For more than 400 years, historians, myself included, have accepted the account, written by the 17th century antiquarian William Camden, of the Virgin Queen’s last-gasp naming of her closest blood relative, James VI of Scotland, to succeed her as ruler of England.
...
But detailed analysis of Camden’s original manuscript released by the British Library in 2023 has revealed that key sections were rewritten after Elizabeth’s death to make them more favorable to her successor. In addition to the numerous amendments that can be read with the naked eye, no fewer than 200 pages have been pasted in, 65 of them replacing original text with a new version. Advanced imaging technology using transmitted light has revealed the words that lie beneath.
Most of the concealed text concerns only details — the number of horses involved in a battle, for example. But a small number of the original pages hide material that challenges the version of Elizabeth’s history — and the succession — that has endured for the past four centuries. Rather than naming the King of Scots as her heir with almost her last breath, Elizabeth apparently upheld the policy that she had doggedly followed throughout her reign and went to her grave without nominating a successor. Camden’s original, undoctored manuscript even suggests that in the closing years of Elizabeth’s reign, James lost patience and might have plotted to have her assassinated.
...
As soon as I stopped seeing James VI’s accession as a foregone conclusion, the race for Elizabeth’s throne was cast in an entirely new light. It became clear just how easily one of James’s rivals could have pipped him to the post. The long-accepted story of the Tudor dynasty’s end and the Stuarts’s rise was transformed. Far from being the “peaceable coming in of the king” that James’s apologists claimed, his accession sparked deep-seated resentment that soon boiled over into open defiance.
Anticipating this, James’s supporters on the English council had placed extra security in key towns and ports and banned “disorderly assemblies.” Even so, there was reportedly “great unruliness” on the Scottish border, though this was drowned out by James’s carefully stage-managed journey south to claim his crown, which official reports claimed was greeted with “unspeakable joy.”
But the rising opposition to England’s new king could not be suppressed and soon found dramatic expression in the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, which aimed to blow the Scottish king to the heavens.
...
Researching all this has made me more humble — and skeptical — as a historian, reminding me of the crucial importance of questioning everything, even sources that have been relied upon for centuries. But I have also been struck by how current a story this is. Camden rewrote his account of Elizabeth’s deathbed to please her successor, who was literally breathing down the historian’s neck, forcing him to make numerous changes. “Many things were struck out and many things altered,” a beleaguered Camden confided to a friend. In short, those in power had controlled the narrative.
From the article:
...
...
...