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
Wow! Claire I just want you to know that I appreciate all the hard work you put into this website and The Anne Boleyn files! I read them everyday on my lunch hour! Keep up the great work!!!
Exscue me MICHAEL H CURRIE. HOW DARE YOU come onto this site and disrespect the TABT who work tirelessy for The Tudor Cause. MQoS WAS NOT the rightful heir to the English throne. She was merely the granddaughter of the Kings sister. Elizabeth I was the heir from being THE KING DAUGHTHER. Get your facts correct !!!.
Now lets not forget her own pesronal history shall we : She was the Queen Consort of France for what a mere year, then married and murdered her own cousin Darnley, then married his co- murderer Bothwell. Imprisoned and not wanted by her own Scottish people, after abdicating she fleed to England. If given the chance she too would have murded Elizabeth THE TRUE SOVERGIN QUEEN.
The articles written here are open for discussion and debate and are backed up by the way by primary and secondary sources. I see that you reference only ONE “modern” day author. At the end of the day James I Inherited the throne so please kindly get over youself. You are not welcome here with your derogatory chavvy comments
THE FACT IS A FACT, SHE DID NOT MURDER LIZ, BUT AS YOU KNOW ? MARY WAS MURDERED BY LIZ AND ALL THE OTHER DISREPUTABLE REPROBATES AGREED.
ITS MARVELOUS THAT THE FACTS THAT ARE PORTRAIT ARE BELIEVED TO BE TRUE. WE ALL SHOULD KNOW THE LIZ COMPLETELY MANIPULATED, DISTORTED HISTORY TO THE POINT THAT HISTORIANS BELIEVE IT WAS TRUE FOR CENTURIES, NOW WE HAVE FOUND THE TRUTH, IT JUST DOES NOT EQUATE, NO ONE AS MENTIONED THE FACT THAT LIZ DEFACED ART WORKS TO THE POINT OF ALMOST NEANDERTHAL, AND, OR. WHAT BILL WAS SCRIBBLING, TO KEEP UP THE PROPAGANDA TO COMPLETELY BASTARDIZE HISTORY TO THE POINT OF NO RETURN, NEVERTHELESS AS I HAVE SAID THERE IS ALWAYS IMAGINATION. MARY WAS A RIGHTFUL QUEEN TO SCOTLAND, FRANCE, AND ENGLAND IPSO.FACTO, DISPROVE THE FACT, THERE IS NO HIGHER GOD THAN THE TRUTH.
claire,
I first found the “anne boleyn files” while I was on maternity leave last year and I have been hooked ever since. Like yourself I like to consider myself an armchair historian and i particularily am interested with the english monarchy ( I am Canadian by the way) and i am hoping one day to travel to England and see all that I have read about in person. I have never written a comment here before but i wanted to let you know that because of you and the time and effort you put into these sites you have my eternal thanks. My Husband looks at me like an alien because i am fascinated with history and how things have evolved to bring us to where we are in society now. As much as i would love to step in a time machine and see certain events for my own eyes, I am truly thankful I live in a time where we as human beings are equals, regardless of religion, sex, marital status etc. Queen Elizabeth has always been one of my favorite figures, including both her parents and i know that some 21st century minds have a hard time relating to that era. It seems to me that it did’nt matter who you were in court or who’s court you were in, that there was always intrigue, conspiracies, murder etc. it almost seems like survival of the fittest!!! Now as much as i love Elizabeth i can also sympathize with Mary queen of Scots. A lot of things about her just don’t add up to me especially her trial. charges of treason etc, but that seems to be the norm with the tudor period its just so confusing. You are truly an inspiration, your knowledge and dedication to these sites where like minds can come and discuss and debate issues we love is wonderful and i figured it was time to let you know how i felt. Thank you.
Hi Mendi,
Thank you, I’m so glad you enjoy the site.
Michael,
You keep accusing Elizabeth of distorting history but where is your evidence? Also why do you feel that Mary was the rightful queen to England or France? You keep forgetting that Mary was never Queen of France in her own right, she was Queen Consort and so was only queen until the death of her husband.
Kate,
I agree with you, Mary clearly conspired to get Elizabeth assassinated so if those plans had worked then she would have been guilty of murder. I love debating history and I think it’s great that people get passionate about the subject but like you I think that Michael’s comments are derogatory and some are rather offensive.
Elyssa,
Thank you for your comment and I’m so glad that you found the AB Files and Elizabeth Files. I know exactly what you mean, when I start talking Tudor to friends and family their eyes start to glaze over so it’s great to immerse myself in history all day and to get to chat people on here who share my passion. Thank you for your kind words and your support x
THE EVIDENCE IS ALL AROUND YOU YOU JUST DO NOT WANT TO SEE IT CLARE, I CANNOT HELP YOU WITH THAT BUT ! I AM ABLE TO POINT IT OUT SO, YOU HAVE A CLEAR PERSPECTIVE AND PERHAPS, ONE WOULD HOPE THAT WE COULD STAY ON TRACK AND TRY TO PICK UP THE THREADS AND I MEAN THREADS BECAUSE THATS ALL WE HAVE HERE. A QUEEN IS A QUEEN CONSORT OR NOT. YOU DO NOT SUDDENLY STOP BEING A QUEEN, REMEMBER THE THREADS. MARY HAD AN UNFAIR TRIAL, YOU CANNOT CHANGE THAT NO MATTER HOW YOU LOOK AT IT. YOU CANNOT CHANGE THIS, YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT, ONE WOULD HOPE. MARY HAD RIGHTS TO THE THRONES OF SCOTLAND, FRANCE AND ENGLAND THE ONLY QUEEN IN OUR HISTORY. GIVE THIS LADY MORE THAT JUST WHAT YOU HAVE STATED; THAT SHE PLOTTED TO ASSASSINATE LIZ. THAT IS JUST YOUR ASSUMPTION AFTER ALL .
First Michael
Why are you writing in capitals/ There is no need to SHOUT
Second, i suggest you read up on your English history mate, because you obiviously do not know it as well as you think
Third, please dont make abusive comments on this site.
The punishment for treason in Tudor times was being beheaded if you were of nobile birth – Mary Queen of Scots would have known this, but she condemned herself by writing the letter to Babington
Elixabeth had imprisoned Mary for about 20 years, she ummed and arred about dispatching her when the plot was unravelled. I do not think that is an action of a cold bllooded killer
But lets face facts, you are Elizabeth, you have been keeping a foreign queen who conspires to take over your throne. What would you have done? Played tiddlywinks with her? In those days mate, there was only one answer unfortunately