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.
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,”27 and it has been suggested that Moray knew too much about her relations with Rizzio, which, in the light of later events, is certainly possible. Ran
dolph 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