We begin this section by offering Alfred Dodd’s belief from his Martyrdom of Francis Bacon, to give our reasons for the title of this section: 1

“Some evidence exists that King James I., presumed to be the son of Mary Queen of Scots and Lord Darnley, was actually a changeling and was really the newly-born son of Lord Mar who was secretly substituted for the royal heir. 2 In 1830, some workers were repairing the wall in Edinburgh Castle by the doorway of the Queen of Scots’ chamber, when they discovered an oak coffin containing the body of a mummified male child wrapped in silk and golden cloth embroidered with the initial J. It is thought that this child might be the real King James. (This story was retold in the London Sunday Dispatch October 23, 1938.) The probability is that Queen Elizabeth I., knew that the reputed son of Mary Stuart, James, was not the son of Mary at all. Lady Southwell’s account of Elizabeth’s tossing of her arms while on her death bed in front of her Council, she says,

‘They asked her to hold up her finger when they named who they liked as her Successor, whereupon they named the King of France. She never stirred; the King of Scotland; she made no sign; Lord Beauchamp, when she said fiercely, ‘I will have no rascal’s son in my seat.’ 3

The story is told that Mary’s child died, and that, unknown to her until long afterwards when she could not make it known, the child of Lord Mar 4 was put in its place. James, in personality and features, was nothing like his alleged parents judging by their portraits and character, but he is of the same type exactly as the Earl of Mar in feature. This would be the secret knowledge which the Earl of Somerset, King James’ one time Favorite, held over the head of the King, when he was disgraced, and threatened to ruin him if he were brought to trial for the murder of Overbury. 5 Francis Bacon was sent to Somerset, who persuaded him to keep his mouth shut on promise of a pardon. It is indeed difficult to believe that James I., of England was a Stuart or had a drop of his mother’s brave blood in his veins. He was a coward; and his treatment of his mother during her imprisonment and execution, and his playing up to Elizabeth in order to obtain the succession to the English Crown, was disgusting and contemptible. He could not have been her son to have left her in the lurch as he did. The English Ministers were not unfriendly to the Scottish Succession, provided it was not to be represented by Mary, but by her Protestant son, and James was well aware of this: he knew that the chance of mounting the English Throne would be greatly improved by his Mother’s death. While Elizabeth was hesitating, James sent Ambassadors to plead for her life. They were not only to plead for her life but they were also to ask that, if she should be put to death, nothing in her sentence or her execution should prejudice her son’s claim. In other words, James told Elizabeth that if she put Mary to death, it was quite all right for him so long as he could have the English throne. It was a straight suggestion that he would not take the death of his Mother amiss and that Elizabeth had no need to fear that he would raise complications with Mary’s friends in the Courts of Europe. It is difficult to think that a ‘Son’ could have stooped to such bargaining over the soon to be decapitated body of his Mother.”

Our first investigation was to corroborate Dodd’s fact that an “oak coffin containing the body of a mummified male child” had indeed been discovered in 1830. The Weekly Dispatch that Dodd saw this information was first published 1801 and after announcing bankruptcy, ceased publication in 1961. We did not further our investigation here and turned to Edinburgh Castle’s history. Two entries of this fact were found and we give them separately as follows:
From Louis Weirter’s The Story of Edinburgh Castle, printed in 1913 a short description is offered of the bedchamber in which tradition says James was born. It is a small inner room of two in the south-east corner of the ground floor of the royal palace, but there is much evidence that runs counter to this tradition. The upper part of the panelling and the ceiling are as old as the time of James V. On the panels of the ceiling are the letters I.R. and M.R. surmounted by a crown, and on the wall at the end opposite the window are the royal arms of Scotland and an inscription. The date of the birth, 19 JVNII. 1566, is painted on the panelling of the north and south walls of the room.

Weirter goes on to say, that “an old but untrustworthy story has it that the young Prince was lowered secretly from the window in a basket to the Queen’s adherents, to be taken away and baptized in their faith.” The person noted to have taken the young prince was Robert Cecil. 6

Weirter continues. Below Queen Mary’s room there are vaulted dungeons which are said till lately to have retained the staple of an iron chain to which many a prisoner was secured in olden times but no date or even history of these massive foundations can be authenticated, though they certainly belong to a very remote period.

There are other dungeons below the Banqueting Hall, in two tiers, lighted through small loopholes secured by iron bars, where the French prisoners were secured during the Peninsular War forty slept in one vault and, until recently, one could still see the wooden framework from which they slung their hammocks.

A curious and somewhat remarkable discovery was made in a wall on the west front of the royal rooms in the year 1830. The wall on being struck was found to be hollow to satisfy curiosity it was opened, when a cavity was found to exist and in it a small wooden box containing the remains of an infant. The box was of great antiquity and much decayed; the remains of the child were wrapped in a thickly woven cloth resembling leather, besides a richly embroidered silk covering with two initials worked upon it, one of which clearly was marked ‘I.’ Most of the remains were restored to the curious little cavity, and the wall was built up again.

We now offer Daniel Wilson’s account of this from his Memorials of Edinburgh (1886):

“In making some repairs on the west front of the royal apartments in the year 1830, a remarkably curious and interesting discovery was made. Nearly in a line with the Crown Room, and about six feet from the pavement of the quadrangle, the wall was observed, when struck, to sound hollow, as though a cavity existed at that place. It was accordingly opened from the outside, when a recess was discovered, measuring about two feet six inches by one foot, and containing the remains of a child, enclosed in an oak coffin, evidently of great antiquity, and very much decayed. The remains were wrapped in a cloth, believed to be woolen, very thickly wove so as to resemble leather, and within this were the decayed fragments of a richly-embroidered silk covering, with two initials wrought upon it, one of them distinctly marked ‘I’.

This interesting discovery was reported at the time to Major General Thackery, then commanding the Royal Engineers, by whose orders they were again restored to their strange place of sepulture, where they still remain. It were vain now to attempt a solution of this mysterious discovery, though it may furnish the novelist with material on which to found a thrilling romance.”

Establishing that there was in fact a restoration in 1830, as Dodd stated, where a mummified infant was found and put back as they found it, which means the mummy is still there today, does not prove what Dodd turns this into, that James I., was actually a changeling. There is no apparent way of proving this and as Wilson states, “it may furnish the novelist with material on which to found a thrilling romance.” Some interesting historical facts of the Edinburgh Castle to close this section.

On May 16, 1568 Mary, Queen of Scots fled to England with her infant son James became King of Scots. Sir William Kirkcaldy of Grange was keeper of Edinburgh Castle, and in 1571 tried to get Mary released by going into battle with the English from Scotland. In May 1573, after a devastating eleven-day bombardment of the castle, it was ruined. Under James I., the Palace fell into decline. However, it was renovated when James returned to Edinburgh in 1617. The castle underwent a further restoration in 1660 from Charles II., James’ third son. He added a new Royal apartment to the east, had the Abbey Church made into the Chapel Royal and created accommodation on the second floor for the Court during his residence and for officers of state in his absence.
During a violent storm in 1798, the roof of the East Tower was destroyed and the entire tower wing was sealed. In 1853 the Chapel was restored after suffering deterioration. In 1930, a Canadian named John Cameron bought the property and attempted to repair the damages and renovate the castle. During his work he found a doorway hidden behind the plaster in a wall. Behind the doorway was a stairway down to another wall. As he punched through this second wall, he heard a ghastly voice cry out ‘No!’ Thinking it was his imagination, he struck again, only to be pushed backwards off his ladder by some unseen force. At the same time, his blow made a hole that released a foul odour.

He ran out of the castle but got enough gumption to return for his tools. Still frightened, he wedged the front door open and walked towards the newly discovered chamber. Suddenly all the lights went out and he heard the front door slam shut. As he stumbled towards the door, invisible, ice-cold hands grabbed him and tried to pull him back into the chamber. With all his strength, he broke away, yanked open the door and got into his car and never came back.

The castle sat vacant for many years, until another family of Stuarts purchased it in 1977. Today, tourists can rent the entire castle for just £1.200 pounds per night.