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.

    43/224 (page 33)
    the prescribed degrees of kinship and having married without the requisite ecclesi¬ astical dispensation*. In such a case Bothwell’s wife was a “pretensit spouse” and could consent to the declaration of the nullity of the marriage. But while Bothwell was an undoubted libertine, he was also fanatically protestant. He refused to be present at mass, he was married to Lady Jane Gordon by a protestant service, and he insisted on being married to Mary by the same ceremony. What is meant in this document by both parties promising to “compleit the Band of Matrimonie in Face of holy Kirk”? I cannot find that the term “in Face of Holy Church ” was ever used by the Scottish protestants. In their acts and documents it is always “The Kirkf,”and “the true religion.” It seems therefore as if Bothwell in this document were promising to be married by the ceremony of the Catholic Church, a proceeding he had the strongest objection to. To sign such a document seems inconsistent with all we know of Bothwell. He would not attend mass at the conferring of the Order of the Cockle on Darnley (Feb. 10, 156G); nor would he be married to Lady Jane Gordon by any but a Reformed minister, and a protestant ceremony must be used even against Mary’s strongest feelings in May, 1567. It cannot be overlooked that if Bothwell was a ruffian, he was also a bigot. Buchanan in his desire to prove the deceit of Mary overrides his goal in com¬ menting on this supposed contract of April 5. After pointing out that it preceded Bothwell’s acquittal, he is so desirous of showing up Mary’s guilt in pledging herself to a married man that he writes j: Alswa it appeiris be the Wordis of the Contract itself, that it was maid befoir Sentence of Diuorce betwix Bothwell and his former Wyfe, and alswa in verray Treuth was maid befoir ony Sute of Diuorce intentit or begune betwene him and his former Wyfe, thocht sum Wordis in this Contract seme to say utherwyse. Quhilk is thus prouit; for this Contract is daitit ye v of Apryll and it planely appeiris, be the judiciall Actis befoir the twa seuerall Ecclesiastical! ordinarie Judges, quhairin is contenit the haill Proces of the Diuorce betweene the said Erie and Dame Jane Gordon his Wyfe, that the ane of the same Processis was intentit and begune the xxvi Day of Apryll and the uther the xxvii §. The word “begune” is certainly remarkable, but not the word “intentit” unless it had a legal meaning in Scotland in those days. Mary, Huntly and Bothwell may have “intentit” and even arranged with Lady Jane Gordon a divorce as early as * A dispensation has since been found in the Sutherland muniment room (see John Stuart: A Lost Chapter in the History of Mary Queen of Scots recovered. Edinburgh, 1874) but its authen¬ ticity has been recently disputed. + It is the “Judgment of the Kirk” and “the Kirk which is slaundered.” Occasionally I find “the Kirk of God.” $ Detectio, loc. cit., p. 96. Here Buchanan is only following Moray who, in exhibiting the document at the Conference at Westminster, Dec. 7, 1568, made precisely the same comment. The minutes of this meeting are in the State Paper Office [State Papers (Mary Queen of Scots), Yol. ii. p. 805, Nos. 60—61], and have been published by Hosack: Mary Queen of Scots and her Accusers. Edinburgh, 1869, pp. 551-552. § The suits begun on these days were ended, that in the Consistorial Court for adultery on May 3, and that in the Archbishop’s Court for nullity on May 7. If this document were genuine, May 5, and not April 5, would be a reasonable date for it. Huntly who, Buchanan states, drew up the Contract was a Catholic, and for him, as for Mary, only the decision of May 7 would be valid. 3