Mary, Queen of Scots
Mary | |
---|---|
James VI | |
Regents | See list
|
Queen consort of France | |
Tenure | 10 July 1559 – 5 December 1560 |
Born | 8 December 1542[1] Linlithgow Palace, Linlithgow, Scotland |
Died | 8 February 1587 (aged 44)[2] Fotheringhay Castle, Northamptonshire, England |
Burial | 30 July 1587 |
Spouse | |
Roman Catholicism | |
Signature |
Mary, Queen of Scots (8 December 1542 – 8 February 1587), also known as Mary Stuart[3] or Mary I of Scotland,[4] was Queen of Scotland from 14 December 1542 until her forced abdication in 1567.
The only surviving legitimate child of
Mary
As a great-granddaughter of
Childhood and early reign
Mary was born on 8 December 1542 at
A popular tale, first recorded by John Knox, states that James, upon hearing on his deathbed that his wife had given birth to a daughter, ruefully exclaimed, "It cam wi' a lass and it will gang wi' a lass!"[9] His House of Stuart had gained the throne of Scotland in the 14th century via the marriage of Marjorie Bruce, daughter of Robert the Bruce, to Walter Stewart, 6th High Steward of Scotland. The crown had come to his family through a woman, and would be lost from his family through a woman. This legendary statement came true much later – not through Mary, but through her great-great-granddaughter Anne, Queen of Great Britain.[10]
Mary was christened at the nearby Church of St Michael shortly after she was born.[11] Rumours spread that she was weak and frail,[12] but an English diplomat, Ralph Sadler, saw the infant at Linlithgow Palace in March 1543, unwrapped by her nurse Jean Sinclair, and wrote, "it is as goodly a child as I have seen of her age, and as like to live."[13]
As Mary was an infant when she inherited the throne, Scotland was ruled by regents until she became an adult. From the outset, there were two claims to the regency: one from the Catholic
Treaty of Greenwich
King Henry VIII of England took the opportunity of the regency to propose marriage between Mary and his own son and heir,
Beaton wanted to move Mary away from the coast to the safety of
Shortly before Mary's coronation, Henry arrested Scottish merchants headed for France and impounded their goods. The arrests caused anger in Scotland, and Arran joined Beaton and became a Catholic.[24] The Treaty of Greenwich was rejected by the Parliament of Scotland in December.[25] The rejection of the marriage treaty and the renewal of the alliance between France and Scotland prompted Henry's "Rough Wooing", a military campaign designed to impose the marriage of Mary to his son. English forces mounted a series of raids on Scottish and French territory.[26] In May 1544, the English Earl of Hertford (later Duke of Somerset) raided Edinburgh, and the Scots took Mary to Dunkeld for safety.[27]
In May 1546, Beaton was murdered by Protestant lairds,[28] and on 10 September 1547, nine months after the death of Henry VIII, the Scots suffered a heavy defeat at the Battle of Pinkie. Mary's guardians, fearful for her safety, sent her to Inchmahome Priory for no more than three weeks, and turned to the French for help.[29]
King Henry II of France proposed to unite France and Scotland by marrying the young queen to his three-year-old son, the Dauphin Francis. On the promise of French military help and a French dukedom for himself, Arran agreed to the marriage.[30] In February 1548, Mary was moved, again for her safety, to Dumbarton Castle.[31] The English left a trail of devastation behind them once more and seized the strategic town of Haddington. In June, the much-awaited French help arrived at Leith to besiege and ultimately take Haddington. On 7 July 1548, a Scottish Parliament held at a nunnery near the town agreed to the French marriage treaty.[32]
Life in France
With her marriage agreement in place, five-year-old Mary was sent to France to spend the next thirteen years at the French court. The French fleet sent by Henry II, commanded by
Mary was accompanied by her own court including two illegitimate half-brothers, and the "four Marys" (four girls her own age, all named Mary), who were the daughters of some of the noblest families in Scotland:
Vivacious, beautiful, and clever (according to contemporary accounts), Mary had a promising childhood.
Portraits of Mary show that she had a small, oval-shaped head, a long, graceful neck, bright auburn hair, hazel-brown eyes, under heavy lowered eyelids and finely arched brows, smooth pale skin, a high forehead, and regular, firm features. She was considered a pretty child and later, as a woman, strikingly attractive.[43] At some point in her infancy or childhood, she caught smallpox, but it did not mark her features.[44]
Mary was eloquent, and especially tall by 16th-century standards (she attained an adult height of 5 feet 11 inches or 1.80 m);
Claim to the English throne
In November 1558,
When Henry II died on 10 July 1559, from injuries sustained in a
In Scotland, the power of the Protestant
Return to Scotland
King Francis II died on 5 December 1560 of a middle-ear infection that led to an abscess in his brain. Mary was grief-stricken.[62] Her mother-in-law, Catherine de' Medici, became regent for the late king's ten-year-old brother Charles IX, who inherited the French throne.[63] Mary returned to Scotland nine months later, arriving in Leith on 19 August 1561.[64] Having lived in France since the age of five, Mary had little direct experience of the dangerous and complex political situation in Scotland.[65]
As a devout Catholic, she was regarded with suspicion by many of her subjects, as well as by the Queen of England.[66] Scotland was torn between Catholic and Protestant factions. Mary's illegitimate half-brother, the Earl of Moray, was a leader of the Protestants.[67] The Protestant reformer John Knox preached against Mary, condemning her for hearing Mass, dancing, and dressing too elaborately.[68] She summoned him to her presence to remonstrate with him but was unsuccessful. She later charged him with treason, but he was acquitted and released.[69]
To the surprise and dismay of the Catholic party, Mary tolerated the newly established Protestant ascendancy,
Modern historian Jenny Wormald found this remarkable and suggested that Mary's failure to appoint a council sympathetic to Catholic and French interests was an indication of her focus on the English throne, over the internal problems of Scotland. Even the one significant later addition to the council, Lord Ruthven in December 1563, was another Protestant whom Mary personally disliked.[73] In this, she was acknowledging her lack of effective military power in the face of the Protestant lords, while also following a policy that strengthened her links with England. She joined with Moray in the destruction of Scotland's leading Catholic magnate, Lord Huntly, in 1562, after he led a rebellion against her in the Highlands.[74]
Mary sent
Mary then turned her attention to finding a new husband from the royalty of Europe. When her uncle, the Cardinal of Lorraine, began negotiations with Archduke Charles of Austria without her consent, she angrily objected and the negotiations foundered.[78] Her own attempt to negotiate a marriage to Don Carlos, the mentally unstable heir apparent of King Philip II of Spain, was rebuffed by Philip.[79] Elizabeth attempted to neutralise Mary by suggesting that she marry English Protestant Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester. Dudley was Sir Henry Sidney's brother-in-law and the English queen's own favourite, whom Elizabeth trusted and thought she could control.[80] She sent an ambassador, Thomas Randolph, to tell Mary that if she married an English nobleman, Elizabeth would "proceed to the inquisition of her right and title to be our next cousin and heir".[81] The proposal came to nothing, not least because the intended bridegroom was unwilling.[82]
In contrast, a French poet at Mary's court,
Marriage to Lord Darnley
Mary had briefly met her English-born half-cousin
Darnley shared a more recent Stewart lineage with the Hamilton family as a descendant of Mary Stewart, Countess of Arran, a daughter of James II of Scotland. They next met on Saturday 17 February 1565 at Wemyss Castle in Scotland.[87] Mary fell in love with the "long lad", as Queen Elizabeth called him since he was over six feet tall.[88] They married at Holyrood Palace on 29 July 1565, even though both were Catholic and a papal dispensation for the marriage of first cousins had not been obtained.[89][90]
English statesmen William Cecil and the Earl of Leicester had worked to obtain Darnley's licence to travel to Scotland from his home in England.[91] Although her advisors had brought the couple together, Elizabeth felt threatened by the marriage because as descendants of her aunt, both Mary and Darnley were claimants to the English throne.[92] Their children, if any, would inherit an even stronger, combined claim.[93] Mary's insistence on the marriage seems to have stemmed from passion rather than calculation; the English ambassador Nicholas Throckmorton stated "the saying is that surely she [Queen Mary] is bewitched",[94] adding that the marriage could only be averted "by violence".[95] The union infuriated Elizabeth, who felt the marriage should not have gone ahead without her permission, as Darnley was both her cousin and an English subject.[96]
Mary's marriage to a leading Catholic precipitated Mary's half-brother, the
Before long, Darnley grew arrogant. Not content with his position as king consort, he demanded the Crown Matrimonial, which would have made him a co-sovereign of Scotland with the right to keep the Scottish throne for himself, if he outlived his wife.[102] Mary refused his request and their marriage grew strained, although they conceived by October 1565. He was jealous of her friendship with her Catholic private secretary, David Rizzio, who was rumoured to be the father of her child.[103] By March 1566, Darnley had entered into a secret conspiracy with Protestant lords, including the nobles who had rebelled against Mary in the Chaseabout Raid.[104] On 9 March, a group of the conspirators accompanied by Darnley stabbed Rizzio to death in front of the pregnant Mary at a dinner party in Holyrood Palace.[105] Over the next two days, a disillusioned Darnley switched sides and Mary received Moray at Holyrood.[106] On the night of 11–12 March, Darnley and Mary escaped from the palace. They took temporary refuge in Dunbar Castle before returning to Edinburgh on 18 March.[107] The former rebels Lords Moray, Argyll and Glencairn were restored to the council.[108]
Murder of Darnley
Mary's son by Darnley,
Immediately after her return to Jedburgh, she suffered a serious illness that included frequent vomiting, loss of sight, loss of speech, convulsions and periods of unconsciousness. She was thought to be dying. Her recovery from 25 October onwards was credited to the skill of her French physicians.[112] The cause of her illness is unknown. Potential diagnoses include physical exhaustion and mental stress,[113] haemorrhage of a gastric ulcer,[114] and porphyria.[115]
At Craigmillar Castle, near Edinburgh, at the end of November 1566, Mary and leading nobles held a meeting to discuss the "problem of Darnley".[116] Divorce was discussed, but a bond was probably sworn between the lords present to remove Darnley by other means:[117] "It was thought expedient and most profitable for the common wealth ... that such a young fool and proud tyrant should not reign or bear rule over them; ... that he should be put off by one way or another; and whosoever should take the deed in hand or do it, they should defend."[118] Darnley feared for his safety, and after the baptism of his son at Stirling and shortly before Christmas, he went to Glasgow to stay on his father's estates.[119] At the start of the journey, he was afflicted by a fever—possibly smallpox, syphilis or the result of poison. He remained ill for some weeks.[120]
In late January 1567, Mary prompted her husband to return to Edinburgh. He recuperated from his illness in a house belonging to the brother of
I should ill fulfil the office of a faithful cousin or an affectionate friend if I did not ... tell you what all the world is thinking. Men say that, instead of seizing the murderers, you are looking through your fingers while they escape; that you will not seek revenge on those who have done you so much pleasure, as though the deed would never have taken place had not the doers of it been assured of impunity. For myself, I beg you to believe that I would not harbour such a thought.[128]
By the end of February, Bothwell was generally believed to be guilty of Darnley's assassination.
Imprisonment in Scotland and abdication
Between 21 and 23 April 1567, Mary visited her son at Stirling for the last time. On her way back to Edinburgh on 24 April, Mary was abducted, willingly or not, by Lord Bothwell and his men and taken to Dunbar Castle, where he may have raped her.[132] On 6 May, Mary and Bothwell returned to Edinburgh. On 15 May, at either Holyrood Palace or Holyrood Abbey, they were married according to Protestant rites.[133] Bothwell and his first wife, Jean Gordon, who was the sister of Lord Huntly, had divorced twelve days previously.[134]
Originally, Mary believed that many nobles supported her marriage, but relations quickly soured between the newly elevated Bothwell (created
Twenty-six
Escape and imprisonment in England
Mary's places of imprisonmentOn 2 May 1568, Mary escaped from
Mary apparently expected Elizabeth to help her regain her throne.[149] Elizabeth was cautious, ordering an inquiry into the conduct of the confederate lords and the question of whether Mary was guilty of Darnley's murder.[150] In mid-July 1568, English authorities moved Mary to Bolton Castle, because it was farther from the Scottish border but not too close to London.[151] Mary's clothes, sent from Loch Leven Castle, arrived on 20 July.[152] A commission of inquiry, or conference, as it was known, was held in York and later Westminster between October 1568 and January 1569.[153] In Scotland, her supporters fought a civil war against Regent Moray and his successors.[154]
Casket letters
As an anointed queen, Mary refused to acknowledge the power of any court to try her. She refused to attend the inquiry at York personally but sent representatives. Elizabeth forbade her attendance anyway.[155] As evidence against Mary, Moray presented the so-called casket letters[156]—eight unsigned letters purportedly from Mary to Bothwell, two marriage contracts, and a love sonnet or sonnets. All were said to have been found in a silver-gilt casket just less than one foot (30 cm) long and decorated with the monogram of King Francis II.[157] Mary denied writing them and insisted they were forgeries,[158] arguing that her handwriting was not difficult to imitate.[159] They are widely believed to be crucial as to whether Mary shared the guilt for Darnley's murder.[160] The head of the commission of inquiry, the Duke of Norfolk, described them as horrible letters and diverse fond ballads. He sent copies to Elizabeth, saying that if they were genuine, they might prove Mary's guilt.[161]
The authenticity of the casket letters has been the source of much controversy among historians. It is impossible now to prove either way. The originals, written in French, were possibly destroyed in 1584 by Mary's son.[162] The surviving copies, in French or translated into English, do not form a complete set. There are incomplete printed transcriptions in English, Scots, French, and Latin from the 1570s.[163] Other documents scrutinised included Bothwell's divorce from Jean Gordon. Moray had sent a messenger in September to Dunbar to get a copy of the proceedings from the town's registers.[164]
Mary's biographers, such as
The casket letters did not appear publicly until the Conference of 1568, although the Scottish privy council had seen them by December 1567.[170] Mary had been forced to abdicate and held captive for the better part of a year in Scotland; the letters were never made public to support her imprisonment and forced abdication. Historian Jenny Wormald believes this reluctance on the part of the Scots to produce the letters and their destruction in 1584, whatever their content, constitute proof that they contained real evidence against Mary.[171] In contrast, Weir thinks it demonstrates that the lords required time to fabricate them.[172] At least some of Mary's contemporaries who saw the letters had no doubt that they were genuine. Among them was the Duke of Norfolk,[173] who secretly conspired to marry Mary in the course of the commission, although he denied it when Elizabeth alluded to his marriage plans, saying "he meant never to marry with a person, where he could not be sure of his pillow".[174]
The majority of the commissioners accepted the casket letters as genuine after a study of their contents and a comparison of the penmanship with examples of Mary's handwriting.[175] Elizabeth, as she had wished, concluded the inquiry with a verdict that nothing was proven against either the confederate lords or Mary.[176] For overriding political reasons, Elizabeth wished neither to convict nor to acquit Mary of murder. There was never any intention to proceed judicially; the conference was intended as a political exercise. In the end, Moray returned to Scotland as regent and Mary remained in custody in England. Elizabeth had succeeded in maintaining a Protestant government in Scotland, without either condemning or releasing her fellow sovereign.[177] In Fraser's opinion, it was one of the strangest "trials" in legal history, ending with no finding of guilt against either party, one of whom was allowed to return home to Scotland while the other remained in custody.[178]
Plots
On 26 January 1569, Mary was moved to Tutbury Castle[181] and placed in the custody of the Earl of Shrewsbury and his formidable wife Bess of Hardwick.[182] Elizabeth considered Mary's designs on the English throne to be a serious threat and so confined her to Shrewsbury's properties, including Tutbury, Sheffield Castle, Sheffield Manor Lodge, Wingfield Manor, and Chatsworth House,[183] all located in the interior of England, halfway between Scotland and London and distant from the sea.[184]
Mary was permitted her own domestic staff, which never numbered fewer than 16.
In May 1569, Elizabeth attempted to mediate the restoration of Mary in return for guarantees of the Protestant religion, but a convention held at
In 1571, Cecil and Walsingham (at that time England's ambassador to France) uncovered the
Mary sent letters in cipher to the French ambassador, Michel de Castelnau, scores of which were discovered and decrypted in 2022–2023.[200] After the Throckmorton Plot of 1583, Walsingham (now the queen's principal secretary) introduced the Bond of Association and the Act for the Queen's Safety, which sanctioned the killing of anyone who plotted against Elizabeth and aimed to prevent a putative successor from profiting from her murder.[201]
In 1584, Mary proposed an "association" with her son, James. She announced that she was ready to stay in England, to renounce the Pope's bull of excommunication, and to retire, abandoning her pretensions to the English Crown. She also offered to join an offensive league against France. For Scotland, she proposed a general amnesty, agreed that James should marry with Elizabeth's knowledge, and accepted that there should be no change in religion. Her only condition was the immediate alleviation of the conditions of her captivity. James went along with the idea for a while, but eventually rejected it and signed an alliance treaty with Elizabeth, abandoning his mother.[202] Elizabeth also rejected the association because she did not trust Mary to cease plotting against her during the negotiations.[203]
In February 1585,
Trial
On 11 August 1586, after being implicated in the
Mary was moved to Fotheringhay Castle in a four-day journey ending on 25 September. In October, she was put on trial for treason under the Act for the Queen's Safety before a court of 36 noblemen,[210] including Cecil, Shrewsbury, and Walsingham.[211][212] Spirited in her defence, Mary denied the charges.[213] She told her triers, "Look to your consciences and remember that the theatre of the whole world is wider than the kingdom of England."[214] She protested that she had been denied the opportunity to review the evidence, that her papers had been removed from her, that she was denied access to legal counsel and that as a foreign anointed queen she had never been an English subject and thus could not be convicted of treason.[215]
She was convicted on 25 October and sentenced to death with only one commissioner, Lord Zouche, expressing any form of dissent.[216] Nevertheless, Elizabeth hesitated to order her execution, even in the face of pressure from the English Parliament to carry out the sentence. She was concerned that the killing of a queen set a discreditable precedent and was fearful of the consequences, especially if, in retaliation, Mary's son, James, formed an alliance with the Catholic powers and invaded England.[217]
Elizabeth asked Paulet, Mary's final custodian, if he would contrive a clandestine way to "shorten the life" of Mary, which he refused to do on the grounds that he would not make "a shipwreck of my conscience, or leave so great a blot on my poor posterity".
Execution
At Fotheringhay, on the evening of 7 February 1587, Mary was told she was to be executed the next morning.
The executioner Bull and his assistant knelt before her and asked forgiveness, as it was typical for the executioner to request the pardon of the one being put to death. Mary replied, "I forgive you with all my heart, for now, I hope, you shall make an end of all my troubles."
Mary was not beheaded with a single strike. The first blow missed her neck and struck the back of her head. The second blow severed the neck, except for a small bit of sinew, which the executioner cut through using the axe. Afterwards, he held her head aloft and declared "God save the Queen." At that moment, the auburn tresses in his hand turned out to be a wig and the head fell to the ground, revealing that Mary had very short, grey hair.[230] Cecil's nephew, who was present at the execution, reported to his uncle that after her death, "Her lips stirred up and down a quarter of an hour after her head was cut off" and that a small dog owned by the queen emerged from hiding among her skirts[231]—though eye-witness Emanuel Tomascon does not include those details in his "exhaustive report".[232] Items supposedly worn or carried by Mary at her execution are of doubtful provenance;[233] contemporary accounts state that all her clothing, the block, and everything touched by her blood was burnt in the fireplace of the Great Hall to obstruct relic hunters.[231]
When the news of the execution reached Elizabeth, she became indignant and asserted that Davison had disobeyed her instructions not to part with the warrant and that the Privy Council had acted without her authority.[234] Elizabeth's vacillation and deliberately vague instructions gave her plausible deniability to attempt to avoid the direct stain of Mary's blood.[235] Davison was arrested, thrown into the Tower of London, and found guilty of misprision. He was released nineteen months later, after Cecil and Walsingham interceded on his behalf.[236]
Mary's request to be buried in France was refused by Elizabeth.
Legacy
Assessments of Mary in the 16th century divided between Protestant reformers such as George Buchanan and John Knox, who vilified her mercilessly, and Catholic apologists such as Adam Blackwood, who praised, defended and eulogised her.[242] After the accession of James I in England, historian William Camden wrote an officially sanctioned biography that drew from original documents. It condemned Buchanan's work as an invention,[243] and "emphasized Mary's evil fortunes rather than her evil character".[244] Differing interpretations persisted into the 18th century: William Robertson and David Hume argued that the casket letters were genuine and that Mary was guilty of adultery and murder, while William Tytler argued the reverse.[245] In the latter half of the 20th century, the work of Antonia Fraser was acclaimed as "more objective ... free from the excesses of adulation or attack" that had characterised older biographies,[246] and her contemporaries Gordon Donaldson and Ian B. Cowan also produced more balanced works.[247]
Historian Jenny Wormald concluded that Mary was a tragic failure, who was unable to cope with the demands placed on her,[248] but hers was a rare dissenting view in a post-Fraser tradition that Mary was a pawn in the hands of scheming noblemen.[249] There is no concrete proof of her complicity in Darnley's murder or of a conspiracy with Bothwell. Such accusations rest on assumptions,[250] and Buchanan's biography is today discredited as "almost complete fantasy".[251] Mary's courage at her execution helped establish her popular image as the heroic victim in a dramatic tragedy.[252]
Genealogical chart
Mary's relationship to the houses of Stuart, Guise, and Tudor[253] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
See also
Footnotes
- , p. 11).
- New Style Gregorian calendar in the 1580s, England and Scotland retained the Old Style Julian calendaruntil 1752. In this article, dates before 1752 are Old Style, with the exception that years are assumed to start on 1 January rather than 25 March.
- ^ Also spelled as Marie and as Steuart or Stewart
- ^ "National Records of Scotland; Hall of Fame A-Z – Mary Queen of Scots". NRS. 31 May 2013. Retrieved 30 September 2022.
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 14
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 13
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 11; Wormald 1988, p. 46
- ^ Guy 2004, p. 16
- ^ This version is taken from Robert Lindsay of Pitscottie's The History of Scotland from 21 February 1436 to March 1565 written in the 1570s. The phrase was first recorded by John Knox in the 1560s as, "The devil go with it! It will end as it began: it came from a woman; and it will end in a woman" (Wormald 1988, pp. 11–12).
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 12; Wormald 1988, p. 11
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 12; Guy 2004, p. 17
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 13; Guy 2004, p. 17
- ^ Sadler to Henry VIII, 23 March 1543, quoted in Clifford 1809, p. 88; Fraser 1994, p. 18; Guy 2004, p. 22; Wormald 1988, p. 43
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 15; John Knox claimed the king had signed a blank sheet of paper that Beaton had then filled in, while Arran claimed that Beaton had taken the dying king's hand in his own and traced out the signature (Wormald 1988, pp. 46–47). The disputed will is printed in Historical Manuscripts Commission (1887). "Eleventh Report, Appendix, Part VI". The Manuscripts of the Duke of Hamilton, KT. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. pp. 205, 219–220.
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 17, 60; Guy 2004, pp. 20, 60; Wormald 1988, pp. 49–50
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 17–18;Wormald 1988, p. 55
- ^ a b c Weir 2008, p. 8
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 18; Guy 2004, p. 25; Wormald 1988, p. 55
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 19
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 19–20
- ^ Guy 2004, p. 26
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 21; Guy 2004, p. 27
- ^ Sadler to Henry VIII, 11 September 1543, quoted in Clifford 1809, p. 289; Fraser 1994, p. 21
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 20–21
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 22; Guy 2004, p. 32; Wormald 1988, p. 58
- ^ Wormald 1988, pp. 58–59
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 23–24; Guy 2004, pp. 33–34
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 26; Guy 2004, p. 36; Wormald 1988, p. 59
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 29–30; Weir 2008, p. 10; Wormald 1988, p. 61
- ^ Weir 2008, pp. 10–11
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 30; Weir 2008, p. 11; Wormald 1988, p. 61
- ^ Guy 2004, pp. 40–41; Wormald 1988, p. 62
- ^ Guy 2004, pp. 41–42; "St Mauris to the Queen Dowager", 25 August 1548, quoted in Hume, Martin A. S.; Tyler, Royall, eds. (1912). "Appendix: Miscellaneous 1548". Calendar of State Papers, Spain: Volume IX: 1547–1549. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. p. 577.; Lord Guthrie (1907). "Mary Stuart and Roscoff" (PDF). Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. 42: 13–18.
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 31–32
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 31–32; Guy 2004, p. 43
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 36, 44–45, 50
- ^ Weir 2008, p. 12; Wormald 1988, p. 77; Catherine's dislike of Mary became apparent only after Henry II's death (Fraser 1994, pp. 102–103, 115–116, 119; Guy 2004, p. 46). Catherine's interests competed with those of the Guise family, and there may have been an element of jealousy or rivalry between the two queens (Donaldson 1974, pp. 50–51; Fraser 1994, pp. 102–103, 116, 119).
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 178–182; Guy 2004, pp. 71–80; Weir 2008, p. 13
- ^ Margaret M. McGowan, Dance in the Renaissance: European Fashion, French Obsession (Yale, 2008), p. 152.
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 43
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 37; Wormald 1988, p. 80
- ^ Wormald 1988, p. 80
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 39–40, 43, 75–80; Weir 2008, p. 30
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 62; Guy 2004, p. 67
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 76
- ^ Guy 2004, pp. 47–48
- ^ Guy 2004, pp. 90–91; Weir 2008, p. 17; Wormald 1988, p. 21
- ^ Anonymous (1558). Discours du grand et magnifique triumphe faict au mariage du tresnoble & magnifique Prince Francois de Valois Roy Dauphin, filz aisné du tres-chrestien Roy de France Henry II du nom & de treshaulte & vertueuse Princesse madame Marie d'Estreuart Roine d'Escosse (in French). Paris: Annet Briere. Archived from the original on 14 December 2015. Retrieved 9 June 2010.
- ^ Teulet, Alexandre (1862). Relations politiques de la France et de l'Espagne avec l'Écosse au XVIe siècle (in French). Vol. 1. Paris: Renouard. pp. 302–311.
- ^ "Elizabeth and Mary, Royal Cousins, Rival Queens: Curators' Picks". British Library. 8 October 2021. Retrieved 4 February 2022.
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 83; Weir 2008, p. 18
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 83; Guy 2004, pp. 95–96; Weir 2008, p. 18; Wormald 1988, p. 21
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 85; Weir 2008, p. 18
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 86–88; Guy 2004, p. 100; Weir 2008, p. 19; Wormald 1988, p. 93
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 88; Wormald 1988, pp. 80, 93
- ISBN 978-1-4179-7435-1.
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 96–97; Guy 2004, pp. 108–109; Weir 2008, p. 14; Wormald 1988, pp. 94–100
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 97; Wormald 1988, p. 100
- ^ Wormald 1988, pp. 100–101
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 97–101; Guy 2004, pp. 114–115; Weir 2008, p. 20; Wormald 1988, pp. 102–103
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 183
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 105–107; Weir 2008, p. 21
- ^ Guy 2004, pp. 119–120; Weir 2008, pp. 21–22
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 137; Guy 2004, p. 134; Weir 2008, p. 25
- ^ Wormald 1988, p. 22
- ^ Weir 2008, p. 24
- ^ Guy 2004, p. 126
- ^ Knox, John, History of the Reformation of Religion in Scotland, 4th Book, various editions, e.g., Lennox, Cuthbert (editor) (1905). London: Andrew Melrose, pp. 225–337 [1]
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 155–156, 215–217; Guy 2004, pp. 140–143, 176–177, 186–187; Wormald 1988, pp. 125, 145–146
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 167; Wormald 1988, p. 125
- ^ Guy 2004, p. 145
- Lord Erskine (later the Earl of Mar) (Weir 2008, p. 30).
- ^ Wormald 1988, pp. 114–116
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 192–203; Weir 2008, p. 42; Wormald 1988, pp. 123–124
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 162; Guy 2004, p. 157
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 162
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 168–169; Guy 2004, pp. 157–161
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 212; Guy 2004, pp. 175, 181; Wormald 1988, p. 134
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 114–117; Guy 2004, pp. 173–174; Wormald 1988, pp. 133–134
- ^ Guy 2004, p. 193
- ^ Rennie, James (published anonymously) (1826). Mary, Queen of Scots: Her Persecutions, Sufferings, and Trials from her Birth till her Death. Glasgow: W. R. McPhun. p. 114.
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 220; Guy 2004, p. 202; Weir 2008, p. 52; Wormald 1988, p. 147
- ^ Guy 2004, p. 178; Weir 2008, p. 44
- ^ Weir 2008, p. 45
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 206; Weir 2008, pp. 45–46
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 118; Weir 2008, p. 23
- ^ Bain 1900, p. 125; Guy 2004, p. 204; Weir 2008, p. 58
- ^ For the quote and his height see Fraser 1994, p. 221 and Weir 2008, pp. 49, 56; for falling in love see Fraser 1994, p. 224; Weir 2008, p. 63 and Wormald 1988, p. 149
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 230; Wormald 1988, p. 150
- ^ A dispensation, backdated to 25 May, was granted in Rome on 25 September (Weir 2008, p. 82).
- ^ Bain 1900, p. 124; Fraser 1994, p. 219; Weir 2008, p. 52
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 219; Weir 2008, p. 64
- ^ Weir 2008, pp. 64, 91
- ^ Bingham 1995, p. 101
- ^ Bingham 1995, p. 100
- ^ Weir 2008, p. 64
- ^ Weir 2008, p. 78; Wormald 1988, pp. 151–153
- ^ Weir 2008, pp. 79–82
- ^ Guy 2004, pp. 229–230; Weir 2008, pp. 77, 79; Wormald 1988, pp. 151–152
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 234; Guy 2004, p. 231; Weir 2008, p. 83; Wormald 1988, pp. 151–154
- ^ Wormald 1988, p. 156
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 239; Weir 2008, pp. 87–88
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 245–246; Weir 2008, pp. 88–97
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 247; Guy 2004, p. 245; Weir 2008, p. 95; Wormald 1988, p. 158
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 249–252; Guy 2004, pp. 248–249; Weir 2008, pp. 105–107
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 255–256; Guy 2004, pp. 253–258; Weir 2008, p. 113
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 256–258; Guy 2004, p. 259; Weir 2008, pp. 116–117, 121; Wormald 1988, p. 159
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 259; Guy 2004, p. 260; Wormald 1988, p. 160
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 259 ff; Wormald 1988, p. 160
- ^ Bingham 1995, pp. 158–159; Guy 2004, pp. 273–274; Fraser 1994, pp. 274–275; Weir 2008, pp. 157–160
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 274–275; Weir 2008, pp. 158–159
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 275–276; Guy 2004, p. 274; Weir 2008, pp. 161–163
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 276; Weir 2008, p. 161
- ^ Guy 2004, p. 275; Weir 2008, p. 161
- ^ Weir 2008, p. 161
- ^ Bingham 1995, p. 160; Wormald 1988, p. 160
- ^ Bingham 1995, pp. 160–163; Fraser 1994, pp. 277–279; Weir 2008, pp. 176–178, 261; Wormald 1988, p. 161
- ^ Confession of James Ormiston, one of Bothwell's men, 13 December 1573, quoted (from Robert Pitcairn's Ancient Criminal Trials in Scotland from AD 1488 to AD 1624) in Weir 2008, p. 177; Fraser 1994, p. 279
- ^ Weir 2008, p. 189
- ^ Weir 2008, pp. 190–192
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 285–292; Guy 2004, pp. 292–294; Weir 2008, pp. 227–233
- ^ Weir 2008, pp. 232–233
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 296–297; Guy 2004, pp. 297–299; Weir 2008, pp. 244–247
- ^ Weir 2008, p. 296; Wormald 1988, p. 161
- ^ Weir 2008, p. 252; Greig 2004
- ^ A post-mortem revealed internal injuries, thought to have been caused by the explosion. John Knox claimed the surgeons who examined the body were lying and that Darnley had been strangled, but all the sources agree that there were no marks on the body, and there was no reason for the surgeons to lie as Darnley was murdered either way (Weir 2008, p. 255).
- ^ Weir 2008, pp. 298–299
- ^ The original letter is in French, this translation is from Weir 2008, pp. 308–309. For other versions see Guy 2004, p. 312 and Lewis 1999, p. 86.
- ^ Guy 2004, p. 304; Weir 2008, pp. 312–313
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 311–312; Weir 2008, pp. 336–340
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 313; Weir 2008, pp. 343–345; Wormald 1988, p. 163
- ^ James Melville of Halhill, who was in the castle, wrote that Bothwell "had ravished her and lain with her against her will" (quoted in Fraser 1994, pp. 314–317). Other contemporaries dismissed the abduction as bogus (Donaldson 1974, p. 117; Fraser 1994, p. 317). See also Guy 2004, pp. 328–329; Weir 2008, pp. 351–355; and Wormald 1988, p. 163.
- ^ Weir 2008, pp. 367, 374
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 319; Guy 2004, pp. 330–331; Weir 2008, pp. 366–367
- ^ Weir 2008, p. 382
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 322–323; Guy 2004, pp. 336–337
- ^ Weir 2008, pp. 383–390; Wormald 1988, p. 165
- ^ Weir 2008, pp. 391–393
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 335; Guy 2004, p. 351; Weir 2008, p. 398
- ^ Weir 2008, p. 411
- ^ Guy 2004, p. 364; Weir 2008, p. 413; Wormald 1988, p. 165
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 347; Guy 2004, p. 366; Weir 2008, p. 421; Wormald 1988, p. 166
- ^ Weir 2008, pp. 422, 501; Wormald 1988, p. 171
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 357–359; Guy 2004, p. 367; Weir 2008, p. 432; Wormald 1988, p. 172
- ^ Guy 2004, p. 368; Weir 2008, p. 433
- ^ Guy 2004, p. 369; Weir 2008, pp. 433–434: Wormald 1988, p. 173
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 368–369
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 369; Weir 2008, p. 435
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 369; Guy 2004, p. 435; Weir 2008, p. 434; Wormald 1988, p. 174
- ^ Guy 2004, p. 430; Weir 2008, p. 445
- ^ Weir 2008, p. 444
- ^ Bain 1900, p. 460
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 385–390; Wormald 1988, p. 174
- ^ Wormald 1988, p. 184
- ^ Weir 2008, p. 447; Mary later requested to attend the conference at Westminster, but Elizabeth refused permission. In response, Mary's commissioners withdrew from the inquiry (Weir 2008, pp. 461–463).
- ^ Guy 2004, p. 432; Weir 2008, p. 464; Wormald 1988, p. 175
- ^ For the list of documents see, for example, Guy 2004, p. 397 and Wormald 1988, p. 176; for the casket description see Robertson, Joseph (1863). Inventaires de la Royne d'Ecosse. Edinburgh: Bannatyne Club. p. lviii. and Guy 2004, p. 432.
- ^ Guy 2004, p. 435; Weir 2008, pp. 446–447
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 407; Weir 2008, p. 221
- ^ e.g., Guy 2004, p. 395; Weir 2008, pp. 453, 468
- ^ Norfolk, Sussex and Sadler to Elizabeth, 11 October 1568, quoted in Bain 1900, p. 527; Weir 2008, pp. 451–452
- ^ Bingham 1995, p. 193; Weir 2008, p. 465; Wormald 1988, p. 176
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 392; Weir 2008, pp. 466–467
- ^ McInnes 1970, p. 145
- ^ Guy 2004, pp. 400, 416; Weir 2008, pp. 465–474
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 396–397; Guy 2004, pp. 400–404, 408–412, 416; Weir 2008, pp. 465–474
- ^ Guy 2004, pp. 404, 410, 420–426; Fraser 1994, pp. 287, 396–401
- ^ Guy 2004, pp. 399, 401–417
- ISBN 978-0-09-081730-6.
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 352; Wormald 1988, pp. 171, 176
- ^ Weir 2008, p. 470; Wormald 1988, pp. 177–178
- ^ Weir 2008, p. 471
- ^ Williams 1964, pp. 137–139; Weir 2008, p. 453
- ^ Weir 2008, p. 459; Williams 1964, p. 141
- ^ Weir 2008, pp. 475–476
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 390; Weir 2008, p. 481
- ^ Weir 2008, p. 481
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 391
- Royal Collection Trust. Inventory no. 28224.
- ^ Embroideries by Mary are also kept in the Victoria and Albert Museum (Marian Hangings, Oxburgh Hangings) and Hardwick Hall.
- ^ Weir 2008, p. 484
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 410–411; Guy 2004, p. 441; Wormald 1988, p. 184
- ^ Guy 2004, p. 442; Weir 2008, p. 484
- ^ Guy 2004, pp. 440–441
- ^ Guy 2004, p. 438
- ^ Guy 2004, p. 439
- ^ It had been her mother's motto (Guy 2004, pp. 443–444).
- ^ Guy 2004, p. 443
- ^ Guy 2004, pp. 444–445
- ^ Guy 2004, pp. 453–454
- ^ Guy 2004, pp. 448–450, 518
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 443–446, 511; Guy 2004, pp. 447, 458
- ^ Wormald 1988, p. 179
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 415–424; Weir 2008, p. 487
- ^ Weir 2008, p. 496; Wormald 1988, p. 180
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 469; Guy 2004, p. 451
- ^ Guy 2004, pp. 464–470; Weir 2008, pp. 492–494; Wormald 1988, p. 183
- ^ Guy 2004, p. 467; Weir 2008, p. 493; Wormald 1988, p. 184
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 446
- S2CID 256720092.
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 473; Guy 2004, pp. 474–476; Weir 2008, p. 506
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 458–462
- ^ Guy 2004, pp. 458–462
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 472
- ^ Guy 2004, p. 457; Weir 2008, p. 507
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 479
- ^ Guy 2004, pp. 484–485; Fraser 1994, p. 493
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 482–483; Guy 2004, pp. 477–480; Weir 2008, p. 507
- ^ Guy 2004, pp. 483–485; Weir 2008, p. 507; Wormald 1988, p. 185
- ^ Weir 2008, p. 508
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 509
- ^ Two of the commissioners were Catholics (Lewis 1999, p. 22).
- ^ Boyd 1915, pp. 59–65, 143–145, 309–314; Fraser 1994, pp. 506–512; Guy 2004, pp. 488–489, 492; Weir 2008, p. 508
- ^ Guy 2004, p. 488
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 506–512; Guy 2004, pp. 489–493
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 517
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 521–522; Weir 2008, p. 508
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 529
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 528
- ^ Guy 2004, p. 519
- ^ Guy 2004, p. 496
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 531; Guy 2004, p. 498; Weir 2008, p. 508
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 533–534; Guy 2004, p. 500
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 537; Guy 2004, p. 4
- ^ Guy 2004, p. 7; Lewis 1999, p. 118
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 538; Guy 2004, p. 7; Weir 2008, p. 209; Wormald 1988, p. 187
- ^ Morris, John (ed.) (1874). Letter Book of Amias Paulet, pp. 368–369
- ^ Guy 2004, p. 7; Lewis 1999, pp. 41, 119
- ^ Guy 2004, pp. 7–8
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 539; Guy 2004, p. 8
- ^ a b Fraser 1994, p. 540; Guy 2004, p. 9
- ^ Tomascon, Emanuel (1924). "79. Execution of Mary Stuart". In von Klarwill, Victor (ed.). The Fugger Newsletters. London: John Lane The Bodley Head. pp. 97–105.
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 540
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 541
- ^ Guy 2004, p. 497
- ISBN 978-0-297-84613-0.
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 532
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 542, 546–547; Weir 2008, p. 509
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 541; Guy 2004, p. 9
- ^ Guy 2004, p. 504; Weir 2008, p. 509
- ^ Fraser 1994, p. 554
- ^ Guy 2004, pp. 505–506; Wormald 1988, pp. 13–14, 192
- ^ Guy 2004, p. 505
- ^ Wormald 1988, p. 14
- ^ Wormald 1988, p. 15
- ^ Wormald 1988, p. 16
- ^ Wormald 1988, pp. 17, 192–193
- ^ Wormald 1988, pp. 188–189
- ^ Weir 2008, p. 4
- ^ Fraser 1994, pp. 269–270; Guy 2004, p. 313: Weir 2008, p. 510
- ^ Guy 2004, p. 391; see also Fraser 1994, p. 269
- ^ Guy 2004, p. 502; Weir 2008, pp. 3–4, 509
- ^ Warnicke 2006, pp. xvi–xvii
References
- Bain, Joseph, ed. (1900). Calendar State Papers, Scotland: Volume II. Edinburgh: General Register Office (Scotland).
- Bingham, Caroline (1995). Darnley: A Life of Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, Consort of Mary Queen of Scots. London: ISBN 978-0-09-472530-0.
- Boyd, William K., ed. (1915). Calendar of State Papers, Scotland: Volume IX. Glasgow: General Register Office (Scotland).
- Clifford, Arthur, ed. (1809). The State Papers and Letters of Sir Ralph Sadler. Edinburgh: Archibald Constable and Co.
- ISBN 978-0-340-12383-6.
- ISBN 978-0-297-17773-9.
- Greig, Elaine Finnie (2004). "Stewart, Henry, duke of Albany [Lord Darnley] (1545/6–1567)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 1. Oxfordshire: required)
- ISBN 978-1-84115-753-5.
- Lewis, Jayne Elizabeth (1999). The Trial of Mary Queen of Scots: A Brief History with Documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's. ISBN 978-0-312-21815-7.
- McInnes, Charles T., ed. (1970). Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer of Scotland Volume 12. Edinburgh: General Register Office (Scotland).
- ISBN 978-0-415-29182-8.
- ISBN 978-0-09-952707-7.
- Williams, Neville (1964). Thomas Howard, Fourth Duke of Norfolk. London: Barrie & Rockliff.
- ISBN 978-0-540-01131-5.
Further reading
- Bath, Michael (2008). Emblems for a Queen: The Needlework of Mary Queen of Scots. London: Archetype Publications. ISBN 978-1-904982-36-4.
- Labanov, A. I. (Prince Lobanov-Rostovsky) (1844). Lettres et Mémoires de Marie, Reine d'Ecosse. London: Charles Dolman.
- Marshall, Rosalind (2006). Queen Mary's Women: Female Relatives, Servants, Friends and Enemies of Mary, Queen of Scots. Edinburgh: John Donald. ISBN 978-0-85976-667-8.
- Marshall, Rosalind (2013). Mary, Queen of Scots. Edinburgh: National Museums of Scotland. ISBN 978-1-905267-78-1.
- ISBN 978-1-862-32090-1.
- Read, Conyers (1909). The Bardon Papers: Documents relating to the imprisonment and trial of Mary, Queen of Scots. London: Camden Series.
- Swain, Margaret (1973). The Needlework of Mary Queen of Scots. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. ISBN 978-0-442-29962-0.
- Wilkinson, Alexander S. (2004). Mary Queen of Scots and French Public Opinion, 1542–1600. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-28615-3.
External links
- Mary, Queen of Scots at the official website of the British monarchy
- Mary, Queen of Scots at the official website of the Royal Collection Trust
- Portraits of Mary, Queen of Scots at the National Portrait Gallery, London
- Edinburgh Castle Research: The Dolls of Mary Queen of Scots (Historic Environment Scotland, 2019).
- Works by Mary, Queen of Scots at LibriVox (public domain audiobooks)
- How three amateurs cracked a 445-year-old code to reveal Mary Queen of Scots' secrets