Ruminations on Mary, Queen of Scots (longish)

A place to share ideas, concerns, questions, and thoughts about women and the martial arts.

Moderator: Available

Post Reply
Hugh
Posts: 595
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Virginia

Ruminations on Mary, Queen of Scots (longish)

Post by Hugh »

I originally posted this in John Thurston's History of Western Martial Arts forum, where I normally post, but Lori asked me to post it here as she thought that it might be of interest. I would normally be reluctant to post in such a forum, for obvious reasons, but, since I was invited......

Things were quiet here, so I thought that I would carry over a posting that I made yesterday over on NetSword's "Religion and Politics of the Middle Ages" forum.
I watched a tv show on her yestere'en that crystalized some thoughts that I have had on her unfortunate life. Once she came back to Scotland from France, her life was pretty much her own to do with as she wished, she was no longer going to be wed off to some foreign king or prince for alliance or dynastic reasons, she could make her own choices, as her cousin Elizabeth of England was doing. She unfortunately chose a bullying wastrel for a husband, Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley, a Catholic, which marriage provoked a Protestant rebellion that Mary had to lead an army out to put down. Just about the only thing that he got right was the he begot an heir on her, and even that worked out to her disadvantage. Once he was married to her, Darnley started to whore around Edinburgh and made no attempt to hide it. He became increasingly violent to his paramours and abusive to Mary, who went into seclusion at the palace, avoiding him as much as possible, keeping company with her ladies and her Italian secretary, David Rizzio. At the urging of several Protestant lords, Darnley became convinced that Rizzio was somehow stealing Mary from him and stormed into the palace and killed him. This resulted in Mary's being even more frightened of him, driving them even farther apart. She turned for protection and support to the Earl of Bothwell, who is thought to have arranged the murder of Darnley by blowing up the house in which he was recuperating from an illness and then strangling him when he survived the explosion. Mary was forced to bring Bothwell to trial, but he was found "Not Guilty" in what was an obvious set-up and he then divorced his wife and married Mary in a Protestant ceremony. This was just too much for the Scots. After a short rebellion, Mary was captured and forced to abdicate in favor of her infant son, James VI (later I of England). She eventually escaped her captors and fled to her cousin in England. BIG MISTAKE!
I pause here to make a couple of observations. The first is that I have read some theories setting forth that Elizabeth, through her spymaster, Sir Francis Walsingham, set up theis whole thing; the Darnley marriage, the Rizzio murder, the Darnley murder, the rebellion overthrowing Mary, etc. This ignores Elizabeth's innate horror at overthrowing a monarch, given that she was none too secure on her throne. It also ignores the fact that Scots politics didn't need Elizabeth's tinkering. What with Mary's own intransigence and stupidity and the growing intolerance and power of John Knox's Calvinists in Scotland, it seems inevitable that Mary, a devout Roman Catholic, was bound to come a cropper all on her own.

Once Mary got to England, she immediately became a focus for any and all Roman Catholic plots to overthrow Elizabeth and to reinstitute Catholicism in England. Is it any wonder, then, that Elizabeth held her under house arrest for eighteen years? And, given that the plots became more and more severe as the years went on, held her under more severe conditions? Given that Mary was bound to chafe at this, is it any wonder that she should eventually have been caught being involved in one of these plots? Shortly after the Pope had declared Mary the only legitimate Queen of England, Mary was drawn into a plot by her page, Anthony Babington, that included the assassination of Elizabeth. Walsingham, who had been carefully watching all of this, caught up all of the plotters and got hold of the letter with Mary's signature. This was enough for Elizabeth to have her brought to trial before the House of Lords, who convicted her of treason for it and recommended death by beheading. This was on 25 October 1586, but it was not until 1 February 1587 that Elizabeth had her executed. It took Elizabeth that long to make up her mind that it was necessary. When she signed the order, Cecil Howard, Lord Burghley gave it to a rider on the fastest horse in London to deliver it to the castle where Mary was being held with his own orders that the sentence be carried out immediately. It was so done. Burghley knew, and he was right, that Elizabeth would try to countermand the order. By the time the messenger arrived with the countermanding order, it was too late, I am unaware of what price Burghley paid for that, but I am certain that he paid a price, knowing Elizabeth's reputation for anger.

Again, it seems to me that Mary's decisions forced on Elizabeth the actions that resulted in her beheading. I do not see Elizabeth as a ghoulish manipulator sending her poor, innocent cousin to the block as I have seen set forth in some theories. It seems to me that Elizabeth was trying to avoid dealing with Mary as well as trying to survive herself, but when the two came into conflict, she chose her own survival.

While this is not strictly military history, I find this period fascinating and I wonder if anyone would like to comment on my thoughts.

I have had little feedback from men on this, which disappoints me, but I would welcome any comments on these fascinating women.

------------------
Walk in the Light, Hugh
hughf_us@yahoo.com
Post Reply

Return to “Women and the Martial Arts”