Perspectives exemplar 3 PDF

Preview

Summary

A class exemplar of our mandatory assignment about perspectives from a historical event. This exemplar is written about the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots....

Description

A Contested Event in History – The Execution of Mary, Queen of Scots History 3.4 2016 On December the eighth, in 1542, Scotland’s future queen was born. The daughter of King James V of Scotland, and the great niece of the powerful King Henry VIII, she was born into the Scottish monarchy as their future queen. She was destined to become both a figurehead and a martyr, with controversy surrounding her every move. Foolish, perhaps, and ambitious to the point where it ended her life, she will be remembered forever as Mary, Queen of Scots. At just six days old, King James V was dead, and Mary proclaimed Queen. A Queen must have a King, and Mary’s betrothal was an important step which could potentially further increase Scotland’s power and alliances. Initially, she was betrothed to King Henry VIII’s only son, Edward, but with tensions rising between England and Scotland, this was soon dismissed. In 1548, Mary was sent to France, where her family held powerful ties, and she became betrothed to France’s next king, Francis II. This was a powerful alliance, and advantageous to Scotland, for it united the two kingdoms under a single crown. Mary remained in France for her entire childhood, brought up surrounded by the Catholic religion – far from the Protestant leanings people were beginning to have in England under Henry VIII’s rule. By 1558, she was married to Francis. But in that same year, England’s Queen Mary I died, leaving the English throne open to any rightful heir. Mary was one of these, and the overall expectation in Europe was that she would take her place as the rightful ruler of her kingdom. This did not sit favourably with one woman in particular, the fiercely Protestant Elizabeth I, and the cousin of Mary. Though Elizabeth did become Queen of England, this was a mistake that caused deep discontent between the two women for the rest of their lives. A year later, and Mary was Queen of both Scotland and France, with her husband Francis by her side. But this was not destined to last, for Francis soon died, leaving Mary with no choice but to return to Scotland, her home and her Kingdom, in 1561. Upon her return to Scotland, she was greeted with joy, and all was well for some years. She proved herself to be a fairly competent ruler, but by 1565, she married again to have a King by her side. The man’s name was Lord Darnley. But Darnley was dissatisfied with his share of power with the Scottish Queen, and this sense of discontent continued to rise until he murdered one of Mary’s secretaries, in front of her eyes, a ploy devised with other nobles to cause her to miscarriage and die. While it was unsuccessful, Mary was imprisoned by nobles in Holyrood Palace. Eventually, desperate, Mary was forced to collude with her husband and together they escaped. Not long after, Mary’s child, the future King James VI of Scotland was born, causing for some time, a façade of peace. But Lord Darnley’s decision to help his wife escape did not sit well with some of the nobles. In 1567, Lord Darnley was dead, his house blown up and his body found, strangled, in the garden outside. This was murder, and one man who was deemed especially guilty was the a noble by the name of the Earl of Bothwell. He met with Mary, only hours after her husband’s death, and persuaded her to accompany him to his castle, and she followed. But this was a decision which would set off a chain of disastrous events which would eventually lead to Mary’s death. Desperate to return her Kingdom to peace, Mary married Bothwell in 1567. This decision sparked a revolt on behalf of some of the nobles in Mary’s court, and Mary was forced to surrender/. For the second time in her life – and certainly not the last – Mary was incarcerated against her will, at Lochleven Castle. She was pressured to abdicate, passing her rule down to her son James, and there she stayed, no longer a Queen, for ten long months. In 1568, the tides had turned. Mary’s implied responsibility in the murder of Lord Darnley was refuted when the truth about his death at the hands of the nobles came to light, and finally, Mary

had an opportunity to escape. Forced to flee, she turned to an inadvisable ally, Elizabeth I – her cousin and her rival with which she had been exchanging letters and gifts for most of her life. Elizabeth’s reaction was one of complete confusion. With little idea as to what to do with the former Scottish Queen, Mary was once again imprisoned. For she was a threat to Elizabeth – not only because of her bloodline, which allowed her to be a rightful heir of the English throne, but also because of her religion. Much of England was in a state of religious unrest. Elizabeth was firmly Protestant, but Mary was Catholic and favoured by many of Elizabeth’s subjects as the rightful ruler. Furthermore, Elizabeth had vowed to never marry, and so whatever children Mary had were likely to succeed Elizabeth after her death. And so both women were locked in a strange battle. Elizabeth felt trapped – she didn’t want to dispose of Mary in any way, but there needed to be a way of ensuring that Mary never got the chance to bid for the English throne. Years passed, and Mary became desperate, writing letters to Elizabeth, begging for freedom. As one would expect, it got to the point where Mary began to plot her escape – and while most of these were futile, her final plot would lead her to death. In 1586, a man named Babington began to correspond with Mary. A man who was intent upon returning England to Catholicism, he wrote of his wish to start an uprising to place Mary on her rightful throne in England. But these letters were being watched. Elizabeth knew of this plot to kill and usurp her, but was still too reluctant to execute Mary, fearing that should she do so without proper evidence, her country would revolt. However, her secretary, Sir Francis Walsingham, managed to convince her that through the interception of these letters between Mary and Babington, there would be sufficient evidence to condemn Mary to death. Mary was put on trial, and in Elizabeth’s last letter to Mary, she wrote: ‘You have in various ways and manners attempted to take my life and to bring my kingdom to destruction by bloodshed. I have never proceeded so harshly against you, but have, on the contrary, protected and maintained you like myself. These treasons will be proved to you and all made manifest.’ Unable to change the decision which had long ago been made, Mary was found guilty, and in 1587, she was executed. Foolish, ambitious, a martyr or a saint, it has long been questioned, but what is known for certain is that Mary, Queen of Scots, haunted Queen Elizabeth for the rest of her days. Perspective One: John Guy And so the question arises: Did Mary deserve her death? Was it a result of foolish actions, taken in the name of ambition, and a desperation to be Queen? Many historians have debated over this, some saying that Mary was merely unlucky, others that she was directly responsible for her own fate. One of these historians is John Guy, a later commenter upon the events that spanned over the lifetimes of Mary and Elizabeth. His perspective upon whether Mary was an ambitious and foolish woman who deserved to be executed is not quite definitive. He acknowledges that throughout her reign, she made some fatal errors – some to do with ambition, others which were merely foolish. Her first mistake, he says, was in marrying Lord Darnley – and this was both due to ambition, and foolishness. ‘The person with the best dynastic claim after Mary to the English throne, is in fact Henry, Lord Darnley, who, of course like Mary herself, he’s a great grandson of Henry the seventh. Mary chose Darnley because dynastically, he was the best possible bet’. This particular statement speaks of Guy’s perspective that Mary was indeed ambitious. She married Darnley for it would take her a step closer to the English throne, which she had always coveted. But he goes on to add that ‘Her problem was that she was too trusting. You can’t fault Mary as a ruler, until she marries Henry, Lord Darnley. That’s where the trouble starts.’ And it is here that he almost insinuates her foolishness in marrying a man like Darnley. However, he does maintain that Darnley was ‘one of those blokes who knows how to behave until the ring’s on the finger’, and for this reason, I do not believe Guy thinks that Mary was being foolish in marrying Darnley. She simply had no idea of the trouble he would cause, and there was no way for her to know. In this, Guy believes she is blameless. But he does not deny her foolishness in marrying Bothwell, the man whom all of Europe believed was responsible for the murder of Darnley. Unlike other historians, Guy does not believe Mary had a say in Darnley’s death – ‘Mary had no motive to kill Darnley. I mean, it’s quite easy to imagine

that ‘oh well, because Mary’s Queen, she must have had something to do with this.’, but certainly he believes it was foolish for Mary to fraternize with the man. He writes that ‘Where she went disastrously wrong was in allowing Bothwell, still a married man, to seduce her at Dunbar. Her worst mistake was to allow herself, a Queen, to fall in love’. Again, contrary to other Historian perspectives, Guy does not believe that Mary was coerced into the marriage, nor was she raped at Dunbar – instead she was ‘not going to marry a man who had raped her. So I think that she was talked around.’, because ‘There are people who have tried to defend Mary, who have said she was raped by Bothwell. I don’t agree with that actually.’ But he sees this as a fatal, foolish mistake on Mary’s behalf, for it turned half of her kingdom against her – a fact that surely she must have realized prior to the marriage. ! He also sees this as ambitious, for ‘Bothwell seemed to offer the best chance of stability’, which she must have hoped would aid her as a Queen. In the terms of Mary’s final, fatal attempt to be freed from her confinement by Mary, Guy sees this as foolish, but almost understandable – ‘You don’t imprison a woman like that, and expect her just to, you know, keep her composure… In her more desperate moments in captivity, she becomes increasingly a prisoner of her own imagination… it forces Mary to say ‘I’ve got to get out of here’ and from this point, she’s willing to listen to even desperate plots.’ This is understandable, and the reiteration that Guy has of Mary’s desperation and deteriorating mental condition is important in understanding his perspective upon her decision to entangle herself in a plot to kill Queen Elizabeth, and take over the English throne. He knows, and accepts her desperation – further fueled by her son James’ reply to a letter, he would not help her escape – may have had a huge part in her decision making, but also that she remained certain, throughout her imprisonment, that she deserved to be Queen over Elizabeth, for she ‘relished her role as Queen.’ Ultimately, ‘Her final reckless throw of the dice in 1558, endorsing a madcap plot in which not even the motives of the principals were clear, is a reflection of her desperation.’ And he says that ‘I’ve always maintained that Mary was the unluckiest Queen in British history’. Therefore, the perspective of the historian John Guy is that Mary was foolish, and ambitious, but there were other factors at play. Her desperation, and her natural human flaws amounted to decision making which caused her death, but at no point did she deserve her death. He understands that this decision to endorse the plot to kill Elizabeth was both foolish and ambitious, but to some degree recognizes that there was a reason behind it – no Queen, brought up in a pampered and luxurious world, could be expected to allow herself to submit to incarceration for the rest of her life. This perspective is fairly valid. John Guy has devoted his life to learning about tutor England, and so is well educated on the subject, so his perspective is likely to be historically accurate. He has written a large number of books, which concern primarily the tutor dynasty – including two, ‘Mary, Queen of Scots’ and ‘My Heart is My own’, which deal with Mary specifically. He was educated at the prestigious Cambridge University, in England, and studied under Geoffrey Rudolph Elton, who has dedicated his academic career to the Tutors. As a result, we can be sure that his perspective is well informed, and extensively and reliably researched – especially as it is published in a novel form, and so has to be fundamentally correct in order to go through the publishing process. However, this is not to say that his perspective is fully reliable. Pertaining in particular to his perspective upon Mary’s marriage to Bothwell (chiefly in the fact that Mary allowed herself to be ‘seduced’ by him), his point is quite different to other historians, and he seems to have skipped over some evidence in order to prove his point. Therefore, his perspective must be treated with caution, because it is both a quite personal approach, and also because, as a historian, it is his job to find the different perspective and publish it, as a selling point. Because Guy is a later commenter upon the life of Mary, his perspective is able to be well supported by a large amount of evidence which has come to life over the years, but simultaneously, this allows his to be swayed by the perspectives and ideas of other historians, which may change the validity of this perspective. Second Perspective: Linda Porter

Like John Guy, Linda Porter too is a Historian who has spent much time researching and analyzing the life of Mary, Queen of Scots. However, some aspects of her perspective upon whether Mary was a foolish and ambitious woman who deserved to be executed contrast to Guy’s. Pertaining to her marriage with Lord Darnley, she writes that ‘It has been suggested that Mary was already aware of his failings…before the marriage ceremony. Despite this, she decided to go ahead…the dynastic imperative was too strong to be resisted.’ This implies – contrary to Guy’s perspective that Mary was merely ignorant of Darnley’s flaws – that Mary was foolish in marrying Darnley, for she already had to some extent anticipated some problems. But it also shows that Porter views Mary as extremely ambitious, for her marriage to Darnley was dynastically advantageous, and would bring her closer to acquiring the English throne – regardless of the devastating consequences it may bring. Furthermore, she writes that ‘Mary believed that it would give her freedom to rule Scotland as she saw fit, without being constantly beholden to Elizabeth, while at the same time strengthening her claim to the English throne’, which only adds to the idea that Mary was ambitious, and was prepared to do anything to reach the English throne. This is quite contrary to Guy’s view, his perspective upon Mary’s marriage to Darnley is that it was one fueled by lust. No such thing is spoken of in Porter’s account. Yet interestingly, Porter does not view Mary’s return to Scotland after her childhood in France as an example of her ambition - ‘Mary had never intended to use her return to Scotland merely as a stepping stone to the throne of England.’ Therefore, one can assume that Porter believed that Mary actually cared about her role as queen of Scotland, and was not merely set on stealing the English throne from her cousin, Elizabeth. Indeed, ‘The romantic Hollywood image of a pretty woman who allowed her heart to rule her head does Mary Stewart a great injustice. She worked hard…’, and therefore in matters of state was not foolish, but rather Porter sees Mary as an astute and able leader and queen. Porter’s perspective upon Mary’s marriage to Bothwell is also very different from Guy’s – and she shares the perspective with many other historians. ‘This is not the stuff of one of history’s great romances but a sordid episode of kidnap and rape, of the desperation of a queen regnant trying to keep her throne and the last vestiges of her honor’ She sees the marriage as neither foolish, nor ambitious, but desperate. She adds that Mary did not consent to hide away with Bothwell after Darnley’s murder, for ‘She was now Bothwell’s prisoner and he was determined that she would become his wife, whether she liked it or not. And so he raped her.’ The marriage too is not viewed as ambitious because ‘Mary gave in and agreed to the marriage. ‘As it is succeeded,’ she agreed wearily, ‘we must take the best of it.’ This is not the expression of a woman in love.’ Therefore, in this case, Porter views Mary as a woman put into a situation where she was forced into marriage, and thus was not to blame for the aftermath, but can be considered a victim. This perspective continues on, where Porter says that Mary’s decision to flee to England following her escape from confinement ‘was a disastrous misjudgment’. This too is not portrayed as a foolish move, for how was Mary – a woman who had exchanged friendly, even loving letters with her cousin Elizabeth for most of her life – to know of Elizabeth’s true feelings, that she felt threatened by the Scottish queen? The perspective is thus that Mary was not foolish but ignorant and naïve to trust in a monarch who had never caused her to think any differently. Like Guy, Porter sees Mary’s last desperate bid for freedom as neither ambitious or foolish, but a result of desperation: ‘The passage of time, which must have sat so slowly on Mary’s hands, turned a queen who had pleaded for help…into a plotter against her cousin’s life. There was not, eventually, any other way out.’ Essentially, she sees Mary as a victim, and as a naïve and unlucky woman who placed far too much trust into others, not a woman who deserved to die in the manner that she did. Linda Porter’s perspective is that of a modern historian, and so she is well supported by years of research into the life of both Mary and Elizabeth. She is well educated – studying at Walthamstow Hall School in Sevenoaks and at the University of York, where she achieved a doctorate in History. She has written three books concerning Mary the first of England, Mary, Queen of Scots, and Katherine Parr – which shows that her abilities to research and present a valid perspective are valid and proven. Her perspective upon Mary is quite similar to many other historians’ – and although her perspective upon Bothwell and Mary’s marriage does differ from some – John Guy especially – she backs this perspective up with sufficient evidence. Again, her perspective is highly

personal – and one could even go as far as to infer that she is slightly biased upon Mary’s behalf because of her gender (female) and understanding of the situation that Mary, as a female ruler, would have been placed in as Queen. Regardless, Porter seems to be well researched, and well educated, with her perspective well backed up by sufficient and reliable evidence – leading me to conclude that her perspective is fairly valid.

Third Perspective: Antonia Fraser Antonia Fraser is a historian who also displays quite a different view of Mary, Queen of Scots, when compared to other historians of her time. In particular, her perspective upon Mary’s marriage to Bothwell contradicts Porter’s perspective that Mary was forced into the marriage, and lies far more in line with Guy’s view that the marriage was for ambitious purposes. She first writes that ‘It is sometimes suggested that Mary found a sexual satisfaction with Bothwell…This may or may not be true: it can certainly never be proved, since the queen herself certainly never ventured any opinion on the subject, and to the end of her life always firmly attributed her marriage to Bothwell to reasons of state rather than the dictates of the heart’ This shows that Fraser does not believe Mary’s marriage to Bothwell was foolish, a result of lust, but rather purely for ambition, to secure her situation as queen. Again, she reiterates this, saying ‘It seems extremely doubtful whether they were the sort of couple who would have been drawn to each other if political considerations had not been involved.’ No comment is made as to whether Mary was raped, but no force is implied – instead, Fraser’s perspective is that this move by Mary was intended to secure her position as a monarch, and to strengthen her claim to the English throne. Yet, she does not believe that Mary’s decisi...