Author Topic: "Bloody Mary"? (Mary I)  (Read 87959 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ilyala

  • Guest
Re: Bloody Mary (Mary I)
« Reply #105 on: February 04, 2006, 05:14:03 AM »
i agree with helen. i remember when i was younger and my parents had about a year where they just didn't get along and i started to wish one of them would just move out. i know that many parents don't divorce for their children's sake but few stop to think that maybe, while this is not a pleasant sollution, it's much better to live in a quiet house with one parent than in a house with both of them fighting all the time.

as for the marriage of catherine and henry, it was a beautiful marriage until the whole anne and henry fitzroy and lack of heir thing came up... and then catherine probably felt really bad, as helen said, probably dragged mary into it, henry was annoyed by their stubborness and in the end catherine died a bitter old woman, mary ended up the way she did and not to mention henry... a divorcing family is always a tragedy, in their case it was even worse because all three of them were stubborn and it turned really ugly. sad, isn't it?

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: Bloody Mary (Mary I)
« Reply #106 on: February 07, 2006, 11:37:00 AM »
Mary was a woman who did take these things to extremes in religion, as many did back then. It was rather worse in Spain. That was the fault of the age, and with her it was much more personal than political, but that doesn't make the behaviour any different. She was very serious about religion, personally, while many monarchs behaviour was motivated by political concerns in the religious sphere, rather than religious concerns. But this was an age when it was easy to say you were pious, and then do anything, because people fell for this. Perhaps Mary would have been happier if she had been born into the Spanish Royal family of her husband and mother rather than in into the English Royal family. Elizabeth I was one of the only tolerant minded peole dealing with religion back then.

As for personally, Mary had good intentions, and also believed she was always right. She was convinced she was doing the best even if she clearly wasn't, a mindset Alexandra also had, and one that can destroy a person easily. She may have meant well, thought she was doing well, but she was really doing harm. She was a dour woman in her portraits, but it seems she was passionate in what she cared about, and interested in the things of this world as much as the next sometimes. Her life was a struggle, because she knew  what she knew was right during her father's reign, and nobody around her had that version of the world, but she was still right. And she was determined to prove this once she became Queen. She made alot of mistakes, and her reign seems like it was mostly bad. She wasn't a bad person, just a person who was rigid, saw the world in black and white, and coudn't be challenged.. either in personality or later her position. Anybody else's comments very welcome.. ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by romanov_fan »

Offline Prince_Lieven

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6570
  • To Be Useful In All That I Do
    • View Profile
    • Edward III's Descendants
Re: Bloody Mary (Mary I)
« Reply #107 on: February 07, 2006, 12:53:31 PM »
The 17 year gap between Mary and Elizabeth really was telling . . . when Mary was born Catholocism reigned unchallenged in England, her mother was a Catholic Queen, her father a Catholic king. But when Elizabeth was born 'reformists' were more common, and Protestantism was becoming fashionable. Not to mention the fact that her mother had been a Protestant, and one of the large maternal influences in her life - Katherine Parr - was Protestant too.
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
-Sherlock Holmes

"Men forget, but never forgive; women forgive, but never forget."

helenazar

  • Guest
Re: Bloody Mary (Mary I)
« Reply #108 on: February 07, 2006, 02:09:21 PM »
Quote
The 17 year gap between Mary and Elizabeth really was telling . . . when Mary was born Catholocism reigned unchallenged in England, her mother was a Catholic Queen, her father a Catholic king. But when Elizabeth was born 'reformists' were more common, and Protestantism was becoming fashionable. Not to mention the fact that her mother had been a Protestant, and one of the large maternal influences in her life - Katherine Parr - was Protestant too.


That is a good observation, PL, but also, I think it had mostly to do with the fact that Elizabeth by nature was not a real extreme person (today this "extremism" may be referreed to as "addictive personality" perhaps  ???). So I don't think this trait has so much to do with the time period (era) rather individual personality. I think it could have gone either way and had she had this in her, Elizabeth could have become a fanatical protestant (sort of like her brother Edward was), but she didn't, because it wasn't in her. After all, even today we come across people who are zealously religious and others who are not at all, and many in between... So Mary happened to have this trait, and so did Edward evidently, but not Elizabeth...

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: Bloody Mary (Mary I)
« Reply #109 on: February 08, 2006, 08:51:42 AM »
It was personality, and the age she was born in that encouraged such religious extremism. Anyway,It is true that Elizabeth did not have this mindset in personality, but believed in being more tolerant, a modern trait. This was relatively rare as most rulers back then liked to use religion either truthfully or to do things that often had little connection to religion. Either way it was misused much of the time. Mary I, was typical of her age in this, but she might have been this way in any age, because it was personality, too.

Offline Prince_Lieven

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6570
  • To Be Useful In All That I Do
    • View Profile
    • Edward III's Descendants
Re: Bloody Mary (Mary I)
« Reply #110 on: February 08, 2006, 09:33:32 AM »
Quote

That is a good observation, PL, but also, I think it had mostly to do with the fact that Elizabeth by nature was not a real extreme person (today this "extremism" may be referreed to as "addictive personality" perhaps  ???). So I don't think this trait has so much to do with the time period (era) rather individual personality. I think it could have gone either way and had she had this in her, Elizabeth could have become a fanatical protestant (sort of like her brother Edward was), but she didn't, because it wasn't in her. After all, even today we come across people who are zealously religious and others who are not at all, and many in between... So Mary happened to have this trait, and so did Edward evidently, but not Elizabeth...


Oh definitely, I agree, I was just commenting on how much things changed in a mere 17 years, which have seemed very odd to Mary!
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
-Sherlock Holmes

"Men forget, but never forgive; women forgive, but never forget."

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: Bloody Mary (Mary I)
« Reply #111 on: February 08, 2006, 10:07:47 AM »
It is true that things changed rapidly, and that this must have been somewhat confusing to Mary. Certainly, she clung to the old ways, rather than the new. ;)

zackattack

  • Guest
Re: Bloody Mary (Mary I)
« Reply #112 on: April 09, 2006, 09:51:13 PM »
Quote
Quote from: lady  link=1122954118/75#77 date=1138918698

According to Catholic Church the priest is only a witness in a marriage ceremony, the sacrament is given by the contracting parties each other.

About burnings under Tudor monarchs
Henry VII ten in 24 years
Henry VIII 81 in 38 years
Elizabeth five in 45 years
Mary nearly 300 in 4 years.

That is true, about the priest.

Henry may have burned only ten but he had thousands hung and hung, drawn and quartered. According to http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/royalty/kingh.html the number was 72,000. Some were beheaded, too.

Elizabeth did not burn people because she was punishing for treason, not heresy or witchcraft. She had 189 people or more hung, drawn and quartered.




I just read the backcover of "The Last Days of Henry VIII" and the author puts the number of dead under Henry at 150,000. Haven't read the book, so I don't know how the figures come in.  

"Shadowplay" (a very interesting book, not the least because the Browne/Montague family are mentioned) puts the number of dead and exiled for religous reasons under Elizabeth I at 30,000. I don't know what the actual breakdown in figures is, How many were exiled? How many were "hit" ?(such as the playright Ben Johnson) But it seems that thousands dissapeared into prisons never to emerge! :o So I guess with her, executions were more behind the scenes, rather than in public.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by zackattack »

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: Bloody Mary (Mary I)
« Reply #113 on: April 10, 2006, 08:17:38 AM »
Well, the Tudor age was very violent. Under any monarch in that era, many died, and that was accepted. Had not been so, that's when people would have wondered. Most of these executions, imprisonments and such were very public, and everyone was aware of them. They were publically sanctioned, because it was an era of violence to attain you goals. Some rulers were worse than others in this respect, but all of them did this.

zackattack

  • Guest
Re: Bloody Mary (Mary I)
« Reply #114 on: April 10, 2006, 07:48:55 PM »
Quote
Well, the Tudor age was very violent. Under any monarch in that era, many died, and that was accepted. Had not been so, that's when people would have wondered. Most of these executions, imprisonments and such were very public, and everyone was aware of them. They were publically sanctioned, because it was an era of violence to attain you goals. Some rulers were worse than others in this respect, but all of them did this.

Very true. But I think I may have figured out the reason why Mary has the worst reputation (Though it seems that she and her brother actually caused the fewest deaths) . According to the book Shadowplay for several generations the only printed images that anglican church goers were aloud to see were the images of the protestants who were burned under Mary's orders. So I guess this is probably how Mary entered popular folklore.

bell_the_cat

  • Guest
Re: Bloody Mary (Mary I)
« Reply #115 on: April 11, 2006, 02:21:33 AM »
Quote
Quote
Well, the Tudor age was very violent. Under any monarch in that era, many died, and that was accepted. Had not been so, that's when people would have wondered. Most of these executions, imprisonments and such were very public, and everyone was aware of them. They were publically sanctioned, because it was an era of violence to attain you goals. Some rulers were worse than others in this respect, but all of them did this.

Very true. But I think I may have figured out the reason why Mary has the worst reputation (Though it seems that she and her brother actually caused the fewest deaths) . According to the book Shadowplay for several generations the only printed images that anglican church goers were aloud to see were the images of the protestants who were burned under Mary's orders. So I guess this is probably how Mary entered popular folklore.

Zackattack, can you provide a figure for the total number of people executed, imprisoned or exiled during Mary's short reign?  Then it would be possible to make a fair comparison with Elizabeth.

As Imperial Angel has pointed out, neither reign was a tea party and people were executed for all sorts of misdemeanours. So it's probable that the totals per year for both reigns are pretty similar.

As far as persecutions for religious reasons go it is clear that Mary's total per year is higher, especially when compared to the first decade of Elizabeth's reign. The argument that because we don't know about Elizabeth's victims, it only goes to show how many there were and how well it was covered up, I find unconvincing, when one considers how many enemies she had abroad. Even if their stories were not published in England, the Elizabethan martyrs could be sure of an immediate write up in every seminary on the continent.

"Shadowlands" is a book which aims to prove that Shakespeare was a Catholic propagandist who was ultimately prevented from working by the Anglican Church. The historical (and literary) evidence is selected accordingly. The "fact" that he must have been persecuted is then used as further proof that he was a Catholic!


Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: Bloody Mary (Mary I)
« Reply #116 on: April 11, 2006, 10:51:33 AM »
Mary had a shorter reign, and one were there might have been more rebels against authority, given how volatile it was. Elizabeth's reign was much longer, with more chances of sedition because of that, and thus of punishment for religious reasons, and many others, but her reign was peaceful and quiet for reigns of that era, for the most part. Both women were forced to, or chose to, use violence to achieve their authority, and this was well known, and public. Religious matryrs were mostly known in public, and as the last poster phrased it so well '' could be sure of a immediate write up at every seminary in the continent''. It seems unfair to compare how many people meant violent deaths during each reign because their reigns were so different in length, situation, and even era.

Bethoc

  • Guest
Re: Bloody Mary (Mary I)
« Reply #117 on: April 26, 2006, 12:25:21 AM »
I feel that a main reason for Mary's fanatical attempts at returning England to the Catholic fold may have something to do with her genuine fear for her subjects souls. While under Henry, the land was under interdict by the Pope, with many individual reformers being excommunicated. She absolutely felt it was her annointed duty to lead her subjects back into God's Grace and save as many of them from da*nation as she could. If that meant that the most obstinate met the flames, then their deaths were a small price to pay to save the rest of  her countrymen. I'm certain she felt that God had saved her life and placed her on the throne for this purpose. Poor Mary, in light of the times her extremes were not out of the ordinary and she would not have seen her actions as cruel, just necessary and blessed by God himself.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Bethoc »

aussiechick12

  • Guest
Re: Bloody Mary (Mary I)
« Reply #118 on: April 26, 2006, 02:37:25 AM »
Quote
Zackattack, can you provide a figure for the total number of people executed, imprisoned or exiled during Mary's short reign?  Then it would be possible to make a fair comparison with Elizabeth.


I have just finished reading a very interesting book called "The Most Evil Men and Women in Histoy" which includes Mary I. It gives a rough amount on how many people were killed. Here is what it said: "Within her four year reign, Mary ordered the burning and torture of over 300 Protestant heretics, ad her ruthless religious policies drove thousands to flee from England, in fear of their lives".

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: Bloody Mary (Mary I)
« Reply #119 on: April 26, 2006, 10:30:11 AM »
Well, I don't think she was one of the worst people in history, although she was misguided, and could perhaps be called one of the most misguided people in history, perhaps, but that's rather a long shot. Mary no doubt did sincerely believe that she was saving her subject's souls by killing so many Protestants. She was a fanatic, and thought she was doing good. Her motives were more personal than political. It's sad she had that mindset, born of her experiences, and era. That doesn't make right what she did, but it makes it more understandable.