On this day in history, 29th October 1586, four days after a commission had found Mary Queen of Scots guilty of conspiring to assassinate Elizabeth I, Parliament met to discuss her fate. It was decided that Elizabeth should be petitioned to execute Mary.
In my previous article on Mary Queen of Scots, “The Trial of Mary Queen of Scots”, I told of how Elizabeth did not sign Mary’s death warrant until the 1st February 1587 and we know that she gave orders for it not to be sent to Fotheringhay until she said so. It is clear that Elizabeth was struggling with taking such action against a fellow queen, an anointed sovereign, and a woman with Tudor blood. The idea of regicide horrified her but her Parliament were calling for action and a strong monarch always acts against those who conspire to dethrone and assassinate them. It surely would have been a sign of weakness if Elizabeth had let Mary go on plotting against her.
It seems from Elizabeth’s actions – signing the death warrant but not sending it, asking Paulet to kill Mary under the Bond of association – that she was trying to deal with Mary without taking any responsibility for what happened. As John Guy says, “She had carefully contrived things so that she would win whatever happened. If Mary was killed under the Bond of Association, Elizabeth could disclaim responsibility. If Cecil covertly sealed the warrant and sent it to Fotheringhay behind her back, she could claim she had been the victim of a court conspiracy.” But we cannot know for sure what was going through Elizabeth’s mind at that time. Elizabeth was caught between a rock and a hard place, as Alison Weir describes:-
“If she signed the warrant she would be setting a precedent for condemning an anointed queen to death, and would also be spilling the blood of her kinswoman. To do this would court the opprobroum of the whole world, and might provoke the Catholic powers to vengeful retribution. Yet, if she showed mercy, Mary would remain the focus of Catholic plotting for the rest of her life, to the great peril of Elizabeth and her kingdom. Elizabeth knew where her duty lay, but she did no want to be responsible for Mary’s death.”1
No wonder she procrastinated! What a decision to have to make and I don’t think anyone can blame her for taking her time, for refusing to bow to Parliamentary pressure and for taking steps to distance herself from what happened in the end. What else could she do?
Mary – Tragic Heroine and Martyr?
Recently, this site has been bombarded with comments (see comments on Free Report page and my article on Mary’s trial) proclaiming Mary Queen of Scots’ innocence, protesting that she was the rightful queen of England, Scotland and France, calling Elizabeth a “Killer queen”, accusing Elizabeth of framing Mary and accusing me of romanticising Elizabeth. They were hard to take seriously when that person also thought that Mary Queen of Scots was the daughter of Mary I (!), but they did make me think about how Mary has been romanticised in the past and seen as a tragic heroine and even a Catholic martyr. Even today, she is proclaimed a martyr, not just by the commenter on this site but also the the New Advent Catholic Encylopedia who say:-
“There can be no question that she died with the charity and magnanimity of a martyr; as also that her execution was due, on the part of her enemies, to hatred of the Faith.”2
and then write of how Pope Benedict XIV would have formally declared her a martyr “if only the charges connected with the names of Darnley and Bothwell could be entirely eliminated”3.
Mary saw herself as a martyr. At her execution, on the 8th February 1587, she wore a crucifix and a black gown and as she prepared herself for her beheading she took off her gown to reveal a bodice and petticoat of scarlet, the colour of martyrdom. In her final moments she was proclaiming that she was a martyr to her faith.
However, whatever Mary thought and whatever message she was sending by her garb, I don’t believe that she was a martyr, well, not in the sense that she meant.
martyr – noun (mär-tər)
- a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion
- a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle
- victim; especially : a great or constant sufferer4
Perhaps she could be seen as a martyr according to definitions 2) and 3), but she did not died for her Catholic faith, she was executed because she plotted to kill the Queen of England. Uh oh, now I’m treading on dangerous ground with those who believe she was framed. Well, I do believe that William Cecil and Sir Francis Walsingham did all they could to bring down Mary Queen of Scots, but I don’t believe that they framed her. They set a trap and she fell into it. She gave them the evidence that they were looking for and that they needed to convince Elizabeth to get rid of her once and for all.
John Guy, in his book “Mary Queen of Scots: My Heart is My Own” explains Walsingham and Cecil’s roles in the downfall of Mary Queen of Scots brilliantly:-
“the plot [Babington plot] was not in itself a ‘projection’ [using agent provocateurs to foment conspiracies that were then conveniently ‘detected’] to frame her – it really existed; but rather than nipping it in the bud, Cecil’s spymaster allowed it to develop so that he could obtain the written evidence to put her on trial for her life”. Walsingham and Cecil let the plot continue so that Mary would ‘hang herself’ by getting involved and she did by replying to Babington who was conspiring to get Elizabeth assassinated by a group of ’six gentlemen’:-
‘The affairs being thus prepared and forces in readiness both without and within the realm, then shall it be time to set the six gentlemen to work taking order, upon the accomplishing of their design, I may be suddenly transported out of this place, and that all your forces in the same time be on the field to meet me in tarrying for the arrival of the foreign aid, which then must be hastened with all diligence.’ “5
John Guy comments that “Mary’s meaning is clear. She had consented to Elizabeth’s assassination and a foreign invasion. Strictly, she had not specified what the ‘work’ of the six gentlemen was to be, but the letter from Babbington to which she was replying included the graphic passage, ‘For the dispatch of the usurper, from the obedience of whom we are by the excommunication of her made free, there are six noble gentlemen, all my private friends, who for the zeal they bear to the Catholic cause and your Majesty’s service will undertake that tragical execution.’ When the two letters are read together, Mary’s complicity in the plot was undeniable.”6
Cecil and Walsingham did not frame Mary, they laid a trap and she condemned herself with her own words and actions. She was clearly giving her blessing and her support to Babington’s plot to assassinate Elizabeth. What’s more, Babington confessed and so did Mary’s secretaries.
The Babington Plot was not a one-off, it was not the only time that Mary had conspired against Elizabeth, and as early as 1568 she had approached Philip II to help her with her cause. She also never gave up on her claim to the English throne. Elizabeth spent two decades giving Mary the benefit of the doubt and sympathising with her, yet Mary carried on plotting. I just can’t see Mary as a tragic heroine or martyr and Elizabeth as a cold-blooded killer, however I look at the situation.
What do you think?
Please share your thoughts in comments below – thank you!
Notes and Sources
- “Elizabeth, the Queen”, Alison Weir, p375
- Mary Queen of Scots, New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia
- Ibid.
- Merriam-Webster
- My Heart is My Own: The Life of Mary Queen of Scots, John Guy, p483.
- Ibid.
Related posts:
The Trial of Mary Queen of Scots
Mary Queen of Scots – Part One
8 February 1587 – Mary Queen of Scots is Executed
Mary, Queen of Scots – 8th December 1542
The Execution of Mary Queen of Scots – 8th February 1587
Mary Queen of Scots – Part Two
Mary Queen of Scots Lands in Scotland
24 April 1558 – Mary Queen of Scots Marries the Dauphin
8 February 1587 – The Execution of Mary, Queen of Scots
Mary Queen of Scots
Mary Queen of Scots Marries Lord Darnley
Robert Dudley to Marry Mary Queen of Scots?
I have really enjoyed reading the comments here, as well as the excellent article. As a Catholic, I sympathise with Mary as a fellow religious; as a political scientist, I sympathise with Elizabeth. One cannot help but add: if Mary had been a Protestant, would she have been executed? Probably not; all manner of effort would have been made to deal with her differently. And is it not simply a terrible crime for one anointed monarch to order the execution of another anointed monarch? Simply horrendous!
The great irony of Mary’s life and death is that had she been allowed to live and out live Elizabeth , she would have been curtainly bypassed by the English Parliament for the Crown and the Stuart line in England would have never been ,by her death it virtually assured the Stuart’s of the Crown of England ( James V1 being a Protestant to boot !) .So maybe she WAS a martyr..but not in the the religous sense , her supporters today should be content with that , in the end it was HER son who ” inherited the earth ”
Mary did conspire against Elizabeth but didn’t Elizabeth do the same against Queen Mary 1 in the Wyatt Revolt ,the tragedy of Mary’s life is not that she came to a ” sticky end ” it’s that she took so many people and the catholic cause with her ,this and the Gunpowder plot put pay to the old faith in England .
What you are missing is that they have found that the so called letters were in french and interriptted by those who seek to comdem her.The letters npersented to Elizabeth where not in Mary hand. From what I have read they now say that the letter were interriptted to make it sound like she was conspirising. Mary NEVER waned the the English throne for herself, It was her uncles who had declaired her Queen of England and pushed her to persure the English throne. She did not want England she just wanted Scoland back. Yes She had ruled with her heart more then her brains, But I do beleive that the Scottish parlerment had Darnly killed and sought a way to get a rif of both Bothwell and her in 1 stroke so they could rule Scotland under their religin. All Mary wanted was the saftey that was promised to her so she could get her son and country back. Scotland not England. Cecil was so scared that Mary would raise up the English Cathloc that he did everything he could to murder Mary in which he did. If Elizabeth would have meet with her instead of listing to Cecil things would have been different.
She was imprisioned as soon as she went to England when she promised help so she probly did call Elizabeth a few choice words and plotted to escape. But because she was Cathloc she was imprisioned, then beheaded without a proper trial. So in a way she was a Maytr.
We’ll have to agree to disagree, particularly on the point that Mary did/did not want the throne. However, Mary had a proper trial, she was not beheaded without a proper trial. She was not attainted, she had a full and detailed trial, quite long and drawn out, where evidence was presented and examined – see https://www.elizabethfiles.com/the-trial-of-mary-queen-of-scots/4373/. Even if you discount the letters, her secretaries confessed. It was nothing to do with her being Catholic and all to do with her being involved in plots against Elizabeth.
I don’t see how Mary could be described as someone who “carried on plotting”. There was no evidence that Cecil could find until after many years of long imprisonment. Mary was held prisoner by Elizabeth without legal cause for all those years. How many of us could withstand unjust confinement for years without finally trying something, anything, to be free again? Judicial murder? Some of us would say “yes”.
I think Mary’s biggest mistake was claiming herself as Queen of England when she was just ousted out of Scotland, with no hope to return, if only by aide of her cousin, the Queen of England. She must have realized that people who were against the reigning monarch had the habit plotting against the king or queen usually supported a claimant to the throne, like Elizabeth for example, except she had the good sense to deny all culpability to the plots and protest her innocence. Mary may have done that but it just seems to me that she lack any good sense, after all, marrying two people who were vastly unpopular, her third husband having been thought to be guilty of murdering her second husband.
mary Queen of Scots is an interesting character, but i think it was the unfortunate series of events and her inabiltity to make good desicisions that ultimately lead to her death. she was not the politician Elizabeth was and therefore possible could not comprehend the consequences of her actions. mary was used by her husbands (not the first one) and could not control the damage they did unfortunately this affected her reputation. It really was an unfortunate series of events that lead to her execution.
I have to agree with Cynthia. Mary fled to England for help and instead of refuge was imprisoned for decades, never to see her son nor her cousin Elizabeth. Tossed from prison to prison she had every right to be angry and resentful. Surely normal response to captivity would be to want release?
I think from her birth Mary was surrounded by relatives and court officials who advised, taught and influenced her badly, possibly to enhance their own positions rather than Mary’s. She could only make decisions on what she was taught and told.
Right from her arrival in Scotland she was never given the support her position deserved, particularly from her brother who was rather powerful.
I tend to think she was poorly served all her life.
I have greatly enjoyed this thread,very interesting! So even Pope Benedict XIV agreed that her decisions concerning Darnley and Bothwell were disasters! Regardless of whether she was the “victim” or not of these two men, her subsequent decisions were impulsive. Nor was she was unable to control her nobles. Had she supported Elizabeth more before and after she fled to England (in fear of her life!) things would have been much different, but Mary could not resist an intrigue and she was outsmarted by Walsingham. Again, had she been able to control her impulses, she would have thought it through and realized she was in his trap.
I guess it really depends on if you believe that Anne Boleyn was legally married to Henry vIII or not. If you believe that until Catherine of Aragon’s death she was his wife and queen per the fact that the pope did not approve of the divorce which was required at the time then Anne Boleyn was never queen and Elizabethan I wasn’t the rightful queen and there for Mary queen of Scott’s did not try to kill a queen she tried to take what was rightfully hers. And Elizabeth murdered the queen when executing Mary Queen of Scotts. but if you believe like most people Anne Boleyn was his wife then Elizabeth did what the law required of her at the time and executed a criminal.
Thanks for the article and the opportunity to respond, Claire. It seems to me that the point isn’t what type of women they were; that seems too simplified and black & white. It seems much more complicated than that- which shows in how passionate people are today about these women and the outcome of events so long ago.
We know the obvious that Mary was Catholic and Elizabeth was the “Protestant hope”. But the men behind Elizabeth’s throne were largely fundamental protestants, severely afraid of Mary and what her reign might bring to them. They had been lucky enough to live through Mary 1 and didn’t want to do that again. While none of them appreciated a female monarch it appears to be a case of “the devil you know”. Hence it had a covert taste of religious martyrdom, an element that Mary played so well in a final act of payback. But we cannot ignore that it was there in the actions of the men of Elizabeth’s court to bring about this end whatever means necessary to save their own necks. I think history shows that both women were played.
I think that Cecil and Walsingham, along with the rest of her counsel played to Elizabeth’s fears of overthrow & death and the change in “her” country. she had lived a life of fear and constant religious change. The tightrope was difficult and any slip would mean death. Elizabeth played that game all her life and would be too affected by it. I think they orchestrated the plot so that a desperate Mary would take the bait to escape and be the Queen she knew herself to be somewhere. She also knew that she was the heir to the English throne according to all terms of the day. She knew she was being treated very badly for such a position and learned she could not rely on the truth of Elizabeth’s letters. The men made certain that both Queens would never meet and created the situation. Mary was willing to do anything to obtain her freedom. After all, she WAS an anointed Queen and raised to believe in that divine right. A plot was the best way to remove her as a threat.
Ultimately neither woman was ready to go to this tragic end, but how many of us would be ready to agree to continued confinement, even though it was safe. And who in their right mind would willingly agree to go against their most basic beliefs to kill a fellow monarch (considering the promotion of the divine right) without a push, nudge or continued bombardment by outside trusted sources. It is said that Elizabeth was a nervous wreck and forever after regretted her bowing to the pressure from her advisors. Mary accepted the inevitable and made her last statement by taking the religious road, a very powerful tool of the time, to her death. She was most calm and regal at the end and even her enemies were moved by her actions. Elizabeth knew that she had put her neck in an international noose and lashed out at the men around her for it’s cause.
And so we come to the present day. Both women have followers who will defend each of their actions. That doesn’t mean that there were any winners or losers. Both women won and lost. The men who plagued both women kept their lives and property, but were never quite trusted the same way again by Elizabeth and were overshadowed by Mary’s death. I’m sure that they thought they had eliminated a threat and if given a 2nd chance, would do the same thing. They were not thinking of how history would perceive them, but both women were very aware of how their legacy would be reflected.
The whole episode is a sad and shameful note in history and we should pay homage to both women for their sacrifices and lessons that they have taught us.