Being young and inexperienced in dealing with such turbulent nobles as
then surrounded her throne, and having extremely few persons in whom she
could venture to put her trust, she at first allowed herself to be
influenced in her method of government by her half-brother, the Lord
James. Now, Lord James, as is commonly admitted by the best historians,
hoped to work his way to the Scottish throne, despite his illegitimacy,
and naturally he was anxious to overthrow every power that would prove
an obstacle to the advancement of his cause. Besides, he had his eye
fixed on the Earldom of Moray, which had for some time been controlled
by Huntly. The obstacle could be removed, and the Earldom gained, if
Huntley could be "worried" into war, and then overthrown by the
authority of the Queen. Three most significant things are
certain,--that Lord James acquired the Earldom of Moray (hence his title
of Earl of Moray) immediately that Huntly and his house were ruined;
that he attempted, without Mary’s knowledge, to procure the execution of
Huntly’s son, George, whose life had been spared, but who had been
placed in ward at Stirling; and that the Gordons never after acted
towards the Queen as if they held her responsible for the injuries they
had suffered, but, on the contrary, gave ample proof that they
considered Moray the responsible party. However, if Mary thought no
danger threatened her from the Gordon country, she could not be excused
for allowing herself to be made the instrument of Lord James’ ambition
in so grave a matter.
The fact is, the unfortunate tragedy was the result of an old and bitter
enmity between Huntly and the Lord James. The hated enemy came,
confident in the support of royal authority, which he almost fully
controlled, and committed acts that exasperated the proud Highland Earl,
and drove him into rebellion--for to oppose Lord James in these
circumstances was to resist the Queen. As far as Mary was concerned,
religion had as little to do with the overthrow of the Gordons as it had
to do with the execution of Chastellar.
Her conversation with Knox in which she is said to have revealed a state
of religious doubt, is, to my mind, a proof of her polemical cleverness.
She takes Knox on his own principle of private judgment and delicately
shows him that it cannot satisfy her mind--that it cannot raise her
above doubt. Knox tells her one thing; her uncle, the Cardinal, tells
her another; whom is she to believe? She was setting a snare for Knox,
which he could not escape, except by acknowledging an authority in
religion that rested on a sounder foundation than either his or the
Cardinal’s opinion.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account