Mary, Queen of Scots, was queen of Scotland from her birth in 1542 until her
abdication in 1567. However, Mary’s personal rule only lasted six years.
During her reign, Mary faced many obstacles, based in times previous to her
rule, but they impacted her reign nonetheless. These obstacles impacted Scottish
government, relations with Scottish nobles, and the persona of the Stuart monarchy-obstacles
such as: an unstable Scottish government; rivaling noble families based on ancient
clan conflicts; unrelenting ambitions and ruthless behavior amongst the aristocracy;
continued aggression from English monarchs; a Stuart family tradition of short-lived
reigns, ruling minorities, and undesired, unsuccessful rules; and the introduction
of the Scottish Reformation, including its vicious leaders, such as John Knox.
Without much consideration of these obstacles, Mary’s contemporary critics
considered her an ill-prepared, ineffective, and easily manipulated female ruler.
Contrary to this deep-rooted belief, Mary was a capable and diplomatic female
ruler in 16th century Europe, who was the only female ruler to embrace her feminity
in the role of monarch. As a result of her unique personality and situation,
historians have missed the complexity and successes of Mary Queen of Scots and
her reign as sole monarch of Scotland, leaving overly simplistic and inconclusive
judgments on Mary in the form of biographies. Moreover, these historians have
attempted to categorize Mary as an inept ruler, femme fatal, romantic legend,
and victim of religious and gender biases. As a result, these historians have
failed to truly capture the multifaceted nature of Mary.
Mary has fascinated the world, from historians to political scientists, and
feminists to romantics, for over four centuries. She came to power in a time
when women were thought to be secluded in their private, female sphere of existence,
meant for marriage and child-rearing. However, the 16th century witnessed the
emergence of several powerful female rulers. So how is it that Mary captures
one’s imagination more so than the other women rulers of her day? Perhaps
the answer lies in her elusive character and personality, which still continues
to evade historians, as can be seen in her historiography.
Mary Stuart was born December 8, 1542, only six days before the death of James
V. Mary was the only surviving, legitimate child of James V, through his marriage
with Mary of Guise. She was crowned Queen of Scotland less than a year later.
The first question concerning the infant Mary was to whom she would be married.
Though this would have been a common event in any aristocratic girl’s
youth, Mary’s marriage had great implications due to her status as Queen
of Scotland. Questions abounded concerning whether Mary would marry a foreign
prince or a subject. Many contemporaries addressed this issue, and one “…author
maintained that in marrying a subject, the queen would discredit herself, while
in marrying a stranger, she would make him her head, thereby allowing her inheritance
of the crown to fall under her husband’s jurisdiction.” One such
suggested foreign prince was Edward VI, son of Henry VIII. However, Henry’s
military actions in southern Scotland and political bullying of the Scottish
nobles concluded with the possible marriage negotiations ending before 1543.
With England no longer a possibility, the Scottish nobles, with urging from
Mary of Guise, turned to France as a potential ally in Mary’s marriage.
As a result, the marriage contract with Henri II, concerning the Dauphin Francis,
began negotiations.
Mary was shipped to France as a six-year-old girl, accompanied by four other
little Maries. Mary landed in France August 13, 1548. As Mary arrived at the
French court, much anticipation about the meeting of Mary and Francis could
be witnessed amongst the courtiers. According to Henri’s letters to Mary
of Guise and the duke of Guise, the two royals appeared to get along well; and
the Constable de Montmorency commented, “…on the love that the dauphin
bore for his little bride, described him as feeling as much for her as thought
she were both his sweetheart and his wife - ‘sa mie et sa femme’
- a touching commentary.” Mary, Queen of Scots, married Francis II on
April 24, 1558. King Henry II of France died July 10, 1559; thus, Francis II
and Mary became king and queen of France. However, because Francis was a sickly
child, his reign and marriage did not last long; he died in December 5, 1560.
After the death of her husband, Mary, at the age of eighteen, decided to return
to Scotland and fulfill her role as Queen of Scotland. Throckmorton, Ambassador
to France from England, observed Mary in her final days in France:
Since her husband’s
death she had shown, and continued to do so, that she was ‘both a great
wisdom for her years, modesty, and also of great judgment in the wise handling
herself and her matters, which, increasing with her years, cannot but turn greatly
to her commendation, reputation, honour and great benefit of her and her country’.
Mary further impressed Throckmorton, ‘I see her behaviour to be such,
and her wisdom and kingly modesty so great, in that she thinketh herself not
too wise, but is content to be ruled by good counsel and wise men (which is
a great virtue in a Prince or Princess, and which argueth a great judgment and
wisdom in her).’ Throckmorton’s last comment was of course not only
intended to apprise the English Council as to the true nature of the Scottish
queen with whom they had to deal: it was also intended as an acid reference
to the somewhat less wise and modest conduct of their own Queen Elizabeth. The
later reputations of Elizabeth and Mary have somewhat obscured the fact that
in the early 1560s, when they were both young women, it was Elizabeth who was
considered headstrong, extravagant and stubborn, whereas Mary was generally
rated to be modest, intelligent and anxious to do her best as a ruler taking
wise advice. One contemporary described Elizabeth’s court at this period
as a by-word for frivolity: ‘Nothing is treated earnestly, and though
all things go wrong they jest, and he who invents most ways of wasting time
is regarded as one worthy of honour.’
Mary arrived in Scotland on August 19, 1561 without recognition, let alone with
the fanfare she experienced when leaving France. She made her way to Edinburgh,
and there, she began her personal rule. She began gathering her council, which
consisted of her half brother, Lord James, and many of the prominent Protestant
nobles. Also, Mary continued her search for a husband, and she found one in
Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley. The two married July 29, 1565 and began a relationship
which would end tragically for both. After less than two years, Mary’s
husband was mysteriously murdered February 9, 1567, and Mary was believed to
be a member of the plot. Though her feelings for Darnley had certainly faded
by the time of his death, she wasted no time in marrying again. Mary wed James
Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell, who was accused of Darnley’s murder, on May
15, 1567, another marriage that would end unhappily for the both of them.
With all of the drama surrounding Mary during her personal rule, the leading
nobles, including her half brother, began maneuvering to have Mary removed and
her son placed on the throne and one of them as regent. Their plan worked, and
Mary abdicated in favor of her son June 24, 1567. Feeling threatened, Mary fled
to England and asked Queen Elizabeth for protection. However, it was not granted,
and Mary was placed under house arrest until she was implicated in a plot against
Elizabeth and executed February 8, 1587.
Biographies of complex individuals have always proved to be challenging, although
these challenges should not be offered as excuses for inadequate conclusions
about unique characters. With this in mind, Mary’s historiography can
best be described as lacking. No historian has successfully analyzed Mary’s
character or rule without packaging her too simplistically. Some historians
have focused on female leadership, others on religious differences, many on
Mary’s turbulent lifestyles and marriages, and several on her as ruling
monarch in comparison to decidedly more successful monarchs. A fully complete
biography of Mary would take volumes; however, there are some current historians,
such as John Guy, who are attempting to rewrite Marian history, one book at
a time, to include her multifaceted personality and political abilities. However,
the numbers of writings which categorize Mary as a poor politician have overwhelmed
the public for centuries, thus continuing her reputation as female in power
gone wrong.
John Knox believed he had categorized her with the rest of female rulers in
his The first blast of the trumpet against the monstrous regimen of women, which
was originally aimed at Mary Tudor on her ascension to the English throne and
marriage to the foreign prince, Philip of Spain. Knox offers a systematic argument
against women as rulers and women as anything other than subservient to men.
However, he makes an exception concerning Elizabeth. George Buchanan, once a
supporter of Mary and an admirer of her mother, wrote his The Tyrannous Reign
of Mary Stewart as an attempt to defame her character and reign. However, Buchanan’s
means of spreading his faction’s views was to attack the opposing views;
as a result, he singled out Mary and held her accountable for events for which
he held no insight. With this in mind, as concluded by W.A. Gatherer, translator
and editor, “While it has a substratum of truth, it is constructed on
a mass of falsehood.”
The most modern and biographically complete study of Mary is attributed to Antonia
Fraser. Although Fraser offers the most thorough examination and views Mary’s
reign as relatively positive, she refrains from attributing to Mary any characteristic
which doesn’t embody femininity, thus undercutting Mary’s capable,
calculating, and political mind. In contrast, a few current Marian historians,
such as Jenny Wormald, are taking a harder stance on Mary. Jenny Wormald’s
Mary, Queen of Scots: A Study in Failure views Mary as a political individual
who was an active participant in her rule as Queen of Scotland. Each of these
historians has offered their own view of Mary; however, individually they are
unsatisfying.
George Buchanan was a contemporary of Mary and one of her most vicious critics.
In his The Tyrannous Reign of Mary Stewart, Buchanan uses his position as one
of the leading Scottish scholars of the time to argue against Mary’s right
to rule as sole monarch and her incompetence during her personal rule. Buchanan’s
translator states,
His Dejure regni apud Scotos
was written to provide, among other things, a theoretical justification for
the rebellion of the Scots lords against Mary; he wrote his Detectio to prove
her guilt in the murder of Darnley; and he eventually wrote the complete History
of Scotland, the Rerum Scoticarum Historia, the grand climax of which purported
to show that throughout her personal reign Mary had schemed to establish a tyranny,
had behaved recklessly and maliciously at all times, and had ultimately devised
the murder of her husband at the hands of her paramour.
The majority of Buchanan’s work focuses on Mary’s personal rule,
the decade of the 1560’s, and his attempt to illustrate her in the most
unfavorable light.
Buchanan’s book was published in 1582, leading one to believe, perhaps,
that it is more centered on truth due to the proximity to the actual events.
However, Buchanan uses writings to attack Mary, Queen of Scots, through distortions
of events and speculation. George Buchanan was a zealous Protestant and had
leanings toward democracy. Both of these characteristics would have pitted him
against the female, Catholic monarch. Also, as footnoted by translator W.A.
Gatherer, many of the claims made by Buchanan are taken from John Knox’s
writings, another vicious critic of Mary. Furthermore, more than a few of Buchanan’s
attacks contradict Mary’s actions during her personal rule. For example,
Buchanan writes, “Meanwhile the court, indulging in every luxury and sinful
pleasure, could hardly be stirred from its torpor by the robbers from the English
border.” However, Gatherer corrects, “It is untrue that Mary neglected
Border affairs. As early as August 1561, the government took steps to repress
the thieves. (C.S.P.For., 1561-2, no.455.) In October Mary appointed Lord James
to the task of repressing the thieves, and she asked the English to co-operate.
(ibid, nos. 621, 622; Reg. Privy Council, I, p.163.).” As can be seen,
Buchanan’s biography of Mary is a gross misrepresentation due to religious
prejudice.
Stefan Zweig was an early 20th Century Marian biographer; his Mary Queen of
Scotland and the Isles was published in 1935. Zweig offers a much romanticized
view of Mary. He tries to illustrate her as woman who faced obstacles that even
a strong male ruler could not have confronted, but that she rose to the challenge
and succeeded, all within the light of femininity and grace. For instance, Zweig
offers,
Even an energetic man, a
man with an iron fist and resolute mind, could not for long impose peace on
this unmanageable environment with its chaos of contradictions making for perpetual
unrest. How, then, could so joyous and ethereal a young queen, a stranger in
these parts, unaccustomed to rule, how could Mary be expected to fare better?
However, four pages later, Mary suddenly has political wisdom and insight when
it comes to her selecting her council members and her well-placed, according
to Zweig, trust in and reliance on her half brother, Lord James. An even greater
illustration of Zweig’s romantic view can be seen in his comparison of
Mary and her relationship with Darnley and then Bothwell with that of Romeo
and Rosalind and then with Juliet. Additionally, Zweig continues by speculating
about Mary’s sexual feelings towards all three of her husbands, concluding
that Bothwell was by far the most exciting and satisfying. Zweig’s entire
book is written with this romantic, melodramatic feel and offers no evidence
for the emotional embellishments.
Zweig’s book presents the biography of Mary, Queen of Scots; however,
the true Mary is lost amongst the over-romanticized tone. Furthermore, Zweig
lacks citation, thus making it impossible to know what he read that led him
to understand Mary in this way. He sets Mary up as a romantic heroine, who embodies
everything wonderful and feminine and unfortunately encounters tragedies she
should not be able to face. In addition, Zweig illustrates Mary as a blameless
character, who is a victim of her circumstances. For example, after the failure
to obtain a new husband following Francis’s death, Zweig states, “Mary
Stuart was forced back into the evil circle of politics within which she was
inprisioned for almost the whole of her life. Whenever she tried to escape from
the chill environment, to break down the barriers and relish for a moment, for
a breathing-space, a warm life of her own, she would do irreparable harm to
others and to her personal fortunes”.
The most modern and complete biography of Mary is attributed to Antonia Fraser.
Her massive work begins with background before Mary’s birth and ends with
her death. Fraser’s amazingly in-depth work offers the most basic knowledge
of Mary’s story; however, it can become mundane for the casual reader.
Besides her explanative writing, Fraser offers excellent footnotes and additional
information. However, Fraser’s biography has a definite tone and view
of Mary which is not as romantic as Zweig’s, but it is certainly soft.
One way to see this is to look at the index. After chronologically listing the
events of Mary’s life, the list offers descriptions of Mary such as: eloquence,
charm, generosity, mercy, horror of violence, optimism, femininity, love of
weddings, serenity, self-control, heroism; the list continues in the same manner.
Fraser offers little, if any, criticism of Mary and her rule of Scotland. Furthermore,
Fraser refuses to see Mary as a critical and skillful politician, as well as
a very feminine, emotional woman.
Although reading Fraser is extremely fascinating and very informative, she offers
too rosy a view. It seems impossible that a person as wonderful as Fraser makes
Mary to be in the unique situation in Scotland, which Fraser does not seem to
analyze, could have ended so tragically for Mary and the many involved with
her.
Another leading, and more current, Marian historian is Jenny Wormald. She has
written several books about Mary, as well as the state of government and politics
in early modern Scotland. Jenny Wormald’s commentary on Mary is unique
in that she focuses solely on the reign of Mary and how she governed her country,
the best example being Wormald’s Mary Queen of Scots: A Study in Failure.
Wormald offers no excuse of gender or religion to explain Mary’s ultimate
failure as a ruler; instead, she examines Mary’s actions as monarch and
the responses of leading men in Scotland. This view is unique because Wormald
studies Mary as she would any ruling king, not questioning the impacts of gender
or religion. Wormald chronicles the organization and power struggles of the
leading men in Scotland during Mary’s minority and absence, as well as
Mary’s reluctant return to her native country and overwhelming reliance
on those in her council, most of whom were Protestant. For example, Wormald
examines the peculiar inaction of Mary after the death of her mother, Mary of
Guise, who was acting as Regent while Mary remained in France. Wormald comments,
“It is highly symbolic that Mary’s personal rule should begin with
a vacuum, which lasted for fourteen months; not only was she absent, but throughout
that period, as lord James Stewart pointed out to her, she left her kingdom
without any legally constituted government at all.” In the end, Wormald
dismisses Mary as a completely inept ruler even though she came from the kings
of Scotland and the powerful and ambitious house of Guise in France.
We find an inability to make or keep contact with political reality which was rare in the Stewart line hitherto, though evident in two of the Stewart kings of the next century. In the event, she was always unable to foresee crisis, and nearly always unable to do other than collapse when crisis erupted...[Furthermore,] she neither restored the religion in Scotland for which she later claimed to die, nor achieved the English succession for which she was prepared to sacrifice its cause.
However, in the end, Wormald
does conclude that there is one thing to be learned from the reign of Mary,
Queen of Scots: how not to rule.
Jenny Wormald’s study of Mary’s reign is centered directly on Mary’s
personal rule. The main positive aspect of the book is Wormald’s reliance
on studying Mary as one would study any male ruler of the same time. The major
problem with this view is the lack of understanding of Mary’s upbringing
and connection with her femininity. I think Wormald uses the “masculine”
model of Elizabeth I to argue how Mary should have been in order to be successful;
however, Mary and Elizabeth had two very different backgrounds, upbringings,
and values, as well as, two very different countries with different stages of
political development.
As the study of Mary, Queen of Scots, enters the 21st century, historians have
begun looking at certain aspects of her personality to analyze her performance
as monarch of Scotland. In Kristen Post Walton’s dissertation, “Religion,
Gender, and the Political Sphere: The Intellectual Debates Concerning Mary,
Queen of Scots, 1561-1572”, Mary’s personal rule is studied in regards
to her Catholic religion and female gender and the impact these elements, and
the questions which surrounded them, had on the development of Scottish government
and feelings of nationalism. In other words, Mary’s rule sparked controversy
and debate, which ultimately caused Scotsmen to begin formulating modern nationalistic
sentiments and policies. Walton spends countless pages setting up the religious
atmosphere in which Mary began her personal rule, as well as analyzing the contemporary
views of female rule. Interestingly, Walton offers evidence of a majority of
pro-female rule and Catholic toleration, but she does not fully reveal whether
these sentiments correlated to the majority of the European population. Walton’s
conclusion comments on the difficult balance Mary attempted by holding on to
her femininity, as well as her role as a monarch in patriarchal 16th century
politics. Furthermore, Walton concludes with the mindset of the people and their
role in government.
In many ways, Scotland and England were developing into modern nation-states, with growing political participation of the populace, and with their people possessing a common concept of what it meant to be Scottish or English, but that development was not complete by the mid-sixteenth century. The debates about the first Stewart queen reveal two nations in flux; nations whose members were attempting to solve the crises that confronted them of religion and gender, and how they affected the political sphere.
Kristen Post Walton has
used Mary’s reign as a period to study the effect of a female ruler in
16th century Europe and the inter-relationships with religion, gender, and politics.
Though Walton only discusses Mary briefly at the end of her chapters, her analysis
does place Mary at the center of debates concerning female rule and Catholic
rule in a Protestant country. However, as Walton states, there had been a history
of debate concerning female rule already raging well before Mary began her personal
rule, thus implying that Mary’s reign offered no beginning to the debate,
and as history has shown, certainly no end to it either. Also, the religious
question of a Catholic ruler in a Protestant Scotland does not carry the weight
of seriousness previously believed. There is little evidence which would conclude
that Mary had any serious intentions of returning Scotland to Catholicism when
she arrived in her native country in 1561. Even though Mary refused to ratify
the treaties replacing Catholicism with Protestantism, she did not try to ally
herself with the Catholic faction of the nobility, nor did she add Catholics
to her Council, which remained steadfastly pro-Protestant until her abdication.
Therefore, Walton’s focus on Mary in regards to Catholicism and sex only
seems to diminish the potential her reign actually had, as well as the political
successes she achieved.
Though these biographers have failed to offer complete biographies of Mary,
there is a promising new and more encompassing view of Mary from historian John
Guy. John Guy’s recently published, Queen of Scots: The True Life of Mary
Stuart, “…establishes her as the intellectual and political equal
of Elizabeth I... [a] multifaceted character [with] prodigious political skill...,
[and] an emotionally intricate woman and an adroit diplomat, maneuvering ingeniously
among a dizzying array of powerful factions - the French, the English, duplicitous
Scottish nobles, and religious zealots - who sought to control or dethrone her.”
This analysis of Mary’s life and reign, and the combination of her “politician”
side and “feminine” side, offers a more likely view of Mary as sole
monarch of Scotland.
Marian historians have always tried to categorize her personality and reign
in an attempt to better understand her elusive character, and even more so,
to understand her role as female monarch and ruler, whether successful, a failure,
or just pitiful. However, in this attempt historians have missed the most telling
aspect of Mary-that she was a highly complex figure, who embodied all of the
individual descriptions, making her all the more interesting. The various chapters
of her life and the situations of which she was a part only add to the complexity
of understanding her and her reign.
Biographies of complex individuals have always presented a challenge for historians,
and Mary, Queen of Scots, is no exception. Her unique character and influential
position as a sole monarch in Western Europe during times of extreme change
only add to the complexity of understanding her. Therefore, it is easy for historians
to pick out certain characteristics to base their analyses on, such as gender
or religion. Other historians perpetuate views of her, mainly those of a romantic,
emotional, and inept ruler. All of these views overly simplify and attempt to
categorize Mary. Therefore, these biographies, by themselves, have failed to
capture the complicated and complex nature of a woman, who ruled a country,
faced the Reformation and its leaders, maybe had a husband murdered, and, in
the end, was executed as a traitor to a nation of which she was not a subject.
Bibliography
Buchanan, George. The Tyrannous Reign of Mary Stewart. Trans. W.A. Gatherer. Edinburgh: The Edinburgh University Press, 1959.
Fraser, Antonia. Mary, Queen of Scots. New York: Delacorte Press, 1969.
Guy, John. Queen of Scots:
The True Life of Mary Stuart. Houghton Mifflin. Google. February 2004.
<http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/catalog/titledetail.cfm?titleNumber=688331>.
Knox, John. The First Blast
of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. February 2004.
< http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/FirBlast.htm>.
Walton, Kristen Post. Religion, Gender, and the Political Sphere: The Intellectual Debates Concerning Mary, Queen of Scots, 1561-1572. Diss. U of Wisconsin-Madison. 2001. Ann Arbor, 2001. 3020738.
Wormald, Jenny. Mary Queen of Scots: A Study in Failure. London: George Philip, 1988.
Zweig, Stefan. Mary Queen
of Scotland and the Isles. Trans. Eden and Cedar Paul. New York: The Viking
Press, 1935.
©Robin Schuster, May 2004.