6

“THE CHASEABOUT RAID”

BETWEEN THE HOURS OF FIVE and six on the morning of Sunday, 29 July 1565,¹ Mary was conveyed by Atholl and a triumphant Lennox to the chapel royal at Holyrood.² She was attired in a “great mourning gown of black, with the great white mourning hood, not unlike that which she wore the doleful day of the burial of her husband.”³ The Lords then went to fetch Darnley, who was wearing a magnificent outfit studded with glittering gems. The marriage ceremony was conducted by John Sinclair, Dean of Restalrig (later Bishop of Brechin), Lord President of the Council, according to the Catholic rite. “The words were spoken,” then three rings, representing the Trinity, were placed by Darnley on Mary’s finger; the middle one was a fine diamond in a red-enamelled setting.⁴ This done, “they knelt together and many prayers were said over them.” Darnley then kissed his new wife, left her in the chapel to hear Mass—he was careful not to give offence to the Protestants by attending it himself—and went to wait for her in her chamber. Thither Mary repaired after receiving the Sacrament, to symbolically “cast off her care, and lay aside those sorrowful garments, and give herself to a pleasanter life. After some pretty refusal, more for manners’ sake than grief of heart, she suffered every man that could approach her to take out a pin, and so, being committed unto her ladies,” donned wedding finery. She and Darnley did not immediately go to bed, as they wished “to signify unto the world that it was not lust moved them to marry, but only the necessity of her country, if she will not leave it destitute of an heir.”⁵

The newlyweds rested until noon, when they were conducted to the great hall by the Lords, to the sound of trumpets, for their marriage feast, at which they were served sixteen dishes, among them chicken, lamb and game;⁶ afterwards there was music and dancing. Morton, Mar and Glencairn were amongst the Protestant Lords present. Later, the King and Queen threw handfuls of gold and silver coins “in great abundance” to the crowds who had gathered outside the palace. In the evening there was a lavish supper, followed by a Latin masque written by George Buchanan and more dancing, “and so they go to bed.”⁷ Even if she was not a virgin, this was Mary’s first experience of sex with a virile man.

For the next three days, according to the disapproving Knox, “there was nothing but balling and dancing and banqueting.” Three more masques by Buchanan were performed, each on a different aspect of love. On the day after the wedding, Darnley was again proclaimed King, “but no man said so much as amen, saving his father, that cried out, ‘God save His Grace!’ ”⁸ Medals and coins were struck to commemorate the marriage, with Darnley’s name given precedence on the latter, as it was to be, by Mary’s order, on all state documents.⁹ This caused further resentment among the Lords.

The new King did little to win hearts. Randolph reported on 31 July: “His words to all men against whom he conceiveth any displeasure, however unjust it be, are so proud and spiteful that rather he seemed a monarch of the world than he that not long since we have seen and known as the Lord Darnley. He looketh now for reverence to many that have little will to give it to him, and though there are some that do give it to him, they think him little worthy of it.” Mary, in “her vehement love borne towards the King,”¹⁰ was blind to his failings, and deferred to him in all things:

All honour that may be attributed to any man by his wife he hath it fully and wholly; all praise that may be spoken of him he lacketh not from herself. All the dignities that she can endow him with are freely given and taken. No man pleaseth her that contenteth not him—what may I say more? She has given over unto him her whole will to be ruled and guided as himself best likes, but she can as little prevail with him in anything that is against his will.

She would have waited to have him proclaimed King until it could be done with the consent of Parliament, but “he would in no case have it deferred one day, and either then or never.”¹¹ The Queen “did him great honour herself, and desired everyone who would deserve her favour to do the like.”¹² It was obvious that Mary had “given over to him her whole will, to be ruled and guided as himself best liketh.”¹³

For as long as Mary remained a submissive and pliant wife, all was well, “and for a little time [Darnley] was well accompanied, and such as sought favour by him sped best in their suits.”¹⁴ Mary asked Melville “to wait upon the King, who was but young, and give him my best counsel, which might help him to shun many inconveniences, desiring me also to befriend Rizzio, who was hated without a cause,” and it appears that Darnley was happy to accept Melville as a mentor, at least for a time.¹⁵

The royal couple spent their short honeymoon at Seton, before returning to Holyrood, where Darnley was assigned the vacant King’s apartments on the first floor of the north-west tower, immediately below Mary’s rooms and connected to them by a private stair. His antechamber and bedchamber were modernised in the seventeenth century, but his oddly shaped dressing room still survives, although much altered. We know very little about the early married life of Mary and Darnley, although Lennox tells us that the Queen would dress up in male attire, “which apparel she loved oftentimes to be in, in dancings secretly with her husband, and going in masks by night through the streets.”¹⁶

Knox was not deceived by Darnley’s politic attendances at St. Giles. In a sermon he preached before the King on 19 August, he delivered a diatribe on the state of a kingdom ruled by “that harlot Jezebel” and claimed that, to punish the people, God had set boys and women to rule over them. Greatly offended and “extremely crabbit,” Darnley stormed out of the church and, on his return to Holyrood, refused to eat his dinner. That afternoon, “being troubled with great fury,” he went hawking. As a result, Knox was suspended from preaching for fifteen days, during which, unrepentant, he prepared the offending sermon for publication.¹⁷

The royal couple had little leisure to themselves. On 1 August, Mary directed her Council to summon Moray to appear before it within six days to explain his conduct, “or be pronounced rebel and pursued under the law.”¹⁸ At the same time, Argyll and Chatelherault were sent written warnings not to aid Moray and his confederates, on pain of outlawry.

Mary was doing her best to extend her support base, and on 3 August ordered the release of Huntly’s son, Lord George Gordon, from prison and nominally restored him to his father’s title. The new Earl of Huntly had embraced the reformed faith during his captivity, but he blamed Moray for the ruin of his House, and was ready to reward the Queen with his loyalty and the support of his following.

In England, Elizabeth reacted to the news of Mary’s marriage with fury, for Mary had broken her promise to wait three months and would now, she feared, subvert religion in Scotland and plot to seize the English throne. In a single stroke, Mary had put in jeopardy the amity that Elizabeth, Cecil, Randolph and the Protestant Lords in Scotland had worked for over the past years. In retaliation, Elizabeth confiscated all Lennox’s English properties, and ordered Lady Lennox’s confinement to be made “hourly more severe.”¹⁹ Her Privy Council wanted her to threaten war, but she stayed her hand. Instead, she sent John Tamworth, a gentleman of her Privy Chamber, to express her disapproval to Mary.

When Mary received Tamworth on 5 August, he rehearsed Elizabeth’s objections to her marriage and urged her to make peace with Moray for the sake of the friendship between the two kingdoms, but she declared stoutly that she would pursue her rebels “to the uttermost,” and sent Tamworth back to London to tell Elizabeth that she desired “her good sister to meddle no further.”²⁰ As for Moray, Tamworth wrote that he was “so mortally hated by the Queen that it was impossible to unite them.”²¹ Elizabeth had ordered Tamworth not to acknowledge Darnley as King, but when he refused to accept a safe-conduct signed “Henry R.,” Mary had him arrested and imprisoned until he agreed to receive it. When Elizabeth heard, she exploded with rage and swore to aid Moray with all the means that God would give her.²²

Despite the promise of a safe-conduct for himself and eighty followers, Moray failed to respond to Mary’s summons, and on 6 August was declared an outlaw and “put to the horn.”²³ At the news of this, Moray, along with Ochiltree, Boyd, Kirkcaldy of Grange and Andrew Leslie, 5th Earl of Rothes, rode west to join Argyll²⁴ and, encouraged by Randolph, appealed to Elizabeth for assistance. In the face of this most serious threat, Mary prepared to take up arms against them. Glencairn now defected to Moray, while Maitland, who was still at court, was, in the opinion of Castelnau (who had recently arrived in Edinburgh), justly regarded with suspicion.²⁵ When the rebels “sent forth their complaints” throughout Scotland, insisting that they were acting in defence of the Protestant faith and desiring all good subjects to join them in resisting tyranny, for a king had been imposed on them without the assent of Parliament,²⁶ civil war became inevitable.

What Moray hoped to achieve by rebelling was almost certainly the deposition of Mary, whose mother he had overthrown in 1560. No revolt could have resulted in the annulment of the royal marriage, and the only other object he could have had in view was the removal of Darnley. Either way, the future security and even the lives of the King and Queen were in jeopardy. This was overt treason of the worst kind.

On 14 August, the Crown seized the properties of the rebel Lords, who, the following day, began mobilising their forces near Ayr, clearly in open revolt. A week later, Mary announced her resolve to march against them, and ordered a muster of her lieges; at the same time, to set her subjects’ minds at rest, she again proclaimed that they should enjoy liberty of conscience. But she also ordered the civic authorities of Edinburgh to replace their Protestant Provost with her own supporter, Sir Simon Preston of Craigmillar, a Catholic who was at the same time made a Privy Councillor.

Mary was held in some affection by her people, and many rallied to her banner, whilst few were prepared to support the rebels. The Queen also had powerful support in Lennox, Atholl, Huntly, Mar, Home, Fleming, Livingston, Lindsay, Ruthven, Lord Robert Stewart, Morton—of whose loyalty she was suspicious, and perhaps with good cause—and the Earls of Caithness, Erroll, Montrose and Cassilis. Moreover, Queen Elizabeth was of no mind to support Moray in open rebellion against his lawful sovereign. For the first time, Mary appeared to have the upper hand over Moray. She had told Randolph that she would rather lose her crown than not be revenged on him; Randolph conjectured “that there is some heavier matter at her heart against him than she will utter to any,”²⁷and it has been suggested that Moray knew too much about her relations with Rizzio, which, in the light of later events, is certainly possible. Randolph certainly remained convinced that there was more to Mary’s antagonism towards her brother than most people realised, and he was to reiterate this conviction later on.

On 23 August, Atholl was appointed Lieutenant of the North and sent to deal with his enemy, Argyll, while Lennox was made Lieutenant of the West. Three days later, the Queen, with a helmet on her head, a pistol at her belt and Darnley in gilded armour at her side, led her army out of Edinburgh, bound for Linlithgow, Stirling and Glasgow, in pursuit of Moray.²⁸

Mary had already sent another messenger summoning Bothwell back to Scotland, for she had great need of his support at this time. That messenger reached Paris by 27 August, delivered his message and the Queen’s pardon for Bothwell’s alleged crimes, and went on to Brussels to summon home Francis Yaxley, Darnley’s English secretary. Bothwell wasted no time in responding to Mary’s cry for help. “He is gone from Paris, no man knows whither,” reported Sir Thomas Smith, England’s ambassador, to Cecil on 27 August. Cecil, aware that Mary’s position would be immeasurably stronger with Bothwell at her command, took steps to prevent his ever reaching Scotland, and sent warships to patrol the coast.

On 30 August, the Queen and her army of 5,000 men left Glasgow in quest of the rebels, undaunted by driving rain and floods. Even Knox expressed admiration for Mary’s “man-like” courage, admitting that she was “ever with the foremost.” That same day, Moray’s forces advanced on Edinburgh. When Mar, as Governor of Edinburgh Castle, sent to ask the Queen if he should fire his cannon on the invaders, thereby risking the lives of “a multitude of innocent persons,” she ordered him to do so.²⁹ Moray nevertheless occupied Edinburgh on 31 August, anticipating that Argyll would arrive with reinforcements in two days’ time, and that the citizens of Edinburgh would support him, but here he made a fatal error, for not only did Mar bombard his army continually from the castle,³⁰ but the people, whose love for Mary he had grossly underestimated, drove out the occupying forces the very next day.³¹

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The honeymoon period was over.