Monty Python Instant Record Collection, Vol. 2 © 1976 Arista Records LLCDeath Of Mary Queen Of Scots | November 8, 2014 | Monty Python - Topic
Posted on 06/21/2022 6:44:23 PM PDT by texas booster
On 20th June 1567, a few days after Scottish rebels apprehended Mary, Queen of Scots, servants of James Douglas, 4th Earl of Morton, allegedly found a silver casket of eight letters, two marriage contracts (which apparently proved that Mary had agreed to marry Bothwell before his divorce) and twelve sonnets. The casket was found in the possession of James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell and third husband of Mary, Queen of Scots.
What was important about these letters?
Well, the eight letters found in the casket were allegedly written by Mary to Bothwell and one was said to implicate the couple in the murder of Mary's second husband, Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, in February 1567.
Elizabeth I ordered a commission to investigate the matter of Mary's involvement in Darnley's murder and on the 14th December 1568 the letters were produced at the Royal Commission as proof against Mary.
In his excellent book on Mary Queen of Scots, My Heart is My Own, historian John Guy writes:
"The sole evidence that she was a part to the murder plot comes from them [the Casket Letters]. There is no other proof. Her guilt or innocence depends on whether the letters are true or false."
The Casket Letters no longer exist, so cannot be examined today, but we still have the transcripts and translations, complete with William Cecil's notes. It is these notes which Guy says give us a "glimpse" into Cecil's thoughts as he read letters that were "dynamite" in that if they were indeed genuine then "an anointed Queen could justifiably be deposed from her throne, Elizabeth's 'safety' would be guaranteed, and the threat of an international Guise conspiracy ended for ever".
However, if they were forgeries then Mary would have to be released because it could not be proved that she was complicit in Darnley's murder.
The Sonnets
John Guy writes of how the sonnets found in the casket "were said to be Mary's own reflections on her adultery" with Bothwell and proof "that her consuming passion for Bothwell gave her a powerful motive for murder."
However, Guy points out that they are highly unlikely to be genuine as "they are extremely clumsy and would pass only with the greatest difficulty as the work of a native French speaker" and they do not fit with the "genre of courtly love poetry" with which Mary was familiar. He also points out that they can be read as religious poetry.
The Marriage Contracts
One of the marriage contracts from the silver casket was said to be dated 5th April 1567 "at Seton", so over a month before Mary and Bothwell's marriage, but Guy points out that this is a "blatant forgery" because the wording of the contract included "extracts from the Ainslie's Tavern bond", a document which was produced after the gathering of the Lords at Ainslie's Tavern on the 19th April 1567.
The other contract Guy describes as "innocuous" because "it is less a 'contract' than a written promise by Mary to marry Bothwell".
The Casket Letters
Letters 1 and 2, "the short Glasgow Letter" and "the long Glasgow letter" were the most damning and the second letter, if genuine, was proof that Mary was Bothwell's lover before their marriage and that she had been involved in Darnley's murder.
Letter 2 contained "seemingly graphic allusions to the murder plot... interspersed with its author's protestations of longing and desire for her lover"9 and Guy explains that the case against Mary rested on seven key extracts from the letter.
You can read Guy's full thoughts on the letter in "The Casket Letters" chapters of his book, but he argues that only the fifth extract, which said "Think also if you will not find some invention more secret by physick, for he is to take physick at Craigmillar and the baths also. And shall not come forth of a long time", can be connected to a murder plot.
Guy explains that this extract was meant to prove that Mary wanted Darnley to be poisoned while he was at Craigmillar, but it is not evidence of the plot which actually killed Darnley at Kirk o'Field.
Also, Guy argues that "it has to be regarded as a later forged interpolation" because it was missed in the material that was sent by George Buchanan to William Cecil in June 1568 and only used in the final accusations laid against Mary by the Confederate Lords to prove that Darnley's illness, which was in fact syphilis, was caused by poisoning. This charge does not make sense though as Darnley was already ill at this time.
After examination of the transcripts and translations, Guy concludes that, "in the absence of the original handwritten pages" of Letter 2, "around 1500-1800 words are likely to be genuine" and that 1000-1200 words are "likely to interpolations" from later letters or forgeries.
It could well be that "old and new pages were spliced together to make up a composite document" to convince Cecil and Elizabeth of Mary's guilt.
The controversy and debate over these letters still continues today and I would recommend John Guy's book "My Heart is My Own: The Life of Mary Queen of Scots" to anyone interested in The Casket Letters or Mary, Queen of Scots in general.
But it certainly makes for good reading of history.
for those that want a reference to the book cited in the article.
Mary was really a clueless dope very often. She should have allowed Knox to think he had converted her and nominally become a Protestant. If Paris was worth a mass than Edinburgh was worth a baptism. Knox as an ally and confederate would have been a powerful pillar of support. Over the long haul, even if Mary had to fly the coop from Scotland as a Princess converted to the reforming faith she would have been a guest not a potential focus of sedition in England. In passing, have there have been any more complete set of fools in history than the Catholic gentry who involved themselves in such idiocies as the Babington plot.
Stupid woman.
Back then, lots of the ‘royals’ were killing each other or arranging for the deaths, imprisonment, or banishment of others.
And marriage among them wasn’t more than a business contract.
James was a queer, Charles was an idiot, his son was also an idiot. James had to get out of dodge because he was an idiot.
I guess the only two might have been Mary-William and Mary, and last Ann-who was also weird.
I can only count..up to the Hanoverian's, a few monarchs who were worth anything. Edward the 3rd comes to mind.
I suppose Queen Anne might have been a bit odd, she had 13 still births and miscarraiges and one son who dies at 13.
Well, she had lady friends that she favored. One of them the ancestor of Winston Churchill I understand.
I supposed the child birth problems might have had something to do with it mentally.
Of course James the 1st was a out and out queer. Yet he managed to do his “duty” and father children.
My dearest Steenie...or how ever one spells it. He very seldom took a bath, stunk, name it and the man was..I mean who the hell jumps into a gut pile of a deer and wallows in it after it is dressed out.
I dont know which would have been considered the worst as far as that goes, He or Edward the 2nd.
And The Bonnie Price might have been the dullest Crayola in the box.
Well..he wasna to sharp that is for sure.
Another case where “close” only counts in horse shoes.
They were used to doing what they wanted, when they wanted and how they wanted.
The reason that England under Elizabeth flourished was that she had the support of the commoners, the Yeoman and the merchant class.
Monty Python Instant Record Collection, Vol. 2 © 1976 Arista Records LLCDeath Of Mary Queen Of Scots | November 8, 2014 | Monty Python - Topic
This topic was posted , thanks texas booster.
The other GGG topics added since the previous digest ping, chrono sort:
Excellent!
Thanks!
‘Face
;o]
My pleasure.
MQofS’s grandmother was sister to Henry VIII.
Margaret Tudor Queen of Scotland Facts, Biography & Information
https://englishhistory.net/tudor/relative/margaret-tudor/
The ‘royals’ of UK history were mainly scoundrels. ALL of them. Murderers, backstabbers, cowards and liars.
There were probably only a handful that were decent people.....................
Thanks for the relink.
I listened to the Monty Python skit, and wondered - is it better to teach history through a book or a Python skit?
I suspect that we need both.
They are funny, here and there, but it hasn't held up well for me. I enjoy the absurdity, but not their artless left wing smears and digs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
