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 t
hought 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.55 Randolph 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 nic
e 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