Caroline Bingham sets out to provide an insight into the life of Darnley, since there has never been a modern biography dedicated to this second husband of Mary Queen of Scots. The reasons for this become increasingly clear. He is a difficult man to understand, and still less likeable, but in her work Bingham succeeds (as far as anyone is likely to) in putting across his side of the events which led to his wife's downfall.
Bingham is remarkably even-handed in tone, and doesn't fall into the usual English historian's trap of sympathising with Elizabeth I. She quickly points out that Mary's claim to the throne of Scotland was a valid one, and goes on to describe the diplomacy that almost led to Mary being recognised as Elizabeth's heir. Mary was anxious for the two Queens to meet, and Bingham notes that the two queens never met 'probably depriving history of an entertaining display of rivalry rather rhan an edifying show of friendship.'
She details the politics behind the search for a husband for Mary, discussing the pros and cons of each candidate. Contrary to the usual depiction, Darnley is shown in a good light. He had much to recommend him, since Elizabeth thought well of him and considered him a possible successor to her throne. He himself had been brought up by his parents - Margaret Douglas and Matthew, Earl of Lennox - to believe that he was royal: probably at least as royal as Elizabeth herself.
Darnley's early life is delineated, and she follows his three youthful sojourns in France - interludes rarely referred to in other works on the period - and discusses his relationships with his parents. She suspects that had he spent more of his life under the strict guidance of his mother, his tragedy could have been averted. But the unlucky Darnley seems to have inherited theonly worst characteristics of both of his parents.
Bingham continues on this theme when she describes his attack of measles in 1565.His frustration at his confinement caused him to react violently to minimal provocation, according to Randolph and she wonders if these rages could be related to his father's furious outbursts when he was confined to the Tower.
She discusses the 'measles' attack at some length. Darnley was ill for a protracted period of time compared to 'normal' measles, and this may have been because the illness was in fact syphilis, which was rife in various forms across the continent at that time. Bingham hypothesises that Darnley contracted the disease on his third French trip, when his parents were prisoners and he was free of their influence. The references cited make this a convincing argument.
Unfortunately, even the most partisan of biographers would find it hard to justify Darnley's actions in plotting against his wife and attempting to usurp her throne. Bingham doesn't make the mistake of trying to do this, and instead tries valiantly to explain why he felt how he did. He still comes over as the spoilt and petulant boy that he undoubtedly was. Bingham recognises this - "It was one of Mary's many misapprehensions that she expected gratitude from men who merely accepted her rewards as their just desserts, and still thought them insufficient." Darnley fits this description more than anyone else.
Another unusual gem within the book is her description of the work of Pietro Bizari, an Italian in the service of the Earl of Bedford when he visited Scotland. The account is unsubstantiated by other sources, but describes Riccio seducing a lady of the Douglas family and Darnley fathering a child on one of the ladies of the court. This may be an important detail in that it would make sense of one of the 'Casket Letters' supposedly written to Bothwell.
By this time in the book it is obvious that Darnley really was a nasty piece of work, out for his own advantage and willing to steamroller the Queen to get it. The same could be true of the English establishemnt, who were being kept well-informed of the plot via Randolph's regular dispatches.
Although the plan to murder Riccio succeeded, the Queen was not overthrown, and Bingham puts this down to Bothwell managing to escape, earning big brownie points from me. In the aftermath, Darnley knew he had cooked his golden egg laying goose, since Mary made it plain she blamed him for what had happened - as she well might.
This led to increasingly bizarre behaviour, such as 'swimming alone in the sea, and in lonely lochs and rivers.' By this time Bothwell's influence was growing, but he was on good terms with the King, who was increasingly jealous and fearful of Moray. Meantime, Mary was finding her husband increasingly abhorrent, and was doing a convincing impersonation of Henry II when faced with his 'turbulent priest'. Bingham is fair even here, and includes details of the plots which Darnley was instigating across the continent, still aiming at Mary's throne.
Bingham mentions the William Rogers report of Darnley's intention to sieze Scarborough Castle or the Scilly Isles as a base, and the Scilly Isles may be a mistranslation - but I can't remember where I read that (Hosack?). But whilst the details of the plots may be debateable, the fact of their existence, even if only in the mind of the King, was not.
The events leading up to Kirk O' Field are well documented here as elsewhere, but Bingham manages to stay away from either blaming or exhonerating Mary, which makes hers an account worth reading. However, I disagree with her eventual conclusion that Darnley lowered himself from the gallery window, since Nelson had been sleeping there. This would mean that he couldn't have been killed there, as she theorises. But that is being picky
A more valid criticism is that once the event occurs, Bingham loses all interest in the King's death. Which is odd, since dying is probably the most important thing Darnley ever did. She appears to have no real interest in who actually murdered him, and toes the usual line that Mary didn't investigate as she had lost all control to the evil Bothwell. However, she does astutely note that 'There was no battle at Carberry Hill. There was a day-long confrontation in which Bothwell and the Queen were defeated by the power of propaganda.'
Bingham's book is a remarkably easy read, but is accurate and extremely well-referenced. She describes the politics which surrounded Mary's reign in a way which is easy to understand, yet fully reflects the complexity of the factions which shifted and changed throughout Mary's reign. Strangely, whilst seeking to justify Darnley's behaviour as much as possible, Bingham portrays Mary in a more reasoned and favourable light than many of the Queen's own biographers. This is a book that is well worth reading, not just for those interested in the protagonist, but for its insights into some often overlooked details related to Mary Queen of Scots' reign.