The baptism of the Prince was performed Tuesday last, when he got the name of Charles James. It was the Queen's pleasure that he should bear the name James, together with that of Charles (the King of France's name). Everything at this solemnity was done according to the form of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. The King (Lord Darnley) had still given out that he would depart two days before the baptism, but when the time came on he made no sign of removing at all, only he still kept close within his own apartment. The very day of the baptism he sent three several times desiring me either to come and see him, or to appoint him an hour that he might come to me in my lodgings, so that I found myself obliged at last to signify to him that seeing he was in no good correspondence with the Queen, I had it in charge from the most Christian King to have no conference with him.... His bad deportment is incurable, nor can there ever be any good expected from him.... I can't pretend to foretell how all may turn; but I will say that matters can't subsist long as they are without being accompanied with sundry bad consequences.... The Queen behaved herself admirably well all the time of the baptism, and showed so much earnestness to entertain all the goodly company in the best manner, that this made her forget in a good measure her former ailments. But I am of the mind, however, that she will give us some trouble as yet; nor can I be brought to think otherwise so long as she continues to be so pensive and melancholy.
AN INSULT TO THE ENGLISH
An Incident of the Baptism.
Melville's Memoirs, p. 171.
At the principal banquet there fell out a great flaw and grudge among the Englishmen, for a Frenchman called Bastien devised a number of men formed like satyrs, with long tails and whips in their hands, running before the meat, which was brought through the great hall upon a trim engine, marching, as it appeared, alone, with musicians clothed like maidens, playing upon all sorts of instruments and singing of music. But the satyrs were not content only to clear round, but put their hands behind them to their tails, which they wagged with their hands, in such sort as the Englishmen supposed it had been devised and done in derision of them, daftly {foolishly} apprehending that which they should not seem to have understood.... So soon as they saw the satyrs wagging their tails[17] ... they all sat down upon the bare floor behind the back of the board, that they should not see themselves scorned, as they thought.
1566.—December 23. Restoration of the Consistorial Jurisdiction of the Archbishop of St. Andrews.
Laing, II., 77. from Privy Seal Record, bk. 35, fol. 99.
A letter made restoring and reproving our sovereign's well beloved and trusty councillor, John, Archbishop of St. Andrews, primate and legate of Scotland, to all and sundry his jurisdictions as well upon the south as north sides of the Forth within the diocese of St. Andrews, which pertained to the Archbishopric of the same, to be used by him and his commissaries in all time coming in the same manner and form of justice as it is now used.... At Stirling, this xxiii day of December, the year of God, 1566 years.
[The jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts had been abolished in 1560. It was the Archbishop who pronounced the sentence of divorce between Bothwell and his wife, either in virtue of this general warrant, or by means of a special commission to try the case. On the one side, this restoration of the Consistorial Court is regarded as pointing to Mary's collusion with Bothwell, while controversialists, on the other side, would connect it with the proposal, made at Craigmillar, of a divorce between Mary and Darnley.]
DARNLEY FALLS ILL