Mary Queen of Scots (#12927)
by Editor on June 4, 2003 at 3:27 PM

The Guardian (London) May 29, 2003 SECTION: Guardian Home Pages, Pg. 12 HEADLINE: Fire may illuminate theory of the murdering queen BYLINE: Gerard Seenan As murder mysteries go, it has to be one of the most elaborate and enduring. The killing of Mary Queen of Scots' second husband, Lord Darnley, has produced more than its fair share of theories.

With uncertainty over everything from the murder weapon to the perpetrator, the murder of Darnley in Edinburgh more than 450 years ago has led bickering historians to offer copious explanations as to how and why the vain nobleman was killed. But the murder drama has now taken a new twist, with the question of where Darnley was murdered threatening to force historical detectives to go back to the evidence and look at their deductions once again.

It is the huge fire in the Cowgate area of Edinburgh's Old Town at the end of last year which has led to new questions.

On the night of February 9 1567, gunpowder was lit in the basement of the house that Darnley was using as a temporary home in Edinburgh. The nobleman escaped the blast, and death. But not for long.

Darnley's body was discovered the next day in a nearby garden, his valet dead at his side. Some accounts say he was suffocated, others that he was stabbed.

Until now, though, there has been general agreement on where he was murdered: underneath the old college part of Edinburgh University. But that may be about to change.

"I have been looking at old property records and land documents written in Latin, and I think I can prove that Darnley was murdered at the provost's house, between the university and the Cowgate," says Rob Maxtone Graham, a genealogist who has been hired by archaeologists working in the area hit by the fire.

Mr Maxtone Graham is reluctant to speculate about whether his discovery might eventually lead to firmer evidence of who was behind the murder of Mary's husband.

"Things are at a very early stage, and a lot more research needs to be done, so I can't say how much effect this will have.

"But look at it this way: if any modern detective found out that a victim had been murdered somewhere other than had been previously thought, would he not go back and look at all the evidence again?"

Mary's marriage to Darnley, a fellow Roman Catholic, in 1565, moved her closer to the throne of England, as he was a descendant of Henry VII. But Darnley showed little interest in the affairs of state, and was easily manipulated by Mary's enemies, the Protestant lords of Scotland.

The lords persuaded Darnley that Mary's influential Catholic private secretary, David Rizzio, was her lover. Darnley agreed to participate in his murder, in front of Mary, and to back the Protestant religion. Mary's close confidant, the Earl of Bothwell, was also a target, but he managed to escape.

After Rizzio was killed, Mary managed to persuade Darnley that he was being used by the Protestant lords. He begged - but never truly received - her forgiveness.

Bothwell believed that only the divorce or murder of Darnley would free Mary. But as Mary was pregnant, divorce would make her child illegitimate, ending any claim to the English throne. Within a month, Darnley was murdered.

"There are lots of theories as to how complicit Mary was," says Mr Maxtone Graham. "The question of location won't change them, but it does put a new spin, at the very least, on the accepted accounts of the murder."