February 10, 1567: Assassination of Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, husband of Queen Mary I of Scotland.

Tags

Assassination, Conspiracy Theories, David Rizzo, Earl of Lennox, Elizabeth I of England, Henry Stuart, James VI-I of Scotland and England, John Knox, Kirk O’Field, Lord Darnley, Mary I of Scotland, Mary Queen of Scots, Mary Stuart, William Cecil

Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley Duke of Albany (December 7, 1545 – February 10, 1567), styled as Lord Darnley until 1565, was king consort of Scotland from 1565 until his murder at Kirk o’ Field in 1567. Many contemporary narratives describing his life and death refer to him as Lord Darnley, his title as heir apparent to the Earldom of Lennox, and it is by this appellation that he is now generally known.

He was the second but eldest surviving son of Matthew Stewart, 4th Earl of Lennox, and his wife Lady Margaret Douglas. Darnley’s maternal grandparents were Archibald Douglas, 6th Earl of Angus, and Margaret of England daughter of Henry VII of England and widow of James IV of Scotland. He was a first cousin and the second husband of Mary I, Queen of Scots, and was the father of her son James VI of Scotland, who succeeded Elizabeth I of England as King James I.

On February 3, 1565, Darnley left London and by February 12, he was in Edinburgh. On February 17, he presented himself to Mary at Wemyss Castle in Fife. James Melville of Halhill reported that “Her Majesty took well with him, and said that he was the lustiest and best proportioned long man that she had seen.” After a brief visit to his father at Dunkeld, Darnley returned with Mary and the court to Holyrood on February 24. The next day, he heard John Knox preach, and he danced a galliard with Mary at night. From then on, he was constantly in Mary’s company.

Darnley was his wife’s half-first cousin through two different marriages of their grandmother, Margaret Tudor, putting both Mary and Darnley high in the line of succession for the English throne. Darnley was also a descendant of a daughter of James II of Scotland, and so also in line for the throne of Scotland.

Despite protests from Elizabeth I of England, the marriage took place on July 29 1565, according to Roman Catholic rites in Mary’s private chapel at Holyrood, but Darnley (whose religious beliefs were unfixed – he was raised as a Catholic, but was later influenced by Protestantism) refused to accompany Mary to the nuptial Mass after the wedding itself.

The couple didn’t know one another when they wed and soon after the marriage be gan Mary became aware of Darnley’s vain, arrogant and unreliable qualities, which threatened the well-being of the state. Darnley was unpopular with the other nobles and had a violent streak, aggravated by his drinking. Mary refused to grant Darnley the Crown Matrimonial, which would have made him the successor to the throne if she died childless, despite the fact that he was in line to the Scottish throne. By August 1565, less than a month after the marriage, William Cecil heard that Darnley’s insolence had driven Lennox from the Scottish court. Mary soon became pregnant.

David Rizzo,was an Italian courtier, born close to Turin, a descendant of an ancient and noble family still living in Piedmont, the Riccio Counts di San Paolo e Solbrito, who rose to become the private secretary of Mary I, Queen of Scots. Mary’s husband, Lord Darnley, is said to have been jealous of their friendship, because of rumours that he had impregnated Mary, and joined in a conspiracy of Protestant nobles, led by Patrick Ruthven, 3rd Lord Ruthven, to murder him.

Mary was having dinner with Rizzio and a few ladies-in-waiting when Darnley joined them, accused his wife of adultery Mary, who was six months pregnant, was held at gunpoint when Rizzio, who was hiding behind The Queen, was stabbed 56 times on March 9, 1566 by Darnley and his confederates, Protestant Scottish nobles. The murder was the catalyst for the downfall of Darnley, and it had serious consequences for Mary’s subsequent reign. On March 27, , the Earl of Morton and Lord Ruthven, who were both present at Rizzio’s murder and had fled to England, wrote to Cecil claiming that Darnley had initiated the murder plot and recruited them, because of his “heich quarrel” and “deadly hatred” of Rizzio.

Mary and Darnley’s son James (the future King James VI of Scotland and I of England) was born on June 19, 1566 at Edinburgh Castle. He was baptised Charles James on December 17, 1566 in a Catholic ceremony held at Stirling Castle. His godparents were Charles IX of France, Elizabeth I of England and Emmanuel Philibert, Duke of Savoy. Mary refused to let the Archbishop of St Andrews, whom she referred to as “a pocky priest”, spit in the child’s mouth, as was then the custom.

Following the birth of James, the succession was more secure, but Darnley and Mary’s marriage continued to struggle. Darnley, however, alienated many who would otherwise have been his supporters through his erratic behavior. His insistence that he be awarded the Crown Matrimonial was still a source of marital frustration.

Assassination

During the weeks leading up to his death, Darnley was recovering from a bout of smallpox (or, it has been speculated, syphilis). He was described as having deformed pocks upon his face and body. He stayed with his family in Glasgow, until Mary brought him to recuperate at Old Provost’s lodging at Kirk o’ Field, a two-story house within the church quadrangle, a short walk from Holyrood, with the intention of incorporating him into the court again.

Darnley stayed at Kirk o’ Field while Mary attended the wedding of Bastian Pagez, one of her closest servants, at Holyrood. Around 2 A.M. on the night of 9–10 February 9-10, 1567, while Mary was away, two explosions rocked the foundation of Kirk o’ Field. These explosions were later attributed to two barrels of gunpowder that had been placed in the small room under Darnley’s sleeping quarters. Darnley’s body and the body of his valet William Taylor were found outside, surrounded by a cloak, a dagger, a chair, and a coat. Darnley was dressed only in his nightshirt, suggesting he had fled in some haste from his bedchamber.

Darnley was apparently smothered. There were no visible marks of strangulation or violence on the body. A post-mortem revealed internal injuries, thought to have been caused by the explosion. John Knox claimed the surgeons who examined the body were lying, and that Darnley had been strangled, but all the sources agree there were no marks on the body and there was no reason for the surgeons to lie as Darnley was murdered either way.

Length of Reigns of the Kings and Queens of Britain.

Tags

Conspiracy Theories, Elizabeth II, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of Scotland, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen Victoria, United Kingdom

Since today is the 117th Anniversary of the death of Queen Victoria, who used to be the longest reigning British Monarch, I would like to revisit the list of the reigns of all the British Monarchs (England, Scotland, Great Britain) to see where Her Majesty the Queen and other monarchs now stand.

1. Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain ~ 65 years 11 months 16 days

2. Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom of Great Britain ~ 63 years, 216 days
3. King George III of the United Kingdom of Great Britain ~ 59 years, 96 days
4. King James VI of Scotland ~ 57 years, 246 days*
5. King Henry III of England ~ 56 years, 30 days
6. King Edward III of England ~ 50 years, 147 days
7. King William I of Scotland ~ 48 years, 360 days
8. Queen Elizabeth I of England ~ 44 years, 127 days
9. King David II of Scotland ~ 41 years, 260 days
10. King Henry VI of England ~ 38 years, 185 days
11. King Æthelred II of England ~ 37 years, 362 days
12. King Henry VIII of England ~ 37 years, 281 days
13. King Alexander III of Scotland ~ 36 years, 256 days
14. King Malcolm III of Scotland ~ 35 years, 241 days
15. King Henry I of England ~ 35 years, 120 days
16. King Henry II of England ~ 34 years, 254 days
17. King Edward I of England~ 34 years, 229 days
18. King Alexander II of Scotland ~ 34 years, 214 days
19. King George II of Great Britain ~ 33 years, 125 days
20. King James I of Scotland ~ 30 years, 323 days
21. King James V of Scotland ~ 29 years, 96 days
22. King David I of Scotland ~ 29 years, 31 days
23. King Alfred the Great of England ~ 28 years, 185 days
24. King James III of Scotland ~ 27 years, 313 days
25. King George V of the United Kingdom of Great Britain ~ 25 years, 259 days
26. King James IV of Scotland ~ 25 years, 90 days
27. King Ædward the Elder of England ~ 24 years, 264 days
28. King Charles II of England and Scotland ~ 24 years, 253 days
29. Queen Mary I of Scotland ~ 24 years, 222 days
30. King Charles I of England and Scotland ~ 23 years, 309 days
31. King Henry VII of England ~ 23 years, 242 days
32. King Edward the Confessor of England ~ 23 years, 211 days
33. King James II of Scotland ~ 23 years, 164 days
34. King Robert I of Scotland ~ 23 years, 74 days
35. King Richard II of England ~ 22 years, 99 days
36. King James I of England and Scotland ~ 22 years, 3 days*
37. King Edward IV of England ~ 21 years, 211 days
38. King William I of England ~ 20 years, 258 days
39. King Edward II of England ~ 19 years, 197 days
40. King Robert II of Scotland ~ 19 years, 56 days
41. King Canute II of Denmark and England ~ 18 years, 347 days
42. King John of England ~ 17 years, 196 days
43. King Alexander I of Scotland ~ 17 years, 106 days
44. King Stephen of England ~ 17 years, 99 days
45. King Robert III of Scotland ~ 15 years, 350 days
46. King Edgar I of England ~ 15 years, 280 days
47. King Æthelstan of England ~ 15 years, 86 days
48. King George VI of the United Kingdom of Great Britain ~ 15 years, 57 days
49. King Henry IV of England ~ 13 years, 172 days
50. King William III-II of England and Scotland ~ 13 years, 23 days
51. King George I of Great Britain ~ 12 years, 314 days
52. King William II of England ~ 12 years, 327 days
53. King Malcolm IV of Scotland ~ 12 years, 199 days
54. Queen Anne of England and Scotland (Great Britain) ~ 12 years, 146 days
55. King George IV of the United Kingdom of Great Britain ~ 10 years, 148 days
56. King Ædred of England ~ 09 years, 181 days
57. King Henry V of Edward ~ 09 years, 163 days
58. King Edward VII of the United Kingdom of Great Britain ~ 09 years, 104 days
59. King William IV of the United Kingdom of Great Britain ~ 06 years, 359 days
60. King Edmund I of England 06 years, 211 days
61. King Edward VI of England ~ 06 years, 159 days
62. Queen Mary II of England and Scotland ~ 05 years, 318 days
63. Queen Mary I of England ~ 05 years, 121 days
64. King James II-VII of England and Scotland ~ 03 years, 309 days
65. King John Balliol of Scotland ~ 03 years, 236 days
66. King Ædwig of England ~ 02 years, 312 days
67. King Ædward the Martyr of England ~ 02 years, 253 days
68. King Harold I of England ~ 02 years, 126 days
69. King Canute III of England and Denmark ~ 02 years, 83 days
70. King Richard III of England ~ 02 years, 57 days
71. King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom of Great Britain ~ 00 years, 326 days
72. King Harold II of England ~ 00 years, 282 days
73. King Edmund II of England ~ 00 years, 221 days
74. King Edward V of England ~ 00 years, 78 days
75. King Edgar II of England ~ 00 years, 63 days

* James VI-I of England and Scotland. As King James VI of Scotland he ruled Scotland for 57 years. As King James I of England he ruled for 22 years.

Royal Grief…Part I

Tags

British Royalty, Conspiracy Theories, Duke of Edinburgh, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Edward VII, Emperor of Russia, grief, Hereditary Prince Alfred, History, Queen Victoria

 

With my interest in royalty I often peruse genealogy charts and biographies to look at the history and events in people’s lives to see if I can capture an accurate picture of who these people were and the times in which they lived. That is what I do when I wear the hat of an historian. I also have a background in psychology and despite having these high and lofty titles they are still human and can and do suffer all the ills associated with the human condition and that includes grief.

When I examine genealogy charts and notice that there are deaths that come close after one another I realize that certain royal family members may be caught up in grief. Often their biographies may detail their grief, as the case with Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom, however, there are times when nothing is mentioned. This past July I noticed that King Edward VII of the United Kingdom went through many losses in one year. I envision that it may have been a very difficult time for him.

In 1892 he lost his eldest son and heir, Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale (1864-1892) to pneumonia. It has been reported that Prince Albert Victor’s mother, Princess Alexandra, Princess of Wales (at that time) never fully recovered from her son’s death and kept the room in which he died as a shrine. This was typical of those in the Victorian era that made grief seem like an Olympic sport. I suspect that the future King Edward VII also never recovered from the death of his son…what parent ever truly recovers from such a tragedy?

However, it is the year 1899 that we turn to in examining the difficult year for Edward VII. On February 6, 1899 came the death of his nephew, HRH Alfred, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (October 15-February 9, 1899), the only son and  heir of HRH Prince Alfred, reigning Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Duke of Edinburgh and brother of King Edward VII. The Hereditary Prince’s mother was, Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna of Russia the fifth child and only surviving daughter of Emperor Alexander II of Russia and his first wife Princess Marie of Hesse and by Rhine.

The Hereditary Prince was aged 24 and his death was under circumstances still not entirely clear.Was it due to health reasons such as consumption or was it suicide? He is alleged to have secretly married Lady Mabel Fitzgerald, granddaughter of the 4th Duke of Leinster, and it has been claimed that this caused friction between young Prince Alfred and his parents and was the cause of his suicide. One report is that Alfred shot himself with a revolver while the rest of the family was gathered for the anniversary celebration of his parents marriage, January 23rd 1899. Prince Alfred survived the initial self-inflicted gun shot and was taken to Schloss Friedenstein in Gotha for three days before being sent to the Martinnsbrunn Sanatorium in Gratsch in the South Tyrol (Austria, now part of Italy). Alfred died there at 4:15 pm on February 9, 1899.

Technically this part of the story belongs more to the grief of the Duke and Duchess of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha than to Edward VII himself, after all, it wasn’t his son that died. I only relay this story here because it was the start of a string of deaths in the British Royal Family that would run from 1899 until August of 1901 that would have had an emotional impact on the future Edward VII.

In keeping my desire to have these posts be not too length and therefore easily digestible, I will stop here and post the next entry next Friday.

 

Legal Succession Part IV: Henry the Young King, Richard I & John

Tags

Angevin Empire, Conspiracy Theories, Eleanore of Aquitane, England, Henry II of England, Henry the Young King, King John of England, King Richard I of England, Kings and Queens of England, Philippe II of France, Plantaganet

Note: I failed to post this when I was doing this series. So in order for it all to be complete and online I will post this today.

The reign of Henry II (1154-1189) saw many battles for power amongst his sons. If you have ever seen the 1967 classic the Lion in Winter then you will understand what I mean. Also, for the first time, maybe the only time, we see a king crown his successor in his life time. It is also during this period that we see the succession of male prefered primogeniture start taking hold.

Henry married the formidable Eleanor of Aquitaine, the former wife of king Louis VII of France (1137-1180). Eleanor married Henry 1152 when she was about 30 years of age and he was 19. They had a large family, with Eleanor bearing Henry 5 sons and 3 daughters. The eldest son, William, died when he was only three leaving the next son, Henry, as heir to the English throne.

Henry has come down through history known as the Young King. Henry II crowned his son King of England in 1170. The practice was carried out in the Capetian Dynasty in France and Henry adopted this practice as a formal manner in establishing his heir. In 1172 Henry, called the Young King to distinguish him from his father, was crowned once more when he married Margaret d’Anjou, daughter of King Louis VII of france and his second wife, Constance of Castile.

Henry the Young King held his position for 11 more years but had a falling out with his father in 1182. The battles between Henry II and his sons have become the tales of legends and although these are not the focus of this blog entry they do play a role in the battle for the crown. Henry The Young King often struggled financially and had just raided a few monasteries to raise money for his campaign against his brothers when he died from dysentery at the age of 28. Although the Young King was crowned and anointed King of England but since he never ruled in his own right he is not counted or numbered among the kings of England.

When Henry II died in 1189 the throne passed to his eldest son who became Richard I of England known as famously as Richard the Lion Heart. Richard spent the majority of his time on Crusades and was rarely home in England. He married Berengaria of Navarre but had no issue leaving the succession in question once again. Historians claim that Richard was a homosexual although he did have one illegitimate son, Philip of Cognac, by an unidentified mother. In March of 1199 Richard had attacked the Castle of Chalus-Chabrol when he was shot in the neck by an arrow from a crossbow. The doctor mangled the surgery and the wound became gangrenous and Richard died on April 6, 1199. Before his death he had bequeathed all his lands, including the English Crown, to his brother John, a prince who was in constant rebellion toward his brother.

This would seem like a cut-and-dried legal succession but during these times the laws covering succession were not always clear. Richard did grant John his titles and this was in accordance of Norman Law. However, in the rest of the Angevin Empire which Henry II had established, the Law of Primogeniture was more in force and this left Arthur of Brittany as heir to the English throne. Arthur was the eldest son of Geoffery II, Duke of Brittany, who was the younger brother of Richard I, yet the older brother of John.

Phillippe II of France (1180-1223) placed his support behind Arthur for the English throne. Arthur, who was only 16 at the time (this was the reason he was by-passed for the throne, Richard considered Arthur too young) led forces into Maine and Anjou. However, nothing came of this and within a year Philippe II changed sides and signed a treaty recognizing John as the rightful ruler over the Angevin lands. Arthur was reconciled to John but in time grew suspicious of the English King. John never trusted his nephew and in time Arthur was captured by the Barons and imprisoned. By 1203 Arthur disappeared from history. No one knows what happened to Arthur but legend has it that he was murdered by King John himself and his body was tied to a rock and tossed into the Seine.

Was John a usurper? I guess it depends on the laws you adhere to. Richard did leave the Crown to him and in that manner his rule is legitimate in England. In the other French territories of the Angevin Empire, that were governed by the laws of male primogeniture, John could be considered a usurper. But one thing historians are unanimous over: John was a bad king.

Royal Conspiracy Theories

Tags

Conspiracy Theories, House of Hanover, James Francis Stuart, King George I of Great Britain, King James II of England, Kings and Queens of England, Marie-Beatrice of Modena, Scotland, The House of Stuart

Conspiracy theories. There are so many out there and the vast overwhelming  majority of them are pretty laughable. In the US we have people that deny that men landed on the moon and they think it was all fake. Many of the same folk think that Curiosity, the rover currently scouring the planet Mars, is also a fake. They believe hat the real rover is in Are 51 and through special effects these images are being broadcast around the world. There are people who believe that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the US Government. There even is a faction of 9/11 conspiracy theorists who think that there were not any planes that crashed into buildings on 9/11 and that the planes were added to film footage via special effects. Then we have the Birthers who think President Barrak Obama was born in Kenya and not the US. I also cannot forget the small minority of people who still think the Earth is flat and any picture that shows the Earth is round is being duped by NASA and the US Government. Google the Flat Earth Society. Crazy stuff! 

James II-VII of England and Scotland

I have come to learn through the years there have also been conspiracy theories in royal circles. Currently I am reading The Last of the Stuarts by James Lees-Milne. The book was published in 1983 and as I am reading it I discover that there are some conspiracy theories surrounding the last few heirs to the Stuart Dynasty. One of the more well known conspiracy theories is the theory of the “changeling,” that the Prince of Wales, Prince James Francis Stuart, son of King James II-VII of England and Scotland and his second wife Prince Marie-Beatrice of Modena, was smuggled into the palace in place of a still-born son. For centuries after this theory sprung forth an official minister from the government had to be present at the birth of all princes and princess in line for the throne.

England and Scotland were in difficult political times. The king was not popular and his Catholicism almost cost him his throne when he was the heir to his brother, Charles II. It was only the fact that his two surviving Protestant daughters would succeed him which lead to the king being tolerated. When his wife produced a healthy male heir who would undoubtedly be raised Catholic this sent in motion a crisis which lead to James II-VII being deposed. The interesting speculation at the time which added to the conspiracy theory was the thought that the Queen was never pregnant. One of the claims was that the King, who had fathered many children both legitimate and illegitimate, was incapable of fathering another child at the “ripe old age” of 55. Now to the modern ear 55 is not too old. However, in 1688 with health care not being what it is today and life expectancy at a much lower rate, there may have been some truth to this. Another aspect of the theory are the reports that Queen Marie-Beatrice, who had had several miscarriages and had been in poor health in the previous months prior to her becoming pregnant, was too ill and too old herself to conceive. The queen was only 30 at the time but it does raise the question of fertility and childbearing difficulties as women aged in the 17th century. In 1688 was it difficult for a woman in her 30s to conceive?

Queen Marie-Beatrice 

I really do not believe these theories but they are interesting to think about. One of the things punching a whole in this conspiracy theory is the fact that there are many original sources from those at court and ambassadors at other courts who had seen the queen did report that she was indeed pregnant. Also, the claims that the young Prince of Wales was a changeling sounds more like political propaganda espoused by those who were against the king than having any basis in reality.

Even the young Prince of Wales, claiming the throne of England and Scotland as James III-VIII,  had his own conspiracy theory. He was sure that he was the target of assassination by those close to and loyal to King George I of Great Britain.

James Frances, the Old Pretender

I see that conspiracy theories are part of the human condition and even royalty cannot escape this strange and odd phenomenon.