Sunday, May 23, 2010
Question from Elizabeth M - Mary QOS' options for dealing with Darnley
I am wondering about Mary, Queen of Scots and her options to be rid of her degenerate spouse, Lord Darnley. She could not get a divorce based on their close relationship, being first cousins, or because they married before the Papal dispensation arrived, because that would have made her son, James, illegitimate. She and Darnley could not legally separate, because then neither could remarry. And the law in Scotland then had no provision for charging a king with treason (even though he deserved it, being an accomplice in the murder of Mary's secretary, David Rizzio, and the Queen being held captive immediately thereafter by the assassins, not to mention his correspondence with France and Spain in a possible aim to grab the Scottish crown for himself. My question is this--why could Mary not have, after Darnley had attended the christening of James (which she wanted him to attend, as there would be foreign ambassadors there and it would have been awkward to not have the baby's father attend)--why could Mary not have banished Darnley back to England and let Queen Elizabeth deal with him? Elizabeth would have been within the law to charge him with treason against England, as he married Mary without her permission, which he was supposed to get, being close in blood to the throne.