On this day in history, 14th October 1586, the trial of Mary Queen of Scots began at Fotheringhay Castle in Northamptonshire. Historian John Guy, author of “My Heart is My Own: The Life of Mary Queen of Scots”, has written a brilliant chapter on Mary’s downfall, “Nemesis”, and I have him to thank for the information in this article.
Mary Queen of Scots had, at first, refused to appear before Elizabeth I’s commission, but had been told by William Cecil that the trial would take place with or without her. She appeared in front of the commission at 9am, dressed in a black velvet gown and a white cambric cap and veil. Mary then protested against the commission, arguing that the court was not legitimate and arguing against the fact that she was not allowed legal defence and was not able to call any witnesses. Mary was also not permitted to examine any of the documents being used against her. Her protests were in vain and the prosecution went ahead and opened the trial with an account of the Babington Plot, arguing that Mary knew of the plot, had given it her approval, agreed with it and had promised to help. Mary protested her innocence:-
“Mary: I knew not Babington. I never received any letters from him, nor wrote any to him. I never plotted the destruction of the Queen. If you want to prove it, then produce my letters signed with my own hand.
Counsel: But we have evidence of letters between you and Babington.
Mary: If so, why do you not produce them? I have the right to demand to see the originals and copies side by side. It is quite possible that my ciphers have been tampered with by my enemies. I cannot reply to this accusation without full knowledge. Until then, I must content myself with affirming solemnly that I am not guilty of the crimes imputed to me…”1
Unfortunately for Mary, Elizabeth’s spymaster, Sir Francis Walsingham, had collected a great deal of evidence:-
- A confession made by Sir Anthony Babington who had also pleaded guilty at his own trial.
- A deciphered transcript in English of Mary’s reply to Babington.
- A reciphered copy of Mary’s original letter to Babington which looked exactly like the original.
- Confessions from Mary’s secretaries.
When the prosecution produced all of this evidence, Mary burst into tears but still denied her involvement, claiming that the documents were counterfeit. Walsingham proclaimed his innocence, stating that the documents were real. A distraught Mary proclaimed that “I would never make shipwreck of my soul by conspiring the destruction of my dearest sister.”2 The court was then adjourned for lunch.
After lunch, the secretaries’ confessions were read out, much to Mary’s shock and horror. Mary argued that her letters must have been tampered with after she had seen them, and then argued:-
“The majesty and safety of all princes falleth to the ground if they depend upon the writings and testimony of their secretaries… I am not to be convicted except by mine own word or writing.”3
The trial continued the next day with the prosecution accusing Mary of consenting to Elizabeth’s assassination in her reply to Babington. Mary tried to argue that although she had written “then shall it be time to set the gentlemen to work taking order upon the accomplishing of their design”4, she had not specified what the “work” was. However, as the prosecution pointed out, Mary had also appealed for foreign help and although she argued that an act of war, even if it resulted in Elizabeth’s death, was legitimate if it allowed her, a queen, to be free at last, the commission saw her actions as an act of treason.
As the trial closed, Mary demanded that she should be heard in front of Parliament or the Queen, but she was fighting a losing battle. Sentence was delayed as long as possible, by order of Elizabeth, but on the 25th October the commission reconvened and found Mary guilty. On he 29th October, Parliament met to discuss Mary Queen of Scots, the Babington Plot and her role in Lord Darnley’s murder, and it was decided that they should petition Elizabeth to execute Mary. This put Elizabeth in a difficult position as she did not want to be accused of regicide. On the 4th December, Mary was publicly proclaimed guilty and finally, on the 1st February 1587, Elizabeth called her secretary, William Davison, asking him to bring Mary’s execution warrant to her to sign. Elizabeth signed it but told Davison to ask Walsingham to write to Sir Amyas Paulet, in his own name, asking him to kill Mary. This would enable Elizabeth to be rid of her nemesis without taking any responsibility for it, instead Paulet would be acting privately under the Bond of Association*. Paulet was understandably horrified, protesting that “God forbid that I should make so foul a shipwreck of my conscience.”5 Meanwhile, Sir William Cecil called a secret meeting of Elizabeth’s Privy Council which agreed to send the signed warant to Fotheringhay. Cecil appointed the Earls of Shrewsbury and Kent to direct the execution and the council agreed to keep Elizabeth in the dark until the deed was done.
On the 8th February 1587 Mary Queen of Scots was executed at Fotheringhay Castle. Although Elizabeth was furious with her Council, so much so that Cecil fled to his home and Davison was thrown into the Tower, John Guy points out that whatever happened to Mary, whether she was assassinated or executed, Elizabeth could deny any responsibility:-
“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.”6
Clever!
* The Bond of Association – p474 John Guy describes the Bond of Association as “a licence to kill”. Anyone signing the Bond, which was drawn up by Cecil and Walsingham in 1584 after the 1583 Throckmorton plot, was swearing to “pursue as well by force of arms as by all other means of revenge” anyone plotting to cause harm to the Queen.
Notes and Sources
- My Heart is My Own: The Life of Mary Queen of Scots, John Guy, p490.
- Ibid., p492
- Ibid.
- Ibid., p483
- Ibid., p496
- Ibid., p497
Further Reading
- State trials of Mary, Queen of Scots, Sir Walter Raleigh, and Captain William Kidd, Condensed and copied from the state trials of Francis Hargrave, esq., London, 1776, and of T. B. Howell, London, 1816, with explanatory notes, p1-57
Related posts:
14th October 1586 – Trial of Mary Queen of Scots
Mary Queen of Scots – Part One
Mary Queen of Scots – Tragic Heroine?
Mary Queen of Scots
24 April 1558 – Mary Queen of Scots Marries the Dauphin
The Execution of Mary Queen of Scots – 8th February 1587
8 February 1587 – The Execution of Mary, Queen of Scots
Mary Queen of Scots Marries Lord Darnley
Mary, Queen of Scots – 8th December 1542
Mary Queen of Scots
Mary Queen of Scots – Part Two
Mary Queen of Scots Lands in Scotland
THE WHOLE COURT TRANSACTIONS IF, YOU CAN CALL IT THAT, WAS MACABRE.
NO MATTER WHAT, QUEEN MARY OF SCOTLAND, FRANCE AND ENGLAND WAS A CLEAR
OMINOUS ROYAL TO ELIZABETH. SIR FRANCES WALSINGHAM IN COORDINATION ARTIFICIALLY, FORCED QUEEN MARY TO HER DEATH. WHEN ONE QUEEN KILLS AN OTHER
SURLY THIS HAS TO BE REMEMBERED AS UNWORTHY.
SUCH EVIDENCE WOULD NOT STAND A RATS CHANCE IN COURT TODAY.
Michael,
I actually don’t understand your comment, “ominous royal” and “Sir Francis Walsingham in coordination artificially, forced Queen Mary to her death”, but I understand that you believe that Mary was the true Queen of England and was framed.
Mary, Queen of Scots, may have had a claim to the throne, through Margaret Tudor, but Elizabeth I was Henry VIII’s daughter and her father had re-established her claim to the throne before his death. Also, although Cecil and Walsingham laid traps for Mary, she fell into them by being reckless and by conspiring to assassinate Elizabeth I. Mary was happy enough to plot Elizabeth’s death, a queen and God’s anointed, to fulfil what she believed was her destiny and you seem to forget that. Elizabeth may have finally signed Mary’s death warrant but it is clear that she did not want to and was troubled by killing another sovereign, albeit one who had plotted to kill her. I’m not sure that Elizabeth had much of a choice in the end. Imprisoning Mary had not worked.
The court had confessions from Babington and even Mary’s secretaries, so had a strong case with or without the letters. You say that “such evidence would not stand a rat’s chance in court today” but I think confessions are strong evidence and we can’t compare court cases today with ones that happened over 400 years ago.
READ, LADY A. FRASER: MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. THE ONLY BOOK THATS GIVES THE TRUTH. QUEEN MARY OF SCOTS AND LADY JANE GREY LIVE IN THE HEARTS OF MANY. NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD AS I KNOW, HAS THERE EVER BEEN AN INSTANCE WERE, ONE QUEEN HAS KILLED AN OTHER. THIS IS SHAMEFUL, TO THE END OF TIME,,, ELISABETH 1st
SHOULD ONLY BE REMEMBERED FOR THE DISTORTION OF HISTORY AND MURDER. WE KNOW THERE IS NO GLAMOUR IN EITHER, ITHER OR, BOTH. WHAT YOU CAN WRITE ABOUT HER IS JUST HOLYWOOD GLITZ. PERHAPS, SHE TRIED TO CREATE THE WAY SHE WOULD LIKE TO BE SEEN IN THE FUTURE ” THE THEATRE OF THE WORLD IS A BIGGER PLACE THAN ENGLAND” MARY WAS MURDERED OVER THE TREATY OF LEITH AND THE LIES, FALSE ACCUSATIONS. ELISABETH DID NOT HAVE THE WISDOM TO BE QUEEN AND, OR, THE HEART OF A QUEEN SHE WAS A MURDERESS A SERIAL KILLER QUEEN. SURPRISE, SURPRISE, JUST LIKE DADDY.
Have you read John Guy’s book “Mary Queen of Scots: My Heart is My Own”? That is a brilliant biography by an expert Tudor historian. I don’t think that I write “Hollywood Glitz” about Elizabeth I but you’ve obviously got a bee in your bonnet about Mary Queen of Scots’ execution. How can you call Elizabeth I a serial killer? If that is not distorting history then I don’t know what is. You seem to be accusing me of not being objective about Elizabeth but you are the one who cannot look at Mary Queen of Scots objectively.
ONE SOULD NEVER ASUME, ELIZABETH DISTORTED HISTORY OF THAT YOU MUST AGREE
THIS IS WHY WE DONT KNOW MUCH ABOUT THIS ERA OF LIZ IE, IS THIS TRUE? YOU CAN ONLY MAKE IT UP ABOUT LIZ. QUEEN MARY WAS WELL RECORDERD AND BECAUSE OF THIS SOME HISTORIAN HAVE TO SUGAR COAT THE PAST LIFE OF LIZ AS EVERYBODY HAS SOMETHING TO HIDE, LIZ CONSEALED MUCH MORE THAN WE WILL EVER KNOW THATS WHY THERE IS SO MUCH SPECULATION, DID SHE ? DID”NT SHE ? WAS SHE ? THE ONLY TRUE THING WE KNOW FOR SURE THAT HAS STOOD THE TEST OF TIME AND WILL NEVER BE FORGOTTEN IS SHE MURDERED MARY QUEEN OF SCOTLAND, FRANCE AND ENGLAND, POTENTIALLY THIS IS A GOOD REASON TO MURDER MARY AND THE TREATY OF LEITH WAS AN OTHER. READ; LADY A. FRASER
MQS PERHAPS, IT IS TO REAL AND ONE WOULD NOT WANT TO FACE THE FACT.
I would say that Elizabeth I and her reign are just as well recorded, if not more, than Mary Queen of Scots, just look at our page on Primary Sources to see all the evidence we have. “THE ONLY TRUE THING WE KNOW FOR SURE THAT HAS STOOD THE TEST OF TIME AND WILL NEVER BE FORGOTTEN IS SHE MURDERED MARY QUEEN OF SCOTLAND, FRANCE AND ENGLAND” is completely untrue as I have argued with you before. Elizabeth was sympathetic to Mary’s plight for many years and was willing to consider her as her heir. During the Casket Letters tribunal, Elizabeth was concerned with justice and with understanding “truly and plainly the state of the cause of the Queen of Scots”. Mary never gave up her claim to the English throne, approached Philip II to help her with her cause as early as 1568 and was implicated in plots to dethrone and/or assassinate Elizabeth. Elizabeth had to act as Mary would have done if Elizabeth had been conspiring to take her throne. Elizabeth constantly gave Mary the benefit of the doubt and gave her many chances, she did not cold-bloodedly murder her. As John Guy points out in his biography of Mary, “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.”
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.” p483 of Guy’s book. She was conspiring to murder Elizabeth and was not tried and executed on trumped up charges. She was found guilty by her own words and her secretaries and Babington confessed. Perhaps you need to face the facts.
MARY”S HAND WRITING WAS EASY TO FORGE, THAT WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE BOOK
IN THAT WAY YOU HAVE RE-WRITTEN HISTORY, YOU HAVE JUST MADE EVERY THING FACTUAL NO ROOM FOR DEBATE, IT IS SHAMEFUL AND IMMORAL ARE YOU AWARE OR, DO YOU JUST HAVE A MARVELOUS CONCEIT OF YOURSELF, PRAY BLOODY TELL ? I REALLY THINK YOU ARE STARTING TO BELIEVE IN WHAT YOU ARE DOING, THERE IS NO REASON TO MURDER A QUEEN BECAUSE OF TWO LETTERS AND A SECRETARY WHOM WAS PROBABLY A SELF PRESERVATIONIST. MARY WAS MURDERED OVER THE TREATY OF LEITH AND CLOAK AND DAGGER. THE FACT THAT SHE WAS A RIGHTFUL QUEEN TO SCOTLAND, FRANCE AND ENGLAND. I THINK THAT IS THE POINT YOU JUST CANNOT DEAL WITH THAT FACT, IT IS REAL AND YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO STILL COME TO TERMS WITH THAT. ELIZABETH MURDERED A QUEEN OF THREE COUNTRIES THERE IS NO PRIDE IN THAT……OF COURSE YOU WOULD WANT TO CHANGE THAT IT IS SHAMEFUL, GODS WORK.
MARY STOOD TALL AGAINST ALL. FORCED TO LEAVE FOR FRANCE AFTER THE DEATH OF HER FATHER KING OF SCOTLAND, MARY BECOMES QUEEN
MARRIED THE DAUPHIN OF FRANCE MARY WAS QUEEN.
MARY QUEEN DAUGHTER OF MARY 1ST A RIGHTFUL HEIR TO THE THRONE OF ENGLAND
QUEEN QUEEN QUEEN
I THINK YOU COULD NEVER GIVE THIS BEAUTY ANY OF YOUR IMAGINATION BECAUSE YOU COULD NEVER FIND IT, IN YOURSELF , LET ME HELP YOU.. CAN YOU IMAGINE A WOMAN OF THIS STATURE BEING SO DECEITFUL… YOU ARE SHAMEFUL.
I really don’t know what you’re talking about. Mary Queen of Scots was not the daughter of Mary I. Mary I did not have any children. Mary Queen of Scots was the daughter of James V of Scotland and his second wife, Mary of Guise.
I don’t know what you’re talking about when you say that I have rewritten history, at least I am giving some facts and some rational arguments. If you are going to comment on here just to abuse me and spout conspiracy theories with no historical basis then you are not welcome here.
GUISE, THATS RIGHT, YOU ARE RIGHT, BUT STILL SHE HAD RIGHTS TO THE THRONE OF ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, FRANCE, SAY IT, ADMIT IT, YOU JUST CAN”T, PUT YOU EDUCATION TO GOOD USE AND SAY THE TRUTH…..BYE