Coin depicting King Henry and Queen Mary
So by November 1566 calm was restored on the Border, and there was no more talk of Morton's return. From Dunbar the royal party moved to Craigmillar, for a stay of two weeks. Mary was still unwell, and it was well known that the cause of her prolonged ill-lealth was her marriage.
Mary was by now quite unable to trust Darnley, and with good reason, since he continued to plot against her, endeavouring to drag the Pope, Philip of Spain and Charles IX of France into his schemes. He let it be known that he didn't intend to be present at James' baptism, which could allow rumours of illegitimacy to flourish. Lodging with her at Craigmillar, her chief nobles decided that something must be done: altruistic reasons of concern for Mary coinciding neatly with their desire to revenge themselves upon the man who had betrayed them after the murder of Riccio. A meeting was held at the end of the month, within the castle, to discuss ways of ridding Mary of Darnley. The proceedings, including Bothwell’s attendance, are detailed in the ‘Protestation of the Earls of Argyll and Huntly’, drawn up in 1569 by Bishop Leslie, from his recollections of conversations with Huntly. This document fell into Cecil’s hands before either noble could sign it, and was specifically designed to exonerate Mary - Bothwell’s attendance is included almost as an afterthought. It is therefore uncertain that Bothwell was even there, as neither Buchanan or Spotiswoode mention a conference or him [1, 2, 3].
Even by Leslie’s account, Mary’s main concern was that her own and her son’s reputations should not be harmed by the lords’ plans. Moray, Argyll, Maitland and Huntly concluded to Mary that they ‘shall find the means that your majesty shall be quit of him [Darnley] without prejudice to your son’, and that ‘Your Grace shall see nothing but good and approved by Parliament’.[4]
It is then usually said that the ‘Craigmillar Bond’ was signed by Huntly, Argyll, Maitland, Bothwell and perhaps Balfour, with Morton possibly adding his signature on his return to Scotland. This bond has not survived, and its existence has only ever been testified to by two men. John Hepburn of Bolton said that Bothwell showed him a bond which contained ‘some light causes against the King, such as his behaviour contrar the Queen’, in a suppressed part of his confession extracted under torture [5]. Ormiston described it, including a murder clause, in his deathbed confession. His memory was remarkable; he was able to recall almost a hundred words of a bond read to him once by Bothwell seven years before [6, 1, 5]. It is likely that the bond described by Hepburn and Ormiston was actually the bond signed earlier, after the Michaelmas council.
Mary told Nau [7] that prior to Bothwell’s departure from Carberry Hill, he had given her a piece of paper which he said proved the Lords now opposing him had been involved in the murder of Darnley. This paper has since disappeared, but Bothwell’s handing it over would imply that he was not named on it. Moray was not said to have signed the ‘Craigmillar Bond’ since it wouldn’t have been in Hepburn or Ormiston’s best interests to incriminate him when they confessed. However, his name may well have been on the bond given to Mary.
The Prince's baptism also needed to be planned, and in the absence of co-operation from Darnley, Mary appointed Bothwell to take charge of the preparations in Stirling. The ceremony took place on 17th December 1566, and was a magnificent affair, taking place under Catholic rite. Thus the Protestant Bothwell remained at the door of the Chapel Royal along with the Earl of Bedford (the English Ambassador), Moray and Huntly. Oh, and Mary clothed ALL the lords out of her own pocket, NOT just Bothwell, so wrong again, George Buchanan.
Darnley was as far away as he could get without leaving the Castle,hiding in his rooms. He refused to attend the supper banquet in the Great Hall, but Mary refused to allow his absence to dampen her spirits, enjoying the dancing and entertainment. The festivities continued over the next two days, and included hunting, masques (Buchanan wrote some verses for these, hypocrite as he was) and pyrotechnics. Darnley skulked in his room, shunned by all.
But worse was to come for Darnley. On 24th December 1566 Mary pardoned Morton and the other exiles. Bothwell apparently approved of this recall - maybe he did, as Melville says, have 'a mark of his own that he shot at' [8], or maybe he felt that the benefits to Mary of Morton's return outweighed the risks of his treachery. Mary certainnly needed persuasion: Bedford wrote that 'the Earls of Bothwell and Atholl and all the other Lords helped therein, else it should not so soon have been gotten.' [9] Whatever Bothwell's reasoning, the men Darnley had betrayed were returning to Scotland. It was no longer safe for the King to remain at court, and he left Stirling for the safety of Glasgow, a Lennox stronghold.
1. Gore-Brown R; ‘Lord Bothwell’. (Collins, 1937)
2. Buchanan G; ‘The Tyrannous Reign of Mary Stewart’. Trans/ed WA Gatherer. (Edinburgh University Press 1958).
3. Spottiswoode J; ‘History of the Church of Scotland’
4. Keith R; ‘History of the Affairs of Church and State in Scotland down to 1567’. Ed JP Lawson. (Spottiswoode Society 1844-50)
5. Lang A; ‘The Mystery of Mary Stuart’. (Longmans, Green and Co, 1901)
6. Fraser A; ‘Mary Queen of Scots’. (Mandarin 1993)
7. Nau C; ‘The History of Mary Stewart, from the Murder of Riccio until her flight into England’. ed and intro. Revd J Stevenson. (William Paterson, 1883)
8. Melville Sir J of Halhill; ‘Memoirs of his own life’. Ed T Thomson. (Bannatyne Club Edinburgh 1827)
9. Calendar of State Papers, Foreign Series, of the reign of Elizabeth (Vol VIII 1566-68). Ed Allan James Crosby (Longman and Co, 1871)