I wonder how much of this was just her being one of those people who has very poor judgement in partners, and how much was the result of her being brought up in a court that was culturally so far from that which existed in Scotland (or so I have read)?
As a woman, she had no support, no training, no guidance, no love, no wise teacher, no female mentorship. How could she have developed anything other than bad taste in men?
Mary's life reads like the script of a Latin American soap opera - orphaned, then widowed at a young age, fell for a handsome, charming young man who turns out to be a rotten, spoilt, good-for-nothing grifter who's only after her inheritance, then having that husband die under mysterious circumstances, and being forced to marry a villain who probably had a part in her husband's death.
I always appreciate it when we think about people in the past with empathy….you reminding us Mary Queen of Scott’s was a person and had sadness in her loss of husband and mom . It’s always good to remember those feelings and these were real humans with human feelings.
Fascinating. Just to say from a modern point of view, domestic abuse often begins or ramps up in pregnancy. It's partly because the jealous, abusive partner thinks of his partner's body as 'belonging' to him so resents how her body changes, or he might also resent the idea of her 'preferring' the baby.
I have no answers. I approach Mary’s story with multiple exasperated “Oh, Mary, what were you thinking!”s. You trusted Darnley? You didn’t really prosecute his murder? You married Bothwell? You trusted Elizabeth? You trusted Babington? You really thought anything you said, wrote or did was private in captivity? C’mon, Mary, give me a break. Clearly she wasn’t a stupid woman; in the end perhaps another with “…wit and very little judgment.”
@@ReadingthePast Me too !!!!! I know since she was surrounded by evil people the most of what written on her can be false but for everything else we are sure she did it does not make any sense !!! It has no logic!!! Was she so stupid , a PTSD victim after all her trauma , a people pleaser , someone who believes that everyone can changes when they are openly evil ???
You tell this story SO well! I always pictured Mary in a room with Bothwell and others, opening her beautiful eyes wide as they slowly well up with tears, saying something to the effect of, "I'm so overwhelmed, I don't know how to fix this situation, surely you wise men can find a solution for me." That being said, her poor decisions throughout her life indicate she wasn't a very good schemer. Each time I read about her, I want to shake my head and say "Oh, Honey." (It's a southern US thing to say in the face of baffling, self destructive decisions.)
Listening to this, I wondered if somehow having seen Rizzio murdered in front of her by members of 'her' court, then her husband murdered, again by members of 'her' court, then getting kidnapped, again by noblemen of 'her' court, she might not have felt that marriage with Bothwell was the best chance at survival for herself and James. I wonder how free she felt her agency really was.
I think her "abduction" was fake. It was a common custom for a man to abduct a woman to "force" her to marry him in order to save her honor. The abduction made it seem, in terms of public relations, that Mary was compelled to marry Bothwell. I think Mary made the rushed marriage to Bothwell because she was pregnant with the twins she later miscarried. I think Mary wanted to marry Bothwell and colluded with him to fake the abduction to make the marriage more palatable to her nobles. If, on his return to Edinburgh, Darnley had spent even one night under her roof before he was killed, Mary could have blamed her pregnancy on Darnley, even if she did not actually sleep with him. Ironically, Darnley was killed one day before he was scheduled to move back into the palace. If Mary was pregnant with Bothwell's child, the person who killed her husband did it one day too soon for Mary to attribute her pregnancy to Darnley.
@@Orphen42O Yeah. Thats pretty much what I had always thought. However it could also be a man striking out against the monstrous regiment of women and forcing her to make hime a king. All in all, it was a hell of a year for Mary
@@ceciliajones7816 "The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regiment of Women" was published in about 1558 by Protestant reformer John Knox. I'm not exactly sure who he was referring to, as he wrote to at least 4 different queens. However at around this time there was Joanna of Castille; Jane, Mary 1 and Elizabeth 1 of England; Mary of Guise and Mary Queen of Scotts; Catherine De Medici in France. Removing Mary Queen of Scotts from power would definitely be a blow against this monstrous regiment
@@catherined9475 ah, I see. Thank you! Without quotation marks, I did not realize that it was a title. In the current social climate, I’m running into quite a bit of misogyny in many areas.
Some of his behaviour screams domestic abuser - especially as it seems to have started/escalated in pregnancy. And then his jealousy about the child having more clout/attention made him want to see how much manipulative power he had left. I'd have arranged for him to meet an "accident" if I was her and plenty of people are good at acting like the bereaved spouse knowing exactly what happened
I must say, with what I have learned from consuming true crime content, the shift during her pregnancy did lead me to draw those connections too. Honestly, I think he might have killed her / had her killed if he had lived!
@@ReadingthePast The killing of her "lover" in front of her was a definite clear display of what he was capable of and the way he acted afterwards I'd want him the hell away from our child now I knew that any impediment - real or imagined - could end like this. That and the fact that he was showing signs of jealousy and escalating unrealistic demands the baby needed protecting and there were so few avenues open to her at that time. If she had a hand in it/knew about it/or was just *relieved* after the fact then good for her! I'm glad he wasn't able to do her any further mental or physical damage
@@kwells179 yikes !! He "did her damage" alright ! His murder was the pivotal moment in her life ! It led directly to her imprisonment and eventual execution. Even in death he hurt her unimaginably.
@@ReadingthePast i agree. She was at high risk of dying at his hands. But I'm not sure she arranged his death. Given how battered women often think, i think the nobles that already hated him took him out and saw an opportunity to try to control catholic Mary. What they didn't count on was the kidnapper they hired seeing an opportunity and going rogue.
@@mellie4174 This! I also wonder whether on her own, she would have held enough loyalty to plan and execute Darnley's murder? It would have to have come from initially from a group of noblemen, whether or not she got involved. She can't have been the only one to find him profoundly annoying.
Thank you for this look at Darnley, who is well portrayed as a narcissistic, ambitious, and cruel spoiled man-boy. I really had no idea that he and Rizzio were an item! It’s also interesting to see how Mary’s relationship with the Earl of Bothwell has been depicted in films and literature. It runs the gamut of the ruffian kidnapper with whom the victim falls in love, or the surreptitious and manly protector who was the actual love of her life. At any rate, you have reminded us that Mary’s life was tragic and that violence, fear, and uncertainty must have made her existence untenable viewed through modern eyes. Down with Darnley!
I have always believed that Mary wasn't the brightest bunny in the forest. She may have been charming and a good dancer, but she lacked the essential ability to navigate the intrigue that surrounded her (unlike Elizabeth). Mary had a husband picked for her and he died (not her fault). She then picked a sociopath. He was murdered. She then married ANOTHER sociopath. The girl definitely had a type. I don't blame her for her ultimate end, but dammit she really could have navigated all of that better. (And I do not in any way enjoy the romanticized view of her that the Victorians gave us.)
Aimee Inkling you have to remember that Q Elizabeth had a different up bringing she wasnt spoiled and had to live on her wits there were times when she feared for her life and she learned how to read people and when to keep her mouth shut she was a really smart Queen thats why they call her reign The Golden Years well deserved title
Given how women, even powerful ones were pawns, I'm not sure she had a whole lot of choice, though she did manage to marry the sociopath. When you are groomed for one thing only, and that one thing doesn't happen (francis died), and you're thrown out of your family to go rule a foreign and hostile county, you lose all your footing, your support and you no longer know what to think or do. They knew they were throwing her to the wolves and they tore her apart.
Yes, Mary was NOT a good judge of character in either her personal or political life. Quite the opposite. I think that as a religious person she valued forgiveness, but that made her, and eventually her little son, dangerously vulnerable. Mary was cultured and "book smart," as we say in the US, but she lacked shrewdness and the tactical skills needed to survive as monarch of the Scots in her day. These were precisely the talents Elizabeth possessed in abundance.
@@mariealexander9545 Yes, Mary was naive and gullible, like so many women are trained to be even now. Elizabeth had to live by her wiles from an early age, an advantage.
One thing I respect about Dr. Kat is her willingness to admit her biases. From what I have read he is not thought of well in his own time. Most sources I have read seem not to like or respect him.
This is intriguing what I would like to know is what actual evidence is there that Darnley really was such a rotter given the modern ability for character assassination I believe nothing
@@jayhenderson5458 the sources of Darnley being an abuser come from his own time from contemporaries. Granted he was hated by both the protestants and the Catholics.
I think Mary made a lot of mistakes, but her biggest folly was probably assuming Elizabeth could provide assistance. Elizabeth, I think, would’ve been fine with her people practicing multiple religions, but the Catholics were never content with that-it was Catholic or nothing and they would never stop trying to take out Elizabeth. That’s what forced Elizabeth to later prosecute Catholics, and why she couldn’t provide Mary any assistance. No matter what Mary’s intentions, English Catholics would always see Mary as a potential replacement Queen and Elizabeth giving her help would be to help those Catholics overthrow her own reign. It was a no-win situation for both women.
I can definitely see how they were both trapped by there respective identities and roles - I’ve often wondered if that’s why Elizabeth refused to meet Mary. Did she need to avoid humanising her in case she had to destroy her?
As an Irish person from a Catholic family, I can assure you that some of the worst atrocities against Irish Catholics happened in Elizabeth's reign. Elizabeth was nothing but the illegitimate child to a mistress by Catholic standards, so it is naive to think that she didn't care. She did. Her very life depended on Protestantism continuing. Enough that the brutal deaths of Irish children were acceptable to her if it meant they couldn't collaborate with her Catholic enemies. (We did it anyway, my DNA proves there were at least a few men from the Iberian penninsula who ended up having children in our small Sligo town. Not everyone from the Armada died...) That tolerance speech was politics, not reality. Rich Catholics may have been given allowances, but the poor ones were often murdered in their cradles. Priests were hunted down and killed, churches were burned with women and children inside and entire towns were slaughtered in the fields when they began trying to have mass outside to avoid punishment. Make no mistake. The Protestant reformation was the beginning of hundreds of years of systematic genocide, in England, Ireland, Scotland and eventually in India and the New World. Elizabeth was very much a part of that. Don't get me wrong. I understand that she had to make difficult choices to stay alive, but those choices caused the horrific, bloody deaths of thousands, many of them children. It left scars in our DNA that still impact our family today. We may not have the literal memories, but the body and our genetic code keeps score. The religious wars of the reformation are still killing people today with genetic depression and generational addiction and abuse. And they have never properly apologized for it. We have fields filled with our dead relatives and these people are still trying to defend the idea of monarchy.
@@cl5470 I’m definitely not trying to minimize the brutality against Catholics, particularly Irish Catholics. You are correct that horrifying crimes were committed in the name of religion, and it’s a big reason why I am not religious today.
While Mary 1 is always stereotyped as the intolerant one, Henry VIII publicly executed over 430 priests, nuns (many drawn and quartered) for not signing Act of Supremacy. this doesn't include hundreds (maybe thousands) executed after Pilgamage of Grace. Edward executed over 700 (plus 5,500 killed) during the Prayer Book Rebellion. Elizabeth 1 executed over 200 priests and lay people as traitors for simply being Catholic. Her government tortured Catholics as a matter of policy. She outlawed the Mass and it was illegal to be Catholic in England for 232 years (except for during the 3-year reign of James II). No Catholic could hold a public office until 1829. History is certainly fictionalized by the winners. Speaking or Ireland: the English treated the Irish worse than animals--animals get food and shelter.
@@cl5470 Don't make me laugh. It was the Papists all over Europe who started burning Protestants as "heretics", who controlled the Spanish Inquisitors. They just couldn't let go of their nonsense about being the only true Church. What a bunch of malarkey.
It just boggles my mind how Mary and Elizabeth managed to survive in the hostile environment of the courts. With all of the various intrigues up to and including assassination I am amazed that they managed to keep even a shred of sanity. I want to thank you for all of the hard work that you put into these videos. Thank you for giving me a more in-depth look into the Tudors. I can't wait for next weeks lesson!
Thank you ☺️ There are some that suggest that Mary did suffer from mental health issues at various points. It is said that her imprisonment in England only exacerbated this. Some say that any instability can be explained by the fact that she may have had porphyria, which then may, in turn, have popped up in her royal descendants.
What captures my attention is the spectacle of Darnley’s demise. It seems a quiet poisoning, chalked up the typical death by disease, could be covered up easily. A massive explosion with bodies partially clothed and left in the garden is making a statement. Why not drag the bodies into the fire? It shows a very odd set of choices by the murders, choices that force suspicion and not a typical preference for clandestine acts. Who ever did it was grabbing the headlines of the day, but for what purpose? Very strange….
It's believed Bothwell wanted the murder to be as public and shocking as possible, so he could force the other Lords to approve his marriage to Mary. Which is what happened.
Yes, I think the same thing about this incident, Kaja. But if you recall the brutality of the Scots in that era, and the system of unwieldy government at the time, this historical context makes it much more likely. You may be comparing it to the noted wiles of Caterina de Medici and the gifted statesmanship of Catherine the Great, etc. Scotland was like inviting a bunch of people from 1940s Applachia to tea at the White House.
You read my mind. I've wondered the same thing. As a reader of murder mysteries, it seems that the smart thing for a killer to do is make the deed inconspicuous. Darnley was already ill, so bribe or drug the guards, and a poison or a pillow over the face does the rest... "oh, alas, the King Consort took a turn for the worse, God rest his soul!" Instead, they chose the most spectacular and obvious method of murder--and made it all too obvious it WAS a murder! I guess jmarie may have a point in that Bothwell may have wanted it to be obvious, but still...
No one can bring history to life like you do, Dr. Kat. You capture one's attention and keep it throughout the video. Thank you for humanizing the subjects, rather than the giving names and dates. Kudos to you.
As a lifelong student of Mary's life, I enjoyed your video immensely. You're very good at summarizing what is a very complicated situation. I observe that Mary's life was fraught with tragedies, which may well have resulted in what we now call "PTSD". That condition almost always leads to poor decision making. Mary had no bulwark, nowhere to feel at home, and no strong ally, parent or partner who consistently supported and loved her. Her ladies were certainly a comfort to her, but I'm guessing they were unable to provide strength, given their position in her court, in Scotland and in Holyrood, which must have seemed very cold and dull compared to France's court. I suspect that Mary spent her life wandering in search of love and safety. I imagine that she originally saw Darnley as a strong, capable partner, champion; she may have thought the same of Bothwell, whether or not she knew or suspected that he was the one who had freed her from her bad marriage (as there was no other way to be rid of Darnley in that era). I see that tendency toward looking in her turning to Elizabeth for succor. She may not have wanted/or been temperamentally unprepared to rule, as she never seems to have shown much interest in it. Scotland is a brutal, wild country in her era. I feel it is a long, sad story of compounded losses of her loved ones, with no one really able to help, guide or comfort her. I loathe Darnley retrospectively, and I have visited Holyrood twice and seen the actual staircase (not the one they show tourists!) that he descended to do his deed, but imagine how immature Darnley must have been to do this in front of a pregnant woman! Poor, dear Mary. My heart goes out to her. I think like all of us, she did the best she could under the dreadful circumstances.
Mary grew up surrounded by sycophants who told her that she was a dazzling beauty, brilliantly witty and irresistibly charming. Consequently, she had no understanding of her own strengths and weaknesses.
Family scuttlebutt (backed up by genealogy) is that one of my ancestors provided the gunpowder. I'd have to look it up if people are interested in names; I'm mainly chuffed to have such an interesting criminal in the family.
It is a bit frustrating that for all the dozens of books written of Mary I, soo much of the focus is given to her looks and the tragic drama of her life, and so little to Mary's policies. No criticism to the video, its a good summary and obv her marriages were among the most important events in her life, but most biographies of Kings balance the drama and personality with analysis of their political performance and policies. The closest to anything like that for Mary is Jenny Wormald's book, and she's arguably pretty harsh on Mary. For 5 years after her abdication, her supporters fought a bitter civil war for her cause, even while she was imprisoned in England and when the odds turned against them. That a Catholic Queen could inspire that kind of loyalty from even Protestant lords, after all her mistakes, must surely be to her credit.
I'm surprised that you are surprised. Powerful women are not welcome in society, especially at that time. So they are usually reduced to Thier looks and marriages, unless something truly horrible and scandalous can be attributed to them. History has made up all sorts of horrible things about powerful women, just to minimize them and thier impact in order to favor the patriarchy.
My fantasy dinner party would be held at the Fat Badger pub in York. Joining me at my table would be Dr. Kat, Lucy Worsley and David Starkey. I would bring a stack of playing cards with photos of all the characters of the Tudor era. Each of my guests would take turns picking a card and expounding on the character on that card. Then the other guests would chime in with their thoughts, and I could ask questions. We would go until all cards had been picked, feasting all evening. It would be the best time of my life! 😊
I suspect that, even if she had been a plain-speaking Protestant, ruling Scotland (with its unruly nobles) as Queen Regnant was always going to be difficult for Mary because her French courtly education was so deficient in statecraft - or the political baptism of fire that Elizabeth had had on the way to the throne. Mary did not lack courage, but suffered from recurring health problems of debatable origin and displayed radically bad judgment at various points, not just in choosing husbands but also advisers. No Cecil to keep her tethered firmly to reality! I always wonder whether Elizabeth, having got the measure of Darnley's character, not to mention his mother's ambition and poor judgment at Henry VIII's court, allowed him to go to Scotland as a "secret weapon" to destabilise the country. Did Cecil ever comment on this peculiar action, or did Elizabeth just take her eye off the ball?
Unruly nobles... Note, the Scottish monarch is style "Of Scots". Not "of Scotland"; this is significant. It means the nobles have significantly more independence. Second, Mary grew up in France, where the monarchy is more absolute; she would have been completely unaware and unprepared for the political regime pertaining in Scotland. It is quite wrong to assume she was immature, naive or other negative attributes. You'll note her choice of husbands. Deliberate in avoiding existing factions. Ultimately, out of the turmoil of her life, her son reigned for a total of 58 years, uniting the crowns, responsible for the translation and publishing of the Bible into the vernacular. The English then corrupted the Stewart line but that is another story...
Some theorize that Elizabeth sent Darnley to Scotland because she hoped he would sabotage Mary one way or another. She knew he was both stupid and power hungry. Watch the 1971 movie Mary Queen of Scots. There's a scene where she tells Burghley that no matter who Mary weds, she (Elizabeth) wins.
I think given the havoc Darnely had caused Mary both in life and in death, that theory has some credibility. However I find it unlikley because of the danger their marriadge (and subsquently the birth of the future King James) posed for Elizabeth and her throne. Two Catholics monarchs with a legitimate claim to her throne mustve threatened Elizabeth. Hence why she was so vehemently opposed to it.
You are such an interesting Dr to listen to. This is my favourite. I was in Awe the first time i climbed the same stairs in Holyrood Palace that Mary had, seeing her bed and imaging her in the little room prior to the murder of her secretary. Just smazing, thank you for making this dyory so interesting
Have always wondered how hurt and rejected Marie must have felt at being dismissed by the family who raised, groomed and educated her. She must have felt bonded to her French family, as they were the only family she probably knew and loved. Also, I believe that she had requested that her body be returned to France for burial after her death but there she lies, entombed in Westminster Abbey. Her own son King James VI & I never carried out his mother's wishes. The life of Marie, reine d’Écosse is a tragic tale.
I was unsure about Mary’s complicity in the murder before reading biographical material on Jean Gordon, Lady Bothwell. This marriage was arranged with Mary’s help to enrich Bothwell and was, soon after, annulled. Some details provided on the chummy relationship between the queen and Bothwell were illuminating. Lady Jean, who went on to live a long and successful life, would make an interesting subject for your channel.
I love that Dr.Kat says right out the gate that she doesn't care much for this dude and admits her biased opinion on Darnley. Just like with Thomas Seymore. Same, Dr.Kat! I thought both those guys were awful when reading about them in history books. Seymore was a creep and Darnley a spoiled jerk. I am totally unashamed in my biased dislike of them. Those individuals sounded like terrible people who met deserving terrible ends.
I love the way the late Dorothy Dunnett nails Darnley in her novel "The Ringed Castle." His pitiful sneering at Phillippa's Latin is *priceless.* (Speaking as a Classics tutor.)
Dr. Kat, have you read Mary queen of Scots: A Study in Failure? Most biographies of Mary are practically exercises in hero worship and excuse/ignore Mary's faults, weaknesses, and continuous misjudgements of situations and people many of which she repeats. (Yes, there's a point at which forgiveness becomes stupidity, no?) I understand that Mary was raised to be a queen consort and not a queen regnant. (The same can be said of Elizabeth I.) Her years away from Scotland also did not help. Still, I've always been more critical of Mary than some of her biographers, and I was wondering if you've read this book, and if so, what do you think of it? Thanks so much for all your videos;this was one of the best!
@@jmarie9997 Exactly my point! I'm looking for a more honest and analytical biography of Mary than--for example--that of Antonia Fraser. Thank you for your feedback.
"Violent, spoiled, lazy, drunken fool." If this is holding back, Dr. Kat ... In all actuality, it does seem pretty accurate in light of Darnley's actions.
You aren’t wrong! In my defence, I did highlight my distaste for Darnley before I got going… honestly, I’m just grateful that I don’t have to do these live because I would struggle to to swear 🤣
When I visited Holyroodhouse in 1994, our tour guide showed us the room where Rizzio’s murder supposedly took place. She claimed that part of the floor had once been painted red, to simulate where Rizzio bled out- until too many visitors kept breaking off paint chips as “souvenirs”. Not sure how true that story was, but it definitely made an impression on me. :-) Thanks for bringing back fond memories, and for another stellar video.
This is thecthird time that I have heard this story, but the first time that I learned Lord Darnley's heritage! The other videos just said that he was 'powerful'. Thank you for making this video.
Great. I''ve just discovered Reading the Past, and am finding loads of great content. There's nothing better to me than You Tube history documentaries. There's SO many! But... being British, I have an aversion to many of the (preponderant) American ones, which oftentimes have gushingly enthusiastic presentation, sloppy pronunciation, and daft music. No so Dr. Kat; good work! Like yourself, I have a history PhD, and I can see you do your research with care.
Dr Kat, You are a treasure and a gem. Your ability to lay out the facts of a convoluted bit of history is top shelf always. Lord Darnley goes down as a particular special brand of evil, showing as he did so regularly a basketful of sins pride, greed, wrath, envy, lust, gluttony. My thoughts on his untimely death was always good riddance to an evil guy. Though I’ve never read it speculated by any reputable medieval experts, I always give a thought to the fact that Mary spent most of her childhood learning at the knee of her first Mother in Law Catherine de Medici whose legendary skills as a poisoner were well and truly known across France and frankly all across medieval Europe. They were so established it’s one of the things even lazy medieval scholars know. Given the extremely fast onset to death and it wasn’t listed in his time as other rapid “natural” killers like the sweating sickness, plague or smallpox we are now out on the branch pretty far. This was an EXCELLENT episode!!
I absolutely love your channel. One of my favourites on UA-cam. As The Last Kingdom series has just come to an end, would you consider doing a video on Aethelflaed, King Alfred's warrior daughter and Lady of Mercia?
I always enjoy your clear and logical presentation style! And I must say, I particularly love seeing you in this beautiful blouse as well- lovely on you!
Mary Queen of Scots suffered terribly through her dynastic marriage to Darnley. The key suspect in his murder plot was her half brother Moray, Mary had no part in this. Secondly, Bothwell brutally raped her, and forced her to marry him (against her will). Yet, today it is often written that she chose badly, really? This marriage was not a choice, it was forced upon her, and today Bothwell would be imprisoned for what he did to Mary. She later wrote to the pope seeking an annulment and citing the marriage was against her will. Most of what is written about Mary within the common academic sphere, is based on a false narrative. Dr Kate William’s book is an excellent source on the life of Mary Queen of Scots.
I find it very tempting to believe that Elizabeth (who must have been able to see through Darnley like a pane of glass) sent him up to Scotland like a guided missile. She was certainly familiar with Margaret Douglas's history of machinations, and she was fully capable of mastering her natural emotions when strategic cunning was required. But I guess historians disagree on that point. I think Mary's lack of statecraft and emotional control was evident from the moment she approved Henri II's plan to use her to claim the throne of England. I don't see much evidence of the kind of moral scruples that would have made her recoil from the murder of Darnley - especially if he had really caught syphilis through his promiscuous lifestyle. Whether she actually colluded with Bothwell or merely closed her ears to any rumours of a plot against Darnley seems very doubtful, though her behaviour on the night in question seems disingenuous at the very least. She certainly didn't encourage an effective investigation - in contrast to Robert Dudley's rapid response to the death (murder?) of his wife Amy Dudley. Moreover, her reaction to her subsequent "kidnap" by Bothwell was not entirely convincing or likely to excite sympathy or loyalty. Political incompetence or desperation?.- difficult to tell.
Have been waiting for this one! I wondered if you were going to do one on this disturbing chapter of history. Thank you once again for an engaging and informative video.
After reading a couple of books about Mary, I have always felt so sorry for her. Its as if fate had it in for her. She lost her father so young, then was sent to France, where she was raised to be a Queen Consort to Francis, rather than a Queen Regnant and didn't get the chance to build alliances with the Scottish nobles. Then after her weakly husband died, she was sent away. Scotland was always a difficult country to govern and had had a series of child kings and regents which had undermined the idea of a strong Sovereign. Mary had no allies, everyone around her was out for themselves. Marriage for a Queen Regnant was a nest of vipers. Mary Tudor's marriage to Philip of Spain was hardly a success. Mary of Scotland needed to marry to get an heir, she had to marry someone of sufficient status, but obviously anyone of status would want the Crown Matrimonial ( Philip of Spain was King of England during his marriage to Mary Tudor). It goes to show how wise Elizabeth was not to marry. Having said that, Mary Stuart could hardly have done worse than marry the spoilt child that was Darnley. But then she married Bothwell, who was another disaster. Elizabeth had Cecil, and Walsingham and Robert Dudley. Mary had nobody to advise her and support her. It was not very clever of Mary to spend the time she was in England trying to stir up rebellion against Elizabeth. That was always going to end badly, as it did. But what else could she do? After being Queen of France, and Queen of Scots, being limited to embroidery must have been frustrating to say the least.
On top of that there's the argument that Mary could have also been mentally ill from hereditary porphyria. She was known to have fairly eratic mood swings and act on impulse.
Mary didn't have Elizabeth's political savy. Yes Elizabeth had good advisors but she was screwd enough to pick and kept good men and not let one rule her and Elizabeth having to navigate a mindfield growing up meant she learnt to do young. Mary had a sheltered upbringing that didn't equip her to be a good queen regent. I think she was a victim of Bothwell or perhaps turned a blind eye to how Darnley was removed. I think from Antonia Fraser's book she had a sort of meltdown and didn't think through going with Bothwell who then assaulted her to become the next consort. He wasn't a nice man either he was just smarter than Darnley. Being a queen regent was a tough balancing act and all of the three Tudor queens made sacrifices one way or another Mary Tudor was smart and well trained but she was too rigid in accomodating a changing world, had false loyality to her mother's family who she thought cared about her more than they did and was unlucky. Elizabeth managed to hang onto power but did so at the expense of her own legacy in terms of bloodline whereas Mary was the opposite. It's a shame that the two couldn't have been true joint rulers and the politics of extremists on both sides put them at odds.
@@EmoBearRights I wonder what would have happened if Darnley had been caught with a lover ( male or female ), would Mary have been able to divorce him the way Henry VIII divorced Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard? Probably not, since it would not bring the succession into question. If a Queen Regnant wanted to get rid of her husband it would be much more difficult.
As far as Darnley being successor or even usurper of Elizabeth Tudor, it would never have happened. Elizabeth was way too wily for anyone. Dr Kat, you would know that better than anyone, being an historian of that era. Elizabeth had been suppressed during Edward's and Mary's reigns and had been watchful from her mother's death to the end of her own life. Whereas Mary of Scots was pampered beyond belief and never had to worry a day growing up, even in the French court with Catherine de Medici who was a known plotter, Mary just plain disregarded her which in itself was a bad move. So no, Elizabeth would never have let that happen. Now Darnley's child, yes, Elizabeth was quite happy to see that happen. It sounds more to me that Darnley and Elizabeth plotted together for him to marry Mary. While Elizabeth didn't trust her kinswoman or the husband, the son was probably easy to manipulate. What do you think?
lI always find it useful to remember the prospective early lives of Mary and Elizabeth. Mary was pampered and indulged and made fully aware of her royal status. Whereas Elizabeth had a tumultuous early life, mother executed, declared illegitimate, trying to appease her father and the tension between herself and her half-sister Mary. That is to say, Elizabeth had the perfect training in how to survive in what could be life and death situations, whereas Mary had no such training or experience and was totally unprepared for the complex situation awaiting her in Scotland. Used to her royal status being unquestioned and being treated as a queen, she had to be very shocked by her treatment by her nobles and John Knox. Her charm would be lost on them.
I so enjoyed this, Dr Kat! I would love more videos on other aspects of Mary’s life: her time in France, or time spent imprisoned? Thank you for all you do!
Mary was a victim of 16th Century sexism. Scotland I believe only had one regnant queen before her. This was a small child who died before she was able to set foot in her kingdom. Conventions of the time was that people thought of women as a placeholder ruler who only served to bridge the gap between the king and his grandson. She would marry and turn either eventually turn over authority to her husband or quickly produce an heir to continue the dynasty. Her problem was she got pregnant too quickly and Darnley wanted the crown matrimonial. Had she not gotten pregnant so quickly he would have gotten control over her kingdom as her husband and consort. But this child displaced him in every aspect of life. Mary was right not to give him her power. Having produced a son that would have been in line to inherit the English throne. He wanted that power for himself. Mary's trouble begin with marrying too ambitious a man, who was unwilling to share power. He terrorized her in his quest not to share power. He figured getting getting her out of the way would open at least the English crown but probably both Scotland and England to him. His son stole his prominence. It drove him mad, violent and crazy. Had she (most likely) not had him killed then he would have eventually gotten her killed. I guess Elizabeth was wise not to marry.
I certainly think that, if Elizabeth had started to consider marriage (possibly to Dudley) the example and memory of MQoS would have forced the thought from her!
@@ReadingthePast people always protest Elizabeth and Dudley as the tragic love story. I highly suspect due to the "unusual circumstances" of his first wife's death. He was equally toxic as Darnley. Clearly he was another man looking to advance himself with royal favor by wooing the queen.
I totally agree with other comments that Mary wasn't raised to be a ruler, only a ruler's wife. She had the attributes of her time and lacked the analysis or study of history, philosophy, Greek literature and mathematics. Her temperament was to "please a man". Thus attracted to the strong, physically pleasing Darnley led her to fall into the arms of a narcissist who gaslighted her the whole time. When her son and her lives were threatened she simpered her way into having others help rid her of him. But her poor education and really limited exposure to reasoning, despite living in the court of one of the great plotters of all time, Catherine de Medici; she turned to other men to "save" her. Thus Bothwell entered her life and bed, another controlling man. She was really clueless about the strength of Elizabeth the first. She had grown up with court intrigue, knew her own mind and was able to see pros and cons of people and positions. She also realized that staying the virgin queen was also impactful on the continuing within England. Mary given her bloodline could have been a challenge to her own throne as well as the fact that the nation was only recently changed from catholicism. Mary did not have the skills set to rule amongst greedy men of power, she only had her feminine wiles. She played her hand as best she could, but not with the finesse that Elizabeth or Catherine de Medici did. Unfortunately, her choices ended with isolation, loneliness and ultimately her death without any time to impact the life of her son.
I think Mary was probably intelligent, witty, vivacious and absolutely raised in the French court to be an ornamental Queen Consort who could not challenge Catherine de Medici and was never intended to return to or rule over or worry her pretty little head over the wild country of her birth. It is otherwise inexcusable that she would not have had had regular tutelage in Scots language/customs and regular communication with regents, etc. She had no hope of being Queen Regnant, she was never raised to it and was never suited to it. She was naive. As to Darnley, I just want to smack her upside the head because she should have been smarter about it as a woman and a queen. What a foolish marriage. As to Bothwell - I need to read up on it. Originally, I'd thought it was romance based confusion but I question that more now. Stockholm syndrome maybe? Maybe it was love? It was so incredibly, incredibly stupid whatever the cause (unless the cause was a knife at her throat), and I will never understand why she went to England for help instead of, well, most anywhere else. Was it sheer desperation or did she honestly, truly believe Elizabeth would help her? She is one I'd love to have tea with, that's certain. There is something about her tragedy of life that makes me just feel bad for her in a way that Elizabeth I or Anne Boleyn (who I think are vastly more *interesting*) don't engender in me - there is a cunning or ambition that isn't there with Mary QoS. But then, having just typed that, I wonder how much that feeling is impacted by misogynistic reading of history. Hmm. I'll have to think more on this. Great video as ever. I've introduced your videos to my almost 10-year-old daughter who has become fascinated with Tudor history through the six wives of Henry VIII as I did - albeit her intro was the musical Six and mine was a book with really gorgeous dresses that caught my eye. She thinks you are a good story-teller, and I whole-heartedly agree.
One issue in the Darnley story that has always puzzled me is why nothing was done to punish him for the murder of David Rizzio. There’s no question of his responsibility for it. His accomplices fled to England, but he remained in Scotland, where nothing was done to him. But when it comes to his murder, Mary’s guilt has been endlessly debated and often asserted. It was one of the reasons Mary was forced to abdicate and later was held captive in England. Why is there such a difference in the reactions to the unquestioned perpetrator of one murder who completely got off and for the other murder unending vilification of someone whose guilt is open to question?
Yes ; it is something what really annoyed me ! Darnely was clearly a criminal but he was not punished at all but Mary who forgave him again and again is the one suspected when she could and she should have killed him instead of all these evil noblemen who were clearly against Darnely being King and some of them conspirated against him .
Because one was a hated Italian secretary and another was a crowned King. While killing Rizzio had done Darnely no favours with his image amoung his contemporaries he knew his end was close anyway by giving in to Mary and effectively 'ratting out' the nobles who were involved in the plot. Why Mary was condemned so much for Darnely's death however was the afterformentioned position as King, and the fact that she had married his muderer (and her rapist, altgough that's up for debate) and was heavily pregnant by him (thereby confirming her supposed adultery with him). It gave the Scot nobles who wanted her out of power (particularly her brother) the perfect excuse to be rid of Mary and have her replaced by her own son
Rizzio was a foreign Catholic. Darnley was King Consort and Mary's husband. (To kill your husband was not only murder but TREASON) Also, Darnley killed a man who people believed might be his wife's lover.
I think that all Queen of Scots that she was, during that period Mary was a very young and immature woman who did not have time to grow her brain for as to be able to correctly assess the reality in which she lived. Adding to that the abandonment she endured while sent to France without her mother as a very small child, the death of her mother and her husband while still a child/adolescent, the traumatic murder of her Italian secretary in her presence while pregnant (an extremely vulnerable moment in a woman's life) and all the further violence and plotting surrounding her, she must have suffered from severe PTSD. Her judgment must have been quite impaired at that point. Also, we don't know if she was of high, average or low intelligence and that could have played a role in her lack of stability. Maybe in some long past conversation, Elizabeth could have made a plea of affection and support that had misled Mary who, having nobody to turn to and being devoid of any power over her destiny at that point, believed that England and her cousin could be a safe haven for herself.
To me, it seems that Mary's death began with Henry's... It was the moment things began to go horribly, HORRIBLY wrong for her 😅 As always, an amazing video! ❤
Mary and Darnley reminds me of Queen Margrethe II of Denmark and her husband Henri. He was the first gentleman of the country. When they had a child he couldn't take being a "Prince Consort" because it was behind the title of crown prince. He would go on tirades about it and refuses to be buried with his wife because he was emasculated. She couldn't take him anywhere without him going into a tirade. He refuses to go to any state affair where their son is present because he won't play second fiddle to his son as cohost.
@@--enyo-- Henri died in 2018 and left a will you could not believe. He refused to be buried in state. He refuses to be buried anywhere near his wife or son. He spent the last 30 year whining about he should be King. When his son came of age he was told his son as heir to the throne had precedence in state matters over him and he lost it.
Much appreciated. Interesting considerations. You asked if it wasn’t possible that Mary was aware of her bad decisions, disastrous decisions in marriage partners. Yet, did she? What choice did any woman have in anything except women’s chores. But then, What’s the possibility that Mary’s sensibilities and self sensibilities are, exactly the same as us, now? I boldly claim that chicken came first out of a proto-egg. Thank you
Another great video! I believe these were perilous time for everyone, particularly those close to power, and even more so if you happened to be a woman. Only a savvy and politically astute ruler would prosper or survive, someone like Elizabeth. Elizabeth had been in mortal danger several times, but she was quick enough and smart enough to come out on top. Mary, Queen of Scots was none of those things, and that’s why she went from catastrophe to tragedy until Elizabeth finally brought her life to an end.
a little bit of stereo type maybe? Elizabeth had better advisers than Mary. Mary did a good job at the beginning of her rule, given the resistance she faced. Elizabeth was also ruled by her heart. She was damaged by her past. Mary however does seem to have had mental health issues, or at least, some fixed ideas from her upbringing. Also, THANKYOU Dr Kat!
@@ruthmitchell3011 no, I don’t think it was a stereotype at all. Elizabeth did have good advice, but she wouldn’t have even made it to the throne if she hadn’t been clever in her own right. Her life was much harder than Mary’s in her youth. She was considered a bastard and was in danger of being executed for treason twice. Once during her sister’s reign and then again during her brother’s. She had no great advisors then. And she often did what she wanted anyway. Mary went against advice too, but when she did, it was catastrophic.
Mary Queen of Scots was clearly a bad judge of character, especially when it came to husbands. It would seem that she was attracted to abusers. It is interesting to notice that she went for Darnley, who had an abusive personality, then for Bothwell, who was also abusive. In the Bothwell case she even let go of her catholicism to marry him in the protestant fashion. She went further, letting herself be captured by the confederate lords at the showdown that led to her abdication....in order to save Bothwell. Nobody ever tried to understand what could have made her so entranced by so called strong men, who in fact are simply abusers? Maybe there is something to be said about her upbringing in France. The Guise family men were aggressive, ruthless types. Yet she idealised them. As for her 'feud' with Elizabeth, we must distance ourselves from the romantic narrative spun from the second half of the 18th century. Elizabeth was actually trying to counsel Mary in a supportive way throughout the 1560s, even though that was often hindered by interventions by her own councillors. She refused to consider to put Mary to death for 20 years, in spite of plots involving Mary and aiming at her life. Elizabeth never thought the 'casket letters' were real and she put an end to the investigation into them, because it had clearly been gerrymandered. All the while, Mary never retracted the claim that she was the queen of England, claim made in heraldry and shouted by her pages at her marriage to the Dauphin. That claim was a very useful political weapon in a Europe divided by religious wars.
After Darnley's murder, Elizabeth was the only one to show sympathy while giving Mary good advice; separate herself from Bothwell and find SOMEONE to throw under the bus.
@@jmarie9997that 'Someone' being Bothwell himself. Mary would have kept her throne - and her head - had she arranged a proper trial for Bothwell and had him punished (whether it was banishment or execution) just as Elizabeth had done for Robert. Unfortunately, whether in the grip of some mad passion for Bothwell, or just believing his claims that he would protect her, Mary failed to follow the very good advice Elizabeth had sent to her. And she paid heavily for it. Her crown. Her unborn twins. Her husband. Her son. Her crown. Her freedom and then her head. Everything .
I don't think we've often seen two rulers in power at the same time who were such polar opposites in personality. Liz knew Mary was going to marry SOMEBODY soon after she returned to Scotland. Wasn't it better for Liz that Mary had a weak feckless husband than a strong one (especially a foreign prince with his own army)? Despite her public protests, I think that's why she allowed Darnley to go up to see Mary. On paper, he was a good match. If Mary was stupid enough to take him, she'd end up with her hands full managing him and less able to threaten Liz. I think Liz knew the marriage would be a disaster from the start, just like the Scots court did, but underestimated how big a disaster it would be - or how far Mary would go to get rid of him.
Cecil, Knox, the Lords all played their part in her demise. She had no chance. Religion the other culprit. Darnley was awful but only 20 years old, which allowed his misogyny to be at a strong point. Wonder where we would all be now if the Dauphin had not died!
Also...Elizabeth had shrewd discernment of her prominent subjects' character...and doubtless Darnley's repulsive, spoiled nastiness had been brought to her attention. Give the wretch to Mary QOS. THAT would keep Her busy
Thank you for the clear background to these events. It is important to remember that Mary was brought up in The French court. Henri II preferred his mistress to his wife, not unusual for political marriages. How could a young woman, raised in France, possibly understand the undercurrents going on in Scotland. Imagine leaving the glittering French court, separated from the only family she knew, to a country of clans and moors. So no wonder she wanted to marry quickly in order to navigate this foreign land. And why not to a handsome, charming and Scottish man? She wasn’t stupid; she was young.
Mary Stuart, Queen of the Scots had a very turbulent youth. Her mother, Marie de Guise came from a very powerful, staunchly Catholic family in France was raised as a staunch Roman Catholic. During her tenure in France, she had a difficult relationship with her mother-in-law, Catherine di Medici, a force of nature who poisoned her way through the political turmoil of the Protestant Reformation. After her widowhood, she returned to Scotland at the age of 18. Eighteen tender years. With no parent to guide her or offer security, she quickly ran afoul of John Knox, the firebrand Calvinist reformer. Under this duress, I can understand that seeking out a male support figure to help her through this minefield was, to her mind essential, and voilà, Darnley appears at first as her Guardian Angel. Mary was a victim of circumstance, intrigue, naiveté. She made wrong choices at every turn as she was never schooled in Statehood. Trilingual literacy, dancing, music, riding and embroidery do not a stateswoman make. Her cousin Elizabeth had the fiercely Walsingham as her protector, Mary had no such luck. Her end was inevitable, but she must truly be one of the most tragic royal victims in Western history.
Well done! Mary is my first cousin (at some remove, obviously), and my family, Boyd, supported her and her cause, perhaps not so obviously. I am not partial to Darnley. So you may understand why I say well done; you were quite even-handed.
As Mary's attempt at conspiracy against Elizabeth turned out so inept that she had her head cut off I doubt that she conspired to kill Darnley. There must have been several powerful men apart from Bothwell who would like her widowed so that they could marry her and become even more powerful and influential.
Exactly. Elizabeth on the other hand had been walking a tightrope since she was 3 years old . She always had to be one step ahead of everyone especially the men in her life just to survive . Mary was raised to be not a queen but a consort in a lavish court where she was adored from the time she was a little girl . Once she was thrown to the wolves she didn’t have the skills to survive.
I've always found the life of Mary Queen of Scotts interesting and horrifying all at the same time. I've always seen her as a person who was brought up as a queen and therefore saw everyone, but a privileged few, as beneath her. You can see that in her actions and how she treats everyone. I think she had Bothwell kill Darnley and rightly so, he was absolutely going to kill her and maybe the child also. She wanted Bothwell but the other noblemen would have none of it, he didn't deserve to be raised up. As for her imprisonment in England? she didn't see Queen Elisabeth as an equal so miss judged Q. Elisabeth to her detriment and kept trying to get a crown that didn't belong to her. So I feel she got what she deserved, what a sad life she led. This is my take on it. :-) thank you Dr. Kat! as always you have made my Friday morning fun and interesting.
I think it’s interesting to consider Mary as potentially imperious and superior. Perhaps Darnley was disposable for her - she had a son and so her husband’s usefulness was achieved. I also think it’s interesting to think how this mindset could have led her to misjudge Elizabeth!
@@ReadingthePast but did she misjudge her? Or did she simply feel she didn't have much other choice but to trust someone who could harm her? Did she feel the risk was worth taking?
@@ReadingthePast How can someone can be the Queen of Scotland a country known to have more men than riches can be potentially imperious and superior??? Scotland at this time had always been isolated and trampled by England . Mary of Scots , since childhood had been harrassed by them .
@@lakaperse6995 because it was the mentality of ALL of the royals ... They're literally told from birth that God chose them for this role. It's the highest level of superiority. I think Samantha Morton did one of the best jobs of representing Mary, in the Cate Blanchett film; "Elizabeth". She was broke, in prison, and at the mercy of her cousin ... Yet she still kept plotting against her. Samantha Morton plays the role with the perfect amount of subtle arrogance.
and lest we forget ... She wore a *red* gown for her execution attire. The color of Martyrs. I find it ironic that Anne Boleyn said "The King has been most kind in elevating my status from commoner to Queen. And now he will raise me higher still; to the station of Martyr." I believe Mary was attempting to Shade Elizabeth in the same way. Elizabeth did not spend years plotting to kill Mary. She put it off as long as she possibly could. That's why she originally wouldn't sign the death warrant. MARY, on the other hand, had heaps of evidence against her actively plotting to kill her cousin. And clearly believed that she was absolutely correct in her conviction that she was right to do so. I think she may have been a bit of a narcissist as well as a paranoid insecure widowed orphan. Of course all of that psychological trauma, probably wouldn't produce the most well-rounded adult ... much less, *ruler*.
I've always thought that Mary was wronged because she was a woman. If a king had lost his wife such as Darnley then he would have not only got away with it but would have been able to remarry without a qualm. You only have to look to the infamous Henry the 8th for that. Powerful men played Mary. She lost the game.
I enjoy all of your videos very much & this is one of my favorites! Mary Q.o.S had such an interesting, tumultuous, & ultimately sad life. I've been curious about Darnley's murder & the Bothwell "marriage" since first reading about them as a kid. I wonder if we'll ever learn the truth? Thanks for another great video.
As beautiful as The Scotts queen was, she could not be accused of being overly bright. The decisions she made in her life went from bad to worst. Sadly, her imprisonment in both Scotland and England was her own doing. Her execution was a forgone conclusion.
Very nice history on the early background of the Darnleys. Now I have to ask, what happened to his family after his death were they included in James VI’s court?
Because of a half sentence reference in Jane Eyre, I fell down the rabbithole of reading about Lord Darnley's murder...That was a good ten years ago and I'm still completely shook by the details. It's just so bizarre....An interesting movie about MQOS is Katharine Hepburn's biopic, Mary of Scotland. Darnley is as gay-coded as you could get in 1930s Hollywood. Hepburn herself was related to James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell, one of the prime suspects in Darnley's murder.
Brilliant video! I really enjoyed this and subscribed to your channel as a result. Love good history channels. You have made it very clear as to the Tudor connection and why both Mary and Darnley had a claim to the throne. Poor Mary. If only Francois had survived.
I'd like to know if it was nurture or nature that created the incredible number of sociopaths in aristocracy over the centuries (I am leaning towards the former). Darnley and Bothwell both exhibit signs of this horrifying trait. Using intelligence, charm or charisma to manipulate others to get what they want then their true selves come out. Were those outside of court just as loathsome?
Ambition is one of those things isn’t it… an amazing force for positive change but also a highly dangerous quality if it tends in the “wrong” direction!
Perhaps her first mistake was merely to be so attached to the illusion of Darnley that she didn’t want it destroyed; perhaps she was entirely fooled by him and everything else just tumbled after. Or perhaps she had something underlying going on. It sounds, though, like Darnley would have been increasingly horrible as time went on. The whole smallpox bit was practically jumping up and down, saying, this is the moment! Poison! Nobody will ever know! Doesn’t sound like Mary had the nerve for that. For her to do the gunpowder thing would have been stupid beyond description.
"Mary, Queen of Scots had taste in horrible men..." That....isn't an opinion that is an Understatement.
Fair point 🤣
She didn't think things through very well.
I wonder how much of this was just her being one of those people who has very poor judgement in partners, and how much was the result of her being brought up in a court that was culturally so far from that which existed in Scotland (or so I have read)?
As a woman, she had no support, no training, no guidance, no love, no wise teacher, no female mentorship. How could she have developed anything other than bad taste in men?
Honestly how much choice did she have? Marriage was political and all about positioning and power, it wasn’t about love.
Mary's life reads like the script of a Latin American soap opera - orphaned, then widowed at a young age, fell for a handsome, charming young man who turns out to be a rotten, spoilt, good-for-nothing grifter who's only after her inheritance, then having that husband die under mysterious circumstances, and being forced to marry a villain who probably had a part in her husband's death.
More like an Anthony Trollope novel. Think Tess of the d'Ubervilles.
It actually was a Sir Walter Scott novelization that became a Donizetti opera. Not terribly accurate history, but amazing opera!
@@DannyJane. Exactly.
And then imprisoned and executed at a young age. Awful but totally on point for a soap opera .
@@pookiepookie8669well not exactly, because Thomas Hardy wrote Tess of the d’Urbervilles.
I always appreciate it when we think about people in the past with empathy….you reminding us Mary Queen of Scott’s was a person and had sadness in her loss of husband and mom . It’s always good to remember those feelings and these were real humans with human feelings.
Fascinating. Just to say from a modern point of view, domestic abuse often begins or ramps up in pregnancy. It's partly because the jealous, abusive partner thinks of his partner's body as 'belonging' to him so resents how her body changes, or he might also resent the idea of her 'preferring' the baby.
@@LittleLouieLagazzaNot all women...
@@LittleLouieLagazza;-)
@@LittleLouieLagazzaThey're not, it's factually accurate.
I have no answers. I approach Mary’s story with multiple exasperated “Oh, Mary, what were you thinking!”s. You trusted Darnley? You didn’t really prosecute his murder? You married Bothwell? You trusted Elizabeth? You trusted Babington? You really thought anything you said, wrote or did was private in captivity? C’mon, Mary, give me a break. Clearly she wasn’t a stupid woman; in the end perhaps another with “…wit and very little judgment.”
Definitely one of those people who makes you think "How can you be so smart and so stupid at the same time?!"
These are all questions I would love to ask Mary!!
She definitely suffered the consequences of her choices!
@@ReadingthePast Me too !!!!! I know since she was surrounded by evil people the most of what written on her can be false but for everything else we are sure she did it does not make any sense !!! It has no logic!!! Was she so stupid , a PTSD victim after all her trauma , a people pleaser , someone who believes that everyone can changes when they are openly evil ???
Love the Thomas Seymour reference 🙏😅🙏
You tell this story SO well! I always pictured Mary in a room with Bothwell and others, opening her beautiful eyes wide as they slowly well up with tears, saying something to the effect of, "I'm so overwhelmed, I don't know how to fix this situation, surely you wise men can find a solution for me." That being said, her poor decisions throughout her life indicate she wasn't a very good schemer. Each time I read about her, I want to shake my head and say "Oh, Honey." (It's a southern US thing to say in the face of baffling, self destructive decisions.)
I might even add "Bless her heart. She can't help it, can she?"
@@theothermorgan Haha! Exactly!
@@theothermorgan You took the words right out of my keyboard. "Bless her heart" 😅
You forgot, “darling girl just what were you thinking”
Listening to this, I wondered if somehow having seen Rizzio murdered in front of her by members of 'her' court, then her husband murdered, again by members of 'her' court, then getting kidnapped, again by noblemen of 'her' court, she might not have felt that marriage with Bothwell was the best chance at survival for herself and James. I wonder how free she felt her agency really was.
I think her "abduction" was fake. It was a common custom for a man to abduct a woman to "force" her to marry him in order to save her honor. The abduction made it seem, in terms of public relations, that Mary was compelled to marry Bothwell. I think Mary made the rushed marriage to Bothwell because she was pregnant with the twins she later miscarried. I think Mary wanted to marry Bothwell and colluded with him to fake the abduction to make the marriage more palatable to her nobles. If, on his return to Edinburgh, Darnley had spent even one night under her roof before he was killed, Mary could have blamed her pregnancy on Darnley, even if she did not actually sleep with him. Ironically, Darnley was killed one day before he was scheduled to move back into the palace. If Mary was pregnant with Bothwell's child, the person who killed her husband did it one day too soon for Mary to attribute her pregnancy to Darnley.
@@Orphen42O Yeah. Thats pretty much what I had always thought. However it could also be a man striking out against the monstrous regiment of women and forcing her to make hime a king. All in all, it was a hell of a year for Mary
@@catherined9475”monstrous regiment of women”?! Really? Did the men behave any better in your view?
@@ceciliajones7816 "The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regiment of Women" was published in about 1558 by Protestant reformer John Knox. I'm not exactly sure who he was referring to, as he wrote to at least 4 different queens. However at around this time there was Joanna of Castille; Jane, Mary 1 and Elizabeth 1 of England; Mary of Guise and Mary Queen of Scotts; Catherine De Medici in France. Removing Mary Queen of Scotts from power would definitely be a blow against this monstrous regiment
@@catherined9475 ah, I see. Thank you! Without quotation marks, I did not realize that it was a title. In the current social climate, I’m running into quite a bit of misogyny in many areas.
Some of his behaviour screams domestic abuser - especially as it seems to have started/escalated in pregnancy. And then his jealousy about the child having more clout/attention made him want to see how much manipulative power he had left. I'd have arranged for him to meet an "accident" if I was her and plenty of people are good at acting like the bereaved spouse knowing exactly what happened
I must say, with what I have learned from consuming true crime content, the shift during her pregnancy did lead me to draw those connections too. Honestly, I think he might have killed her / had her killed if he had lived!
@@ReadingthePast The killing of her "lover" in front of her was a definite clear display of what he was capable of and the way he acted afterwards I'd want him the hell away from our child now I knew that any impediment - real or imagined - could end like this. That and the fact that he was showing signs of jealousy and escalating unrealistic demands the baby needed protecting and there were so few avenues open to her at that time. If she had a hand in it/knew about it/or was just *relieved* after the fact then good for her! I'm glad he wasn't able to do her any further mental or physical damage
@@kwells179 yikes !! He "did her damage" alright ! His murder was the pivotal moment in her life ! It led directly to her imprisonment and eventual execution. Even in death he hurt her unimaginably.
@@ReadingthePast i agree. She was at high risk of dying at his hands. But I'm not sure she arranged his death. Given how battered women often think, i think the nobles that already hated him took him out and saw an opportunity to try to control catholic Mary. What they didn't count on was the kidnapper they hired seeing an opportunity and going rogue.
@@mellie4174 This! I also wonder whether on her own, she would have held enough loyalty to plan and execute Darnley's murder? It would have to have come from initially from a group of noblemen, whether or not she got involved. She can't have been the only one to find him profoundly annoying.
Thank you for this look at Darnley, who is well portrayed as a narcissistic, ambitious, and cruel spoiled man-boy. I really had no idea that he and Rizzio were an item! It’s also interesting to see how Mary’s relationship with the Earl of Bothwell has been depicted in films and literature. It runs the gamut of the ruffian kidnapper with whom the victim falls in love, or the surreptitious and manly protector who was the actual love of her life. At any rate, you have reminded us that Mary’s life was tragic and that violence, fear, and uncertainty must have made her existence untenable viewed through modern eyes. Down with Darnley!
Very intresting... I learnt a bit more of the lives of royals of history long ago.
The whole Darnley Rizzo thing certainly puts a new spin on things, doesn't it? I had no clue either
beautiful love between Mary & Bothwell.
Bothwell , Immortal Queen by Elizabeth Byrd and I am a bit prejudice of a
I read the account of Mary, Rizzio, Darnley & Bothwell and fell for the love story of Mary & Bothwell.
I have always believed that Mary wasn't the brightest bunny in the forest. She may have been charming and a good dancer, but she lacked the essential ability to navigate the intrigue that surrounded her (unlike Elizabeth). Mary had a husband picked for her and he died (not her fault). She then picked a sociopath. He was murdered. She then married ANOTHER sociopath. The girl definitely had a type. I don't blame her for her ultimate end, but dammit she really could have navigated all of that better. (And I do not in any way enjoy the romanticized view of her that the Victorians gave us.)
Aimee Inkling you have to remember that Q Elizabeth had a different up bringing she wasnt spoiled and had to live on her wits there were times when she feared for her life and she learned how to read people and when to keep her mouth shut she was a really smart Queen thats why they call her reign The Golden Years well deserved title
Given how women, even powerful ones were pawns, I'm not sure she had a whole lot of choice, though she did manage to marry the sociopath. When you are groomed for one thing only, and that one thing doesn't happen (francis died), and you're thrown out of your family to go rule a foreign and hostile county, you lose all your footing, your support and you no longer know what to think or do. They knew they were throwing her to the wolves and they tore her apart.
Yes, Mary was NOT a good judge of character in either her personal or political life. Quite the opposite. I think that as a religious person she valued forgiveness, but that made her, and eventually her little son, dangerously vulnerable. Mary was cultured and "book smart," as we say in the US, but she lacked shrewdness and the tactical skills needed to survive as monarch of the Scots in her day. These were precisely the talents Elizabeth possessed in abundance.
Truly tragic taste in men.
@@mariealexander9545 Yes, Mary was naive and gullible, like so many women are trained to be even now. Elizabeth had to live by her wiles from an early age, an advantage.
One thing I respect about Dr. Kat is her willingness to admit her biases.
From what I have read he is not thought of well in his own time. Most sources I have read seem not to like or respect him.
This is intriguing what I would like to know is what actual evidence is there that Darnley really was such a rotter given the modern ability for character assassination I believe nothing
@@jayhenderson5458 the sources of Darnley being an abuser come from his own time from contemporaries. Granted he was hated by both the protestants and the Catholics.
I think Mary made a lot of mistakes, but her biggest folly was probably assuming Elizabeth could provide assistance. Elizabeth, I think, would’ve been fine with her people practicing multiple religions, but the Catholics were never content with that-it was Catholic or nothing and they would never stop trying to take out Elizabeth. That’s what forced Elizabeth to later prosecute Catholics, and why she couldn’t provide Mary any assistance. No matter what Mary’s intentions, English Catholics would always see Mary as a potential replacement Queen and Elizabeth giving her help would be to help those Catholics overthrow her own reign. It was a no-win situation for both women.
I can definitely see how they were both trapped by there respective identities and roles - I’ve often wondered if that’s why Elizabeth refused to meet Mary. Did she need to avoid humanising her in case she had to destroy her?
As an Irish person from a Catholic family, I can assure you that some of the worst atrocities against Irish Catholics happened in Elizabeth's reign. Elizabeth was nothing but the illegitimate child to a mistress by Catholic standards, so it is naive to think that she didn't care. She did. Her very life depended on Protestantism continuing. Enough that the brutal deaths of Irish children were acceptable to her if it meant they couldn't collaborate with her Catholic enemies. (We did it anyway, my DNA proves there were at least a few men from the Iberian penninsula who ended up having children in our small Sligo town. Not everyone from the Armada died...) That tolerance speech was politics, not reality. Rich Catholics may have been given allowances, but the poor ones were often murdered in their cradles. Priests were hunted down and killed, churches were burned with women and children inside and entire towns were slaughtered in the fields when they began trying to have mass outside to avoid punishment.
Make no mistake. The Protestant reformation was the beginning of hundreds of years of systematic genocide, in England, Ireland, Scotland and eventually in India and the New World. Elizabeth was very much a part of that.
Don't get me wrong. I understand that she had to make difficult choices to stay alive, but those choices caused the horrific, bloody deaths of thousands, many of them children. It left scars in our DNA that still impact our family today. We may not have the literal memories, but the body and our genetic code keeps score. The religious wars of the reformation are still killing people today with genetic depression and generational addiction and abuse. And they have never properly apologized for it. We have fields filled with our dead relatives and these people are still trying to defend the idea of monarchy.
@@cl5470 I’m definitely not trying to minimize the brutality against Catholics, particularly Irish Catholics. You are correct that horrifying crimes were committed in the name of religion, and it’s a big reason why I am not religious today.
While Mary 1 is always stereotyped as the intolerant one, Henry VIII publicly executed over 430 priests, nuns (many drawn and quartered) for not signing Act of Supremacy. this doesn't include hundreds (maybe thousands) executed after Pilgamage of Grace. Edward executed over 700 (plus 5,500 killed) during the Prayer Book Rebellion. Elizabeth 1 executed over 200 priests and lay people as traitors for simply being Catholic. Her government tortured Catholics as a matter of policy. She outlawed the Mass and it was illegal to be Catholic in England for 232 years (except for during the 3-year reign of James II). No Catholic could hold a public office until 1829. History is certainly fictionalized by the winners. Speaking or Ireland: the English treated the Irish worse than animals--animals get food and shelter.
@@cl5470
Don't make me laugh. It was the Papists all over Europe who started burning Protestants as "heretics", who controlled the Spanish Inquisitors. They just couldn't let go of their nonsense about being the only true Church. What a bunch of malarkey.
It just boggles my mind how Mary and Elizabeth managed to survive in the hostile environment of the courts. With all of the various intrigues up to and including assassination I am amazed that they managed to keep even a shred of sanity.
I want to thank you for all of the hard work that you put into these videos. Thank you for giving me a more in-depth look into the Tudors. I can't wait for next weeks lesson!
Thank you ☺️ There are some that suggest that Mary did suffer from mental health issues at various points. It is said that her imprisonment in England only exacerbated this. Some say that any instability can be explained by the fact that she may have had porphyria, which then may, in turn, have popped up in her royal descendants.
What captures my attention is the spectacle of Darnley’s demise. It seems a quiet poisoning, chalked up the typical death by disease, could be covered up easily. A massive explosion with bodies partially clothed and left in the garden is making a statement. Why not drag the bodies into the fire? It shows a very odd set of choices by the murders, choices that force suspicion and not a typical preference for clandestine acts. Who ever did it was grabbing the headlines of the day, but for what purpose? Very strange….
It's believed Bothwell wanted the murder to be as public and shocking as possible, so he could force the other Lords to approve his marriage to Mary. Which is what happened.
Yes, I think the same thing about this incident, Kaja. But if you recall the brutality of the Scots in that era, and the system of unwieldy government at the time, this historical context makes it much more likely. You may be comparing it to the noted wiles of Caterina de Medici and the gifted statesmanship of Catherine the Great, etc. Scotland was like inviting a bunch of people from 1940s Applachia to tea at the White House.
You read my mind. I've wondered the same thing. As a reader of murder mysteries, it seems that the smart thing for a killer to do is make the deed inconspicuous. Darnley was already ill, so bribe or drug the guards, and a poison or a pillow over the face does the rest... "oh, alas, the King Consort took a turn for the worse, God rest his soul!" Instead, they chose the most spectacular and obvious method of murder--and made it all too obvious it WAS a murder! I guess jmarie may have a point in that Bothwell may have wanted it to be obvious, but still...
No one can bring history to life like you do, Dr. Kat. You capture one's attention and keep it throughout the video. Thank you for humanizing the subjects, rather than the giving names and dates.
Kudos to you.
As a lifelong student of Mary's life, I enjoyed your video immensely. You're very good at summarizing what is a very complicated situation. I observe that Mary's life was fraught with tragedies, which may well have resulted in what we now call "PTSD". That condition almost always leads to poor decision making. Mary had no bulwark, nowhere to feel at home, and no strong ally, parent or partner who consistently supported and loved her. Her ladies were certainly a comfort to her, but I'm guessing they were unable to provide strength, given their position in her court, in Scotland and in Holyrood, which must have seemed very cold and dull compared to France's court. I suspect that Mary spent her life wandering in search of love and safety. I imagine that she originally saw Darnley as a strong, capable partner, champion; she may have thought the same of Bothwell, whether or not she knew or suspected that he was the one who had freed her from her bad marriage (as there was no other way to be rid of Darnley in that era). I see that tendency toward looking in her turning to Elizabeth for succor. She may not have wanted/or been temperamentally unprepared to rule, as she never seems to have shown much interest in it. Scotland is a brutal, wild country in her era. I feel it is a long, sad story of compounded losses of her loved ones, with no one really able to help, guide or comfort her. I loathe Darnley retrospectively, and I have visited Holyrood twice and seen the actual staircase (not the one they show tourists!) that he descended to do his deed, but imagine how immature Darnley must have been to do this in front of a pregnant woman! Poor, dear Mary. My heart goes out to her. I think like all of us, she did the best she could under the dreadful circumstances.
Mary grew up surrounded by sycophants who told her that she was a dazzling beauty, brilliantly witty and irresistibly charming. Consequently, she had no understanding of her own strengths and weaknesses.
Family scuttlebutt (backed up by genealogy) is that one of my ancestors provided the gunpowder. I'd have to look it up if people are interested in names; I'm mainly chuffed to have such an interesting criminal in the family.
I love this comment for two reasons - 1) the story is very cool 2) the use of “scuttlebutt” (which I am going to seek out the etymology for)!
@@ReadingthePast I think it's a navy term (at least, I have absorbed it from watching and rewatching NCIS) :D
It is a bit frustrating that for all the dozens of books written of Mary I, soo much of the focus is given to her looks and the tragic drama of her life, and so little to Mary's policies. No criticism to the video, its a good summary and obv her marriages were among the most important events in her life, but most biographies of Kings balance the drama and personality with analysis of their political performance and policies. The closest to anything like that for Mary is Jenny Wormald's book, and she's arguably pretty harsh on Mary. For 5 years after her abdication, her supporters fought a bitter civil war for her cause, even while she was imprisoned in England and when the odds turned against them. That a Catholic Queen could inspire that kind of loyalty from even Protestant lords, after all her mistakes, must surely be to her credit.
I'm surprised that you are surprised. Powerful women are not welcome in society, especially at that time. So they are usually reduced to Thier looks and marriages, unless something truly horrible and scandalous can be attributed to them. History has made up all sorts of horrible things about powerful women, just to minimize them and thier impact in order to favor the patriarchy.
She had a lot of personal charm.
My fantasy dinner party would be held at the Fat Badger pub in York. Joining me at my table would be Dr. Kat, Lucy Worsley and David Starkey. I would bring a stack of playing cards with photos of all the characters of the Tudor era. Each of my guests would take turns picking a card and expounding on the character on that card. Then the other guests would chime in with their thoughts, and I could ask questions. We would go until all cards had been picked, feasting all evening. It would be the best time of my life! 😊
Ohhh Lucy Worsley annoys me no end - her penchant for dressing up in historical costume just too much -plenty of more interesting historians
@@lynnedelacy2841 well it’s my dream dinner party, not yours.
@@toddbonin6926 indeed - and you are welcome to it
What fun!
Invite me! Please! This sounds fascinating!
I suspect that, even if she had been a plain-speaking Protestant, ruling Scotland (with its unruly nobles) as Queen Regnant was always going to be difficult for Mary because her French courtly education was so deficient in statecraft - or the political baptism of fire that Elizabeth had had on the way to the throne. Mary did not lack courage, but suffered from recurring health problems of debatable origin and displayed radically bad judgment at various points, not just in choosing husbands but also advisers. No Cecil to keep her tethered firmly to reality!
I always wonder whether Elizabeth, having got the measure of Darnley's character, not to mention his mother's ambition and poor judgment at Henry VIII's court, allowed him to go to Scotland as a "secret weapon" to destabilise the country. Did Cecil ever comment on this peculiar action, or did Elizabeth just take her eye off the ball?
Unruly nobles... Note, the Scottish monarch is style "Of Scots". Not "of Scotland"; this is significant. It means the nobles have significantly more independence. Second, Mary grew up in France, where the monarchy is more absolute; she would have been completely unaware and unprepared for the political regime pertaining in Scotland. It is quite wrong to assume she was immature, naive or other negative attributes. You'll note her choice of husbands. Deliberate in avoiding existing factions. Ultimately, out of the turmoil of her life, her son reigned for a total of 58 years, uniting the crowns, responsible for the translation and publishing of the Bible into the vernacular. The English then corrupted the Stewart line but that is another story...
Some theorize that Elizabeth sent Darnley to Scotland because she hoped he would sabotage Mary one way or another. She knew he was both stupid and power hungry.
Watch the 1971 movie Mary Queen of Scots. There's a scene where she tells Burghley that no matter who Mary weds, she (Elizabeth) wins.
I think given the havoc Darnely had caused Mary both in life and in death, that theory has some credibility. However I find it unlikley because of the danger their marriadge (and subsquently the birth of the future King James) posed for Elizabeth and her throne. Two Catholics monarchs with a legitimate claim to her throne mustve threatened Elizabeth. Hence why she was so vehemently opposed to it.
You are such an interesting Dr to listen to. This is my favourite. I was in Awe the first time i climbed the same stairs in Holyrood Palace that Mary had, seeing her bed and imaging her in the little room prior to the murder of her secretary. Just smazing, thank you for making this dyory so interesting
Have always wondered how hurt and rejected Marie must have felt at being dismissed by the family who raised, groomed and educated her. She must have felt bonded to her French family, as they were the only family she probably knew and loved.
Also, I believe that she had requested that her body be returned to France for burial after her death but there she lies, entombed in Westminster Abbey.
Her own son King James VI & I never carried out his mother's wishes.
The life of Marie, reine d’Écosse is a tragic tale.
I was unsure about Mary’s complicity in the murder before reading biographical material on Jean Gordon, Lady Bothwell. This marriage was arranged with Mary’s help to enrich Bothwell and was, soon after, annulled. Some details provided on the chummy relationship between the queen and Bothwell were illuminating. Lady Jean, who went on to live a long and successful life, would make an interesting subject for your channel.
I love that Dr.Kat says right out the gate that she doesn't care much for this dude and admits her biased opinion on Darnley. Just like with Thomas Seymore. Same, Dr.Kat! I thought both those guys were awful when reading about them in history books. Seymore was a creep and Darnley a spoiled jerk. I am totally unashamed in my biased dislike of them. Those individuals sounded like terrible people who met deserving terrible ends.
I love the way the late Dorothy Dunnett nails Darnley in her novel "The Ringed Castle." His pitiful sneering at Phillippa's Latin is *priceless.* (Speaking as a Classics tutor.)
Dr. Kat, have you read Mary queen of Scots: A Study in Failure?
Most biographies of Mary are practically exercises in hero worship and excuse/ignore Mary's faults, weaknesses, and continuous misjudgements of situations and people many of which she repeats. (Yes, there's a point at which forgiveness becomes stupidity, no?)
I understand that Mary was raised to be a queen consort and not a queen regnant. (The same can be said of Elizabeth I.) Her years away from Scotland also did not help.
Still, I've always been more critical of Mary than some of her biographers, and I was wondering if you've read this book, and if so, what do you think of it?
Thanks so much for all your videos;this was one of the best!
Read it, liked it.
I had to laugh at one review, "This author is so mean to Mary!" Even centuries later, she's seen as a romantic heroine.
@@jmarie9997 Exactly my point! I'm looking for a more honest and analytical biography of Mary than--for example--that of Antonia Fraser.
Thank you for your feedback.
@@sandisteinberg731 Avoid John Guy's biography. He comes off as a man in love with his subject.
@@jmarie9997 I have the book, and felt the same way. That propelled me to look for something less gushy.
@@sandisteinberg731 Pick up 'Elizabeth and Mary's by Jane Dunn.
I love your opening - there's a lot to be said for the phrase "all are welcome" these days, thank you!
"Violent, spoiled, lazy, drunken fool." If this is holding back, Dr. Kat ... In all actuality, it does seem pretty accurate in light of Darnley's actions.
You aren’t wrong! In my defence, I did highlight my distaste for Darnley before I got going… honestly, I’m just grateful that I don’t have to do these live because I would struggle to to swear 🤣
Yes, you did. No defence necessary: I just was amused by the juxtaposition. Thank you for providing such interesting and enjoyable content!
Thank you Dr. Kat. Excellent deep dive.❤
When I visited Holyroodhouse in 1994, our tour guide showed us the room where Rizzio’s murder supposedly took place. She claimed that part of the floor had once been painted red, to simulate where Rizzio bled out- until too many visitors kept breaking off paint chips as “souvenirs”. Not sure how true that story was, but it definitely made an impression on me. :-) Thanks for bringing back fond memories, and for another stellar video.
So glad I discovered your channel. How wonderful it is to listen to someone so learned and capable as a wordsmith/storyteller.
This is thecthird time that I have heard this story, but the first time that I learned Lord Darnley's heritage! The other videos just said that he was 'powerful'. Thank you for making this video.
Great. I''ve just discovered Reading the Past, and am finding loads of great content. There's nothing better to me than You Tube history documentaries. There's SO many! But... being British, I have an aversion to many of the (preponderant) American ones, which oftentimes have gushingly enthusiastic presentation, sloppy pronunciation, and daft music. No so Dr. Kat; good work! Like yourself, I have a history PhD, and I can see you do your research with care.
Dr Kat,
You are a treasure and a gem. Your ability to lay out the facts of a convoluted bit of history is top shelf always. Lord Darnley goes down as a particular special brand of evil, showing as he did so regularly a basketful of sins pride, greed, wrath, envy, lust, gluttony. My thoughts on his untimely death was always good riddance to an evil guy. Though I’ve never read it speculated by any reputable medieval experts, I always give a thought to the fact that Mary spent most of her childhood learning at the knee of her first Mother in Law Catherine de Medici whose legendary skills as a poisoner were well and truly known across France and frankly all across medieval Europe. They were so established it’s one of the things even lazy medieval scholars know. Given the extremely fast onset to death and it wasn’t listed in his time as other rapid “natural” killers like the sweating sickness, plague or smallpox we are now out on the branch pretty far. This was an EXCELLENT episode!!
I absolutely love your channel. One of my favourites on UA-cam. As The Last Kingdom series has just come to an end, would you consider doing a video on Aethelflaed, King Alfred's warrior daughter and Lady of Mercia?
I always enjoy your clear and logical presentation style! And I must say, I particularly love seeing you in this beautiful blouse as well- lovely on you!
"Shocking taste in men" is the best description ever.
Mary Queen of Scots suffered terribly through her dynastic marriage to Darnley. The key suspect in his murder plot was her half brother Moray, Mary had no part in this. Secondly, Bothwell brutally raped her, and forced her to marry him (against her will). Yet, today it is often written that she chose badly, really? This marriage was not a choice, it was forced upon her, and today Bothwell would be imprisoned for what he did to Mary. She later wrote to the pope seeking an annulment and citing the marriage was against her will. Most of what is written about Mary within the common academic sphere, is based on a false narrative. Dr Kate William’s book is an excellent source on the life of Mary Queen of Scots.
I find it very tempting to believe that Elizabeth (who must have been able to see through Darnley like a pane of glass) sent him up to Scotland like a guided missile. She was certainly familiar with Margaret Douglas's history of machinations, and she was fully capable of mastering her natural emotions when strategic cunning was required. But I guess historians disagree on that point.
I think Mary's lack of statecraft and emotional control was evident from the moment she approved Henri II's plan to use her to claim the throne of England. I don't see much evidence of the kind of moral scruples that would have made her recoil from the murder of Darnley - especially if he had really caught syphilis through his promiscuous lifestyle. Whether she actually colluded with Bothwell or merely closed her ears to any rumours of a plot against Darnley seems very doubtful, though her behaviour on the night in question seems disingenuous at the very least. She certainly didn't encourage an effective investigation - in contrast to Robert Dudley's rapid response to the death (murder?) of his wife Amy Dudley. Moreover, her reaction to her subsequent "kidnap" by Bothwell was not entirely convincing or likely to excite sympathy or loyalty. Political incompetence or desperation?.- difficult to tell.
Have been waiting for this one! I wondered if you were going to do one on this disturbing chapter of history. Thank you once again for an engaging and informative video.
As a suggestion, I wonder if you might do a future video discussing the Field of Cloth of Gold?
Ohh, that’s a good one! Thank you ☺️
I am totally enjoying your videos. I admire your scholarship and knowledge and your ability to communicate with your viewers. Thank you so very much.
After reading a couple of books about Mary, I have always felt so sorry for her.
Its as if fate had it in for her. She lost her father so young, then was sent to France, where she was raised to be a Queen Consort to Francis, rather than a Queen Regnant and didn't get the chance to build alliances with the Scottish nobles. Then after her weakly husband died, she was sent away. Scotland was always a difficult country to govern and had had a series of child kings and regents which had undermined the idea of a strong Sovereign. Mary had no allies, everyone around her was out for themselves.
Marriage for a Queen Regnant was a nest of vipers. Mary Tudor's marriage to Philip of Spain was hardly a success. Mary of Scotland needed to marry to get an heir, she had to marry someone of sufficient status, but obviously anyone of status would want the Crown Matrimonial ( Philip of Spain was King of England during his marriage to Mary Tudor). It goes to show how wise Elizabeth was not to marry.
Having said that, Mary Stuart could hardly have done worse than marry the spoilt child that was Darnley. But then she married Bothwell, who was another disaster.
Elizabeth had Cecil, and Walsingham and Robert Dudley. Mary had nobody to advise her and support her.
It was not very clever of Mary to spend the time she was in England trying to stir up rebellion against Elizabeth. That was always going to end badly, as it did. But what else could she do? After being Queen of France, and Queen of Scots, being limited to embroidery must have been frustrating to say the least.
On top of that there's the argument that Mary could have also been mentally ill from hereditary porphyria. She was known to have fairly eratic mood swings and act on impulse.
Mary didn't have Elizabeth's political savy. Yes Elizabeth had good advisors but she was screwd enough to pick and kept good men and not let one rule her and Elizabeth having to navigate a mindfield growing up meant she learnt to do young. Mary had a sheltered upbringing that didn't equip her to be a good queen regent. I think she was a victim of Bothwell or perhaps turned a blind eye to how Darnley was removed. I think from Antonia Fraser's book she had a sort of meltdown and didn't think through going with Bothwell who then assaulted her to become the next consort. He wasn't a nice man either he was just smarter than Darnley. Being a queen regent was a tough balancing act and all of the three Tudor queens made sacrifices one way or another Mary Tudor was smart and well trained but she was too rigid in accomodating a changing world, had false loyality to her mother's family who she thought cared about her more than they did and was unlucky. Elizabeth managed to hang onto power but did so at the expense of her own legacy in terms of bloodline whereas Mary was the opposite. It's a shame that the two couldn't have been true joint rulers and the politics of extremists on both sides put them at odds.
@@EmoBearRights I wonder what would have happened if Darnley had been caught with a lover ( male or female ), would Mary have been able to divorce him the way Henry VIII divorced Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard? Probably not, since it would not bring the succession into question. If a Queen Regnant wanted to get rid of her husband it would be much more difficult.
As far as Darnley being successor or even usurper of Elizabeth Tudor, it would never have happened. Elizabeth was way too wily for anyone. Dr Kat, you would know that better than anyone, being an historian of that era. Elizabeth had been suppressed during Edward's and Mary's reigns and had been watchful from her mother's death to the end of her own life. Whereas Mary of Scots was pampered beyond belief and never had to worry a day growing up, even in the French court with Catherine de Medici who was a known plotter, Mary just plain disregarded her which in itself was a bad move. So no, Elizabeth would never have let that happen. Now Darnley's child, yes, Elizabeth was quite happy to see that happen. It sounds more to me that Darnley and Elizabeth plotted together for him to marry Mary. While Elizabeth didn't trust her kinswoman or the husband, the son was probably easy to manipulate. What do you think?
lI always find it useful to remember the prospective early lives of Mary and Elizabeth. Mary was pampered and indulged and made fully aware of her royal status. Whereas Elizabeth had a tumultuous early life, mother executed, declared illegitimate, trying to appease her father and the tension between herself and her half-sister Mary. That is to say, Elizabeth had the perfect training in how to survive in what could be life and death situations, whereas Mary had no such training or experience and was totally unprepared for the complex situation awaiting her in Scotland. Used to her royal status being unquestioned and being treated as a queen, she had to be very shocked by her treatment by her nobles and John Knox. Her charm would be lost on them.
I so enjoyed this, Dr Kat! I would love more videos on other aspects of Mary’s life: her time in France, or time spent imprisoned? Thank you for all you do!
Every time I think I know most of the noteworthy parts of European history during this time period, you teach me something new. Thankyou
One of the best videos you’ve done Dr Kat!
I really enjoyed that :)
Mary was a victim of 16th Century sexism. Scotland I believe only had one regnant queen before her. This was a small child who died before she was able to set foot in her kingdom.
Conventions of the time was that people thought of women as a placeholder ruler who only served to bridge the gap between the king and his grandson. She would marry and turn either eventually turn over authority to her husband or quickly produce an heir to continue the dynasty.
Her problem was she got pregnant too quickly and Darnley wanted the crown matrimonial. Had she not gotten pregnant so quickly he would have gotten control over her kingdom as her husband and consort. But this child displaced him in every aspect of life.
Mary was right not to give him her power. Having produced a son that would have been in line to inherit the English throne. He wanted that power for himself.
Mary's trouble begin with marrying too ambitious a man, who was unwilling to share power. He terrorized her in his quest not to share power. He figured getting getting her out of the way would open at least the English crown but probably both Scotland and England to him. His son stole his prominence. It drove him mad, violent and crazy. Had she (most likely) not had him killed then he would have eventually gotten her killed. I guess Elizabeth was wise not to marry.
I certainly think that, if Elizabeth had started to consider marriage (possibly to Dudley) the example and memory of MQoS would have forced the thought from her!
@@ReadingthePast people always protest Elizabeth and Dudley as the tragic love story. I highly suspect due to the "unusual circumstances" of his first wife's death. He was equally toxic as Darnley.
Clearly he was another man looking to advance himself with royal favor by wooing the queen.
I totally agree with other comments that Mary wasn't raised to be a ruler, only a ruler's wife. She had the attributes of her time and lacked the analysis or study of history, philosophy, Greek literature and mathematics. Her temperament was to "please a man". Thus attracted to the strong, physically pleasing Darnley led her to fall into the arms of a narcissist who gaslighted her the whole time. When her son and her lives were threatened she simpered her way into having others help rid her of him. But her poor education and really limited exposure to reasoning, despite living in the court of one of the great plotters of all time, Catherine de Medici; she turned to other men to "save" her. Thus Bothwell entered her life and bed, another controlling man. She was really clueless about the strength of Elizabeth the first. She had grown up with court intrigue, knew her own mind and was able to see pros and cons of people and positions. She also realized that staying the virgin queen was also impactful on the continuing within England. Mary given her bloodline could have been a challenge to her own throne as well as the fact that the nation was only recently changed from catholicism. Mary did not have the skills set to rule amongst greedy men of power, she only had her feminine wiles. She played her hand as best she could, but not with the finesse that Elizabeth or Catherine de Medici did. Unfortunately, her choices ended with isolation, loneliness and ultimately her death without any time to impact the life of her son.
I think Mary was probably intelligent, witty, vivacious and absolutely raised in the French court to be an ornamental Queen Consort who could not challenge Catherine de Medici and was never intended to return to or rule over or worry her pretty little head over the wild country of her birth. It is otherwise inexcusable that she would not have had had regular tutelage in Scots language/customs and regular communication with regents, etc. She had no hope of being Queen Regnant, she was never raised to it and was never suited to it. She was naive. As to Darnley, I just want to smack her upside the head because she should have been smarter about it as a woman and a queen. What a foolish marriage. As to Bothwell - I need to read up on it. Originally, I'd thought it was romance based confusion but I question that more now. Stockholm syndrome maybe? Maybe it was love? It was so incredibly, incredibly stupid whatever the cause (unless the cause was a knife at her throat), and I will never understand why she went to England for help instead of, well, most anywhere else. Was it sheer desperation or did she honestly, truly believe Elizabeth would help her? She is one I'd love to have tea with, that's certain. There is something about her tragedy of life that makes me just feel bad for her in a way that Elizabeth I or Anne Boleyn (who I think are vastly more *interesting*) don't engender in me - there is a cunning or ambition that isn't there with Mary QoS. But then, having just typed that, I wonder how much that feeling is impacted by misogynistic reading of history. Hmm. I'll have to think more on this.
Great video as ever. I've introduced your videos to my almost 10-year-old daughter who has become fascinated with Tudor history through the six wives of Henry VIII as I did - albeit her intro was the musical Six and mine was a book with really gorgeous dresses that caught my eye. She thinks you are a good story-teller, and I whole-heartedly agree.
How did I miss this video! Bonus material for tonight! Thanks for making these!
One issue in the Darnley story that has always puzzled me is why nothing was done to punish him for the murder of David Rizzio. There’s no question of his responsibility for it. His accomplices fled to England, but he remained in Scotland, where nothing was done to him.
But when it comes to his murder, Mary’s guilt has been endlessly debated and often asserted. It was one of the reasons Mary was forced to abdicate and later was held captive in England.
Why is there such a difference in the reactions to the unquestioned perpetrator of one murder who completely got off and for the other murder unending vilification of someone whose guilt is open to question?
Yes ; it is something what really annoyed me ! Darnely was clearly a criminal but he was not punished at all but Mary who forgave him again and again is the one suspected when she could and she should have killed him instead of all these evil noblemen who were clearly against Darnely being King and some of them conspirated against him .
Because one was a hated Italian secretary and another was a crowned King. While killing Rizzio had done Darnely no favours with his image amoung his contemporaries he knew his end was close anyway by giving in to Mary and effectively 'ratting out' the nobles who were involved in the plot. Why Mary was condemned so much for Darnely's death however was the afterformentioned position as King, and the fact that she had married his muderer (and her rapist, altgough that's up for debate) and was heavily pregnant by him (thereby confirming her supposed adultery with him). It gave the Scot nobles who wanted her out of power (particularly her brother) the perfect excuse to be rid of Mary and have her replaced by her own son
Rizzio was a foreign Catholic. Darnley was King Consort and Mary's husband. (To kill your husband was not only murder but TREASON)
Also, Darnley killed a man who people believed might be his wife's lover.
I listen to these as I fall asleep. You have such a great voice.
I think that all Queen of Scots that she was, during that period Mary was a very young and immature woman who did not have time to grow her brain for as to be able to correctly assess the reality in which she lived. Adding to that the abandonment she endured while sent to France without her mother as a very small child, the death of her mother and her husband while still a child/adolescent, the traumatic murder of her Italian secretary in her presence while pregnant (an extremely vulnerable moment in a woman's life) and all the further violence and plotting surrounding her, she must have suffered from severe PTSD.
Her judgment must have been quite impaired at that point. Also, we don't know if she was of high, average or low intelligence and that could have played a role in her lack of stability.
Maybe in some long past conversation, Elizabeth could have made a plea of affection and support that had misled Mary who, having nobody to turn to and being devoid of any power over her destiny at that point, believed that England and her cousin could be a safe haven for herself.
@@markanderson0022 Dude, you are starting to give off major creeper vibes
Kat, I love your voice! It’s a pleasure listening to your words. Your my favourite breakfast talk! Great topics and insightful commentary
To me, it seems that Mary's death began with Henry's... It was the moment things began to go horribly, HORRIBLY wrong for her 😅
As always, an amazing video! ❤
Thank you ☺️, and I agree with you on the aftermath for Mary!
Mary and Darnley reminds me of Queen Margrethe II of Denmark and her husband Henri. He was the first gentleman of the country. When they had a child he couldn't take being a "Prince Consort" because it was behind the title of crown prince. He would go on tirades about it and refuses to be buried with his wife because he was emasculated. She couldn't take him anywhere without him going into a tirade. He refuses to go to any state affair where their son is present because he won't play second fiddle to his son as cohost.
@@williethomas5116 Wow, I want to hear this story.
@@--enyo-- Henri died in 2018 and left a will you could not believe. He refused to be buried in state. He refuses to be buried anywhere near his wife or son. He spent the last 30 year whining about he should be King. When his son came of age he was told his son as heir to the throne had precedence in state matters over him and he lost it.
Much appreciated. Interesting considerations. You asked if it wasn’t possible that Mary was aware of her bad decisions, disastrous decisions in marriage partners. Yet, did she? What choice did any woman have in anything except women’s chores.
But then,
What’s the possibility that Mary’s sensibilities and self sensibilities are, exactly the same as us, now?
I boldly claim that chicken came first out of a proto-egg.
Thank you
@@markanderson0022 quite well, thank you. Chanting Daimoku, putting in the garden and sharing Nichiren Buddhism with anyone that I can.
Dr. Kat and a good cup of coffee: A nice start to my day!
Another great video! I believe these were perilous time for everyone, particularly those close to power, and even more so if you happened to be a woman. Only a savvy and politically astute ruler would prosper or survive, someone like Elizabeth. Elizabeth had been in mortal danger several times, but she was quick enough and smart enough to come out on top. Mary, Queen of Scots was none of those things, and that’s why she went from catastrophe to tragedy until Elizabeth finally brought her life to an end.
a little bit of stereo type maybe? Elizabeth had better advisers than Mary. Mary did a good job at the beginning of her rule, given the resistance she faced. Elizabeth was also ruled by her heart. She was damaged by her past. Mary however does seem to have had mental health issues, or at least, some fixed ideas from her upbringing. Also, THANKYOU Dr Kat!
@@ruthmitchell3011 no, I don’t think it was a stereotype at all. Elizabeth did have good advice, but she wouldn’t have even made it to the throne if she hadn’t been clever in her own right. Her life was much harder than Mary’s in her youth. She was considered a bastard and was in danger of being executed for treason twice. Once during her sister’s reign and then again during her brother’s. She had no great advisors then. And she often did what she wanted anyway. Mary went against advice too, but when she did, it was catastrophic.
Mary Queen of Scots was clearly a bad judge of character, especially when it came to husbands. It would seem that she was attracted to abusers. It is interesting to notice that she went for Darnley, who had an abusive personality, then for Bothwell, who was also abusive. In the Bothwell case she even let go of her catholicism to marry him in the protestant fashion. She went further, letting herself be captured by the confederate lords at the showdown that led to her abdication....in order to save Bothwell. Nobody ever tried to understand what could have made her so entranced by so called strong men, who in fact are simply abusers? Maybe there is something to be said about her upbringing in France. The Guise family men were aggressive, ruthless types. Yet she idealised them.
As for her 'feud' with Elizabeth, we must distance ourselves from the romantic narrative spun from the second half of the 18th century. Elizabeth was actually trying to counsel Mary in a supportive way throughout the 1560s, even though that was often hindered by interventions by her own councillors. She refused to consider to put Mary to death for 20 years, in spite of plots involving Mary and aiming at her life. Elizabeth never thought the 'casket letters' were real and she put an end to the investigation into them, because it had clearly been gerrymandered. All the while, Mary never retracted the claim that she was the queen of England, claim made in heraldry and shouted by her pages at her marriage to the Dauphin. That claim was a very useful political weapon in a Europe divided by religious wars.
After Darnley's murder, Elizabeth was the only one to show sympathy while giving Mary good advice; separate herself from Bothwell and find SOMEONE to throw under the bus.
@@jmarie9997that 'Someone' being Bothwell himself. Mary would have kept her throne - and her head - had she arranged a proper trial for Bothwell and had him punished (whether it was banishment or execution) just as Elizabeth had done for Robert. Unfortunately, whether in the grip of some mad passion for Bothwell, or just believing his claims that he would protect her, Mary failed to follow the very good advice Elizabeth had sent to her. And she paid heavily for it. Her crown. Her unborn twins. Her husband. Her son. Her crown. Her freedom and then her head. Everything .
I don't think we've often seen two rulers in power at the same time who were such polar opposites in personality. Liz knew Mary was going to marry SOMEBODY soon after she returned to Scotland. Wasn't it better for Liz that Mary had a weak feckless husband than a strong one (especially a foreign prince with his own army)?
Despite her public protests, I think that's why she allowed Darnley to go up to see Mary. On paper, he was a good match. If Mary was stupid enough to take him, she'd end up with her hands full managing him and less able to threaten Liz. I think Liz knew the marriage would be a disaster from the start, just like the Scots court did, but underestimated how big a disaster it would be - or how far Mary would go to get rid of him.
Cecil, Knox, the Lords all played their part in her demise. She had no chance. Religion the other culprit. Darnley was awful but only 20 years old, which allowed his misogyny to be at a strong point. Wonder where we would all be now if the Dauphin had not died!
Also...Elizabeth had shrewd discernment of her prominent subjects' character...and doubtless Darnley's repulsive, spoiled nastiness had been brought to her attention. Give the wretch to Mary QOS.
THAT would keep Her busy
Thank you for the clear background to these events. It is important to remember that Mary was brought up in The French court. Henri II preferred his mistress to his wife, not unusual for political marriages. How could a young woman, raised in France, possibly understand the undercurrents going on in Scotland. Imagine leaving the glittering French court, separated from the only family she knew, to a country of clans and moors. So no wonder she wanted to marry quickly in order to navigate this foreign land. And why not to a handsome, charming and Scottish man? She wasn’t stupid; she was young.
I really love your channel!
Never liked Darnley. And I agree, Mary had a thing for the wrong guy.
"Loser Magnet" is a common term for people like Mary.
Unfortunately even today women have a thing for "bad boys".
Mary Stuart, Queen of the Scots had a very turbulent youth. Her mother, Marie de Guise came from a very powerful, staunchly Catholic family in France was raised as a staunch Roman Catholic. During her tenure in France, she had a difficult relationship with her mother-in-law, Catherine di Medici, a force of nature who poisoned her way through the political turmoil of the Protestant Reformation. After her widowhood, she returned to Scotland at the age of 18. Eighteen tender years. With no parent to guide her or offer security, she quickly ran afoul of John Knox, the firebrand Calvinist reformer.
Under this duress, I can understand that seeking out a male support figure to help her through this minefield was, to her mind essential, and voilà, Darnley appears at first as her Guardian Angel.
Mary was a victim of circumstance, intrigue, naiveté. She made wrong choices at every turn as she was never schooled in Statehood. Trilingual literacy, dancing, music, riding and embroidery do not a stateswoman make. Her cousin Elizabeth had the fiercely Walsingham as her protector, Mary had no such luck. Her end was inevitable, but she must truly be one of the most tragic royal victims in Western history.
Hi Dr Kat! I'm so glad to see you covered this!! I'm absolutely thrilled. Thank you so much. Happy Friday! 😊
Thank you ☺️ same to you!
Well done!
Mary is my first cousin (at some remove, obviously), and my family, Boyd, supported her and her cause, perhaps not so obviously. I am not partial to Darnley. So you may understand why I say well done; you were quite even-handed.
Dr Kat, you are a treasure. It is my dream to meet you one day, and discuss English royal history. I love you, and your videos.
UA-cam mysteriously unsubscribe me a few weeks ago . Very naughty of them. Back now.great video. Darnley is a character
Great video, I love watching and listening to you
Thank you ☺️
As Mary's attempt at conspiracy against Elizabeth turned out so inept that she had her head cut off I doubt that she conspired to kill Darnley. There must have been several powerful men apart from Bothwell who would like her widowed so that they could marry her and become even more powerful and influential.
Fabulous as always!
As always, Dr. Kat delivers a thoughtful and fascinating presentation. 👍
Thanks Dr Kat! Very well composed and carefully considered.
Mary has always struck me as someone without a well developed sense of survival. Not good in a culture where she had less standing as a woman.
Exactly. Elizabeth on the other hand had been walking a tightrope since she was 3 years old . She always had to be one step ahead of everyone especially the men in her life just to survive .
Mary was raised to be not a queen but a consort in a lavish court where she was adored from the time she was a little girl . Once she was thrown to the wolves she didn’t have the skills to survive.
I've always found the life of Mary Queen of Scotts interesting and horrifying all at the same time. I've always seen her as a person who was brought up as a queen and therefore saw everyone, but a privileged few, as beneath her. You can see that in her actions and how she treats everyone. I think she had Bothwell kill Darnley and rightly so, he was absolutely going to kill her and maybe the child also. She wanted Bothwell but the other noblemen would have none of it, he didn't deserve to be raised up. As for her imprisonment in England? she didn't see Queen Elisabeth as an equal so miss judged Q. Elisabeth to her detriment and kept trying to get a crown that didn't belong to her. So I feel she got what she deserved, what a sad life she led. This is my take on it. :-) thank you Dr. Kat! as always you have made my Friday morning fun and interesting.
I think it’s interesting to consider Mary as potentially imperious and superior. Perhaps Darnley was disposable for her - she had a son and so her husband’s usefulness was achieved. I also think it’s interesting to think how this mindset could have led her to misjudge Elizabeth!
@@ReadingthePast but did she misjudge her? Or did she simply feel she didn't have much other choice but to trust someone who could harm her? Did she feel the risk was worth taking?
@@ReadingthePast How can someone can be the Queen of Scotland a country known to have more men than riches can be potentially imperious and superior??? Scotland at this time had always been isolated and trampled by England . Mary of Scots , since childhood had been harrassed by them .
@@lakaperse6995 because it was the mentality of ALL of the royals ... They're literally told from birth that God chose them for this role. It's the highest level of superiority. I think Samantha Morton did one of the best jobs of representing Mary, in the Cate Blanchett film; "Elizabeth". She was broke, in prison, and at the mercy of her cousin ... Yet she still kept plotting against her. Samantha Morton plays the role with the perfect amount of subtle arrogance.
and lest we forget ... She wore a *red* gown for her execution attire. The color of Martyrs. I find it ironic that Anne Boleyn said "The King has been most kind in elevating my status from commoner to Queen. And now he will raise me higher still; to the station of Martyr."
I believe Mary was attempting to Shade Elizabeth in the same way.
Elizabeth did not spend years plotting to kill Mary. She put it off as long as she possibly could. That's why she originally wouldn't sign the death warrant. MARY, on the other hand, had heaps of evidence against her actively plotting to kill her cousin. And clearly believed that she was absolutely correct in her conviction that she was right to do so. I think she may have been a bit of a narcissist as well as a paranoid insecure widowed orphan. Of course all of that psychological trauma, probably wouldn't produce the most well-rounded adult ... much less, *ruler*.
If she *did* kill him, it seems to me to be the kind of thing where an abused person kills their abuser
Indeed rather like the movie the burning bed, based on a true story btw.
Always love your content
Great presentation, thanks.
🇺🇸❤️🇬🇧
Thank you for a clear and knowledgeable presentation.
I've always thought that Mary was wronged because she was a woman. If a king had lost his wife such as Darnley then he would have not only got away with it but would have been able to remarry without a qualm. You only have to look to the infamous Henry the 8th for that. Powerful men played Mary. She lost the game.
Yes yes yes! The patriarchy eats women for snacks! And it gobbled up mary!
Dr. Kat, LOVE all of your videos!! Will you please do one on James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell? He certainly had an interesting life.
What a clear, informative account of a very complicated situation. His murder was the least of it, really!
I enjoy all of your videos very much & this is one of my favorites! Mary Q.o.S had such an interesting, tumultuous, & ultimately sad life. I've been curious about Darnley's murder & the Bothwell "marriage" since first reading about them as a kid. I wonder if we'll ever learn the truth? Thanks for another great video.
Great presentation-thank you
I would love to see a video on Jaquetta of Luxembourg! She had an amazing life.
She's a favorite of mine!
@@ruthanneseven I just love her story!! ❤️
@@Nessi0914
💗👸🌹
ooh good topic, I'm looking forward to this video!
Thank you, I hope you enjoy it!
@@ReadingthePast i did!!!
As beautiful as The Scotts queen was, she could not be accused of being overly bright. The decisions she made in her life went from bad to worst. Sadly, her imprisonment in both Scotland and England was her own doing. Her execution was a forgone conclusion.
Very nice history on the early background of the Darnleys. Now I have to ask, what happened to his family after his death were they included in James VI’s court?
Because of a half sentence reference in Jane Eyre, I fell down the rabbithole of reading about Lord Darnley's murder...That was a good ten years ago and I'm still completely shook by the details. It's just so bizarre....An interesting movie about MQOS is Katharine Hepburn's biopic, Mary of Scotland. Darnley is as gay-coded as you could get in 1930s Hollywood. Hepburn herself was related to James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell, one of the prime suspects in Darnley's murder.
What do you think of the newly unencrypted letters from Mary from the time that she was in Elizabeth's Court
Brilliant video! I really enjoyed this and subscribed to your channel as a result. Love good history channels. You have made it very clear as to the Tudor connection and why both Mary and Darnley had a claim to the throne. Poor Mary. If only Francois had survived.
I'd like to know if it was nurture or nature that created the incredible number of sociopaths in aristocracy over the centuries (I am leaning towards the former). Darnley and Bothwell both exhibit signs of this horrifying trait. Using intelligence, charm or charisma to manipulate others to get what they want then their true selves come out. Were those outside of court just as loathsome?
Bookshelf tour please!!
Darnley + his mother = unbelievable recipe for disaster. 🙄
Ambition is one of those things isn’t it… an amazing force for positive change but also a highly dangerous quality if it tends in the “wrong” direction!
Mary was very unfortunate in her choice of mother, and then of her first two mothers-in-law, wasn't she?
Darnley’s mother has an effigy at westminster abbey right beside Mary and Margaret beaufort across from Elizabeth I
Perhaps her first mistake was merely to be so attached to the illusion of Darnley that she didn’t want it destroyed; perhaps she was entirely fooled by him and everything else just tumbled after. Or perhaps she had something underlying going on. It sounds, though, like Darnley would have been increasingly horrible as time went on. The whole smallpox bit was practically jumping up and down, saying, this is the moment! Poison! Nobody will ever know! Doesn’t sound like Mary had the nerve for that. For her to do the gunpowder thing would have been stupid beyond description.
Darnley was a piece of work.