Bothwell’s abduction of the Queen and his obviously collusive matrimonial proceedings had given the Lords the pretexts they needed to move against him, and they now declared their hand. On 1 May, an unlikely coalition comprising Morton, Argyll, Atholl, Mar, Tullibardine and others convened at Stirling and entered into a new bond to strive to the utmost of their power to liberate the Queen from Bothwell’s “cruel tyranny and thraldom,” preserve the life of the Prince, and bring Darnley’s killers, especially “that cruel murderer Bothwell,” to justice.61This was the first overt move on the part of Bothwell’s enemies. Interestingly, despite the fact that public opinion held that Mary had connived at the abduction, the official line was, for the time being, to be that Bothwell had “ravished and detained her” against her will.
According to Nau, “many of the Lords were told that the Queen hindered justice being done for the late King’s death.” Mar’s defection would be particularly hurtful to Mary, but his first loyalty was to the Prince, and it is unlikely that he was aware at this stage of the wider aims of the Lords. Nau says that, “to a certain extent, the Countess of Mar was the cause, a malevolent woman and full of the spirit of revenge.” Tullibardine, Lennox’s ally, was her brother.
Herries claims that the overthrow of Bothwell, and a plan to place the Queen under restraint, had been decided upon before Moray’s departure. As Moray was now in France,62and it was undesirable anyway that he should appear involved, Morton was to “manage all.” Once the coup had taken place, Moray would return and assume the Regency.63De Silva claims that, whilst at Stirling, the Lords “considered the raising of the child to the throne, the government being carried on by them in his name.”64It is likely that the plot against Bothwell and Mary had the tacit backing of Cecil.
Drury heard that the Lords sent to Mary to ask whether she was held captive against her will, or with her consent, “for if she were held against her will, they would collect a force and rescue her.” She replied that “it was true that she had been evil and strangely handled,” but that she had since been treated “so well that she had no cause to complain, willing them to quiet themselves”;65The Book of Articles states that she “plainly mocked” them and “showed no signs of discontentation.” However, it is unlikely that Bothwell would have allowed the Lords’ letter to reach Mary; later, she wrote scathingly of the “profound silence” of her nobles whilst she was at Dunbar.
News of Mary’s abduction and rape had now reached the English court. On 1 May, de Silva reported that Elizabeth had informed him of it herself, and that she had been “greatly scandalised” to hear that the Queen had surrendered to Bothwell. “Some say she will marry him, and they are so informed direct by some of the highest men in the country who follow Bothwell. They are convinced of this both because of the favour the Queen has shown him, and because he has the national force in his hands.”66In Paris, the English ambassadors were alleging that Mary had arranged the assassination of Darnley in order to marry Bothwell.67
Early in May, Lennox joined his wife in London, where Elizabeth assured them, in response to their urgent pleas, that she would help them avenge their son’s murder. In the meantime, she was hoping to have Prince James brought to England to be raised by his grandmother, Lady Lennox; it may be inferred from this that Elizabeth had ruled out any prospect of the succession going to Mary. However, she was adamant that she would not countenance or approve any rebellion against the Queen of Scots.
Drury reported on 2 May that the Hamiltons, including the Archbishop, were furthering Bothwell’s divorce, “hoping to attain the sooner to their desired end.”68Should Mary be deposed, only the infant Prince would stand in Chatelherault’s way to the throne.
Lady Bothwell’s divorce was granted by the Commissary Court on 3 May, and on that same day, Archbishop Hamilton’s Consistory Court began hearing Bothwell’s suit for an annulment.69Irritated at the delay, Bothwell sent his henchmen to the chief commissioner, John Manderston, a canon of Dunbar Collegiate Church, with a warning that, if a decision were not given expeditiously, “there shall not fail to be noses and lugs [ears] cut off, and far greater displeasures...”70
On 5 May, Drury reported that the Lords at Stirling had now resolved that, if the Queen married Bothwell, they would crown the Prince, and that they had sent a warning to her to be careful of her conduct. He added that many of those who had signed the Ainslie’s Tavern Bond were now against the marriage.71De Silva informed Philip II that, whilst at Stirling, the Lords had diverted themselves with a drama performed by boy players, entitled “The Murder of Darnley and the Fate of Bothwell.” The actor playing Bothwell was “hanged” so enthusiastically that “hardly in a long time could life be recovered.”72
That day, witnesses in Bothwell’s suit were examined by John Manderston, sitting alone,73while Bothwell, anticipating that he would soon be a free man, left Dunbar with Mary, Maitland and an armed force for Edinburgh. They spent the night at Hailes Castle in East Lothian, which had been a Hepburn stronghold since the fourteenth century.74On the 6th, the Countess of Bothwell’s procurator appeared on her behalf in the Consistory Court.75
Prior to Bothwell’s departure, Maitland had been held prisoner at Dunbar; he later told the Lords that an attempt on his part to escape during an archery contest had proved abortive. But the Lords, who were expecting him to arrive any day at Stirling, had already begun to ask themselves if “his constraint of liberty is not altogether against his will.”76It probably suited Maitland to remain a prisoner, for, if the Lords’ coup failed, he could not be accused of disloyalty to his sovereign. Furthermore, whilst working for the downfall of Bothwell, he may well have drawn the line at any treasonable act against Mary, for she was essential to the survival of his Anglo-Scottish policy with its long-cherished aim of political and dynastic union: his behaviour all along would appear to have been dictated by such considerations. His imprisonment enabled him to play for time.
Drury reported on 6 May that Maitland had announced his intention of escaping to join the Lords at Stirling. “The reason why of late he was suspected to have been Bothwell’s was for certain letters he was compelled to write, but immediately, by a trusty messenger, he advertised not to give credit to them.” But Maitland did not turn up at Stirling; instead, he remained with the Queen. Drury was soon of the opinion that, although he feared Bothwell, he had decided to remain at court until the Lords had increased in strength. In his letter of the 6th, Drury added that Balfour was now installed in a room in Edinburgh Castle and enjoyed equal authority to its Governor, Cockburn of Skirling.77
On the evening of 6 May, as the castle guns fired a salute “most magnificently,” Bothwell, on foot and respectfully bare-headed, escorted Mary into Edinburgh through the West Port, leading her horse by the bridle as if she were his prisoner;78Maitland and Huntly and a “peaceful train”79of Hepburn retainers were in attendance. That night, the Queen and Bothwell took up residence in Edinburgh Castle, where Bothwell had 200 arquebusiers stationed outside the Queen’s rooms, day and night, so that none might speak with her without his knowledge.80
The next day, Archbishop Hamilton granted Bothwell an annulment, stating that his marriage had been “null from the beginning in respect of their contingence in blood, without a dispensation obtained before.”81Mary cannot but have been aware that this was an outright falsehood, nor that the action had been collusive, and that therefore the annulment was fraudulent and undoubtedly illegal; her doubts are evident from the fact that she asked the advice of “two or three Catholic bishops” before marrying Bothwell.82However, both the Catholic Church and the Kirk had now ensured that Bothwell was free to remarry.
On that same day, Bothwell asked John Craig, who had replaced Knox as Minister of St. Giles,83to proclaim the banns of marriage for himself and the Queen, but Craig, who was convinced that Mary was being forced into this union against her will, bravely refused to do so, and demanded her written consent and declaration that she had not been constrained by Bothwell.
The response was a written order to Craig, signed by the Queen and delivered by Justice Clerk Bellenden that same day, 7 May, ordering him to proclaim the banns and declaring that she had neither been “ravished nor yet detained in captivity.” But Craig was not satisfied, and refused to proclaim any banns “without consent and command of the Kirk.”84
Although Lord Herries had signed the Ainslie’s Tavern Bond, he was no friend to Bothwell. Aware of mounting public concern that the Queen would marry the Earl, and, fearful of the consequences, he came to Edinburgh and obtained an audience of Mary. He told her what people were saying throughout the country about her and Bothwell, “requesting Her Majesty most humbly on his knees to remember her honour and dignity and the safety of the Prince, with many other persuasions to show the utter wreck and inconveniences [that] would thereby be occasioned. Her Majesty appeared to wonder how these reports could go abroad, seeing there was no such thing in her mind,” whereupon Herries begged her pardon and withdrew.85Mary dared not risk a confrontation with Herries, with Bothwell in so volatile a mood, nor would she have wished to alienate a loyal supporter.
Melville was also going to warn Mary about marrying Bothwell, but before he could do so, he received a letter from a Scotsman called Thomas Bishop, who had lived for a long time in England. Bishop “adjured me to show the letter to Her Majesty, declaring how it was bruited that she was to marry the murderer of her husband, who at present had a wife of his own, a man full of all vice; if she married him, she would lose the favour of God, her own reputation and the hearts of all England, Ireland and Scotland.” Melville showed Mary this outspoken missive, but, after reading it, she gave it back to him without saying anything, then called Maitland and asked him to read it. When he asked her what it was, she answered accusingly that it was “a device of his own, tending to the wreck of the Earl of Bothwell.”
Maitland took Melville aside and asked what had been in his mind that he should show such a letter to the Queen, for “so soon as Bothwell gets notice hereof, as I fear he will shortly, he will cause you to be killed.” Melville replied, “It is a sore matter to see that good Princess run to utter wreck, and nobody to be so far concerned in her as to forewarn her of her danger.” Maitland told him he had “done more honestly than wisely; and therefore, I pray you, retire diligently before Bothwell comes up from his dinner.” Mary herself begged Bothwell to do Melville no harm, but “notwithstanding, I was inquired after, but was flown, and could not be found till his fury was slaked; for I was advertised there was nothing but slaughter in case I had been gotten. Whereat Her Majesty was much dissatisfied, telling him that he would cause her to be left of all her servants, whereupon he renewed his engagements that I should receive no harm.”86This episode suggests that Bothwell was doing everything in his power to keep from Mary the true extent of the opposition to their marriage until such time as it had been publicly announced; it also reveals that Bothwell had succeeded in turning Mary against Maitland.
Robert Melville informed Cecil on 7 May that the Lords at Stirling wanted English support against Bothwell, even though France had already offered aid (which was subsequently found not to be the case). He had heard that “the Lords have gone to their countries to assemble their friends” and that Bothwell was expected to go to Stirling to seize the Prince, but that Mar was determined not to surrender his charge, and was preparing for a siege. Melville also explained that Mary’s sharp response to Elizabeth’s letter was due rather to “the counsel of those about her than of herself. For you have experience that Her Majesty behaved herself most moderately when she had liberty to be at her own wise counsel.”87
It was clear that an armed rebellion was on the point of breaking out, its ostensible aim being the removal of Bothwell; however, its real objective was to place the government in the hands of the Protestant Lords—or the Confederate Lords, as they were now calling themselves. Argyll had ridden to the West to arouse support, Atholl to the North and Morton to Fife, Angus and Kincardineshire, while Mar was holding Stirling and keeping an eagle eye on the Prince.88
On 8 May, the General Assembly of the Kirk overrode John Craig and ordered him to publish the banns of the Queen’s marriage on the next three Sundays. Buchanan says they “dared not refuse” the Queen’s command, but it was Bothwell they really feared, Bothwell, who held all Edinburgh in his grip. A grim Craig demanded to speak his mind in the presence of the Queen and the Earl, “to give boldness to others.” That afternoon, he was summoned before Bothwell and the Council to justify his insolence, but instead of craving pardon, he vehemently denounced the marriage: “I laid to his charge the law of adultery, the ordinance of the Kirk, the law of ravishing, the suspicion of collusion between him and his wife, the sudden divorce and proclaiming within the space of four days, and last, the suspicion of the King’s death, which his marriage would confirm.” Bothwell held his temper and gave a fair answer, but it was “nothing to his [Craig’s] satisfaction.” The Councillors seemed to him “so many slaves, what by flattery, what by silence, to give way to this abomination.”89Before Craig went away, Bothwell threatened to hang him if he did not call the banns.
That day, Bothwell, thinking Balfour a trustworthy ally, and perhaps hoping to buy his silence, appointed him Governor of Edinburgh Castle in place of Skirling,90who was compensated with the post of Controller of Customs on 1 June. Melville says that Balfour got the governorship because “the Earl and he had been great companions, and he was also very great with the Queen.”91
The placard campaign was still continuing, and Grange was actively inciting the English against Bothwell. Bedford reported on the 8th that Grange had sent him a placard that had not yet been set up: it named Bothwell, Black Ormiston, Hepburn of Beanston, Hepburn of Bolton, Hay, Cullen and James Edmonstoun as Darnley’s murderers. Grange had added that James Murray had offered to prove their guilt according to “the laws of arms.”92Most of these names had been listed by Drury in his report to Cecil sent on 15 March.93
Grange wrote to Bedford on the 8th, informing him that the Lords intended to overthrow Bothwell, and asking for Elizabeth’s help. As added inducements, he claimed that the “barbarous tyrant” Bothwell had tried to poison Prince James, and that du Croc had offered French aid against Bothwell and undertaken to join the Confederate Lords, who were about to be joined by Glencairn, Cassilis, Eglinton, Montrose, Caithness, Boyd, Ochiltree, Ruthven, Drummond, Gray, Glamis, Innermeath, Lindsay, Home and Herries—many of whom had signed the Ainslie’s Tavern Bond—“with all the West, Merse [the Border area west of Berwick], Teviotdale, the most part of Fife, Angus and the Mearns” (the old colloquial term for Kincardineshire). The Lords’ chief concern was to get Bothwell out of Edinburgh Castle and keep him away from Dunbar, “not for fear of him in the field, but besides these two strengths, he has all the [am]munition.”
According to Grange, du Croc had tried to dissuade Mary from marrying Bothwell, threatening her with the loss of France’s friendship if she went ahead, but “she will give no ear.” If true, her refusal must have stemmed either from fear of Bothwell, who had her utterly in his power, or from fear that she was pregnant. Grange also alleged that Mary had Elizabeth’s christening font melted down to raise money, but this was untrue. He enclosed letters for Moray and asked Bedford to forward them in haste to the Earl, urging him to come to Normandy and wait in readiness until the Lords sent for him.94Clearly, then, Moray knew what was planned. Robert Melville also wrote to Moray via the English ambassador in Paris on 10 May.95
In order to still the clamour and speculation, Mary—probably at Bothwell’s instigation—issued a proclamation on 8 May, announcing that she had resolved to marry him.96The Book of Articles points out that, “in all this time, she never required the advice and opinion of her Council and nobility towards her marriage,” yet many Lords had signed the Ainslie’s Tavern Bond, and the Council had sent Maitland and Bellenden to Seton to urge Mary to marry Bothwell. Nevertheless, Mary could not but have been aware of the increasing op
position to the marriage. The Confederate Lords, meanwhile, wanted the Ainslie’s Tavern Bond destroyed.97
Early in May, Bothwell, well aware that the Lords were uniting against him, began raising troops and consolidating support in the Borders by offering the Cessford Kers a pardon for the murder of the Abbot of Kelso. Putting a brave face on things, Mary publicly declared that she was content with her nobility, and that, “praise to God,” there was “no trouble or insurrection within her realms.”98On 10 May, she formally pardoned five men who had assisted Bothwell in her abduction;99he himself was shortly to receive a public pardon.
On 10 May, Thomas Randolph, who had kept an interested eye on Scottish affairs and was as avid as ever for gossip, informed the Earl of Leicester that Mary was fully resolved to marry Bothwell, and was minded to make Leith a free burgh named Marienburgh and create Bothwell Duke of Marienburgh; however, she had fears that he would do away with the Prince or send him to France. The latter would in fact have been a wise move, for it would have put James beyond reach of those who were plotting to depose his mother and rule in his name, but, naturally, Mary would not have wanted him to go so far from her. Randolph stated that Elizabeth was incensed at Grange’s “vile” letters, which made Mary sound “worse than any common woman,” and was refusing to give any support to the Scottish Lords who had dared to rebel against their anointed Queen.100
John Craig duly published the banns of marriage between Mary and Bothwell on Sunday, 11 May at St. Giles, but condemned their union in his sermon, calling upon Heaven and Earth to witness that he “abhorred and detested that marriage as odious and scandalous to the world; and, seeing the best part of the realm did approve it either by flattery or by their silence, I desired the faithful to pray earnestly that God would turn to the comfort of the realm that which was done against reason and good conscience.”101For this, Craig was summoned to appear before the Council two days hence.