Mary's two successes alarmed the Protestants, and if Mary could have retained her hold over Darnley, the Reformed Church might have been in some danger. But the birth of a son, Prince James, in June 1566, was followed by a violent and permanent quarrel between the unhappy parents. Darnley's enemies were resolved to have his life, and when the accomplices whom he had betrayed were allowed to return to Scotland at the end of 1566, he was a doomed man. But the enemies of Darnley were also the enemies of Mary, and they found in the earl of Bothwell, a tool for the destruction of both. Darnley was murdered on Feb. Io, 1567, at Kirk-of-Field, in the outskirts of Edinburgh, and his murderers, by blowing up the house with gunpowder, made sure that no alternative explanation of his death should be feasible. Bothwell was known to be a principal actor in the crime, and a collusive trial did nothing to weaken the belief in his guilt. On May 15 Mary married Bothwell. There was another rebellion, the queen had been discredited by the Darnley murder and the Bothwell marriage, and she had no option but to surrender to the rebels (June 5). The question of Mary's guilt or innocence of her husband's murder is rather biographical than historical (see CASKET LETTERS). Guilty or innocent, she could not retain her authority after what had happened. If, as in the present state of the controversy unfortunately seems probable, there was a do mestic conspiracy between Mary and Bothwell, Darnley's death was not merely the result of a plot between a guilty wife and her paramour. If Mary was an accomplice of Bothwell, she was also the unconscious tool of a wider conspiracy, the members of which, after she and Bothwell were both out of the way, fell to accusing each other of a share in the murder of Darnley.