Two days later, Darnley was again making a great display of Catholic devotion, swearing that he would have Mass celebrated in St. Giles and urging the same in Council, but more (thought Randolph) to test opinion than carry out his boast. Nevertheless, when several Lords resisted his attempts to make them accompany him to Mass, he “gave them all very evil words.” Bedford heard that he wanted to shut them all in their rooms until they did as he wished.36On the same day, Randolph recorded another rumour that Mary had subscribed to a Catholic League “to maintain papistry throughout Christendom,”37 while Melville believed that Rizzio “had secret intelligence” with the Vatican.
Mary was doing her best to maintain her pro-Catholic policy, but Darnley may have had an ulterior motive in his overt displays of piety, and was perhaps trying to enlist Catholic support in Scotland, England and abroad for his bid for the Crown Matrimonial. He may also have been trying to convince Mary’s Catholic allies that he was more vigorous in the faith than she was, and therefore more likely to be effective in bringing about a counter-reformation in Scotland.
In such a climate, Rizzio’s position was growing daily more dangerous. On 29 January, Randolph voiced the opinion that the Italian was the father of Mary’s unborn child, and warned Leicester: “Woe indeed to you when a son of David should bear rule over Scotland.”38Randolph was not the only person, then or later, to express doubts about the baby’s paternity. In 1600, Alexander, Lord Ruthven, sneeringly referred to James VI as “thou son of Signor David,” and in the early seventeenth century, that same King James earned the nickname “the British Solomon” after Henry IV of France had said he deserved to be called the modern Solomon, since he was the son of David.
In January and February 1566, a plot to do away with Rizzio was hatched by a confederacy of Protestant Lords, who believed that he was the chief obstacle in the way of Moray’s return. It is not certain who instigated the conspiracy, and there are essentially four theories about it: the first, according to Melville, was that it was conceived by Morton, Ruthven, Lindsay and the Douglases, who drew Darnley into it by playing on his jealousy of Rizzio and his conviction that it was Rizzio who was preventing his receiving the Crown Matrimonial—this seems the most likely theory; the second theory, according to Ruthven’s deathbed account, was that the plot originated with Darnley, who was urged on and abetted by Lennox,39which is less probable; the third theory is that Moray was the mastermind behind the plot and carefully orchestrated it from England, which was later alleged by Bothwell and is certainly possible; and the fourth, that it emanated from the clever brain of Maitland, who had every reason to detest the man who had supplanted him, an equal possibility.
One of the prime movers was Morton, who not only desired the return of his co-religionist Moray, but was also bound by ties of blood to Darnley and felt outraged that his kinsman had been ousted from Mary’s affections and counsels by a foreign upstart who had got too far above himself and was meddling in matters that were no business of his. Morton was also motivated by a degree of self-interest, for he had heard a rumour that, in the coming Parliament, the Crown meant to resume possession of certain lands he had improperly obtained, and he had no intention of allowing that to happen.40
Anthony Standen, a gentleman of Darnley’s household whose younger brother, also Anthony, was the King’s cupbearer, told James I years later that “wicked Ruthven” was the chief conspirator,41 although Ruthven denied this.42Ruthven was also related to Darnley, as was Lindsay, who was married to a Douglas. As far as Morton, Ruthven and Lindsay were concerned, therefore, the plot was a bid for familial advancement, for all would have benefited from Darnley receiving the Crown Matrimonial, which they would dangle before him like a carrot, and wielding sovereign power. In addition, these Lords, all Protestants, were anxious to see the return of Moray.43 Ruthven was to justify the plot by claiming that Rizzio was preventing the return of Moray and, through his dominance over the Queen, excluding Darnley from her counsels.44
Ruthven’s activities, and Morton’s, may have been a front for Moray’s machinations. Moray was seeking a return to power. He and other Protestants believed that Rizzio was responsible for the Bill of Attainder against the exiles that would shortly come before Parliament, and which would deprive them of everything they owned. Moray feared this consequence greatly, but the Protestant Lords in the plot were determined to forestall it, and meant at all costs to prevent Parliament from sitting.45Ruthven states that the exiled Lords were not drawn into the plot until 20 February, with Morton acting as a link, but Ruthven may not have been aware of any prior involvement on the part of Moray. Moray was a cunning and cautious man, and would have taken care—as he did on other occasions—not to incriminate himself.
Rizzio was not, however, the main target of the conspirators, whose real objective was almost certainly the removal of the Queen from power,46the elimination of the threat of a Catholic revival, and the reinstatement of a Protestant government under Moray, with Darnley, wearing the Crown Matrimonial, as a puppet king. Claude Nau, who probably obtained his information from Mary in the 1570s when he served as her Secretary, claims that the “chief design” of these “crafty foxes” was “the elevation of Moray to the throne, and the deprivation of [Darnley] and the Queen.” Had Darnley’s elimination really been envisaged, Morton and his Douglas connections would surely not have devised or backed the plot, for there would have been little personal advantage in it for them. But Moray’s appearance in Edinburgh immediately after the murder argues the fact that the slaying of Rizzio was secondary to the coup that it initiated.
Ruthven, Randolph and Bedford assert that Darnley, “being entered into a vehement suspicion of David, that by him something was committed which was most against the King’s honour, and not to be borne of his part, first communicated his mind to George Douglas,”47the bastard son of Archibald, 6th Earl of Angus and half-brother to Darnley’s mother. Douglas had been pursuing a career in the Church from a young age. In 1546, aged only sixteen, he had been involved in the murder of Cardinal Beaton, and had then seized the lucrative office of Postulate of Arbroath, despite being a lacklustre preacher, a fornicator and a devious and violent ruffian. Now, finding Darnley in great sorrow, “he sought all the means he could to put some remedy unto his grief.”48
Melville, however, states that it was Douglas who, at the instigation of Morton, Ruthven, Lindsay and others, began spending time in Darnley’s company and insidiously “put into his head such suspicion against Rizzio” as would draw him into the plot.49 Douglas had little love for his Lennox cousins, but everything to gain if he helped his nephew to the Crown Matrimonial, and Darnley, whose complaints had given Mary’s enemies an excuse for action, lacked the perspicacity to see that he was being used. His youth and inexperience would render him as wax in the hands of the ruthless, power-hungry men who were closing in on him, and as such he would prove their most dangerous weapon. They would find, however, that it was a two-edged sword.
Douglas asked Darnley why it was that Mary was refusing him the Crown Matrimonial and why she was denying him a share in the government. It was scandalous, because, as a woman, she should give precedence and respect to her husband. What was the reason for the Queen often being closeted late at night with Rizzio? Could the King really be certain that he was the father of her coming child? Darnley, whose suspicions had already been aroused as a result of his own observations, needed little convincing that Mary was being unfaithful to him, and little persuasion that he should seek a bloody revenge, which, by the moral standards of the time, seemed entirely justifiable. He could not live with his terrible suspicions, nor could he suffer existing any longer as a king with no power. But the Crown Matrimonial meant more to him than the fidelity of his wife, and he made it clear that it was the price of his co-operation, whereupon the conspirators told him soothingly that they would make certain he should have it. Thus did they bend him to their will and entice him to join them as their leader, and he was “won to give his
consent over easily to the slaughter of Signor David.”50 From then on, Darnley was at the very epicentre of the plot.
The first indication that a conspiracy was afoot came on 9 February 1566 in a letter to Cecil from Maitland, who confided that he saw no certain way to restore matters in Scotland to their former state “unless we chop at the very root—you know where it lieth.”51 The letter suggests that Maitland was in the confidence of the conspirators, and Randolph lists him as one of their number, but the extent of his involvement is obscure, for he was adept at covering his traces. He certainly had a motive for wanting to get rid of Rizzio, for the Italian had usurped many of the functions of the Secretary’s office, which Maitland still held, and Maitland was determined that Rizzio should not sabotage his carefully formulated policy of working towards a peaceful union with England, the result of years of hard work. Maitland may have acted on behalf of the exiled Lords, or as a link between them and the conspirators, but there is no proof of this. Nau later claimed that he “was secretly of Moray’s party—not so openly, however, that he could be charged therewith.”
From its early stages, Cecil, the English Privy Council and Bedford were aware of the plot, but lifted no finger to prevent its execution; for them, the removal of Rizzio was a political necessity. For this reason, perhaps, there is little evidence relating to it in the English State Papers. Nor is there any evidence, other than Blackwood’s allegation of 1587, that the plot originated in England, although its outcome would be distinctly to England’s advantage. Elizabeth was not made aware of what was to happen until it was too late to prevent it, in case she tried to warn Mary, but, given that Cecil and Bedford knew of the plot, it is inconceivable that Moray did not.
Meanwhile, in what was probably a prearranged move, George Douglas, ostensibly at Darnley’s request, had asked Lord Ruthven to help in seeing Rizzio “executed according to his demerits.”52 Ruthven was already suffering from the mortal illness that would kill him,53and had been confined to his chamber for at least two months, but that did not prevent him from entering into the conspiracy with ruthless resolve, although he told the untrustworthy and garrulous Darnley he would lift no finger to help him unless he solemnly swore not to reveal anything to the Queen. Darnley agreed without hesitation to this condition.54
Ruthven, in turn, brought in Morton, who made his involvement conditional upon Lennox and Darnley giving up all claims to the lands of the earldom of Angus, which he meant to settle on his nephew.55 This agreed, Morton showed himself sympathetic to the King’s plight and expressed shock at Mary’s treatment of him, allegedly declaring, “It is a thing contrary to nature that the hen should crow before the cock, and against the law of God that a man should be subject to his wife, the man being the image of God, the woman the image of man.”56Therefore he, Morton, would do all he could to assist Darnley to take power into his own hands and rid him of the man who had usurped his royal and marital privileges.
Over the next few weeks, the details of the plot were finalised. Rizzio was to be summarily executed, Mary was to be taken prisoner and shut up at Stirling until her child was born, Darnley was to receive the Crown Matrimonial, and Moray and the other exiled Lords were to be recalled, pardoned and reconciled with Darnley, who would thereafter exert himself to maintain the Protestant Church. The plotters were aware that they had to act before Parliament sat in order to avoid the exiled Lords being attainted.
Morton and Ruthven were of the opinion that Rizzio should be slain either in his own chamber or the garden, or while playing tennis, or even publicly hanged, but even these hardened men were appalled to hear Darnley insist that he be slaughtered in the Queen’s presence at her own table.57 This was not only a vicious revenge, but might also serve an even more sinister purpose, that of bringing about, through shock, a miscarriage or even Mary’s death in childbirth, along with that of her infant. Given Darnley’s determination to secure the Crown Matrimonial, no other construction can be placed upon such a vindictive act. This was the view that Mary herself and many other people later took. Here again Darnley played into the Lords’ hands, for they could allege this treason against him at a later date, and the penalty was death. Thus they could rid themselves of him whenever they chose.
As the days went by, many others were brought into the conspiracy: among them were Lennox,58a number of Darnley’s Catholic friends and Douglas kinsmen, including Sir William Douglas of Lochleven, Moray’s half-brother, and Morton’s cousin, Archibald Douglas, as well as several of the King’s former Protestant enemies, notably Lindsay, Argyll, Ruthven’s son, William, Patrick Bellenden, brother of the Justice Clerk, Andrew Ker of Fawdonside, who had fought for Moray during the Chaseabout Raid, and Mar’s brother, Arthur Erskine of Blackgrange, as well as a host of minor players. All were united in their hatred and resentment of Rizzio, and most were intent on making the plot appear as if it had originated with Darnley. Each conspirator envisaged that the coup would result in some benefit to himself.
Knox, who had spoken out frequently against Rizzio, was aware of the conspiracy and apparently gave it his blessing.59 Those not involved in it included Bothwell, Huntly, Atholl, Balfour, Glencairn, Mar, Seton and Livingston, none of whom was aware of what was going on.
On 10 February, after Mass in the chapel royal, Darnley was ceremonially invested with the Order of St. Michael, the highest order of knighthood that the King of France could bestow. Representing Charles IX was the Sieur de Rambouillet. Before the assembled court, Darnley had the nerve to solemnly swear that, if he ever brought disgrace upon the Order, he would surrender his collar of knighthood to the French King.60 Afterwards, when Rambouillet asked what arms would be assigned to the new knight, the Queen “bade give him only his due, whereby it was perceived her love waxed cold towards him.”61
Over the next three days, there were entertainments in honour of the ambassador and his suite, at one of which Mary and her ladies appeared wearing male apparel.62 Darnley drank to excess, indulged in debauchery, and made several of the Frenchmen hopelessly inebriated.
By 13 February, Randolph knew most of the details of the plot against Rizzio, for on that day he wrote to Leicester:
I know now for certain that this Queen repenteth her marriage, that she hateth the King and all his kin. I know that he knoweth himself that he hath a partaker [i.e., Rizzio] in play and game with him. I know that there are practices in hand contrived between the father and son to come by the crown against her will. I know that, if that take effect which is intended, David, with the consent of the King, shall have his throat cut within these ten days. Many things grievouser and worse are brought to my ears, yea, of things intended against Her Majesty’s own person. This Queen to her subjects is now so intolerable that I see them bent on nothing but extreme mischief. There is a bait laid for Signor David, that if he be caught, howsoever his mistress be offended, others will be pleased.
Randolph ended by asking Leicester to keep all this to himself.63Cecil and Elizabeth might have condoned the murder of Rizzio, but Elizabeth would hardly be likely to sanction a plot against an anointed queen.
Around this time, Mary, Darnley and some courtiers were entertained at the home of an Edinburgh merchant. At dinner, Darnley again got drunk, but when Mary tried to restrain him from imbibing any more or enticing others to do so, he ignored her and became so abusive that she “left the house in tears.” Such quarrels were not uncommon. In fact, Darnley was now holding so many things against Mary—her refusal of the Crown Matrimonial, the withdrawal of the coinage, the softening of her attitude towards the Hamiltons, her reluctance to give him precedence—that there was constant friction between them, and she was “very weary of him.” Some even believed that, if Darnley would not be appeased, she would call on Chatelherault to aid her against him.64
Rambouillet and his suite arrived at Berwick on 15 February, and the following day, Sir William Drury, Captain of Berwick, reported that one gentleman was still the worse for wear after Darnley had made him drink
“acqua composita” (possibly whisky). Drury observed that “all people say that Darnley is too much addicted to drinking,” and added, perhaps significantly, that, during a recent visit to the Isle of Inchkeith in the Firth of Forth with Lord Robert Stewart, Lord Fleming and others, Darnley had done something so vicious that it did not bear describing, but he did not get away with it because “too many were witnesses,” and when the Queen heard of it, she “withdrew her company from him.”65
The nature of Darnley’s vicious behaviour has been the subject of some speculation. It may not have been any sexual misdemeanour at all, but one explanation is that he took part in a homosexual act. Apart from his effeminate appearance, which may have no bearing on the matter whatsoever, there is some evidence to support the theory that he was bisexual. It has already been noted that, while referring to speculation that Mary and Darnley were lovers before their marriage, Randolph told Bedford not to believe it: “the likelihoods are so great to the contrary that, if it were possible to see such an act done, I would not believe it.”66Randolph may have written this after witnessing Darnley’s behaviour with Rizzio, with whom, as has been seen, he sometimes shared a bed. Knox wrote that Darnley “passed his time in hunting and hawking, and other such pleasures as were agreeable to his appetites, having in his company gentlemen willing to satisfy his will and affections.” The use of the words “and affections” surely has a significance that influences the meaning of the sentence. Finally, in the much later Historie of James the Sext, Darnley is accused of indulging in “unmanly pleasures.” Whatever the truth about his sexuality, he was certainly promiscuous, and either form of behaviour would have aroused Mary’s disgust.