Conflict and Exploration in Elizabeth's Reign (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes
Mary Queen of Scots – Plots and Execution
Context and Mary's position
Mary Queen of Scots arrived in England in 1568 as a refugee after her forced abdication in Scotland. She became a prisoner of Elizabeth I, remaining in captivity for nearly two decades. During this period, Mary represented a persistent alternative claimant to the English throne, making her the focal point for Catholic conspiracies and foreign intervention.
Imprisoned monarchy refers to Mary's unusual status as a deposed queen held in England, simultaneously a guest, a prisoner, and a potential threat to Elizabeth's rule. Her presence created ongoing diplomatic and security challenges for the Elizabethan government.
Mary's confinement changed location several times. Initially held near the Scottish border, she spent years at Sheffield Castle under the guardianship of the Earl of Shrewsbury and his wife, Bess of Hardwick. Later, she was transferred to Tutbury Castle in Staffordshire, placed under the custody of Sir Amyas Paulet, a stern Puritan known for his uncompromising approach.
Rebellion of the northern earls, 1569
The Spanish ambassador, De Spes, maintained contact with both Mary Stuart and disaffected English noblemen, actively encouraging rebellion against Elizabeth. Spanish troops stationed in the Netherlands (under Spanish rule) could potentially intervene to support an uprising, though the Duke of Alva refused to commit forces until English rebels had demonstrated their strength through action.
The Duke of Norfolk became central to the conspiracy. He resented the dominance at court of Elizabeth's Chief Secretary, William Cecil, particularly as his own family was losing influence. Norfolk plotted with other noblemen opposed to Elizabeth's government. The scheme included a proposal to marry Mary Stuart, which would position Norfolk as consort to a potential Queen of England.
The northern rebellion failed to gain substantial momentum. Although the Duke of Norfolk surrendered and other northern earls captured Durham before marching south, their forces dissolved when confronted by Elizabeth's army. The government responded with extreme severity: approximately 800 rebels, predominantly commoners, were executed by hanging.
Major Consequences of the Rebellion
The rebellion produced two major consequences for Elizabeth's reign:
First, it enabled Elizabeth to assert firmer control over northern England, which had maintained semi-independent feudal structures. The Council of the North was reconstituted under the Puritan Earl of Huntingdon's leadership.
Second, the rebellion compelled Elizabeth and her government to treat Mary as an active security threat rather than merely a diplomatic complication. This shift in perception would shape policy for the next few years, particularly following the Papal Excommunication of 1570.
Ridolfi Plot, 1571
Roberto Ridolfi, a Florentine merchant resident in England, had participated in the plotting surrounding the 1569 rebellion. In 1571, he assumed a leading role in a new conspiracy to overthrow Elizabeth and install Mary, married to Norfolk, on the English throne.
William Cecil (now Lord Burghley) obtained intelligence about the plot through his network of informers, then gathered additional evidence through the use of torture. The scheme relied on correspondence between Mary and the Duke of Norfolk, and on the promise of Spanish military intervention. Norfolk was arrested, found guilty of treason, and sentenced to death.
Elizabeth initially hesitated to authorise Norfolk's execution. She signed the death warrant but later forced its recall when Parliament assembled in 1572. Elizabeth feared executing a duke would establish a dangerous precedent. However, under continued pressure from Parliament and her councillors, she eventually permitted Norfolk's execution, though she continued to refuse demands for Mary Stuart's death.
The Spanish ambassador, De Spes, was expelled from England following the exposure of his role in the conspiracy. Mary remained imprisoned, becoming an ongoing embarrassment to Elizabeth and a persistent source of concern. Had Elizabeth acceded to Parliament's wishes regarding Mary's execution, war with Spain would have been virtually inevitable whilst Elizabeth was still attempting to maintain peace through marriage diplomacy across Europe.
Changing circumstances in the 1580s
The political and religious landscape shifted markedly during the 1580s.
Papal Sanction for Assassination
A papal pronouncement in 1580 declared that anyone who assassinated Elizabeth with the 'pious intention' of advancing God's service would not sin but would 'gain merit'. This statement effectively sanctioned Elizabeth's murder in religious terms, transforming the nature of threats against her life.
Catholic priests joined by Jesuit missionaries entered England during the 1580s. The activities of Elizabethan seamen, mounting raids against the Spanish Empire, made armed conflict with Spain increasingly probable. From Mary's perspective, Spanish military intervention offered the best prospect of ending her imprisonment and securing the English throne.
Throckmorton Plot, 1583-84
Francis Throckmorton, an English Catholic, acted as an intermediary between Mary and the Spanish ambassador, Mendoza. However, Throckmorton was captured, tortured, and revealed details of the plot. Mendoza was expelled from England, bringing England and Spain to the brink of war.
Until 1585, Mary Stuart had been held in various locations, initially near the Scottish border and subsequently further south. For extended periods, she resided at Sheffield Castle under the Earl of Shrewsbury's guard, alongside his formidable wife. Mary was then moved to Tutbury Castle in Staffordshire, placed in the custody of Sir Amyas Paulet, whose Puritan convictions ensured rigorous supervision.
Babington Plot, 1586
The most substantial conspiracy was organised by Anthony Babington. He corresponded with Mary, outlining his plans, and Mary responded with agreement.
Evidence of Mary's Active Involvement
Evidence from Mary's letter to Babington, dated 17 July 1586, demonstrates her active involvement:
"Everything being prepared, the six forces as well within as without ... then you must set the six gentlemen to work and give order that, their design accomplished, I may be in some way got away from there and that all your forces shall be simultaneously in the field to receive me while we await foreign assistance ... Now as no certain day can be appointed for the performance of the said gentlemen's enterprise, I desire them to have always near them ... four brave men well horsed to advertise speedily the success of their design, as soon as it is done, to those appointed to get me away from hence ..."
This correspondence was intercepted by Walsingham's secret agents. The conspirators were arrested and executed in September 1586. A special commission ruled Mary guilty in October 1586.
Despite substantial evidence, Elizabeth remained reluctant to authorise Mary's execution. The country was already engaged in war with Spain, and executing Mary would provide Spain with another justification for invasion. Spain was, in fact, already organising an invasion force.
For several months, Elizabeth delayed making a final decision. She viewed Mary as a family member and felt sympathy for the hardships Mary had endured. Moreover, Elizabeth exercised caution regarding the harsh treatment of a fellow female monarch, particularly one with a legitimate claim to the Scottish throne.
Politically, executing Mary was also problematic. She maintained close connections with the Guise family in France, making her potentially useful in countering French hostility to England, especially given the complicated marriage negotiations with the Dukes of Anjou and Alençon. These were, at best, weak justifications considering the substantial evidence that Spain and disaffected English Catholics had been plotting continuously since the late 1570s to place Mary on the throne.
Only when the evidence of Mary's complicity became apparently overwhelming did Elizabeth finally agree to sign the warrant authorising her cousin's execution.
Execution of Mary Stuart
In February 1587, Elizabeth signed the warrant but refused to allow its implementation. However, Elizabeth's second Secretary of State, William Davison, released the warrant, and Mary was executed at Fotheringay Castle.
Elizabeth reacted with fury. The Privy Council was blamed for permitting the execution, and Davison was fined heavily and imprisoned in the Tower. Nevertheless, Elizabeth's anger subsided, the Council was restored to favour, and Davison was released with his fine remitted.
Elizabeth wrote to James VI in Scotland, protesting her innocence regarding his mother's murder. James had no genuine intention of opposing England militarily. He had effectively become the probable heir to the English throne.
Eyewitness Account of the Execution
An eyewitness account sent to Lord Burghley described the execution in detail:
"Groping for the block, she laid her head, putting her chin over the block with both her hands, which, holding there still, would have been cut off had they not been seen. Then she, lying very still upon the block, one of the executioners holding her slightly with one of his hands, she endured two strokes of the other executioner with an axe, she making a very small noise or none at all, and not stirring any part of her from where she lay. And so the executioner cut off her head, save for one little gristle. Once cut asunder, he held up her head to the view of all the assembly and said, 'God Save The Queen'. Her lips stirred up and down a quarter of an hour after her head was cut off."
Historical Interpretation
The historian S. T. Bindoff offered this interpretation of Elizabeth's position: "Elizabeth never acted solely out of sentiment, and if she had earlier judged Mary's death a necessity, she would not have shrunk from its cruelty. When at last she yielded – although even then she left the final responsibility to others – the argument for Mary's death was overwhelmingly strong ... Mary living would be infinitely more dangerous than Mary dead. Justice had long demanded that Mary should die, but it was expediency not justice that sent her to her death in 1587."
Assessing the threat Mary posed
Following the narrative from Mary's problematic actions in Scotland during the 1560s through nearly two decades of imprisonment in England during which she became involved in various plots against Elizabeth, we can evaluate the extent of the threat Mary represented.
Mary had repeatedly demonstrated that she attracted potential rebellion against Elizabeth. Catholic supporters regarded Mary as the rightful queen. Her Catholicism meant she would probably receive support from Philip II and the Pope. Therefore, whilst Mary remained alive and imprisoned, she constituted a substantial threat to Elizabeth.
Counter-argument: The Inevitability of War
Conversely, it can be argued that events had been set in motion by early 1587. England was actively engaged in war with Spain, and a Spanish invasion of England was already being organised. Mary's execution provided Philip II with an additional justification, but the underlying threat from abroad had existed independently.
Mary's death did not eliminate speculation about the succession. Elizabeth had successfully managed succession anxieties for nearly thirty years and would continue doing so for another fifteen. It became increasingly accepted that Mary's son, James VI of Scotland and Protestant claimant, would eventually succeed to the throne.
In one respect, Mary's execution represented the final stage of the Reformation in England. Following Elizabeth's death, England would remain a Protestant country. The consequences of Mary's execution can be traced in various developments throughout this period.
Timeline: Mary Queen of Scots
| Year | Event |
|---|---|
| 1542 | Birth of Mary, only child of James V of Scotland who died one week later |
| 1548 | Taken to France to be educated at court |
| 1558 | Married Francis II (King of France from 1559) |
| 1560 | Death of Francis II |
| 1561 | Mary returned to Scotland |
| 1565 | Married Lord Darnley |
| 1567 | Murder of Darnley; Mary married Earl of Bothwell |
| 1568 | Mary forced to flee to England, becoming prisoner of Elizabeth |
| 1569 | Rebellion of northern earls |
| 1570 | Excommunication of Elizabeth – encouraged Catholics to support Mary |
| 1571 | Ridolfi Plot |
| 1583-84 | Throckmorton Plot |
| 1586 | Babington Plot |
| 1587 | Execution of Mary |
Key Points to Remember:
-
Mary Queen of Scots remained imprisoned in England from 1568 to 1587, serving as a focal point for Catholic conspiracies and foreign intervention throughout this period.
-
Four major plots threatened Elizabeth's rule: the Rebellion of the Northern Earls (1569), the Ridolfi Plot (1571), the Throckmorton Plot (1583-84), and the Babington Plot (1586), each involving varying degrees of Spanish support and domestic Catholic participation.
-
Elizabeth demonstrated sustained reluctance to execute Mary, delaying for months after the Babington Plot despite overwhelming evidence, influenced by personal sympathy, political calculation, and concerns about executing an anointed monarch.
-
The Papal Excommunication of 1570 and the papal pronouncement of 1580 (which stated that assassinating Elizabeth would 'gain merit') transformed the religious and political context, making Catholic plots against Elizabeth more likely and ideologically justified.
-
Mary's execution in February 1587 removed a persistent security threat but occurred when war with Spain was already inevitable, with the Spanish Armada already being organised, meaning her death provided additional justification rather than causing the conflict.