10 minute read
Forged?
Oscar Clark, Middle School
Advertisement
The Casket Letters were 8 letters along with 12 sonnets and 2 marriage certificates that allegedly proved Mary’s guilt in murdering her husband (Lord Darnley) and having an affair and then marrying the Earl of Bothwell. They were produced by James Stewart, Earl of Moray, a year after Mary was captured at the battle of Carberry Hill, put under house arrest, and
subsequently abdicated. The allegation resulted in an enormous debate over Mary’s character and if the writings were real or forged.
The Earl of Moray was Mary’s illegitimate half-brother and long-term advisor. Being an illegitimate son of James V, he had a weak claim to the throne so instead wanted Mary as a figurehead with him controlling Scotland. Unfortunately for him, Mary was not so keen on this and would not let him take much power. Their relationship was further weakened when Mary married Darnley, a match that Moray strongly disagreed with. This alone does not give Moray reason to want Mary convicted of murder which could have resulted from him presenting the letters. Following Mary’s abdication, and in light of his weak claim to the throne, it is possible that he thought he could mould Mary’s son, James, who was now King, and Moray was his close adviser. However, if Mary were released from house arrest due to Queen Elizabeth I’s reluctance to hang Mary, this could cause Moray to lose much of the power he had gained following Mary’s arrest. Therefore, it is possible that Moray forged the letters since he wanted more power and Mary’s child could give him an opportunity to obtain that power.
It is notable that the letters were not the most reliable pieces of text due to their lack of date, signature or address especially when Mary was always known for having put her signature at the end of messages, even when dictating. The only thing that ties them to Mary is that many of her contemporaries said that her handwriting matched the handwriting on the messages. This cannot be confirmed currently because the only surviving versions of the letters are copies and the French originals have vanished. The parts of the letters that showed her love for Bothwell seem unlikely as Bothwell was a very strange choice of husband for Mary because he was the main suspect in the murder of Darnley - hanging him would have cleared any doubts people would have had about Mary being involved and by marrying him Mary was implicating herself in the murder. A contemporary politician and soldier, who was loyal to Mary, called Sir William Kirkcaldy of Grange's considered that Bothwell had raped and forced Mary to marry him and others agreed with him.
In the previous paragraphs I explained that the letters could have been entirely forged due to Moray’s attempt to gain more power. Whilst this is a valid theory you could expand on this and say that the letters were real but had parts added to them that caused them to look like Mary
was conspiring against Darnley with Bothwell. This is because the letters conflict and have minor disagreements between them but the only real evidence of Mary wanting Darnley dead is in the fifth section of the second letter. Mary wrote about how she wanted Darnley poisoned, even though this is not the method used when Darnley is actually killed and knowledge about Mary’s bad relationship with him is potentially enough to sway someone who thought that Mary was innocent of the murder. Whilst this did not persuade Elizabeth, since Mary was in house arrest for over a decade until being hanged, it does present the possibility that the letters were real but included a forged section that aimed to convict Mary. The most likely person to write that section would have been Moray since he presented the letters and if Mary were freed from house arrest, she could have destroyed his increasing power over her son.
Finally, the letters may not have been forged at all because we know that Mary had a difficult relationship with Darnley so the possibility of her having a relationship is high and we know that Mary did marry Bothwell (unless the marriage certificate was forged). I have established that only one of the paragraphs may have been forged because the fifth section of the second letter is the only part that mentions a threat to Darnley where Mary writes that she wanted to poison him. If this were Moray’s attempt to persuade Elizabeth that Mary helped to murder
Darnley then he did not do a good job of it - Moray would have wanted to make Mary look as guilty as possible (which he did not) but without making it seem overly obvious that the letters included a forged section. Having Mary want to poison Darnley is not sufficient evidence that she and Bothwell planned to strangle him and explode the building he was in (which is how he died). Mary found Darnley arrogant, abusive, and not without reason since one of the worst things he did was murder her friend (Riccio) in front of her. Her wanting to poison him is understandable on some level but that does not equate to what happened. Mary’s love for Bothwell is possible and so is her hatred for Darnley but this is not enough to prove that she helped plan to murder him.
In conclusion, I believe that the letters were partly forged by Moray and that he added an extra section. Whilst it is not inexplicable that Mary had an affair with Bothwell due to the character of Darnley, I am persuaded by the fact the section about her wanting to poison Darnley only appears once. I believe she did not sign the letters because of the nature of the content within them.
Rohun Kale, Junior School
‘Was it Right to Execute Mary Queen of Scots?’
Mary Queen of Scots should have been executed as queen of Scotland in 1567 because she married her husband’s murderer, James Hepburn, the 4th Earl of Bothwell. On the 10th of February 1567, James brutally murdered Lord Darnley, and just 3 months later, Mary married him. It was unjust of her to do so, and we know she didn’t just marry him because he forced her to, because in the final battle between Elizabeth and Mary queen of Scots, Mary surrendered herself and said she would die if they let Bothwell live. Since she married him, she should have been unsuitable to rule. Also, Mary should have been executed because Elizabeth’s spies found letters sent from Mary about the plot to kill Elizabeth. Plotting to kill a monarch was the largest crime at the time of all in the 16th Century, especially since Elizabeth was her cousin, and her family definitely would have definitely not approved of it. For the pure reason of plotting to kill the queen, which was considered high treason, Mary queen of scots should have been executed.
On the other hand, Mary Queen of Scots shouldn’t have been executed as she wasn’t part of the original plots to depose Elizabeth, despite suspicion, and the only reason she joined them was because she was imprisoned at Loch Leven castle for 18 years, and being queen, Mary would have said imprisonment wasn’t right for her. She loved Elizabeth like a sister, but power drove them apart and caused spite between them. Mary Queen of Scots should not have been executed as she wasn’t the one who killed Lord Darnley. Despite the seemingly overwhelming evidence, Mary didn’t kill him, and when she found out she needed another husband, so she found the Earl of Bothwell, despite his deceitful personality and association with the murder of Lord Darnley. As the death penalty was only an option for murder, and at the time she wasn’t involved with it, she shouldn’t have been executed.
In conclusion, Mary Queen of scots should have been executed, as she was plotting to kill Elizabeth, despite how desperate she felt.
Aarav Anil, Middle School, ani200@habsboys.org.uk
LORD JOHN RUSSELL’S Reform bill has finally been given royal assent, on his third attempt to pass this bill. The first was on the 1st May 1831, when Russell spoke for two whole hours about the Whig Government reform bill. ‘I wish to stand between the two opposing parties; those who think that reform was unnecessary and those who believe that universal male suffrage was essential,’ was a quote from this speech.
This bill proposes many changes to the way the seats will be distributed. Alongside a limited extension of the vote, it also proposed a redistribution of seats and the removal of rotten boroughs, which were under the control of an aristocrat and were subject to corruption. For the first time, seats will be given to growing industrial sites such as Manchester and Leeds, as well as smaller towns such as Whitby, which will be given a seat to represent the shipping interest. Many additional seats will also be added for counties to represent the respectable propertied opinion. This distribution of seats makes it easier for the people who live outside the capital to express their worries to Parliament.
However, for Russell and his colleagues, it was the representation of interest, not population that mattered, for it is key to balancing the population and restoring its confidence in Parliament. As Russell said in his speech in 1831, ‘This reform will not advance democracy,
but it will make the constitution harmonize with the present state of people and will make the country’s aristocratic leaders responsible for the wider public,’. This quote means that the bill will allow the MPs to empathize with the people and understand their worries and concerns, so they can act on them and, essentially, improve the welfare of the country as a whole. Focusing on interest will benefit the people more due to the fact that if the interests of the country are taken care of, the people will automatically become happy.
The Bill is essential for the people to trust the Parliament, which is even more important now than ever before due to the ongoing Industrial Revolution. This is pivotal to the Reform bill to be a success as the bill will almost completely change the way that the country was run. Therefore, it is a must that those who are going to be affected (the people) had to agree with these rules, or the system will immediately fall into disarray and the country will descend into ruins. Hence, in order to reform the country’s Government, Russell had to explain how the changes would affect the people positively and will help those who need it. If the people do not agree, they will probably stick to the way of life that has kept them alive and happy so far, though to what extent is not certain, and the bill would be a failure. This reform is perfectly timed as the people are slowly adapting to the new Revolution, and this shows the people that the Parliament is also adapting for the needs of the people. It shows that though the world is changing, the Parliament is still striving to help the people through all circumstances and will boost the people’s confidence in their Government.
However, some resistance was mounted by Conservative philosopher and member of the Royal Society Sir Richard Vyvyan, who believed in some minor reformation, but thought that what Russell was doing was far too much. He believed that it was not ‘safe at any time to attempt any major change’ in the system and that reform was a ‘fearful experiment’. He felt that the population was divided because of economic difficulties and not a political situation whose answer was a total political reformation, meaning that even after the reform, the conflicts will still remain. Despite these arguments, the Whigs were granted royal consent to carry out this reform, whereas Vyvyan battled against it until the end. He said that if the bill was passed, that ‘I do not believe that any earthly power can save this country from a social revolution,’ which meant that he was sure that if the bill was passed, the people will eventually revolt. Currently, however, Vyvyan is believed to be keeping his seat in Parliament, even though he has lost against Russell and his reform.
The changes proposed by Russell will do nothing but aid us through this new Revolution and will help us improve our way of life by reducing the amount of corruption in the ruling government and also taking care of the wider populace’s interests and concerns. Russell’s reforms will improve the representation of the people and increase the Parliament’s accountability.
