5

“MOST UNWORTHY TO BE MATCHED”

AT THE TIME OF DARNLEY’S arrival in Scotland, Mary and her court were on a progress in Fife, whither he was obliged to follow them in snowy weather. On Saturday, 17 February, Mary received him at Wemyss Castle, a pink sandstone fortress overlooking the Firth of Forth. Randolph, still hoping that she would accept Leicester, reported that the Queen welcomed Darnley with no more than the courtesy due to a cousin, but Melville wrote later, “Her Majesty took well with him and said that he was the lustiest and best proportioned long [tall] man that she had seen.”¹ Lennox later claimed that, as soon as she saw Darnley, she was “struck with the dart of love,”² but there is no other evidence for this.

Few of the Protestant Lords welcomed the arrival of the reputedly Catholic Darnley, and on 19 February, Randolph reported that Glencairn and Darnley’s cousin Morton “much misliked him and wished him away.” Later, Lady Lennox secured Morton’s support with her renunciation of her claim to the earldom of Angus in Morton’s favour, and in the hope of buying friendship, Darnley himself distributed expensive gifts of jewellery to the chief Lords.

On 18 February, Mary left Wemyss Castle for Dunfermline, while Darnley visited his father, Lennox, at Dunkeld before riding south to rejoin the progress. On 24 February, he crossed the Forth with Mary and returned to Edinburgh,³ and thereafter remained with the court, high in favour with the Queen.

On the day after his arrival at Holyrood, Darnley accompanied Moray to St. Giles’s Kirk to hear Knox preach, intent on earning the support of the Earl, in which he was initially successful. Afterwards, he dined with Moray and Randolph, and that evening, at Moray’s suggestion, partnered the Queen in a galliard. Mary later recalled that Moray was at this time in favour of a match with Darnley, if only to thwart the dynastic ambitions of the Hamiltons.⁴

Darnley’s visit to St. Giles was meant to allay the fears of the Protestants, yet he also attended Mass with the Queen in the chapel royal. For Darnley, religion was a matter of policy, as it was for his father. Although brought up a Catholic, at Queen Elizabeth’s court he had practised the reformed faith because it was expedient to do so. He was now prepared to follow both doctrines in order to retain the favour of Queen Mary and her nobles. His contemporaries thought he was “indifferent to religion,”⁵ and indeed there is little evidence that he had any deep spiritual convictions.

Darnley’s willingness to compromise on religion went some way towards placating those who had been hostile to him. “A great number wish him well,” wrote Randolph, but “others doubt him, and deeplier consider what is fit for the state of their country than a fair, jolly young man.” Some feared that, if Darnley married the Queen, “it would be the utter overthrow and subversion of them and their Houses.”⁶ It was not so much his religion that was the stumbling block, as the fact that he was a Lennox Stuart, and a rival of the powerful Hamilton faction.

Darnley, meanwhile, was enjoying the pleasures of the court and the Queen’s company. He set himself to charm her by his lute playing and dancing, and made friends with Rizzio. Darnley and Mary shared a passion for riding and hunting, and in the evenings they enjoyed cards, dice and music. Mary was certainly taken with Darnley, but she was still prepared to marry Leicester if Elizabeth, in return, would name her as her successor. Randolph believed that Mary’s favour to Darnley and her long talks with him proceeded “rather from her own courteous nature than that anything is meant which some here fear may ensue”; yet he conceded that Mary’s emotions were unpredictable, “seeing she is a woman and in all things desires to have her own will.”

So far, according to Randolph, Darnley’s behaviour was “well liked, and hitherto he so governs himself that there is great praise of him.” Buoyed up with his success, he precipitately proposed marriage to Mary, only to be coldly turned down. After she told Melville “how she had refused the ring which he offered unto her,” Melville “took occasion to speak in Darnley’s favour, that their marriage would put out of doubt their title to the succession.”⁷ Rizzio also added his persuasions, but to no avail.

Before 5 March, to the dismay of Moray and the Protestant Lords, Bothwell returned to Scotland. Randolph reported that Mary “mislikes his home-coming without her licence,”⁸ but when Bothwell, from the security of Hermitage Castle, sent his friend, Sir William Murray of Tullibardine, to plead his cause with the Queen, she listened sympathetically and declared that “she could not hate him.” Moray, however, insisted that Bothwell was plotting to kill him and Maitland,⁹ and demanded that he be “put to the horn” (i.e., outlawed). But although Mary told Randolph that Bothwell would never receive favour at her hands, the Earl of Bedford, from his vantage point at Berwick, believed that she would not permit him to be exiled.

Moray and Randolph now got two of Bothwell’s enemies, Sir James Murray of Purdovis, brother of Tullibardine, and the Earl’s former servant, Dandie Pringle, who was now employed by Moray, to tell Mary that, whilst in France, Bothwell had “spoken dishonourably of the Queen,” claiming that between them, she and Queen Elizabeth “would not make one honest woman”; as for Mary, she had been her uncle “the Cardinal’s whore.”¹⁰ What Bothwell had allegedly said was not only a dreadful slur on Mary’s honour, but also high treason, and the Queen, shocked, willingly agreed to Moray’s demand that the Earl be summoned to Edinburgh to face trial.¹¹

For many months now, Mary had been urging Elizabeth to proclaim her her heir. If marriage to Leicester was the price, then Mary was prepared to pay it. On 16 March, Randolph finally delivered Elizabeth’s answer, sent ten days earlier, which was that, if Mary agreed to marry Leicester, Elizabeth would advance her title to the succession in every way that she could, but she “could not gratify her desire to have her title determined and published until she be married herself, or determined not to marry.”

It was a bitter blow. Too late, Mary saw that she had been duped. In a passion, she “wept her fill” and “used evil speech” of Elizabeth, complaining that she had “abused” her, deceiving her with vain hopes and wasting her time to no purpose.¹² After this, there was no more talk of the Leicester marriage, and no longer a pressing need to keep Elizabeth sweet.

While Moray and Maitland simmered with anger, Mary did “nothing but weep,” reported Randolph. He espied her crying as she watched Darnley and her half-brother, Lord Robert Stewart, running at the ring on Leith Sands, and noticed there was “much sadness in her looks.” It seemed that her hopes must now be invested in Darnley, which is what Elizabeth had perhaps intended when she effectively scuppered the match with Leicester.

Darnley was about to alienate his most important ally. When Lord Robert Stewart showed him a map of Scotland and pointed out the extent of Moray’s vast estates, Darnley tactlessly remarked “that it was too much.” Moray, hearing of this, was mightily offended and complained to the Queen. Mary made Darnley apologise, but it was too late,¹³ for Moray, alarmed, had realised that, if Darnley became King, he would almost certainly try to curb Moray’s power and encourage Mary to free herself from his tutelage. From this time onwards, therefore, Moray was Darnley’s enemy, and, in concert with Maitland, Argyll and Chatelherault, strongly opposed any plan for his marriage to Mary, having no intention of allowing his political supremacy, built up over six years, to be eroded. According to Bothwell, “these villains did all they could to stop her, chiefly because they wanted above everything else to prevent her having any children, but also because they wanted no one else to challenge their authority. They realised well enough that any such marriage could only diminish their own influence.”¹⁴ Significantly, Bothwell makes no mention of the Lords acting in the interests of the reformed faith.

As yet, it was by no means certain that Darnley was Mary’s first choice as a husband. On 24 March, she again attempted to revive negotiations for a union with Don Carlos,¹⁵ but at the same time, aware that there was little hope of success, she agonised over whether or not she should take Darnley. “What to do, or wherein to resolve, she is marvellously in doubt,” Randolph wrote on 27 March.

Rizzio, whose influence at this time should never be underestimated, was strongly in favour of a match with Darnley. Rizzio was now Mary’s most valued counsellor, and any lord who sought an audience with her had to approach him first, for he controlled access to her. Arrogant, boastful and open to bribery, he swaggered about the court dressed in rich velvets and silks, incurring enmity on all sides. “Some of the nobility would gloom upon him, and some of them would shoulder him and push him aside when they entered the chamber and found him always speaking with Her Majesty,” recalled Melville, who tried to warn Rizzio of the folly of his conduct, only to be told that the Queen approved of it. Melville gently attempted to alert Mary to “the inconveniences I did clearly foresee would inevitably follow if she did not alter her carriage to Rizzio, a stranger, and one suspected by her subjects to be a pensioner of the Pope,” yet she insisted she would not be restrained but would “dispense her favours to such as she pleased.” Melville reminded her “what displeasure had been procured to her by the rash behaviour” of Chastelard. “I told Her Majesty that a grave and comely behaviour towards strangers, not admitting them to too much familiarity, would bring them to a more circumspect and reverend carriage.” Once the hearts of her subjects were lost, they might never be regained. Mary thanked him for his advice, but ignored it.¹⁶

Given the hatred of the Lords, it was in Rizzio’s interests to secure the friendship and patronage of Darnley and further the latter’s prospects of becoming King. According to Randolph,¹⁷ Rizzio was one of “the chief dealers” in negotiations for the Darnley marriage—the other was Melville—and Buchanan says Rizzio “was also assiduous in sowing seeds of discord between [Darnley] and Moray.”

Before long, Rizzio had become Darnley’s “great friend at the Queen’s hand.”¹⁸ It was a friendship of mutual self-interest, for Darnley too needed an advocate, and it was also very warm, for Rizzio, having persuaded Darnley “that it was chiefly by his good offices that the Queen had become attracted to him,” was admitted to Darnley’s “table, his chamber and his most secret thoughts.”¹⁹ On occasions, the two men would “lie in one bed together.”²⁰ This and other evidence, which will be considered later, suggests that the effeminate-looking Darnley, although he certainly chased women, did have bisexual tendencies, which he may have indulged with Rizzio.

Randolph had thought by now to see evidence as to whether or not Mary was attracted to Darnley, but although he wondered “what alteration the sight of so fair a face daily in presence may work on the Queen’s heart, hitherto I have espied nothing. I am somewhat suspicious.”

Moray was unable to stomach the triangular relationship between Mary, Darnley and Rizzio. He too was suspicious of the fact that all three were Catholics, and believed that they were plotting to undermine not only his own position, but also the reformed Church. On 3 April, he withdrew from court on the pretext that he did not wish to witness the “ungodly” Catholic ceremonies that the Queen would observe at Easter.²¹ Mary was irritated by his disapproval, but, freed from his constant unwelcome advice, realised she would have scope to act independently.

The court now moved north to Stirling Castle, a mighty fortress commanding access to the Highlands. Set upon a steep rock, the castle boasted strong mediaeval defences, but within its walls was a magnificent great hall, erected by James IV, and a luxurious Renaissance palace that had been built by James V in c. 1538–42 and embellished by French and Italian craftsmen. The Queen’s apartments boasted large windows, decorated stone fireplaces and a ceiling adorned with carved oak roundels known as the Stirling Heads, many of which survive today. The castle was surrounded with ornamental gardens and a hunting park stocked with deer, boar and wild cattle.

On 5 April, soon after arriving at Stirling, Darnley fell ill with a feverish cold and took to his bed; within two days, “measles came out on him marvellous thick.”²² Mary insisted on helping to nurse him back to health, regardless of the threat of infection; there was shocked amazement in European diplomatic circles when it became known that she had spent an entire night in Darnley’s sickroom,²³ notwithstanding the fact that she had “showed herself very careful and anxious about his malady,” although it was conceded that “her care was marvellous, great and tender over him.”²⁴

Darnley’s illness marked a turning point in his relationship with Mary, for it inspired in her first sympathy and then something deeper, and made her realise that she did indeed wish to marry him. Melville says that she tried at first to suppress her feelings, but that it was not long before she was so infatuated that she could not bear to be apart from Darnley. “Great tokens of love daily pass” between them, reported Randolph, but it was clear Mary had become entranced by a “fantasy of a man, without regard to his tastes, manners or estate,”²⁵ in consequence of which she was throwing propriety and discretion to the winds.

Love, or perhaps lust, blinded her to other concerns, not the least of which was the scandal her behaviour was causing, and she was unwilling to listen to those Lords who cautioned her against the marriage, urging that it could only bring discord and divisions to Scotland. Nor would she heed those who warned her that Darnley was not all that he seemed. For him, she would defy Moray, Maitland, Knox, the Hamiltons and even Queen Elizabeth, jeopardising her long-cherished hopes of the English succession. As she began to lavish gifts on Darnley—rich materials for clothing, hats, shoes, shirts, ruffs, nightcaps, trappings of cloth of gold for his horse, feathered bonnets for his fools—the courts of Europe began to bristle with scurrilous rumours and disapproval of a queen thus compromising her reputation.

John Leslie, Bishop of Ross, who was later in Mary’s confidence, felt that there was a strong maternal element in her feelings for Darnley; she displayed “very motherly care” while he was ill, and, although “they were not very different in years”—she was 22, he 18—“she was to him not only a loyal prince, but a most careful and tender mother.”²⁶ This would explain her forbearance when the baser side of Darnley’s nature began to manifest itself.

Darnley’s feelings for Mary are more difficult to determine. His poems express the conventional sentiments of courtly love,²⁷ but it is uncertain when they were written or to whom they were addressed. He seems to have wanted Mary as a queen rather than as a woman, and to have regarded her as a trophy; his overriding emotion at this time may well have been triumph at the realisation of his ambitions.

Randolph had quickly seen through Darnley, and wrote to Cecil: “What is thought of his behaviour, wit and judgement I would were less spoken than is, or less occasion for all men to enlarge their tongues as they do. Of this I have a greater number of particulars than I may well put in writing, which shall not be secret to you, though I cannot utter them but with great grief of heart.” Even Randolph, her enemy, felt pity for the unsuspecting Mary.

Maitland believed that Mary chose Darnley to spite Elizabeth, but she herself was convinced that there were sound political reasons for marrying him. Foremost was the uniting of their claims to the thrones of England and Scotland, which could only strengthen her position and that of any children of the marriage. Secondly, Mary’s union with a Catholic would earn her the approval of the Pope and the Kings of France and Spain. Thirdly, she counted on Darnley to help her break free from her thraldom to Moray and Maitland and enable her to exercise the sovereign power that was her right. Yet she failed to envisage how much hostility the marriage would engender amongst her Protestant nobles, especially Moray, who had been the mainstay of her throne, nor did she foresee how it would alienate Queen Elizabeth and create bitter divisions at court.

That was soon evident. By 15 April, Moray had hastened back to court, having heard “more than a bruit” that the Queen meant to “forsake all other offers and content herself with her own choice, despite the dangers like to ensue.” Mary was furious to hear that he was joining forces with other opponents of the marriage, and angrily accused him of scheming to “set the crown on his own head.”²⁸ After this, relations between brother and sister deteriorated rapidly.

On 15 April, Randolph got wind of what was afoot and wrote to Cecil that Mary’s “familiarity” with Darnley “breeds no small suspicions that there is more intended than merely giving him honour for his nobility.” When this report reached London, Elizabeth began to be alarmed. She already regretted allowing Darnley to go to Scotland, and now it looked as if Mary really did mean to marry him.

Having made her decision, Mary sent Maitland to London to break the news formally to Elizabeth and seek her blessing, which she had no reason to think would not be forthcoming. Elizabeth was no doubt gratified that she had diverted Mary from making a foreign alliance, but she was now aware of how deeply her friends the Protestant Lords in Scotland disapproved of any union with Darnley, so she took steps to distance herself from that which she had been instrumental in bringing to pass. Flying into a rage, she told Maitland she was astonished at this “very strange and unlikely proposal” and much offended at Darnley’s disobedience, for, as her subject and her cousin, he required her permission to marry, which she was not prepared to give. On her orders, the English Privy Council declared that such a marriage “would be unmeet, unprofitable and perilous to the amity between the Queens and both realms,” and offered Mary a free choice “of any other of the nobility in this whole realm.”²⁹ On 20 April, two days after her audience with Maitland, Elizabeth had Lady Lennox placed under house arrest.

By 18 April, Randolph knew for certain that Mary meant to marry Darnley, and reported Chatelherault’s fears that the House of Hamilton would be “quite overthrown” once a Lennox Stuart sat on the throne. “The godly cry out that they are undone,” wrote Randolph. “No hope now of the sure establishment of Christ’s true religion, but all turning to confusion.”

Opposition to the marriage rapidly formed in Scotland, and Moray, Chatelherault, Argyll, Glencairn and others signed a bond declaring their resolve to prevent it, complaining that “what [Mary] has taken in hand tends to her own destruction and the overthrow of tranquillity of her realm—and must be helped by sharper means.”³⁰ But the Queen defiantly ignored all their protests. “She is now in utter contempt of her people,” observed Randolph, “and so far in doubt of them that, without speedy redress, worse is to be feared.”³¹

On 24 April, Elizabeth sent that seasoned diplomat, Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, to Scotland with instructions to prevent or delay Darnley’s marriage, but as soon as he had set out, she changed her mind and recalled him. Instead, she wrote commanding Darnley and Lennox to return to England at once, then sent urgently to Randolph, instructing him to stay the order until further notice, which he felt would compound “the suspicion, which is now almost universal, that the sending of Darnley was done of purpose.”³² At the same time, Maitland, still in London, secretly obtained Spanish approval of Mary’s proposed marriage from King Philip’s ambassador, Guzman de Silva. Later, Philip wrote to Lady Lennox, declaring that he would be glad not only for her son to be King of Scotland, “but also to be King of England, if this marriage is carried through.”³³ Elizabeth’s fears were not unfounded.

Easter that year was observed at court with unprecedented splendour, and on Easter Monday, Mary and her ladies dressed up as burgesses’ wives and went on foot through the town of Stirling, collecting money to pay for the banquet for the Queen’s servants.³⁴

On that same day, 5–6,000 armed men in Moray’s pay were occupying Edinburgh, where an assize met to try Bothwell on 2 May. The presiding judge was Argyll, Moray’s ally. Bothwell dared not put in an appearance himself, but was ably defended by his cousin, Sir Alexander Hepburn, Laird of Riccarton. Nevertheless, he was condemned in absentia for high treason. The Queen, however, refused to consent to any punishment other than a nominal forfeiture, much to Moray’s fury,³⁵ but in any case it was no longer safe for Bothwell to remain in Scotland, and soon afterwards he returned to France.

Darnley was now recovering from his illness. On 2 May, and again on 10 May, the French ambassador in London reported that he and Mary had already been secretly married;³⁶ a letter addressed to Cosimo de’ Medici alleges the same thing, adding that the ceremony took place in Darnley’s apartment at Stirling, which had been fitted up as a Catholic chapel for the occasion.³⁷ Mary had not yet applied for a papal dispensation, so these reports may refer to a betrothal or handfasting before witnesses, after which a couple were permitted to have sexual relations. As there is little evidence that Mary and Darnley became lovers at this time, the ambassadors’ information may well have been inaccurate.

On 3 May, Mary received a letter from Maitland informing her of Elizabeth’s fury over her proposed union with Darnley. This came as a shock, but Mary’s resolve did not waver and on 6 May she announced to the Lords at Stirling her forthcoming marriage, asking them to sign a document in support of it. When Moray alone refused, on the grounds that Darnley was an enemy to “Christ’s true religion,” there was “a great altercation” between him and his sister, in which Mary accused him of being a slave to England.³⁸“All things now grow too libertine,” observed Randolph darkly, “and the Queen taketh upon her to do as she pleases.”³⁹

On 5 May, Elizabeth finally sent Throckmorton to Scotland with instructions to bring Darnley back to England, or delay the marriage for as long as possible. He was to offer Mary any other Englishman but Darnley, but warn her that Elizabeth would only consider naming her as her successor if she consented to marry Leicester. Maitland was only sorry that Elizabeth had not ordered Sir Nicholas to threaten war in order to awaken Mary to the reality of the situation.

Mary, meanwhile, had sent a letter to Maitland instructing him to inform Queen Elizabeth that “she did mind to use her own choice in marriage, and she would no longer be fed with yea and nay.”⁴⁰ But Maitland had already left London, and her messenger, John Beaton, met him at Newark. Maitland read the letter, decided that it was too provocative and would seriously jeopardise his pro-English policy, and resumed his journey to Scotland. At Alnwick, he caught up with Throckmorton and the two travelled together the rest of the way. Maitland showed Throckmorton Mary’s letter, and Sir Nicholas reported that he had never seen Maitland in such a passion.⁴¹

Maitland reached Edinburgh on 13 May, having been ordered by Mary to delay Throckmorton’s arrival at Stirling. He passed on the message and hastened on to Stirling alone. Mary was justifiably angry with him for having disobeyed her orders, and withdrew her favour from him.⁴² Soon afterwards, Randolph commented that Maitland “hath now time enough to make court to his mistress,” Mary Fleming.⁴³

Elizabeth’s blatant interference in Mary’s matrimonial affairs had caused the Scottish Lords to close ranks, and on 15 May, a convention of the nobility at Stirling reluctantly agreed to the Queen’s marriage to Darnley.⁴⁴ “Many consented on condition that no change should be made in the established state of religion.”⁴⁵ Of the Lords present, only Lord Ochiltree objected. Moray left before the vote was taken. Argyll, in protest, had refused to attend. On the same day, Mary applied to the Pope for a dispensation, since she and Darnley were within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity.

That morning, Throckmorton had arrived at Stirling, only to find the castle gates locked. Presently, two Councillors arrived and ordered him, in the Queen’s name, to retire to his lodgings, saying that she would grant him an audience after he had rested. Mary did not want him voicing any official protests until she had publicly committed herself to marrying Darnley. In the afternoon, Mary knighted Darnley and created him Baron Ardmannoch and Earl of Ross, “that her marriage might not seem too unequal.”⁴⁶ Although he was Queen Elizabeth’s subject and owed allegiance only to her, Darnley accepted these Scottish titles and swore fealty to Mary. Elizabeth would rightly interpret this as an act of treason. Mary intended to give Darnley the royal dukedom of Albany, but was holding this in reserve, much to Darnley’s private annoyance, until she knew how Elizabeth was going to react to the lesser creations. After his ennoblement, Darnley was allowed to create fourteen knights, who were to form his personal entourage and the core of a new Queen’s party. Among them were several Lennox adherents, including Bothwell’s friend, Sir William Murray of Tullibardine, a Protestant who in August became Comptroller of the Queen’s Household.⁴⁷ His advancement suggests that Bothwell was known to support the Darnley marriage.

Later that same day, Mary finally granted Throckmorton an audience, during which he recited Elizabeth’s protests against the marriage and demanded the return of Darnley and Lennox, who had “failed in their duty by their arrogant and presumptuous attempts to enterprise such a matter without making Queen Elizabeth privy, being her subjects.” Mary retorted that Elizabeth had objected to all her foreign suitors, and, as Darnley was “of the blood royal, she could not see what possible reasonable excuse her good sister could have for interfering.” It was obvious that there was no way of dissuading Mary, but she did assure Throckmorton that the wedding would not take place for three months, in order to give Elizabeth time to express her approval of it.⁴⁸

On 21 May, Moray, having so far failed in his attempts to prevent the marriage, signalled his disapproval by withdrawing from court and retiring to his stepfather’s castle at Loch Leven in Fife.⁴⁹ This was a mistake because, in his absence, Atholl, a Lennox man who was one of the “chief dealers” in the marriage, acted as the Queen’s chief Councillor.⁵⁰ On the day of Moray’s departure, Throckmorton informed Leicester that Mary had been “seized with love in ferventer passions than is comely in any mean personage,” and was “so far passed in this matter with Lord Darnley as it is irrevocable, and no place left to dissolve the same persuasion by reasonable means; for though the consummation of the marriage be deferred, I am sure it is indissoluble without violence. The only means to stop the marriage is force.” He thought Mary “either so captivated by love or cunning, or rather, say truly, by boasting or folly, that she is not able to keep promise with herself,” and might therefore further ennoble Darnley despite her concerns about Elizabeth’s reaction.⁵¹ His view was echoed by Randolph, who wrote, “She doteth so much that some report she is bewitched: the tokens, the rings, the bracelets are daily worn that contain the sacred mysteries. Shame is laid aside, and all regard of that which chiefly pertaineth to princely honour removed out of sight.”⁵² If Mary and Darnley were not yet lovers in the physical sense, they were certainly giving a good impression that they were, and not caring who witnessed it.

Throckmorton feared that, through this marriage, Mary would attempt to restore Catholicism in Scotland to the detriment of Elizabeth, and warned Cecil to keep watch on the great Catholic families in the north and prevent Mary from communicating with the Spanish ambassador, a warning that the English Privy Council took seriously. This was all Sir Nicholas could do in the circumstances, and he returned home, despondent because not only had he failed in his mission, but he was convinced that Mary’s determination to marry Darnley had been founded on “despite and anger” towards Elizabeth, and “I cannot assure myself that such qualities will bring forth such fruit as the love and usage bestowed on Darnley shows.”⁵³

Darnley was beginning to reveal his true colours, but Mary was too infatuated to notice. Even Randolph felt pity for the lamentable estate of this poor Queen, whom ever before I esteemed so worthy, so wise, so honourable in all her doings, and at this present do find so altered with affection towards the Lord Darnley that she hath brought her honour in question, her estate in hazard, her country to be torn in pieces. Woe worth the time that ever the Lord Darnley did set his foot in this country. This Queen in her love is so transported, and he is grown so proud, that to all honest men he is intolerable, and almost forgetful of his duty to her already, that hath ventured so much for his sake. What shall become of her, or what life with him she shall lead, that taketh already so much upon him to control and to command her, I leave it to others to think.

He had noted a great change in Mary: “Her majesty is laid aside, her wits not what they were, her beauty other than it was, her cheer and countenance changed into I wot not what—a woman more to be pitied than I ever saw.” She no longer heeded “the counsel of such as can best advise her, nor giveth ear to any than such who follow her fantasy.”⁵⁴ It seemed that, in her obsession with Darnley, she was rushing headlong into disaster.

Darnley’s conduct was both inappropriate and intolerable. Having expected to receive the dukedom of Albany, he exploded in temper and brandished his dagger at Justice Clerk Bellenden, who had been delegated to inform him of the deferment of this honour.⁵⁵Randolph judged Darnley “the most unworthy to be matched” with Mary, and wrote of the Scots’ belief “that God must send him a short end, or themselves a miserable life,” opining: “A greater benefit to the Queen’s Majesty [Elizabeth] could not have chanced, than to see this dishonour fall upon [Mary], and her so matched where she shall ever be assured that she can never attain to what she so earnestly looked for”—the English succession.⁵⁶ It seemed that she had cast aside all rational considerations in order to gratify her passion for Darnley and her need to be revenged upon Elizabeth.

On 23 May, Randolph reported that Chatelherault had paid Darnley a visit in a spirit of reconciliation, but that Darnley had threatened “to knock his pate.”⁵⁷ By now, Darnley had made many enemies, and they were beginning to align against him.

Nor were the Guises happy about the marriage. The Cardinal of Lorraine had heard rumours about Darnley, and on 23 May wrote to Mary in the hope of dissuading her from marrying such “an amiable prat” (“un gentil huteaudeau”). Mary, however, made it clear to her uncle that she meant to do so, and he conceded defeat, agreeing to support her request for a papal dispensation.⁵⁸

Rizzio, as Randolph reported on 3 June, continued to support the marriage. He “now worketh all [as] chief Secretary to the Queen and only governor to her good man.” This was perhaps another reason why “the hatred towards Lord Darnley and his House [was] marvellously great.” Mainly, however, it was because Darnley’s pride was “intolerable [and] his words not to be borne.” To those who dared not answer back, “he spareth not, in token of his manhood, to let blows fly. The passions and furies I hear say he will sometimes be in are strange to believe.” Randolph was convinced that the only remedy for the “mischiefs” that would almost certainly follow upon the marriage was for Darnley to “be taken away, or those he hates so supported that what he intends for others may light upon himself.”⁵⁹ An anonymous Scot asked Randolph whether, if Darnley and Lennox were seized and carried off to Berwick, the English would take custody of them. Randolph replied that they would.

Early in June, Mary summoned a convention of her nobles to meet at Perth “to persuade those present to allow her to marry with Lord Darnley.”⁶⁰ She knew she could count on the support of several lesser magnates, but needed to secure that of her chief Lords. From Lochleven, Moray sent a message that he was too ill with diarrhoea to attend the convention,⁶¹ which met on 10 June, but in truth he was still implacable in his opposition to the marriage, ostensibly on religious grounds, and he was powerfully backed by Argyll (who also absented himself), Glencairn, Rothes, Ochiltree, Sir William Kirkcaldy of Grange and the Hamiltons.

On the day the convention met, Elizabeth herself commanded Lennox and Darnley, on their allegiance, to return to England. Mary wept when the summons arrived, and Lennox was worried, but Darnley insolently refused to obey, declaring that he “acknowledged no duty or obedience save to the Queen of Scots. I find myself very well where I am, and so purpose to keep me.”⁶² On 14 June, Mary wrote to Elizabeth, protesting that she had chosen Darnley “to meet her dearest sister’s wishes,” but when Elizabeth received this letter, she vented her wrath on the messenger, John Hay. Meanwhile, Mary had told Randolph that she now saw what all Scotland had seen, that Darnley had been sent to degrade her by an unworthy marriage, but she cared nothing for that, and would snap her fingers at all who opposed her, and have her way despite them.⁶³

On 20 June, in retaliation for Darnley’s and Lennox’s defiance, and on the advice of Throckmorton, who was concerned about England’s security in the face of this new Catholic threat, Elizabeth sent Lady Lennox to the Tower, where she was not even allowed to receive letters from her husband and son. By the end of June, Elizabeth was covertly supporting Moray’s party, having instructed Randolph to inform them that her assistance was conditional upon their undertaking only to act “to uphold the true religion [and] support their Queen with good advice.” Although she was angry with Mary, she would not countenance rebellion against their lawful sovereign.⁶⁴

Mary was doing her best to build up her own party in order to counteract the threat from Moray. On 23 June, she promised to John, Lord Erskine, a Privy Councillor and Keeper of Edinburgh Castle, the earldom of Mar, which his family had been claiming in vain since 1435, and which had hitherto been held by Moray. The new Earl, a former Catholic priest who had renounced his vows and turned Protestant, was “a true nobleman,”⁶⁵ a fair-minded man of integrity who was respected by all, but his wife, Annabella Murray, who was sister to Tullibardine and a Catholic, was detested by Knox, who called her “a very Jezebel.” Mar’s sister Margaret was Moray’s mother, but this did not affect his loyalty to the Queen.

From 25 to 27 June, Mary was a guest of the sinister Patrick, 3rd Lord Ruthven at Ruthven (now Huntingtower) Castle near Perth. Ruthven was Darnley’s uncle by marriage and, although a staunch Protestant, was a strong supporter of Mary’s marriage plans and was said to be “stirring coals as hot as fire to have these matters take effect.”⁶⁶ In 1561, Mary had told Knox that she could not love Ruthven “for I know him to use enchantment,” yet in 1563 she admitted him to her Privy Council.⁶⁷ He was an educated man, but a highly unsavoury character because of his involvement with the black arts. Yet Mary could not afford to be too nice about such matters: she and Darnley, who seems to have regarded Ruthven in an avuncular light, now needed all the support they could get. On 30 June, Mary appointed the loyal Lord Fleming Lord Great Chamberlain. She knew she could also count on several other Lords, including the appalling Lindsay, who was linked to Darnley by marriage.

That same day, Mary learned that Charles IX and Catherine de’ Medici approved of her proposed marriage. Armed with this knowledge, she felt she could go ahead and risk the consequences. But the very next day, Moray, with the backing of Chatelherault, Glencairn and Randolph, was convening a meeting with Argyll and the Protestant Robert, 5th Lord Boyd at Lochleven to formulate a protest against her marriage and plot rebellion. More ominously, Elizabeth now seemed prepared to back them, and at Moray’s request, transmitted through Randolph, soon afterwards secretly sent him £3,000, in the hope of ensuring his continuance in power. Knox and other Protestant ministers were already condemning the marriage from their pulpits, and were ready to take up arms if need be to defend the reformed faith.⁶⁸

Word of Moray’s activities had reached Mary, along with a warning that, with the connivance of England, he was planning the kidnap and possible assassination of both her and Darnley. That this was not mere rumour is confirmed by Cecil’s assumption on 7 July that the plot had been successful: “The bruit is abroad that the Queen of Scotland has been taken by the Earls of Moray and Argyll.” Moray was aware that on 1 July, Mary was to travel with Darnley from Perth to Callendar House near Falkirk, to be godmother to the child of Lord Livingston; Moray had been invited to attend, but had declined. Instead, he was planning to ambush the royal party on the way to Callendar and send Mary, Darnley and Lennox as captives to England. Bothwell later claimed that they meant to murder Darnley.⁶⁹ Forewarned, Mary left Perth at 5 a.m., accompanied by Atholl, Ruthven, Mar and an escort of 2–300 men, and rode the thirty miles to Callendar without stopping, arriving an hour before Moray had expected her to set out.⁷⁰

On 2 July, however, Randolph reported that it had been Darnley and Rizzio who were plotting against Moray, and that he had stayed away from Perth because he had been warned that he would be slain there. It seems that Moray had himself put this rumour about, in order to deflect suspicion from himself. Of Darnley, Randolph wrote: “What shall become of him I know not, but it is greatly to be feared that he can have no long life among these people.” He added that Mary, “being of better understanding,” was trying “to frame and fashion him to the nature of her subjects,” but it was an impossible task because Darnley was “proud, disdainful and suspicious. A greater plague to her there cannot be. He is of an insolent temper, and thinks that he is never sufficiently honoured. The Queen does everything to oblige him, though he cannot be prevailed upon to yield the smallest thing to please her. He claims the Crown Matrimonial, and will have it immediately. The Queen tells him that it must be delayed till he be of age, and done by consent of Parliament, which does not satisfy him.”⁷¹ The Crown Matrimonial was to become a bone of contention between Mary and Darnley, and would permanently sour their relationship. Mary’s excuse did not satisfy Darnley, since Francis II had been granted the Crown Matrimonial when he was younger than Darnley, but it was unlikely, given Darnley’s conduct and immaturity, that Parliament would agree to it being bestowed on him as yet, for it brought with it the right of succession, in the event of the sovereign dying childless. To Darnley, it represented the pinnacle of his ambition, and he would never rest until it was his.

Having failed in his design against Mary, Moray was preparing to take up arms, and on 6 July, Argyll began raising troops on his behalf. Four days later, Elizabeth sent Moray a letter of encouragement, and Mary one containing a strong warning.

On 9 July, Mary and Darnley went to Seton Palace as the guests of Lord Seton. Situated ten miles east of Edinburgh, near the Firth of Forth, the palace had been largely rebuilt since its sacking by the English in 1544, and boasted fine, lofty state rooms set around a triangular courtyard.⁷² On 16 July, Randolph reported to Elizabeth that Mary and Darnley had been secretly married at Holyrood on 9 July, with “not above seven persons present,” and had consummated their marriage that night at Seton. “If true, Your Majesty sees how her promise is kept.”

Mary and Darnley stayed two nights at Seton, then returned to Edinburgh Castle, where they hosted a dinner. “That afternoon, [they] walked up and down the town disguised till supper time, and lay that night at the Abbey.”⁷³ Rumours were flying fast; if they had not been secretly married, then they may well have taken part in a betrothal ceremony, and it is more likely that this took place now rather than in May, as the French ambassador had alleged. But although Randolph initially claimed that Mary and Darnley consummated their union at this time, he later declared that, although suspicious men supposed they were lovers, “the likelihoods are so great to the contrary that, if it were possible to see such an act done, I would not believe it.” Coming from Mary’s enemy, this must be the truth.

On 12 July, and again on the 15th, in order to allay the fears of the Protestants, Mary issued a proclamation declaring that she did not intend to make any alteration in the state of religion. Her second proclamation also summoned her lieges to arms, for she had learned that Moray was now in the west, raising a rebel army with intent to march on Edinburgh. The following day, in an act of defiance against Moray, Mary summoned Bothwell back to Scotland. But Bothwell, then in Paris, never received her letter, for it was intercepted by Bedford at Berwick.

Moray, Argyll, Chatelherault and several other rebel Lords met at Stirling on 18 July, whence they sent a plea to Elizabeth for military aid, which in itself constituted an act of treason. Elizabeth sent them £10,000.

Two days later, Parliament was due to meet, but Mary deliberately did not summon it, not wishing to create a forum for opposition. On 22 July, without consulting her Lords, she at last created Darnley Duke of Albany. Given the political situation, and Elizabeth’s hostility,⁷⁴ Mary was not minded to wait for a dispensation, and on that same day took the irrevocable step of ordering the marriage banns to be published in St. Giles’s Kirk, the Canongate Kirk and the chapel royal at Holyrood. In so doing, she risked making an invalid marriage and jeopardising the legitimacy of any issue of it,⁷⁵ but she must have felt that this was the lesser of two evils for, once married, she would be in a far stronger position to deal with her rebels. In order to win the support of the Pope, Mary wrote to him protesting her determination to restore the Catholic faith in Scotland, ignoring the fact that she had proclaimed her intention to maintain the reformed faith only a week earlier. In this resolve, she had the support of Darnley, Lennox, Rizzio and the Clerk Register, Sir James Balfour, a friend of Darnley’s.⁷⁶

The wedding was set for 29 July. On the evening before, at the Mercat Cross in Edinburgh, Darnley was publicly proclaimed King of Scots,⁷⁷ a title that the Queen could not legally grant him without the consent of Parliament, which gave the Lords further cause for anger and resentment. According to the Imperial ambassador in England, Mary had conferred royal status upon Darnley because, having “previously been married to one of the greatest kings in Christendom, she therefore intended to wed no one unless he were a king also.”⁷⁸ In the event, no formal objections to Darnley’s title were ever raised.

The stage was now set for the marriage that would dangerously overset the balance of power in Scotland and set afoot a series of events that would lead to disaster for the two people concerned.