Plots and Revolts

Why Mary became the focus of challenges

Elizabeth faced both open rebellion and secret conspiracies. These challenges connected religious opposition to a struggle over who should rule England. Elizabeth was Protestant, while Mary, Queen of Scots was Catholic and had a rival claim to the English throne through her descent from Henry VII.

Mary had fled to England in 1568 and was kept in custody. Her presence gave opponents of Elizabeth a particular person whom they could hope to place on the throne. This did not mean that all Catholics supported rebellion, or that Mary personally organised every conspiracy. It meant that religious and political opponents could unite around an alternative monarch.

Why the northern earls rebelled, 1569–70

The Revolt of the Northern Earls was led by the Earls of Northumberland and Westmorland. Their motives combined religion, regional power and plans involving Mary.

Both earls were conservative Catholics who resented Elizabeth’s Religious Settlement, which had established Protestant worship. Traditional Catholic practices remained strong in the north, and the earls wanted to restore Catholic worship. Religion therefore gave them both a grievance against Elizabeth’s government and a cause around which to gather supporters.

They also resented the reduction of their traditional regional influence. Northern noble families had long exercised considerable power in their own areas. The growing influence of Elizabeth’s southern-based advisers, including William Cecil, threatened this independence. Their opposition was therefore political as well as religious: they wanted to protect their own standing against a more powerful central government.

A plan to marry Mary to the Duke of Norfolk connected these grievances to the succession. Marriage to a powerful English nobleman could strengthen Mary’s position as a Catholic alternative to Elizabeth. Mary’s presence supplied a figurehead and a possible route to changing the monarchy; she did not personally lead the revolt.

What the revolt changed

The rebellion was quickly defeated. Its aims were serious because they challenged Elizabeth’s religious policy and supported a rival claimant, but its rapid collapse showed that the government could overcome an armed challenge from powerful nobles.

The punishment was severe: roughly 450 rebels were executed. This demonstrated the government’s determination to punish rebellion and discourage further resistance. The earls did not achieve the restoration of Catholicism or the planned marriage.

The revolt also exposed a continuing problem. Defeating the rebels did not remove Mary’s claim or the possibility that opponents would organise around her again. The following years brought secret plots rather than another successful attempt to change the monarchy through open rebellion.

The Ridolfi Plot, 1571

Roberto Ridolfi, an Italian banker, organised a plan combining a Spanish invasion, Elizabeth’s assassination and Mary’s marriage to the Duke of Norfolk. Mary would replace Elizabeth as queen. The proposed marriage linked a Catholic claimant to a powerful English nobleman, while invasion would bring foreign military force into the struggle.

The plot was exposed after a messenger carrying letters connected with it was arrested at Dover and questioned. It failed before its plans could be carried out, and Norfolk was executed in 1572.

Ridolfi’s significance lay in the combination of domestic conspiracy and foreign intervention. It showed that Mary could remain the centre of opposition even after the northern revolt had failed. Norfolk’s execution also showed the potentially fatal consequences of involvement for members of the English nobility.

The Throckmorton Plot, 1583

Francis Throckmorton was involved in a plan for a French Catholic invasion, backed by Spain, to remove Elizabeth and place Mary on the throne. Unlike Ridolfi’s marriage plan, its central feature was an invasion supported by Catholic powers abroad.

The government’s intelligence network uncovered the conspiracy before it succeeded. Francis Walsingham, Elizabeth’s principal secretary, played an important role in developing this network.

The plot demonstrated that the danger had persisted for more than a decade after Ridolfi. It also showed the value of watching suspected conspirators and their contacts: the government could investigate a threat before an invasion or change of monarch occurred. Successive discoveries hardened government policy towards Catholics, as ministers increasingly associated Catholic conspiracy with foreign intervention.

Walsingham’s spies and the Babington Plot, 1586

Walsingham used spies and intercepted communications to discover what conspirators were planning. Secret correspondence was particularly valuable because it could reveal both the intended action and who had approved it. Plotters used ciphers to disguise their messages, so intercepting a letter was only part of the task: its meaning also had to be deciphered.

In 1586, Anthony Babington led a plot to assassinate Elizabeth and replace her with Mary, with Spanish support. Walsingham’s network intercepted secret letters between Babington and Mary, allowing the government to monitor the conspiracy without immediately alerting the plotters.

Thomas Phelippes, Walsingham’s codebreaker, deciphered the correspondence. The letters provided evidence that Mary had personally approved the assassination plan. This made Babington especially significant: Mary was no longer simply the claimant whom others hoped to install. The government now possessed written evidence of her own approval of a threat to Elizabeth’s life.

The plot was defeated, but its consequences went beyond the punishment of its organisers. Its evidence led directly to Mary’s trial.

Why Mary was executed in 1587

Mary was tried at Fotheringhay Castle in October 1586. The deciphered Babington letters were used as evidence against her, and she was found guilty and sentenced to death.

The evidence gave Elizabeth’s government a strong reason to act. Earlier plots had shown that Mary repeatedly attracted conspiracies; Babington linked her personally to a plan to kill Elizabeth. Keeping her in custody had not prevented this danger.

Parliament and the Privy Council pressed Elizabeth to authorise the execution. They argued that, for as long as Mary lived, she would remain a focus for Catholic plots. Their concern was not only punishment for a past conspiracy but also the prevention of future attacks.

Elizabeth nevertheless hesitated for months. Mary was a fellow anointed monarch, and executing her could establish a dangerous precedent: if one monarch could be put to death, others might face the same treatment. Elizabeth also feared retaliation from Catholic powers, particularly Spain. She therefore had to weigh her immediate security against risks to royal authority and foreign relations.

Elizabeth eventually signed the death warrant. Mary was executed at Fotheringhay Castle on 8 February 1587.

The significance of Mary’s execution

The execution removed the particular Catholic claimant around whom repeated plots had formed. It therefore strengthened Elizabeth’s domestic security, although it did not end every source of religious opposition.

Abroad, it angered Philip II of Spain and contributed to the tensions that led to the Spanish Armada in 1588. It was one contributing factor, not the sole cause of the Armada.

Mary’s execution thus had contrasting consequences: it removed a recurring focus for conspiracy within England while worsening relations with a powerful Catholic ruler abroad.