September 7, 1571: Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk is arested for his role in the Ridolfi Plot.

Tags

4th Duke of Norfolk, Elizabeth Tudor, Mary I of Scotland, Mary Stuart, Pope Pius V, Queen Elizabeth I of England and Ireland, Ridolfi Plot, Thomas Howard

The Ridolfi plot was a plot in 1571 to assassinate Queen Elizabeth I of England and replace her with Mary I, Queen of Scots. The plot was hatched and planned by Roberto Ridolfi, an international banker who was able to travel between Brussels, Rome and Madrid to gather support without attracting too much suspicion.

Background

Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk, a cousin of Queen Elizabeth’s and the wealthiest landowner in the country, had been proposed as a possible husband for Mary I, Queen of Scots since her imprisonment in 1568. This suited Norfolk, who had ambitions and felt Elizabeth persistently undervalued him. In pursuit of his goals, he agreed to support the Northern Rebellion, though he quickly lost his nerve. Norfolk was imprisoned in the Tower of London for nine months and only freed under house arrest when he confessed all and begged for mercy. Pope Pius V, in his 1570 papal bull Regnans in Excelsis, excommunicated the Protestant Elizabeth and permitted all faithful Catholics to do all they could to depose her. The majority of English Catholics ignored the bull, but in response to it, Elizabeth became much harsher towards Catholics and their sympathisers.

Plot

Roberto Ridolfi, a Florentine banker and ardent Catholic, had been involved in the planning of the Northern rebellion and had been plotting to overthrow Elizabeth as early as 1569. With the failure of the rebellion, he concluded that foreign intervention was needed to restore Catholicism and bring Mary to the English throne, and so he began to contact potential conspirators. Mary’s advisor, John Lesley, the Bishop of Ross, gave his assent to the plot as the way to free Mary.

The plan was to have the Duke of Alba invade from the Netherlands with 10,000 men, foment a rebellion of the northern English nobility, murder Elizabeth, and marry Mary to Thomas Howard. Ridolfi optimistically estimated half of all English peers were Catholic and could muster in excess of 39,000 men. Norfolk gave verbal assurances to Ridolfi that he was Catholic, though as a pupil of John Foxe, he remained a Protestant all his life. Both Mary and Norfolk, desperate to remedy their respective situations, agreed to the plot. With their blessing, Ridolfi set off to the Continent to gain Alba, Pius V, and King Felipe II of Spain’s support.

List of co-conspirators

Ridolfi’s co-conspirators, some of them mentioned above, played an important role in the plot to overthrow Elizabeth:

Don Guerau de Espés: Spain’s ambassador to England, who was expelled after the discovery of his involvement. Elizabeth had raised her concerns about de Espés’ behaviour with Anna of Austria.

John Lesley: the Bishop of Ross, who was Mary Stuart’s chief agent; he arranged meetings and delivered letters for Mary during her house arrest.

Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk, who was Queen Elizabeth I’s second cousin. He was to marry Mary Queen of Scots and together with her restore Catholic rule to the English and Scottish thrones. After the plot was discovered he was given a day-long trial that ended with his execution.

Mary, Queen of Scots: after it became clear that Elizabeth I was not going to restore her to the Scottish throne or return her to France, Mary plotted for her freedom. She wrote to Ridolfi denouncing the French and soliciting Spanish aid, while simultaneously professing friendship and loyalty to Elizabeth I and England. Giving her consent to the plot in March 1571, her role was to marry the Duke of Norfolk, with the plan that when the troops arrived in London she would be returned to the Scottish throne. However, when the plot was uncovered, her deep involvement in it altered Elizabeth’s opinion of Mary; Elizabeth never spoke of restoring her to the throne again.

King Felipe II of Spain, who welcomed Ridolfi to court and, with the council, discussed the plot’s pros and cons. He supported overthrowing Elizabeth and later came to support the assassination. Felipe, however, disapproved of the papal bull against Elizabeth because, according to Cyril Hamshere, he feared it would “prompt Elizabeth to take reprisals against Catholics.”

Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba, who was the leader of the Spanish army stationed in the Netherlands and was to lead more than 10,000 men to Harwich or Portsmouth. His army was to invade England and make its way to London to establish Mary on the throne, while either detaining or assassinating Elizabeth I.

Pope Pius V, who made Ridolfi his papal agent in England in 1567. Pius was not only aware of the plot but gave his written approval in a letter for Ridolfi to take to Felipe II.

Discovery

In 1571, Elizabeth’s intelligence network was sending her information about a plot against her life. By gaining the confidence of Spain’s ambassador to England, John Hawkins learned the details of the conspiracy and notified the government so as to arrest the plotters. Elizabeth was also sent a private warning by Cosimo I de’ Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany, who had learned of the plot against her. Charles Baillie, Ridolfi’s messenger, was arrested on about April 12, 1571 at Dover for carrying compromising letters, and by the use of torture and prison informers such as William Herle, he was forced to reveal the cipher of the messages he carried.

On August 29, 1571, Norfolk’s secretaries William Barker and Robert Higford entrusted to Thomas Browne, a Shrewsbury draper, what was purported to be a bag of silver coin for delivery to Laurence Bannister, one of Norfolk’s officials in the north of England. Browne grew suspicious of the bag’s weight, opened it, and discovered 600 pounds in gold from the French ambassador, destined for Scotland on Mary’s behalf, and ciphered letters.

Because he knew Norfolk was under suspicion, Browne reported his find to William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley, the Secretary of State. Higford and Barker were interrogated, the letters were partly deciphered, and a search for the cipher key at Howard House uncovered a ciphered letter from Mary Stuart hidden under a doormat.

Norfolk’s servants were arrested and interrogated, and confessions were extracted from them by threats or application of torture. Sir Thomas Smith and Thomas Wilson were sent to confront Norfolk, who claimed the money was for his own private purposes. The deciphered letter, however, proved that he was lying. Unaware of his servants’ confessions or the survival of letters which, contrary to his instructions, had not been burnt, he denied the charges against him.

On September 7, the queen’s warrant for conveying him to the Tower of London arrived. Thereupon, the duke admitted a degree of involvement in the transmission of money and correspondence to Mary’s Scottish supporters. In January 1572, Norfolk was tried and convicted on three counts of high treason, and on June 2, he was beheaded on Tower Hill.
Guerau de Spes, the Spanish ambassador, was expelled from the country in January 1571. Still abroad when the plot was discovered, Ridolfi never returned to England; he became a Florentine senator in 1600.

Ridolfi’s role

Despite his plot’s ultimate failure, Roberto Ridolfi’s story is surprising and memorable. He’d played the relatively minor role of banker but nevertheless found himself at the centre of a major plot to overthrow the English government. Ridolfi had been jailed in 1568 because of a rumour that he had distributed money to dissenting nobles associated with the Northern Rebellion.

The Pope did, in fact, give him 12,000 crowns for that purpose, but Ridolfi was released in 1570 because no evidence could be found to incriminate him. Even after his arrest and release, Ridolfi remained a spy for the Pope. Ridolfi’s banking connections helped him become acquainted with the Duke of Norfolk, and he became a supporter of a marriage between Norfolk and Mary, Queen of Scots, who would, if the plot succeeded, rule England and reinstate Catholicism there.

After Norfolk’s release from prison in August 1570, Ridolfi “picked up the broken threads of Catholic intrigue”. Ridolfi was in an advantageous position to orchestrate a Catholic rebellion in England, since he was employed by the Pope, France, and Spain, and had ties to the Catholic contingent in England. He could use banking as an excuse to travel among these groups for the purpose of conspiring. When he travelled to mainland Europe to King Felipe II and the Pope of the plot, it is believed that he was still working for Elizabeth.

The Duke of Alba, the Spanish Viceroy in the Netherlands who was to lead the attack on England, felt Ridolfi was too garrulous to be the leader of a conspiracy, but Spanish Ambassador Don Guerau de Spes described Ridolfi as “A person of great truth and virtue and an intimate friend of mine.” Ridolfi’s talkative nature did eventually cause him trouble, as he was not very discreet and trumpeted his plan all over Europe. His boasting was partially responsible for the plot’s failure, as he told it to Cosimo I de’ Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany who immediately informed Elizabeth of the plot. Ridolfi escaped execution, unlike some of his co-conspirators, and lived until 1612.

Modern criticism

According to historian Cyril Hamshere, retrospective critics of the conspiracy cited a number of reasons why the Ridolfi Plot would have been doomed to fail even if it had not been discovered prematurely. For one, the small number of Spanish soldiers (between 6000–10,000) would have been absurdly inadequate to the task of overthrowing the English government. Additionally, the vagueness of the invasion point was a logistical shortcoming.

The plan was to land at either Harwich or Portsmouth, but Ridolfi apparently did not know exactly where Harwich was. Also dubious was Ridolfi’s reliance on the Duke of Norfolk, who was regarded as a bad leader and was not even a Catholic. This did not make him an ideal co-conspirator, but, according to Hamshere, “his main merit lay in his title: in 1571 he was the only Duke in England”.

Norfolk’s Protestantism was but one irony of the Ridolfi Plot: Norfolk and Mary I, Queen of Scots had each been married three times before their proposed marriage to each other. Pope Pius was, apparently, willing to grant Mary an annulment of her marriage to her imprisoned husband, but the notion of two thrice wed royals leading England back to Catholicism is somewhat problematic, nonetheless.

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.

Abdication and what to call former Monarchs? Part I

Tags

Abdication, Deposed, Deposition, Duke of Windsor, Edward VIII, European Monarchy, European Royalty, James II-VII of England, King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, Mary Queen of Scots, Mary Stuart

On December 11, 1936 King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland abdicated the throne for the woman he loved. His abdication created something unique within the context of former sovereigns.

HRH The Duke of Windsor, former King Edward VIII

Abdication, although relatively rare, has occurred through the history of the various European monarchies. Abdication is different from when a monarch is deposed although there are times when the differences are are a bit fuzzy.

Deposed vs Abdication

The word abdication is derived from the Latin abdicatio meaning to disown or renounce (from ab, away from, and dicare, to dedicate or relinquish). In its broadest sense abdication is the act of renouncing and resigning from any formal office, but it is applied especially to the supreme office of state.

Deposition by political means concerns the removal of a politician or monarch. It may be done by coup, impeachment, invasion, or forced abdication. The term may also refer to the official removal of a clergyman, especially a bishop, from ecclesiastical office.

It would be easy to differentiate between the two terms if abdication was simply defined as a monarchs willingness to relinquish their thrones and power. However, the terms become somewhat muddied and synonymous when a deposition occurs as a forced abdication. Mary I, Queen of Scots was forced to abdicate in favour of her one-year-old son James. For myself, in the name of simplicity, I view abdication as a willing or unwilling relinquishment of power through official and legal means by signing a document that is acknowledged by the government.

Edward VIII is a classic example of that. Mary I, Queen of Scots is an example of a forced abdication and yet at the same also meets the definition of a deposition. James II-VII of England, Scotland and Ireland is a prime example of being deposed. Troops were at his door and he fled the country. Of course being assassinated or murdered in a coup fits the definition of a deposition.

Haven gotten that out of the way, the real topic is what to call or title a monarch that has abdicated and/or been deposed? This is where the uniqueness of Edward VIII comes into play. When Edward VIII abdicated he lost his Royal style and title and was downgraded. This was an unusual occurrence for prior to his abdication the majority of former monarchs retained their titles.

Over the next few postings we will examine the abdication of several monarchs and what they were called after their reign was over. We will start with Edward VIII with the next post.