Mary Stuart's Memory in Westminster Abbey

Updated: Apr 3, 2020

Westminster Abbey in London is the resting place of many famous figures. More importantly, it is the home of the tombs dedicated to the two feuding cousins, Mary, Queen of Scots and Queen Elizabeth I of England. Erected by King James VI & I, these two tombs represent the conflicting bloodlines of Stuart and Tudor claims to the English throne that eventually ended with the ascension of King James to both thrones (1567 and 1603) and the creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain (1707). The tombs of these two Queens sit directly across from one another, forever tying their historical narratives to one another. This blog post will analyze Peter Sherlock's article "The Monuments of Elizabeth Tudor and Mary Stuart: King James and the Manipulation of Memory," to discuss the way these two monuments have shifted the historical memory of Mary Stuart.

Mary Stuart's execution in 1587 would have a long lasting impact on relations between Scotland and England. Her controversial reign, as well as her involvement in the betrayal of her cousin, Queen Elizabeth I, would create the almost impossible task to bring peace between the two countries. Mary Stuart's son, King James VI & I, would be given that challenge after the death of Elizabeth I. In 1603,King James ascended the English throne that Mary Stuart had tried to

collaborate with, been imprisoned by, and ultimately struggled against. This made King James the ruler of both Scotland and England -- two countries who had a long history of feuding. This created a problem for King James, who needed to legitimize Stuart reign in England as well as emphasize his own Tudor blood to the English people. As a result, King James ordered the creation of Queen Elizabeth I and Mary Stuart's tombs in Westminster Abbey in an effort to present himself as "a peacemaker" as well as promote "the possibility of formal union between the two realms" while placing "an emphasis on the return to male rule."¹

Queen Elizabeth's tomb was the first to be erected by King James and she was buried in Westminster Abbey in 1606. However, Mary Stuart's tomb, who at the time was buried in Peterborough Cathedral, took much longer to complete. The erection on her tomb was a much slower process and Mary Stuart was not buried in it until 1612 -- six years after Queen Elizabeth. King James ordered her remains to be brought back to England and Mary Stuart was re-buried.² The tombs were created by Maximilian Poutrain and Cornelius Cure, followed by his son William after his death in 1608. Poutrain focused on Queen Elizabeth's tomb until its completion in 1607 and Cure began Mary Stuart's tomb 1606.³ Though there is no evidence of intentionally creating Mary Stuart's tomb at a slower pace, it suggests that King James was cautious in proceeding a memorial for his mother. Mary Stuart was known for her role in the plans to overthrow Queen Elizabeth I (Ridolfi plot in 1571 and the Babington plot in 1586). The tomb had the possibility of memorializing her efforts in overthrowing the Queen if it had been done too hastily. By having the tomb finished six years after Queen Elizabeth, it becomes almost a homage King James' Stuart line and emphasize that he is a Stuart. King James recognized Elizabeth first which attempts to diminish any doubt of King James' loyalty the English while simultaneously enforcing the Stuart claim to the throne six years later. This shifts Mary Stuart's narrative as a betrayer to enforcer. Mary Stuart did hold a claim to the English throne, because she was King Henry VII great-granddaughter. This put her in line for the English Throne after King Henry VIII's children. Given that Elizabeth was conceived out of wedlock, Mary Stuart claimed her reign as illegitimate. This also meant that King James was apart of the Tudor bloodline. The tombs represent King James attempt to unite both his Stuart and Tudor blood. Another example of this can be seen in the coinage from his reign, located here. The coin utilized the Tudor rose and a thistle to place a balance between his two competing identities.

The composition of both the tombs are strikingly similar, suggesting that King James sought to reshape his mother's memory to represent to represent her as a female ruler similar to Queen Elizabeth I. Both tombs (shown below) are "represented by a life-size effigy recumbent under a canopy supported by two pavilions composed of pillars of the Corinthian order, the whole taking the ancient form of a triumphal arch."⁴ Sherlock argues that the arches create a memorization of both queens' triumphs. For Elizabeth, the arches symbolize her ability to rule without being overthrown and challenge to her kingdoms. For Mary, the arches symbolize her success in her son's accession to the English throne against her rival, Elizabeth.⁵ This once again allows King James to reshape the narrative that his mother did have a claim to the English throne. It also shows that Mary Stuart, despite being executed, was successful in her fight to getting a Stuart on the throne.

The way that King James represented these women through the use of color and symbolism also shows how Mary Stuart's narrative was purposefully shifted during King James' reign. There is contrast between Queen Elizabeth I tomb and Mary Stuart's tomb. Elizabeth's tomb is surrounded with black pillars, whereas Mary's tomb surrounds her body with white pillars, while black pillars encase the outside. Both women are cut out of white stone, however Mary's body is rested upon a slab of black stone. The color connects the women as contrasting entities. It also adds emphasis on Mary Stuart as young and innocent (white) and Elizabeth as old and powerful (black). These contrasting ideas represented in the color are also emphasized in the effigies. Elizabeth's effigy displays her displays her with the traditional iconography of queenship. She is seen older, with a crown, orb and spector. Mary Stuart, on the other hand, is shown very young, wearing a bonnet and her hands are in a prayer position. There is no symbolism of monarchical rule in Mary Stuart's effigy, even though she ruled over France and Scotland. The pictures below shows the contrast between the two women's depictions. This color contrast and symbolism effectively depicts Mary Stuart as a religiously pure and innocent Queen. Sherlock states: "The depiction of Mary as an innocent victim is furthered by the use of color: black for the sarcophagus, white for the effigy, black for the outer set of four pillars, white for the inner.."⁶ By showing Mary as young and religiously pure, it shapes her memory to depict her as an innocent woman who was killed too soon. The lack of monarchical symbols also take away from her failure as Queen. There is no recognition that she had once ruled in France and Scotland. Instead, it focuses the viewer on her religious values i.e. her hands in prayer. There is no iconography that directs the viewer to her Catholic roots. Her hands in prayer emphasize that she was religious, which can suggest that she can be seen as an ambiguous and suggest that she was devoutly devoted to religion. This also shows that King James might have sought to take his mother's association with Catholicism away from her image. King James was Protestant and ruling over a largely Protestant kingdom. This effigy honored his mother's memory, without drawing too much attention to her religious and monarchical background. The emphasis on the color white and the simplistic nature of her effigy shifts her image from a large Catholic Queen to one that is more idealistic for King James' image.

Images- Right: Effigy of Queen Elizabeth in Westminster Abbey found on https://publish.illinois.edu/canderson/2015/10/10/tudor-tombs/

The placement of the tombs plays a long-lasting effect in the way Mary Stuart is historically seen. The two woman are contrasted in placement. The two queens' tombs sit opposite one another, which forever associates them together as two opposing forces. Viewers in the 1600s would remember the two nations -- England and Scotland -- were two separate forces, but would also be reminded that they were brought together by King James would embodied both English and Scottish blood. These women's stories are infamously known hundreds of years after their deaths. The placement of the tombs re-enforces the idea that Mary Stuart was almost the antithesis of Queen Elizabeth, and this can also be seen within the basic construction of the tombs as well. Viewers will see Mary Stuart as a young innocent woman, slain because of her religious beliefs. On the other hand, Viewers will see Queen Elizabeth as a powerful Queen, who ruled England for over 40 years, compared to her cousin Mary. However, this placement also continues the narrative that these two women were much apart of one another's lives and defied the cultural norms of their time. Both were Queens in a period where women were not seen as rulers and was extremely patriarchal. By putting the tombs next to each other, they are also associated as a combined force. The tombs side-by-side simultaneously pin the women against each other while also combining them into one powerful force of ruling Queens. Those who go to Westminster Abbey today can recognize the figures and their stories. These women will forever be entwined together due to King James VI & I, both as enemies and as allies.

Endnotes:

¹ Peter Sherlock. "The Monuments of Elizabeth Tudor and Mary Stuart: King James and the Manipulation of Memory." Journal of British Studies 46, no. 2 (2007): 264 URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/510888

² Sherlock. ""The Monuments of Elizabeth Tudor and Mary Stuart," 272-273

³ Sherlock. "The Monuments of Elizabeth Tudor and Mary Stuart," 273

⁴ Sherlock. "The Monuments of Elizabeth Tudor and Mary Stuart," 273

⁵ Sherlock. "The Monuments of Elizabeth Tudor and Mary Stuart," 274

⁶ Sherlock. "The Monuments of Elizabeth Tudor and Mary Stuart," 274

Mary Stuart's Memory in Westminster Abbey

Recent Posts

Comments

Mary Stuart & the Modern Opinion