The DUNBAR ABDUCTION by BOTHWELL - 24 April 1567 Author Alison Weir has a good review of this event that aides in factoring out the mystery. It is not chronologically written so it may be difficult to follow but there are many very diligent points of argument. See her book Murder of Darnley p.394-407. Some factors that would evidence that Marie Queen of Scots/MQS was NOT aware of the Bothwell abduction plans. (1) Lennox wrote to his wife Margaret on April 23rd that a source informed him that Bothwell intended to abduct MQS. Weir identifies that Bothwell probably conferred his plans to Maitland thinking that due to the Craigmillar Bond they were on the same team and did not want anyone on the ConLord team to interfere with the plan. (Weir p.396) Lennox had joined the QE1-Cecil team after KirkoField. QE1-Cecil were controlling their payroll spy Maitland. So it is conceivable that Maitland informed Lennox. Lennox at the time was actively working to depose MQS probably in hopes of becoming the granddad King. Therefore Lennox would not want MQS to know about the abduction plans. (2) After leaving Stirling Castle on April 23, MQS spent the night at Linlithgow. Weir reports that Bothwell made a stealth visit to Linlithgow at night and met with Huntly who refused to join Bothwell in the abduction plans. Huntly had also signed the Craigmillar Bond. That this information was from English spy Drury and recorded in the CSP - foreign. Huntly was traveling with MQS, if she was colluding in the abduction plan, Huntly would have agreed with it. However Drurys information can not always be trusted as accurate. (Weir p.397) (3) Author Weir discounts the so-called Paris (Nicholas Herbert) torture confession in which he through his torture scribe most likely Buchanan, recorded that Black Ormiston, a Bothwell servant, visited MQS at Linlithgow to convey the Bothwell abduction plan. Weir made a good point that if Bothwell wanted to include MQS in his plans, he would have conferred with her in Edinburgh before she left for Stirling Castle to visit her son on April 21st. (Weir p.397) (4) The abduction occurred April 24 near Almond Bridge. MQS had 30 men. Bothwell had 800 with drawn swords. Bothwell claimed that MQS should go with him due to danger awaited her at Edinburgh. MQS did not resist to prevent bloodshed and death. This is an believeable reaction as avoidance of bloodshed was her repeated strategy. Plus he had 800 men and she only 30. MQS then sent James Borthwick to alert Edinburgh she had been abducted by Bothwell. It is unlikely MQS would have sent Borthwick if she was in league with the Bothwell plan. Weir adds the detail though that Edinburgh was placed on alarm - (a) the city bells were rung by the Provost (b) Castle Governor Skirling ordered that the Edinburgh Castle cannons were to be shot at Bothwells men but they missed (c) a rescue posse of armed city men set out on foot to rescue MQS but being on foot they were unable to catch up with Bothwells riders. (Weir p.399) It is unlikely MQS would have sent Borthwick to Edinburgh knowing that cannonfire could have been the outcome. She would have expected the alarm bells and the rescue posse. (5) Bothwell removed and dismissed MQS personal attendants, greater part of her train were removed. (Weir p.399) (6) Melville reported Bothwell boasted at Dunbar that he would marry MQS even if she did not consent He would marry the Queen who would or would not... (Weir p.399) (7) MQS then again sent secretly for a rescue party. She sent a message to the governor of Dunbar town, but no one responded. The source of this information came from the CSP Spanish. (Weir p.399) (8) MQS had already rejected Bothwells marriage proposal previous to the Dunbar abduction. Both Maitland on QE1s payroll and justice clerk John Bellenden, identified by the Popes nuncio as dangerous to MQS, had attempted to persuade her to change her mind. Bellenden had aided the ConLords in the creation of the 1st Treaty of Edinburgh in 1560 and officiated at the crowning of baby Prince James VI in 1567 to unseat MQS. (Weir p.398) (9) Bothwell at Dunbar produced the Ainslie Tavern Bond in which the majority of the Scots Lords & Bishops had signed encouragement for her to wed Bothwell. (Weir p.400) It is likely this was the 1st MQS had seen the Bond, It was signed April 19th and she left for Stirling on April 21st. If the Lords signing the Bond believed they were drunk or under pressure they could have rescinded their signatures the next day. No one did. Many of the signatured were involved in the Carberry overthrow 2 months later. (10) That MQS continued to refuse to wed Bothwell even after being presented with the Ainslie Bond. The rape occurred that night after the 3rd refusal. (Weir p.400) Recall that Janet Beton the Witch of Buccleugh, was present at Dunbar during the abduction as well as in Holyrood during the Darnley funeral when we believe Bothwell drugged MQS and raped her with the assist of Janet. Janet later boasted that she had aided Bothwell with witchcraft. (11) MQS in a letter to the Bishop of Dunblane: Seeing them upon whose counsel and fidelity we had before depended already wielded to his appetite, and so we left alone, as it were a prey to him, many things we RESOLVED WITH OURSELF, but never could find a way out. Never a man in Scotland making a move to procure our deliverance (Weir p.400) She had sent 2 messages requesting rescue - one to Edinburgh and another to Dunbar and no one to her observance, had responded. (12) Bishop Leslie later stated that she feared some new and fresh stir and calamity if she should refuse (Weir p.400) (13) Weir makes a very succinct point - there was NO reason to stage the abduction to support the Bothwell marriage in a public demonstration of rape. The Scots Lords and Bishops had already given their signatured consent to the marriage !!! (Weir p.404) (14) Weir states that the strongest evidence is from her enemies themselves - the ConLords. That after Carberry and imprisionment of their Sovereign at Lochleven - in 20 December 1567 they passed a Parliament decree referring to the Bothwell abduction: She suspected no evil from any of her subjects and least of all from him. (Weir p.404) (15) Weir indicates that Casket Letter VI was noted by Cecil to be written with the intent to prove that the rape was planned. (Weir p.404-5) Weir gives convincing argument of the forgery of the Casket Letters in that Buchanan slanderously claimed MQS and Bothwell had planned the rape then contradicted himself in the Casket Letter VI by stating that the letter writer needed confirmation of the Bothwell plan. Cecil, who somehow was the only one who knew what dates the UNdated letters were to represent, according to Cecil this letter was written in the 3 days between MQS leaving Edinburgh on April 21 and the abduction on April 24. You had promised me... that you would send me word every day Weir further shows how Casket Letter VI and Letter VII contrdcit each other. In one (VI) the letter implies the unnamed Huntly was against the abduction plan and in the other (VII) that he was for the plan. (Weir p.406) (16) Weir aptly points out there was no need for the Casket letter correspondence - other than by QE1-Cecil and Moray team. The reason being MQS could have dialogued with Bothwell in Edinburgh on April 21st before she left for Stirling Castle. And Huntly conversed secretly with Bothwell at Linlithgow on April 23rd. Huntly could have further communicated with MQS with Bothwell updates that night if they wanted her to be included in their plots. (Weir p.406) (17) Maitland wrote Cecil that he was in fear of his life during the abduction by Bothwell to Dunbar. (Weir p.407)
Posted on: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 20:50:57 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015