 Okay, great. I just wanted to make sure before I started. Thank you for that introduction, Marie. I'd like to begin by thanking all of the organisers for hosting such a great event and for so easily accommodating me online. I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank Dr Cooper for his support and encouragement of myself and other early career researchers over the past few years. In fact, in honour of John's Tudor regime matches I have with me today or I would have done the first piece in my personal collection of random Tudor paraphernalia. I fell in love with this Mary Queen of Scots Christmas tree decoration at Edinburgh Castle and so she was gifted to me by a friend. But this tiny version of Mary encapsulates some of the representational themes that have dominated perceptions of the Queen of Scots since the 16th century. The strength of her Catholic faith and its perceived threat is represented by the wearing of not one but two crosses and the black dress embellished with gold, although probably exaggerated here for a Christmassy aesthetic. It could suggest an irreverent widow and the valuing of personal magnificence over feminine duty. These perceived problems with Mary's character were first popularised by humanist scholar and resistance theorist George Buchanan. However, in the early 1560s, while the Knox Elmer debate established what type of female rule that England could tolerate, Buchanan seemed relatively happy with his own, content to enter her service as she returned to Scotland in 1561. However, by 1567, a year of Mary's forced abdication from flight to England, Buchanan had deserted her for the sake of the cook and begun to pen some of the most vitriolic pieces of King's party propaganda against her. Three pieces stand out as forming the basis of Buchanan's depiction of Mary and his thoughts on queenship, though they are not necessarily as well known as his most famous work, De Uro Rhegnaet Upper Scots. The Detection of the Doings of Mary, Queen of Scots was published first in Latin and then in English, probably in pretend scots, by John Day in 1571. It provided a largely falsified if rhetorically compelling account of Mary's tyrannous reign in the same year and ammunition to the true lords, published by both Blackpervict and John Day, justified her removal from a more political and security conflict point of view. Buchanan's most extensive account of Mary's reign can be found in chapters 17 to 19 of his rare in Scottish arm historian. They're not published until 1582, but there are a number of reasons for a similar presentation of Mary. The need for friendly relations with England is roughly similar and Mary's status as murderous conspirator remains the same, though possibly with a slightly more religious edge. The quoting of passages from the Detection verbatim indicates expansion rather than revision, and for these reasons, and for the sake of the simplicity of the short paper, material from each of these works will be taken as equally indicative of Buchanan's overall ideas about queenship. I have one essential question for Buchanan's work and his perception of gender, which is, was there an irreconcilable disconnect between the traditionally masculine institution of monarchy and the feminine person of Mary, Queen of Scots? Were Mary's gendered failures presented as inevitable, or were her feminine vices deemed personal failures, and, or did Buchanan implicate Elizabeth II with arguments that made all female rule suspect? As his political theories would go on to become influential throughout Britain and Europe, it is essential that we understand how gender was built into his ideas. Some excellent studies of similar cases of similar texts in the case of Elizabeth have demonstrated the importance of looking for nuances in gendered political thought, as opposed to assuming that everyone was as sexist as the more famous John Mox. Carol Levin and Ian McClaren, among many others, have done excellent work in this field. On the other hand, in the Scottish case, in the Kirsten Post Walton's Catholic Queen Protestant Patriarchy, really spotlights the issue of gender in Mary's reign, but its scope is ultimately too broad for the kind of fine-grained analysis I hope to demonstrate today. This close reading will highlight not only that Buchanan's ideas were individually interesting, but that they also related more closely to Elizabethan politics than is usually acknowledged. By creating a narrative in which Mary fails to live up to the masculine standards of monarchy and gives in to her basis to feminine instincts, Buchanan actually gives Elizabeth the opportunity to do things differently. So for the first part of my analysis, I'll return to the original question that drew me to this field three years ago. When a woman is raised to the rank of queen regnant, does she does the definition of monarchy change as dramatically as we might think? What were the expected virtues of a good monarch and were they essentially masculine? Other than a vague sense of physical presence, the majority of criteria for good rule were mental abilities or personality traits, with the cardinal virtues of wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance cropping up the most. Though usually gendered male, Constance Jordan has highlighted that these virtues were already being employed by the likes of Thomas Elliott in women's defence. While unlikely, it would not be impossible for an exceptional woman to display what Elmer had termed the shining ornaments of the mind. Similarly, John Leslie argued that female rulers and specifically Mary lacked neither wit, policy, dexterity, prudence, liberality, justice nor mercy, neither any other thing meant for a prince. Buchanan, on the other hand, systematically denies Mary's display of any positive masculine characteristics. By way of contrast, he praises the honesty and wisdom of her half brother James Stewart. Though cunning, Mary is not wise. Her decision-making process is characterised in Buchanan's words, words by headlong haste and rashness. She is described as inconstant and changeable, her inability to make decisions compounded by inappropriate counsel. In response to the rise of Ritio, for example, he argues in ruling the kingdom she should consult the nobility rather than worthless tramps. Buchanan does in places acknowledge Mary's military capability and some level of courage, the second cardinal virtue, to back that capability up. His description of her action at Carbury Hill is mixed. She read with her army and talked with her men to ascertain their state of mind. Though she had a momentary lapse in control on seeing the famous banner depicting her dead husband, overall she remained resolute to fight. Buchanan's Mary, regardless of her faults, is anything but timid. Her inability to execute justice, our third virtue, is an obvious failure of good masculine monarchy. However, it's clear that it's not impossible for any woman to display this virtue. Buchanan describes Mary's mother and former Queen Regent Mary of Gies as a reasonable and able woman with a strong sense of justice. Despite her considerable unpopularity in Scotland. By contrast, her daughter does not want justice for her husband's murder. She in both world quote, abandoned the investigation of the king's death and with much more bitterness set about pursuing the authors of the libels, not sparing money, nor men, nor horses. While the failings already mentioned could have been attributed to mistake or misfortune, Buchanan's depiction of Mary's lack of temperance, the fourth cardinal virtue, is the clearest argument for her tyranny. He condemns the French inspired extravagance of a court stating that she spent her time, if not in princely magnificence, yet in more than princely or other unprinci licentiousness. This lack of restraint is amplified by the popular ballads of Robert Semple, closely linked to Buchanan. For example, in the lines, the royal house, refuge to honest men was made a bordello and a thieves den. Scott's at all level of society had to be convinced of Mary's status as the purest of tyrants. Buchanan's definition of which, according to Mason, are, monsters of effeminacy, weak men whose powers of self-control and denial have been overwhelmed by such base instinct as vanity, greed, anger and lust. Buchanan's descriptions of Mary have been seen as condemnation of female rulers for their weak-natured passion and inconstancy. However, the acknowledgement that men could display female gendered characteristics of tyranny and the contextual fact that Buchanan did remain in Mary's service for a number of years suggests that these were not permanent conceptions of gendered characteristics as fixed binaries. There was room for assessment of queenship on a case-by-case basis. And so, if Mary could not be successfully masculine as a monarch, hadn't she at least fulfilled positive feminine roles as a wife and mother? Apparently not. The enacting of these feminine duties quickly backfired on the Queen of Scots and became vulnerabilities both practically and representationally. Indeed, the overarching message of Buchanan's pieces seems to be that rather than trying to live up to feminine ideals, Mary would have done better not to bother as the risks were not paying off. In fact, Buchanan cites Elizabeth as a contrasting example of the benefits of staying single. And so, when it came to the expectations of a good wife, it is worth noting that in some situations, Mary had the capacity to do the right thing. Buchanan makes little to no mention of her first marriage to Francis II and her serious displays of mourning in the style pictured here indicate at least tacit approval of her behaviour. However, although she was clearly capable of living up to expectations of widows during her transition to power, dealing with a living husband and gauging the appropriate reaction to his death as a Queen in her own right would be an entirely different kettle of fish. Similarly, a key concern for political commentators at the beginning of Elizabeth's reign was that a King consort would not only have too much power over his wife, but that this power would be wielded on behalf of either an English faction or a foreign power, neither of which were appealing. By contrast, however, Buchanan's Mary at first represents the entirely the opposite problem, a Queen who excludes and emasculates her husband, an apparent reversal of male and female nature. The result is that her husband, Lord Henry Dunley, becomes untrustworthy to the nobility, but Buchanan is dating that men of such experience did not consider it safe to trust a young man who was wholly controlled by his wife. Mary is cast as the inverse of a good and obedient wife to her husband, even before any discussion of authority being fritted away. However, when it came to her third husband, James Hepburn, the Earl of Bowdwell, she is only too keen to bend to his will. In an imagined letter to her French counterparts, Buchanan quotes Mary as stating that the realm could not be kept in order unless our authority were assisted and furthered by a man capable of taking upon himself the execution of justice and the suppression of the rebellious. Mary is cast as either a disobedient wife or an overly obedient one, depending on the husband. Even when the darling match produces that holy grail for young rulers, a healthy male heir, there is no acknowledgement that this should be considered a success of Mary's. Once James VI and later I had been born, Buchanan made it clear that a simple fact of biological motherhood was of very little significance to contemporary politics. She is described as having no real maternal instinct and a tendency towards infanticide, with the claim that, quote, her mind would not shrink from such a task. In what appears to be a direct comparison with the biblical narrative of the murderous stepmother Athalia, not explicitly referred to by Buchanan, but definitely preempted by his opponent John Leslie. The Queen's brother, Marey, and his king's party are cast as James's protectors. One passage is particularly striking and therefore worth quoting in full. Now that she was rid of this honest popular man, i.e. her husband, the Queen tried to remove other obstacles to her tyranny. She hated those, especially who, seeing that her mind was not more favourable towards her son than it had been towards her husband, had banded together at Stirling, intending no treason, but determined to protect the child. In Buchanan's account, the King's party became stepmothers of a sort through this protective role, responsible for James's upbringing, correct religious views, and education, thus negating any credit Mary might have received for her own son. As James grew older, this stepmother role was increasingly assigned to Elizabeth, as suggested by Vanuut. James argues the following, How fond and inconstant I were if I should prefer my mother to the title, let all men judge. My religion ever moved me to hate her course, although my honour constrained me to insist for her life. So we see that Buchanan's passages on Mary's marriages and motherhood make it clear that to fulfil traditional feminine roles in a literal sense was not a Queen's ticket to acceptance in early modern politics, especially when family politics proves such a problematic distraction. Furthermore, any successes could easily be undermined with the right rhetoric. Buchanan makes it clear that her attempts to submit herself to feminine stereotypes were ultimately Mary's downfall, suggesting success as a female ruler lay elsewhere. And say this close reading of Buchanan's work is part of broader research into the connection between gendered representations of Mary Queen of Scots and of Elizabeth the First. The results so far suggest that although historians assume that an attack on one female ruler was an attack on them all, the gendered campaigns against Mary had the effect of constructing Elizabeth as her opposite. Whether or not this was a conscious process, there are a number of factors that suggest it had a positive effect on Elizabeth's representation. Explicit references within the text are the most obvious factor. Buchanan writes, as she keeps peace and justice among her own subjects in England, so unrequired she offered support to the same end in Scotland. The inference that Elizabeth is a wise ruler concerned with justice and having the courage to deploy English troops constructs her as fulfilling all of the masculine characteristics expected of a good ruler, which Mary failed to embody. Interestingly, he also makes a direct commentary on Elizabeth's unmarried virginal state, which had not yet been established as permanent. Appropriating the voice of Elizabeth herself, he states, I myself have delayed entering in marriage once when I publicly received the crown I was wedded to this realm. As far as I'm aware, Buchanan's commentary is not usually commented on in discussion of Elizabeth's marriage choices, yet here he is implementing tropes that are usually considered to originate in English representations of Elizabeth and slightly later in her reign, namely the idea that she was married to the realm and stepmother to James I. Buchanan's text also reflects a number of themes of the representation of queens that are present across the debate in both countries. One that I have picked up over a number of years is the willingness among commentators to reserve judgment in the case of female rulers until the woman in question has been tested. Even John Knox, who has gone down in history as Britain's chief historical misogynist, waited five years to publish his first blast. Using Mary's own motto, truth is the daughter of time against her as its epigraph. This proverb rops up on both sides of the female rule debate when John Leslie's defence of Mary and indeed in George Buchanan's account. Attack on female rulers are not always driven by outright misogyny, but often wait for some form of evidence or proof of wrongdoing or weakness. As Buchanan himself states, authority is gained by good actions and may be lost by bad, and majesty without virtue vanishes as a shadow. Of course, as we have seen in Buchanan's case, these examples could be strongly gendered and drawn feminine characteristics. But as other research that I've done has shown, accusations of negative feminine traits such as passion or licentiousness were fairly standardised in statements of political or religious opposition. And so regardless of the gender of the individual accused. Indeed, the example of John Knox's rejection in England says there's evidence that to apply any criticism to all women would be counterproductive politically. Finally, although not the subject of my personal personal research is worth noting the practical connections between British thinkers to get an idea of how influential Buchanan's ideas were in the representation of Elizabeth. For example, Buchanan's connection to the Sydney Circle has been highlighted as early as 1948 by James Phillips. Andrew Hadfield has more recently provided a more in-depth chapter on his relationship with Spencer specifically, suggesting Buchanan was one of the sources for the fairy queen and the representation of the villainous asset in particular. Buchanan's ideas about the opposition between Mary and Elizabeth are therefore represented in this poetic expression of the English political psyche. It is these connections in representation that I've been most keen to highlight and suggest need for the exploration. Although the historiography of Elizabeth's reign has come a long way in its inclusion of gender as a category for analysis, the implications of queenship cannot be fully understood when treated in isolation. Where this is the case, it might at first seem that an attack on one female ruler is an attack on the more. However, gendered virtues and biases were not entirely binary. Even Buchanan's most vicious language gives Elizabeth room to do better. Setting Mary up to absorb the representational risks of femininity meant that the more Mary was reviled, the more Elizabeth by doing the opposite could be revered. Buchanan plays an essential role in negotiating the balance of masculinity and femininity that female rules would be expected to display. And this makes a considerable contribution to the way monarchy would be gendered going forward. Thank you.