Abbreviated citations of printed primary and secondary materials identify the works listed in the Bibliography, where full references are given. For example, Cust (1903) refers to L. Cust, Notes on the Authentic Portraits of Mary Queen of Scots (London, 1903); Dawson (1986) refers to “Mary Queen of Scots, Lord Darnley and Anglo-Scottish Relations in 1565,” International History Review 8 (1986), pp. 1–24. Manuscripts are cited by the call numbers used in the relevant archive, record office or library. In citing manuscripts or rare books, the following abbreviations are used:
AN |
Archives Nationales, Paris |
BL |
British Library, London |
BNF |
Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris |
CP |
Cecil Papers, Hatfield House (available on microfilm at the BL and Folger Shakespeare Library) |
CUL |
Cambridge University Library |
FF |
Ancien Fonds Français |
Folger |
Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington, D.C. |
HEH |
Henry E. Huntington Library, San Marino, California |
Lambeth |
Lambeth Palace Library, London |
MS |
Manuscript |
NAF |
Nouvelles Acquisitions Français |
NAS |
National Archives of Scotland, Edinburgh |
NLS |
National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh |
PRO |
Public Record Office, Kew |
SP |
State Papers |
Note on dates: In giving dates, the old style has been retained, but the year is assumed to have begun on January 1 and not on Lady Day, the feast of the Annunciation (i.e., March 25), which was by custom the first day of the calendar year in France, Spain and Italy until 1582, in Scotland until 1600, and in England, Wales and Ireland until 1752.
Note on transcription: The spelling and orthography of primary sources in quotations are always given in modernized form. Modern punctuation and capitalization are provided where there is none in the original manuscript.
The most reliable English sources for Mary’s execution and its setting are those from Beale’s collected papers in BL, Additional (hereafter Add.) MS 48027, fos. 636–41, 642–58v. These include a copy of the official report of the earls and their assistants (fos. 649v–50). Robert Wingfield’s eyewitness report to Cecil is from Dack (1889), where authorship is discussed and the narrative printed from the Loseley Park MS. Other copies are BL, Lansdowne MS 51, fos. 99–102; Ellis (1824–46), 2nd series, vol. 3.
The fullest English descriptions of Mary’s clothes are from BL, Add. MS 48027, fos. 658r–v, and the eyewitness report of Edward Capell (Shrewsbury’s servant) at BL, Stowe MS 159, fos. 108–11. Beale’s ink and pencil drawing of the execution is now’recatalogued at BL, Add. MS 48196 C, and is printed by Cust (1903). Lambeth, Fairhurst MS 4267, fos. 21–32, is a full summary of the context and proceedings. Other material is from PRO, SP 53/21, nos. 9–10, 13, 16, 20; BL, Harleian MS 290; BL, Cotton (hereafter Cott.) MS, Caligula (hereafter Calig.) C.9; BL, Cott. MS, Titus C.7; the appendix to Nicolas (1823); Morris (1874); Collinson (1987a). Some of these documents are summarized in CSP Scotland (1898–1969), vol. 9. A version of the execution from a contemporary commonplace book kept by members of a family in Ledbury, Herefordshire, is Folger MS, E.a.1, fos. 21v–22.
The best contemporary French account is the “Vray Rapport,” written by one of Mary’s attendants and printed by Teulet (1862), vol. 4, which is essential for Mary’s dress. Also useful, but less accurate, as he was not present in the great hall, is the report of Bourgoing, Mary’s physician, printed by Chantelauze (1876). A French translation of Andrews’s account is printed by Labanoff (1839). The French ambassador’s report to Henry III is printed by Strickland (1844), vol. 2.
The key political documents are from Sadler State Papers (1809), vol. 1; Hamilton Papers (1890–92), vols. 1–2; Letters and Papers (1862–1932), vols. 17–18; Foreign Correspondence (1923). Valuable secondary accounts are Hay Fleming (1897), Bonner (1998), Merriman (2000). The best studies of Mary of Guise are by Marshall (1977) and Ritchie (2002).
Useful background works are Cameron (1998), Edington (1994), Wormald (1981 and 1985), Goodare (1999), Guy (1988), Elton (1977). More anecdotal, but still worth consulting, are Mignet (1852); Strickland (1888), vol. 1; Ruble (1891); Stoddart (1908). For the Guise family and their affinities, I have relied on Croze (1866), Romier (191314) and Carroll (1998). The notes in Lettres Inédites de Dianne de Poitiers (1866) fill in gaps. Standard accounts of France include Knecht (1994), Garrisson (1995), Potter (1995a).
The outstanding treatment of the Rough Wooings is Merriman (2000). Further detail, notably from French sources, is from Bonner (1998). The documents are from Letters and Papers (1862–1932), vols. 18–21; State Papers (1830–52), vol. 5; Foreign Correspondence (1923); Hamilton Papers (1890–92), vol. 2; Diurnal of Occurrents (1833); APS (1814–75), vol. 2; PCS, 1st series (1877–98), vol. 1. Hay Fleming (1897) is brief but to the point; Sanderson (1986) is essential for Beaton’s murder, and key documents are from State Papers, vol. 5; Letters and Papers, vol. 21, pt. 1. Bonner (1996) is definitive on the recovery of St. Andrews Castle. Ruble (1891), Stoddart (1908) and Bryce (1907) are useful for Mary’s departure for France. Somerset’s links to Cecil, and Cecil’s to Knox, under Edward VI are worked out from Revised CSPD, Edward VI (1992).
Mary’s character unfolds when her correspondence begins. Her letters, very few in number before 1553, increase rapidly thereafter. They are cited from the edition by Labanoff (1844); those for 1550 are from vols. 1 and 7. Letters written to Mary of Guise are taken from Foreign Correspondence (1925).
The organization and personnel of Mary’s household were worked out from the manuscripts in Paris: BNF, MS NAF 9175; BNF, MSS FF 7974, 11207, 25752.
Ruble (1891) and Stoddart (1908) remain useful, but Stoddart is garbled. Romier (1913–14) and Croze (1866) offer the best accounts of the Guises apart from Carroll (1998), who is definitive on their clientage. In the absence of recent works, Diane de Poitiers is followed in Lettres Inédites de Dianne de Poitiers (1866). Bryce (1907) discusses Mary’s voyage and reception. The Rouen fête is fully discussed by Merriman (2000). Bonner (1999a) offers much on Henry II’s policy in Scotland. The foiled plot to murder Mary and her mother’s return to Scotland are from CSPF, Edward VI (1861), Merriman (2000) and Ritchie (2002).
The Cardinal of Lorraine’s letters about Mary to her mother are taken from Labanoff (1844), vol. 1, and Foreign Correspondence (1925). The latter also contains the letters of Antoinette of Bourbon, Anne d’Este, Lady Parois and Mary’s administrative officials; a key letter from d’Oysel about the decision to end her minority is printed as appendix A. Mary’s own letters are from Labanoff (1844), vol. 1, apart from two letters in vol. 7, one to Antoinette and the other to Elizabeth I. The last is wrongly dated May 1566; the correct date is Nov. 1562, as is clear from internal evidence, not least the references to the Earl of Huntly’s death at the battle of Corrichie. Details of Mary’s officers are from BNF, MS NAF 9175. Further details about payments and the treasurer’s accounts are from Ruble (1891), while Stoddart (1908) fills in some gaps. Melville’s comment on Mary’s generosity is from his Memoirs (1827).
Mary’s holograph letter to Mary Tudor is PRO, SP 51/1, no. 7. Her health is worked out from Foreign Correspondence (1925), Turnbull (1845) and [British Medical Journal] (1968). “The sweat” or “quartan ague” is described by Caius (1552) and Thwaites, Taviner and Gant (1997). Her unexplained attacks are from PRO, SP 52/8, no. 76, and SP 52/10, no. 59. As to whether she really had porphyria, we can never know. Fraser (1969) resolves the issue with particular success. Mary’s ring is from Scarisbrick (1995).
Material on the resumption of war with Spain, Guise policy and the loss of Calais is derived from Croze (1866), Romier (1913–14), Carroll (1998) and Potter (1983). Mary’s betrothal to the dauphin is from Discours du Triumphe (1558), described more fully by Ruble.
Mary’s education is described by Ruble (1891) and Stoddart (1908), supplemented by Robertson (1863) and Durkan (1987). Her themes are edited by Montaiglon (1855). Further details are from Ambrogini (1520), Selve (1543), Fouquelin (1557), Amyot (1559). General background on the humanist curriculum is from Skinner (1978). Reports on Mary’s progress are printed in Foreign Correspondence (1925). Barwick (1901) discusses her copy of Ptolemy’s Geography, about which the Quaritch sale catalogue (1906) at HEH provides invaluable further information. A copy of the same edition as that owned by Mary is HEH 31230.
Mary’s letters are edited by Labanoff (1844), vol. 1, but the letter at pp. 5–8 belongs to the early months of 1556, not 1552 as stated (see also Stoddart, appendix B). A further letter is printed by Hay Fleming (1897), appendix A. Mary’s links to the Pléiade are summarized by Ruble and Stoddart, supplemented by Plattard (1947), Phillips (1964), Fraser (1969), Garrisson (1995), Davidson (2001).
Ruble discusses fashion and embroidery with lists of Mary’s clothes and accessories, but Swain (1986) is essential on embroidery and emblem books. The chalk drawings of Mary at nine and a half (from Musée Condé at Chantilly), at twelve or thirteen (from the library of the Ossolinski National Institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Wroclaw), and shortly before her first marriage (from BNF) are discussed (apart from the recently discovered Wroclaw drawing) by Cust (1903). Background is from Stoddart and Foreign Correspondence. Art historical information is from Joliet (1997).
Mary’s concern for discretion and the use of codes is from her letters, as is her supplying blanks to Mary of Guise. Her handwriting is discussed by Stoddart and Robertson, but the quotations are from Mary’s own letters. The emblem of the marigold is from Paradin (1557), with explanation by Swain. Examples of the use of her motto, anagram and impresa are taken from Barwick (1901) and Way (1859).
The accounts of Mary’s marriage, the processions and state banquet are based on Discours du Triumphe (1558) and the civic records of Paris, printed in Teulet (1862), vol. 1. An English translation of the Discours by Weber (1969) is seriously mangled. Ruble (1891), Stoddart (1908) and Strickland (1888), vol. 1, are useful, but garbled in different ways. Mary’s letter to her mother on her wedding day is printed in the appendix to Hay Fleming (1897). Phillips (1964) provides a full account of the panegyric literature and points up the differences of emphasis in France and Scotland.
The account of the Scottish commissioners and parliamentary proceedings is from Keith (1844–50), vol. 1, and Hay Fleming (1897) and Ritchie (2002). The marriage contract is from BNF, MS FF 4781. Copies of Mary’s deeds, dated April 4, concerning the marriage are from BNF, MS FF 6606, also printed in Labanoff (1844), vol. 1.
Merriman (1987) offers a summary of the Scots and English reactions to Guise dynastic policy. The documents are cited from CSPF, Elizabeth (1863–1950), vol. 1, CSP Scotland (1898–1969), vol. 1, and Mary’s letters in Labanoff, vol. 1. The account of Mary’s heraldic arms, from Throckmorton to Cecil, is taken from the dispersed portion of Cecil’s papers in BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10.
Further background on the Guises, French foreign policy, the treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis and the death of Henry II is derived from Croze (1866), Ruble (1891), Romier (1913–14), Knecht (1984), Garrisson (1995) and Carroll (1998).
The documents for the treaty of Upsettlington are from CSPF, Elizabeth, vol. 1. Reports on Mary’s health in the final months of Henry II’s reign are from CSPF, Elizabeth, vol. 1, and CSPS, Series 2 (1892–99), vol. 1.
The politics of Francis II’s reign and of the Guise ascendancy are badly covered by the literature, but sketches by Croze (1866), Knecht (1984 and 1989), Garrisson (1995) and Potter (1995a) provide an outline. Régnier de la Planche (1836) is full but undiscriminating. The outstanding treatment of the Guises in Normandy is Carroll (1998).
Attempts to characterize Mary by Stoddart (1908) and Strickland (1888), vol. 1, are anecdotal and of limited value. Ruble (1891) is better, since he read the important section of documents (the “series K”) from the Estado series in the Archivo General at Simancas, which were removed to Paris in 1810 on the orders of Napoleon. He consulted these documents at AN, where they were kept until returned to Simancas in 1941. Transcripts and (now illegible) photocopies are retained in the AN.
The events of 1558–60 in France, Scotland and England are worked out from the documents printed by Forbes (1741), vol. 1; CSPF, Elizabeth (1863–1950), vols. 1–3; CSP Scotland (1898–1969), vol. 1; Sadler State Papers (1809), vol. 1; Stevenson (1837); [Négociations] (1841); Diurnal of Occurrents (1833). Francis II’s coronation is worked out from Menin (1727 and 1775), with key MSS at Rheims from [Négociations] and Throckmorton’s dispatches from Forbes, vol. 1. Background for Francis II’s reign comes from Régnier de la Planche, vol. 1, and on his coronation from Jackson (1984).
William Cecil’s memos are taken from BL, Cott. MSS, Calig. B.9 and B.10; Lansdowne MS 4. French diplomacy over Scotland is from Teulet (1862), vols. 1–2, used in conjunction with CSPF, Elizabeth. Mary’s letters are from Labanoff, vol. 1. Dispatches of the Spanish or Venetian ambassadors, including reports of Mary’s health and Jane Dormer’s visit to the French court, are from CSPS, Series 2 (1862–1954), vol. 1; CSPV (1864–1947), vol. 7. Essential for establishing the political contexts, especially the revolt of the Lords of the Congregation, are Keith (1844–50), vol. 1; Read (1955); MacCaffrey (1969); Alford (1998a); Dawson (1989 and 2002). Marshall (1977) and Ritchie (2002) are useful on Mary of Guise.
Throckmorton’s later dispatches, notably his account of Mary’s deuil blanc portrait and his audiences, are from Forbes, vols. 1–2; CSPF, Elizabeth, vol. 3. The chalk drawing (BNF) and oil panel portrait (Royal Collection) are discussed by Cust (1903). Later dispatches about the ratification of the treaty of Edinburgh and related matters are from CSPF, Elizabeth, vols. 3–4, and BL, Add. MSS 35830–31. The ambassador’s playful aside is printed by Stevenson (1837), correctly attributed in CSPF, Elizabeth, vol. 3. The Cecil quotation is from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10.
The death of Francis II, the fall of the Guises and the ascendancy of Catherine de Medici are described by Croze (1866), Romier (1913–14), Garrisson (1995), Carroll (1998). On Mary’s conduct, Ruble (1891) is more useful than Stoddart (1908), but both accounts cross the line to the romantic. The notes in Hay Fleming (1897) are a valuable corrective, but Mary’s role (as opposed to that of her uncles) has never been properly established and must be pieced together from Chéruel (1858), her own letters in Labanoff (1844), vol. 1, and the diplomatic reports. The most accessible are from Teulet (1862), vol. 2; CSPF, Elizabeth (1863–1950), vols. 3–4; CSPV (1864–1947), vol. 7; CSPS, Series 2 (1862–1954), vol. 1. Catherine de Medici’s interventions are taken from [Negotiations] (1841). The meeting between Mary and Darnley, described by Strickland (1888), vol. 1, is fanciful.
The inventory of Mary’s jewels is BNF, MS FF 5898, and a sample account for her jointure is from BNF, MS FF 3335. The ordinance establishing it is in Teulet (1844), vol. 2, and its arrears have been studied by Greengrass (1987).
Mary’s audiences with Bedford and Throckmorton are described in the latter’s words in CSPF, Elizabeth, vol. 3, and Throckmorton’s later interviews in vol. 4. D’Oysel’s role in Mary’s household as dowager queen of France is noted by Throckmorton and described by Melville (1827).
The missions of Lesley and Lord James and their contexts are reconstructed from CSP Scotland (1898–1965), vol. 1; Rose (1905); and Hay Fleming. Rose prints Lord James’s letter to Mary from BL, Add. MS 32091. Events in Scotland, in particular the role and aspirations of Lord James and his allies, were established from PRO, SP 52/6, especially nos. 16–17, 21–22, 28, 35, 42. Mary’s letter to Maitland is SP 52/6, no. 45. Morton’s letter, memo and draft are from BL, Add. MSS 23108–9. Keith (1844–50), vol. 2, has extensive background, but is not completely reliable. Donaldson (1983) is precise, if impenetrable, on the factions in Scotland.
The accounts of Throckmorton’s final meetings with Mary and of d’Oysel’s mission are from CSPF, Elizabeth, vol. 4, and his correspondence with Cecil and Elizabeth is in BL, Add. MSS 35830–31. Cecil’s letter of July 14 is printed (not entirely accurately) in CSPF, Elizabeth. I am grateful to Dr. Stephen Alford for the reference to the manuscript and for a transcript.
Mary’s last weeks in France and the preparations for her voyage are worked out from CSPF, Elizabeth, vol. 4, and the extensive notes in Hay Fleming. The quotation from Castelnau’s Memoirs is translated from Castelnau (1838), also cited by Mignet (1852), vol. 1.
Mary’s arrival at Leith is from Diurnal (1833) and Hay Fleming (1897). Knox’s account is contradicted by the Diurnal, while that of Strickland (1888), vol. 1, is fanciful. The pageants for the triumphal entry are from Diurnal (1833); Robertson (1863); Keith (1844–50), vol. 2; supplemented by Randolph’s descriptions in BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10, and PRO, SP 52/6, no. 63, the latter supplying the full text of the verses. Knox’s version of his clash with Mary is from Knox (1949), vol. 2, complemented by Randolph’s report (which establishes the correct date) in BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10.
Accounts of Mary’s first Mass at Holyroodhouse and the subsequent proclamation are from Keith, vols. 2–3, and Hay Fleming. The summary of Knox’s political theory is from his own writings, especially those in [Knox] (1994). The best interpretation of Knox’s resistance theory is by Mason (1998a and 1998b). Mary’s progress is worked out from Hay Fleming and Randolph’s reports in BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10, and PRO, SP 52/6, no. 66. The vignettes of Buchanan and Randolph rely on Mason (2000), Phillips (1948–49) and Randolph’s own dispatches, in particular BL, Cott. MSS, Calig. B.9–10; SP 52/6, nos. 75, 79, 82, 89; NLS, Advocates MSS 1.2.2, 6.1.13, 31.2.19.
Mary’s letters are from Labanoff (1844), vol. 1, but more important for these months are documents arising from the debate on the treaty of Edinburgh: SP 52/6, nos. 58, 61–62, 73–74, 84, 86A, 88, 91. Other detail is from CSP Scotland (1898–1969), vol. 1.
The diplomacy of Lord James and his allies in advance of Mary’s return and their letters to Elizabeth and Cecil are from SP 52/6, nos. 52–53; BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10; Keith, vol. 3, appendix to book 2; [Haynes and Murdin] (1740–59), vol. 1; CSPF, Elizabeth (1863–1950), vol. 4; [Salisbury MSS] (1883–1976), vol. 1. Extracts from the Privy Council registers are printed by Keith, vol. 2. Mary’s letter commissioning Maitland for his visit to London is printed by Stevenson (1837), and the account of his proceedings by Pollen (1904), appendix 1. The diplomatic context, notably the position of the Guises, is established from BL, Add. MSS 35830–31; SP 52/7, nos. 4, 6, 15; Chéruel (1858); supplemented by Pollen. Cecil’s letter to Throckmorton is from CSPF, Elizabeth, vol. 4. Maitland’s revised assessment of Mary is from SP 52/6, no. 81.
Mary’s court at Holyroodhouse has been surprisingly neglected, but the gist can be pieced together from Randolph’s reports in PRO, SP 52/6–12, and BL, Cott. MSS, Calig. B.9–10, supplemented by the inventories printed by Robertson (1863). Also essential are Hay Fleming (1897), Durkan (1987) and Lynch (1990). Mary’s conversation in the garden at Holyroodhouse is from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10; her letter to the Duke of Guise is edited by Pollen (1904), which also includes Maitland’s account of his earlier diplomacy with Elizabeth at appendix 1.
Maitland’s request for the interview is SP 52/6, no. 88. The meeting is from SP 52/7, nos. 3–7, and Randolph’s reports in SP 52/7, nos. 2, 9–10, 15, 19, 25, 31, 36–37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 51, 53, 56, 58, 62. Additional reports are from BL, Cott. MSS, Calig. B.9–10. Mary’s letters are from SP 52/7, nos. 3–4, 6, 42, 88, and Pollen, appendix 9, rather than Labanoff, vol. 1. Elizabeth’s correspondence is from SP 52/6, no. 86A (also printed in Pollen, appendix 8); SP 52/7, nos. 7, 81, 84 (also printed in Pollen, appendix 11). Further detail is from CSP Scotland (1898–1969), vol. 1.
The exchanges of tokens and verses is from SP 52/7, nos. 7, 56, 58, 62. Mary’s verses are from the facsimile of the manuscript printed in Mary Stuart (English National Opera: London, 1998); the translation is my own. Maitland’s departure for London is from SP 52/7, no. 42, and Diurnal of Occurrents (1833). Background on the succession issue and the Wars of Religion is taken from Read (1955), MacCaffrey (1969), Levine (1973), Knecht (1989), Garrisson (1995), Carroll (1998) and Alford (1998a). The dispatches of Cecil and Throckmorton regarding the intervention in Normandy and consequent delay of the interview are from CSPF, Elizabeth (1863–1950), vols. 4–5, supplemented by BL, Add. MS 35831.
Cecil’s memos and the details of the interview and the decision to postpone it are from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10, and SP 52/7, no. 63. Sir Henry Sidney’s report of his audience with Mary is from SP 52/7, no. 65.
Mary’s progress to the northeast is largely based on Randolph’s reports, supplemented by the full account by Hay Fleming. Randolph’s reports are from SP 52/7, nos. 74, 76–77, 79, 82, 85, 86–87. A condensed “news” report is SP 52/7, no. 90.
The reports of the Privy Council’s deliberations on Elizabeth’s attack of smallpox are from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10; CSPS, Series 2 (1892–99), vol. 1; Keith (1844–50), vol. 2. Maitland’s own intelligence and subsequent diplomacy are from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10; SP 52/8, no. 1; and Keith, vol. 2. Randolph’s reports are from SP 52/8, nos. 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, and in particular his assessment of Mary dated Dec. 3, 1562, which is from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.9, printed in full by Stevenson (1837). Moray’s letter to Cecil is from SP 52/8, no. 11.
Maitland’s first and second instructions are printed in Labanoff (1844), vol. 1, and Keith (1844–50), vol. 2. His departure is recorded in Diurnal of Occurrents (1833). Cecil’s view of Elizabeth’s marriage is from a memo of 1572 in BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.3, and his parliamentary experiment of 1563 to find a constitutional mechanism to exclude Mary is from PRO, SP 12/28, no. 20, discussed by Guy (1988) and Alford (1998a). Sadler’s speech to Parliament is from [Proceedings in Parliament] (1981–95), vol. 1, also cited by Neale (1953–57), vol. 1.
The changed situation at Mary’s court is described in Randolph’s reports, especially PRO, SP 52/8, nos. 4, 6, 14, 16–17, 30, 31, 35–38, 42, 45–46, 52, 59, 67–68, 75; and BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10. Mary’s letters to the cardinal and the pope are printed by Labanoff, vol. 1, and Turnbull (1845).
The account of Maitland’s negotiations with de Quadra is pieced together from Hay Fleming (1897), CSPS, Series 2 (1892–99), vol. 1, and Maitland’s report in BL, Add. MS 32091. His fascinating report from Chenonceaux is from NLS, Advocates MS 6.1.13.
The rival diplomacies of Mary and the cardinal are taken from Labanoff, vol. 1; CSPS, Series 2, vol. 1; CSPF, Elizabeth (1863–1950), vol. 6; MacCaffrey (1969); Doran (1996). The account of du Croc’s mission is from Randolph’s reports, SP 52/8, nos. 36–38.
The clash with Knox is from his own account in Knox (1949), vol. 2. The Chastelard incident is from Randolph’s reports, SP 52/8, nos. 13–14, supplemented by Hay Fleming and Keith, vol. 2. The adultery of Mary’s French chaplain is from SP 52/8, no. 42.
Randolph’s conversations with Mary about the Duke of Guise and Elizabeth’s letter of condolence are from SP 52/8, nos. 17 and 30. Smith’s letter to Cecil is from CSPF, Elizabeth, vol. 6. Randolph’s new (Aug.) instructions are from SP 52/8, no. 53, and Keith, vol. 2. His account of his audience with Mary is from SP 52/8, no. 59. His further (Nov.) instructions are from SP 52/8, nos. 70–71, the documents where the respective contributions of Elizabeth and Cecil are made plain and the scorings out and alterations become crucial. A fair copy in Cecil’s hand, signed by Elizabeth, is in BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10. An unsatisfactory text maybe found in Keith, vol. 2. Mary’s comment on her uncle’s betrayal of her diplomacy is from SP 52/9, no. 69.
Reports of the gift of a jewel to Mary, her reaction to the English conditions for her marriage, and her illness in late 1563 and early 1564 are taken from Randolph’s dispatches in PRO, SP 52/8, nos. 75–76, 79; SP 52/9, nos. 1, 4–5, 11, 13, 15, 18–21, 22–24. The Shrovetide masque is from Robertson (1863) and Keith (1844–50), vol. 2. The scene in which Mary and the lords taunted Randolph is from SP 52/8, no. 79. Mary’s words quoted from Randolph’s letter to Elizabeth are from SP 52/9, no. 18.
Knox’s trial is from his own account in Knox (1949), vol. 2, and the aftermath as reported in SP 51/9, nos. 15, 22. The membership of the working Privy Council is deduced from CSP Scotland (1898–1969), vol. 2, and Keith (1844–50), vols. 2–3. Essential background on these advisers is provided by Donaldson (1983) and Goodare (1987).
The reforming ordinance for the Court of Session is from SP 52/9, no. 19. Kirkcaldy of Grange’s letter is from SP 52/9, no. 27(1). Further speculation on Darnley’s candidacy is from SP 52/8, no. 79; SP 52/9, nos. 15, 26; further evidence is from CSPS Scotland, vol. 2, and Knox (1949), vol. 2. Elizabeth’s earliest letter requesting Lennox’s recall is SP 52/8, no. 43. The most compelling recent accounts of Darnley’s release and its consequences are by Dawson (1986) and Adams (1987). Hay Fleming (1897) and MacCaffrey (1969) offer important background and references.
The key documents concerning Mary’s proposed marriage to Dudley and the meeting at Berwick are SP 52/9, nos. 22–24, 31, 34, 54, 57, 67, 69, 72, 75, 78–79. Cecil’s abstracts of these and other (in some cases now missing) documents are from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10. References to the events leading up to Dudley’s suit are from the notes to Hay Fleming. Mary’s incredulity at the initial suggestion is from SP 52/9, no. 24, which includes Moray’s joke.
Castelnau’s missions to Elizabeth and Mary are described in his own words in Castelnau (1838); further detail is from Chéruel (1858). Melville’s embassy to Elizabeth is described by himself in Melville (1827). Lennox’s reception and restoration are worked out from SP 52/9, nos. 52–53, 62, and the notes in BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.9. The presentation of Lennox’s jewel (possibly the Lennox Jewel) and other gifts is from SP 52/9, no. 62. Further detail on the jewel is from Way (1859). Cecil’s letter to Maitland and Moray after the Berwick meeting is SP 52/9, no. 78, to which their reply is no. 79.
Elizabeth’s note to Cecil of Sept. 23 is from PRO, SP 52/9, no. 48. The collapse of English policy is described by MacCaffrey (1969) and Dawson (1986), and the evidence of Cecil and Dudley’s role in Darnley’s release is from SP 52/10, nos. 15–16. Cecil’s report of a “device” is from Ellis (1824–46), 2nd series, vol. 2. Dudley’s “uncertain [i.e., double] dealing” is criticized by Randolph in NLS, Advocates MS 1.2.2. Throckmorton’s assessment of Mary is from CSPF, Elizabeth (1863–1950), vol. 3. Dawson makes an excellent case for Throckmorton as Darnley’s advocate, citing the postscript to SP 52/10, no. 31A.
Mary’s remarks at St. Andrews are from SP 52/10, no. 11. Several different sets of Cecil’s abstracts of Scottish papers are found in BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10, and the one in his own hand that includes the contents of his reply at Elizabeth’s request to Moray is also printed in Stevenson (1837). Raulet’s dismissal and Rizzio’s employment are from SP 52/9, no. 76, and SP 52/10, nos. 5, 22.
Darnley’s arrival, his reception by Mary, her game of billiards, her nursing of him during his sickness, the wedding and his proclamation as king are taken from Randolph’s reports, scattered among three different archives: BL, Cott. MSS, Calig. B.9–10; SP 52/10, nos. 16–17, 20, 22–23, 27–29, 31, 31A, 32, 35–37, 39, 39(1), 42–44, 46(1), 54–55, 55(1), 56, 59–61, 65, 73–75, 78, 83, 85; NLS, MS 3657. The NLS MS dispatch to Dudley is printed by Frescoln (1973–74) and is essential for Mary’s reaction to Elizabeth’s letter of March 5.
Randolph’s letter of March 31 to Sir Henry Sidney is from NLS, Advocates MS 1.2.2. Further abstracts of Randolph’s dispatches, some in Cecil’s hand, are from BL, Cott. MSS, Calig. B.9 and (especially) B.10, which include some documents not otherwise extant. One set from Calig. B.10 is printed by Stevenson (1837). Randolph’s report on Mary’s marriage from Cott. MS, Calig. B.9, is printed (partially only) in Ellis (182446), 1st series, vol. 2.
Melville’s account of Darnley’s arrival is from Melville (1827). The summary of Darnley’s symptoms at Stirling is from SP 52/10, nos. 32, 37(1), and the diagnosis of syphilis is based on the opinion of the medical expert who examined his reputed skull and thigh bone in the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons, printed by Armstrong Davison (1965), appendix A. Reports of Mary’s ill health are from SP 52/10, nos. 54, 59, which also illustrate Darnley’s bad behavior. Further detail is from the notes to Hay Fleming (1897) and Keith, vol. 2. The intimacy of Darnley and Rizzio is from SP 52/10, nos. 42, 59; Keith, vol. 2; Read (1955).
Elizabeth’s letter to Mary recalling Lennox and Darnley is SP 52/10, no. 70, but those to Lennox and Darnley are not extant. They are known from abstracts in BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10, and their recipients’ reactions as reported in Keith (1844–50), vol. 2. Throckmorton’s two sets of instructions are from SP 52/10, nos. 38, 41. His reports are from SP 52/10, nos. 46, 48, 52–53, 53(1).
Mary’s Spanish diplomacy is from Chéruel (1858). Her conversations with Castelnau are described by Castelnau (1838) and briefly summarized by Chéruel. Castelnau’s activities were noticed by Randolph in SP 52/10, no. 26. Mary’s letters are from Labanoff (1844), vol. 1, but unfortunately for these months they are entirely formal, often requests for diplomatic passports. Her retrospective memo on the Darnley marriage, in SP 52/11, no. 80, is unrevealing, although it does confirm that both Protestants and Catholics were behind it, leaving Moray and his allies on a limb (printed in Labanoff, vol. 1, and Turnbull [1845]).
Maitland’s love for Mary Fleming is from SP 52/9, nos. 47A, 62; SP 52/10, no. 53(1); Keith, vol. 2. The “Determination” of the Privy Council is from SP 52/10, no. 40. The minutes of the June 4 Privy Council meeting are from SP 52/10, nos. 62–63, and BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10. Thomworth’s two sets of instructions are from SP 52/10, no. 90, and SP 52/11, no. 1. Mary’s answer to Thomworth is from SP 52/11, nos. 9–10, and Keith, vols. 2–3. Mary’s offer to Elizabeth on the succession and other issues is from SP 52/11, nos. 11–13.
A useful breakdown of the noble factions at the time of the return of the Lennoxes is SP 52/10A. The report of Darnley looking at a map of Scotland is from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10. The letters of Moray, Argyll and Châtelherault to Cecil and Throckmorton are from SP 52/10, nos. 80, 80A, and their appeal to Elizabeth is documented by no. 81.
By far the best modern interpretations of the period before and shortly after the Darnley marriage, summarizing Mary’s political and religious aims and the rival factional alliances, are Dawson (1986) and Goodare (1987). Still invaluable are the notes to Hay Fleming and Keith, vol. 2.
Mary’s reassurances to the Protestants on her religious policy and her skillful use of propaganda against Moray and his allies are explained by Dawson (1986 and 2002), supported by Goodare (1987). Her letters and a few proclamations are from Labanoff (1844), vols. 1, 7. Other documents are from Keith (1844–50), vols. 2–3; CSP, Scotland (1898–1962), vol. 2. The notes to Hay Fleming (1897) are invaluable. The Palm Sunday incident is from PRO, SP 52/10, nos. 37A, 39(1), discussed by Lynch (1981) and Dawson (1986). The dispositions of the rebel forces are discussed by Hay Fleming and Dawson (2002). Moray’s appeal to Cecil through Robert Melville is SP 52/11, no. 41.
Cecil’s memo on Bothwell’s recall is from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10, printed by Stevenson (1837). Bothwell’s backstory is worked out from a wide range of primary sources. Schiern (1880) and Gore-Brown (1937) must be used with caution and have been avoided. Background is from CSP, Scotland, vols. 1–2; CSP, Borders (1894–96), vol. 1; CSPF, Elizabeth (1863–1950), vols. 1–7; Keith, vols. 1–2. Detail and quotations are from the original documents in BL, Cott. MSS, Calig. B.9–10; SP 52/7, nos. 32, 32A, 36, 77, 93; SP 52/8, nos. 4, 6, 14, 31, 38, 75, 79; SP 52/9, nos. 5–8, 15, 17, 27(1); SP 52/10, nos. 22, 27, 31, 31A, 39(1), 60; SP 52/11, nos. 45, 60, 63, 84; SP 59/9, fos. 13–14, 15–16, 17–18, 37–38, 73–74.
The recall and restoration of Lord Gordon is from SP 52/11, nos. 2, 60, 63; PCS, 1st series (1877–98), vol. 1; Diurnal of Occurrents (1833); and the notes to Hay Fleming. The Chase-about Raid is from Randolph’s reports in SP 52/11, nos. 20, 22, 24, 28–29, 35–36, 45, 49, 54, 59, 60, 63–65; PCS, 1st series, vol. 1; Hay Fleming; Dawson (2002). The minutes of the English Privy Council meetings of Sept. 24 and 29 are from SP 52/11, no. 52. Mary’s message for Elizabeth is taken from SP 52/11, no. 30 (English version is no. 31), quoted verbatim with Elizabeth’s reaction to it—in a dispatch from Paul de Foix, the resident French ambassador in London, to Catherine de Medici—in Teulet (1862), vol. 2. Châtelherault’s submission and the heralds’ proclamation summoning Moray and his allies are from Hay Fleming and the report in Diurnal of Occurrents.
Castelnau’s “Discourse” and his letters to Charles IX and Catherine de Medici, and to Paul de Foix, are from BNF, MS FF 15971. Many of these documents are printed, with some textual variants, in Teulet (1862), vol. 2. Chéruel (1858) offers a brief discussion. Castelnau (1838) is relevant from the standpoint of hindsight.
Darnley’s role, his relations with Rizzio, Yaxley and others, and his conspiratorial activities and pro-Catholic policy are pieced together from Randolph’s reports in BL, Cott. MSS, Calig. B.9–10; PRO, SP 52/10, nos. 42, 59; SP 52/11, nos. 44–45, 59–60, 65, 82–85, 84A, 93, 96, 101–3; SP 52/12, nos. 5, 6A, 9, 11, 17, 21. Several dispatches from Cott. MSS, Calig. B.9–10, are printed by Ellis (1824–46), 1st series, vol. 2; Stevenson (1837). A few are printed or summarized in Keith (1844–50), vol. 2, whereas Randolph to Dudley (Feb. 14, 1566) is now found only in Edinburgh as part of NLS, MS 3657. Bedford’s dispatches of Feb. 8 and 14, 1566, are printed by Stevenson. Drury’s dispatch of Feb. 16, 1566, is from Keith, vol. 2. Yaxley’s visit to Spain and Philip II’s reaction (including a series of documents printed from the archives at Simancas) are from Mignet (1852), vol. 1, and appendix E. Invaluable are Dawson (1986 and 2002) and Lynch (1981 and 1990).
Mary’s claim to be queen of England and switch to a Catholic policy after the arrival of her uncle’s agent is worked out from Randolph’s dispatches (as above), and in particular the rediscovered reports of Feb. 7 and 10, 1566, from Randolph to Throckmorton from NLS, Advocates MS, 1.2.2, nos. 39–40. Sir James Melville’s advice is from Melville (1827). Further background is from Keith, vol. 2; the best modern treatment of Mary’s so-called Catholic interlude is Goodare (1987), which also has an invaluable discussion of the origins of the Rizzio plot.
Bedford’s report of Mary’s attempt to lead Bothwell and Huntly by the hand is from Stevenson. Her ill health and pregnancy are from SP 52/11, nos. 85, 87, 93, 96; SP 52/12, no. 9; NLS, Advocates MS, 1.2.2, no. 39; BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10. The details of her marital breakdown are from the reports of Randolph and Bedford as indicated above.
Maitland’s smoking gun and recommendation for Robert Melville are from SP 52/12, nos. 10, 12. The plot is from Randolph’s dispatches (as above); those written jointly by Randolph and Bedford are from SP 52/12, nos. 26, 27, 28, 30. The bonds for the plot are from SP 52/12, nos. 28(1–2). Further background is from CSP Scotland (18981969), vol. 2; CSPF, Elizabeth (1863–1950), vols. 7–8; Hay Fleming (1897). The charge against Randolph and his dismissal from Scotland is from SP 52/12, nos. 17, 29.
There are six more or less independent accounts of the Rizzio plot and its aftermath: those by Mary, Ruthven, Randolph and Bedford, Sir James Melville, the Diurnal of Occurrents and Claude Nau. Some invaluable comments are from the slightly later chronicle known as the Historie and Life of King James the Sext. The notes to Hay Fleming (1897) are useful. Brief but important analysis is by Goodare (1987) and Dawson (2002).
The fullest and most valuable accounts are Ruthven’s and Mary’s. Ruthven’s narrative is in several manuscripts, of which the three most important are BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.9; Add. MS 48043; Lansdowne MS 9. Printed texts include Keith (1844–50), vol. 3, appendix to book II; and [Ruthven] (1891). I have used Keith and [Ruthven] and Add. MS 48043. Mary’s fuller account is from her letter of April 2, 1566, to James Beaton, Archbishop of Glasgow, in Labanoff (1844), vol. 1. Her angry and condensed comments to Elizabeth dated March 15 are from the same volume, as is her letter of early May to Anne d’Este.
Randolph and Bedford’s extensive report to Cecil of March 27 with a list of the names of the conspirators is from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10, printed in Ellis (1824–46), 1st series, vol. 2. A further report of the same date to Dudley and Cecil is from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.9. The chronology of the discharge of Parliament and the aftermath of the plot is from Diurnal of Occurrents (1833).
The accounts of the plot by Sir James Melville and Claude Nau, from Melville (1827) and [Nau] (1883), should be treated cautiously. Nau’s is retrospective and far from accurate. The Historie and Life of James the Sext links Maitland to the plot. I have used the manuscript in NAS, MS GD 1/371/3. A less satisfactory printed version is [James VI] (1825). There are three Italian reports relating to Rizzio in the Medicean Archives in Florence, printed in Labanoff, vol. 7, but their value is slight.
Other reports by Randolph and Bedford are from PRO, SP 52/12, nos. 33, 35, 36, 39, 40, 44, 47. Darnley’s declaration protesting his innocence is from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.9, printed in Ellis, 1st series, vol. 2. Morton’s and Ruthven’s letters to Cecil, Dudley and Throckmorton are from SP 52/12, nos. 41, 45; NLS, Advocates MS 22.2.18. Randolph’s report on the reconciliation of lords at the end of April is from SP 52/12, no. 51.
Castelnau’s role is documented by Castelnau (1838) and discussed by Chéruel (1858), with documents and extracts printed by Labanoff (1839) and Keith (1844–50), vol. 2. Bothwell’s political comeback and the tensions among the lords despite Mary’s efforts at reconciliation are from PRO, SP 52/12, nos. 49A, 51, 64, 68, 75, 89, 94A, 99; BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10, of which extracts are printed by Stevenson (1837).
The account of Mary’s deteriorating relationship with Darnley is from SP 52/12, nos. 47, 51, 61, 64, 65, 75, 77; BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10, where the story of the dog is found. The report of Bedford’s anonymous source is from SP 52/12, nos. 99A, 99A(l), extracts of which are printed by Hay Fleming (1897).
Mary’s pregnancy and delivery are from SP 52/12, nos. 71, 74, 75–76, with further detail from Armstrong Davison (1965) and Dawson (2002). Information about her will is from SP 52/12, nos. 68, 77. Her inventory, at NAS, is edited with sample facsimiles and introduction by Robertson (1863). Modern analysis is by Donaldson (1983).
Mary’s letter to Cecil rebuking him for his role in the Rokesby affair is SP 52/12, no. 106, printed in Labanoff (1844), vol. 7. Darnley’s plotting and letters to European rulers and the pope are from SP 52/12, no. 82; SP 52/13, no. 6; [Nau] (1883); CSP Scotland (1898–1969), vol. 2; Keith, vol. 2; Hay Fleming. The Rokesby affair is pieced together from SP 52/12, nos. 56, 61, 65, 70, 70(1), 71, 72, 75–76, 79, 81–82, 88, 92, 106.
Killigrew’s instructions are from SP 52/12, no. 72. His interviews with Mary and visits to Prince James are from SP 52/12, nos. 75–76, 80. His meeting with Moray is from SP 52/12, no. 77.
Mary’s visit to Alloa and hunting trips are described by Keith, vol. 2, where documentary extracts are given. Further detail is from SP 52/12, no. 99, and the notes to Hay Fleming. The removal of Prince James to Stirling and Mary’s reconciliation with Maitland are from SP 52/12, nos. 99A(1), 102–3, 105; Keith, vol. 2. Darnley’s arrival at the gates of Holyrood and the Privy Council proceedings with du Croc in attendance are from Keith, vol. 2.
The account of Mary’s planned Justice Ayre and the collapse of her health at Jedburgh and its aftermath is worked out from SP 52/12, nos. 108–9, 112; SP 59/12, fos. 52–145v, where the reports of Lord Scrope, Sir John Forster and the Earl of Bedford provide reliable information far the period between Aug. 9 and Dec. 11, 1566. Keith, vols. 2–3, is invaluable, especially the letters of du Croc and Lesley in the appendix to book 2 in vol. 3. Keith was unfortunately misled by the forged “Crawford” chronicle. This was an embellishment of the Historie of King James VI in [James VI] (1825), of which the earliest and possibly the most authentic manuscript is NAS, MS GD 1/371/3. The discussion in Armstrong Davison has the benefit of medical expertise.
Du Croc’s further reports from Jedburgh and Craigmillar, the latter essential for Mary’s mental depression, are from Teulet (1862), vol. 2, and Keith, vol. 1. Maitland’s insinuations to the Archbishop of Glasgow are from Hay Fleming. The lords’ view of the advantages of Mary’s rule is established by Lynch (1990).
The terms of the reconciliation between Mary and Elizabeth are pieced together from the following documents: (1) Mary’s letter to the English Privy Council of Nov. 18, 1566, from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10, and BL, Add. MS 48043, printed in Ellis (182446), 1st series, vol. 2, and Labanoff (1844), vol. 1. (2) Elizabeth’s instructions to Bedford dated Nov. 7 and her letter of the 9th from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.10, printed in Keith, vol. 2. (3) Mary’s letter to Elizabeth of Jan. 3, 1567, from SP 52/13, no. 1, printed in Labanoff (1844), vol. 1. (4) Mary’s “heads” of proposals for Bedford from SP 52/13, no. 5, printed in Keith, vol. 2. Melville’s instructions of Feb. 8, 1567, are not extant.
Darnley’s assassination is treated in literally thousands of books and articles. The most reliable sources are the manuscripts, chiefly PRO, SP 52, 53 and 59 (see below for document nos. or fos.), and BL, Cott. MSS, Calig. B.9–10 and Calig. C.1 and C.6. Classes SP 52 and 53 are based on those portions of Cecil’s original working archive now held in the PRO, from which the documents in the Cottonian MSS were extracted in the seventeenth century, ending up in the BL. Both SP 52 and 53 are artificial classes, carved out of Cecil’s archive by Victorian archivists.
Class SP 59 comprises the so-called Border Papers, the documents sent by Bedford and Drury from Berwick-upon-Tweed to London, but papers were indiscriminately pulled out to fill in gaps in SP 52 and SP 53. The Border Papers are only sketchily calendared in CSPF, Elizabeth (1863–1950), vols. 1–9, and thereafter in CSP Borders (1894–96). They are not included in CSP Scotland (1898–1969), which has caused massive confusion. When SP 52, 53 and 59 were put into their present arrangement, the original order of the documents was completely destroyed and papers were shamelessly moved around to shape the different classes.
Cecil’s further collections in the Cecil Papers (CP) at Hatfield House provide additional material (see also notes to chapters 25 and 26). Other portions of his archive are in the Lansdowne MSS at the BL, but these contain little of significance for Darnley’s murder. Other information is taken from Robert Beale’s collections on Mary, now BL, Add. MSS 48027, 48043 and 48049, and from NLS, Advocates MS 31.2.19.
Further printed primary sources are the Diurnal of Occurrents (1833), essential for dates; [Nau] (1883), which is far from reliable; Melville (1827); CSPS, Series 2 (189299), vol. 1; CSPV (1864–1947), vol. 7. Mary’s letters are from Labanoff (1844), vol. 1. Other printed collections are by Anderson (1727–28), vols. 1–4; Keith (1844–50), vols. 2–3 and the “Advertisement to the Reader” in vol. 1; Teulet (1859). Modern discussions include Henderson (1890), Peyster (1890), Hay Fleming (1897), Lang (1902), Mahon (1930), Turner (1934), Diggle (1960), Armstrong Davison (1965), Fraser (1969) and Villius (1985).
The plotting at Craigmillar is from Huntly and Argyll’s protestation in BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.1, as critiqued by Moray in the same volume, and printed in Keith, vol. 3, appendix to book 2, no. 16. The aftermath is from the Dumbarton declaration, printed in Strickland (1888), vol. 2, appendix 3, which exonerates Mary.
The baptism of Prince James is from SP 52/12, nos. 121–23, 126, 128–30, 132; SP 59/12, fos. 146–47; Diurnal of Occurrents; Melville (1827); Keith, vol. 2 and the “Advertisement” in vol. 1; Lynch (1990). Forster’s gibe at Bothwell is from SP 59/12, fo. 146.
The pardon of the Rizzio conspirators is from SP 52/12, no. 133; SP 52/13, no. 3; notes to Hay Fleming, and documentary appendix, pp. 502–4; see also Lynch (1990). Morton’s letter to Cecil is from SP 52/13, no. 4. Bedford’s to Cecil is from SP 52/13, no. 3. Du Croc’s account of Mary’s illness at Stirling is from Keith, “Advertisement” in vol. 1. The passage from the enlarged edition of Holinshed’s First and Second Volumes of Chronicles is from Holinshed (1587), vol. 2, p. 429 (BL copy, LR.400.b.23), where it is inserted into Morton’s 1581 confession.
The meeting at Whittingham Castle is from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.6, with other versions in BL, Add. MSS 48027 and 48049; printed by Calderwood (1842–49), vol. 3. Drury’s reports to Cecil between the baptism and the murder, including the report of Jan. 23, are from SP 52/12, fos. 146–210. His report on the links between Morton and Bothwell is SP 59/13, fos. 5–7.
Darnley’s syphilis is from Armstrong Davison (1965), appendix A. Mary’s offer to have sex with Darnley is from her own statements in genuine passages of the longest of the Casket Letters (the long Glasgow letter), cited from the handwritten transcript at SP 53/2, no. 65. For a full discussion of the provenance of the Casket Letters, see chapters 25 and 26.
Mary’s movements are from the Diurnal of Occurrents and Drury’s reports (the dates are close, if not exactly the same). Mary’s letter to the Archbishop of Glasgow, her ambassador in Paris, is from Keith, ‘Advertisement” in vol. 1. Her journey to Glasgow is from the Diurnal of Occurrents and the notes to Hay Fleming.
Detail on Kirk o’Field and its layout is from Mahon (1930); Anderson, vols. 1–2; Keith, vol. 2 (which is useful but very inaccurate); Robertson (1863). That it was Darnley’s decision to lodge there is proved by Mahon (1930). The location and movement of furniture and tapestries are from the inventories edited by Robertson, also discussed in his introduction. Darnley’s letter to Lennox and the background to the murder plot are from Mahon. Drury’s reports on the gunpowder transactions and explosion are from SP 52/12, especially fos. 192, 201–2, 207–10; see also Anderson, vols. 1–2.
The facts of Bastian’s marriage were established by Robertson (1863) and Hay Fleming (1897). Mary’s movements and the last hours at Kirk o’Field before the explosion are pieced together from CSPS, Series 2 (1892–99), vol. 1; CSPV (1864–1947), vol. 7; the first deposition of “French Paris”; the deposition of Thomas Nelson; and other confessions, especially that of John Hepburn. These are far from ideal sources. Paris’s first deposition is from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.9, and BL, Add. MS 48027, printed in Teulet (1859); Nelson’s deposition is from NLS, Advocates MS 31.2.19, printed by Anderson (1727–28), vol. 4, and Howell (1816), vol. 1. Others are printed by Anderson, vol. 2, and Howell, vol. 1. Mary’s remark to Paris is from [Nau] (1883).
The explosion and Darnley’s murder are worked out from Diurnal of Occurrents (1833); NAS, MS GD 1/371/3, printed unsatisfactorily in [James VI] (1825); and the reports of Moretta, Clernault and Drury. Moretta’s evidence is taken from Labanoff (1844), vol. 4, and CSPV, vol. 7, in the first case as reported by the Bishop of Mondovi, in the second by Giovanni Correr, which may explain the inconsistencies. Clernault’s report dated Feb. 16, 1567, is from PRO, SP 52/13, no. 13. Drury’s extensive and detailed reports, which also cover the placards and the night prowler, are from SP 59/12, fos. 192, 201–2, 207–10, 211, 222–25v, 235, 243–44, 245–46v; SP 59/13, fos. 5–7, 19–20, 31–34, 37–38v, 81–85v. The references to Andrew Ker of Fawdonside are from SP 59/13, fos. 84, 136. Drury’s colored drawing of Kirk o’Field and the events of the murder is PRO, MPF 366. Drury’s report on the links between Morton and Bothwell is SP 59/13, fos. 5–7, and Melville’s comment on Bothwell is from Melville (1827). For Shakespeare’s use of “pack,” see Titus Andronicus, IV.ii.155; Comedy of Errors, V.i.219; Much Ado, V.i.308.
Mahon (1930) is invaluable, but his theory that the explosion was a plot by Darnley to kill Mary is fanciful and unsupported by the evidence. His interpretation of Ker of Fawdonside is wrecked by failure to notice the reference (SP 59/13, fo. 136) to Ker as “a great carrier of intelligences and letters” for Bothwell. Ker also took Bothwell’s side at Carberry Hill before fleeing (SP 59/13, fo. 159). The depositions of the women in the cottages are from BL, Add. MS 33531, fos. 37–38, a volume of the papers kept by Alexander Hay, clerk of the Privy Council, that includes the “Book of Articles” and other documents shown to Cecil in 1568. The quotation about the women’s “blabbing” is from Buchanan (1571c).
Mary’s letter to her ambassador in Paris after the explosion is from Keith (1844–50), “Advertisement to the Reader” in vol. 1, and Labanoff (1844), vol. 2. Both editors date it Feb. 11, but Mary’s letter of the 18th shows that it was written on the 10th. Mary’s letter of the 18th is from Labanoff, vol. 2, and Stevenson (1837). Her move back to Edinburgh Castle and the proclamation are from Keith, vol. 2; PCS, 1st Series (1877–98), vol. 1; and Hay Fleming.
The Venetian report of Feb. 21 is from CSPV, vol. 7. De Silva collected suspicions about Mary’s role in CSPS, Series 2, vol. 1. The letter from her ambassador in Paris warning of the accusations against her is from Stevenson (1837) and Keith, “Advertisement” in vol. 1, dated March 11 by Stevenson and the 9th by Keith. The letter from Catherine de Medici and Charles IX is from SP 59/12, fos. 243–44. The letter from the Cardinal of Lorraine to Moray is from SP 59/13, fo. 84. Mary’s letter to the Duke of Nemours is from BNF, MS FF 3637. The Bishop of Mondovi’s letter is from Labanoff (1844), vol. 7.
Elizabeth’s letter to Mary is from SP 52/13, no. 17, printed by Labanoff, vol. 7.Killigrew’s report to Cecil is from SP 52/13, no. 19. Lennox’s letter to Cecil (dated March 9) is from SP 52/13, no. 21. Morton’s letter (dated March 10) is SP 52/13, no. 22, and letters from Moray and Maitland to Cecil (dated March 13) are from SP 52/13, nos. 25–26.
The essential facts are established by Tytler (1828–42), vol. 7; Hay Fleming (1897), especially the notes; Keith (1844–50), vol. 2; Donaldson (1983); Wormald (1985 and 1988); Dawson (2002). Beyond this, I have drawn extensively on the State Papers, Scotland (PRO, SP 52), and more importantly the originals of Drury’s handwritten reports in the Border Papers (PRO, SP 59). Hay Fleming cited the Border Papers only from the brief printed extracts in CSPF, Elizabeth (1863–1950), vol. 8, where a mass of relevant detail is omitted or garbled.
Mary’s letters to Lennox and the Bishop of Mondovi are from Labanoff (1844), vol. 2, where her marriage contract of May 14 is also printed. The key chronicles, which also record the bare facts of Darnley’s funeral, are Diurnal of Occurrents (1833) and the Historie and Life of King James the Sext in [James VI] (1825). The Diurnal is invaluable for establishing dates. I have used the original manuscript of the Historie in NAS, MS GD 1/371/3, where the earliest and fullest version of the text is given, confirming the facts of Mary’s abduction and the proximity of her and Bothwell’s bedrooms.
De Silva’s assessment of Mary is from CSPS, Series 2 (1892–99), vol. 1. Killigrew’s report of his dinner with the lords and audience with Mary is from SP 52/13, no. 19. Drury’s reports of Mary’s and Bothwell’s movements, including the archery contest, are from SP 59/12, fos. 198, 201–2, 207–10. Hostile public opinion and the placards, in particular the mermaid and the hare, are from SP 59/12, fos. 211, 222–25v, 235; SP 59/13, fos. 81–85v; the drawing itself is SP 52/13, no. 60. A rougher sketch is SP 52/13, no. 61. Mary’s interview with the minister of Dunfermline is from SP 59/12, fos. 243–44. Bothwell’s attack on Darnley’s ex-servant is from SP 59/13, fo. 85. The alignments of the lords before they assembled at Stirling, including Moray’s exile, are from SP 59/12, fos. 234, 235, 243–44; SP 59/13, fos. 55–56, 62–63v. Mary’s remark that Moray went away for debt is from SP 59/13, fo. 84. Her illness in late March is from SP 59/12, fos. 245–46v. Her gifts of clothes to Bothwell are from Robertson (1863) and the notes to Hay Fleming.
Bothwell’s military deployments are from SP 59/12, fos. 245–46v; SP 59/13, fos. 1920, 45–46. Morton’s interview with Mary and assurances to Bothwell are from SP 59/12, fos. 222–25v; SP 59/13, fos. 5–7. Lennox’s appeals to Mary, his request for Elizabeth’s intervention, and Bothwell’s trial are from SP 52/13, nos. 28–30; SP 59/12, fos. 243–44; SP 59/13, fos. 5–7, 8, 19–20, 31–34, 85v. The English Privy Council meeting is from SP 59/13, fos. 13–14. The report of Drury’s officer is extracted from SP 59/13, fos. 31–34, 92–93.
The meeting of Parliament, the Ainslie’s Tavern Bond, the soldiers’ mutiny and the defection of Bothwell’s allies are from SP 59/13, fos. 37–38v, 41–42v, 81–85v; SP 52/13, no. 33. Wormald (1985) settles the bond’s correct signatories from the Leven and Melville muniments. NLS, Advocates MS 22.2.18, fixes the most likely date but has additional signatories. Cecil’s mistaken version from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.1, is printed in Keith, vol. 2. Kirkcaldy’s report of Mary’s supposed infatuation is from SP 52/13, no. 35. His later reports are from SP 52/13, nos. 37, 40. Drury’s reports of the abduction and Bothwell’s divorce are from SP 59/13, fos. 45–46, 52–53, 62–63v, 64–65, 84v. Summaries of documents on Bothwell’s divorce are from Stevenson’s introduction to [Nau] (1833). Sir James Melville’s comment is from Melville (1827). His brother Robert’s report to Cecil, with an account of the lords’ assembly at Stirling, is from SP 52/13, no. 42. Drury’s report of the assembly is from SP 59/13, fos. 55–56, 64–65, 68–69; Kirkcaldy’s report is SP 52/13, no. 43.
The masque of boy actors at Stirling is from SP 59/13, fo. 88. Drury’s reports of Craig’s calling of the banns, his sermon and Bothwell’s reaction are from SP 59/13, fos. 88–89, 90, 91. Bothwell’s pardon is from NLS, Advocates MS 31.2.19. His creation as Duke of Orkney and the wedding are from SP 59/13, fos. 91, 94, 98, 99, 103. The account for Mary’s clothes is printed in the appendix to Hay Fleming. Du Croc’s account is from Teulet (1862), vol. 2.
The wide disparity of interpretations of the events in the weeks between Mary’s third marriage and her imprisonment in Lochleven are shown by Tytler (1828–42), vol. 7; Keith (1844–50), vol. 2; Strickland (1888), vols. 1–2; Hay Fleming (1897); Froude (1912), vol. 2; Fraser (1969); Wormald (1988). I have gone back to the archives to reconstruct an account based on PRO, SP 52; PRO, SP 59 (avoiding the inaccurate and often misdated summaries in CSPF, Elizabeth [1863–1950], vol. 8); Teulet (1862), vol. 2; Labanoff (1844), vol. 7; Stevenson (1837). Melville (1827) is essential but not always accurate, as are Diurnal of Occurrents (1833) and the Historie and Life of King James the Sext in [James VI] (1825), which I have cited from the manuscript NAS, MS GD 1/ 371/3.
Cecil’s and Throckmorton’s comments are from Alford (1998a); Elizabeth’s remarks on Grange are from Tytler (1828–42), vol. 7. The placard quoting Ovid is from MS GD 1/371/3 and Keith, vol. 2. Drury’s reports on Mary’s rows with Bothwell and her threat to kill herself are from SP 59/13, fos. 81 (correctly dated), 82 (incorrectly placed and misdated—it belongs after the marriage), 103 (correctly dated after the marriage), 114–15; du Croc’s report of May 18 to Catherine de Medici from Teulet, vol. 2 (reprinted in Labanoff, vol. 7); Melville (1827); Keith, vol. 2. Drury’s comments on Mary and the horse are from SP 59/13, fos. 82 (misdated), 103.
Mary and Bothwell’s keeping up appearances and the triumph are from SP 59/13, fos. 106–7, 108–9, 114–15. Her renewed bouts of sickness and the prophecies are from SP 59/13, fo. 104. Her harsh words about the lords are from SP 59/13, fo. 105. Bothwell’s ambition to be king is from SP 59/13, fo. 103. The views and dispositions of the lords are from SP 59/13, fos. 103, 105–6, 110–11, 112–13, 114–15, 134–35. The coining of Mary’s plate and the font at the mint are from SP 50/13, fos. 112–13, 114–15. Bothwell’s official acts are from SP 59/13, fos. 106–7, 112–13, 116; Keith, vol. 2. His letters to Elizabeth and Cecil are from SP 52/13, nos. 50–51.
The rival musters and events leading up to Carberry Hill are pieced together from SP 59/13, fos. 120–21, 134–35, 136, 140–41, 144–45, 146–47; SP 52/13, no. 65; Keith, vol. 2; Dawson (2002). The report of the captain of Inchkeith is from Teulet, vol. 2. The lords’ proclamations and act of “Secret Council” are from SP 52/13, nos. 64–67; Keith, vol. 2. Mary’s slanging match with the lords is from SP 59/13, fos. 140–41. The sacking of the mint is from SP 59/13, fos. 144–45.
The description of the battle of Carberry Hill is worked out from SP 59/13, fos. 157, 159, 165; SP 52/13, no. 64; the report of the captain of Inchkeith covering June 7–15; Melville (1827); Keith, vol. 2; and especially du Croc’s reports of June 17 to Charles IX and Catherine de Medici, printed in Teulet, vol. 2; Labanoff, vol. 7. The colored drawing of Mary’s surrender is PRO, MPF 366. Mary’s pregnancy is from SP 59/13, fos. 148–49. Her return to Edinburgh and committal to Lochleven are from SP 59/13, fos. 156–58; SP 52/13, no. 65, 69; du Croc to Catherine de Medici in Teulet, vol. 2; Diurnal of Occurrents; [James VI] (1825), cited from manuscript NAS, MS GD 1/371/3; [Nau] (1883); Keith, vol. 2. The warrant for Mary’s imprisonment is from the notes to Hay Fleming. Further insights into the lords’ mindset are from Stevenson (1837).
Mary’s instructions to the Bishop of Dunblane are from NAS, MS GD 1/371/3, fos. 277v–79v, and BL, Royal MS 18.B.6, fos. 242v–66, printed in Labanoff (1844), vol. 2, and Keith (1844–50), vol. 2. Her instructions to Melville were printed in Labanoff, vol. 2, and Keith, vol. 2, from what Keith calls a “shattered MS.” This usually relates to one of the Cottonian MSS burned in the fire of 1731, which damaged or destroyed a quarter of the collection. Keith first published in 1734, which makes this explanation likely. I have been unable in this case to track down the original MS, but as Keith’s transcript bears all the marks of authenticity, and Melville’s mission was independently reported by Drury, there is no reason to question the text. The spelling and orthography is modernized, and I have occasionally altered the word order or turned archaic Scots usages into modern English to make the transcripts comprehensible.
Since the copy of Mary’s letter to Elizabeth given to Melville as part of her explanation is lost, I have used her extracts from it, given to the Bishop of Ross and her commissioners in England in 1568, from BL, Cott. MS, Titus C.12, printed in Labanoff, vol. 2. Drury’s notes establishing the dates of the missions are from PRO, SP 59/13, fos. 114–15, 120–21.
Throckmorton’s dispatches to Bedford, Cecil and Elizabeth were mostly printed by Stevenson (1837). Others are from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.1, and from Keith (1844–50), vol. 2. Elizabeth’s letter to Mary is from SP 52/13, no. 80; her letter to the lords is from SP 52/13, no. 82. Her instructions to Throckmorton are from SP 52/13, nos. 81, 83. Cecil’s memo to Throckmorton is SP 52/14, no. 1. Elizabeth’s subsequent outrage is from PRO, SP 52/14, nos. 39A, 53A, 53B. Cecil’s jotting is at the foot of SP 52/14, no. 1. He cites “4 Regum,” meaning the fourth book of Kings, which today is known as 2 Chronicles. The story of Athalia is from 2 Chronicles 23:11–21 and 2 Kings 11:1–20. Knox’s sermon was reported by Throckmorton. The documents of demission and abdication that Mary signed are printed by Anderson (1727–28), vol. 2; Keith (1844–50), vol. 2. They are discussed by Hay Fleming (1897). The account of Lindsay’s behavior is from Melville (1827), [Nau] (1883) and Anderson, vols. 3–4. James’s coronation is from Throckmorton’s reports in Stevenson (1837); Diurnal of Occurrents (1833); [James VI] (1825); Keith, vol. 2; Hay Fleming. Elizabeth’s dressing down of Cecil is from SP 52/14, no. 53B.
Moray’s visit to Mary is from Throckmorton’s dispatch of August 20 from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.1, printed by Keith, vol. 2. The proclamation of the regency is from Diurnal of Occurrents and Keith, vol. 2. Mary’s pastimes at Lochleven are from Throckmorton’s dispatches and Drury’s reports to Cecil in PRO, SP 59/14. The evidence for Mary’s escape from Lochleven is confused and contradictory. My account is pieced together from [Nau] (1883); Diurnal of Occurrents; a report to Cosimo I from Labanoff, vol. 7; the Venetian ambassador’s report in CSPV (1864–1947), vol. 7; Tytler (1828–42), vol. 7; Keith (1844–50), vol. 2.
Mary’s mustering of her forces and the battle of Langside are from Cecil’s notes in BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.1, supported by the sources printed by Keith, vol. 2, which include Drury’s reports. Further detail is from Diurnal of Occurrents; [James VI] (1825); Tytler (1828–42), vol. 7; Teulet (1862), vol. 2; Dawson (2002). Mary’s flight to England is from Keith, vol. 2; [James VI] (1825); Ellis (1824–46), 1st series, vol. 2. Cecil’s memos, in particular that of late May (fos. 97–100v), are from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.1, printed by Anderson (1727–28), vol. 4. Mary’s letters are from Labanoff, vol. 2, and Strickland (1844), vol. 1. Cecil’s position is treated at length by Alford (1998). The sale of Mary’s pearls to Elizabeth is from SP 53/1, no. 46; BNF, MS FF 15971 (fo. 112); [Nau] (1883); Labanoff, vol. 7.
Bothwell’s escape is pieced together from Strickland (1844), vol. 1; Stevenson (1837); CSPF, Elizabeth (1863–1950), vol. 8. Schiern (1880), Peyster (1890) and Gore-Brown (1937) may be used with caution. Hay Fleming (1897) is accurate but brief. Strickland (1888), vol. 2, uses Danish sources, but her argument is biased toward Mary. Bothwell’s letter to Charles IX is from BNF, MS FF 15971 (fo. 168); Moray’s instructions to his envoy are from the same MS (fo. 84).
Bothwell’s “declaration” is from the Bannatyne Club edition, [Hepburn, J.] (1829). The translation is my own, but uses that by Strickland (1844), vol. 1, as a model. Other translations can be found in New Monthly Magazine 13, pp. 521–37, and Drummond (1975). My annotations adopt suggestions by Armstrong Davison (1965). Bothwell’s later years at Malmö and Dragsholm are from Schiern, Peyster and Gore-Brown. Captain Clark’s activities and reports to Cecil are from CSPF, Elizabeth (1863–1950), vols. 8–10. The report of the Confederate Lords’ ambassador about Bothwell’s communications with Mary is from PRO, SP 52/20, no. 5 (fos. 8–9).
There are two main versions of Bothwell’s deathbed “confession.” One was once apparently in Cecil’s papers, now in BL, Cott. MS, Titus C.7, edited by Strickland (1844), vol. 1; the other was said to be from “a merchant of good faith and reputation,” perhaps marketed as the equivalent of a “penny dreadful,” edited by Keith (1844–50), vol. 3.
Mary’s letter to her ambassador in Paris is from Labanoff (1844), vol. 4, and Keith, vol. 3. Mary’s protests about Elizabeth’s suppression of her full-length copy of the “confession” are from NLS, Advocates MS 22.2.18, no. 8; Keith, vol. 3.
The Countess of Lennox’s letter to Mary is from PRO, SP 53/10, no. 71. Mary’s inventory at Chartley in 1586 listing the prized piece of point tresse is from Labanoff (1844), vol. 7. Her letter of May 2, 1578, after the countess’s death, is from NLS, Advocates MS 22.2.18, no. 11, where no. 7 is the account of James Vi’s reaction to the “confession.” Biographical detail on James is from Croft (2003). Labanoff, vol. 5, and Keith, vol. 3, also printed Mary’s letter. The posthumous history of Bothwell’s corpse is from Gore-Brown and tourist offices at Malmö, Faarevejle and Dragsholm.
Buchanan’s life and political ideas are from [Buchanan] (1950), Burns (1992 and 1993) and Mason (2000). His dossier against Mary, in the version translated for Lennox into Lowland Scots as “An Information,” is from CUL, MS. Dd.3.66, edited with critical annotation by Mahon (1923). Moray’s communications to Elizabeth and Cecil contextualizing the dossier and the lords’ charges against Mary are taken from PRO, SP 52/15, nos. 39–41. The quotation about the incriminating “letters” is taken from no. 41.
Drury’s reports to Cecil on Lady Reres are from PRO, SP 59/13, fos. 84, 104. Modern works consulted were Henderson (1890), Read (1955), Diggle (1960), Armstrong Davison (1965), Donaldson (1969) and Villius (1985).
The casket documents are discussed from the handwritten transcripts as follows: The eight letters are numbered 1–8 after the numbers allocated by Henderson (1890). Transcripts previously unknown, and discussed in this book for the first time, are marked with an asterisk. Letter 1 (English): PRO, SP 53/2, no. 62 (fos. 134–35v). Letter 2 (English): SP 53/2, no. 65 (fos. 139–42v). Letter 3 (Scots): *BL, Add. MS 48027, fo. 276r–v (a transcript in Beale’s papers from Cecil’s copy, with copies of his annotations also at fo. 279v). Letter 3 (French): SP 53/2, no. 66 (fos. 143–44v). Letter 4 (French): CP 352/3. Letter 4 (English): CP 352/4. Letter 5 (English): *SP 53/2, no. 64 (fo. 138r–v). Letter 5 (French—transcript supplied by the Scots): SP 53/2, no. 63 (fos. 136–37v). Letter 6 (French): CP 352/1 (italic hand). Letter 6 (English): CP 352/2. Letters 7 and 8: no handwritten transcripts (texts derived from Scots printed versions in [Buchanan] (1572a), BL C.55.A.26). Handwritten transcripts of the alleged marriage contracts between Mary and Bothwell are from *BL, Add. MS 48027, fos. 277–79v; BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.1, fo. 271 (supplied by the Scots, and in the same hand as SP 53/2, no. 63). The sonnets are from CUL, MS Oo.7.47, discussed with a sample facsimile by Davidson (2001). The sonnets have been counted variously by historians as twelve, eleven, or as one long poem. The “twelfth” is only six lines long and is either an unfinished sonnet or a postscript to the others.
The reported discovery of alleged incriminating letters by Mary is from CSPS, Series 2 (1892–99), vol. 1; Keith (1844–50), vol. 2; Henderson (1890). Moray’s affidavit is from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.1, fo. 354; Morton’s declaration is from BL, Add. MS 32091, fo. 216 (printed by Henderson, appendix A). Cecil’s minute with his description of the casket is from SP 53/2, no. 60. The key Cecil memoranda of Dec. 14–15, about the collation of the casket documents and the handwriting test, are from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.1, fos. 355–58v.
The earlier stages of the proceedings at York and Westminster, including the severe criticisms leveled against the Scots delegation and the Casket Letters by the Duke of Norfolk and Earl of Sussex, are from PRO, SP 53/2, nos. 5–10, 14–22, 55–60; BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.1, fos. 227–358v; BL, Add. MS 33531, fos. 41–70; CP 4/41, 42–43, 49–51; CP 138/44–48, 70–73; CP 155/123, 125, 128–29, 130–31, 140–44; CP 156/1–3, 7; CP 198/127; printed in CSP Scotland (1898–1969), vol. 2; [Haynes and Murdin] (174059), vol. 1; [Salisbury MSS.] (1883–1976), vol. 1. The final and revised charges against Mary as presented to Elizabeth and Cecil by Moray in the Book of Articles are taken from BL, Add. MS. 33531, fos. 51–63.
The later proceedings at Westminster and Hampton Court are from CP 155/141–42, 143, 144; CP 156/1–2, 3, 5; BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.1, fos. 317–58v; SP 53/2, nos. 55, 60, 74, 78, 81. Elizabeth’s letter to Mary is from SP 53/2, no. 79. Knollys’s reports to Elizabeth are at CP 155/74; SP 53/2, no. 82; SP 53/3, no. 1. Mary’s letters are from Labanoff (1844), vol. 2, and Strickland (1844), vol. 1. Other documents from Cecil’s papers are from [Haynes and Murdin] (1740–59), vol. 1. Summaries of CP documents are in [Salisbury MSS.] (1883–1976), vol. 1, and of PRO and Cott. Calig. C.1 documents in CSP Scotland (1898–1969), vol. 2.
The relevant entries from Moray’s journal of Mary’s and Bothwell’s movements between January 21 and 30, 1567, are printed in Turner (1934), pp. 166–67. Lord Scrope’s original handwritten report of Bothwell’s journey to Liddesdale, describing his fight with the Elwoods when the Glasgow letters were alleged to have been received by him in Edinburgh, is from SP 59/12, fos. 175–76v.
None of the modern works is definitive, but those I found most helpful are Henderson (1890), Diggle (1960), Villius (1985). Armstrong Davison (1965), with his theory of the “other woman,” on which Fraser (1969) heavily relies, is too fanciful to take seriously. Information about “French Paris” and the “confessions” extorted from him at St. Andrews on August 9 and 10, 1569, is from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.1; BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.9; BL, Add. MS 48027; Teulet (1859); Teulet (1862), vol. 2; Robertson (1863); Mahon (1930); Donaldson (1.983). Cecil’s draft of Elizabeth’s letter to Moray demanding that Paris’s execution be deferred is from SP 52/16, no. 52.
Mary’s letters, including those sent to Castelnau, her uncle the Cardinal of Lorraine and her agent in Paris, are from Labanoff (1844), vols. 2–5 and 7. Those appealing to Catherine de Medici and Charles IX are from HEH, MSS HM 21712, 21716. Some are translated by Turnbull (1845), others by Strickland (1844), vol. 1, with a documentary appendix to vol. 2. HEH, MS HM 21712 was apparently unknown to Labanoff. Mary’s letter of Nov. 8, 1582, about her son is from a number printed by [Camden] (1624), p. 134f.
Mary’s domestic and household arrangements, including her attendants, clothes, diet and accounts, guards and surveillance, exercise, and the use of her coach after 1582, are put together from Lodge (1791), vol. 2; Robertson (1863); [Mary, Queen of Scots] (1867); Morris (1874); Leader (1880); Lang (1905); Collinson (1987a). Mary’s framed set of family miniatures is discussed byWay (1859) and listed in the inventories in Labanoff (1844), vol. 7. Way mistakes a single object for two separate ones.
Leader’s impressive study is by far the most detailed and invaluable for the years of Shrewsbury’s custody, printing in full the key documents from PRO, SP 53/3–13. Further information about the severity of Paulet’s regime is from Beale’s papers in BL, Add. MS 48027.
Knollys’s letters to Cecil are from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. B.9, printed by Strickland (1844), vol. 2. The account of Mary Seton’s “busking” is from fo. 345. Nicholas White’s description to Cecil of his interview with Mary is from CP 155/100–102, printed in [Haynes and Murdin] (1740–59), vol. 1.
Mary’s health is from SP 53/3, nos. 62, 80, 83, 88, 105; SP 53/4, nos. 4, 58, 59, 63; Morris (1874); Leader (1880); Armstrong Davison (1965). Her visits to Buxton are from Leader. Her needlework and use of animal templates are from Swain (1986) and Jones and Stallybrass (2000). Detail on her pets is from her letters; that on Bess of Hardwick, including the so-called scandal letter, from Lodge (1791), vol. 2; Strickland (1888), vol. 2; Chamberlin (1925); Girouard (1996). The Hardwick canvas and portrait miniatures of Mary are from Cust (1903) and Strong (1983).
Mary’s letters are from Labanoff (1844), vols. 3–7; some were translated by Turnbull (1845), others by Strickland (1844), vols. 1–2. Key extracts concerning Guise, Spanish and papal intrigue were collected and collated by Beale, whose summaries in BL, Add. MS 48049, offer an invaluable index to the passages found to be incriminating. For Walsingham’s role, see Read (1925b), vol. 2; Read (1960), vol. 2; Bossy (2001). On Mary’s European diplomacy, Chéruel (1858) is invaluable, as is Castelnau (1838). Events in Scotland and the diplomacy leading to Elizabeth’s recognition of James as king of Scots are worked out from Chéruel (1858); Read (1925b), vol. 2; Basing (1994); Croft (2003).
My account of the Ridolfi plot relies heavily on the outstanding account by Parker (2002). Further detail is from Edwards (1968), Alford (1998a), Lockie (1954), Beckett (2002). Mignet (1852), vol. 2, appendix L, documents Philip’s intentions and the advice he received.
Norfolk’s warning to Cecil is from PRO, SP 53/2, no. 19. His letters to Moray, of which the second was leaked, are from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.1, fos. 429, 434; NLS, Advocates MS 31.2.19, fos. 235, 245. Background on the marriage plot is from [Haynes and Murdin] (1740–59), vol. 1. Further extracts from Mary’s letters to Norfolk are from [Nau] (1883). The gift of the diamond is from Mary’s letter of Nov. 23, 1586, to Mendoza, printed in Labanoff (1844), vol. 6. Cecil’s letter to Shrewsbury of Sept. 5, 1571, is from Lambeth, MS 3197, fos. 33–36. Mary’s intercepted letter to her foreign supporters is from BL, Add. 48049, fos. 266–67, printed in Basing (1994).
Cecil’s visit to Chatsworth is from BL, Add. 48049, fo. 157; Read (1960). Knox’s advice is from PRO, SP 52/17, no. 3. Wilson’s role in the Detection is from Mahon (1923) and the annotations on the documents in SP 53; what I have called a proof copy is perhaps a pilot first edition issued to the Privy Council alone. The imitation Scots edition in its approved form is BL, G.1724(1), HEH 59850. According to its title page, the book was “translated out of the Latin which was written by G[eorge] B[uchanan].” But Buchanan complained about the “over-officiousness of my friends” who “precipitated the publication of what was yet unfit to see the light.” The editors had “altered many things and corrupted others according to their several humors.” Cecil was finally forced to concede that the book was “written” by Buchanan “not as of himself, nor in his name, but according to the instructio ns given him . . . by the lords of the Privy Council in Scotland.”
Cecil’s memo on the eve of the 1572 Parliament is from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.3, fos. 457–60. Speeches are from [Proceedings in Parliament] (1981–95), vol. 1; Neale (1953–57), vol. 1; Collinson (1987a). The use of Killigrew and Beale by Cecil and Walsingham was established by Taviner (2000). My account of Scottish politics relies on Chéruel (1858), with selected documents in [Haynes and Murdin] (1740–59), vol. 2. Beale’s missions to Sheffield are explained by Basing (1994), who prints material from BL, Add. MS 48049.
Walsingham’s recruitment of Feron is from Bossy (2001). Those of Mary’s letters ending up with Walsingham via the mole to which I refer are SP 53/13, no. 1, and BL, Harleian MS 1582, fos. 311–13. The Bond of Association is from PRO, SP 12/174/1–11, 14–18; BL, Add. MS 48027, fos. 248–51v. The bond and the Act for the Queen’s Safety are printed by Howell (1816), vol. 1, discussed by Neale (1953–57), vol. 2; Cressy (1982). Cecil’s drafts of the act and his plans for a quasi-republican regency council to exclude Mary from the succession are from CP 205/128; CP 210/17; PRO, SP 12/176/ 22, 28–30; HEH, Ellesmere MS 1192, discussed by Collinson (1987b and 1995) and Guy (1995). Debates are from [Proceedings in Parliament], vol. 2.
Mary’s letters are taken from Labanoff (1844), vols. 6–7; Tuarnbull (1845); Strickland (1844), vol. 2. Paulet’s letters to Walsingham and Cecil are from Morris (1874). The account of the Babington plot relies on the outstanding work of Pollen (1922), where most of the documents are edited. Bossy (2001) provides an invaluable brief overview, especially where the French embassy is concerned. Châteauneuf’s report to Henry III is from Turnbull (1845). Some background is taken from Read (1925b), vol. 3, and Read (1955), vol. 2. The key documents in the Babington plot are from PRO, SP 53/18, nos. 32–34, 38, 48, 51–56, 61; SP 53/19, nos. 9–12. The so-called gallows letter is SP 53/18, no. 53; the copy of the forged postscript is SP 53/18, no. 55, discussed by Read (1909).
Mary’s removal to Tixall, the confiscation of her papers and money, and the arrest of her secretaries are mainly from Morris (1874) and Chantelauze (1876). The independent account of d’Esneval, the French ambassador to Scotland, is printed in Morris. Scott (1905) offers a modern summary of Bourgoing’s narrative, which must be used with caution.
Mary’s return to Chartley is from Morris (1874) and Strickland (1844), vol. 2. The preparations for her trial are worked out from Ellis (1824–36), 1st series, vol. 3; Morris (1874); Read (1955), vol. 2.
The proceedings at Fotheringhay and in the Star Chamber are taken from BL, Add. MS, 48027, fos. 492–510, 540–54, 557v–68; BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.9, fos. 477–95; BL, Harleian MS 290; Howell (1816), vol. 1; [Salisbury MSS.] (1883–1976), vol. 3; Chantelauze (1876). Cecil’s preparatory drawing for the trial is from BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.9, fo. 635, printed by Dack (1889). Beale’s drawing of the actual events (which is not wholly accurate) is from BL, Add. MS 48196 C, art. 7 (formerly Add. MS 48027, fo. 569).
The Parliament of 1586 is from [Proceedings in Parliament] (1981–95), vol. 3, and Neale (1953–57), vol. 2. The battle for the wording of the petition is meticulously reconstructed by Heisch (1992); the key documents are HEH, Ellesmere MS 1191; BL, Add. 48027, fos. 651–53; BL, Cott. MS, Calig. C.9, fos. 664–65.
The account of the struggle over whether to assassinate Mary using the Bond of Association or to publicly execute her comes from Beale’s papers in BL, Add. 48027, fos. 636–41, 642–58v; Morris (1874); Nicolas (1823). Beale tells his story at BL, Add. 48027, fos. 639v–40, partly printed in Read (1925a). In reconstructing these events I have greatly benefited from Taviner (2000), a masterly account of the sending of the warrant.
The extant versions of the execution warrant and the covering letters to Shrewsbury and Kent are from BL, Add. MS 48027, fos. 643, 644, 645–64; Lambeth, Fairhurst MS. 4267, fos. 19–20; Sotheby’s sale, London, Dec. 16, 1996, lots 40, 42; Ellis (182446), 2nd series, vol. 3. The key documents for the dispatch of the warrant are from BL, Add. MS 48027, fos. 636–41; BL, Harleian MS 290; CP 164/9, printed in [Salisbury MSS.] (1883–1976), vol. 3; Nicolas (1823).
Mary’s health and her postmortems on her trial are from Morris (1874). There are two sources for the events on the night before the execution: one is Beale’s account in BL, Add. MS 48027, fos. 639v–41, 646v–49; the other is Bourgoing’s as printed in Chantelauze (1876). There are discrepancies between the two, which I have resolved as seems most likely. Scott (1905) adds useful detail, but gives too much credit to Blackwood and Jebb. Mary’s will and letter to Henry, Duke of Guise, are from Labanoff (1844), vol. 6, and Strickland (1844), vol. 2. Her last letter to Henry III is taken from NLS, Advocates MS 54.1.1.
The best candidate for the Latin book of hours or prayer book carried by Mary to the scaffold is HEH, MS 1200. This is an illuminated book of hours bound in crimson velvet with fine brass clasps. It was not made for Mary, but was sent as a gift to her by Pope Pius V while she was in captivity in England. A note at the front in James II’s handwriting (visible only under ultraviolet light) says, “This book belonged to Queen Mary of Scotland and she carried it at her death upon the scaffold.” The book was among the items purchased from the collections at the Scots College in Paris by Charles Mostyn shortly before the French Revolution, and was sold to Sir Gregory Osborne Page-Turner in or about 1822.
EPILOGUE
The proclamation for James I’s accession is from Larkin and Hughes (1973). Mary’s funeral is taken from the documents printed in Dack (1889) and Cust (1903). The monumental tombs at Westminster Abbey are described by Woodward (1997) and Walker (1998). Cecil’s memo of August 31, 1559, is taken from BL, Lansdowne MS 4, fos. 2627, printed as appendix 1 by Alford (1998a). Elizabeth’s views of monarchy and hereditary right are from BL, Add. MS 32091, fos. 168v–69. The quotations are from Dack (1889) and Camden (1630), the latter illuminatingly discussed by Collinson (1998a and 2003).