We may think that Parliament can be a little fractious these days, but we are pale shadows of our Tudor forebears. In 1586 Job Throckmorton, the MP for Warwick, launched a ferocious attack on the Catholic Mary Stewart, calling her “the daughter of sedition, the mother of rebellion, the nurse of impiety [and] the handmaid of iniquity”. She was “such a creature whom no Christian eye can behold with patience, whose villainy hath stained the earth and infected the air, the breath of whose malice towards the Church of God and the Lord’s anointed, our dread sovereign, hath in a loathsome kind of savour fumed up to the heavens.” Putting an end to Mary, he said, would be “one of the fairest riddances that ever the Church of God had”.
I’ve only seen the three-minute trailer for the latest Mary, Queen of Scots biopic, directed by Josie Rourke, but I hope the film will contain some parliamentary scenes. They would capture the drama of an island in turmoil because of the conflict between two extraordinary women. Though “conflict” isn’t quite the word. More a matter of pride and petulance. What I don’t want to see is those two women meeting on screen, since that never happened, but, alas, the trailer indicates that, as per usual, historical accuracy will be abandoned and we’ll have the obligatory showdown.
The temptation is hard to resist, I know. It happens in Schiller’s Maria Stuart, in Donizetti’s opera, and twice in the 1971 film Mary, Queen of Scots, starring Glenda Jackson and Vanessa Redgrave. In a Martha Graham dance piece the two queens are to be found playing a game of tennis. But why? Isn’t there drama enough without making things up?
I was cheered, though, to see Elizabeth reading one of Mary’s annoying letters in the trailer. This astonishing correspondence sums up their relationship. Lots of missives between Elizabeth and Mary have come down to us and they offer glimpses of the souring of relations through the period of Mary’s enforced sojourn in England. In February 1569, Mary was full of gratitude “for the honourable respect and courteous entertainment that I have received since my arrival”. But before long she was grumbling about the “unloving treatment” she had received: “I require succour; or else I shall be compelled to seek for it where God shall direct me.”
Elizabeth was not the sort of monarch one inflicted an “or else” ultimatum upon and she grew increasingly irritated by Mary’s tantrums. In a letter from February 1570, she was clearly offended by the “heap of confused, troubled thoughts” stemming from Mary’s pen. It was far wiser, Elizabeth suggested, “to believe and trust rather to me in all your difficulties” rather than “either bruits of the brainless vulgar or the viperous backbiters of the sowers of discord”.
By February 1572, after receiving a long letter from Mary “with multitude of sharp and injurious words”, Elizabeth advised Mary “that it is not the manner to obtain good things with evil speeches”.
Well, we all know how it turned out, and I don’t suppose that having actresses reading letters on screen would make for much of a blockbuster, but it might be worth a shot. It could all be interspersed with moments of high drama, and there’s lots to play with. We could have Darnley’s house being blown up, Bothwell doing his abducting, and there’s no end of plots and trials.
I dare say a generation will see the story of Mary, Queen of Scots through the filter of this new film. There’s good and bad in that. If Elizabeth I becomes Margot Robbie in the mind’s eye, who could complain? And I’m told that John Guy’s superb biography was one of the sources for the film. Nothing could be better. But why, why, why, do the two queens have to meet? Is it too late for an edit? I’ll throw in a fiver if funding is an issue.
The final shot? Not the execution, but perhaps Mary writing that late letter to Elizabeth. “You will credit or disbelieve my discourse,” Mary began,” as it seems best to you.” She was now “resolved to strengthen myself in Christ Jesus alone” who had already carried her through so many “unjust calumnies, accusations and condemnations”. Or perhaps back to Job Throckmorton in Parliament, whooping it up after Mary’s demise: “It was, out of all question, a very worthy act that was lately done at Fotheringay.” Or perhaps an image of Elizabeth caught between guilt and satisfaction in the wake of Mary’s death. Or maybe just the famous Southwell poem:
Alive a Queen, now dead I am a Saint;
Once Mary called, my name now Martyr is;
From earthly reign debarrèd by restraint,
In lieu whereof I reign in heavenly bliss.
Jonathan Wright is an honorary fellow in the department of theology and religion at Durham University. Mary Queen of Scots is scheduled for release in the US on December 7 and the UK on January 18
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.