The skull and portraits of Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley, and their bearing on the tragedy of Mary, Queen of Scots / by Karl Pearson, F.R.S.; with frontispiece, forty-five plates, four figures in the text and six tissues of cranial contours.

  • Pearson, Karl, 1857-1936.
Date:
[1928]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The skull and portraits of Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley, and their bearing on the tragedy of Mary, Queen of Scots / by Karl Pearson, F.R.S.; with frontispiece, forty-five plates, four figures in the text and six tissues of cranial contours. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    41/224 (page 31)
    agree to set their hands to the band, saving only the Earl of Huntly* * * §. This all- important document has never been seen from that day to this, although it would have been the trump card could Moray have played it at Hampton Court. There is very little doubt that what the egregious three exhibited privately to Norfolk was a version of the Queen’s pardon to those who had signed the band; this was issued on May 14, the day before her marriage with Bothwell, and after the ravishment of April 25. This document runs: The Queene’s Majestie haveing sene and considderit the Band above writtine promittis in the Word of a Princess that she, nor her Successoris sail nevir impute as Cryme or Offence to any of the Personis Subscryveris thairof, thaire Consent and Subscriptioun to the Matter above written thairin contenit; nor that thai, nor thair Heires, sail nevir be callit nor accusit thairfor, nor zit sail the said Consent or Subscryviug be onie Derogatioun or Spott to thair Honor, or thai esteemit undewtifull Subjects for doing thairof, notwithstanding quhatsomevir Thing can tend or be allegeit in the contrarye t. It is clear that this pardon would apply equally well, and antedate the Ainslie’s Supper Band, if the month of May were changed to April. All that Elizabeth’s Commissioners say is that the Lords excused their conduct by presenting a Warrant of April 19 and a Pardon of May 14 “the one did license to doe, and the other seemed to discharge and pardone that was done];.” But if they had signed the band on a warrant to do so, the granting of a pardon seems unnecessary. Anyhow the warrant—the words of which are not cited—has never been seen since October, 1568, in York, although it would have been a most invaluable piece of evidence in Moray’s favour. There is little doubt that it was a doctored document, which could not be exhibited in the presence of Mary’s Commissioners. A somewhat similar juggle took place with regard to the contract of marriage with Bothwell. There are three such contracts. One of these, let us call it No. A, is undoubtedly genuine; it is given by Goodall§ as from an original in the “Royal Archives.” It is dated May 14, 1567. It is a perfectly straightforward legal document and has the names of 16 witnesses, besides the signatures of Marie R. and James Duke of Orkney. Among the witnesses who were present at the royal signing are Lord Lyndsay and Maitland of Lethington, both of whom within a few weeks turned first against Bothwell and then against Mary. This document is not the one that Moray produced. It would not have served his purpose to have a contract made on the day before the marriage, May 15. Moray first produced a contract No. B in French; this is without witnesses or date and is now in the Cotton Library, but the signature is distinctly not that of Mary, Queen of Scots, although it resembles it. There is nothing whatever to object to here, the Queen says “Et puis que Dieu a pris mon feu mary Henry Stuart dit Darnley, & que par ce moien je sois libre, n’estant sous obeissance de pere, ni * Anderson: Collections relating to the History of Mary, Queen of Scotland, Yol. iv. Part 2, p. 59. Letters of Norfolk, Sussex and Sadler to Queen Elizabeth. f Anderson’s Collections, Yol. x. p. 111. X Ibid. Vol. iv, Part 2, p. 59. § An Examination of the Letters, etc. of Mary, Queen of Scots, Edinburgh, 1754, Vol. n. p. 57.