From James’s Birth till Darnley’s Murder., pp.136-151.

THE Queen, as we have seen, having survived the various accidents of childbed, and the intervenient intrigues, began to think, towards the end of July 1566, of leaving Edinburgh castle, for better air, to convert her convalescence into health. She seems to have been determined, partly by the offers of the Earl of Mar, and still more, by the situation of the place, on the northern bank of the Forth, to make an excursion to Alloa. She had no wheeled carriage; she was not strong enough to ride on horseback: and she resolved to go thither, by water. On the 27th of July, she departed, for that delightful seat, in a vessel, accompanied by the Earl of Mar, and Murray, her officers of state, and usual attendants. But, Darnley chose to go by land, as Murray accompanied the Queen, by water: and we shall, thenceforward perceive, that this thoughtless youth could not exist, for any length of time, in the company of the Queen’s ministers. On the morrow, she held a privy council, at Alloa, concerning the postponed affairs of state. 

The Queen returned, from Alloa, to Edinburgh, on the 29th of July; in order to meet Malvissier, the French ambassador, who had, meanwhile arrived, to congratulate her safe delivery. On the 1st of August, the Queen returned to Alloa, where she was joined, by the French ambassador, who had, meanwhile arrived, to congratulate her safe delivery. On the 1st of August, the Queen returned to Alloa, where she was joined, by the French ambassador, and by her husband, who remained two nights with her. It was at Alloa, on this occasion, that secretary Maitland, who had absconded after Rizzio’s assassination, was admitted into her presence, and pardoned, by the intercession of the Earl of Athol, in opposition to Bothwell’s influence, whatever it may have been. The Queen returned from Alloa, to Edinburgh, on the 4th of August; having received much refreshment, though attended with much more calumny. The Queen declared her disapprobation of Darnley’s resentment against Murray, which was thus avowed, by her husband; and was mortified, that he should have so little prudence, as to avow his hatred of so powerful a person, as well as the minister of the country. Darnley carried his folly even so far, as to be displeased with the Queen; because she used familiarity with either man, or woman, and especially the ladies of Argyle, Murray, and Mar, who were her most constant attendants. 

Such was the uncomfortable state of the court, during the two first weeks of August 1566. On the 14th the Queen, and her husband, set out, for Megotland, to enjoy the diversion of hunting, which was not now what it had been, in the happier days of James V. They were attended, by the Earls of Huntley, Murray, and other nobles. On the 16th of August, they held a council, at Rodono, where they made an ordinance; reciting the scarcity of deer; and ordaining that they should not be shot, under the pains of law. Being thus disappointed , they determined to return; they were, at Traquair, on the 19th; and came to Edinburgh, on the 20th; where they remained on the 21st, and to the 22d, of August.

Disappointed, thus, in Megotland, the King, and Queen, resolved, to look for better diversion, in Perthshire. On the 22d of August, they went, from Edinburgh to Stirling; carrying with them the Prince, whom they left, in Stirling castle. From Stirling, the King, and Queen, went into the forest, of Perthshire, in pursuance of their purpose of hunting. They hunted, for a few days, in Glenartney; and they visited Lord Drummond, at Drummond castle, where they were on the 30th of August. On the morrow, they returned to Stirling, where they remained together, nearly a fortnight. On the 11th or 12th of September, the Queen went to Edinburgh, for the dispatch of public business; but, Darnley declined to go with her; as he could not face Murray, and the other ministers. The Queen returned to her husband, on the 21st of September; and endeavoured to persuade him, to accompany her to Edinburgh, where her presence was necessary; but, she tried, in vain, and he chose to remain, at Stirling. Beaton, the brother of the archbishop, the Queen’s ambassador, at Paris, arrived, from France, at Stirling; where he found the Queen, in good health, and the Prince, in a growing state. On the 23d, she repaired to Edinburgh, at the request of her Privy Council; leaving the aged Le Croc, the French ambassador, with her wayward husband, at Stirling; and on whom he threw away both his wisdom and experience. After the Queen’s departure to Edinburgh, Darnley communicated his secret to Le Croc, that he intended to leave the country, though he did not communicate the whole of his project. Lennox, his father, on a visit, which he then made to Darnley, also, endeavoured to persuade him of the impracticability of his plan, for relinquishing his wife, and son, to wander, in other lands, without a friend, and without resources. Lennox, on his return home to Glasgow, wrote the Queen, of his son’s design, and of his inability to dissuade him, from so impracticable a purpose. This letter she received, on the morning of the 29th of September, when she laid it before her Privy Council, for their advice; and in the evening, at 10 o’clock, Darnley arrived, at Holyrood-house: But, he, peremptorily, refused to enter the palace, unless three, or four of the chief nobles, who were within, should leave it: These were Murray, and Maitland, and some other of the officers of state. The Queen, condescendingly, went without the palace to receive him; and conducted him to her own apartments, where he remained with her, during the night. About that time, as we learn from Knox, Darnley wrote to the Pope, and other Catholick powers, complaining of the state of the country, as being disordered; because of the Queen’s bad encouragement of Catholick concerns: By some means, the Queen, obtained copies of those letters; and threatened him so sore, that there was never after any appearance of love between them: But, of all this, we see nothing, in the statement of the Privy Council, in Le Croc’s letters, or in Robert Melvill’s epistle: And Darnley was not in the habit of such intrigues. While the Queen, and her husband, passed the night together, she questioned him, about his design, to depart from Scotland; and requested to know his cause for such a resolution: But, he would not acknowledge, that he had any cause of discontent, and would not assign any reason, for his conduct. On the morrow, the Privy Council assembled, in the Queen’s apartments, before whom the Bishop of Ross laid the letters from the Earl of Lennox, on the King’s resolution. The Council reasoned the matter with him; and endeavoured to make him avow the cause of his resolution, to depart the realm; and whether any particular person had given him offence. The Queen taking him by the hand, kindly requested him to say, whether she had ever given him offence, and conjured him not to spare her in the least. Le Croc, also, endeavoured to induce Darnley to avow the true cause of his discontent; but in vain. The King would not confess, that he had any such design, as his departure from Scotland; he said he had no cause of discontent; and he, freely, declared, that the Queen had never given him any cause of complaint: He now retired, from the Privy Council; saying to the Queen, “Adieu, madam, you shall not see my face, for a long space;” and to the lords, he said, “adieu, gentlemen.” 

After this unceremonious departure, Darnley went to his father, at Glasgow, where he pretended to continue his purpose of going abroad, and kept a vessel in readiness. From Glasgow he wrote to the Queen, in affected language; wherein he grounded his complaints on two points of grievance: (1) That the Queen did not trust him with so much authority, nor was at such pains to advance him, and to make him honoured, by the nation, as formerly: (2) That no body attended him, and the nobility avoided his company. To these avowed grievances, the Queen made answer: (1) That she had, at the beginning, conferred so much honour on him, as had rendered herself very uneasy; and that he had abused her favours, by patronizing the conspiracy against her; but, notwithstanding this great failing on his part, she continued to show him such respect that, though those, who entered her chamber with him, and murdered her faithful servant, had named him the chief of their enterprize; yet, she had never accused him thereof, but did always excuse him, as if she had not believed the fact: (2) As to his not being attended; the fault was his own, as she had always offered him her own servants; and as to the nobles, they pay deference, according as they receive respect themselves; and if they desert him, his own deportment is the cause thereof; as he is at no pains, to make himself beloved by them; and had even gone so far, as to prohibit those noblemen to enter his apartment, whom she had first appointed to attend upon his person. The Privy Council, who give this representation, solemnly declare, “that so far as facts had come to their knowledge, Darnley had no ground of complaint; but, on the contrary, that he has the best reason, to look upon himself, as one of the most fortunate princes, in christendom, if he had only known his own happiness, and made the proper use of the good fortune, which his destiny had put into his hands.” 

Le Croc, who was plainly an intelligent, and observant man, concurred in that representation: and concluded his statement by saying: “It is in vain to imagine, that Darnley shall be able to raise any disturbance; for, there is not one person, in this kingdom, that regards him, any further than is agreeable to the Queen: And, I never saw her majesty, so much beloved, esteemed, and honoured, or so great harmony amongst all her subjects, as at present, by her own conduct.”

It was, at the end of September 1566, when Darnley behaved so absurdly, at Holyrood-house, that Murray, and Maitland, condemned him to the bowstring. The long exposition of the Privy Council to the Queen-mother of France, before mentioned, is a proof of this resolution. Murray, with a view to that object, drew Bothwell into their concert, before he set out for Liddisdale. Maitland gave notice to Morton, who then was expatriated, in the north of England; and who was assured, that his own relief was interwoven, in the success of their projected purpose. Now, it must always be remembered, that no plot could have been entered into, in Scotland, during that age, without the assent of Murray, so superior was his influence and power: Nor, could Maitland have written, on such a topick, to Morton, without Murray’s knowledge. It was the practice of the Scotish statesmen of that period, whenever they looked forward to some danger, which might require the protection of Secretary Cecil, to write him letters of acknowledgment, for the past, with a view to the future. But, the whole detail of the plot was not finally settled till the Queen having refused, to be divorced, from Darnley, when proposed by Maitland, and urged by Bothwell, in presence of Murray, was included, as one of the victims of their villainy. The series of the facts, as they came out, in the progress of this murderous plot, from its conception, till its consummation, by the Queen’s dethronement, are the best proofs of the existence, and end of the plot, for the ruin of the King, and Queen, by the murder of the one, and the expulsion of the other.

The Queen’s declared purpose, at Alloa, in August, for holding justice ayres, at Jedburgh, was now executed, at the beginning of October 1566. Bothwell, the Queen’s lieutenant, on the Borders, who was sent forward, to prepare matters, left Edinburgh, in the evening of the 6th of October. The Queen, the officers of state, and the whole court, departed, from Edinburgh, on the 8th of the same month, with the original intention, for Jedburgh. Bothwell had, scarcely, entered Hermitage castle, when a scuffle ensued, on the 8th of October, with Elliot of Park, who wounded him, severely, in the hand. The Queen, and the officers of state, continued, however, to do the public business, at Jedburgh. After the Queen had remained here a week, in administering justice, she went to Hermitage castle, on the 16th, to enquire into the outrage, which had ended, by wounding her lieutenant: And, though the distance was twenty statute miles, she returned, on the same day, tp Jedburgh. Robertson, copying Buchanan’s misrepresentations, informs us: How Mary, hearing of Bothwell’s misfortune, “instantly flew thither, with an impatience, which has been considered, as marking the anxiety of a lover, but little suited to the dignity of a Queen.” On the morrow, the Queen sent a large parcel of papers to Bothwell, illustrative, perhaps, of the purpose, entertained, by some of his servants, to assassinate him; and she directed some provision of victual, to be supplied to Hermitage castle, which was the Queen’s, and not Bothwell’s. On the 17th of October, the Queen was seized with a dangerous fever, which, during ten days, brought her into a very doubtful state. She seems to have lived, daily, in a feverish state; owing partly to the misconduct of her husband, and to her apprehension of some fresh conspiracy. Intelligence was sent of the Queen’s illness to Darnley, who was then at Glasgow; but, he came not to Jedburgh till the 28th of October, and remained with her, but one night. Both Lennox, and his son, had abundant reason, for attending upon the Queen, constantly; as measures had been taken, during her late illness, in case of her demise, which would have excluded them, from the government.

The business of the ayre being finished; and the Queen sufficiently strong; she left Jedburgh, on the 9th of November; and went to Kelso, where she held a council on the 10th; as we know from the register. On the 11th, she departed from Kelso, with design to view Berwick, when she was followed, by her court, and the country, consisting of 800, or 1000 horsemen. Proceeding, by Langton, and Wedderburn, she threw her eyes on the 15th, from Halidonhill, on Berwick. She thence, went to Coldingham, and thence passed to Dunbar, where she remained, a day or two. On this agreeable journey, she met with an accident, which was not attended with much consequence: When Sir John Forster, one of the wardens of the Borders, with the other officers of Berwick, came out, to offer their respects to the Scotish Queen, Sir John’s horse reared, and in coming down, struck the Queen’s thigh. On the 19th of November, she went to Tantallon castle; and from thence to Craigmillar, on the 20th. Secretary Maitland, meantime, went to Whittingham, whence, he dispatched letters to Morton, in the north of England; informing him of the Scotish affairs, and of the progress, which they had made, towards the liberation of him, and his friends.

After the Queen’s arrival at Craigmillar castle, her husband came to visit her, on the 26th of November; and remained a week. The Queen was, meantime, in the hands of physicians, sick, and melancholy, as we learn, from the observant Le Croc. 

There accompanied the Queen to Craigmillar, besides the officers of state, Murray, Argyle, Huntley, the chancellor, and Bothwell, the admiral: Secretary Maitland joined them, when he came from Whittingham. In the beginning of December, Murray, and Maitland, opened to Argyle, Huntley, and Bothwell, the project of a divorce, between the Queen, and Darnley; and they approving of it, the whole plan was laid before the Queen, in the presence of these nobles: It was reasoned, with the Queen, by Maitland, the most eloquent, and able of her ministers, whom he could not persuade, such was her repugnance, when they supposed she would be most willing: And though Bothwell said, in reply to her objections, that his father and mother had been divorced, yet his titles, and offices, and estates, had descended, lawfully, to him, she still showed her repugnance, and desired then not to meddle any more with such a subject; as she was resolved to have patience, with her husband’s temper, which might change for the better. Now, is it quite certain, that Murray, and Maitland, were the original proposers of that divorce, with several objects in view; the ruin of Darnley, the pardon of Morton, and the Queen’s fall; as well as ulterior measures, which they reserved, either for their success, or disappointment: They were disappointed; and their ulterior measures were Darnley’s murder, and the Queen’s marriage, and dethronement. 

The Queen removed, from Craigmillar, on the 5th of December 1566, to Edinburgh: And, here, she remained, till the 11th of the same month, when she went to Stirling, to prepare for her son’s baptism. Murray’s journal states, with its accustomed fallacy, that the Queen went to Stirling, on the 5th of that month. And, it adds, with its usual malignity, “that she took the King, from his lodging, in William Bell’s house, to the castle, and placed him very obscurely there.” This propensity, to pervert the best intentions of the Queen, is an additional proof of the progress of Murray’s faction, in their project of murdering the King, and of dethroning the Queen, after defiling her, by her marriage, to a murderer. The fact of removing Darnley, from a private house to the castle, the residence of Kings, was the unfitness of being in a private lodging, while the envoys of various powers were daily expected to the baptism of their son. But, Darnley was not present, either at the ceremony, or the entertainment.

In the chapel of Stirling castle, was the Prince baptised, on Tuesday, the 17th of December 1566. Every thing was done, at the solemnity, according to the form of the Roman Catholick church. The Prince was held up, at the font, by the Countess of Argyle, under a commission from Elizabeth, as her representative. And the Archbishop of St. Andrews did administer the baptism, with the usual ceremonies of the Roman church. Neither the Earl of Bedford, Elizabeth’s representative, nor any of the Scotish nobility of the new form, entered into the chapel, but stood, without the door. After the rites were all performed, the child’s name, and titles, were thrice proclaimed, by the heralds, under sound of trumpet, Charles James, James Charles. It was the Queen’s pleasure, as we learn, from Le Croc, that he should bear the name of James, as all the good kings of Scotland had the same name, and the name of Charles, being the name of the King of France. Then did the music begin; and after it had continued for some time, the Prince was again conveyed to his apartment. The Countess of Argyle, by thus representing the English Queen, at this ceremony, gave offence to the reformed church, and was obliged to do penance, for her sin. The reformed nobility, by standing, without the door, avoided this scandal. And Bedford, by imitating their example, cannot be said, to have been present at the ceremony, as Elizabeth’s gossip, though he had come so far, for the purpose of ceremony. Thus nearly allied to folly is fanaticism! The feasting, triumph, and mirth, upon this occasion, was uncommonly splendid, and continued all the time, that the ambassadors remained, in Scotland. “The Queen,” as we are told by Le Croc, “behaved herself admirably well, during the baptism; and shewed so much earnestness to entertain all the goodly company, in the best manner, that this made her forget, in a good measure, her former ailments: But, I am of the mind, however,” said he, “that she will give us some trouble as yet; nor, can I be brought to think otherwise, so long as she continues to be so pensive and melancholy: She sent for me yesterday, the 22d of December; and I found her laid on the bed, weeping sore; and she complained of a grievous pain, in the side: And for a surcharge of evils, it chanced, that the day her majesty set out, from Edinburgh, for Stirling, she hurt one of her breasts on the saddle, which she told me is now swelled, I am much grieved,” said the aged Le Croc, “for the many troubles, and vexations, she meets with.” What an admirable subject was that scene, for a fine pencil!

But the Queen’s vexations and troubles, did not end soon. The baptism was scarcely performed, as we have seen above, when the lords, who remained, without the chapel, with Bedford, at their head, began a negotiation with the Queen, which was of more importance to them, than a dozen such baptisms. It was, for the pardon of Morton, and his guilty associates, for Rizzio’s murder, who had been protected, by Elizabeth; and now solicited their pardons. The Scotish Queen, with good reason, had resisted, hitherto, all applications, for their restoration: But, their pardon was now granted, says Robertson, to the influence of Bothwell alone: Yet, we know, from Bedford, that Elizabeth, and Cecil, instructed him to make the strongest instances, for that end; and he was joined, in his solicitations, by Murray and Athol; and Bothwell, and almost all the other lords, helped therein, or else, it would not so early, have been obtained. It was on the 24th of December 1566, that the Queen signed Morton’s pardon, with the late Lord Ruthven, William, now Lord Ruthven, Lord Lindsay, and seventy-five other guilty conspirators, who were chiefly the followers of Morton. It is singular, to remark, that Morton, Ruthven, Lord Lindsay and some others of those, who were now pardoned, in less than six months, as the agents of Murray, dethroned the Queen.

Murray, when an expatriated rebel, had received so many favours from Bedford, that, in return, he carried him into Fife, where he treated his English friend “with much honour, great cheer, and courteous entertainment.” Darnley remained, in Stirling castle, till the 24th of December, when Morton’s pardon passed the Privy Seal, of which he had no doubt heard. He now left the castle, abruptly, without taking leave of the Queen: and set off, for Glasgow, to visit his father, at that place: But before he could reach that town, says Robertson, mistakingly, he was taken dangerously ill, on the road. The fact, undoubtedly, is, that Darnley, heedlessly, went into Glasgow, wherein the small-pox, was extremely prevalent; and he was immediately taken, with that infectious disease. As soon as the Queen heard of her husband’s being thus taken with the small-pox, she sent her own physician to attend upon him. It is Buchanan, who says, that Darnley was poisoned; and that the Queen would not allow any physician to attend upon him. The invariable practice of this writer, to hang some slander upon every action of the Queen, who had favoured, but never injured him, is the strongest proof of the murderous guilt of Murray, and his faction; by writers, constantly, endeavouring to throw the guilt upon the innocent, from the deed doers. 

The Queen, having thus paid the attention of her conjugal duty to her wayward husband, went with her retinue, on a visit to Lord Drummond; with whom she remained, till she returned to Stirling, on the 29th of December: She remained here a day, and on the 31st of December 1567, she went to Tullibardin, on a visit to Sir William Murray, the comptroller of her household. On the morrow, she returned to Stirling. And, here she remained, till the 13th of January 1567. Every moment now begins to be critical; and every minuteness, and specific caution, become, necessary, for ascertaining the truth, and guarding against slander. Robertson, who was all unaware of the nature of Darnley’s disease, declaims against the Queen, as defective, in conjugal sympathies, when she made those visits of amusement, instead of attending on her husband; without knowing, that she had sent her own physician to Darnley; and without adverting, that she had an infant to take care for. Thus it is, to write history without knowledge of facts, and still more, without the spirit of sagacity, which enables the writer, to draw the line, wisely, between falsehood, and truth. 

The Queen set out from Stirling, with the Prince, for Edinburgh on the 13th of January; and remaining, during the night at Callender came to Edinburgh, on the morrow. The Queen continued to be disquieted, at Edinburgh, as she had been at Stirling, with two rumours, which seem to have given her great uneasiness: The one was, that the King intended to crown the Prince, and to take the government on himself; and the other, of a purpose, to place the King in ward. Both those reports, upon examination in the Privy Council, at Stirling, were traced, from one Walker to Hiegate, the Town Clerk of Glasgow, who appears to have been a meddling fellow. But, upon being examined, he denied the whole imputation. It is pretty apparent, however, that such rumours had been thrown out, by Murray’s faction, in order to sound a credulous people, with regard to both: And there was another rumour, which passed to Paris; and coming from the Spanish ambassador, in a friendly manner to the Queen’s ambassador, he was induced, to write to the Queen, to double her guards. But, what force could protect her, from her own ministers; from the machinations of Murray, and the villainy of Maitland? Yet, she could not see, that she had any thing to fear, from the villainy of the one, or the machinations of the other. In writing to her ambassador, the Archbishop of Glasgow, in the height of her vexation, arising from those rumours, she speaks contemptuously of the conduct of Lennox, for whom she had done so much; and piteously of Darnley, whom she perceived, to be ever making inquisition, into her doings, while she took God, and the world, to witness, what had been always her part to him. This momentary ebullition of her discontent, Robertson, and Laing, suppose, to be a strong proof of the Queen’s rooted hatred of her husband, and her disdain of his father. 

But, those writers seem to know nothing of the discords of marriage, which break out, and disappear, in the same moment, without a trace; and which might be exemplified, in the conduct, and misconduct, of the Queen and her husband. We have lately seen what care she took of him, when he was taken with the small-pox. At the moment of writing that letter, on the 20th of January, she, and Darnley, had become reconciled to each other; and she had even then resolved to visit him, at Glasgow, and bring him with her to Edinburgh; as soon as he should be able to stand the cold air, according to the intimation of Drury to Cecil. 

After this reconcilement of the Queen, and King, she had determined to bring him herself, from Glasgow, to Edinburgh, of which she made no secret. But, there is some doubt, with regard to the time, when she departed for Glasgow, with that design. Murray’s Journal, which is not famous, for its veracity, expressly, states, that she took her journey, on the 21st of January 1567, towards Glasgow, accompanied with the Earls of Huntley, and Bothwell. Yet, is there reason to believe, from the evidence of records, that the Queen, at the soonest, did not set out, from Edinburgh, till the evening of the 24th, and perhaps, without the two Earls. Yet, it is said, by Robertson, and by others, that the Queen, while, at Glasgow, wrote certain amatory letters to Bothwell. Now, it may be observed, that there was no amatory connexion between the Queen, and Bothwell, who was gained by Murray, at the end of September 1566; who acted with him, thenceforward, as a conspirator against Darnley, and the Queen, who met Morton, about the 20th of January, at Whittingham, to concert the murder, and who claimed the Queen in reward, for the murder, from the conspirators, and not from the Queen herself: Neither had he any ascendency over her: The Queen, before she went to Glasgow, was reconciled to her husband: and the Queen still remained, at Edinburgh, as we know from the records, at the date of the supposititious letters, from Glasgow. The whole history of those letters, subsequently, evince, that those letters, were forged, and not found. 

From Glasgow, the Queen brought her husband, in a chariot, to Linlithgow, where they rested two days, and arrived at Edinburgh, on the 31st of January 1567. The house, in which Darnley was lodged, was the mansion of the provost of the collegiate church of St. Mary, in the field, usually called the Kirk of Field, which belonged to Robert Balfour, the provost; and which had been fitted up, as an infirmary, under the direction, no doubt, of the Queen’s physician. After Darnley was lodged, in this house, the Queen, frequently, attended him; and sometimes slept, in the same house, herself. She, with several of the nobles, spent the evening of the 9th of February with him, and only left him at eleven o’clock; to give her presence, at an entertainment, in Holyrood-house, to two of her domesticks. At parting she kissed her husband, and took a ring, from her own finger, which she put upon his; as a sincere tribute of her kindest affections. On the morrow, about two o’clock, in the morning, the King, with his servant Taylor, were found dead, in the adjoining garden, without any marks of violence, on their bodies; and the house blown up, with gunpowder. Thus perished the wayward Darnley, whose fortune and whose fate, will, for ever, give him that place, in history, which his insignificance, and unkingly conduct, would have denied him. 

Many rumours were instantly propagated, with regard to the persons, who deprived the King of his life, in so mysterious a manner; and the Queen’s name was implicated, in the conjectures, which were indulged, by a credulous, and fanatical people. Whoever were accused, whether true, or false; and innocent persons were included, perhaps, by design: we now know, for certain, that it was Murray’s faction, who murdered the King; and that Morton, Bothwell, and Maitland, were the eminent characters, who were attainted, by parliament, for the deed, though many inferior persons, indeed, and some of them innocent, were tried and punished, for the same crime. The mystery, in which the whole transaction was involved, is satisfactory proof, that Murray’s faction were the deed doers. But, the Queen, as she was not one of that faction, was not guilty; and every endeavour of Robertson, and Laing, to establish her privity to this transaction, has failed. Her marriage with Bothwell, one of the murderers, considering the fraudulence, and force, which were used to obtain her unwilling assent, is no proof of any privity, though it was intended, by the conspirators, to involve her in the guilty scene. 

The Queen soon removed, from Holyrood-house, to the castle of Edinburgh, where she existed, for some time, in apartments without the light of the sun; without air; and without comfort. The body of Darnley was embalmed, and on the evening of the 15th February, was interred in the royal tomb, by the side of the Queen’s father, James V. The ceremonies of the funeral were the fewer, says the bishop of Ross; as the great part of the Privy Council, who directed it, were protestants; and had interred their own parents, without any ceremonies.

2 thoughts on “From James’s Birth till Darnley’s Murder., pp.136-151.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s