(Please note that a full transcription of the documents discussed below is available as is a biography of Mary Stewart.)
The infamous Casket Letters have been a subject of passionate debate for the last four centuries. However, there is little evidence that the populace at the time they were produced paid much heed to them. The Lord Sussex obviously thought little of them in him letter to Queen Elizabeth on the things that needed to be done to acquit Mary Stuart.
Days after viewing the documents, Lord Norfolk, seems to have considered marriage to the lovely Scottish Queen. One can but wonder why he would wish to marry the woman, a deposed Queen and not a ruling one, if he believed that he had just been shown evidence that she had murdered her second husband. Did Maitland, while beginning the marriage negotiations, provide him with information that the documents where false? Or did they perhaps simply seem too preposterous for a thinking man to truly believe? In a similar situation, Lord Knollys was at the same time considering wedding his nephew, a cousin of Queen Elizabeth, to Mary Stuart. Again, it seems unlikely that any man who was not a complete fool would be making these considerations if he believed Mary Stuart to be a murderess.
Also interesting to note is the fact that Maitland, one of the prosecutors at Mary's mock trial was on his return to Scotland to become one of the greatest champions of her freedom and return.
However, no matter what her contemporaries believed of the documents, said articles are still being discussed by historians of the twentieth century. Many believe that the articles where written by Mary, apparently not seeing any logical explanation as to why they would have been falsified. This attitude seems to ignore the gains made by the primary prosecutor, the Lord Moray, with the conviction of his half-sister. Should Mary be acquitted and returned to rule Scotland, Moray would again become merely a brother to the Queen and an advisor ignored as often as heeded. However, with Mary executed or imprisoned, Moray would face sixteen years of regency over the infant King James VI and, should anything untoward happen towards that child, possibly even accession to the throne himself. Lord Moray and Queen Mary were half-siblings, but they had been raised in separate countries and there is little indication of any true affection between the two. Moray would not allow a relation like this to stand between him and his ambition. Of course, proving that Moray would have had motive to produce the Casket letters, even should he know them to be false, does not prove that they are not authentic and definitely does not prove that Moray was himself privy to their forgery. It does, however, lend one pause for thought.
Also worthy of thought is the manner in which the letters appeared. It was claimed that they were found by Lord Morton with the aide of a servant of Lard Bothwell, one George Dalgleish, who led the minister to the casket under threat of torture. On the 27th of June, 1567, Morton supposedly opened the casket and read its contents. No note was made of them other than the fact that the dealt with Bothwell and certainly no mention was made of the queen. This is very odd. The Queen was currently in custody at Lockleven and her former government officials were desperately seeking ways to discredit and incriminate her. If, at this point, Morton and the Lords of Scotland had in their possession strong evidence against the Queen, why would they keep it quietly to themselves? It is seemingly strange that they should keep the letters hidden for eighteen months, until the Queen was in English custody and Dalgleish long since executed.
There are many problems present in the study of the authenticity of the Casket Letters. The most obvious is the fact that if the originals still exist, they have long been lost. They were apparently in the possession of the Earl of Gowrie after the trail and disappeared when he was executed in 1584. Despite the many rewards offered by Queen Elizabeth for these documents, they never again reappeared. The box itself appears to still be known, although there is of course doubt over whether it is or is not the original casket. The object in question is in the Lennoxglove Museum and meets all physical criteria save that of the engravings. The description of the original casket claims that it was engraved with crossed F's. However, it is possible that either the engraving where changed by later owners or that the description was poorly written and the F's where on a cover rather than on the box itself.
The only things we have to study the Casket Letters are copies made by clerics and the descriptions given in the court logs of the Westminster debacle. This considerably complicates matters since it makes it completely impossible to avail ourselves of modern hand writing analysis techniques. That the documents may have been false but also able to fool the eyes of sixteenth century analyzers is not odd. For one thing, the documents where scrutinized not by experts but by government officials, most of whom where not familiar with Mary's penmanship. Secondly, amongst the prosecutors there were many who where capable of forging Mary's signature, who where very well acquainted with her writing, and extremely familiar with her writing style. In short, there are a number of men who could have forged the documents and who had motive to have done so. Additionally, it is odd indeed that the court journals describe the letters as being written in the Roman hand when Mary was known to write only in the much differing Italian style. It is impossible to tell if this was merely clerical error or very strong evidence that Mary did not author the documents. Moreover, to add further to the confusion, it seems that the twenty one documents in the casket at the time of the trial originally numbered twenty two, leaving generations to wonder exactly what happened to the extra document and why.
There are other curiosities about the documents. For example, none of them were dated. None of them had proper introductions or endings; Mary was known for taking great care to find the perfect endings for her letters. The sonnets (officially counted as separate documents, but generally thought of as one long poem) where so ill written as to be nearly painful to read; Mary was known as a talented poet and the existing verse known to be hers is of a much superior quality. The letters make little to no sense, flowing in odd patterns and often completely disjointed. However, Mary was an intelligent woman and her other writings do make sense. It is hard to see how Mary could have written some of the documents if one assumes that Mary remained sane throughout the time they were written.
Individually, the letters contain many peculiarities, which shall now be examined along with the usefulness of their content.
Letter I
The first casket letter currently remains only in English translation. It is claimed by whoever went through the documents to note what the prosecutors had claimed the letters to prove, "proves her disdain against her husband." It is evident from that remark that the prosecutors would have us to believe that the man referred to in the letter is Darnley. However, it is just as likely if not more so that it is in referral to Prince James. Referring to an infant as "the man" could well be a jocular endearment from a devoted mother. It seems unlikely that Mary should refer to Darnley as such since even in letters to her closest relatives she always referred to Darnley simply as, "the King." Of course, we have little evidence that the letter was actually written from Glasgow since the phrase, "from Glasgow this Saturday morning" could have very easily been added at a later time. This greatly increases the number of people the Queen could have been writing about. In addition to this confusion, the letter does not seem to speak ill of "the man." Nor is there any clear indication of to whom the letter was directed. It has been said that the letter proves Mary's passionate love for Bothwell, but the letter does not contain evidence of this. All that the letter states is that Mary is anxiously waiting for news from the addressee, who she wishes to see again in the near future. There are surely a great number of friends or family members this could be addressing. Surely to want to hear from someone and to rejoice in the thought of seeing him does not in itself denote a lustful affair!
Letter II
The second of the casket letters is by far the most well known. It is often called, "the long letter" for obvious reasons – it is over 2,000 words in length. Like Letter I, there is no existing contemporary French copy so we must rely on English and Scots translations, which differ slightly in many places. A not so slight difference is the last six lines of the Scots version, which do not occur in the English translation. These lines may have been left out as redundant, being only a list of things to be remembered. However, it is fairly interesting to note that one of these things is the Earl of Bothwell. If the letter were written by Mary to Bothwell as was claimed, why would she write that he should remember himself? However, this is far from the only confusing thing about letter two, which is highly disjointed and lacking in sense. The options for why this is so appear to be limited to three. The first is that Mary had, without history recording it, suffered from insanity and multiple personalities. The second is that the letter was actually a collection of notes to be written about in clarity later. The third is that the letter is actually multiple letters sliced together and probably written by more than one individual.
The letter begins without preamble with the writer lamenting having left her heart in Edinburgh. However, even assuming the Queen did in fact write these words, they are hardly proof of amour, merely affection and may well have not even been directed at an individual but merely stating that the Queen would much rather be in her capital attending to life as normal than were she is now. There is also the fact that Bothwell accompanied Mary on this journey, so she oculd not possibly have meant that she was distressed ot have left him behind. It then goes on for a bit about a meeting with Lennox before discussing the king, who had been ill for some time. The letter reports that Mary had a long discussion with Darnley, who begged her to stay the night with him. She refused due to his illness, but did promise amongst other things to resume marital relations with him after his recovery.
The letter then deviates from sense. The style changes abruptly and becomes a letter of melodramatic passion containing many allusions that make no sense when applied to the relationship between Mary and Bothwell. It implies that Bothwell was siding with a different faction than the writers. It refers to Huntly as "your false brother-in-law." And it pleads that the reader "remember your friend and write unto her often," although it was supposed to have been written shortly before Mary returned to Edinburgh, where she would be seeing Bothwell, when she could speak to him in person. If she had truly stayed awake all night making a bracelet for him, one can also wonder why, if she were to see him in a few days, Mary would have sent it by messenger instead of simply taking it herself. It also seems very odd that the writer wants a response but does not chastise the addressee for never writing back since no letters from Bothwell to Mary were found. Would the supposedly reckless Queen have the forethought to burn the letters sent by her lover while the tactful Bothwell was sentimental enough to keep such dangerous letters from the Queen? This scenario simply does not seem consistent with what is known of the two. It seems somewhat more likely that this section of the letter is not anything written by Mary, but a letter to Bothwell from some unknown woman; it is certain that his reputation does not preclude several mistresses.
If the lengthy, confusing, and uncharacteristic love letter passages are ignored, either because the reader accepts that Mary did not write them or simply to simplify matters, there is still a question of the rest of the letter. It is long, detailed, and highly confidential. To whom was it addressed? It was possibly sent to Moray, which would explain why the prosecutors where able to obtain it. The letter refers to "your uncle's breath," when describing the foul scent of Darnley's illness. While Bothwell had no uncles, not only did Moray have one, but Mary knew him well (he was the guardian of her son!) and would be very acquainted with his smell. This does not prove that the letter was addressed to Moray, there are many other people with uncles Mary would have known. However, unless the letter was simply a draft kept with Mary's papers (as is indicated by the notes it seems to be interspersed with), if it was not sent to Moray or Bothwell, one does wonder who it was sent to and how the prosecutors came to possess it.
Despite the controversy of this letter, if legitimate it does prove one thing – Mary saw her husband and her conscience troubled her for it. However, it is no secret that Mary was not in love with her husband and that she was seeking to divorce him if she could find a way to do so that would not endanger the legitimacy of her son. This does not mean that she was having an affair or that she was plotting to kill her husband, merely that acting as a loving wife towards him was nerve wreaking and the idea of being touched by him appalling. This is hardly an unheard of situation amongst couples on the verge of separation. It is interesting to note that the dialogue quoted in the letter is almost word for word identical with an account given by a man named Crawford, who was in the service of Darnley. It is rare indeed that two people giving separate accounts of a long conversation will get the words so very similar and one can only wonder if notes where being taken during the conversation or if perhaps one of the documents was based on the other. Mayhap Crawford was simply eavesdropping and both he and Mary possessed remarkable memories...
Letter III
Letter Three, of which contemporary copies in French and Scots exist, but not one in English, was apparently meant to "to prove the affections." It was written by a woman who had a long affair with the addressee, presumably Bothwell. She laments that her relationship with the addressee has caused her many hardships and misfortunes, which can hardly be said of Mary's relation to Bothwell, who brought her nothing but good fortune until those last few months, after which she had no occasion to write him letters. The woman refers to a secret marriage of bodies that shall have to content her until they can be truly wed. Not only is such a thing outside of the somewhat prudish character of Mary, who had always come down with harsh punishments on adulterants, but it is a common delusion of a young woman who had been seduced on the promise of a wedding ring that was never to be given. She accuses her lover of lying to her and of being cold towards her. Again, if Bothwell lied to Mary it is unknown and he never appeared publicly cold towards the Queen; rather, Bothwell was a loyal servant courting the royal favor. The letter came form a woman pleading for the attentions of a man who does not seem to care for her while it would appear that throughout the relations between Mary and Bothwell it was he was pursued her. In short, it seems somewhat more logical to assume that the letter was sent by the mysterious other woman from the second letter, who may well have had a hand writing style similar to Mary's.
Letter IV
Letter Four is another lengthy and confusing article, which exists in contemporary French and English. This letter contains many clumsy and awkward words and phrase that seem almost to indicate that the clerk copying it had great difficulty reading the original. It is very hard to decipher the meaning of most of the letter although it is thought to be about the fight narrowly avoided between Darnley and Lord Robert Stewart, another bastard half-sibling to the Queen. It has been argued that Mary encouraged this fight hoping it would end in the death of her husband. However, since Mary called Moray into the fray to quiet the pair, this seems highly unlikely. In addition, if this incident is being referred to then the letter must have been written within days of Darnley's murder. One must wonder why Mary would write such a long letter to Bothwell when they had been not only in the same city but also in contact for over a week.
The less cryptic passages of the letter are spent warning the addressee against he wiles of some other woman. The writer whines of her ill luck, a problem Mary did not have, and in despair she compares herself to Medea, who as the first wife of Jason was forsaken when that man became taken with Glause. This strongly suggests that the woman writing this letter felt that she had a claim on Bothwell prior to that of his wife, Jean Gordon. It is ridiculous to think Mary would claim this as not only was she still happy in her marriage when Bothwell and Jean where wed, she played a large part in the match. It concludes by saying that the addressee should be careful "lest the bird fly out of her cage...or live alone." The English translation apparently confuses the word "per" (mate) with "pere" (father) and leads to the implication that the phrase refers to Darnley, although the phrase then makes little sense. However, threatening to leave a lover and either take another or live alone in misery seems a very odd thing for Mary to say at the time this was supposed to have been written, but it does not seem out of keeping with the image of the woman from the second and third letters. The letter does mention "Joseph, Bastien and Joachim" threatening to return and these are the names of three servants to Mary. However, this is the very last sentence of the document and since there is no signature, it would have been very simple to append this line in order to cast implicate the Queen.
Letter V
The fifth letter from the casket is a brief document marked by the English clerk with, "Anent the dispatch dismissal of Margaret Carwood; which was before her marriage; proves her affection." However, no names are actually mentioned so it is unknown who the woman offending the writer was.
It is not likely that this is a letter from Mary complaining of Margaret Carwood, however, as there is no evidence that Mary was ever hurt by this woman and much to say that they held each other in affection. Indeed, the week after Darnley's death, Margaret was married in a ceremony attended by
the Queen and in a gown paid for by that sovereign. It is likely that the prosecutors simply gave this story to the English court under the assumption that no one present would have known very much about minor court occurrences taking place in Scotland two years prior. The letter is against marked with the whiny subservient style found already in several other Casket Letters.
Letter VI
The most interesting thing about the sixth casket letter is the handwriting of the French copy found at the Hatfield House in 1870. Alone amongst all of the contemporary copies of the Casket Letters, this one is not written in a neat secretarial hand but in a flowing Italian script, very similar, but not identical, to Mary's writing. It is actually possible that this is one of the documents originally shown at Mary's trial and spirit away for some unknown reason. If this hypothesis is true, then this document's existence may explain what happened to the missing twenty second document and may also prove that duplicity was involved since the writing is close enough to Mary's to fool all but the closest observers. It would still be left to debate if the article was deliberately forged or if it was an innocent mistake that led it to be presented as in the Queen's hand.
The letter itself is a similar style as the fifth letter. The writer again complains of jealousy and the maliciousness of some other woman. Huntly is once again described as a "false brother-in-law." The writer claims that Lord Huntly had recently visited her to warn that Bothwell would never marry the woman. It seems very odd that he should tell this to Mary since the letter is supposed to have been written days after Huntly signed the Ainslie bond, giving his support to a match between the Queen and Bothwell. Despite the fact that the letter is supposed to have been written before Mary's abduction by Bothwell, and hence prove her compliance in the matter, the writer says that Huntly used as proof that Bothwell would not marry her the fact that Bothwell had been married when he carried her away, as though the incident where in the past. Furthermore, the writer accuses the addressee of being negligent in his suit and of refusing to take action. Again, this was supposed to be days after Bothwell had presented the Ainslie bond and if the author had known he was planning an abduction of her person in the near future, why would she have cause to accuse him of non-action?
Letter VII
No contemporary copies of the seventh Casket Letter are currently known to exist in any language. It was included in the case documents because if authentically written by Mary it proves that she had foreknowledge of the abduction planned by Bothwell. The style does seem to be calm tones of Mary herself. In the letter, the writer states that the addressee deserves a pardon for long and loyal service; this could certainly apply to Mary's feeling towards Bothwell. The letter also stresses that proper approval should be obtained from the lords for a marriage. The letter is most likely one genuinely written from Mary to Bothwell. One will note that it is sensible and dispassionate, unlike the flamboyant and obsessed love letters discussed earlier. It does prove compliance with the kidnapping and with a marriage to Bothwell, but it says nothing of love or of lust.
Letter VIII
Letter Eight, like Letter Seven does not exist in contemporary copy. It is also most likely written completely by Mary, but not on the date that the prosecution claimed, which was before her abduction. The letter could only have been written after Bothwell's divorce since it refers to Huntly as "your brother-in-law that was." Mary would never have referred to Huntly in such a manner before the separation. The letter does not cast guilt on anyone, but was most likely included by the prosecution for containing a line saying that there were many who would rather die than see her carried off. It is apparent that the prosecution would have us believe that this is a referral to the abduction by Bothwell, but since it must have been written well after that occurrence it most likely alludes to the Queen's fear of the rebels.
The "Poetry"
The sonnets, which come together as one poem, have been looked down upon since their first appearance. It is almost a farce to describe them as poetry since they are little more than dribble. Indeed, better poems than these have been named "trash." Again, no contemporary copies exist, but it is unlikely that anyone lacking a masochistic streak ever really wanted to read them anyway. That they are attributed to Queen Mary is a great tragedy, for the lady had a talent for verse that is greatly defamed by the accusation that she could have written these poems. Mary's known verse was courtly and refined in analogy and wit. She had been trained in France under well-known poets such as Ronsard and Brantome, who were enraged at the idea that this was her writing.
The only thing in these sonnets that indicated that they could not have been written by any half educated person with a knowledge of French is contained in three lines:
|
I place my son, my honour and my life My hand, my subjects, my subjected soul." |
|
In addition to all of this, Mary never once offered to give her son to Bothwell. Indeed, to do so would have been much out of character for such a devoted mother as was Mary Stuart.
The Marriage Contracts
Neither of the marriage documents are in dispute as forgeries. The only question is to the times at which they were written. The first of the contracts was presented in court with the explanation that despite the fact that some of the phrases seem contrary, the contract was written before Darnley's death. The prosecution did not even seem to believe this. As for the phrases that appeared contrary, one of them was the referral of Darnley as, "my late husband." This seems an odd way to refer to someone still living. The contract does not have a date; the assumption is that the prosecutors cut it from the page, certainly an easy enough task.
The second contract is suspicious only because it confirms Mary's intention to marry with Bothwell before he was formally acquitted of the murder. It reports that Mary is willing to take Bothwell as her husband after he was divorced rather than make a match with some foreign prince. (The Scottish nobles where almost as paranoid of foreign rule as their counterparts in England, which makes the French attitude of their Queen somewhat ironic.) This contract is dated 5 April, several weeks before the marriage preparations commenced. However, it is unlikely that the Queen would have been willing to sign it before Bothwell was divorced, so it may have been written by others well before she signed it or the dating could be in error, either through clerical carelessness or through deliberate deception.
Lady Antonia Fraser's well known work, Mary Queen of Scots is available for purchase from Amazon.com at a 20% discount.
The above essay is the sole work and property of Andrea Marie Brokaw and is copyright as of July, 2001.
Please feel free to read other essays by Lady Hedgehog or to visit her home page.
Question, comments, or suggestions may be e-mailed to Andrea Marie, the Lady of Hedgehog, as ladyhedgehog@hedgie.com.