[30] Keith, p. 167, et seq.
[31] Robertson says, that the amendment would not have been approved of by “either Queen.” He alleges that Mary had only “suspended” the prosecution of her title to the English Crown; and that “she determined to revive her claim, on the first prospect of success.” That Robertson has, in this instance, done injustice to Mary, is evident, from the exact consistency of her future conduct, with what will be found stated in the text.—Robertson, Vol. ii. p. 200.
[32] Keith, p. 170. et seq. Robertson says, that at the period of these conferences, Mary was only in her eighteenth year; but, as they both took place in 1561, she must have been in her nineteenth year, which Keith confirms, who says (page 178), “The readers having now perused several original conferences, will, I suppose, clearly discern the fine spirit and genius of that princess, who was yet but in the 19th year of her age.”
[33] Brantome in Jebb, vol. ii. p. 82.
[34] Keith, p. 175. Throckmorton writes, “Thereto the Queen-mother said, The King, my son, and I, would be glad to do good betwixt the Queen, my sister, your mistress, and the Queen, my daughter, and shall be glad to hear that there were good amity betwixt them; for neither the King, my son, nor I, nor any of his Council, will do harm in the matter, or show ourselves other than friends to them both.”
[35] Keith, p. 164.
[36] Keith, Appendix, p. 92.
[37] Robertson, Appendix, No. 5.—from the Cotton Library.
[38] Keith, p. 178.—Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 418—Stranguage, p. 9—and Freebairn, p. 19.
[39] Brantome in Jebb, vol. ii. p. 483, et seq.—Keith, p. 179—and Freebairn, p. 16 et seq.