Mary, Queen
of Scots was a thorn in the side of Queen Elizabeth I during much of her reign.
Most of this trouble resulted from Mary’s potential claim to the English
throne, and because of this, Mary was at the center of many plots against Elizabeth.
To explain why Mary was at the center of these plots, one must understand her
childhood in the French court and connections with the much hated House of Guise,
her Catholic stance in a world that was changing to Protestantism, and her claim
to the English throne and her ambitions to be Queen of England.
There were several plots in which Mary was involved that best illustrate her
involvement in attempting to overthrow, and maybe even murder, Elizabeth I.
Mary’s involvement in these plots was active, though not really direct,
meaning she was never to be the one to actually remove or kill Elizabeth. However,
Mary was a financial backer of the plots and a connection to foreign powers,
who would help in replacing Elizabeth as queen, always knew the details of the
action to be taken, and even gave advice concerning the timing of the action,
such as not proceeding until sufficient support was garnered. The two plots,
which happened to occur in a fifteen year period (1571-1586), were the Ridolfi
Plot and the Babington Plot, which resulted in the trial and execution of Mary.
I
Mary was born December 8, 1542 at Linlithgow Palace in Scotland. Her father,
James V of Scotland, died a few days after her birth, and she was crowned Queen
of Scotland September 9, 1543. Mary’s mother, Mary of Guise, acted as
regent until her death on June 11, 1560. During this time, Mary was sent to
France in the August of 1548, due to her betrothal to Françoise, the
Dauphin
Mary’s time at the French court is one of golden happiness. Mary was a
beautiful and energetic little girl, and her future father-in-law, King Henry
II of France, stated, “The little Queen of Scots is the most perfect child
that I have ever seen.” Her childhood and raising in the French court
would later add suspicion and hatred to Mary from the English masses. Also,
Mary was raised Catholic, both during her early years in Scotland and later
childhood years in France. Furthermore, her being Catholic would also add to
her problems and image with the English people.
Mary had another strike against her that would cause problems later in life
and that was concerning her lineage. On her mother’s side, Mary was related,
and therefore connected with, the French House of Guise. Through English perception,
the House of Guise was the basis of all Catholic conspiracies against Protestants
in England and Queen Elizabeth. William Cecil, in his “Perils upon the
overthrow of the Prince of Conde” (1562), states,
1. The whole regiment of the Crowne of france shall be in the hands of the Guisians and to Maynteane there faction they will pleasure the kyng of Spayne in all that they maye. Hereupon shall follow, a complot betwixt them twoo, to avance there owne pryvat causes the kyng of Spayne to disable the house of Navarr for ever from clayming the kingdom of Navarr. The house of Guise to promote there niece the Q. of Scotts to the crown of England and for doing hereof twoo things principally will be attempted: The marriage betwixt the prynce of Spayne and the sayd Queene and in this compact the Realme of Irland to be given in a praye to the k. of Spayne.
Even at age twenty, Mary was considered a threat to Elizabeth and English Protestants. The other aspect of her lineage which caused plots against Elizabeth to spring up around Mary was from her father’s side. Through her father, James V, Mary had a claim to the English throne; Mary’s grandmother, Margaret Tudor, was daughter of Henry VII of England and sister to Henry VIII of England. Because of her claim to the English throne, she was a threat because Elizabeth had no heirs. Also, Mary was Catholic, and Protestant England did not like the idea that the country might one day be reverted back to Catholicism, if Mary was to become queen. On the other hand, however, many English Catholics, foreign Catholic nations, and Mary herself viewed her as the Queen of England; they perceived Elizabeth as a bastard and had been excommunicated by the Pope. All of these factors, as well as those previously mentioned, combined to explain why these plots against Elizabeth sprung up around Mary and why she chose to involve herself in them.
II
The first of the major plots in which Mary was involved was the Ridolfi Plot.
This plot is named after Roberto Ridolfi, an Italian banker, who was at the
center of the plot. His plan was to secure an invasion of England from the Spanish
general in the Netherlands (Mary’s connection with Philip II of Spain
would come into use), this would lead to a Catholic uprising in England, these
actions would free Mary from captivity, seize Elizabeth, and place Mary on the
throne and the Duke of Norfolk would become Mary’s husband. The main players
were Ridolfi, Norfolk, Mary, and Leslie (Mary’s envoy). By March of 1571,
Mary, Norfolk, and Leslie were cut off from each other, and Ridolfi was became
their go-between; therefore, allowing him to play all three. However, Elizabeth
is warned of the plot by the Duke of Tuscany, and letters connecting Ridolfi
and Leslie are intercepted. As a result, Elizabeth begins to take action against
the plotters. Mary confesses that she did supply Ridolfi with financial aide,
but denies knowing where the money was going and anything about a plot against
Elizabeth. Leslie was arrested and confessed to the plot, as well as, implicating
Mary, Norfolk, and Ridolfi. Because of Leslie’s confessions, Norfolk is
arrested, tried, and executed; and Mary becomes the subject of even more English
hatred.
Mary’s involvement in the Ridolfi Plot is questioned by historians because
of Leslie’s willingness, mostly due to the threat of torture, to confess
and implicate the other three, and Mary’s confession of financial aide.
Fraser does not believe that Mary was really involved in the plot, and she questions
the genuineness of the “incriminating” documents. Further, Fraser
qualifies the possibility of Mary’s involvement by stating, “It
is possible that Mary gained such a falsely rosy picture of the situation that
she allowed herself to be committed on paper to an extremely hazardous venture.”
Karen Cunningham views Mary more dubiously by commenting on Mary’s hiding
“behind claims of forgery and counterfeiting in the Ridolfi plot.”
Cunningham has the right idea about Mary, implying Mary’s involvement
and her innocent act after being caught.
The second, and final, of these plots against Elizabeth involving Mary is the
Babington Plot. This plot was the combination of two fairly separate plots,
though intertwined through rumors and double agents. The first half of the plot
was organized by Sir Francis Walsingham in an attempt to entrap Mary. He used
double agents such as Charles Paget and Gilbert Gifford; and he utilized the
friendships these men had with others to set the trap. The trap was the passing
of letters from Mary’s people in Paris to her and getting her letters
to them in Paris through the local brewer. The problem, however, was that the
brewer was in the service of Walsingham and his agents, thus, all of the letters
passed to and from Mary were intercepted by Walsingham and his men. Also, Walsingham
went to work spreading rumors about foreign support and Catholic uprisings in
England, both of which were highly exaggerated, if true at all. As a result
of the rumors, a young Catholic gentleman, who was not terribly bright, Anthony
Babington, decided to create a plot to rescue Mary and place her on the English
throne. Babington was then told about the local brewer and he began sending
letters (these letters are also intercepted by Walsingham) to Mary.
On July 14, 1586, Mary received a letter from Babington laying out the plan
to rescue Mary, oust Elizabeth with the help of a foreign invader, and place
Mary on the throne. On July 17, 1586, Mary responded to this letter with approval
to the plot and cautioned Babington and his fellow conspirators to not make
any moves until everything was in place and the foreign invasion is strong and
prepared. When Thomas Phelippes, Walsingham’s chief decipherer and expert
forger, gets the letter he added a gallows mark to the outside of the letter
to symbolize Mary having fallen into the trap. By July 19, 1586, Walsingham
has possession of the gallows letter, therefore, he has all the evidence he
needs to begin rounding up and executing most of the Babington conspirators
and proceed with the trial and beheading of Mary.
Mary was obviously a part of the Babington Plot, even though it is a blatant
case of entrapment on Walsingham’s behalf. However, since there were no
laws against the use of entrapment in England at the time, there is no use in
arguing in on Mary’s behalf. On the gallows letter there was a post script
which was added (before being sent to Babington) and asked for the names of
the other conspirators, and historians have debated over who added it, Walsingham
or Phelippes. I believe it was Thomas Phelippes, though certainly under the
direction of Walsingham, since he was the expert forger. Also, it was usual
that Phelippes would receive the letters first, then decipher them, and then
pass them on to Walsingham; therefore, Phelippes had the better opportunity
to tamper with the letter. Another major debate concerning the Babington Plot
is why Mary would have entered into the matter in the first place. In Sir Walter
Scott’s Scotland, he does not even mention Mary at all as a possible conspirator,
but instead, chooses to focus on her frailty. However, Scott’s position
could be explained as lacking information or evidence and highly biased due
to his heritage and his praising of all Scots throughout his book. Antonia Fraser
seems to argue that Mary became a member of the plot due to her feelings of
isolation and unwell health; therefore, causing her to not use caution. Fraser
states, “ Mary herself was beginning to feel weary of the prolonged battle
for some sort of decent existence, in which she had now been involved for eighteen
years, and the constant strain of being ever on her guard, ever plotting, ever
hoping, ever planning.” Fraser continues by adding, “Her own agreement
was entirely in the context of a captive seeking to escape her guards, and may
be compared to the actions of a prisoner who is prepared to escape by a certain
route, even if it may involve the slaying of a jailer by another hand.”
Though Fraser makes the point that, although, Mary would not have been the one
to actually kill Elizabeth, she does not address the cautious nature of Mary’s
repeated warnings in the gallows letter about not proceeding without total preparedness
and support. Finally, Jenny Wormald describes Mary’s involvement by stating
she, “enjoyed the heady excitement of plotting, with coded letters transmitted
in a beer-keg.” I am inclined to agree mostly with Wormald, and her assent
that Mary was intelligent, clever, highly ambitious, yet lacked political judgment.
However, I think Mary’s state of isolation only encouraged her all the
more to join any plot which included her escape.
By looking at two of the major plots Mary was involved in, one can see that
Mary was surely a member in both of these plots. Though she was never the one
named to be the remover or killer of Elizabeth, she was certainly active in
her roles in the plots. In the Ridolfi Plot she was a financial backer, and
it would be naïve to believe that that was all. Her personal messenger
was actively involved, and because she was Catholic, she had connections with
the Pope and Philip II of Spain, which could be explored on her own, or by those
working for her. Mary’s involvement in plots against Elizabeth is even
further illustrated in the Babington Plot. In this plot she is clearly implicated
in the plot by her very own hand. She wrote acceptance to a plot, which was
a direct attack against Elizabeth. Mary went further to even offer cautious
advice about the timing of the plot and the gaining of sufficient support for
their cause. And, even though Mary states in her last letter that she is guilty
of nothing because she is not an English subject, she states to Henri III of
France, “Royal brother, having by God’s will, for my sins I think,
thrown myself into the power of the Queen my cousin.” In conclusion, it
can be seen that Mary was an active member in several plots against the Queen
of England.
Bibliography
Cunningham, Karen. Imaginary Betrayals: Subjectivity and the Discourse of Treason
in Early Modern England. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002.
Fraser, Antonia. Mary, Queen of Scots. New York: Delacorte Press, 1970.
Marie Stuart Society. The
World of Mary, Queen of Scots. 1998. 27 April 2003.
http://www.marie-stuart.co.uk/.
Scott, Walter. Scotland.
New York: Peter Fenelon Collier, 1899.
The Last Letter of Mary, Queen of Scots. The National Library of Scotland. 7
May 2003.
http://www.nls.uk/digitallibrary/mqs/trans1.htm.
Wormald, Jenny. Mary, Queen of Scots: Politics, Passion, and a Kingdom Lost. London: Tauris Parke Paperbooks, 2001.
Robin Schuster, May 2003.