December 07, 2013
<Back to Index>
 This page is sponsored by:
PAGE SPONSOR		  

Henry Stuart, 1st Duke of Albany (7 December 1545 — 10 February 1567), styled Lord Darnley before 1565, was king consort of Scotland and murdered at Kirk o'Field. Many contemporary narratives describing his life and death refer to him as Lord Darnley, his title as heir apparent to the Earldom of Lennox, and it is by this appellation that he is now generally known.

He was the first cousin and second husband of Mary, Queen of Scots, and the father of her son King James VI, who also succeeded Queen Elizabeth I of England as King James I of England.

Darnley was born in 1545, at Temple Newsam, Leeds, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, England, the son of the 4th Earl of Lennox, and his wife, Margaret Douglas. His father lived in exile in England for 22 years, returning to Scotland in 1564. His tutors included the Protestant Scottish scholar, John Elder. Elder had been an advocate of Anglo - Scottish union by the marriage of Mary, Queen of Scots, to Prince Edward, and gave his opinions to Henry VIII as the Advice of a Redshank in 1543. Another of his schoolmasters, Arthur Lallart, was interrogated in London after going to Scotland in 1562.

Darnley wrote a letter to Mary I of England from Temple Newsam in March 1554 mentioning a drama or map he had made, the Utopia Nova. Darnley wished, "every haire in my heade for to be a wourthy souldiour".

In September 1564, the Scottish Parliament restored his father's rights and titles, and listened to a lengthy speech from William Maitland who offered;

"it may be affirmid Scotland in na manis age that presentlie levis wes in gritter tranquillitie."

Darnley was related to his future wife in at least four ways: they shared a grandmother in English princess Margaret Tudor, daughter of King Henry VII of England and the elder sister of Henry VIII (Mary descending from Margaret's marriage to James IV of Scotland, Darnley from Margaret's marriage to Archibald Douglas, 6th Earl of Angus), putting both Mary and Darnley high in the line of succession for the English throne; Darnley was a descendant of a daughter of James II of Scotland and thus also in line for the throne of Scotland; both were descendants of Joan Beaufort, Queen of Scotland (Mary through Joan's marriage to James I of Scotland, Darnley through her marriage to Sir James Stewart, the Black Knight of Lorn); and Darnley's family surname was due to a much more ancient connection to his and Mary's male line ancestor, Alexander Stewart, 4th High Steward of Scotland. As a preliminary to the marriage, Darnley was made Lord of Ardmanoch, and Earl of Ross at Stirling Castle on 15 May 1565. An entourage of 15 men were made knights, including Sir Robert Stewart of Strathdon, one of Mary's half brothers. The title of Duke of Albany was to follow.

In England a concerned Privy Council debated the perils of the intended marriage on 4 June 1565. One of their resolutions was to relax the displeasure shown to Lady Catherine Grey, another rival to Mary Stuart for the English throne. Mary sent John Hay, Commendator of Balmerino, to speak to Elizabeth, and Elizabeth demanded Darnley's return, and gave John Hay plainly to understand her small satisfaction. The marriage itself took place on Monday 9 July 1565, in the Chapel - Royal of the Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh. On 28 July 1565 Darnley was given the title of King of Scots at a proclamation published at the Cross of Edinburgh. At the same time, it was announced that all official documents would be signed by both Mary and Henry. These events were tracked in the letters of Thomas Randolph, an English resident in Edinburgh.

The Lennox crisis arose from the dynastic ambition of the Lennoxes: Matthew Stuart, fourth Earl of Lennox, third in line to the Scottish throne, his wife Margaret Douglas, niece to Henry VIII and granddaughter of Henry VII, and their son, Henry, Lord Darnley. Sarah Macauley states in her article that the Lennoxes were Roman Catholic, adding: "At a time when Elizabeth was trying to accommodate everyone under the spiritual umbrella of the Church of England, their resistance could prove fatal to her policy, and, if they achieved enough support, even her majesty. The Lennox threat became a brief crisis during the first three years of Elizabeth's reign when the possibility of a Roman Catholic backlash was understandably viewed as a likely response to her policies."

The Lennoxes put spies on Mary and their own son, Lord Darnley. When Henri II of France died in July 1559, Lennox's brother, the Sieur d'Aubigny, elevated in the French court as kinsman of the new Queen, Mary, was accused of supporting her title to the throne of England and hinting that even his nephew had a stronger claim than Elizabeth. Aubigny also arranged for Darnley to be dispatched to the French Court in order to congratulate Mary and Francis on their accession and seek restoration for Lennox. Mary did not restore Lennox, but she did give 1000 crowns to Darnley and asked him to her coronation. Lennox's plan was to appeal directly to the Queen of Scots via her ambassador, above the heads of both Elizabeth and the Guise. Nesbit's mission appears to have been a desperate one; not only was Lennox willing to hand over both Darnley and his brother Charles as hostages for his restoration, but he also supplied pedigrees of Darnley, indicating his right to the inheritance of England and Scotland, and the houses of Hamilton and Douglas.

Nesbit was a spy assigned to watch Mary and Darnley, another spy was John Elder, who had accompanied Lennox into England in 1544 and who was responsible for Darnley's fine penmanship and precocious writings to Mary Tudor and the Bishop of Caithness. Elder had presented Mary Tudor with samples of Darnley's hand, and a fanciful map of 'New Utopia'. Elder was a useful emissary for the Lennoxes, and may well have been encouraged by them to establish himself in France. He certainly continued to serve his former patrons in their endeavour to ingratiate themselves and their heir with the Scottish Queen. In 1559, Nicholas Throckmorton, the English ambassador in Paris, alarmed at the Scots' associations, warned Elizabeth that Elder was "as dangerous for the matters of England as any he knew." Sarah Macauley notes, "After the Queen of Scots, Lord Darnley was the strongest dynastic claimant to Elizabeth's throne. He was also the natural choice for many of Elizabeth's enemies as male, English born and Catholic. Paget supposed in March 1560 that talk of the Catholics raising Darnley to the throne in the event of the Queen's death was 'well founded'".

By the summer of the same year Elizabeth's position was considerably strengthened. A notable spy who was interrogated was Francis Yaxley, a Catholic, who had been a clerk of the Signet, employed by William Cecil since 1549 and travelled in France for him. Yaxley had placed Mabel Fortescue and other ladies as servants in the Lennox household at Settrington in November 1560. Yaxley's interrogation at the Tower of London in February 1562 was a brief one; "Yaxley had obtained much intelligence about the Court from the Spanish ambassador, and that the said ambassador had entrusted him and Hugh Allen with messages and tokens for the Lennoxes and Darnley. Yaxley also admitted that his missions had been sought to arrange the marriage of the Queen of Scots with Darnley, that Darnley's religion guaranteed him greater success in his suit than the Earl of Arran, and that Margaret had many friends 'in the nurtht.'" Although the Lennox threat never died out, Elizabeth did not convict the family of treason in 1562. Nor did she encourage the steps made to annul Margaret's claim to her throne by inquiring into her legitimacy. "Perhaps, as has been suggested, the English Queen feared that such investigations could be directed at herself, or her actions were intended merely to ensure the survival of the monarchy by not reducing the number of potential heirs. In any case, the family was released in February 1563, and within a few months Darnley and his mother were conspicuous by their presence at Court, and the favour they received there from the Queen, although she could not yet bring herself to accommodate the Earl at Court."

Sarah Macauley found three outcomes of the courts' final decision of the trial: "Their elevation at Court was, as it turned out in 1563, a useful complication in the succession issue. First, it presented a public statement that the preferences of parliament (the claim of Catherine Grey in the succession crisis) could not dictate her own policy. Secondly, favouring the Lennoxes could serve as some kind of appeasement of the English Roman Catholics, who, like the Spanish ambassador, might foresee Elizabeth naming Darnley as her successor ... [S]uch speculation would also distract them from favouring the more alarming claim of the Queen of Scots ... [T]hirdly, and most significantly, the elevation of the Lennoxes presented an obstacle between the Queen of Scots and the English throne. Thus was Darnley's uniquely 'British' inheritance put to use at last." In conclusion, Macauley posited, “The subsequent release of Darnley into Scotland and the restoration of his father at the Scottish Court were part of this policy: the political disaster of the Darnley marriage as yet unforeseen."

Darnley's marriage to Mary was a disaster. Henry was three years younger than Mary (their birthdays were only a day apart) and not particularly mature. He was unpopular with the other nobles and had a mean and violent streak, aggravated by a drinking problem. Already in August 1565, William Cecil heard that Darnley's insolence drove Lennox from the Scottish court. Within a short time, Mary became pregnant, but Henry grew more and more demanding. His jealousy of Mary's private secretary, David Rizzio, by whom he erroneously believed Mary was pregnant, culminated in the bloody murder of the latter by Henry and a group of his supporters, in the presence of the queen herself at The Palace of Holyroodhouse, Edinburgh. Archibald Douglas, Parson of Douglas, subsequently secured pardons for all those involved.

Following the birth of their son, the future James VI, the succession was more secure; in late 1566 and early 1567, Henry and Mary appeared to be close to reconciliation, as she was often seen visiting his chambers. Henry, however, alienated many who would otherwise have been his supporters through his erratic behaviour. His insistence that he be awarded the Crown Matrimonial, which would have given him executive ruling powers in Scotland, became a source of marital frustration as well. There was also some evidence that he suffered from syphilis.

On 10 February 1567, the bodies of Henry and his servant at the time were discovered in the orchard of Kirk o' Field, Edinburgh, where they had been staying. Henry was dressed only in his nightshirt, suggesting he had fled in some haste from his bedchamber. A violent explosion had occurred that night at the house, but evidence pointed to Henry escaping assassination, only to be murdered when he got outside. There was evidence that Henry and his valet had been strangled and that the explosion was set as an attempt to cover up the murders.

Although it is often assumed that the Queen is the one responsible for the death of her husband, Lord Darnley, recent deciphering of the Silver Casket letters proved that to be false. The letters are neither signed nor addressed, so it is still used as evidence against the Queen. This mass assumption undoubtedly originated from the likes of men such as Crawford, who claimed to have received confessions from those associated with Darnley's murder prior to their executions that stated that the queen would never let Bothwell rest until Darnley was dead and gone.

Casket Letter 1 was misinterpreted from an innocent letter referencing Mary's son to an incriminating one referring to the treason of her husband, due to clever wordplay by the accusers. Casket Letters II and III reveal nothing more than a probable decision to bring Darnley to justice (in an innocent fashion). Casket Letter VIII was dated June 8, 1567 and Letter VII was dated April 1568, making it impossible to be an original “Casket” document. After Mary's imprisonment, the Lords found the box that belonged to the Queen that contained documents with little to no importance. The actual documents provided no such evidence of Mary wishing death upon her own husband. They proved that she was grateful to Bothwell and treated him with respect, yet nothing beyond that. The decision to put incriminating letters into the box was decided later on during a tribunal in England, which was a complete disaster for everyone involved. It associated Bothwell to the letters and falsely portrayed the Queen as a guilty criminal. It is also important to note where the letters were first discovered, which was in London. This seems like a completely random place for one of the Casket Letters to be found if one does not consider the nobleman, Earl of Moray, who is undeniably guilty of being a major cause of Darnley's death, as well as forging one of the casket letters for his own gain. This is a very curious discovery, as it shifts the attention of Darnley's death from Moray to the Queen. Moray left Scotland on 10 April 1567 and reached France towards the end of the month. Mary was arrested on 15 June 1567 at Carberry, where Moray would pursue proving the queen's guilt, stating “There is sufficiency in her own handwriting by the fait of her letters to condemn her.” The manipulation of these letters led to the imprisonment of Mary, Queen of Scots.

However, the actual content of the casket letters and the circumstance of their discovery is irrelevant to the discussion of Darnley's death. The letters were produced by her enemies at a conference in York with the sole purpose of establishing Mary's involvement in Darnley's murder. The letters, or rather the surviving copies of these letters, may or may not be used to demonstrate Mary's involvement. An investigation of their content is unlikely to decide any other issue, and though they might prove her guilty, could never prove her innocent. Although Mary was tried and eventually put to death for her crimes, Lord Darnley's demise was completely of his own making. Lord Henry Stuart Darnley was Mary's husband from 29 July 1565 until his death on 10 February 1567, when Lord Darnley's residence at Kirk o'Field exploded when a massive amount of gunpowder was ignited underneath the house. Lord Darnley's cause of death was found to be unrelated to the explosion: he died of asphyxiation, the result of being strangled in the courtyard at Kirk o'Field. Although there is much speculation regarding his death, including the participation of Mary in the plot to end his life, some authors who have made extensive studies of the Casket Letters have concluded that the reasons for Lord Darnley's death were much more complicated than those of a frustrated wife with a husband that mistreated her. Although significant motive exists for Mary to have wanted Darnley killed, it has sometimes been suggested the explosion of Darnley's residence at Kirk o'Field was a plot of Darnley's own making to have Mary killed, which would therefore grant him the throne of Scotland. One of the most ingenious and entertaining versions of this theory was proposed in Lord Bothwell, written by Robert Gore Browne.

In these accounts, when the Lords whom he had previously betrayed discovered this plot, they waited for his escape through the courtyard, where they cornered and strangled him. During their brief marriage, Lord Darnley may have attempted to kill Mary several times in order to gain the throne. Darnley and a group of conspirators murdered Mary's secretary, David Riccio. According to Darnley, the stress of Riccio's death would cause the then 6 month pregnant Mary to have a fatal miscarriage. When his plan failed, Darnley betrayed the other Lords that took part in the murder. “The King of all others is in the worst case, for the Queen has no good opinion of his attempting anything against her will, nor the people, that he hath denied so manifest a matter being proved to be done by his commandment, and now himself to be the accuser and pursuer of them that did as he willed them.” According to this letter, after his first attempt failed to kill Mary, Darnley betrayed his co-conspirators: an act that would haunt him for the rest of his life. He had lost the faith of his own subjects: “They have such a misliking of their king as never was more of man.”

The Lords' hatred was only furthered by Darnley avoiding a trial for treason, for Mary “had never accused, but had always excused him.” Darnley's friends in the north of England offered to take Scarborough castle, like Stafford before him, and then he would claim his right to the English throne, abandoning the Protestant lords who had previously supported him. When this plan failed to come to fruition, Darnley concocted a plot to kill Mary in an explosion, kidnap their child, and gain access to the Scottish throne as the guardian of the Prince. Unfortunately, Darnley mistook the departure of Lord Bothwell from Kirk o'Field as Mary's arrival to Kirk o'Field, therefore he ordered the fuse to be lit, which set off the gunpowder, while Mary was still outside of the residence. When he escaped through the window to avoid the explosion, his previous supporters blocked his exit route and murdered him.

Suspicion fell on the Earl of Bothwell and his supporters, notably Archibald Douglas, Parson of Douglas, whose shoes were found at the scene, and Mary herself. According to some historians, Mary was taken to Dunbar Castle and raped by the Earl who, knowing that her Catholic faith would command her to marry him, used her as an access route to the throne. Suspicions that Mary colluded with conspirators in her husband's death or that she took no action to prevent his death were key factors in the downward spiral that led to Mary's loss of the Scottish crown.

A soldier under the pay of the Earl, William Blackadder of the Clan Blackadder was allegedly the first non-participant to happen upon the scene and for that reason was initially treated as a suspect. Although initially cleared of any involvement in the murder, he was offered up by the conspirators and convicted at a show trial, after which he was executed by being hanged, drawn and quartered before each of his limbs was nailed to the gates of a different Scottish town.