Famous Women

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19994, 10 November 1927, Page 3

Famous Women

WILY, WILFUL, WONDERFUL 6.— MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. In the whole history of the world there is no record of a more checkered and eventful career than that of the beautiful anri ill-fated Mary Stuart* Queen of Scotland, whose personal character has provided inumerable historians -with a subject for eontroversv which can never be satisfactorily decided. By some she is lauded as an innocent anrl» martyred woman, and by others she is branded as a wanton and a murderess. She was born on December 8, 1542, six days prior to the death of he. father, King James V. of Scotland, and her coronation took place when she war only ten months old. At the age of w years she was taken to France, where she was betrothed to the Dauphin, who was fourteen months her senior, and for the next ten years she remained ai the French court. She was married tu the Dauphin in April, 1558, bat in 1560 her youthful husband died, nine months later she returned to her native land after an absence of thirteen years. For the next 26 years she was the storm centre of a long series of plots and counterplots, which maao her life a miserable one and finally brought her to the scaffold. During her absence, the Reformed Faith had taken firm root in Scotlanu, and her devotion to the Roman Catholic Church antagonised her people and evoked the fiery denunciations of John Knox. In 1565, she married her worthless kinsman, Lond Darnley, whose ambitious schemes and jealousy added tuher troubles and led, a year later, to the murder of her secretary and conndcntial friend, David Rizzio. He was hacked to death before her eyes, ancr the shock brought about the premature birth and deformity of her son, who became the first of England’s Stuart kings. In February, 1567, Darnley was blown up with gunpowder, and Mary’s reluctance to punish his assassins caused a general belief that she had been a party to the crime, a belief which seemed to be justified three months later, when she married the Earl -of Rothwell, who had been the prime mover in the murder of her late husband. This was more than any nation could be expected to tolerate, even in those lawless days, and the Scottish people rose in revolt, with the result that Mary was placed in prison and forced to sign an abdication in favour of her infant son. In May, 1568, she escaped to England, where she claimed the protection of Elizabeth, who refused to receive her while under suspicion of Darnley’s murder. Her presence <in England was a menace to Elizabeth s life and throne, for the country was seething with Catholic plots, and Mary, although treated well, was held as a prisoner for 18 years. It was not un«.d 1586 that there was direct evidence that Mary was implicated in any of the numerous plots to place her on the English throne, but in August of that year letters fell into the hands of EIB| zabeth’s ministers which clearly sho-wB ed that Mary was a party to a coni spiracy to kill the English queen. 1 It was on this evidence that Afarw was placed on trial at Fotheringaß Castle, where she was then imprisoned® and for two days she was closely ex» mined by a commission of peers anl judges. She defended herself wii® consummate ability, and, in spite the unshaken evidence of her two seS retaries, she declared the letters pr® duced against her to be forgeries. TM judges gave their decision on OctobjH 25, and, although she was th (J found guilty and sentenced to death, fl was not until February 1 1587, thfl Elizabeth could be induced to sigfl the requisite death warrant. Mary was executed at FotheringaJJ on February 8, and she met tragic end with an apparent serenity ot conscience which tended to counteract the popular impression as to her guilt, and which was quoted by her defenders as strong evidence of her innocence.—• (Copyrighted)