined to forestall it, and meant at all costs to prevent Parliament from sitting.⁴⁵Ruthven states that the exiled Lords were not drawn into the plot until 20 February, with Morton acting as a link, but Ruthven may not have been aware of any prior involvement on the part of Moray. Moray was a cunning and cautious man, and would have taken care—as he did on other occasions—not to incriminate himself.

Rizzio was not, however, the main target of the conspirators, whose real objective was almost certainly the removal of the Queen from power,⁴⁶the elimination of the threat of a Catholic revival, and the reinstatement of a Protestant government under Moray, with Darnley, wearing the Crown Matrimonial, as a puppet king. Claude Nau, who probably obtained his information from Mary in the 1570s when he served as her Secretary, claims that the “chief design” of these “crafty foxes” was “the elevation of Moray to the throne, and the deprivation of [Darnley] and the Queen.” Had Darnley’s elimination really been envisaged, Morton and his Douglas connections would surely not have devised or backed the plot, for there would have been little personal advantage in it for them. But Moray’s appearance in Edinburgh immediately after the murder argues the fact that the slaying of Rizzio was secondary to the coup that it initiated.

Ruthven, Randolph and Bedford assert that Darnley, “being entered into a vehement suspicion of David, that by him something was committed which was most against the King’s honour, and not to be borne of his part, first communicated his mind to George Douglas,”⁴⁷the bastard son of Archibald, 6th Earl of Angus and half-brother to Darnley’s mother. Douglas had been pursuing a career in the Church from a young age. In 1546, aged only sixteen, he had been involved in the murder of Cardinal Beaton, and had then seized the lucrative office of Postulate of Arbroath, despite being a lacklustre preacher, a fornicator and a devious and violent ruffian. Now, finding Darnley in great sorrow, “he sought all the means he could to put some remedy unto his grief.”⁴⁸

Melville, however, states that it was Douglas who, at the instigation of Morton, Ruthven, Lindsay and others, began spending time in Darnley’s company and insidiously “put into his head such suspicion against Rizzio” as would draw him into the plot.⁴⁹Douglas had little love for his Lennox cousins, but everything to gain if he helped his nephew to the Crown Matrimonial, and Darnley, whose complaints had given Mary’s enemies an excuse for action, lacked the perspicacity to see that he was being used. His youth and inexperience would render him as wax in the hands of the ruthless, power-hungry men who were closing in on him, and as such he would prove their most dangerous weapon. They would find, however, that it was a two-edged sword.

Douglas asked Darnley why it was that Mary was refusing him the Crown Matrimonial and why she was denying him a share in the government. It was scandalous, because, as a woman, she should give precedence and respect to her husband. What was the reason for the Queen often being closeted late at night with Rizzio? Could the King really be certain that he was the father of her coming child? Darnley, whose suspicions had already been aroused as a result of his own observations, needed little convincing that Mary was being unfaithful to him, and little persuasion that he should seek a bloody revenge, which, by the moral standards of the time, seemed entirely justifiable. He could not live with his terrible suspicions, nor could he suffer existing any longer as a king with no power. But the Crown Matrimonial meant more to him than the fidelity of his wife, and he made it clear that it was the price of his co-operation, whereupon the conspirators told him soothingly that they would make certain he should have it. Thus did they bend him to their will and entice him to join them as their leader, and he was “won to give his consent over easily to the slaughter of Signor David.”⁵⁰ From then on, Darnley was at the very epicentre of the plot.

The first indication that a conspiracy was afoot came on 9 February 1566 in a letter to Cecil from Maitland, who confided that he saw no certain way to restore matters in Scotland to their former state “unless we chop at the very root—you know where it lieth.”⁵¹The letter suggests that Maitland was in the confidence of the conspirators, and Randolph lists him as one of their number, but the extent of his involvement is obscure, for he was adept at covering his traces. He certainly had a motive for wanting to get rid of Rizzio, for the Italian had usurped many of the functions of the Secretary’s office, which Maitland still held, and Maitland was determined that Rizzio should not sabotage his carefully formulated policy of working towards a peaceful union with England, the result of years of hard work. Maitland may have acted on behalf of the exiled Lords, or as a link between them and the conspirators, but there is no proof of this. Nau later claimed that he “was secretly of Moray’s party—not so openly, however, that he could be charged therewith.”

From its early stages, Cecil, the English Privy Council and Bedford were aware of the plot, but lifted no finger to prevent its execution; for them, the removal of Rizzio was a political necessity. For this reason, perhaps, there is little evidence relating to it in the English State Papers. Nor is there any evidence, other than Blackwood’s allegation of 1587, that the plot originated in England, although its outcome would be distinctly to England’s advantage. Elizabeth was not made aware of what was to happen until it was too late to prevent it, in case she tried to warn Mary, but, given that Cecil and Bedford knew of the plot, it is inconceivable that Moray did not.

Meanwhile, in what was probably a prearranged move, George Douglas, ostensibly at Darnley’s request, had asked Lord Ruthven to help in seeing Rizzio “executed according to his demerits.”⁵² Ruthven was already suffering from the mortal illness that would kill him,⁵³and had been confined to his chamber for at least two months, but that did not prevent him from entering into the conspiracy with ruthless resolve, although he told the untrustworthy and garrulous Darnley he would lift no finger to help him unless he solemnly swore not to reveal anything to the Queen. Darnley agreed without hesitation to this condition.⁵⁴

Ruthven, in turn, brought in Morton, who made his involvement conditional upon Lennox and Darnley giving up all claims to the lands of the earldom of Angus, which he meant to settle on his nephew.⁵⁵ This agreed, Morton showed himself sympathetic to the King’s plight and expressed shock at Mary’s treatment of him, allegedly declaring, “It is a thing contrary to nature that the hen should crow before the cock, and against the law of God that a man should be subject to his wife, the man being the image of God, the woman the image of man.”⁵⁶Therefore he, Morton, would do all he could to assist Darnley to take power into his own hands and rid him of the man who had usurped his royal and marital privileges.

Over the next few weeks, the details of the plot were finalised. Rizzio was to be summarily executed, Mary was to be taken prisoner and shut up at Stirling until her child was born, Darnley was to receive the Crown Matrimonial, and Moray and the other exiled Lords were to be recalled, pardoned and reconciled with Darnley, who would thereafter exert himself to maintain the Protestant Church. The plotters were aware that they had to act before Parliament sat in order to avoid the exiled Lords being attainted.

Morton and Ruthven were of the opinion that Rizzio should be slain either in his own chamber or the garden, or while playing tennis, or even publicly hanged, but even these hardened men were appalled to hear Darnley insist that he be slaughtered in the Queen’s presence at her own table.⁵⁷This was not only a vicious revenge, but might also serve an even more sinister purpose, that of bringing about, through shock, a miscarriage or even Mary’s death in childbirth, along with that of her infant. Given Darnley’s determination to secure the Crown Matrimonial, no other construction can be placed upon such a vindictive act. This was the view that Mary herself and many other people later took. Here again Darnley played into the Lords’ hands, for they could allege this treason against him at a later date, and the penalty was death. Thus they could rid themselves of him whenever they chose.

As the days went by, many others were brought into the conspiracy: among them were Lennox,⁵⁸a number of Darnley’s Catholic friends and Douglas kinsmen, including Sir William Douglas of Lochleven, Moray’s half-brother, and Morton’s cousin, Archibald Douglas, as well as several of the King’s former Protestant enemies, notably Lindsay, Argyll, Ruthven’s son, William, Patrick Bellenden, brother of the Justice Clerk, Andrew Ker of Fawdonside, who had fought for Moray during the Chaseabout Raid, and Mar’s brother, Arthur Erskine of Blackgrange, as well as a host of minor players. All were united in their hatred and resentment of Rizzio, and most were intent on making the plot appear as if it had originated with Darnley. Each conspirator envisaged that the coup would result in some benefit to himself.

Knox, who had spoken out frequently against Rizzio, was aware of the conspiracy and apparently gave it his blessing.⁵⁹ Those not involved in it included Bothwell, Huntly, Atholl, Balfour, Glencairn, Mar, Seton and Livingston, none of whom was aware of what was going on.

On 10 February, after Mass in the chapel royal, Darnley was ceremonially invested with the Order of St. Michael, the highest order of knighthood that the King of France could bestow. Representing Charles IX was the Sieur de Rambouillet. Before the assembled court, Darnley had the nerve to solemnly swear that, if he ever brought disgrace upon the Order, he would surrender his collar of knighthood to the French King.⁶⁰ Afterwards, when Rambouillet asked what arms would be assigned to the new knight, the Queen “bade give him only his due, whereby it was perceived her love waxed cold towards him.”⁶¹

Over the next three days, there were entertainments in honour of the ambassador and his suite, at one of which Mary and her ladies appeared wearing male apparel.⁶² Darnley drank to excess, indulged in debauchery, and made several of the Frenchmen hopelessly inebriated.

By 13 February, Randolph knew most of the details of the plot against Rizzio, for on that day he wrote to Leicester:

I know now for certain that this Queen repenteth her marriage, that she hateth the King and all his kin. I know that he knoweth himself that he hath a partaker [i.e., Rizzio] in play and game with him. I know that there are practices in hand contrived between the father and son to come by the crown against her will. I know that, if that take effect which is intended, David, with the consent of the King, shall have his throat cut within these ten days. Many things grievouser and worse are brought to my ears, yea, of things intended against Her Majesty’s own person. This Queen to her subjects is now so intolerable that I see them bent on nothing but extreme mischief. There is a bait laid for Signor David, that if he be caught, howsoever his mistress be offended, others will be pleased.

Randolph ended by asking Leicester to keep all this to himself.⁶³Cecil and Elizabeth might have condoned the murder of Rizzio, but Elizabeth would hardly be likely to sanction a plot against an anointed queen.

Around this time, Mary, Darnley and some courtiers were entertained at the home of an Edinburgh merchant. At dinner, Darnley again got drunk, but when Mary tried to restrain him from imbibing any more or enticing others to do so, he ignored her and became so abusive that she “left the house in tears.” Such quarrels were not uncommon. In fact, Darnley was now holding so many things against Mary—her refusal of the Crown Matrimonial, the withdrawal of the coinage, the softening of her attitude towards the Hamiltons, her reluctance to give him precedence—that there was constant friction between them, and she was “very weary of him.” Some even believed that, if Darnley would not be appeased, she would call on Chatelherault to aid her against him.⁶⁴

Rambouillet and his suite arrived at Berwick on 15 February, and the following day, Sir William Drury, Captain of Berwick, reported that one gentleman was still the worse for wear after Darnley had made him drink “acqua composita” (possibly whisky). Drury observed that “all people say that Darnley is too much addicted to drinking,” and added, perhaps significantly, that, during a recent visit to the Isle of Inchkeith in the Firth of Forth with Lord Robert Stewart, Lord Fleming and others, Darnley had done something so vicious that it did not bear describing, but he did not get away with it because “too many were witnesses,” and when the Queen heard of it, she “withdrew her company from him.”⁶⁵

The nature of Darnley’s vicious behaviour has been the subject of some speculation. It may not have been any sexual misdemeanour at all, but one explanation is that he took part in a homosexual act. Apart from his effeminate appearance, which may have no bearing on the matter whatsoever, there is some evidence to support the theory that he was bisexual. It has already been noted that, while referring to speculation that Mary and Darnley were lovers before their marriage, Randolph told Bedford not to believe it: “the likelihoods are so great to the contrary that, if it were possible to see such an act done, I would not believe it.”⁶⁶Randolph may have written this after witnessing Darnley’s behaviour with Rizzio, with whom, as has been seen, he sometimes shared a bed. Knox wrote that Darnley “passed his time in hunting and hawking, and other such pleasures as were agreeable to his appetites, having in his company gentlemen willing to satisfy his will and affections.” The use of the words “and affections” surely has a significance that influences the meaning of the sentence. Finally, in the much later Historie of James the Sext, Darnley is accused of indulging in “unmanly pleasures.” Whatever the truth about his sexuality, he was certainly promiscuous, and either form of behaviour would have aroused Mary’s disgust.

So many people were now involved in the plot against Rizzio that something was bound to leak out. Melville heard “dark speeches that we should have news ere Parliament was ended,” and tried to warn Mary that there might be unpleasant repercussions if she did not pardon Moray, but she still refused to do so. “What can they do? What dare they do?” she asked indignantly. She told him she herself had heard the rumours, but gave no credit to them, saying, “Our countrymen are great talkers but rarely put their bragging into effect.” However, she did reluctantly agree to postpone Parliament until 12 March. Melville then went to Rizzio to alert him to possible trouble, “but he disdained all danger and despised counsel.”⁶⁷

Mary had now learned from a captured English spy that Randolph had conveyed English gold to the rebel Lords, and on 19 February she summoned him before the Council, coldly accused him of perfidy and ordered him to leave Scotland within three days. Outraged, he denied the charge, refused to accept a safe-conduct signed by Darnley, and stayed put in Edinburgh. The next day, Mary wrote to Elizabeth, complaining of Randolph’s conduct and informing her of his expulsion.⁶⁸

A little light relief from Mary’s problems was provided on 24 February, when Bothwell married Huntly’s sister, Lady Jean Gordon, thus cementing the political alliance between the two Earls. As they were among the Queen’s staunchest adherents, and represented the might of northern and southern Scotland, the marriage had her blessing and, indeed, had been made on her advice; she witnessed the marriage contract, provided the cloth of silver and white taffeta for the bride’s dress from her own Wardrobe,⁶⁹and attended the celebrations that followed the Protestant wedding service in the Canongate Kirk in Edinburgh. David Chalmers was a witness.

Jean, then twenty, was a Catholic, and because the bride and groom were within the forbidden degrees of affinity, Archbishop Hamilton had granted a dispensation for the marriage.⁷⁰Jean and Mary had wanted a Catholic marriage ceremony, but Bothwell had overruled them both.⁷¹ One presumes Jean was not too happy about marrying him because she was already in love with Alexander, Lord Ogilvy of Boyne, but, only weeks before, Ogilvy had jilted her and married Mary Beaton.⁷²Bothwell had witnessed their marriage contract.

Jean brought with her a rich dowry, which Bothwell used to rescue himself from penury and clear his debts; in return, after it had been redeemed from his creditors, he gave her Crichton Castle, which she retained for life. She was a woman of strong character, well educated and with a good head for business; according to Sir William Drury, she was “a proper and virtuous gentlewoman.”

The Earl and Countess spent their honeymoon at Seton. Because Jean insisted on wearing black in mourning for her lost love, there was initially some friction, and Bothwell returned to Edinburgh on his own after a week. But the couple were soon reunited, and thereafter lived mainly at Crichton. Their servants, Cuthbert Ramsay and George Livingston, later testified that they had seen them living peaceably, “friendly and quietly” together. There were, however, no children of the marriage.

On 25 February, Randolph, still hanging on in Edinburgh, informed Cecil that the Queen’s marriage to Darnley had failed and that Darnley and Lennox were plotting against Mary and Rizzio; he also reported the astonishing alliance between Darnley and the exiled Lords.⁷³

But Morton and Ruthven did not trust Darnley. According to Ruthven, “considering he was a young prince, and having a lusty princess to lie in his arms afterwards, who might persuade him to deny all that was done for his cause and to allege that others persuaded him to the same,” the Lords “thought it necessary to have security thereupon.” On 1 March, they made him sign a Bond in which he acknowledged that he was the chief author of the plot and assumed full responsibility for the punishment—the word “murder” was not used—of the “wicked, ungodly” Rizzio and of any who might try to prevent it, even though “the deed may chance to take place in the presence of the Queen”; he further promised to protect his fellow plotters from any repercussions of the murder.⁷⁴That day, Darnley wrote to Moray, asking him to travel to Berwick to await the King’s summons.⁷⁵On 8 March, Darnley signed a safe-conduct for Moray to return to Scotland, and promised to provide him with an escort headed by Lord Home.

On 2 March, a second Bond, between Darnley and the exiled Lords, was signed at Newcastle, according to which the Lords promised to obtain the Crown Matrimonial for Darnley in return for him securing their pardons and the restoration of their property, and undertaking to maintain the Kirk. Moray was not among the signatories.⁷⁶

Threats of punishment forced Randolph to leave Edinburgh that day; he was conducted under escort across the border to Berwick, and remained there, still in touch with the Queen’s enemies and able to keep an eye on Scottish affairs. Elizabeth wrote to Mary criticising her treatment of both Randolph and Moray, and sent money to the latter at Newcastle.⁷⁷But Mary was taking a hard line with those who had opposed her. On 4 March, she formally opened the Parliament that would see her rebels attainted.

Two days later, Randolph and Bedford provided Cecil with details of the Bonds and the names of the chief plotters, and—now that it was too late for her to intervene—asked him to inform Elizabeth of what was intended, telling her that the discord between Mary and Darnley was the result of her denying him the Crown Matrimonial and also “for that he hath assured knowledge of such usage of himself that altogether is intolerable to be borne, which, if it were not over well known, we should both be very loath to think that it could be true. To take away the occasion of slander, he is himself determined to be at the apprehension and execution of him who [has] done him the most dishonour that can be done to any man, much more being as he is.” They also claimed that Mary was determined to remove Morton from the office of Chancellor and replace him with Rizzio.⁷⁸There is, however, no official record of Morton’s removal from office.

Enclosed with the above was a letter to Elizabeth, informing her that “a matter of no small consequence is about to take place in Scotland” and that the attempt on Rizzio’s life was to be carried out “before Tuesday next” (i.e., before 12 March). For fuller details, they referred her to the letter to Cecil. Neither letter would have reached London in time for the Queen to alert Mary to the plot.

On 7 March, Mary, accompanied by Bothwell carrying the sceptre and Huntly the crown, attended the opening session of Parliament in the Tolbooth, in which Moray, Argyll, Glencairn, Rothes, Ochiltree, Boyd and Kirkcaldy of Grange were formally summoned to Edinburgh to be attainted on 12 March. The Queen also intended that Parliament should enact legislation allowing Catholics to practise their religion unhindered. In despite of Mary, Darnley had refused to attend because he was not to be granted the Crown Matrimonial, and spent the day with his cronies in Leith.⁷⁹ Moray had already left Newcastle.

On the night of 8 March, Cecil visited Lady Lennox in the Tower and informed her that Rizzio was shortly to be slain.⁸⁰ The conspirators had planned to carry out the murder on 12 March but, guessing that Randolph and Bedford had leaked too many details, and fearful of Elizabeth interfering, they decided to strike three days earlier. By now, over 120 people were involved in the conspiracy, among them some of the highest in the land, and there was every chance that some of them might have been loose tongued, yet neither Mary, nor Bothwell, nor Huntly had any inkling of what was afoot. Rizzio may have heard some of the rumours, for he consulted a French astrologer, Jean Damiot, who told him to beware of the bastard. Rizzio assumed he meant Moray, and told Damiot he would make sure that the bastard never again set foot in Scotland.⁸¹But Moray was not the only bastard involved in the plot—one of its promulgators had been George Douglas, the bastard of Angus. And when Damiot told him to return to his own country, Rizzio retorted, echoing Mary’s own sentiments, “Words, nothing but words! The Scots proclaim much, but their threats are not carried out.”⁸²It would not be long before he found out, in the most horrific manner, how wrong he was.