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
Queen Mary of Scots [MQS] was a VERY popular Queen in both Scotland and France UNTIL the English slander machine ran full force after the Darnley murder. Sir Cecil had already started the slander after the Rizzio murder and failed gov’t takeover, of which Cecil and QE1 were fully aware. Walsingham continued the process AFTER MQS entered England in response to a PROMISE by QE1 to assist MQS in every way.
There is no evidence against MQS for the Darnley murder. She sent an official letter to Ambassador Beaton in France BEFORE she left to retrieve Darnley from Glascow – the purpose being to avert another coup d’etat by Darnley and his dad Lennox.
MQS had been trained from birth in Scotland and as a young Queen in France in the mechanics of CODE writing. All Kings/Queens and high level gov’t officials wrote in CODE whenever they communicated sensitive issues. If MQS had written Bothwell about a murder plot in would have been in CODE, not poor French grammar. Besides the only evidence of Morton finding a casket is on July 11, 1567 AFTER the gov’t takeover (thus it could not justify a coup etat) and it contained JEWELS NOT letters.
Read the actual Conviction letter written by spymaster Walsingham based on tortured Babington’s ‘confession’. There was NO Letter from MQS, in French, English or Code used at the Fotheringay trail. Even the letter from Walsingham states that MQS disavowed any ownership of the escape plan though she agreed to escape. She also urged her rescuers to protect QE1 not kill her. The statements usually quoted of the letter to ‘prove’ agreement with the escape plan ONLY agree to escape, NOT assassination.
So the Fotheringay execution was judicial MURDER, planned by Cecil/ Walsingham/QE1 and executed. Besides Queen Elizabeth asked Paulet – the jailor to MURDER MQS before the PUBLIC execution took place.
Here is CONVICTION LETTER paragraph that immediately PRECEDES the oft quoted section ‘out of context’ that supposedly ‘proves’ complicity in an assassination plot. It this paragraph written just before the ‘6 gentlemen’ paragraph – the Conviction Letter urges the rescuers to MAINTAIN Queen Elizabeth. We know MQS means QE1 because she removes herself from the statement as the intended Queen by ‘unnaming me’:
“These precepts may serve to found and establish amongst all associations, or considerations general, as done only for your preservation and defense, as well in religion as lands, lives, and goods, against the oppression and contempts of the said Puritans, WITHOUT directly writing, or giving out any thing ANY THING AGAINST the Queen, but RATHER SHEWING YOURSELVES WILLING TO MAINTAIN HER and her lawful heirs after her, UNNAMING ME.”
MQS UN-names herself as an HEIR to QE1 and urges them to MAINTAIN QE1.
Then follows the paragraph oft used to damn MQS – out of context – then placed next to the Babington plot ‘usurper’ quote.
“The affairs being thus prepared, and forces in readiness, both within and without the realm, then shall it be time to set the Six Gentlemen on work, taking good order upon the accomplishment of their discharges, I may be suddenly transported out of this place, and meet WITHOUT tarrying for the arrival of the FOREIGN AID, which then must be hastened with all diligence.”
Paraphrased: ‘Maintain/ protect Queen Elizabeth and her heirs of which I am NOT one, then when ready set the 6 rescuers to discharge the rescue – get me outta her – without foreign invasion.’
Without actual reading the ENTIRE letter, the slander continues.
QE1 – GUILTY VERDICT first, then the TRIAL:
In the book “The Last Days of Mary Queen of Scots [MQS]” by Samuel Cowan, published by Lippincott in 1907 and based per the author upon British State Papers and upon MQS’s physician Bourgoyne’s journal, see page 64 – located at archive.org:
That BEFORE the trial at Fotheringhay on 14 October 1585 that Queen Elizabeth Tudor [QE1] instructed Cecil/ Burghley and spymaster Walsingham in writing to convict MQS as guilty.
QE1 to Cecil & Walsingham
“Upon examination and trial of the cause, you SHALL by VERDICT find the said Queen (MQS) GUILTY of the crime wherewith she standeth charged.”
My question is, if she may not be guilty of conspiracy, then why did she use the Alphabet of Ciphers in her letters?
When I say may not be guilty, I mean if she hadn’t actually been behind the conspiracy (she was obviously found guilty during the trial). I had read the trial speeches of Mary Queen of Scots, and after only having read that, my knowledge is quite insufficient. Mary had denied even knowing Babington, but recalled a Babington in one of the letters sent to her. She denied writing anything back to him. Furthermore, her letters were coded with the Alphabet of Ciphers, and she mentions during her trial that the letters may have been deciphered falsely in order to support the commission’s accusations. The question I was trying to ask, is that if she was telling the truth about having nothing to do with the Babington conspiracy, then why did she write in code? When I read the trial it sounds like the entire thing was a setup (starting with the Act of Association 2 years before). There seemed to be no hard evidence other than copies of deciphered letters and confessions by those who weren’t present. Perhaps the Act was made in order to set Mary up, which would lead one to believe more firmly that Mary may have not actually conspired at all. But the question of why she coded her letters allows me now to think otherwise. Anyway, I just wanted to put this out there, and hopefully get a response on this matter. There was no discussion that I remember when reading the trial, that mentioned anything about why she coded the letters in the first place. If I were Walsingham, that would have been something I would have asked.
I am no expert on Elizabethan period history, and have not read the above books mentioned on this site. I am grateful for each of your insights, both Claire’s and Mr. M. Currie’s. However, Claire, I think what Mr. Currie was trying to convey, which none of you have adequately answered in part or at all, was the presumption of non-forgery by Cecil et al trying to frame MQS, and also the presumption that Elizabeth I had any authority at all to allow mere Parliament et al to try another Queen. For the same reasons why the “divorce” trials against Catherine of Aragon’s were a sham right from the start, (Catherine also refused to acknowledge nor submit to an illegitimate court), MQS also did initially. Even if MQS lacked the intelligence to insist upon her “court’s” illegality as Aragon did, and caved in later to try and “defend” herself (not smart in an England full of anti-Catholic plotters by that time), it seems agreed upon historians and filmmakers alike that such a trial of another Queen, was highly illegal, or out of jurisdiction.
Further, there still lingers another presumption: that Henry VIII’s courts after Thomas Cranmer were themselves legal, because even at that time, Church Jurisdiction did (and still today does) overlap in many areas with Civil Jurisdiction. Cranmer’s bastardization of the ancient Rite of Mass, to introduce “innovations” such as the non-sacrificial nature of the Mass and the demotion of the Host in Communion, to become now merely a symbol or “commemoration”, among a long list of things contrary to Biblical Sacred Tradition (revealed as immutable by Christ Himself, no authority for any King or Laymen to change the original Form and Substance of the Holy Mass). It is perhaps only today, that many Anglicans / Episcopalians, are returning en masse to the One True Church, now that the former is ordaining lesbian bishops (merely stating the facts). This is not to say, that Catholics before Henry VIII were blameless either–it is quite true that they also blasphemed and refused to obey Scripture, tended to “lord over” others, and to side with abusive Monarchies even though 1 Sammuel shows God’s tremendous displeasure over Monarchies in general, which did not really get “remedied” until WW I.
The bigger picture is this: MQS was indeed a Queen, and QE1 was, for all her qualities and genius, one who herself knew that she had no real authority to condemn her cousin also a Queen. QE1 was also said to have anguished over this fact, concerned that she would be setting a precedent for Regicide. Why was MQS held prisoner for 19+ years in the first place, without QE1 having any real authority to do so? From that perspective, MQS could not be blamed, even if Cecil’s “evidence” was not a forgery.
It is readily apparent that both Catholics and Protestants of that period (same as today) have conspired to inflict unfair or unlawful “trials” upon one another, merely for “religious and political” gain. However, in the balance of things, the Catholic sides did have an important point (despite their grave and MANY sins), that Christ established only One True Church, and that church certainly wasn’t Protestant nor Anglican (with its so many innovations purporting their Monarch to be head of the Church…was and is today still blasphemy.) Christ did establish the Chair of St. Peter, and bequeathed the Holy Mass coming from the Father, not from men, did He not? So why do you people infighting amongst yourself not learn to reconcile, return to the One Church, and correct its abuses within, rather than continue to try being “separate” inventing your own religion, which in divine law has no real authority?
It is sad to reflect upon England and America today, which has inherited its anti-Catholic stance, embedded in their very legal and cultural / educational institutions, which is leading to global atheism and decline of Christianity itself, into more liberal Protestantized and Masonic forms, whereby there is no more Confessional, no more Holy Communion, no more valid / authentic Mass, and where no one is obliged to Atone to your brethren for sins, nor to pay the musicians / Sons of Asaph, seeing music now become like hand-clapping guitar Pentacostalism, even in so-called modern Catholic churches and Protestant “services” worldwide. No wonder no one attends anymore, as predicted in Scripture when all disobey these things. For failing to obey Commandments, God “raises Nations against” both Catholics and Protestants, when they should instead reunite and reconcile under the One Church. This won’t happen by Protestants trying to make Catholicism “more Protestant”. Sorry. Scripture does not allow compromises there. It can only happen when ALL stop lying with themselves, acknowledge the all sinned, atone to one another, and re-affirm the One Church together. That is, no more feel-good “services” or “Masses” where the Communion is merely a symbol, or where everyone gets away with murder.
If indeed, the Catholic Church was and still is the One Church Christ established, then MQS, for all her faults and stupidities, was indeed justified to want freedom, and even to seek the eventual removal of QE1 or conversion back to the True Faith. The Pope’s Excommunication of her gave legitimacy and moral obligation for all Catholics to fraternally correct, or even remove from office, those who would perpetrate only more division and suffering onto the world, in ways which led up to WW I & II (and perhaps III).
More serious is the question, was MQS’s “trial” legitimate in the first place. History,and QE1 herself, seem to agree, it wasn’t. Nor was her imprisonment for 19 yrs which directly led to it.
I cannot blame Protestants and Atheists for so hating the many hypocrisies and ignorance of most Catholics. I as a Catholic, have witnessed it myself, and share the same disgust at fellow Catholics. However, remember we each only have limited time / money to learn how the World came to be as it is now, and so we tend to act with ignorance, and limited perspective, due to our imperfections, even in this website. The bigger picture, ladies, is to stop scapegoating MQS for her stupidity and murderous intents (if Cecil’s wasn’t forged), and to stop presuming those Letters weren’t forged. Far better to admit you all, we all, were murderers of Christ, and those who fought for Christ.
May God forgive Henry VIII and Thomas Cranmer for the monstrosities they unleashed to this day onto the world. Their descendants (you) will have to do the atoning.
First, I’d like to say how much I enjoy your website and all of the effort that goes into producing it. Secondly, I’d like to say that I’m sorry to see the rude and disparaging remarks by Michael H. Currie. While I certainly understand his privilege to disagree, it is his ungentlemanly manner that surprises me. Two people can agree to disagree, and debate the issues, without getting into all the name calling. I think Mr Curry’s emotions have taken over his common sense. People are not impressed by an emotionally overwrought person on any subject. I know I am not. Again, I love the site and the information.
Thank you, that’s so kind of you to say, Diane. Mary, Queen of Scots is one of those characters that people get rather “heated” about, but you are right in saying that we can still be polite while debating and disagreeing. Thank you!
At the end of the day, all Mary Stuart needed to do was to sit tight, rule Scotland as a just queen and the throne of England would have come to her eventually. She didn’t feel she should have to do that; she felt that it should be hers immediately and because of this, events fell out in experience that brought about her repeatedly getting caught up in the web of others. She just did not exercise good judgment.
I do believe that she was set up for expediency’s sake to eliminate the focus of disaffected Catholics. It’s unfortunate that she had not developed the sense of survival and suspicion that Elizabeth did when Mary Tudor was queen to know when to move and when to keep still.
Hello Claire. I just recently discovered your website via Facebook. As an American with a rather new obsession with your history (particularly the Tudor monarchy), I find this site entertaining and invaluable. This love for English history started about 5-10 years ago by reading the historical faction books of authors such as Philipa Greggory and Susan Higginbotham. Through your website, I am now open to a whole host of books that may be more factually based. As far as Mary, QOS is concerned, I have always felt a bit of sympathy for her. I don’t necessarily doubt her guilt but I wonder if I wouldn’t have made some of the same choices had I been her.
Thanks again for all you do and the articles you write. You make it very easy for the layperson and make these folks come alive with your writing.
Thank you! That’s so kind of you to say.
Wow…what a long and interesting thread!!
I would firstly like to thank Claire for her continuous researching and providing all of us readers with further information to become more informed of our Tudor history.
Of course, we will never know exactly what happened as we were not there. It appears MICHAEL may have appeared from the past and is living now in this time. He seems very determined that he knows the truth.
Since history is about finding facts from different sources, one can not just follow one source.
I think it could have been a possibility that Mary Queen of Scots was drawn into this group to overthrow Queen Elizabeth. In those times it would not have been hard to frame someone and the people in this group would have benefitted greatly if Mary Queen of Scots had won her prize. Who knows Mary may have been pressured it to this arrangement, as it clearly shows Elizabeth was pressured into signing the execution papers for Mary.
MICHAEL, there is no need to RANT at Claire. It is very inappropriate & basically it is bullying! Claire provides her readers with excellent information every day and as a follower of hers, she has always shown both sides to a story. Her extensive research offers her viewers different sides to events and people of the Tudor time.
As I mentioned before, MICHAEL you can not just follow one source, or one person’s view on the subject. Was Lady A. Fraser living in Tudor times??
If anyone is trying to change history, it is people like you with a narrow mind, who only believes in one thing and does not look at the full picture!!