The Murder of David Rizzio – 9 March 1566

Posted By claire on March 9, 2011

The Murder of Rizzio, by John Opie

The Murder of Rizzio, by John Opie

On this day in history, 9th March 1566, David Rizzio, the private secretary of Mary Queen of Scots was assassinated in front of Mary, who was heavily pregnant.

But who was David Rizzio and what led to his murder?

David Rizzio

John Guy, historian and author of “My Heart is My Own: The Life of Mary Queen of Scots”, describes David Rizzio as a “young Piedmontese valet and musician, who had arrived in the suite of the ambassador of the Duke of Savoy and stayed on as a bass in Mary’s choir”1. Mary obviously took a liking to Rizzio because in late 1564 she chose him to replace her confidential secretary and decipherer, Augustine Raulet, who was a Guise retainer and the only person who Mary had trusted with a key to the box which contained her personal papers. Raulet, for some reason, had lost her trust.

Rizzio was born around 1533 near Turin, Italy, and is first recorded as David Riccio di Pancalieri in Piemonte. He is known as David Rizzio, David Riccio or David Rizzo.

A Doomed Marriage

At this time, Mary Queen of Scots was in love (or perhaps ‘in lust’) with Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, a man John Guy describes as “a narcissist and a natural conspirator”2, a man who liked his drink and who was promiscuous. Darnley even slept with David Rizzio!3 Mary married Darnley on Sunday 29th July 1565 at her private chapel at Holyrood. The next day, heralds proclaimed Darnley’s new title of King of Scotland.

Married bliss did not last long. John Guy writes of how Darnley “was cynically exploiting religion for his own political purposes”4 and that although Mary was prepared to govern Scotland with her husband as equals, Darnley “expected her to cede all her power as a reigning Queen to him” and believed that she was “his subordinate”5. Darnley also held the view that “his authority was most clearly asserted in bed”6. He sounds a bit of a monster! By Christmas 1565 the couple were estranged, even though Mary was pregnant with Darnley’s baby. A series of rows led to Mary ‘demoting’ Darnley and changing the legend on coinage to read “Marie and Henry, by the Grace of God, Queen and King of Scotland” instead of “Henry and Marie… King and Queen…”, and also denying him of the right to bear the royal arms.

The Plotting Husband

Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley

Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley

Immediately after their marriage Darnley had started plotting to change Scotland’s religion, with David Rizzio acting as one of his confidantes, and “his actions put in jeopardy the religious compromise that Mary had worked so shrewdly over the past four years to establish”7. That, combined with his behaviour in the bedroom, wrecked the marriage. Ambassador Thomas Randolph reported to Robert Dudley: “I know for certain that this Queen repenteth her marriage: that she hateth him and all his kin.”8

In early 1566, Darnley began plotting against Mary. Randolph reported that there were “practices in hand to come to the crown against her will”9. Darnley was plotting with his father, Matthew Stuart 4th Earl of Lennox, and William Maitland, who had turned against Mary when she had marginalized him by appointing David Rizzio as her secretary. Lennox also managed to get James Stuart, Earl of Moray, involved in the plot. The plan was complex:-
“He was to contact Moray and the exiled Lords in England, and if they would agree to grant Darnley the ‘crown matrimonial’ in the next Parliament, and so make him lawfully King of Scots, then Darnley would switch sides, recall the exiles home, pardon them, and forbid the confiscation of their estates. Finally, he would perform the ultimate U-turn and re-establish the religious status quo as it had existed at the time of Mary’s return from France… Darnley would become King with full parliamentary sanction, Moray and his allies would be re-instated as if they had never rebelled, and the Protestant Reformation settlement would be restored.”10

Mary Queen of Scots

Mary Queen of Scots

The success of the plot rested on there being a scapegoat, “someone to blame for misleading Darnley and orchestrating the recent swing towards Catholicism”11 and who better than David Rizzio, personal secretary to the Queen and the man who Darnley had been led to believe, by Maitland, was sleeping with his wife. Darnley felt betrayed by his former lover, who was also said to be a papal agent, so it wasn’t a tough choice. As John Guy says, “almost overnight, and by a masterful propaganda exercise, the unfortunate Rizzio was transformed into the Queen’s illicit lover”. Maitland informed Elizabeth I’s chief adviser, William Cecil, of the proposed plot and Randolph informed Dudley, neither did anything to prevent it.

The Assassination

At 8pm on the night of Saturday 9th March 1566, Lord Darnley and a large group of conspirators (around 80 men) made their way through the Palace of Holyroodhouse to the Queen’s supper chamber where she was enjoying a meal with Rizzio and some other friends. Darnley entered first, to reassure his heavily pregnant wife, and then Lord Ruthven, in full armour, entered the room informing Mary that Rizzio had offended her honour. Mary asked him to leave, saying that any offence committed by Rizzio would be dealt with by the Lords of Parliament, but she was ignored and Ruthven ordered Darnley to hold her. Mary got up angrily and the terrified Rizzio hid behind her as Mary’s friends tried to grab Ruthven, who drew his dagger. Ruthven and another man then proceeded to stab Rizzio who was then hauled out of the room. Mary could not do anything to help him, she had a pistol pointed at her.

Rizzio was then stabbed multiple times, with the final blow being delivered by Lord Darnley’s dagger, although he was not the one brandishing it. Mary reported that her secretary was stabbed 56 times before the gang of assassins fled. When she confronted Darnley, wanting to know why he had been a part of such “a wicked deed”, he replied that she had cuckolded him with Rizzio and that Rizzio was to blame for the problems in their marriage. After this argument between the King and Queen, Rizzio’s lifeless body was thrown down the stairs and Mary was kept guarded, a sentry put at her door. However, the wily Queen wasted no time planning her escape. She managed to see Darnley by himself, offering to make love to him, and then “beguiled him with soothing words”12. Mary was able to persuade her husband to escape with her, which they did, escaping to the home of the sister of the Earl of Bothwell. On the 18th March, Mary entered Edinburgh with her troops which numbered 3-5000 and, after a few days, moved into the castle to prepare for the birth of her baby. Her enemies fled to England. She had won.

This has already become a rather long article, so I don’t want to go into any further details, particularly when John Guy can do it so much better than me in his biography of Mary, but, to cut a long story short, Darnley did get his come-uppance when he was murdered on the 10th February 1567 – see “The Murder of Lord Darnley”. The Earl of Bothwell was implicated in his murder and he later took Mary hostage, allegedly raping her so that she would marry him. Mary Queen of Scots married the Earl of Bothwell on the 15th May 1567.

Notes and Sources

  1. My Heart is My Own: The Life of Mary Queen of Scots, John Guy, p204
  2. Ibid., p211
  3. Ibid.
  4. Ibid., p236
  5. Ibid.
  6. Ibid., p237
  7. Ibid.
  8. Ibid., p242
  9. Ibid., p244
  10. Ibid., p245
  11. Ibid.
  12. Ibid., p256


19 Responses to “The Murder of David Rizzio – 9 March 1566”

  1. DuchessofBrittany says:

    I visited Holyroodhouse in September 2010 and walked through Mary’s suite of rooms. While they are beautifully adorned, and quite small, it was strange to imagine this to be a place of murder. While I am not a fan of Mary, Queen of Scots, the woman did not deserve to be treated in such an inhumane manner by Lord Darnley. Furthermore, she should not have been subjected to a murder, while carrying her unborn child (and heir to the throne).
    John Guy’s biography is the best on Mary, and I enjoyed it. She becomes more human, and I was able to feel more empathy for her.
    As for Lord Darnley, that;s another story.
    Thanks Claire for another great article.

  2. Christine says:

    So, another honour killing. At least this habit would have been most familiar to the Renaissance Italian David Rizzio.

  3. Anne Barnhill says:

    My word! I did not know Darnly and Rizzo were lovers!! I thought he was the Queen’s lover or at least I suspected it. Wow–that turns things around a big more! Great article and I will look forward to reading more in the book you recommend. THanks!

  4. Lisa Davis says:

    This is better than any soap opera ever could be! So Mary’s husband was getting it on with her secretary? Truth is stranger than fiction.

  5. Esther says:

    I can’t imagine such a widespread murder plot undiscovered by any other monarch. I believe that historian Jenny Wormald was right on how the Mary/Rizzio/Darnley mess illustrated Mary’s lack of political acumen … and her poor choice of both advisors and husbands.

  6. Tina says:

    WOW! I can’t count how many times I’ve heard the story of Rizzio’s murder, but it never fails to chill my blood, and no, I didn’t realize that Darnley (for me, one of the most despicable of Tudor era characters) and Rizzio had been lovers! I’ll never be a Mary Queen of Scots fan, but this was one time when I was on her side, and the way she played Darnley to her advantage was worthy of her Stuart, Tudor and Guise ancestry. But now you see why Elizabeth had no desire to marry. Notice how Darnley attempted to usurp Mary’s queenship, simply because he was her husband. Her big mistake — other than marrying the creep — was making him King, and while I’m not sure who planned his murder, I will never shed a tear over him. Thanks Claire for another great article.

  7. Lyn-Marie says:

    What proof is there that David Riccio and Henry Darnley were lovers? Is this not just guess work, even by John Guy, who is an excellent historian? What original sources say that they were lovers? Yes, it is possible that Darnley may have been by-sexual and may have had lovers of both sexes, but there is not absolute proof and the fact that they slept together in the same bed proves nothing. This is the 16th century. Everyone slept with everyone else; shared beds, mostly out of necessity, partly out of security and partly for companionship. Servants shared the beds of master and mistress and friends often shared beds of the same sex and royal personages always had someone in the room with them, even if they were not in the same bed. Grooms and ushers slept in the same bed, or at the foot of the bed as a noble man or woman and there is nothing to suggest that the majority of these cases were anything but plutonic or for practical reasons.

    While they may have been lovers, the jury is out on Riccio and Darnley and until someone shows me some proof; it always will be.

  8. Claire says:

    John Guy quotes Randolph, the ambassador, as saying that “they would lie sometime in one bed together” and later writes that they were actually found in bed together. Now, obviously servants did often share the same room and even the same bed as their master or mistress in those days but Rizzio was not actually in Darnley’s employ so I don’t think that argument can be used here. Guy writes of how Darnley’s “sexual licence was suspected” and he did have a reputation. Also, Darnley being led to believe that his former lover was now sleeping with his wife does explain his part in what happened to Rizzio on the 9th March. He was overcome with jealousy.

  9. Sharon says:

    I always thought Darnley was jealous of Mary and Rizzio, but I never assumed it was because Rizzio and Darnley had been lovers. It still doesn’t change anything. Darnley forced a very pregnant Mary to watch as Rizzio was murdered. If it was Mary who planned Darnley’s death, I can’t say as I blame her. No tears for him.

  10. Anyanka says:

    Darnley and Rizzio as lovers doesn’t overly surprise me since Darnley has always been described as being fairly effeminate.You have to feel some pity for Mary seeing her servant butchered in front of her eyes.

  11. carroll says:

    Lord Darnley and Rizzio were not true lovers . Lord Darnley would force Rizzio into sex . According to a book i have of Queen Mary , Darnley would have people hold Rizzio down and force himself on him .

  12. Claire says:

    Hi Carroll,
    What book is that in? I’ve never heard that story.

  13. I have traced my family history back to Lord Ruthven and the Rizzio Plot. Oh the infamy! Kinda special to have a notorious murder in the family. Family history rocks 🙂

  14. miranda Dekay says:

    Stefan Zweig’s bio of Mary asserts — or perhaps just suggests –that Elizabeh 1 –“dear
    sister” was unable to have sexual intercourse…. because of some physical problem…
    anyone want to remark about that? had a lot to do with Elizabeth’s life vs Mary’s — aside from politics…

  15. Dr.L.D.Daniell says:

    Greetings to all, Can some one tell us where the chiefs of the Forsythe clan were at that time? . Please and thank you. Dr.L.D.Daniell. Movie Musem

  16. Linderann says:

    Does any historian think it possible that James 1 was Rizzio’s son? After all James and his son Charles 1 were small like Rizzio whereas both Mary and Darnley were both over six feet tall.

  17. Yodude says:

    Yo, guys! s’up?

    Anyway, I’m reading books about Mary Queen of Scots and the murder of David Rizzio for my “project” and none of them have an exact date for when Rizzio was murdered. How could anyone know it was Saturday at 8pm????

    Luv to hear back from anyone

  18. gary says:

    I think that part of the reason Mary married Darnley was because of his place in the succession to the English throne. It put Mary in a stronger position to claim the throne of England. However, I don’t think that Mary ever stood a chance in ruling Scotland successfully. She had absolutely no allies of consequence and the political and religious . Yet, in her death she actually prevailed . It was her son that succeeded Elizabeth to the throne of England, thus uniting the 2 countries under 1 monarch.

  19. mary says:

    While they MAY have been lovers,my ‘guess’ is that they were NOT, so the jury is out on Riccio and Darnley until someone has firm evidence

Leave a Reply

Please note: Comment moderation is currently enabled so there will be a delay between when you post your comment and when it shows up. Patience is a virtue; there is no need to re-submit your comment.