An Air Force brat, Mageela landed in New York City and wanted to leave the same day she arrived. Yet, with her stubbornness, she learned to like the place and the libraries were the main reason. Learning to read at four-years-old, she decided to be an author and an actress. Good thing, she stuck with writing as her debut Highland Romance novel, THE MARRIAGE ALLIANCE, is due to be release by Secret Cravings in 2013.
Henry Tudor won the English crown at Bosworth and rode to London. A new dynasty reigned in England. For Tudor to hold the crown, a marriage was necessary. Elizabeth of York could transfer her claim to the crown to the man she married. Because there was another who could claim the throne, Elizabeth’s young cousin, the Earl of Warwick. The Earl was the son of Elizabeth’s uncle, the Duke of Clarence and his wife who were both dead, and the nobles could support this boy instead of Henry.
So Henry had to act. He had Elizabeth with the young Earl to be brought south to London. Henry entered the city on September 3, 1485 and proclaimed to the Privy Council “his intention of marrying Elizabeth of York.”
Now, Parliament had to act. They repealed the act that made Elizabeth and her siblings illegitimate and restored her royal status. She was also declared Duchess of York. With that seen to now a dispensation for marriage had to be obtained since Elizabeth and Henry had a “fourth degree of kinship.”
In the meantime, Henry claimed the throne by “right of conquest.” He “declared it was the true judgment of God, expressed in his victory at Bosworth. That gave him the crown by divine right.” No matter what he said, his support from the nobles would only come with the marriage and bring peace between the two house of York and Lancaster.
So, who was this man who brought the two houses together. Alison Weir writes in Elizabeth of York that Spanish ambassador described Henry Tudor as “there is nothing purely English in the English king’s face.”
Yet, noted in the same book, Henry was describe with more detail. “His body was slender but well-built and strong; his height above average. His appearance was remarkably attractive; his eyes were small and blue.” This king stood over six feet tall.
During the wait for the dispensation, Henry courted his royal betrothed with private meetings between the couple. But the courting didn’t stop Henry’s plans for his coronation.
On October 30, 1485, the coronation ceremony took place at Westminster Abbey. This displeased some nobles who believed that Henry should have only been king through his marriage to Elizabeth. The crown could be trasmit through the female line but would not wield sovereign power. This had happened since the royal houses of Plantagenet, York and now Tudor all possessed a claim through the female line.
No matter, this political marriage became a love match. Nobles spoke of the love between the couple and in December of 1485, the marriage date was set for January 18, 1486. It was reported that Henry held a “singular love” for Elizabeth.
From December 10 onward, Elizabeth was treated as the Queen of England as the royal preparations began.
With the wedding only four days away, Henry and Elizabeth presented a petition to the legate in chapel of Westiminster Abbey since the papal dispensation hadn’t reached the shores of England and a marriage was being demanded by the people. With their ordinary dispensation was granted to the couple.
The wedding day arrived and the royal couple were married at Westminster. Henry was 29 and Elizabeth 19.
The bride wore “a gown of silk damask and crimson satin.” It had a “kirtle of white cloth of gold damask and a mantle of the same suit, furred with ermine.” Her blonde hair hung loose and was “threaded with jewels, not the color of her clothes, that proclaimed her virginity.”
The groom was “attired in cloth of gold. Henry gave the queen a wedding ring of gold, that he purchased in December.
Return for the third part of Elizabeth and Henry’s love story and learn more about the marriage that was the only successful union of the Tudor dynasty .
Usually when I am selecting a historical costume to present for my Historical Costume blog series, I chose something for centuries ago and presented in a painting, usually a portrait.
This month is different. If you are a reader of my blog then you know that I studied fashion design at F.I.T. (Fashion Institute of Technology). Because of that connection and the fact that the museum is shut down because of this pandemic I decided to show the great fashions the museum possesses.
So for May 2020, the spotlight shines on this stunning red number and the female designer that doesn’t shine as bright on her legacy as it does on Coco Chanel (her biggest rival). That designer is Elsa Schiaparelli.
On September 10, 1890 Elsa Luisa Maria Schiaparelli was born in Rome to Maria Luisa, a Neapolitan aristocrat, and Celestine Schiaparelli, a scholar in the Islamic world and Middle Ages, who was Dean of University of Rome. Raising in this cultural and academic surroundings, Elsa developed a love of ancient cultures, its lore as well as its religious rites. She wrote a book of poems entitled Arethusa based on the ancient Greek myth of the hunt. But she had her wicked moments, which got her sent to a Catholic boarding school. No happy to be there, she held a hunger strike and was permit to leave.
Instead of returning home to Rome, Elsa headed to England for a job a friend arranged for her. Well, that didn’t work out but her life did change. While in England, she attended a lecture on theosophy–a philosophical or religious thought based on a mystical insight into the divine nature. The lecturer was Wilhem de Wendt, who went under various alias, and claimed to have psychic powers and numerous academic credentials. He claimed to be a detective, criminal psychologist, a doctor, lecturer, and even performed in Vaudeville. This man became Elsa’s husband on June 21, 1914. She was twenty-three and Wilhem was thrity.
Elsa began helping with his work, promoting his act. In 1915, the couple was forced to leave London when Wilhelm was convicted for practicing the then illegal fortune-telling. The couple made their way around France before departing for America in 1916.
In New York City, they rented out offices for their Bureau of Psychology, which was the same act they did in England. This caught the eye of the F.B. I. so Elsa and her husband headed to Boston to continue their “work.”
On June 15, 1920, the couple became a trio with the birth of their daughter, Maria Luisa Yvonne Radha was born. Gogo as she was called by her mother. Wilhelm abandoned the ladies. Then in 1921, Togo was diagnosed with polio. That same year, the mother and daughter returned to New York. A year later, mother and daughter sailed to France.
In France, Elsa’s friend, Gabrielle “Gaby” Buffet-Picabia, wife of Dada and Surrealist artist Francis Picabia, would bring her into a circle that would inspire Elsa for the rest of her days and became a major part of her style. She developed friendships with Man Ray, Marcel Duchamp, Alfred Stieglitz and Edward Stuckin.
Elsa now began making clothes. Couturier Paul Poiret (a major designer of early 19th century) encouraged her to open her business. Though she received favorable reviews her business closed in 1926.
Not one to give up, Elsa launched her new collection of knitwear in 1927. She used a special double layered stitch that Armenian refugees created and sweaters with surrealist trompe l’oeil images. The Pour le Sport collection expanded in 1928. It included bathing suits, ski-wear and linen dress. The business grew that in 1931 she added evening wear and the shop moved to 21 Placve Vendome.
Then the world changed. In 1939, France declared war against Germany and then a year later on June 14, Paris fell to the Germans. Elsa and her daughter sailed to New York for work and she remained there until the end of the war.
Naturally, the fashion house closed but when the war ended, Elsa returned to Paris and reopened her house where it remained open until 1954. Elsa died at 83 on November 13, 1973 in Paris.
Elsa Schiaparelli changed fashion in a ways you might not be aware of. She first introduced zippers that matched the fabric, brooches like a buttons on clothing and even modern day catwalks are thanks to her. She also introduced a new color called Schiaparelli Pink, a shocking bright pink that you probably have seen hundreds of times.
This evening gown is from circa 1955 and is haute couture, which translates to made to measure. The gown is constructed of red silk faille and pink silk. The vibrant color has not fade or lost its vibrancy. The classic strapless gown appears to be boned or corseted to keep its shape and give support to the lucky lady who might have donned this gown. The hourglass silhouette accentuates a woman’s figure that was popular in the 1950s. A drape sash cuts across the hips for a train lined in the pink silk drapes asymmetrically.
The gown was sewn by hand by Schiarapelli’s fashion house workers and must have taken weeks to construct after being fitted and refitted to the measurements of the woman and model who donned this gown.
As for accessories that a lady would have wore with this, I would have gone with a simple yet refined look. Perhaps, pink strapped shoes that match the pink of gown so with every step, perfectly manicured red toes peeked out from beneath the hem. I would wear my hair swept up to show off the shoulders and perhaps, diamonds or simple necklace to highlight a perfect expanse of flesh. Maybe a shawl to cover up from the evening chill.
Wearing this gown, you can’t help but feel utterly sexy and classy. Perfect to got to the theatre or a ball and dance the night away even to fall in love.
The Cousins’ War started in 1399. We know it as The War of the Roses. The House of Lancaster battle the House of York—the red rose and the white rose. By the fifteenth century, Edward Plantagenet claimed the throne from Henry VI. Edward became King Edward IV.
Edward IV married Elizabeth Wydeville, Lady Grey, an impoverished Lancastarian widow. The king and queen’s first child was born on 11 February 1466 at Westminster. That child was Elizabeth Plantagenet, Princess of England, or Elizabeth of York. She was the first born princess in more than a century.
She grew up in “the most splendid court that could be found in all Christendom.”
Meanwhile, Margaret Beaufort was born in 1443 to John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, a descendent from King Edward III through the illegitimate blood line. Though the four Beaufort children were legitimated by Richard II, there was an added provision to act that stated the Beauforts could not inherit the crown. At twelve, Margaret who was a very desired heiress was married to Edmund Tudor—a man with royal blood as well. His mother was Queen Katherine of Valois, the widowed French wife of Henry V of England (and Agincourt fame), and a lowly Welsh squire Owen Tudor. Though, Edmund Tudor was fourteen years older than his wife. Such marriages were not uncommon among the nobility. Most bridegrooms waited until the young bride had reached an appropriate age. Not Edmund Tudor.
Margaret became pregnant and bore her son, Henry, on January 28, 1457. She had a traumatic birth and never bore any more children. As for Edmund Tudor, he died of plague before the birth of this future king. Now, Margaret was thirteen, a mother and a widow for twelve weeks. And a Lancastrian in a Yorkist time.
While Elizabeth grew up in “the most splendid court that could be found in all Christendom”, Henry, the Earl of Richmond, and his mother, a mother and son on the wrong side, were placed under the guardianship of William Herbert, an equally staunch Yorkist, after their home, Pembroke Castle fell.
In time to come, Margaret married her second husband, Sir Henry Strafford, a Yorkist, in order to have her son’s earldom returned to him especially since Edward IV didn’t like Margaret.
But in these turmoil times peace never last long. The Earl of Warwick—known as the Kingmaker and the man who helped Edward win the crown—along with the king’s brother George, Duke of Clarence, rebelled against Edward and set the feeble Henry VI back on the throne. With the Yorkist fleeing, Jasper Tudor, Henry’s uncle, claimed custody of his nephew while, Elizabeth, her mother, and siblings sought out sanctuary in Westminster Abbey.
But the tender peace shatters when Edward VI returns and reclaims his throne. Jasper and Henry flee England and become fugitives. Henry Tudor is fourteen. His life would be one of penury and danger, meanwhile, Elizabeth was reared a Princess. She received an education of a princess, which was lacking, and by our modern eyes not much of an education. Her granddaughter and namesake would receive a better one.
Elizabeth loved books so she possessed the capability of reading and writing. Yet, the princess struggled to speak French, knew no Latin (that was a male’s subject) and as was schooled to run a household—even a royal household—and entertain. She was raised to be a Queen, wife, and mother.
During this time, it might appear as if this royal couple would never find their way to each other. Elizabeth’s father saw Henry Tudor as a threat to his throne and wanted Henry to be returned to England, offering a grand amount of gold to Francis II, Duke of Brittany, where Henry was living. Yet, Edward didn’t plan to kill Henry but marry him to his daughter, Elizabeth in order to unite the two rival houses.
Henry though, not trusting the king, feigned illness and received sanctuary in a church in St. Malo.
In 1482, the king made one more offer to Henry. He granted the lands of his maternal grandmother, heiress to manors in three English counties, as long as he returned from “exile to be in the grace and favor of the King’s highness.” Henry didn’t sail to England.
With his life as a fugitive, Henry trusted a scant number of people. His mother and his uncle and no more beyond those two. This way of life would increase during his lifetime.
On April 9, 1483, both Henry and Elizabeth’s lives changed. Edward IV died at forty-one with his oldest child aged seventeen and his heir, Edward, a mere boy. Now, Richard III, Elizabeth’s uncle, would claim the throne for himself and take control of Edward (the rightful king— Edward V) and his brother Richard. Elizabeth and her mother and siblings would once again seek sanctuary in Westminster again.
During this time, Richard III through machinations was able to prove (more like scheme) that Edward IV’s marriage to Elizabeth Wydeville invalid and his nephews and nieces, including Elizabeth, bastards and legally unable to inherit the throne.
This acts upset powerful Englishmen who sailed to Henry Tudor’s side. Henry’s opportunity was drawing nearer thanks to Richard’s action and his mother. By this time, she had married Thomas Stanley. Stanley was a rich and powerful man and Richard couldn’t alienate him. So, Margaret waited and plotted with Elizabeth Wydeville to marry their children. Henry Tudor would be king and Elizabeth would be queen. Then the Princes in the Tower disappeared and all accused Richard III of killing the young brothers. Whether Richard killed them or not, I cannot say. That truth is lost to history.
But the accusatory talk ate away at more of Richard’s support. The proposed marriage had much support and brought more people to Henry’s side though his claim was dubious even according to the act impossible. Then Richard’s trust man, the Duke of Buckingham, switched sides. The duke informed Henry that on “St. Luke’s Day, October 18, and that he himself would raise the men of Wales. A proclamation was then made to the confederacies that Buckingham ‘had repented of his former conduct and would be the chief mover’ in the planned risings.”
Henry Tudor joined in with Buckingham’s rebellion. But Richard had already learned of the conspiracy. So when Henry sailed on October 31, the rebellion had failed yet Henry was unaware. Bad weather had blown Henry off course and he was just off Plymouth’s coast when he learned of Buckingham’s death and the army roused by the dead duke had fled. Henry sailed back to Brittany—crownless.
Meanwhile, Elizabeth stepped out of sanctuary and went to her uncle Richard and joined the Queen Anne’s household. In January, Parliament labeled Henry Tudor a traitor and if he returned to England, he would executed.
Much happened around Elizabeth and Henry. Politics and intrigue that affected this young couple. Both just had to wait for their moment. Richard had control of Elizabeth and hunted for Henry. There is talk about Richard wanting to marry his niece. But two problems stood in his way. She was a bastard as he had declared and was his reason for claiming the English throne. The second was that she was his niece which was a close blood relation and would need a dispensation for a marriage. Richard denied that he wished to marry Elizabeth. And with the reputation that the Tudor concocted of him, it is easy to believe that’s denial was a lie.
But this was the year were much changed. Charles VIII of France recognized Henry Tudor as King of England “and gave him money, ships and French troops for an invasion, with the aim—as Henry put it—of ‘the just depriving of that homicide and unnatural tyrant.’”
This recognition brought more Englishmen to Henry’s side and Henry had to act soon.
On August 1, Henry Tudor sail from Harfleur in Normandy. Six days later, he landed at Milford Haven near Pembroke. The Welshman set his foot on Welsh soil and fell to his knees and said, “’Judge me, O God, and plead my cause against an unworthy nation’”—and kissed the ground. Then, calling on the aid of God and St. George, he urged his men onward, marching under a white and green banner proudly displaying the red dragon traditionally attributed to Cadwaladr. He came, as he was at pains to make clear, to reconcile the warring factions.”
Henry and his army marched eastward and on August 15, he crossed into England. Richard rode to confront him. On August 22, 1485, the two armies met. The Battle of Bosworth raged and at the end of the bloody meeting, the Tudor dynasty was born.
In the next installment the young couple meet.
Can you please help me? If you enjoyed this post, please share on your social media. I’m trying to grow this feature and I’m so horrible at it. Thank you.
When I was searching for the outfit for this month’s Historical Costume post, I knew that only one outfit would do during these times. That of the the Plague doctor with his beaked mask and long gown. The Plague Doctor is an image that has lasted through the centuries. You can still see him partying during Carnivale di Venezia (Carnival of Venice).
The Plague first struck in the fourteenth century and roared a deadly path through the nineteenth century in some place in the world. Yet, this image of the Plague Doctor dates to the 17th Century. Modern eyes might look upon this outfit as a ridiculous garment. But it all about functionality.
This garment was a historical doctor’s PPE or haz-met suit. Each item served to protect the doctor from contracting the plague as he cared for a town’s plague victims. The costume’s invention was credited to Charles de Lornewho treated King Louis XIII of France.
Now, the design was not fanciful as crazy as it may seem but practical in every way even modeled on a soldier’s armor.
Let’s dissect the costume.
The first item that catches your eye is the beaked mask. Before the discovery of germs, it was believed that sickness was based on a miasma. If it smelled bad then it would get you sick. This belief dates back to the Greeks. In some way, that belief is true. That is why people carried nosegays (a historical face mask). The doctor though need his hands free so the that’s where the mask comes in. He would stuff the beak with pungent or sweet smelling herbs to protect against the miasma. But why that shape? It was believed the shape would give the doctor time to be protected by herbs. I don’t know how exactly. But if you have donned a face masked during the coronavirus pandemic then you know how uncomfortable it is to breathe in that thing so just imagine with smoke swirling about your face.
To protect his eyes, the plague doctor would don round spectacles like goggles over the mask. They resembled thick bifocals. I wonder if the doc’s vision was distorted in some way. It was certainly limited I imagine.
The next item of clothing is the actual garment. The doctor would slip on a long waxed leather or waxed canvas gown, leggings that were waxed, gloves, hat, and for a little flair shoes with bows. All these items were waxed so blood and other bodily fluids didn’t soak into the fabric.
If you look at the drawing, the doctor has a stick with a hourglass resting on wings which told people that he was the doctor and here to help.
So, how many doctors truly wore this? Various museums do have numerous beaks in their collections so it might have been worn by many and not just a few. Yet, that doesn’t mean that doctors treated patients. People as they do now fled the area. Thankfully, not our doctors and nurses.
I do have to say that if a person was feverish and dying seeing this beaked figure hovering over your prone figure must have been terrifying especially in a dim room, smoky from the fire that hung thick in a cramped room. In those religious times, it must have been as if the devil himself had come.
But it was treatment and I doubt many people went to doctors when ill. Most remedies came from housewives and other women who were skill in care.
But care was put in place. In Italy and I believe elsewhere, cities and towns had to hire a doctor to care for plague patients. As part of their contract the doctors had to wear this outfit to treat the sick.
The task of caring for the sick and dying was not easy (as it is not even today). During the plague a doctor had to serve a long quarantine after seeing a plague patient. And those that served were volunteers, second-rate doctors or young doctors new at their careers.
Much has changed in the medical field. But the medical community stands up and does their jobs from the doctors and nurses to the janitors who clean the rooms.
Around 1690, Sir Godfrey Kneller painted the portrait of Queen Anne of England, Scotland, and Ireland, which during her reign these nations would become the United Kingdom. This portrait is 92 inches by 56 1/4 and is oil on canvas. Sir Godfrey was German born and a Dutch trained painter. In 1676, Kneller traveled to England to see Van Dyck’s works who dominated English art for more than 30 years. He became principal painter to the King–William III of William and Mary and the Glorious Revolution. This portrait of Queen Anne was not his first portrait of this Stuart Queen. His other works date circa 1686 portraits. This portrait can be seen in the Primary Collection at the National Portrait Gallery in London. That is after the coronavirus pandemic ends.
On February 6 1665 at St. James’s Palace, Anne was born to her mother Anne Hyde and her father, James, heir presumptive to Charles II. She was the second daughter. On 6 February 1685, James, the Duke of York, became King of England, Scotland and Ireland but in 1688, the Glorious Revolution happened and James was deposed. His eldest daughter, Mary, who was married to William III of Orange became the isle nation’s monarchs.
By this Anne was married to Prince George of Denmark who she wed in 1683. Since Mary and William did not have children, Anne was the heir apparent. Roughly a year later, Anne gave birth to her first child, a daughter who was stillborn. This would be the beginning of tragedy for the Stuart Queen. She was pregnant seventeen times in life. None of her children survived, either she miscarried, the child was stillborn or lived for a month or a couple of years. Only one child lived the longest–Prince William, Duke of Gloucester, died at eleven on July 30 1700Her last child–a stillborn–was born fourteen years before her death. A woman who never enjoyed great health these losses must have destroyed her body, heart and soul with each loss.
As a child, Anne was suffered an eye condition that caused excessive watering. She was sent to France for medical treatment. And her health never improved. She developed gout, which impaired her mobility so she was carried around on a sedan chair, and she grew obsese. Modern doctors speculated about possible causes for her health issues but certainly the pregnancy wrecked her body as well as the loss of her children. That must have ripped pieces of her.
Nevertheless, Queen Anne changed history. On March 8, 1702, Anne became Queen of England, Scotland and Ireland. She was crowned on 23 April 1702. In May of that year, England entered the War of Spanish Succession. But the most enduring act she had committed was the Acts of Union. Wales formed part of the English crown. Scotland was independent sovereign state. In 1707, the Acts of the Union was signed and these nations became known as the United Kingdom.
In October 1708, her husband died. Then in 1713, the queen lost the ability to walk. By March she was seriously ill and all awaited her. She still attended to her state duties but cancelled on in July 1714. She suffered a stroke on 30 July and died on 1 August 1714.
Anne was buried beside her husband and children in Henry VIII chapel in Westminster Abbey on 24 August 1714.
In the 1690s Queen’s Anne’s style of costume was at the height of fashion. Nothing less is expected of a monarch.
Anne has donned a mantua, a style that would exist at the height of fashion for more than fifty years in different variations. The woman’s overdress or gown was worn over an underskirt. The unboned bodice, loosely fitted, attached to the overskirt with a long train. The overskirt parted in the front to reveal the petticoat. This outfit was worn on social and formal occasions.
Let’s dissect her costume. The mantua is a gold pattern silk, bejeweled by pearls and a black stone, onyx perhaps or even black diamonds (She is queen after all) The train is lined in ermine, the royal fur.
Her body is tightly corseted and the gold silk is cut to fit precisely over the corset. It feels as if we have caught still dressing and the costume has a more relaxed feel to it. The deeply scooped neckline of the bodice seems to barely hang onto her shoulders and hanging from the arms is the scalloped sleeve with black, teardrop jewels on each scalloped edge and dotted with a pearl. The shape of the sleeve has an Roman quality to it as if Queen Anne is telling the world that the UK is the new empire, which it would transform into one day.
Beneath her bodice, she has a done a lace trimmed chemise. The lace probably Flanders lace peeks out from the bodice edge and hangs from the full, loose sleeves to drape to her forearm.
Anne would also have donned stocking and shoes which cannot be seen in the portrait. In this time period, her shoes would have been heeled and constructed of matching material. She would have spent the money on such a luxury.
And a luxury she could have enjoyed was to be dripping in jewels. Yet, she has no necklace, earrings, or rings. However, this time period, less jewelry was worn than before and the jewelry of choice was pearl.
Anne has pearls on. A pearl and black stone slash cuts across from her left shoulder to her waist. A rosette or brooch of black gems holds or simulates the holding of her long train draped about her lower body, which would dragged behind her and require servants to hold. Another Roman influence, perhaps. But on the pedestal, we can see a crown, golden and jeweled, just to remind people she is the monarch.
If Anne wanted to put on that crown, I think it would have been fitting for her hairstyle. The fashionable one of the era. Her dark hair is brushed back from her face and piled high on her head. The top would be curled and pinned and long curls draped over her shoulder, the fashion length.
Queen Anne was a fascinating woman with a tragic life. I hope this post and the fictional movie The Favorite and novel by the same name sparks your interest in this queen.
So we are a month and a some days into 2020. Everyone seems to have been complaining about how long January seemed to be. So far, I haven’t posted any Historical Costume or Couples posts. In truth, I have been lazy and reevaluating my life.
You may have noticed, if you have been following my blog, that I have changed the look of it. This year I am all about no frills. I want clean and simple. But don’t worry, I’m researching my Historical Couples post about Elizabeth of York and her husband, Henry Tudor, or Henry VII, King of England. I had planned to do another couple but I’m searching for information for them and haven’t found much. Nevertheless, my search continues.
Also, I have decided on the topic of my new Historical Costume post. I just need to write it up. But as I confessed in the beginning, I have been lazy. No more, I have too much I want to accomplish and feel that I have a plan–finally.
So, keep an eye out for the posts and if you are not following my blog, please do so now and if you wish to tell anyone else about my post, please do.
On April 24 1567, Mary departed Linlithgow Castle for Edinburgh. Her retinue was small, consisting of a powerful men. Near the royal burgh, she came upon a scene that has been disputed through the ages.
Bothwell awaited her with a small army and with their swords drawn. When the queen drew closer, Bothwell took hold of her bridle. He told her some story about danger from insurrection in Edinburgh and was escorting her to Dunbar Castle along with the 5th Earl of Huntly, Sir Maitland and others of her party. The men were ready to defend her from Bothwell but the Queen stopped them.
Some say that she planned this abducation where others believe otherwise. Whatever is true does not matter but Mary went with Bothwell. The group rode through the night to formidable stronghold in Scotland.
Arriving at Dunbar Castle at midnight, she was separated from the others and the gates were locked. Yet, she sent a letter to the Governor of Dunbar to await rescue but no one came. Bothwell would marry Mary and this was his way to get her agreement. The Queen was against the marriage, denying the earl repeatedly. The man think he had an upper hand he produced the Ainslie’s Tavern Bond. (A bond signed by the Scottish Lords supporting the marriage). Still, Mary refused.
Since he couldn’t win her agreement one way, Bothwell tried another. He “…raped her, laying her open to dishonor and the risk of an illicit pregnancy, with the consequent loss of her reputation.” Melville, who was at Dunbar that night, professed as well as, “the Queen could not but marry him, seeing he had ravished her and lain with her against her will.”
Mary agreed to marry him “as soon as he was free.” Bothwell was still marry to Lady Jean Gordon, sister to the 5th Earl of Huntly–one of his captives that night. I believe that Mary agreed because he was a wedded man and believed that his marriage wouldn’t be dissolved.
There are others who claim her rape accusations are lies. Much hasn’t changed since the sixteenth century, right? Many at the time had their own story of events that took place at Dunbar and seem to be based upon whether the people support Mary, Queen of Scots or Lord James Stewart, her half-brother and Earl of Moray and leader of Confederate Lords. These events would come to be used against her with the Casket Letters and her trial in England.
But in Edinburgh, Lady Bothwell put forth her petition for divorce on the basis of adultery. Not for what occured at Dunbar but his affair with a maid that Lady Bothwell had caught him with months before this.
Mary was still at Dunbar where she sent letters to Elizabeth seeking her help. Elizabeth told her to punish all those invovled in Darnley’s death that including Bothwell and many other lords. But Mary’s reputation in Scotland, England and Europe.
On May 3, 1567, Bothwell’s divorce was granted and he also put his suit for an annulment. Two days later, Bothwell confident of the coming annulment, he left Dunbar with the Queen and an armed force. Meanwhile, the Confederate Lords were uniting against Bothwell. They were raising troops and gathering support.
On 10 May, Mary pardoned the men who assisted Bothwell in her abduction then on the 12th, she appeared at Edinburgh Tolbooth and “…declared that she was marrying Bothwell of her own free will and that in this marriage she foresaw much peace of the realm.”
On the morning of the 15th of May, Mary, Queen of Scots married Lord James Hamilton, the Earl of Bothwell, the newly created Duke of Orkney and Lord of Shetland, in a Protestant ceremony. A “solemn wedding breakfast” followed. The event was a quiet one. Not just in the sense of music and dancing and other joyous activities, people who did attend literally did not speak. When the event ended, Mary cried as she did during the breakfast. This queen was broken.
That night a placard was hung at Holyrood gates. It read “wantons marry in the month of May.” The morning after, Mary “cried aloud, then sought for a knife to stab herself or (as she cried) else I will drown myself.”
The marriage didn’t begin happily and worsened. Bothwell’s true demeanor was reveal. According to Allison Weir’s Mary, Queen of Scots and the Murder of Lord Darnley , “he revealed himself as a Jekyll and Hyde chracter, sometimes dour, forbidding and even indifferent, sometimes embarrassingly over-familiar and given to using coarse and even obscene langauge in her presence. He dictated who might, and who might not have access to, and speech with, her and insisted on being present.” But in public Bothwell showed reverence to her.
Politically, the government was shattered. The Privy Council had thinned out. Mary never granted Bothwell title of King but that didn’t stop him from behaving as one. The Roman Catholic rose was wilted and all were scandalized by the marriage. Her Guise family deserted her. Nobles fled court. There were no more festivities. And Bothwell forbade Mary from visiting her son in Stirling. Meanwhile Mary’s health hadn’t improved. She suffered from fainting spells.
The Confederate Lords planned to capture Mary and Bothwell. Catching wind of this plot, Bothwell decided to move to thick, strong walls of Edinburgh Castle. But the Governor of the Castle refused them entry. It is said, “who who holds Edinburgh Castle, holds Scotland.”
Mary had lost Scotland.
So the couple headed to Borthwick Castle where Mary summoned her levies to meet at Auirshead Abbey on June 12. This summons wasn’t obeyed and those who did arrive possessed no will to fight. Also at this time, Mary discovered she was pregnant. Now,”…she had no choice but to fight or fall with Bothwell.”
That June, the Confederate Lords appeared at the fortfied walls of Borthwick Castle. The lords screamed up to the walls for Bothwell come out. Mary appeared at the castle walls and informed them of Bothwell’s absence. He had departed days before their arrival. The lords asked her to return to Edinburgh with them and help them punish Darnley’s murderer. She refused. The lords insulted her but withdrew since they had no artillery to attack the castle.
At the midnight hour, Mary escaped from Borthwick castle before the Lords returned with an army and artillery. Dressed in men’s clothing, she met up with Bothwell’s servants who escorted her to her third husband who together journeyed to Dunbar. Having left her belonging behind, the Queen of Scotland had to borrow clothes from a countrywoman. Allison Weir writes that she donned, ” a red petticoat that barely covered her knees, sleeves tied with bow, a velvet hat and a muffler.”
In the daylight hours, both sides summoned men to their banners. Bothwell had the loyalty of the Borders but not many join Mary’s side. The Confederate Lords had 4000 men. The Queen departed from Dunbar with her 600 horses and 3 cannons and met up with her husband and his 1,600 men. Mary was a woman ready to fight. On her way, the people didn’t join her side and she was dismayed by this. Mary and her husband rode to Seton Castle and spent their last night together.
On June 15, the two armies lined up at Carberry Hill, seven miles east of Edinburgh. “The Queen’s forces were drawn up on the hillside beneath pennants bearing the Lion Rampant of Scotland and the Saltire of St. Andrew. The Lords were positioned at the foot of the hill, under an emotive white banner portraying the infant James praying before his father’s murdered corpse, and bearing the legend, ‘Judge and avenge my cause, O Lord.'”
The day was spent parleying and sadly, all that talk had come to nothing. Mary wept and Bothwell bellowed and challenged the lords in single combat. One lord was found but Mary turned down that idea.
Mary asked the terms of surrender. If the Queen placed herself in the Lords’ care then they would allow Bothwell to leave and go where he wished until Parliament ruled upon his case. Bothwell wished for Mary to retreat to Dunbar and to raise another army. Mary replied with, “she owed a duty to the late King her husband, a duty which she would not neglect.” She owed Darnley justice and that she would find his killers and have them prosecuted and punished.
Bothwell was guilty in this act. He certainly played a part but to what extent I cannot nor can history determine. So, Bothwell let his wife go. The reason Bothwell wasn’t arrested that day is tied with politics and the other lords guilt in Darnley’s murder.
So, dressed in the red petticoat too short for her and the velvet hat, she surrendered to the cries of “Burn the whore!” She was pushed and shoved by the ranks then returned to Edinburgh.
Bothwell escaped to Denmark, where he was arrested. Mary meanwhile, was locked away at Loch Leven, miscarried her twins, and signed away her throne. She escaped and raised another army but lost that battle and escaped to England.
On April 14, 1578, the 4th Earl of Bothwell died imprisoned in Dragsholm Castle. Less than a decade later on February 8, 1587 at Fotheringhay Castle by her cousin Elizabeth.
Her son James VI of Scotland became King James I of England. In the end, Scotland won England.
The Scottish lords should have been pleased. They never liked him and for them, Lord Darnley’s death benefitted them greatly.
His death was the beginning of the end of their Catholic queen. According to Mary, Queen of Scots, and the Murder of Lord Darnley, “Parliament held in December 1567, when Mary had reached twenty-five and, had she not by then been deposed, would have legally been able to revoke grants made during her minority.”
What did that mean to the Scottish Lords?
Mary granted the Earldoms of Moray, Morton and Angus during her minority to men of Protestant faith, including the Earldom of Moray to her bastard brother, Lord James Stewart, and she could revoke them.
What does this have to do with historical couples? Now once again, Mary’s hand and very reign was in danger in a way that had not been since the Rough Wooing of her childhood.
Now every action, word or look Mary made was judged and used against her. And she made some bad choices. There are two reasons for her actions: First, grief (not the best time to be thinking clearly) and second, she believed Darnley’s death was a plot to kill her. Nevertheless, Mary entered mourning. Black hung in her apartments.
She didn’t remain at Holyrood for long. She took Prince James (who had remained with her since his birth) and went to the safety of Edinburgh Castle to be locked away for the forty days of mourning–the same she had done for her first husband.
Enter husband number three, the Earl of Bothwell. James Hepburn, the fourth Earl of Bothwell was described as “glorious (vainglorious), rash, and hazardous young man.” He stood about five feet six inches, which was described as middle stature and well below Mary and Lord Darnley’s height. Another member at court described him as “an ape” and “of greatly bodily strength and beauty, although vicious and isolate in his habits.” He had a swarthy complexion and a nose that appears to have been broken.
His power base resided in East Lothian and the Borders. He didn’t like the English and given his region along the borders, such a feeling was understandable. He was not just an Earl, he was the Lord High Admiral of Scotland, a heredity position. As much as many Scottish lords and English hated the man, they knew he was not stupid.
During this time, he was married to Jean Gordon, the daughter of the dead fourth Earl of Huntly, and sister to the new fifth Earl of Huntly.
Lord Bothwell took control of the government.
On the 12 February 1566, Darnley’s embalmed body was laid in state and three days later, he was buried. The next day, the council concerned for Mary’s health persuade her to give up her mourning since it affected her health adversely. Since October 1566, Mary had been ill. The queen agreed never knowing that this was another mark that would be used against her later in life. So, she traveled to Seton Castle.
On the 16th of February, the placards began to appeared on the Tollbooth’s door in Edinburgh. The first accused Bothwell of Darnley’s murder. Two nights later, another appeared, this one accusing Mary’s foreign servants.
Mary briefly returned to Edinburgh only to leave again, this time Bothwell was included in her train. During this time, Queen Elizabeth and mother-in-law Catherine de Medici, dowager Queen of France, advised her in letters to seize the murders. Both understood the danger especially Elizabeth as she had faced fierce talk about Lord Dudley’s wife’s death and her invovlement.
Mary placed the investigation in the hands of her Councillors (though most didn’t want the murder to be solved) as well as issuing a proclamation offering a worthy reward to anyone who identified the murderers and she summoned Parliament to debate the next steps in inquiry.
Lord Lennox (Darnley’s father and a Scottish Lord) placed her in a difficult position by asking her to arrest members of her council and her servants on evidence that was more hearsay than fact, which was illegal. Yet, she couldn’t refused.
The next day, another placard was nailed to Tollbooth. This one was “where was these letters written in Roman hand, very great, M.R., with a sword in her hand near the same letters; then an L.B. (for Lord Bothwell?) with a mallet near them.” This started linking the queen to the accused murderers of her husband and started shifting the well-favored opinion of their queen. More placards appeared and continued but the most infamous one was that truly damned her reputation was the mermaid one.
According to Weir, “It depicted a bare-breasted and crowned mermaid–a mermaid then being a symbol for a siren or prostitute–holding a whip above a hare surrounded by swords; the mermaid was undoubtedly meant to be the Queen, while the hare was Bothwell’s heraldic device. The mermaid was protecting the hare with a whip, but none dared approach it anyway because of the threatening swords.”
Still Mary didn’t turn from Bothwell not even banishing him from her side at the very least. She talked of living in France. She was becoming more stressed. It appears that her fears of her coming death and mixed with her grief, she was spiraling and her mental health was very disturbed. She decided that the Prince would be safer at Stirling.
Factions were splitting. Meanwhile, the Countess of Bothwell recovered from her illness. In a letter, Lady Bothwell wrote that she had been poisoned and many believed it to be so. She sought out a divorce and with her brother’s support, she issued the first procuratory– a document authorizing legal action. She filed on the grounds of adultery.
Not all was against Mary, accusations flowed in Scotland, France, and even England against the Earl of Moray. Still, Mary’s health was failing and soon came Bothwell’s trial.
On April 12, 1567, Bothwell’s trial began. In the dawn hours of that day, Queen Elizabeth’s messenger arrived with a letter for Mary, telling her to postpone Bothwell’s trial. The messenger was told that Mary was not to be disturbed at that early an hour. But when he returned Bothwell’s men promised to give it to her. It seems she never received it.
At noon, the trial began and seven hours later, Bothwell was free. Two days later, Parliament met and by April 19, it closed. That night Bothwell hosted a supper for the lords at a tavern most historians agree was named Ainslie’s Tavern in Edinburgh.
Once food had been consumed along with wine, Bothwell whipped out a bond and asked for them to sign it. The bond was for their agreement that the Earl of Bothwell become husband number three.
Present at this supper were both Catholic and Protestant lords. The original no longer survives but there were suppose to be 28 or 29 signatures but some lords were not known to have signed but their names are rumored to be included.
After this night, Mary’s ruin had began and as history shows would not be halted.
This portrait of Madame de Senonnes is my second favorite work of art. It is also painted by Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres (who painted our previous historical fashion post).
Before our sitter was Madame de Senonnes, this lady was Marie-Genevieve-Marguerite Marcoz. Marie was born to a wealthy family and in 1802, she married a merchant draper named Jean Marcoz. In 1803, the couple moved to the eternal city, Rome and had a daughter that same year.
But the marriage was an unhappy one and by 1809, the couple separated. During this time, Marie mixed in artistic circles and she met Alexandre de la Motte-Barace, Viscount of Senonne. They married in 1815 and returned to France.
In France, the Bourbon Restoration had occurred first in 1814 when Napoleon was defeated in Russia and the Peninsular War. Even though in June 1815, Napoleon had escaped from Elba and again, raised an army. He was defeated at Waterloo and exiled to the island of St. Helena where Louis XVIII of France once again claimed the French throne.
This time period was experiencing a Romantic movement as well as a Neoclassical one. Both influences are very much on display in this portrait. The Grecian style dress silhouette and hairstyles were fashionable until the mid-1820s. But the romantic movement that was at its height and can be seen in the gown’s details.
Before we deconstruct her gown, let’s determine what she has underneath it all. Beneath her gown, she would be wearing garments that every woman would have don. First she would have put on her chemise. That garment would have be constructed of linen or cotton. Then she would have had put on stays. This undergarment would have been stiffened to support her breast. And she would have slipped on her stockings (not seen in the portrait). These could have been of silk or wool and held up by a garter.
The Romantic movement looked to the past especially the middle ages and the renaissance. Madame de Senonnes is wearing an afternoon dress. This is determined by the lower neckline with long sleeves and made of silk or fancier fabric than a morning dress would have been made of.
Madame de Senonnes’ dress is made of red or maroon velvet. It has long sleeves with attached dove blue silk slashes to simulate the historical Renaissance fashion of the sixteenth century. In 1815, the fashion was for heavier fabrics than a couple of years before. The silhouette of the garment would have had a flatter front and would be fuller in back of skirts (that cannot be seen in portrait). Another style choice of the romantic movement is the white lace cuff that imitates the ruffs of the sixteenth century. Her neckline is square and constructed of fine white sheer fabric and finished with a three tier lace neck ruff. Her high-waisted gown has a matching dove blue silk or satin sash.
Madame de Senonnes accents her gown with her accessories. She has donned numerous gold necklaces with charms that include a cross and another that resembles a hourglass. She has a brooch of jade and perhaps ruby pinned just below the sash. She is wearing stacked jeweled rings on four fingers while the middle finger of the right hand has one ring. Clutched In her hand is a white handkerchief. On her ears, she is wearing ruby earring that might be silver or white gold. And tucked in her twisted up hair is a hair comb made of gold and red jewels most likely rubies. These accessories reflect an afternoon style through in a portrait the sitter would wear their best garments and jewels.
Another accessory that I just love is her shawl that drapes behind her and wraps around her to the left of her. It’s is made of ivory cashmere with a wide embroidered edge. The designs reminds me of something found in an illuminated manuscript from medieval times or a design from India or another foreign country whose styles centers on a natural design. The embriodery is of a red, blue and mustardy-yellow floral print and accented with scrolls.
Madame de Senonnes died in 1828. This is what remains of her.
Now in the Royal Castle, Mary gathered her loyal supporters. Days laters, those men invovled in Rizzio’s death fled. By now, Mary’s army numbered 8000 men, she rode at the head of army into Edinburgh. She regained control of her realm. She pardoned some conspirators who were not directly involved with Rizzio’s murder. Her plan was simple, drive a wedge between these group of men.
Darnley signed a declaration that he was not a part of the murder. This fit Mary’s needs because she couldn’t have doubts about her unborn child’s legitimacy. In April of 1566, the Earl of Moray (Lord James Stewart, bastard half-brother to Mary and Protestant) arrived at Edinburgh Castle, where Mary was residing.
She gave Moray permission to stay at the imposing castle to keep a close watch on him. She knew that Moray held the support of Protestant lords as well as England and had to play it this way to keep support for her. This time Mary wouldn’t trust her half-brother but she knew that she needed him. The Protestants of Scotland looked to him as their leader. And Scottish lords had no problem rebelling against or killing their monarch. They had done so before.
Before the Scottish court, Mary gave the appearance of marital happiness but Darnley had been shut out from her graces and the seat of power. On 19 June 1566, Mary gave birth to James, the Duke of Rothesay (future James VI of Scotland and James I of England). Scotland had an heir to the throne and they rejoiced. Mary soared to great heights.
Darnley, though, was leading “a very disorderly life. Every night, he left the castle and went out vagabonding and drinking heavily with his young male friends in the streets of Edinburgh. He would return at all hours of the night, so that the castle gates had to be unlocked for him, which left Mary feeling ‘there was no safety, either for herself or her son.'”
Mary decided to keep James with her. She was fearful her enemies make steal him away and rule in his name. (Spoiler: That would happen) It didn’t help Mary that Darnley was still plotting to become king. The man was far from Mary’s good graces. He knew nothing of the Queen’s actions, daily life and certainly knew nothing of her affection. Mary seeking someone she could trust, she was turning more and more to the Earl of Bothwell.
Sadly for Mary, the men in her life sucked. And Darnley’s intrigue wasn’t the only on occurring. Moray and Bothwell, both had their own separate plans that would lead to death and the loss of the Scottish crown.
In October 1566, Mary gathered her Border lords for a justice eyre (a circuit court to hear legal cases). Darnley requested to accompany her and he was refused. Not pleased, Darnley starts to throw what I call hissy fits. One fit was his threat to sail away from Scotland. Mary could not allow such a thing. That posed a threat to her, her son and realm.
In the lowlands, during the eyre, Lord Bothwell had been attacked and injured. On 15 October, Mary learned on this and rode from Jedburgh to Hermitage Castle (The Earl of Bothwell’s, James Hepburn, holding) then rode back to Jedburgh. A sixty mile round trip that would be come to bite her in the ass.
The rest of 1566, Mary was ill and rested at Craigmillar Castle. During her recovery, Darnley appears again only to disappear to Mary’s relief. Her husband was a necessary nuisance. Her lords were trying to find a way to divorce her from her wastrel of a husband. He was a danger to her yet she couldn’t risk the standing of her son–a divorce would have James declared illegitmate. Yet, Mary knew that her husband wanted her dead. Her death would lead to a regency and Darnley wanted to be appointed Regent. Scotland had had a regency since 1393 and Mary, Queen of Scots (Scotland would have another under Mary’s son).
But many wanted Darnley dead too.
In 1567, (According to testimony made in 1573) a bond was drawn up to kill Darnley. No record exists and no one saw this written bond. But that didn’t stop the English and Cecil and Walingsham from using this testimony)
At the end of 1566, Darnley became ill with pox, syphillis as the Diurnal of Occurents’ stated. The sixteenth century cure wasn’t an easy one. It was mercury baths. He was at his father’s stronghold near Glasgow. That wasn’t necessary a good thing for Mary.
In the beginning in 1567, Mary had proof of two conspiracies: Lords against Darnely with plans to kill him and Darnley against Mary. With no other choice, Mary rode to Glasgow to confront her husband and bring him to Edinburgh to watch him.
Now the queen had her husband and Bothwell had recovered from his injuries and journeyed to the royal burgh. The plan was to lodge Darnely in Craigmillar. But he feared being locked up and killed so he went to Kirk o’ Field. Later many would say that Mary had set up the house in order to kill him. But that choice was Darnley’s.
The house “lay to the south of Edinburgh, on a hill overlooking the Cowgate; it stood just inside the city wall and three-quarters of a mile from Holyrood Palace, in a semi-rural location, ‘environed with pleasant gardens, and removed from the noise of the people.'”
Mary saw that her husband had all the luxuries the husband of the queen could want or need. As he recovered, the queen “visited her husband daily.” According to Alison Weir’s book, Mary, Queen of Scots and the Murder of Lord Darnley, she spent two nights at Kirk o’ Field, sleeping in the bedroom below his. They sat up late, sometimes until midnight, talking, playing cards or listening to music, and ‘many nobles’ came with the Queen to divert the convalescent.
Though, Mary might have shown kindess to her husband, she didn’t trust him and continued to learn of all his undermined plans against her.
On 9 February 1567, the last day of Sunday before the beginning of Lent, the queen had a full schedule. She had a wedding of her favorite servants, attended a banquet and around 7, she rode to Kirk o’ Field in the company of Lords Bothwell, Argyll and Huntly. They spent the time playing dice and chatting. The group including the Queen were dressed for the wedding masque that they would be attending later that night.
At midnight, Mary and the lords departed. This night has many stories depending on who you believe and when the story is told. Whatever you believe, Mary returned to Holyrood, attended the masque and took part in the bedding ceremony of the newlyweds then returned to her apartments.
There she held a meeting with the Captain of her Guards and Bothwell. The captain left Bothwell and the queen alone where they talked in private for some time then Bothwell left and Mary went to bed. Another act that would be used against Mary.
Shortly before 2 a.m. Mary was woken by an explosion. She thought it might be cannon fire and sent messengers to learn what was happening. They returned with the news of an explosion of Kirk o’ Field and the belief that Darnley was dead.
Lord Bothwell was the Sheriff of Edinburgh and the duty to investigate fell to him. His servant had to wake him. He sent his men then returned to bed.
Bodies of servants were discovered in the rubble remains of the house but Darnley had not been find. “At last, at 5 a.m., three hours after the explosion, someone thought to look in the south garden and orchard, beyond Flodden Wall, and it was there that they found the bodies of the twenty-year-old king and his valet.” Both men were dressed in short nightshirts and neither body had a mark on their flesh. “Darnley was stretched out on his back, under a pear tree, with one hand draped modestly over his genitals.”
Near the bodies was a chair, rope, and a dagger. The clothing weren’t burned, scorched or black from powder.
Mary learned of the news. She fell into deep grief and stayed in her chamber all day. Weir writes, “There is no doubt that Darnley’s murder left Mary grief-stricken, emotionally shattered and fearful for her own safety. For several months afterwards, she seems not to have functioned normally, and her judgment, never very good at the best of times, utterly failed her.”
This was the beginning in the end for her as Scotland’s queen and her life.