Mary Queen of Scots (32 page)

At Oxburgh Hall, Norfolk, on loan from the Victoria and Albert Museum, are three large hangings or curtains, two by Lady Shrewsbury and one by Mary. About ten by seven feet in size, the queen’s curtain is in green velvet with scrolls couched in gold and has appliqued on it some 37 canvas panels containing emblems rendered principally in cross-stitch with silk thread. On the center panel is an emblem with a hand holding a sickle descending from the sky to prune a vine and displaying the motto, Virtue Flourishes by Wounding. It is flanked by two trees, the left with Francis II’s and Mary’s monogram and the right with the Scottish royal arms. Some writers have claimed it predicted the removal of the unfruitful Elizabeth to make way for Mary, but as this is a traditional Christian design representing resignation to suffering, it was more likely a reference to her captivity.
¹

When in February on his way to Ireland, Nicholas White stopped at Tutbury, he observed the many colors of Mary’s embroidery thread, and noted that in her theoretical discussion about the relative merits of sewing, carving, and painting, she selected the latter as the most commendable. She was probably not clarifying her personal preference since there is little evidence in her records about painting but much about embroidering. Greatly impressed by her personally, White reported to Cecil, “She hath an alluring grace, a pretty Scottish accent, and a searching wit, clouded with mildness.” He warned Cecil to limit access to her, for “Fame might move some to relieve her, and glory joined to gain might stir others to adventure much for her side.”
²
Since he described her hair as black, it either darkened as she aged or her custom of wearing colored wigs misled him. As he counted 50 in her household, she had apparently persuaded Shrewsbury of the inadequacy of 30 servants.

When Cecil questioned the appropriateness of White’s visit, Shrewsbury defended it with the explanation that he and Knollys’s brother, Henry, who departed in March, were witnesses to their conversations. Shrewsbury’s role never ceased troubling him; while realizing he must guard her closely, he believed that in some sense he was her host and that it was important he not appear to be greatly limiting her activities. This diffidence ultimately raised suspicions that he had succumbed to her alluring charm. After he removed her to Wingfield on 16 April, the number visiting and living with her increased to 80, and she seems to have enjoyed more freedom there than at Tutbury.

THE NORFOLK COURTSHIP

In May Leslie journeyed to London to discuss Mary’s restitution with Elizabeth. While there he also consulted with some noblemen who favored the Stewart succession in England. Willing to support Mary’s marriage to Norfolk, they originally sought the downfall of Cecil, one of her most outspoken opponents, although they later abandoned that goal. The hostility to Cecil arose from the premise that his non-noble origin made him an upstart councilor, unlike Norfolk, whose nobility won him recognition as a natural leader. They favored Mary’s alliance with the duke because they viewed it as a step in securing Protestantism in Britain. Most of those involved, including Norfolk, were Protestants. Leslie recorded a meeting with Norfolk, Arundel, a Catholic and the father of Mary Fitzalan the duke’s first wife, Pembroke, and Leicester, who required that Queen Mary answer some questions before they could agree to advance her restitution. When Leslie forwarded them to her at Wingfield, she responded as follows: she pledged to refer her cause to Elizabeth to whom she would give surety concerning her good sister’s title to the crown and to substitute a league with England for the one with France. As to whether England’s religion would be imposed in Scotland, she cited her instructions to Leslie. Finally, she replied cautiously concerning the union with Norfolk, whom she had agreed to marry without having met him since he was the most eligible noble Englishman and would be able to assist in her restitution and in the recognition of her rights to the English crown. As marriage to him would displease her Catholic friends, she wondered what she would gain in return for losing their support, and she expressed reservations about both Elizabeth’s attitude and Norfolk’s well-being, recalling her second husband’s fate. After eliciting positive responses to the marriage from John, Lord Lumley, and Throckmorton, the optimistic Leslie even began to hope that Cecil might support it.

With these discussions underway, Mary turned to Scotland’s leaders for assistance. In July at Perth, Boyd introduced two of her requests at a convention. The estates subsequently denied her petition to share equally with James in Scotland’s governance and rejected her plea for a divorce from Orkney. They also condemned her letter proposing the divorce, since she styled herself in it as queen. At the meeting, Lethington argued for the divorce while Makgill spoke vociferously against it.

In England Norfolk continued to pursue his marriage plans without informing Elizabeth, although she had heard rumors about them. When Leicester admitted to her in September that Norfolk hoped to wed Mary and to obtain the recognition of her succession rights, which had gained momentum from Catherine Grey’s recent death, Elizabeth angrily chastised the duke about his intentions. Suspecting that Mary had drawn Shrewsbury into this conspiracy, Elizabeth instructed two noblemen: the earl of Huntington, a Yorkist claimant to the throne by virtue of his descent from Margaret Pole, countess of Salisbury, and Walter Devereux, Viscount Hereford, to assist Shrewsbury in preventing his prisoner’s escape.

After they returned her on 21 September to Tutbury, a more defensible structure than Wingfield, Elizabeth considered appointing Huntington as Mary’s sole guardian but finally decided to associate him with Shrewsbury as joint custodian. She demanded her prisoner’s close confinement, the reduction of her household to 30, and, too late, a search of her chambers for evidence to implicate her in the Norfolk conspiracy. Before leaving Wingfield, Mary had instructed her attendants to burn many of her documents. Despite the surveillance, she managed to send letters out secretly, some to de la Mothe Fénélon, complaining about her circumstances and asking for assistance, a plea that led Charles to protest to Elizabeth about her harsh treatment.

Before Mary’s transfer to Tutbury, Norfolk left court without Elizabeth’s permission for Kenninghall, his principal seat. Suspecting he planned to rally support for the marriage, Elizabeth recalled him, alerted Shrewsbury of the possible danger his absence posed, and on the duke’s return ordered him incarcerated in the Tower on 11 October. She also retained Pembroke, Arundel, and Lumley at court and placed Throckmorton in detention but permitted Leicester to remain at liberty, perhaps because he confirmed the marriage rumors to her.

In November Norfolk’s Catholic allies in the North, Westmorland, the husband of his sister, Jane Howard, and Northumberland became restless about the delays in arranging Mary’s marriage and in ratifying her English rights. Leslie, Norfolk, and Mary warned the earls against taking action, perhaps fearing for her safety if a rebellion to release her occurred without adequate armed support. When Elizabeth summoned them to court, nevertheless, they rang the bells backward at Topcliffe, Yorkshire, gathered a large force for a rebellion, later called the Northern Rising, and raised a banner depicting Christ’s five wounds, a traditional Catholic symbol. On 14 November at Durham Cathedral, they destroyed the prayer books and heard mass before moving south to Tadcaster. Shrewsbury reassured Cecil on the 21st that having learned the rebels were 54 miles away, he had increased his guard from 40 to 100 men, although the earls had probably already decided they could not successfully storm his castle. Their destructive behavior at Durham and their banner signaling their rebellion, sometimes identified as the last feudal outburst against the Tudor monarchy, were protests against the supremacy of the Protestant faith in England, as legislated by Elizabeth and her parliaments. In short, the earls’ rising was more a reaction to the decline of their local power in the conservative catholic North than to the unresolved succession issue.

On the 25th Mary was transferred to the walled city of Coventry and housed first at Bull Inn and then at a private home near St Michael’s Church. Meanwhile, the rebels declined to push further southward and in December their forces dispersed. As the two northern earls fled to Scotland, English troops invaded that realm the next spring, destroying many villages and laying waste the Borders. Westmorland escaped abroad, but the Scots captured Northumberland and returned him to England, where he was tried for treason, convicted, and beheaded. Mary had great sympathy for the conspirators. Upon hearing a premature rumor in June 1569 about the capture of Northumberland to whom she had sent a ring, she wept so deeply that her face was swollen for three days, and following his flight to Scotland, Mary authorized relief payments to Anne, his countess, and his allies.
³

After returning Mary to Tutbury in early January 1570, Shrewsbury was relieved to learn that Elizabeth had decided to restore him as her sole custodian. It was not that Shrewsbury relished serving as Mary’s jailor but that he feared the besmirching of his honor if Elizabeth determined he was inadequately fulfilling his duties. Even at Tutbury he continued to feel uneasy about Mary’s activities, believing correctly that various plans were afoot to free her. Wearing Norfolk’s diamond ring about her neck, Mary corresponded secretly with him about their marriage and her liberation.
⁴

When Elizabeth learned that Hamilton of Bothwellhaugh had assassinated Moray on 23 January 1570, she ordered Leslie restricted to the bishop of London’s palace on general grounds of suspicion. During questioning he denied having dealings with her northern rebels and disputed the claim that the book he recently had published defending Mary’s honor and supporting her English succession rights, was injurious to Elizabeth’s estate. Mary protested Leslie’s detention because as her ambassador at the English court, she believed he should be immune from arrest. She also assured Archbishop Beaton she did not know in advance about her brother’s murder but planned to grant a pension to his assassin.

Following Leslie’s release, he joined her at Chatsworth in June, where Shrewsbury had transferred her at the end of May partly because of Tutbury’s coldness and dampness and partly because of the scarcity in the surrounding area of provisions, such as fuel. Chatsworth, where Shrewsbury housed Mary until 13 June when they departed for Wingfield, was a spacious house with footpaths within its walls where she could exercise. She complained to Leslie that she feared her enemies might persuade Elizabeth to replace Shrewsbury about whose strictness she had otherwise been complaining with a Puritan, especially Huntington, who might inflict personal injury on her, perhaps even poison her. She viewed Huntington as her main threat because of his Yorkist claims. When Leslie departed for London, he carried letters for her to numerous correspondents.

In February 1570 Pius V excommunicated Elizabeth, hoping to encourage English Catholics to make greater efforts to liberate Mary. Despite the issuance of the bull, Regnans in excelsis, Elizabeth continued to explore the possibility of Mary’s restitution but only under certain conditions: she must not wed anyone other than a native Scotsman without Elizabeth’s permission, must ratify the Treaty of Edinburgh, and agree not to challenge Elizabeth’s or her heirs’ rights to the throne. In addition, Mary must conclude a league with Elizabeth that was guaranteed by Scottish hostages, the cessation to her, until her rebels were returned, of Dumbarton and Hume Castles, and the removal of the almost four-year-old James to England. Finally, Mary must maintain Protestantism in Scotland and keep the king’s party in office.
⁵

Mary deplored these stipulations, especially the one requiring her son’s removal to England about which she even communicated with her still hostile mother-in-law, Lady Lennox. She may have been concerned that, as she was later warned in 1574, if the English obtained both her and her son, the Stewart dynasty might be doomed to extinction. Mary also protested surrendering the two strongholds to Elizabeth, but after receiving Leslie’s and Lethington’s advice to agree to these demands, she reluctantly accepted them. Lethington pressed her to gain her freedom even if it meant conceding harsh conditions because he believed that her life was in danger as long as she remained a prisoner.

Mary had continued considering various escape schemes and communicating in cipher with Norfolk. In January 1570 she assured him of her constancy, pointing out that “Our fault were not shameful; you have promised to be mine, and I yours;...As you please, command me, for I will, for all the world, follow your commands.” Her concerns about the conditions Elizabeth demanded before agreeing to her restitution prompted Mary in April to ask Norfolk to aid her forces in Scotland.
⁶
After she requested Charles IX to send troops to liberate her, he dispatched Monsieur de Poigny to Elizabeth and to Mary, calling for her restitution. When Poigny departed from Mary, he, too, carried various letters to her correspondents.

In August while negotiations for Mary’s restitution were underway, Elizabeth instructed Shrewsbury to permit her to ride abroad and exercise for her health and freed Norfolk when he agreed to abandon the Scottish marriage. Noting that Charles, Catherine, and sundry princes had requested she arrange Mary’s return to Scotland, Elizabeth decided to dispatch Cecil and Mildmay to Chatsworth in October to confer with Mary about the treaty. Scottish commissioners, among them Morton, arrived in England in early 1571 to consult with Mary’s agents, Livingston, Leslie, and Alexander Gordon, bishop of Galloway.

At the outset of these discussions, which were terminated in March after Elizabeth discovered that the Scottish commissioners lacked authority to change the king’s status, Mary promised to reject the Norfolk marriage and to cease seeking aid for her liberation from her friends abroad. Nevertheless, suspicious of Elizabeth’s intentions, partly because of the inquiry’s unfavorable results and the treaty’s delay, Mary kept her options open and authorized Lord Seton to seek Alva’s assistance in June. Confirming her suspicions, Lethington warned Mary in August that Elizabeth did not intend to enter into any accord with her. Mary also urged Archbishop Beaton to propose a French invasion of Scotland, but after learning that Elizabeth was considering marrying Henry, duke of Anjou, Mary decided that her best hope for assistance lay with Spain.