Two queens in the battle for the English throne

Historian Georg Eckert on the monarchs Elizabeth I and Mary Stuart's claim to the English throne

The niece of the second degree

8 February 1587, Fotheringhay Castle; after 19 years of imprisonment, the 45-year-old former Scottish Queen Mary Stuart, dressed in dark red, walks to the scaffold. The executioner is said to have needed three blows to separate the head from the torso. She had never given up her claim to the English throne. The death sentence was carried out on the orders of the reigning monarch, Elizabeth I, after years of wrangling. But where did the mutual claim to the queenship come from?
Wuppertal historian Georg Eckert explains the relationship between the two noblemen as follows: "They were not cousins, as we sometimes read. Rather, the Scottish queen was a second niece of the English queen. This kinship constellation reflects the ambitions of up-and-coming dynasties: first and foremost the Tudors, who ascended to the English throne in 1485 after the Wars of the Roses. The first Tudor king, Henry VII, was the common ancestor of both queens, neither of whom was intended to be ruler. Henry's eldest son, Arthur Tudor, was actually supposed to ascend the throne," continues the historian, "but he died in his youth, so that his younger brother, Henry VIII, eventually took over the destiny of the country. Famous for his eight wives, two of whom he had beheaded, he married Anne Boleyn, who gave birth to Elizabeth I, in his second marriage. "Elizabeth, who only became Queen of England after the death of her half-siblings, was therefore a granddaughter of Henry VII, Mary Stuart a great-granddaughter. Mary Stuart's grandmother Margaret Tudor, the eldest sister of the future King Henry VIII, was herself married to the Scottish King James IV from the equally ambitious House of Stuart. After the early death of her brothers and her father James V, Mary Stuart became Queen Mary I of Scotland and also had close connections to a powerful French noble family through her mother, Marie de Guise."

Victory of the power politician

Eckert knows that contemporaries argued bitterly over the question of the legitimate succession to the English throne, mobilising all possible arguments or discovering new ones with restless zeal and exploiting them in their publications. Whether dynastic, political, confessional and in all categories, including those that would be called misogynistic (misogynistic) today. "However, the decisive factor was not who had the better argument in their favour, but who could assert their claims - and that was Elizabeth I, an extremely skilful power politician. It also paid off for her that she never responded to Mary Stuart's advances. She maintained sufficient support in England, while Mary lost her power base in Scotland, so that she had to abdicate as Queen Mary I in 1567 and even flee to the ultimately fatal custody of Elizabeth a year later."

The role of the Catholic Church

Politics and religion were closely intertwined at the time. Eckert comments: "The secession of the Anglican Church from the papal church by Henry VIII cannot be explained without his genealogical constellation: Pope Clement VII had refused to declare the English king's marriage to Catherine of Aragon null and void. However, this was precisely the prerequisite for Henry's marriage to Elizabeth's mother, Anne Boleyn. From the point of view of the national and international supporters of the Catholic Mary Stuart, this marriage was therefore illegitimate; Pope Pius V even excommunicated Elizabeth in 1570. Conversely, it was part of the Anglican raison d'état to strengthen the hereditary claims of the Protestant Elizabeth with the continued rejection of papal power." In this complex situation, both rulers were wary of taking a clear position and repeatedly sent signals of inclusion to both Catholics and Protestants.
The popes consistently supported Catholic dynasties in their struggle against Protestant powers, as demonstrated by the Spanish Habsburgs' fight against the Dutch or the French Catholics against the Huguenots. With the excommunication of Elizabeth I, however, the Curia did Mary Stuart a disservice. "By calling on Englishmen to resist their own queen, Pope Pius V was mobilising national interests in favour of the very queen whose deposition he actually intended to bring about." Mary's execution took place a year after the Babington Plot, another Catholic conspiracy that would have brought Mary Stuart to the throne and was foiled by Elizabeth's minister Sir Francis Walsingham. Another attack by the Spanish Armada on England, a year after Mary's death, also failed.

Mary Stuart and her role in plots against the Queen

"Mary Stuart was the central figure in various conspiracies, but that does not mean that she was also their organiser," explains Eckert. "Whether in the Ridolfo Conspiracy (1570/1571), the Thockmorton Conspiracy (1583) or the Babington Conspiracy (1586), Mary Stuart actively pursued her own interests, but was also instrumentalised as an English pretender. Her appointment as English queen was intended to serve the interests of the respective conspirators. That she would have tolerated the assassination of Elizabeth was, of course, sufficiently clear from intercepted correspondence." Mary could therefore certainly not be considered innocent. Like most rulers of the time, she had few scruples. "Murder was not only considered a delicate but perfectly legitimate means of politics by these two." Elisabeth therefore hesitated for a long time before handing Mary over for trial. "If she had wanted to, Elisabeth could have used intercepted letters against Mary much earlier, but decided against it for political reasons."

19 years of imprisonment until the death sentence

As we know today, the virgin Queen Elizabeth I was not so virgin after all. The year after her coronation, the wife of her favourite Robert Dudley, Amy, fell down the cellar stairs and died. Police reports, which only emerged in the 20th century, interpret the accident as a murder. Rumours of the monarch's involvement in the young woman's death were rife at the time. Contract killings were not uncommon and Maria was also rumoured to have been involved in the death of her second husband. Nevertheless, 19 years passed before the death sentence was passed. "Elisabeth knew how to draw her particular strength from a position of power that had long been rather weak by keeping many options open," says Eckert, describing the situation. "At times, this included, for example, the option of bringing Mary Stuart, who had been driven out of Scotland, back to the throne as her dependent ruler; in addition, the protection of a Catholic ruler could also be interpreted as a confessional offer of reconciliation. In any case, Elizabeth paid careful attention to the national and international implications of her actions and omissions. From her point of view, Mary Stuart was probably above all a figure who could enable her to make certain political and confessional moves. Her reluctance to order Mary's execution, which had been decided by the court, also reflects Elizabeth's calculated behaviour." It should be borne in mind that three months passed between a petition in which the House of Lords and House of Commons requested the immediate execution of Mary Stuart, who had been sentenced a few days earlier, and the execution itself. "To be involved in the murder of a queen, which Mary Stuart had been as Mary I in Scotland, seemed like an invitation to assassinate a monarch. Elizabeth I could not approve of this in her own interests." It was not until 1586/87 that it was no longer clear to the Queen who she could have won over by pursuing a friendly policy towards Mary, as the former Scottish Queen was now merely a rival. At this point, the execution had sent a clear signal both at home and abroad. "France, which had shown some consideration for the 'Auld Alliance' (a kind of defensive alliance between Scotland and France, which provided for mutual assistance in a war with England, editor's note) with Scotland, was preoccupied with itself because of the Huguenot Wars, Spain could not be won over for Elizabeth anyway, and certainly not the Pope. Mary Stuart had had her day."

Encounter in Schiller's drama

The two monarchs meet in Friedrich Schiller's drama "Mary Stuart". However, this did not happen in real life. "Both Elizabeth I and Mary Stuart, who at times wrote letters to her second-degree aunt that emphasised her sisterhood, were experienced and clever politicians," says Eckert. "They knew about the opportunities and dangers of symbolic action. It is precisely for this reason that Mary Stuart repeatedly insisted on a meeting with Elizabeth I in certain situations, which she hoped would enhance her status. This is precisely why Elizabeth did not fulfil these clearly communicated wishes, time and time again. Friedrich Schiller turned the rather sober clash of interests that can be recognised between Elisabeth and Maria into a psychological drama - but no longer against the backdrop of the Age of Confession, but against that of the age of the French Revolution. He shifted the power-political conflict to the characters themselves, and in his portrayal, Mary Stuart, unlike Elizabeth I, finds the inner freedom in the face of death that is denied to the supposedly victorious queen."

New ciphered letters of Mary Stuart discovered in Paris

In 2023, scientists discovered 57 ciphered letters by Mary in the Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris, which are now being deciphered. "Research into this correspondence is still in its infancy," says the historian. "Mary Stuart was in close contact with the French ambassador to the English royal court in particular, Michel de Castelnau, with letters and all kinds of gifts." In principle, this is not surprising, but in detail it is certainly revealing and an important confirmation of long-held assumptions, especially that Mary Stuart was not a passive figure, but actively pursued politics even as a prisoner in England. "The letters paint a very different picture of Mary Stuart, namely that of a very attentive and skilful politician who also sought to assert and increase her influence in the care and captivity of Elizabeth I." Research has not always adequately recognised this.

Mary's son James VI becomes Elizabeth's successor to the English throne

It has always been rumoured that on her deathbed, Elizabeth had wished for Mary's son, James I, to succeed her. More recent research into the annals published in 1607 about Elizabeth's reign reveals many censored passages, which can now be visualised using new technology. They make it clear that the monarch was no longer able to speak days before her death. "Elizabeth did not decree her succession expressis verbis," explains Eckert, "but she allowed the succession to the throne through Mary Stuart's son James VI of Scotland to take place in such a way that it appeared to be her legacy. James VI of Scotland, who as James I also became King of England, significantly referred in his legitimisation of rule to the founder of the Tudor dynasty, Henry VII, from whom both Elizabeth and Mary were descended. In this way, the reign of the Stuarts could be staged as a seamless continuation of that of the Tudors, and the rivalry between the two queens could be concealed."

Rivals rest vis-à-vis in Westminster Abbey

Irony of fate: today, both queens rest opposite each other in Westminster Abbey. "Mary Stuart was buried twice. Firstly in Peterborough Cathedral - again in an ingenious act by Elizabeth I, which contemporaries could understand and praise as either honouring or belittling, depending on their point of view. The tomb of King Henry VIII's first wife, Catherine of Aragon, who was also Catholic and therefore either particularly familiar or particularly foreign, was also located there. In any case, it was a fitting resting place for a queen. James VI/I, however, ordered the reburial of his mother in Westminster Abbey, just a few steps away from the resting place of Elizabeth, who in turn was given a joint tomb with Mary I of England ("Bloody Mary") in order to strengthen the aforementioned tradition and make the rivalries between the rulers forgotten."

Secrets of the queens interesting for science and culture

"Many generations of historians have worked on both rulers and their complex relationship with each other," concludes Eckert. The author Stefan Zweig cited the ambivalence of interpretations as the reason why he wrote his extremely popular biography of Mary Stuart (published in 1935), which is still being reprinted today. In it, he writes that the queen is surrounded by an 'inexhaustible mystery'. This is obviously particularly suitable for artistic adaptations. There are literary, dramatic versions such as Elfriede Jellinek's "Ulrike Maria Stuart", musical versions such as Gaetano Donizetti's opera "Maria Stuarda", or film adaptations; the role of Maria has been played by Katharine Hepburn, Zarah Leander and Vanessa Redgrave, among others. The significance of the two queens in modern mass culture is certainly greater than in historical scholarship, which is far less interested in the characters of the two queens.

Uwe Blass

Dr Georg Eckert studied history and philosophy in Tübingen, where he completed his doctorate with a study on the early Enlightenment around 1700 with a British focus, and habilitated in Wuppertal. He began working as a research assistant in history in 2009 and now teaches as a private lecturer in modern history.