Well, Darnley was out of his depth as king consort at that time in his life, in that country at least. Had he been given a few years to grow up, who knows? Still, like his wife who most likely belonged in France, he was out of his element. But another line of argument could see that both Darnley and Mary, Queen of Scots were responsible for their deaths. Mary could be seen as responsible because she did plot against Elizabeth, even though it was really a set up plot, something she didn't know. She did have traitorous intentions, at least as defined by that century. According to that law that I think Elizabeth had, ( which was intended to trap her, admittedly), she was guilty ( I don't remember the exact details, but those were the implications).
Then, with Darnley, he let his position go to his head and stirred up intrigue against his wife, like he was ruler of Scotland, not she, which culminated in the Rizzio murder. This was stupidity, and could even be regarded as the actions of a traitor. He was arrogant, and acted above his station. Of course, he lacked judgment, but so did Mary. Both their actions leading to their deaths could be regarded as arrogant, and traitorous. Yet, both their actions leading to their deaths can also been seen as unfair, something I will go into later. History can be seen many different ways sometimes, even when you are not dealing with ''what ifs'', and that's what makes it fun.
