Did Mary Have Darnley Murdered?

[Martyn]

Okay this theory is expounded in a curious book that I have just read entitled 'Who Was The Man In The Iron Mask?' by Hugh Ross Williamson.  I know that it sounds like a load of old rubbish, but it was actually an interesting work that attempted to provide solutions, based on evidence and theories as to the possible conclusions to historical mysteries.
The theory about Darnley's murder is this.  The latter intended to kill Mary and rule as regent for the infant Prince James with the aid of Moray.  He intended to escape from the house before the explosion, explaining that he had not had time to warn the Queen, who had been staying there with him.  His clothes, including his cloak were taken into the garden by Taylor, his page, before the 'escape'.  Up to this point all was going to plan, except that on Mary's last visit to Kirk o' Field, Paris, one of Bothwell's French servants who had just entered Mary's service had discovered the gunpowder that Darnley had put there and had told Bothwell.  Bothwell prevented Mary from returning to the house that night, in spite of Darnley's almost hysterical insistence that she return and which she had promised so to do.  Bothwell came himself to Kirk o' Field that night to watch events and possibly fire the gunpowder himself, unaware of the other plot to kill Darnley.
Darnley hearing noises outside the house, and being alone except for Taylor, made an attempt to escape only to be caught and suffocated by the Douglases in revenge for his betrayal of the murderers of Riccio.
Bothwell returned, determined to pay Darnley in his own coin for wanting to kill Mary, unaware that Darnley was already dead, and lit the gunpowder.
This would explain how the gunpowder got into the house - how could Darnley or his servants not have noticed previously ?- the method of death and the location of the bodies, and the destruction of the house.
It is entirely possible that the real architect of this was Moray.  In the murder of Riccio, in which the Queen was the real target, Darnley was his tool; at Kirk o'Field it may be assumed that the same is true again, excepting that Darnley was hoist by his own petard.......Just a theory........

[Elisabeth]

Diabolical! A truly fiendish plot, if it's true, and I have to admit it makes as much sense as anything else I've read. Trust Darnley to screw up an assassination and end up murdered himself.

[Martyn]

It is a wonder that he didn't blow himself up! I have to say that it isn't a bad theory at all, and does go some way towards addressing the inconsistencies in the evidence.........Plus it has the added advantage of clearing Mary of involvement (direct involvement at least).

[Karentje]

I just read Antonia Fraser's biography of Mary, and while she isn't as objective as I'd like (not by a long shot), she does make a pretty good case as far as the casket letters are concerned. She also believes that these letters are composed of parts written by Mary and other parts written by an unknown woman, probably one of Bothwell's mistresses.
It is indeed strange that these letters have no heading or Mary's signature and the jealousy (typical of the 'other' woman) that the authoress feels vis-à-vis Bothwell indeed comes through very clearly and is an unlikely sentiment for Mary to have felt towards him.
I think the casket lettters' content alone is enough to prove them (at least partly) false, whatever differences in style or handwriting might be there.

[Silja]

Mary was very bright. The idea that she was some ineffectual, helpless victim of events was the creation of romantic writers like Schiller. The historical Mary knew exactly what she was doing in plotting against Elizabeth - otherwise she wouldn't have done it over and over again for a period of 19 years.

I think Mary, like any ambitious political player in those days, simply gambled that the risk inherent to conspiracy was worth the potential pay-off. Either she would be Queen of England (and Elizabeth would be murdered) or she would die a martyr at the hands of her enemies. Obviously she would have preferred the former fate to the latter one. But either way she knew Elizabeth was going to pay. She knew Philip II of Spain would try to invade England at the slightest pretext, and of course her own execution would provide that pretext.

As for the Casket Letters - I tend to think that parts were faked, and parts were genuine. Which is a question for the historians to decide (and they've got lots of scholarly debate going on about it, as far as I can see).  

I quite agree. But the letters referred to here are not the "casket letters" dealing with Mary's involvement in the murder of Darnley, are they, but those she exchanged with Philip II, the Pope, the foreign ambassadors, and the English conspirators such as Babington. I'm convinced these letters are authentic. The Babington conspiracy was very real, and these people WERE in correspondence with Mary. Mary knew very well what she was doing. She knew it since the moment when as Queen of France she and her husband asserted their claim to the English throne.

[helenazar]

...the letters referred to here are not the "casket letters" dealing with Mary's involvement in the murder of Darnley, are they, but those she exchanged with Philip II, the Pope, the foreign ambassadors, and the English conspirators such as Babington. I'm convinced these letters are authentic. The Babington conspiracy was very real, and these people WERE in correspondence with Mary.

Yes, these were the letters I was referring to. Thanks for clarifying that , Silja!

[Karentje]

I really should learn to read all posts more carefully (and completely) before putting in my own two cents  
Of course, I completely agree that these other letters were genuine and Mary wasn't the innocent victim she posed to be, nor the saintly martyr some of her biographers (Fraser)tried to make her out to be.

Sincerely

Karentje

[ilyala]

i don't think darnley was intelligent enough to think about killing Mary himself  

if this thing that you said is true, i don't think it was his idea.

but my opinion on the darnley murder is: mary did not actually do it, but approved of it. there's the theory that she was so much into bothwell that she just did whatever he said... could be true, who knows?

[Dmitry2]

Mary had little in her personality that would indicate violence in any respect.  That would have been out of character for her, even if she did despise Darnley.

[lexi4]

Martyn,
That was really interesting. And it makes sense. I am going to look for that book.
However, before I read Martyn's post I would say that absolutely Mary was behind her husband's murder. She was politically astute. I agree that she would not hav paused to see her husband dead if he was in the way of her son. Besides, I don't think she loved him at all.

[ilyala]

she was infatuated with him at first... but that went away quickly

[lexi4]

Another romance ruined by marriage  

[ilyala]

i think it would've went away anyway

he was too stupid to keep her affections... she was on the smart side

[bluetoria]

I agreewith Elizabeth. I think Mary was probably longing for him to be disposed of in some way particularly after Rizzio's murder, but I don't think she would have knowing played a part in it - she was, as Michael stated, too religious & also she was astute enough to know that it would tarnish her reputation terribly. Was she not genuinely shocked when she heard about it?
It is a bit bizarre though that she married Bothwell so quickly afterwards  :-/ - maybe, since she had been betrothed or married since she was little, she just felt herself incapable of running the country without the support of a husband, and Bothwell appeared the strongest man around at the time??

[lexi4]

Do you think she loved Bothwell? I always thought she did.