Historian Suzannah Lipscomb on the historical accuracy of Mary Queen Of Scots

Josie Rourke’s sumptuous new film, Mary Queen Of Scots, has set a cat among the historical pigeons even before it comes out. Chief among the targets for historians’ ire was the fact that in this film Elizabeth I and Mary Queen of Scots meet, when they never did in real life.

It’s one of a number of ways that the film shows things that in history were only determined by letter. Elizabeth and Mary did agree to meet in York in 1562: in the film, we see Mary and her retinue en route, turning back when met by Elizabeth’s ambassador, Thomas Randolph, who tells them that the planned meeting has been postponed. In practice, Elizabeth did change her mind, and conveyed that by letter before Mary set out. But letter-writing makes for dull drama.

Josie Rourke’s sumptuous new film, Mary Queen Of Scots, has set a cat among the historical pigeons even before it comes out

Dr Suzannah Lipscomb is a historian at the University of Roehampton and the author of books including ‘Witchcraft: A Ladybird Expert Book’

Dr Suzannah Lipscomb is a historian at the University of Roehampton and the author of books including ‘Witchcraft: A Ladybird Expert Book’

Mary Stuart was just six days old when she became Queen of Scots in 1542. In 1559, she and her husband were crowned ‘Francis and Mary, King and Queen of France, Scotland, England and Ireland’. Henry VIII had named his daughter Elizabeth in the line of succession, but he had also made her illegitimate. To Catholics, Elizabeth had no right to the English throne.

Within 18 months, Francis died. The widowed, teenage Mary Queen of Scots returned home to a Protestant Scotland determined to be declared Elizabeth I’s heir. It was Mary’s great hope that if she met Elizabeth in the flesh she could persuade her. This is where Mary Queen Of Scots picks up the story.

There is much history here you can trust. Saoirse Ronan makes a good Mary: she’s young, slim and beautiful, as Mary herself was, with the same marble-like complexion and auburn hair. In much of the film, Mary speaks English with a Scottish accent; in reality, it’s more likely she would have spoken her mother tongue, Scots – a specific language distinct from Gaelic. Mary was also truly surrounded by four close womenfolk, all her own age, and all called Mary too. And Elizabeth I – played by Margot Robbie – really did get smallpox in 1562 and her face was ever after marred by the scars. To hide them, she took to wearing make-up of white lead and vinegar, glazed by egg white.

Elizabeth I – played by Margot Robbie – really did get smallpox in 1562 and her face was ever after marred by the scars. To hide them, she took to wearing make-up of white lead and vinegar, glazed by egg white

Even the most scandalous moments of the film – the parts where you’ll be thinking ‘This can’t be true’ – are. Henry, Lord Darnley, who goes on to become Mary’s second husband, was found in bed with Mary’s confidential secretary, David Rizzio. And if the blood-drenched murder victim in one scene seems a bit far-fetched, it’s not: conspirators stabbed the poor man 56 times. Even in having the two Queens meet, the movie uses a clever premise: Elizabeth says to Mary ‘No one can know we met – if you speak of it to anyone, I will deny it’, creating the possibility that they did meet but the whole thing was hushed up.

What else isn’t totally accurate? We don’t know if Darnley persuaded Mary into marriage because of his skill at oral sex – historical records don’t extend to that level of detail – but we do know he was tall, charming and good-looking, and it was lust at first sight.

There were black Africans in Britain in the 16th century and their inclusion at court is not far-fetched, but Randolph himself wasn’t black.

While Elizabeth ages in the film, Mary does not. This is, surely, because we are to imagine her as Elizabeth does:  ‘not an aged woman but a young resplendent queen’

While Elizabeth ages in the film, Mary does not. This is, surely, because we are to imagine her as Elizabeth does: ‘not an aged woman but a young resplendent queen’

Perhaps the most notable departure from the record is advancing many of the older Elizabeth’s characteristics into her early reign in order to contrast a natural, decisive and passionate Mary with a frigid, indecisive and weak Elizabeth. While Elizabeth ages in the film, Mary does not. This is, surely, because we are to imagine her as Elizabeth does: in her mind’s eye, she says, she sees ‘not an aged woman but a young resplendent queen’. In many ways, the film is Elizabeth’s fearful fantasy of what her rival was like.

Dr Suzannah Lipscomb is a historian at the University of Roehampton and the author of books including ‘Witchcraft: A Ladybird Expert Book’

 

Read more at DailyMail.co.uk