Mary Queen Of Scots And The Murder Of Lord Darnley (2004) - Plot & Excerpts
"En Ma Fingit Mon CommencementIn my end is my BeginningMary had this saying embroidered on her cloth of estate while in prison in England.Mary was 6 days old when her father died and she was crowned Queen of the Scots. At age 15 she married Francis, dauphin of France, and he ascended the throne a year later. Just when events seemed to be going in Mary's favor Francis died after only 18 months as King. Mary was not that welcome in France due to fears she would make a play for the throne. She returned to Scotland to assume her birthright as Queen. Mary was the ultimate bachelorette. She launched a assiduous search across all of Europe searching for a suitable candidate. She tried several alliances, all of which fell through for various reasons. In the end she was left with Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, and as discombobulated as she felt her life was before, it was about to take a severe turn for the worse. Darnley on the surface seemed the perfect catch. He was tall, handsome, debonair, young man of culture and good breeding. A man not that far removed from having his own claim for the throne. He pressed Mary hard from the beginning to grant him crown matrimonial that would allow him to ascend to the throne of Scotland in the event of Mary's death without issue. Mary was already starting to see cracks in the veneer of her relationship with Darnley. He was not well liked. He was vindictive, arrogant, vain, violent, and immature and all of those unlikable qualities were magnified by a drinking problem. Mary, though fairly innocent politically, understood the danger of granting Darnley what he wanted and kept coming up with reasons to delay. Rumors were soon circulating that Darnley was not only being unfaithful (lock up your wives, daughters, sisters, grandmothers and great grandmothers when Darnley was in the neighborhood), but also plotting treason. After their son James was born Mary did try to repair her relationship with Darnley. She wanted Elizabeth, Queen of England, to recognize her as her heir. To reduce the controversy already swirling around her reign she decided that she needed to make things work with Darnley.All that fornicating had taken it's toll on Darnley and he was suffering from the late stages of syphilis. Darnley's skull resides at the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons (why??) and the bone of the skull is actually pitted from the disease. When Mary does finally meet up with him again after a long separation his face is disfigured and his health is deteriorating. The first thing Darnley wants to do is hop in the sack, but Mary of course finds his condition repugnant, and probably knows enough about the contagion to know that she would be putting her future health in jeopardy. She leaves him resting at Kirk O'Field with his attendants to attend a dance at Holyrood. At 2AM the house at Kirk O'Field is blown to smithereens, not one stone left on top of another. Bodies are pulled from the wreckage, but the King is not among them. Only after searching farther a field do they find him in a garden nearby. "They found the bodies of the twenty-year-old-King and his valet, Taylor, lying sixty to eighty steps from the house. Both were nearly naked, being clad in short nightshirts, and neither body had a mark on it. Darnley was stretched out on his back, under a pear tree, with one hand draped modestly on his genitals, while Taylor lay a yard or two away, curled up, with his night shirt rucked up around his waist and his head resting face down on his crossed arms; he had on a nightbonnet and one slipper. The were no burns, no marks of strangulation or violence on the bodies. Near to the bodies lay a chair, a length of rope, a dagger Darnley's furred nightgown.A spy, put in place by the great spymaster Robert Cecil of England, made a drawing of the event for his master. The drawing still exists. And one of the grand historical mysteries of all time begins. Who killed Darnley? Why wasn't he blown up in the house? He may have heard the movement of barrels of gunpowder being moved into the floor below him. He may have smelt the burning of the fuse used to light the gunpowder. The chair and the rope could have been tools used to help him and his valet escape the house probably through a window. Once he left the house he must have been discovered by the conspirators and suffocated in such a way as not to leave any marks. The lords of the land quickly begin to jockey for position. They accuse each other of involvement in this murder most foul. James Hepburn Bothwell, an ambitious man, who is close to Mary is the most likely candidate to have played a hand in Darnley's death. He makes a play for power by kidnapping Mary and raping her, putting her in jeopardy of having a pregnancy that would forever mar her reputation. (She does later miscarriage twins.) She in desperation agrees to marry him. He is already married which for a man as ambitious as Bothwell is barely a hurdle. He offers his wife the choice of divorce or poison. Agreeing to marry Bothwell turns out to be one of the many disastrous decisions that leads to Mary's demise. A supportive Elizabeth turns away from her. The Scottish people are in an uproar, accusing her of involvement in Darnley's death. The lords choose sides and a civil war insures. Bothwell escapes to Norway. Mary is locked up in a castle and the lords begin to put pressure on her to abdicate in favor of her son. The Casket letters surface, letters supposedly written by Mary that are later determined to be forgeries. None of the letters had signatures, dates or addresses. Some of her own letters were mixed with the forgeries to try to lend credence to the whole. The evidence against Mary was always sketchy at best. Mary escapes...to England. Why, why England Mary? She still coveted the English crown. Elizabeth at first treats her with deference, but as accusations continue to surface Elizabeth becomes more and more uneasy about her association with her cousin Mary. James Stewart, Earl of Moray, bastard brother of Mary, lacking half the genetic code he needed to be King, is named regent and baby James is crowned King. His head so small the crown had to be held over his head. Trials are conducted, servants are hanged and quartered. The real criminals continue to via for position. We all know what eventually happens to Mary. Alison Weir says: "In the circumstances, she must, with justice, be regarded as one of the most wronged women in history." I agree few things went right for Mary, Queen of Scotts, but she also made several terrible mistakes. She did not vet Darnley. She needed a strong man to help her control the conniving, scheming, eager lords of her realm. Darnley was nothing more than a boy and too dedicated to his personal pleasures. She herself needed to be more purposeful in her decisions. The traitors that conspired with Darnley to oust her from power needed to be dealt with more firmly. She should never have agreed to marry Bothwell. The Protestant marriage conflicted with her Catholicism and lost her support from all quarters. When she had the chance to leave Scotland she needed to go anywhere, but England. As it turns out I believe most of the top royalty of Scotland was involved in the killing of Darnley through participation, knowledge of the event, or part of the cover up afterwards. I do believe that Mary was innocent. With her goal to be Queen of England she needed Darnley to have a chance at accomplishing that aspiration. Killing him, as satisfactory as that would be, would keep her from what she wanted most. The conspirators never escape the specter of Darnley's death either. Bothwell dies in prison in Norway. Moray is assassinated. Others are poisoned, hanged, stabbed, and bludgeoned. Payment for the murder of Darnley continued to be exacted for twenty years after his death. Alison Weir books are compelling and meticulously researched. Her writing style and presentation make history not only accessible, but enjoyable. Weir's rendition of the evidence is balanced and even though it is hard for us not to have sympathy for Mary given that she is so fatefully conspired against from the beginning, the victim of royal paranoia, and deceived by those that she needed to trust, Weir makes a case that part of Mary's downfall can be attributed to her own lofty ambitions.
I waited about a week before writing my review because I wanted to think it through carefully and finish my reading of another slightly-more-recent look at Mary's life by John Guy (I highly recommend his biography, even over Fraser's!!). I'll be writing a lot of words as anyone who knows me knows that this is a pet interest but I'll begin with a more broad review. Following that, I'll type up more about some quibbles with her findings that will probably constitute "spoilers" (though I have no idea why the concept of "spoilers" should/would apply to nonfiction writing of this type).Everyone else has noted that the length is surprising, and that Weir makes no apologies for it. Initially, I chuckled at this and agreed, thinking "why should she? this is interesting stuff!" I had thought that all the detail would be a pleasure for me to wade through rather than a chore. Unfortunately, there's so much repetition that it actually begins to become confusing to the reader. I imagine her intent was to make each individual laird's personality and role crystal clear, but this doesn't work. It is badly in need of editing that will make her point(s) more succinct. I enjoy Weir's work in general and also enjoyed The Princes in the Tower; though it falls into some of the traps I'll examine momentarily, it was a shorter work and is more convincing. But, as with that book, I think some prior knowledge of the cast of characters is a necessity. This is a book that better serves someone who has some understanding of Mary already; it is not a great starting point, though Weir does devote a good chunk of the book to some backstory about David Rizzio and Mary's marriage to Darnley.Here's where the spoilers kick in: I agree with the overall thrust of Weir's argument in this book with regard to guilt/innocence. I think it's clear that Mary herself was in no way guilty of her 2nd husband's death. Not only is there no concrete evidence to prove this once the casket letters are scrutinized, but even a basic understanding of Mary's personality and position just prior to Darnley's death makes her guilt implausible. I also agree with Weir's assignation of guilt amongst the lords and do not feel that Mary engaged in a relationship with Bothwell prior to Darnley's death.However, as with The Princes in the Tower, Weir often falls into a trap of building supposition upon supposition. Of course, this is something we're often obliged to do with history when writing more informally- especially when the source material is not just biased but often an outright lie - but in this case, her initial supposition is often shaky so by the time she's extended it outward, it feels likely to tumble down entirely. And what happens in this case is that a good portion of the book is built upon one MAJOR assumption: that Mary's physical and mental health was so precarious as to have collapsed and failed her utterly after the death of Darnley, rendering her incapable of handling anything at all. I won't sweep that assumption off the table entirely, as it's obvious that she handled the aftermath of Darnley's death terribly and in a way that does indicate a breakdown of sorts. But, by imputing all of Mary's behavior to this breakdown, Weir robs Mary of agency - which is often incompatible with Mary's own personality and strength of character.There are times when Weir will explicate to the point of tedium in order to build upon her assumptions while glossing over something that might prove her wrong. My best example is this: Weir writes about the fact that Mary is despondent the day after her wedding to Bothwell and puts forth a handful of theories as to why this might be. Bizarrely, she begins to explain this by saying (I paraphrase very, very loosely): Bothwell was into buggery, and since he raped her before (Weir's assumption throughout), he could very well have forced her into a sexual act she found distasteful and horrible. Also, Mary could possibly have been distraught about having had a protestant wedding (assuming Mary to be overwhelmingly pious at all times and disinterested in compromise with religion). Finally, it's impossible that Mary could have wanted the wedding under any circumstances (assuming that there's no way that Mary would willingly choose this fate for herself at this point). It's not that the conclusions can't possibly have foundations in truth- they can - but she's building upon suppositions again. She determines that Bothwell is a rapist based upon the use of his guards on other occasions to enforce his will and because Mary didn't seem to have colluded with him on the abduction. Because he's a rapist, then, he could well have forced her into especially depraved acts later. She balances this opinion out with some sources but excludes much mention of anything that might indicate that, at some point, Mary must certainly have chosen to remain at Dunbar. This ignores a casket letter that is clearly misdated BUT also clearly one of Mary's (Letter 6), in which Mary demonstrates anger at Bothwell but makes it obvious that she has, for better or worse, chosen her position at that point.Weir believes that Mary's mental health is fragile to a point of total indecision, which means that she can't have cared about a wedding, which means that she must have been forced into it entirely. Weir determines that, based upon the prior suppositions about Mary's abduction, Bothwell's character, and the wedding itself, Mary can't possibly have wanted to be married under any circumstances and did so only because of her fear of her antagonizer (or interest in protecting the legitimacy of her unborn child). As with the previous charge, this ignores some source material that might contradict her in terms of Mary's personality, religiosity, involvement with the wedding and decision-making with regard to the marriage. And again, it even ignores Mary's own words, which Weir will disregard whenever she feels that they don't suit the case.Weir is utterly locked into her conclusion and as such cannot see that it's plausible that Mary, while certainly unhappy about the prospect and her position, might have willingly thrown her lot in with Bothwell in spite of his character in an effort to preserve her position. Throughout the book, Weir actually seems to support the party line about Mary handed down from the moment the Lords conspired to obscure their involvement in the death of Darnley and pin it on Mary. To Weir, Mary is a weak-willed, easily manipulated woman unfit to rule. This misapprehension undermines everything that Weir builds towards in her book and casts doubt on many of her conclusions as a result.
What do You think about Mary Queen Of Scots And The Murder Of Lord Darnley (2004)?
In the last pages of this tome, the author admits that her final conclusion is opposite to her initial feelings about Mary's involvement in her husband's murder. This book is very thorough. The author uses historical documents on which to base her claims. As we all know, history is written by the winners. Her take on the intrigue and rumors circling around Europe in the 1600s is astonishing. She not only reports on what is in the documents - but also on what is lacking. She does a marvelous job of analyzing people's motives. If you're wanting a biography of Mary, Queen of Scots, this isn't your book. The book is true to its title, although knowing about Mary's childhood and adolescence helped me understand her as a person. This is the third or fourth book I have read by Alison Weir and I have yet to be disappointed.
—Susan
I've had my disagreements with Ms. Weir before, particularly over her book "The Princes in the Tower." However, I think there are reasons she is one of the bestselling historians today. Not only is her writing highly accessible, she invariably chooses topics of interest and mystery from the tapestry of British history. Weir examines the murder of Darnley and the degree of Mary's culpability from every angle, concluding (correctly in my opinion) that Mary was no party to the scheme; rather, she was the unfortunate victim of brutal Scottish politics, religious turmoil, a vicious yet effective smear campaign, and finally, her own folly. Although like I said, this book is accessible, I still wouldn't recommend it to anyone without at least a basic knowledge of English and Scottish politics at the time. If that's your bag, then this books is pretty great.
—Tara
This book is very well written and has a strong voice behind it, but definitly puts the authenticity of the Casket Letters in a bad light. Overall the author did very thorough research for this book and it is packed with hundreds of details of everything from the murder to the Casket Letters. An interesting read.Weir says about her conclusion, “Even after extensive research, I believed, as I began to write this book, that Mary was guilty. But when I came to analyse the source material in depth, it became increasingly obvious that such a conclusion was not possible.” She makes a good, clear, well-reasoned, consistent case, always referring back to the original sources and weighing them carefully.Mary comes across as politically naive and prone to major errors of judgment. On many occasions she was also physically very ill and mentally close to a nervous breakdown. She was often at the mercy of the ‘wolf-like earls’ surrounding her, but it must also be said that she tried (unsuccessfully) to play a double game on various occasions, saying one thing to one person and the opposite to someone else.I have to say that, even though the book is well written, I didn’t find it all that enjoyable. There wasn’t a single person in it that I could really identify with or sympathize with – not even Mary. I think that this is not so much a reflection on the author, as on the unappealing people and circumstances she has chosen to write about.
—Jennifer
