9

“AS THEY HAVE BREWED, SO LET THEM DRINK”

THE ROYAL CASTLE OF DUNBAR had stood on its cliff jutting out over the North Sea since at least the thirteenth century, and was one of the most important strategic fortresses in Scotland. Besieged, sacked and reduced on several occasions, it had been mostly rebuilt during the reign of James IV, and its royal chambers were of the same proportions as those inhabited by that monarch in Edinburgh Castle. Here were kept the national arsenal and the kingdom’s reserves of gunpowder.¹

Mary was safe in this mighty stronghold, and it was here that, over the next five days, in response to her summons and Bothwell’s efforts in the Borders, her loyal supporters and over 4,000 Borderers gathered.² Among them were Atholl, Balfour, Bishop Leslie, Lord Home, John Maxwell, Lord Herries “and an infinity of others.”³Here too came Glencairn, Rothes and other rebels, seeking and receiving pardon. All pledged themselves to restore their Queen to her throne and overthrow the conspirators. Soon, as word spread, men came flocking from further afield.

When, on the morning of 12 March, the conspirators found the Queen and Darnley gone, they were understandably aghast and dismayed, realising that without the promised pardons they were doomed. Lennox was furious with Darnley for having left him behind, unaware that it was Mary who had refused to allow him to accompany them, and galloped off to Dunbar to take his son to task.⁴That day, Moray and other rebels went to the Tolbooth and publicly protested that they were ready to answer any charges that might be made against them in Parliament, “well knowing that no one could be found who would venture to accuse them.”⁵The next day, Morton, Ruthven and Lindsay sent Robert, Lord Sempill, who was not tainted by involvement in the plot, to the Queen to ask her to fulfil her promise to grant them their pardons. Mary refused, and kept Sempill with her.

On 15 March, as a reward for his outstanding services over the past few days, Mary awarded Bothwell the prestigious wardship of the castle and Crown demesne of Dunbar,⁶of which she had deprived Sir Simon Preston, the Provost of Edinburgh, as punishment for his complacency during her captivity.

That same day, Mary dictated a letter to Queen Elizabeth, giving a dramatic account of how “some of our subjects and Council, by their proceedings, have declared manifestly what men they are, as have taken our house, slain our special servant in our own presence and thereafter holden our proper persons captive treasonably, whereby we were constrained to escape to the place where we are for the present, in the greatest danger for our lives and evil estate that ever princes on Earth stood in. Which handling no Christian prince will allow, nor yourself, we believe.” She apologised for not writing in her own hand, “but, of truth, we are so tired and ill at ease through riding twenty [sic] miles in five hours of the night with a frequent sickness and evil disposition for the occasion of our child that we could not.”⁷In her letter to Charles IX, written a few days later, Mary refers to “the bodily indisposition of our person” and states she is not “in robust health”;⁸ clearly the events of the past few days had taken their toll on her.

Darnley had been largely shunned by Mary’s supporters. “Some would not speak to him or associate with him. Others, especially Lord Fleming, openly found fault with his conduct towards the Queen his wife and all of them who he had consigned to death.” Darnley confided to Mary that he feared her Lords would revenge themselves upon him and begged her “to bring about a reconciliation with them. He offered to promise, upon his oath, to enter into a close and perfect friendship with them for the future, and never to abandon them. The Queen exerted herself to the utmost to accomplish this,” but without success, for the Lords had had experience of his promises. Moreover, they had risked their lives for him during the Chaseabout Raid, “and in return he had betrayed them to their greatest enemies.” Although Mary had permitted Darnley to share her bed, “their obedience was to her alone, and to no other person. For the future, neither his promises nor his orders should move them.”⁹From now on, their attitude towards Darnley was to be one of ill-concealed contempt.

On 17 March, the Queen issued a proclamation summoning the local lieges to muster their troops at Haddington on the 18th with provisions for eight days.¹⁰ She also sent orders to Mar to close the gates of Edinburgh “unless the Lords departed out of it.”¹¹That day, she left Dunbar, “well attended,” and arrived in the evening at the abbey of Haddington.¹² On the way, she encountered Melville, and received him with great thanks for his “care of her honour and welfare.”¹³

Melville brought with him a letter from Moray, who had been urged by Morton to make his peace with the Queen in order to put himself in a strong enough position to intercede on the conspirators’ behalf. Melville, however, had told Moray that, if he dissociated himself from them, “I should procure a pardon to him and all his followers.” Moray had no doubt already decided that reconciliation with Mary was a far better move than supporting traitors, and in his letter to her again asked pardon for his offences and assured her “never any more to have to do with such as had committed this vile act, nor intercede for them.”¹⁴ Clearly, Moray was determined to be on the winning side. Argyll also sent a message seeking the Queen’s favour.¹⁵

On the morning of the 17th, having heard that the treacherous Darnley had defected to the Queen, and knowing that they were outnumbered and outwitted, Morton, Ruthven, Lindsay, George Douglas and Fawdonside, “being destitute of all assisters,”¹⁶ had fled to England, seething in mortal hatred at the King’s perfidy, and thirsty for revenge. In betraying them, Darnley had as good as signed his own death warrant.

Maitland had not been directly involved in Rizzio’s murder, but had certainly had foreknowledge of it. Hearing that both Darnley and Bothwell had denounced him to Mary, and that she had ordered him to withdraw to Inverness, Maitland instead sought refuge at Dunkeld with Atholl, whom he hoped would speak for him to the Queen. Failing that, he would try to purchase his pardon from her, although Randolph thought that would “be as hard as may be.”¹⁷

On the night of 17 March, at Haddington, Mary complained bitterly to Melville of the King’s folly, ingratitude and misbehaviour. I excused the same the best I could, imputing it to his youth, which occasioned him easily to be led away by pernicious counsel, laying the blame upon George Douglas and other bad counsellors; praying Her Majesty, for many necessary considerations, to remove out of her mind any prejudice against him, seeing that she had chosen him herself against the opinion of many. But I could perceive nothing, from that day forth, but great grudges that she entertained in her heart.¹⁸

Darnley also sought out Melville and asked if Moray had written to him. Melville diplomatically answered that Moray’s letter to Mary had been written in haste “and that he esteemed the Queen and he but one.”

“He might also have written to me,” grumbled Darnley sulkily. He then asked what was to become of Morton and the rest, whereupon Melville told him he thought they had fled.

“As they have brewed, so let them drink,” commented Darnley. It seemed to Melville “that he was troubled he had deserted them, seeing the Queen’s favour but cold.”¹⁹

Mary’s army now numbered 8,000 men, but it was soon obvious that there would be no obstacles to her return to the capital, and the next day, 18 March, riding with Darnley at the head of her troops and accompanied by Bothwell, Huntly, Home, Seton, Archbishop Hamilton and the Earl Marischal, she made a triumphal entry into Edinburgh. It was only nine days since Rizzio’s murder, yet she had already regained control of her realm without bloodshed. This is sure testimony to her popularity with her subjects. The people of Edinburgh welcomed her with great acclaim and escorted her to the residence of Lord Herries on the High Street;²⁰ on 26 March, she moved to a larger house owned by the Bishop of Dunkeld, which was situated on the Cowgate, behind the present Tron Kirk.²¹ She had made it very clear that she had no wish to return to Holyrood for the present, as the horrifying memories it held were yet very fresh; nor did she feel safe there.

Mary was most anxious that arrangements for her security should be tightened, and immediately ordered cannon to be positioned outside Herries’s house. She also “raised certain bands of soldiers, by the advice of Bothwell, whom she made General of the said bands, besides the force of the Hamiltons, which she called into her service to wait upon her, being the ancient enemies of the King her husband’s House.”²²

Moray, fearing that Mary still believed he had supported the rebel Lords, had retired to Linlithgow, where, in the company of Argyll, he waited to see what she would do. But Mary wisely recognised the need for conciliation and clemency. In order to consolidate her victory, she needed strong aristocratic support, and at present many of her chief Lords were either technically outlaws or fugitive traitors. It was necessary therefore to exercise a degree of pragmatism, and on the day after her arrival in Edinburgh, Mary wisely pardoned some of the conspirators not actively involved in Rizzio’s murder, and obliged several others to find surety for their good behaviour. Furthermore, in order to ensure Moray’s loyalty and drive a wedge between him and her other enemies, she sent him a message confirming her willingness to pardon him, Argyll and others involved in the Chaseabout Raid, but insisting there would be no forgiveness or mercy for those who killed Rizzio. Moray’s pardon was conditional upon him breaking off relations with the conspirators and retiring for the present to Argyll.²³

“The investigation of David’s death was harshly pursued.”²⁴ On 19 or 20 March, the Queen issued a writ summoning Morton, Ruthven, Lindsay, Fawdonside, George Douglas and sixty-three other conspirators to appear before the Privy Council to answer for their crimes, on pain of outlawry. On 20 March, Morton was deposed from the office of Chancellor and replaced by Huntly, whose father had once held the post.²⁵ Balfour replaced James MacGill as Clerk Register. Atholl, Seton, Livingston and Fleming now made up the backbone of the Privy Council, over which Mary now made a point of presiding frequently. “By that Council, the affairs of the realm were quieted, and for a time, all was at peace. And in this state of calm they might have remained, but for the turbulence of the King, who could not long continue on good terms with anyone.”²⁶

Bothwell, who had provided such strength and support during the crisis, “now began to be in great favour,”²⁷ and in effect became for a time Mary’s chief adviser. Months afterwards, Mary was still full of praise for his “dexterity,” recalling “how suddenly, by his providence, not only were we delivered out of prison, but also the whole company of conspirators dissolved, and we recovered our former obedience. Indeed, we must confess that service done at that time to have been so acceptable to us that we could never to this hour forget it.”²⁸

Both Moray and Darnley had proved treacherous, but Bothwell had a record of loyalty to the Crown stretching back many years, and was obviously a man upon whom the Queen could rely. Almost alone amongst the Scottish nobility, he never took bribes from a foreign power; this was perhaps one of the reasons why he was unpopular with his peers. However, he commanded the loyalty of the Borderers, who were ever willing to rise at his bidding. Bothwell’s influence may perhaps be detected in wise new laws recorded in the Register of the Privy Council, which clamped down on counterfeit coinage, the poaching of fish in Scotland’s rivers by alien fishermen, and the pardoning of offenders in serious cases.

But the prestige of the Crown, as well as Mary’s reputation, had suffered as a result of Rizzio’s murder, which had also signalled an end to the Queen’s pro-Catholic policies. The fact that Darnley had taken such drastic action against his wife gave rise to suspicions that he had had just cause. Furthermore, the rift between the royal couple was now public property, which in itself was a scandal.

Mary did not help matters when, shortly before 20 March, she had Rizzio’s body reburied with Catholic rites in “a fair tomb” in the abbey church of Holyrood, which gave offence to many of her subjects.²⁹ However, Buchanan was wrong in stating that Rizzio was buried in the royal vault of James V in the chapel royal: his coffin was nowhere to be seen when the vault was opened in the seventeenth century.

Given the embarrassment that now overshadowed her marriage, Mary had to embark on a damage limitation exercise. She could quite lawfully have had Darnley executed for treason, but she needed to ensure that there were no doubts as to the legitimacy of her child, and so, on 20 March, Darnley appeared before the Privy Council and signed a declaration protesting, “upon his honour, fidelity and the word of a prince,” that he had “never counselled, commanded, consented, assisted nor approved” Rizzio’s murder;³⁰ he had merely given consent for Moray to return to Scotland, without the Queen’s knowledge.³¹ On the following day, his innocence was publicly proclaimed at the Mercat Cross in Edinburgh, “and that not without laughter.”³²Randolph commented, “The King has utterly forsaken the conspirators.”³³

This declaration of innocence on Darnley’s part was not just for his own benefit, but also to protect Mary’s reputation. For, if her husband had not instigated or approved Rizzio’s murder, there would be no grounds for suspecting Rizzio of any impropriety with the Queen. The murder could then be imputed to the jealousy of the Lords, who were to take all the blame for it.

For the sake of her unborn child and her reputation, Mary had protected Darnley from the consequences of his treason, and on the surface it appeared that the two were reconciled; Herries says Mary had told the King she would “forgive and forget all.” But she felt bitterly hurt and alienated by his connivance in what she was convinced had been a plot against her life, and was also contemptuous of the way in which he had betrayed not only herself but also his fellow conspirators. Understandably, she wanted as little to do with him as possible. As most of her courtiers—Lennox and Atholl excepted— were already shunning him, Darnley was virtually isolated.

On 21 March, Randolph reported, incorrectly, that Moray and Argyll had returned to court. “The Lords of this last attempt have written to him [Moray] no longer to forbear for their cause to agree with the Queen, and, seeing that the other [Darnley] hath left both them and him, that he do not further endanger himself for their cause. Lennox remains sick at Dunbar, much offended with his son.” Randolph added that Bothwell had been given, by way of reward, all Maitland’s possessions.³⁴These included the rich lands of Haddington Abbey, which had once been under Hepburn patronage.

Knox, in whose publicly stated opinion Rizzio’s murder was “worthy of all praise,”³⁵ fled on 21 March to Ayrshire,³⁶ where he remained for some time, writing his history of the Reformation in Scotland and beseeching God to “destroy that whore in her whoredom.”³⁷

Elizabeth I could have taken advantage of the situation in Scotland, but she was genuinely horrified and outraged to hear of Rizzio’s murder and the Lords’ treatment of their anointed sovereign. Immediately she sent Melville’s brother Robert north to assure Mary of her support and warn Darnley and Moray that, should they again betray their mistress, they would incur Elizabeth’s wrath. In consequence of this, relations between the two Queens were greatly improved, and they resumed their former friendly correspondence. This had not a little to do with the fact that Elizabeth and her ministers were relieved that Rizzio, whom they had suspected to be a papal agent, had been removed, and that Mary had abandoned her pro-Catholic policy.³⁸

Philip II, to whom Guzman de Silva sent a detailed if not very accurate report on 23 March, was also shocked by the events in Scotland, but must have been astounded to learn that Darnley, who had made such a display of Catholic piety, had allied himself with heretics.

Another who was greatly troubled by news of the murder was Lady Lennox,³⁹who was still in the Tower. Belatedly, Darnley grew fearful that she would be the victim of reprisals in consequence of his conduct, and wrote to Queen Elizabeth to assure her that Lady Lennox had had no knowledge whatsoever of the plot. But Elizabeth refused to accept the letter. She asked the messenger if it were true that Darnley had drawn his dagger in the Queen’s presence and, when told he had not, she commented acidly “that she had not believed it, because all the time he was in this country he had never put his hand to a knife.”⁴⁰

On 29 March, on Mary’s orders, Morton and over sixty other traitors were outlawed. The Queen informed Charles IX: “We have caused all their possessions to be seized [and are] determined to proceed against them with the utmost vigour. To this end, we are satisfied that the King our husband will act in unison with us.”⁴¹The Queen, reported Randolph, “wills that all men who are friends to any of those that were privy to David’s death shall pursue them, to do their uttermost to apprehend them.”

Moray, however, was playing his usual double game. On 27 March, Bedford had reported to Cecil that Moray “desireth Your Honour’s favour” for “his dear friends,” Morton and the other fugitive Lords, who, “for his sake, hath given this adventure.” Ruthven, Randolph had noted earlier, was “very sick, keeping most to his bed.”⁴²According to Nau, Darnley also would have liked to see his former allies pardoned, but dared not speak for them to the Queen, who was implacable towards them; as was Bothwell, who lost his temper when Atholl sued for a pardon for his friend Maitland, whose properties Bothwell now held. On 2 April, Randolph reported that matters had “quieted, but Atholl still travails” for Maitland.⁴³

Darnley, meanwhile, had given “express orders to all state officials and subjects of the kingdom to organise a thorough search and arrest anyone who had been with the murderers, wherever they might be found, and punish them with death, and anyone discovered to have helped them in secret was to receive corporal punishment. To set an example to others, he had four of those found at the site of the murder arrested,”⁴⁴among them Henry Yair and Thomas Scott. Randolph informed Cecil that the complicity of three of these men was known only to Darnley.⁴⁵ Yair and Scott were hanged and quartered, the only conspirators to be executed for Rizzio’s murder. The other two, Sir John Mowbray of Barnbougle and William Harlaw, both Lothian Lairds, were reprieved on the scaffold on the orders of the Queen, after Bothwell had petitioned for their lives.⁴⁶

Darnley, who was more deserving of punishment than any of these wretches, was about to receive his come-uppance. The Lords in exile were furious when they heard of his public declaration of innocence; they were determined to set the record straight and, in the process, have their revenge. On 2 April, Morton and Ruthven sent Cecil their account of the conspiracy,⁴⁷ and revealed that they had vindictively forwarded to Mary the Bond, in the King’s handwriting, in which Darnley acknowledged himself the chief instigator of the plot to punish Rizzio, in the Queen’s presence if necessary, and undertook to protect his fellow plotters from any repercussions. Any illusions Mary may have retained about her immature husband being easily led astray by wicked men and being entirely innocent of the murder were now dramatically shattered: “so many sighs she would give that it was a pity to hear her.”⁴⁸Moreover, it was clear that, at best, Darnley had spared no thought for her safety; at worst, he had intended the shock to kill her. He had betrayed her, her unborn child, and the men who had plotted for his advancement. This she could not forgive, and from the time she saw the incriminating Bond, Mary and Darnley were virtually estranged.

After Darnley’s murder, Lennox claimed, with a view to incriminating Mary, that she told Darnley “that she never trusted to die till she might revenge the death of her servant David, and that she feared the time should come that he himself might be in the like case as David was, and ask mercy many a time, when it should be refused unto him.”⁴⁹Yet in April 1566, Mary could not just order Darnley’s arrest and execution, as his enemies had hoped she would do, nor could she punish him in any public manner, for she dared not jeopardise her child’s right to the succession. Given the rumours that she had had an affair with Rizzio, she needed to maintain a show of solidarity with Darnley and avoid any confrontations until the infant was born and Darnley had acknowledged it as his own. Until then, she resolved to conceal her revulsion and contempt. But there were other, more subtle, ways of punishing a treacherous husband. Darnley found himself excluded, not only from state affairs,⁵⁰ but from the mainstream life of the court, and constantly watched, in case he should plot some new mischief. The Queen would never trust him again, and the Lords despised him and wanted nothing to do with him. Humiliatingly, it seemed to be public knowledge that his wife would not sleep with him.⁵¹Furthermore, he had to live with the certain knowledge that, if the Queen pardoned his enemies and allowed them to return to Scotland, he would be doomed. Darnley reacted to this treatment by sulking and devising wild ideas of revenge. Even in isolation, he was a danger to Mary’s security.

Security certainly remained a priority, with the political situation so uncertain. Holyrood’s defences had proved easy to breach, so, on 3 April, on the advice of her Council, Mary took up residence in the royal lodging within the stout walls of Edinburgh Castle, one of the greatest fortresses in Scotland. Darnley went with her, but the nobility, including Bothwell, remained in the town.⁵² On 15 April, the Council advised the Queen to stay in Edinburgh Castle until after the birth of her child, “to guard against what she had been warned would occur, that the Lords were resolved to take possession of the infant from the moment of its birth.”⁵³

There had been Bronze Age and Roman settlements on the lofty volcanic rock that dominates the city of Edinburgh; a castle certainly existed by the Dark Ages, but the mediaeval fortress was first built by Malcolm III in the late eleventh century. The tiny chapel dedicated to his wife, St. Margaret, dates from this period, and is the oldest surviving building in the castle precincts. Most of the early fortifications were destroyed by Robert the Bruce in the fourteenth century, but his son, David II, erected a great tower modelled on Edward III’s Round Tower at Windsor. The royal lodgings were built in the fifteenth century by James III and James IV on the south-east side of the castle precincts, around what is now called Crown Square; they were renovated in 1566 for Mary and Darnley, whose visit is commemorated by a seventeenth-century carving “MAH 1566” above a doorway in Palace Yard. The Queen’s apartments comprised an impressive great hall with a hammer-beam roof, a presence chamber, an inner chamber that served as a bedchamber, and a tiny cabinet leading off it; these rooms had windows commanding spectacular views to the south, but they had been largely unused for many years because Holyrood had long since become the favoured city residence of the sovereign. Normally, Edinburgh Castle was used to house the Crown Jewels and other treasure, munitions, the national archives, some officers of state and state prisoners. Now a sovereign was in residence again, and the royal chambers were made luxurious with Turkish carpets, oak furniture and damask cushions.⁵⁴

On 4 April (and again on 25 April), Randolph reported a rumour that Mary, having seen the incriminating bond, was “grievously offended” with Darnley and had sent an envoy, James Thornton, to Rome to inquire about the possibility of an annulment of her marriage.⁵⁵If true, this must have been on the grounds that the couple, who were within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity, had married before the dispensation had arrived from Rome, but in such circumstances any children of the union would be illegitimate, and it is unlikely that Mary would have contemplated taking such a risk just now. Thornton did leave Edinburgh around this time, but it was to convey letters from Mary to Elizabeth I and Charles IX.⁵⁶

Randolph also reported that the Queen was “determined the House of Lennox shall be as poor as ever it was.” Lennox himself, still ill and “sore troubled in mind,” had been forbidden the court,⁵⁷ and now lay at Holyrood, where Darnley had visited him only once.⁵⁸There is no record of what passed between them. In 1568, Lennox would assert that Mary had entered into an adulterous affair with Bothwell at this time, despite the fact that she was nearly seven months pregnant: he claimed that while Darnley, “that innocent lamb who meant so faithfully unto her as his wife,” had been outcast from her company, “Bothwell waxed so great that he, supplying the place of David, was her love in such sort that she, forgetting her duty to God and her husband, and setting apart her honour and good name, became addicted and wholly assotted unto the said Bothwell.”⁵⁹

This affair was supposed to have begun soon after Mary moved into Edinburgh Castle. Bothwell was lodged in the town, but had leave to attend on the Queen at certain times, and was a frequent guest at her dinner table, along with Huntly; contrary to what many writers state, there were opportunities for clandestine dalliance. However, there is no contemporary evidence to support Lennox’s allegations, which appear rather ludicrous, given Mary’s heavily pregnant state, and are at variance with Buchanan’s libel of 1568, which claims that Mary became sexually involved with Bothwell in September 1566. Both documents, significantly, were written at a time when it had become politically imperative to demonstrate that Mary was an adulteress and murderess. Furthermore, Darnley never at this time displayed any jealousy of Bothwell, and Bothwell himself, although newly married, was about to embark, had perhaps already embarked, on a liaison with his wife’s sewing maid.

On 4 April, Mary wrote Elizabeth a warm letter of gratitude for her support, asking her not to give succour to the fugitive Lords, and inviting her to stand as godmother to her child.⁶⁰ Darnley was furious about this, taking it as a personal insult, for Elizabeth had never recognised him as King of Scots, and he hated her. But Mary and her Council refused to listen; they were laying the foundations for her child’s potential future as heir to a united Scotland and England, and needed Elizabeth’s goodwill.

Elizabeth, who was ostentatiously going about with a miniature of Mary hanging from a gold chain around her waist, was still expressing outrage at the way Darnley had behaved to his wife and sovereign. On 11 April, she told de Silva, “Had I been in Queen Mary’s place, I would have taken my husband’s dagger and stabbed him with it!”⁶¹ The following month, she ordered the fugitive Lords to leave England.⁶²

Mary was still keeping up the pretence that she and Darnley were reconciled. He was present when the French diplomat, Michel de Castelnau, Sieur de la Mauvissière, arrived in Edinburgh just before Easter, having been sent by the Guises to warn Darnley to behave himself; Darnley also joined the Queen for the Maundy Thursday ceremonies on 12 April.⁶³Yet beneath the surface, tensions were simmering. Drury reported that “the displeasure abates not between the King and Queen, but rather increases.” Days before, Darnley had ridden secretly to Stirling “for the purpose of renewing the conspiracy with Argyll and Moray.”⁶⁴But the Queen’s spies were vigilant and warned Mary, who sent Robert Melville after the King with a warning not to revive his treachery. It was a fool’s errand anyway, since Moray and Argyll had “such misliking of their King as never was more of man”⁶⁵and were, in fact, already on their way to Edinburgh, intent on reaching a rapprochement with the Queen.

They arrived at Edinburgh Castle on 21 April.⁶⁶ Moray told Mary that they had “taken up arms in consequence of the King only, against whom they had acted in their own defence—not against her. They had no share in the interests and indignities offered to the Queen in her own palace, nor with the murder of the late David; for these, Lord Ruthven and his accomplices were entirely responsible.” Mary admitted “she had no private quarrel with Moray: all had come through the King her husband,” and he “was resolved to pardon Moray. The rigour with which she had hitherto acted towards the Earl was chiefly to please her husband,” hence she was “easily induced” to agree to a reconciliation,⁶⁷ and gave Moray and Argyll permission to stay in Edinburgh Castle with her,⁶⁸intending to keep a close watch on their doings. Moray’s wise counsel and political support would be an advantage of which she was sorely in need at this time, and his restoration to power would certainly ease relations with England, but she would never fully trust him again.

Neither would Bothwell, Huntly, the Catholic Bishop Leslie and Darnley, who all immediately allied against Moray. Bothwell and Moray had long been bitter enemies—Moray had once told Lady Argyll that Scotland could not hold them both at the same time; Huntly wanted revenge on Moray for ruining his father; and Darnley was terrified of Moray, believing that he and the exiled Lords “would have their revenge on him, as soon as they could.”⁶⁹ Together, they tried to convince Mary that Moray was as much to blame for the murder as the fugitive Lords, and urged her to lock him up, at least until her child was born, “alleging that they were assuredly advertised that he and his dependers were resolved to bring in the banished Lords, even at the very time of her child-bearing.” But Mary, believing that their accusations arose “only from their own hatred,”⁷⁰ refused to listen, declaring that she knew Moray to be well disposed towards her and that she had forgiven him his former offences. Furthermore, in order to prevent any confrontations, she barred Bothwell, Huntly and Moray for a short period from her dinner table. She kept Bothwell sweet by confiding to him that, in the Will she would soon be drawing up, she would be appointing him a member of the Council of Regency in the event of her death in childbirth. Darnley was to be expressly excluded.

Darnley was also determined to prevent the return of Maitland. “The King proposed that the office of Secretary should be given to the Bishop of Ross in the place of Lethington, whom he especially charged with having been a principal in the late conspiracy.”⁷¹When Mary refused to countenance this, Darnley “became exceedingly angry” and sent one of the grooms of his Chamber to tell the Queen “how much he was displeased with her, and that he had primed and made ready his two pistols, which she would find hanging at the back of the bed.” Fearing that he might try to shoot himself, Mary went to his bedchamber at once and, “after having stayed with him for some time, she quietly carried off the pistols.” Next day, she informed her Council what had happened, “hoping thus to remove from her husband’s mind the prejudice which he had conceived against Lethington, and to let them understand the decision at which she had arrived, which they followed.”⁷²

Darnley’s chief objective now “was to play off, by every means in his power, the one party against the other, so that he himself should become stronger than either of them. The Queen had reason to dread this, knowing as she did the inconstancy and treachery which she had found in his character.”⁷³ It was also obvious that Darnley was blind to reality. On 25 April, Randolph reported that Mary wanted all feuds healed, but that there had been discord between her and Darnley, who was being scorned by the nobles. Moray and Argyll showed only contempt for him, and Melville noticed that the King “passed up and down on his own, and few durst bear him company.”

Nau later asserted that the Lords “fomented discord between the King and Queen by underhand dealings,” in order to keep Moray in power, yet Mary had reason enough to be antagonistic towards Darnley, and clearly had no desire for a true reconciliation. Melville tried to mediate between the royal couple, but became so importunate that the Queen got Moray to reprove him and charge him not to be so familiar with the King in the future. Melville was one of the few people who were sympathetic towards Darnley, and believed him to have “failed rather for want of good counsel and experience than from any bad inclinations. It appeared to be fatal to him to like better of flatterers and ill company than plain speakers and good men.”⁷⁴

Whatever her private feelings, Mary gave a convincing show in public of marital felicity, which was necessary in view of her coming confinement. Lennox states that the King and Queen “accompanied in bed as man and wife,”⁷⁵ and Castelnau, when he passed through Berwick, told Bedford that they had spent two nights together, and that he had done his best to bring them together.⁷⁶Later, in London, he informed de Silva that they were behaving as a married couple should, and that, after his arrival, the Queen had been more openly affectionate towards Darnley, but he had also noticed that there was suspicion and distrust between them. He added that the King did not “seem bad personally, or in his habits,” and passed his time “mostly in warlike exercises. He is a good horseman.”⁷⁷Evidently Darnley had been warned to be on his best behaviour.

Childbirth held many risks for women in those days. With the future security of her heir uppermost in her mind, being loath to “trust her child to the keeping of her husband,”⁷⁸Mary’s priority was to seek by all means to ensure the tranquillity of her realm.⁷⁹At the end of April, determined to reconcile Moray, Argyll and their ally, the Earl of Glencairn, with Bothwell, Huntly and Atholl, she invited them all to a feast at Edinburgh Castle. Out of courtesy, they acted civilly towards each other, and afterwards worked together as the core of the Privy Council, on which Moray, Argyll and Glencairn were formally reinstated on 29 April, but Mary was aware that their entente was purely superficial. Before long, Moray was attempting to remove Bothwell from court and engage him elsewhere by stirring up trouble in the Borders, with the help of Morton and other exiles. Together, they incited lawless clans such as the Kers of Cessford, the Scotts of Buccleuch and the notorious Elliotts, to create disturbances. Not surprisingly, by 27 April, Mary was seriously contemplating retiring to France for three months after the birth of her child and appointing a regency council to govern during her absence.⁸⁰ Two days later, she defiantly, and foolishly, recruited Rizzio’s eighteen-year-old brother Joseph (Giuseppe) who had come to Scotland in Castelnau’s train and was a virtual unknown, as her French Secretary.⁸¹

In Rome, on 26 April, the Bishop of Dunblane informed the Pope of Rizzio’s murder and urged him to assist the Queen of Scots in her present crisis.⁸² Mary had also asked the Cardinal of Lorraine for advice about obtaining aid from the Vatican.⁸³ Clearly, she did not want the Catholic powers to think she had abandoned her policies in favour of the old religion, but she also wanted them to be aware of the difficulties she faced.

But Darnley, who feared the Protestant establishment in Scotland and certainly aimed to win support in Europe, seems to have decided to set himself up as the hope of Catholicism, preferably to the detriment of Mary, and in the expectation of securing the power he had been denied by the collapse of the coup. On 29 April, de Silva informed Philip II: “The King continues his devotion to the ancient religion and hears Mass every day.”⁸⁴ Philip appears to have thought Mary lukewarm in her efforts to restore Catholicism, for, although he condemned Rizzio’s murder, he was no longer so willing to send help to Mary as he had been after the Chaseabout Raid.⁸⁵He was also preoccupied with his planned invasion of his Dutch provinces, in which he intended ruthlessly to suppress the heresy that had taken root there. The knowledge that King Philip would soon be in the Netherlands may have given impetus to Darnley’s hopes of enlisting foreign allies in the Catholic—and his own—cause.

On 6 May, in pursuance of this strategy, and forestalling any attempt to make him return his Order of St. Michael, Darnley wrote to Charles IX and Catherine de’ Medici, protesting that he had been “greatly wronged by a rumour that makes me guilty of such a horrible crime. But I hope that my innocence, fully accepted by the Sieur de Mauvissière, to whom I have told the truth of all, will not allow you to have any other than a good opinion of me.” He entrusted the letter to Castelnau, who was about to leave Scotland.⁸⁶

On 12 May, Pius V wrote to Mary, congratulating her on her escape from “the treason of heretics,” which he attributed to the sharp practice of Queen Elizabeth, and announcing that he would be sending a nuncio to Scotland, along with a subsidy.⁸⁷He did not tell the Queen that the Nuncio was to ensure that the money was spent in the Catholic cause, so that she might prevail over her rebels; given her past record, he was not sufficiently convinced of Mary’s zeal for the Faith. His Nuncio, Vincenzo Laureo, a Jesuit hardliner who had recently been appointed Bishop of Mondovi,⁸⁸ left Rome on 6 June, firstly to visit his new See, and then to pay the first of two visits to the Catholic duchy of Savoy. After that, he intended to travel on to Scotland, although he was well aware that the Protestant establishment would do everything in their power to keep him from setting foot in that land. He carried with him, not only 150,000 gold crowns of the promised subsidy,⁸⁹but also a papal brief implying that the Pope himself meant to go to Scotland and mentioning the support that could be expected for Mondovi’s mission from the King of Spain.⁹⁰

Meanwhile, on 12 May, it was reported by an English observer that the Queen’s hatred for Darnley was such that he could not safely stay in Scotland;⁹¹ four days later, Sir John Forster at Berwick informed Cecil that Darnley was now planning to leave the country.⁹²According to Knox, he was “desolate and half desperate,”⁹³but there may have been a more tactical reason for this decision, for, as will be seen, he was bent on going to Flanders. It is surely more than mere coincidence that this was at a time when it became known that King Philip was expected in the Netherlands.

Around 17 May, the Earl and Countess of Bothwell visited Haddington Abbey. Here, Bothwell committed adultery with his wife’s serving maid, twenty-year-old Bessie Crawford, the black-haired daughter of a blacksmith.⁹⁴Bothwell sent one of his followers, a local merchant called Patrick Wilson, with an invitation to Bessie to look over the abbey buildings. On Bothwell’s orders, Wilson locked her in a lodging in the cloisters. Half an hour later, Bothwell arrived and took the key from him. A porter and two other people heard whispering behind the door, then watched Bothwell leave soon afterwards with loosened breeches, which Wilson helped him fasten. On another occasion, Bessie emerged from a short tryst with the Earl in the abbey tower, with her hair and clothes in disarray.⁹⁵ George Dalgleish, Bothwell’s tailor, later stated that Lady Bothwell, suspicious of Bessie’s relationship with her husband, had sent the girl away. On 11 June, Bothwell conferred the lands of Nether Hailes on his wife, possibly as a peace offering. This early infidelity confirms that Bothwell’s marriage was no love match, and that he remained an opportunist where women were concerned.

But Bothwell had little leisure for dalliance, for he had been charged with keeping the Queen’s peace in the Borders, which Moray had deliberately disturbed. On Bothwell’s advice, Mary now announced a series of royal assizes to check lawlessness in the region, and summoned her lieges to attend her at Peebles on 13 August, to allow her time to recover from her confinement.

On 24 May, Morton, now resident in Alnwick and obviously keeping track of Darnley’s movements, reported to Bedford that he had information that the King was “minded to depart to Flanders and such other places as he thinks will best serve for his purpose to complain upon the Queen, for the evil handling and treatment” that he received from her; already, his ship was lying ready at Glasgow. Blinkered by unrealistic ambitions for a crown, Darnley was again dabbling in treason, having learned nothing from past experience. Yet, if his complaints bore fruit, his wife’s crown, and the succession of her child, would again be seriously in jeopardy.

Lennox later alleged that Darnley had told him that, towards the end of her pregnancy, “Bothwell was all in all” to Mary, and that, in an attempt to be revenged upon Moray for his rebellion, she had tried to incite him (Darnley) to seduce the virtuous Countess of Moray, saying “I assure you, I shall never love you the worse.” When a shocked Lennox warned his son never to be unfaithful to his sovereign, Darnley lied that he had “never offended the Queen my wife in meddling with any other woman in thought, let be in deed.” This tale is unlikely: firstly, there is no contemporary evidence to support it, and secondly, Mary and Moray were now on good terms and she needed his support against Darnley. There was no reason why she should wreck the peace she had brought about by instigating a blood feud between her husband and her brother, unless she hoped that Moray, in a jealous rage, would kill Darnley in revenge, and thus rid her of him. But Buchanan, who repeats the tale, does not place this construction on it, and offers the unlikely explanation that Mary “thought by that way to be revenged on three enemies at once, the King, the Earl and his wife, and therewithal to win a colour and cause for divorce, to make empty bed room for Bothwell.”⁹⁶ This is patently absurd because, not only was Mary about to leave bequests in her Will to Moray and his wife, but elsewhere in his narrative, Buchanan places the commencement of Mary’s alleged affair with Bothwell in September 1566; yet he states that this incident occurred “when she was great with child”; furthermore, adultery would not have provided a Catholic with grounds for annulment, and in any case it is very unlikely that Mary was contemplating an annulment at this time.

On 3 June, Mary ceremonially withdrew into seclusion to await her confinement. A midwife, Margaret Asteane, was appointed and provided with a new black gown, the royal bed was hung with blue taffeta and velvet, ten ells of Holland cloth were purchased for the cradle, and the relics of St. Margaret of Scotland were sent for from Dunfermline, in the belief that they would protect the Queen while she was in labour.

On the same day, as well as receiving the Sacrament, as “one who is in proximate danger of death,”⁹⁷Mary made her Will, leaving everything but specific bequests to her child. To Darnley, she left twenty-six items of jewellery, including two watches and the red-enamelled diamond ring that he had placed on her finger on their wedding day. This was the largest of her bequests, and it suggests not only a softening in her attitude towards him, but also an attempt to ensure his future security; Mary would hardly have done this if she were contemplating getting rid of him by annulment, revenge killing or murder, as the later libels allege.⁹⁸ The Queen also left items to her Guise relatives, the Earls and Countesses of Moray, Argyll and Huntly, old Lady Huntly, Lady Seton, the four Maries, Arthur Erskine and even the Lennoxes; a ring that Rizzio had given her was willed to his brother Joseph, who was to convey it to a secret beneficiary.

This cannot have been Bothwell, for he was openly to receive two bequests, a table diamond set in black enamel, and a miniature figurine of a mermaid set in diamonds, holding a diamond mirror and a ruby comb.⁹⁹This may well have had a certain significance, for, in the symbolism of the day, a mermaid represented a siren or temptress, whose involvement with mortals was inevitably followed by disaster; in the popular understanding, the word “mermaid” was synonymous with “prostitute.” Mary was hardly likely to refer to herself in this context, especially in her Will, therefore it is possible that this bequest bore a subtle warning about Bothwell’s involvement with Bessie Crawford and other women who might lead him astray. The Privy Councillors, including Bothwell, all signed a document binding them to honour the Queen’s Will.¹⁰⁰

On 7 June, Randolph reported that Bothwell and Huntly, who must have been concerned about Moray’s influence over the Queen, had had their request for lodgings in Edinburgh Castle turned down by Mary, on the advice of Moray.¹⁰¹This suggests that Moray’s influence had now superseded Bothwell’s. Soon afterwards, Randolph was recalled to London, and on 13 June, Elizabeth I dispatched Sir Henry Killigrew to Edinburgh to inform Mary that his Queen “prayed God to send Her Majesty a quick and happy delivery” and had banished the fugitive Lords from her realm.¹⁰² Yet, for all Elizabeth’s fine words, they remained unmolested in their northern refuges.¹⁰³Morton was “now in a hard condition,” being reduced to near penury, but Mary would not permit his friends to send him money.¹⁰⁴

Ruthven died at Newcastle on 13 June, having “showed great repentance for his wicked life.” Morton witnessed the final ravings of the old warlock, who cried “that he saw Paradise opened and a great company of angels coming to take him”; Nau commented acidly that they were probably “diabolical illusions wrought by evil spirits.”¹⁰⁵The grieving Morton, however, reported that Ruthven’s end “was so godly that all men that saw it did rejoice.”¹⁰⁶ Ruthven’s heir was his son, William, but he could not succeed to the title because of his father’s forfeiture.

Two days after Ruthven’s death, there were premature rejoicings in Edinburgh as a result of a false report that the Queen had given birth to a son.¹⁰⁷ In fact, Mary’s labour did not commence until 18 June, at which time she withdrew from her state bedchamber into the adjoining cabinet, a tiny room with a window overlooking the city. Here, she would be attended only by the midwife and her ladies-in-waiting until after the birth. For the first time in twenty-four years, an heir to Scotland’s throne was about to be born.