In a previous post I alluded to the stories surrounding the birth of King James VI in June 1566. It's well known that the king's unfortunate father, Lord Darnley, cast doubt on his son being his. Equally clear is the knowledge that this is almost certainly more a mark of Darnley than of Mary, Queen of Scots. The alleged real father was the queen's murdered secretary, the Italian, David Rizzio. But Rizzio was well advanced in middle aged and not the kind of man who might have caught the queen's eye.
And yet the tales persisted. It was said that, in later years, a baby's body was found interred within the walls of Edinburgh Castle and some malicious people stated that this was the queen's true son and the boy she raised as king was an impostor, a son of Lady Reres or the Earl of Mar.
.
But what of the child in the walls? In 1835 there was a fire in Edinburgh Castle which necessitated rebuilding work to part of the structure. A small coffin was found in the walls of the royal apartments, containing an infant wrapped in a shroud of silk and gold cloth, with a letter J upon it. The finding was reported in magazine literature at the time but, curiously, the coffin and its contents have vanished. One story says that they were re-interred within the castle walls.
The story received wider attention in the early 20th century when Alice, Lady Forbes, wrote about them in The Scottish Historical Review (Vol. 15, No. 58, Jan., 1918). In an answering article in the same journal, R. K. Hannay cast doubt on the conclusions that the infant was the true king; not least the information that Lady Reres was in fact rather old to be bearing a child at that time and her words about pain and childbirth were hopelessly muddled both by her cousin and John Knox's secretary.
We will never know the truth about the matter for sure, unless and until the remains of the possible prince are discovered again.
And yet the tales persisted. It was said that, in later years, a baby's body was found interred within the walls of Edinburgh Castle and some malicious people stated that this was the queen's true son and the boy she raised as king was an impostor, a son of Lady Reres or the Earl of Mar.
.
It was true that Lady Reres was pregnant at the time and one of the few ladies attending the queen before she gave birth. Five years later, Lady Rere's cousin Andrew Lundy had dinner with John Knox and relayed to the reformed a stranger superstitious belief which Margaret Bethune, Lady Reres, had; namely that the childbirth pains of the queen had been supernaturally transferred to her through the intercession of the Countess of Atholl, who was accounted a witch. The revelation to Knox was recorded by his secretary, Richard Bannatyne:
On Tuysday, the 3 of Julij, 1571, Andro Lundie beand at dener with my maister, in a place of the lard of Abbotshalls, called Falsyde, openlie affirmet for treuth, that when the quene was lying in ieasing of the king, the Ladie Athole, lying [lodging] thair lykwayis, baith within the Castell of Edinburgh, that he come thair for sum business, and called for the Ladie Reirres, whom he fand in her chalmer, lying bedfast, and he asking hir of hir disease, scho answrit that scho was never so trubled with no barne that ever scho bair, ffor the Ladie Athole had cassin all the pyne of hir (the Queen's) child-birth vpon hir.
But what of the child in the walls? In 1835 there was a fire in Edinburgh Castle which necessitated rebuilding work to part of the structure. A small coffin was found in the walls of the royal apartments, containing an infant wrapped in a shroud of silk and gold cloth, with a letter J upon it. The finding was reported in magazine literature at the time but, curiously, the coffin and its contents have vanished. One story says that they were re-interred within the castle walls.
The story received wider attention in the early 20th century when Alice, Lady Forbes, wrote about them in The Scottish Historical Review (Vol. 15, No. 58, Jan., 1918). In an answering article in the same journal, R. K. Hannay cast doubt on the conclusions that the infant was the true king; not least the information that Lady Reres was in fact rather old to be bearing a child at that time and her words about pain and childbirth were hopelessly muddled both by her cousin and John Knox's secretary.
We will never know the truth about the matter for sure, unless and until the remains of the possible prince are discovered again.
