Author Topic: "Bloody Mary"? (Mary I)  (Read 87759 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Louis_Charles

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1498
    • View Profile
Re: Bloody Mary (Mary I)
« Reply #15 on: August 03, 2005, 11:14:32 AM »
I agree with you about the portraits, but I think the reason may have been the appalling condition of everyone's teeth in the 16th century! It probably made sense to keep your lips pressed firmly together when having a portrait done.

If I'm not mistaken, I have seen postings on other threads about the dour look Alexandra usually had in photographs. Perhaps she (and Mary Tudor) considered it lese majeste to look happy when it was for official dissemination.

Or, you know, maybe they were just pills! :)
"Simon --- Classy AND Compassionate!"
   
"The road to enlightenment is long and difficult, so take snacks and a magazine."

Finelly

  • Guest
Re: Bloody Mary (Mary I)
« Reply #16 on: August 03, 2005, 12:58:38 PM »
Well, Alexandra considered it a good thing to suffer, and sort of cultivated the martyrdom thing.

Whereas Mary literally had very little to be happy about in her life..........

lexi4

  • Guest
Re: Bloody Mary (Mary I)
« Reply #17 on: August 03, 2005, 01:14:36 PM »
Quote
You're right.  Bitter and sour do not describe Mary as a monarch.  But I think that they are valid comments about her portrait.

Ok. So I am emotionally ill and frequently wrong.  ;D

Mgmstl

  • Guest
Re: Bloody Mary (Mary I)
« Reply #18 on: August 03, 2005, 02:30:02 PM »
Quote
Well, Alexandra considered it a good thing to suffer, and sort of cultivated the martyrdom thing.

Whereas Mary literally had very little to be happy about in her life..........



Agreed 100% on that one!

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 #19 on: August 03, 2005, 02:31:15 PM »
Quote
Of course you are correct that the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution established more formal controls over the monarch. But surely you will grant that these events did not spring full-blown into existence? That they reflected a long slow process of erosion of that power? For instance, while the monarch was formally restricted in his power to tax by 1688, no Tudor monarch in his or her right mind would have imposed taxes without the involvement of Parliament. Elizabeth held her power together through a combination of personality, or charisma if you will, and a first-rate collection of councillors. "Bitter" and "sour" aren't particularly useful descriptions of someone whose interior life we know so little, but judging by the results of her reign, Mary was inept.

She had more power than Edward, far less than Elizabeth and Henry VIII. I don't think most historians would classify either of them "absolute monarchs". I think you are on to something with the introduction of a "sliding scale", i.e. she reigned "more as an absolute monarch than not", but I think she is far down it, if the gold standard is someone like Louis XIV or Alexander III. Even Nicholas II ceases to be one with the creation of the Duma, and whatever Wilhelm II thought of himself as being, he was not, in reality, an absolute monarch.

Sorry. Mary Tudor was my thesis topic, and the chance to talk about her after all these years is wonderful!


Re how much power monarchs had in this period, I think a lot of it was down to the individual. Henry VIII and Elizabeth were real personalities. People were afraid of them - they were strong and confident. Mary, on the other hand, came to the throne as a short, pale, thin woman of 38 - hardly a character to inspire awe.

"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 Louis_Charles

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1498
    • View Profile
Re: Bloody Mary (Mary I)
« Reply #20 on: August 03, 2005, 02:58:30 PM »
Exactly so. I also think there should be some consideration of her role as the first female ruler of England, if you discount Jane Grey and the Empress Matilda.  She was the first, and I think there were probably problems as the result of that alone. She then made the situation worse through the ill-advised marriage to Philip of Spain.

That being said, I think she should also get a few personality points for sheer spunk. It took considerable guts to ride to Framingham and challenge Northumberland's usurpation. And even more importantly, because it required long-term stubborness, she was able to maintain her sense of self throughout the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI. There was a very real chance that Henry would have allowed her to die a la Catherine of Aragon, a forgotten, marginal figure isolated from the comfort of court. She publicly rebuked those around Edward that tried to infringe upon her freedom to worship as she chose.

All of Henry's children were brilliant. The academic records that have survived in each case attest to that. But only Elizabeth was competent, and that makes all the difference in a successful reign. I really think that most of the successful monarchs --- Elizabeth, Henry V, even Henry VIII --- had an appetite for power that allowed them to relish and defend their roles as ruler. When Nicholas II threw himself into Sandro's arms weeping that he was not prepared to be Tsar, or Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were discovered weeping in each other's arms after the death of Louis XV and wailing that they were too young to rule, it might have been better if people had trusted their instincts!
"Simon --- Classy AND Compassionate!"
   
"The road to enlightenment is long and difficult, so take snacks and a magazine."

Finelly

  • Guest
Re: Bloody Mary (Mary I)
« Reply #21 on: August 03, 2005, 03:55:56 PM »
I really think that most of the successful monarchs --- Elizabeth, Henry V, even Henry VIII --- had an appetite for power that allowed them to relish and defend their roles as ruler.

Excellent point.  You never saw Victoria claiming she was unfit.  Or Catherine the Great.  Or Louis XIV.  The drive, the ambition, the confidence is crucial.

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 #22 on: August 04, 2005, 05:19:18 AM »
Quote
I really think that most of the successful monarchs --- Elizabeth, Henry V, even Henry VIII --- had an appetite for power that allowed them to relish and defend their roles as ruler.

Excellent point.  You never saw Victoria claiming she was unfit.  Or Catherine the Great.  Or Louis XIV.  The drive, the ambition, the confidence is crucial.


In fact, Victoria was positively itching to be queen! Just as Maria Theresa valiantly defended her realm against Frederick the Great, another successful monarch.

IMO, Henry VIII was hardly a great king, but that's neither here nor there.
"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 Louis_Charles

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1498
    • View Profile
Re: Bloody Mary (Mary I)
« Reply #23 on: August 04, 2005, 08:38:31 AM »
"Great" as in important, perhaps. On the other hand, you may quarrel with his achievements, but he certainly changed the nature of the monarchy. He pulled off something no medieval English king had been able to do, i.e. enforcing the idea of the state has a higher power than the Church. He dealt with the Scottish problem, and managed to navigate the shoals of diplomacy between Imperial and French power. And while his marital career may have been disgraceful, it did secure a legitimate successor (Edward), and produce the monarch widely considered to be England's most effective --- Elizabeth Tudor.
"Simon --- Classy AND Compassionate!"
   
"The road to enlightenment is long and difficult, so take snacks and a magazine."

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 #24 on: August 04, 2005, 09:19:47 AM »
He certainly increased the 'majesty' of the king's role, and deal t with Scotland, but he took a wealthy country and bankrupt it during his reign. And I'd hardly count producing Elizabeth a success - Chalres I produced Charles II but no one's going to call him a good king for it. Still, I've wandered off topic . . .
"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."

Silja

  • Guest
Re: Bloody Mary (Mary I)
« Reply #25 on: August 04, 2005, 01:22:05 PM »
Quote


However while the executions may have bee mainly governemental policy, she was an absolute monarch so the responsibility for those executions lie in the end with her, as it does with any head of state.

I think Mary is a good of example of people taking religion much too seriously.


You are certainly right. On the other hand, as religion in those days meant politics and the other way round it was difficult to separate the two things in Realpolitik. Even Elizabeth I was later forced to persecute  Catholics even though she had always tried to avoid it.

The keen distribution of the Duke of Northumberland's scaffold speech on the part of the Marian government makes clear what was at stake, or what was the idea behind religious persecution. Quoting from Starkey's Rivals in Power: " The duke's statement that he had been led into heresy by the 'new preachers'; that heresy in turn had inspired his treason, and that only a return to the Church would restore civil peace and harmony, was precisely the case the government wished to see made" (p.143).

In this age of religious wars  religious uniformity was considered vital by any regime in those days because without such uniformity the regime's stability was considered to be at risk.

Offline Louis_Charles

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1498
    • View Profile
Re: Bloody Mary (Mary I)
« Reply #26 on: August 05, 2005, 08:58:28 AM »
Excellent analysis. Indeed, this could be said about virtually every scaffold speech made from either side of the religious debate. For example, Mary Queen of Scots dressed in red --- the colour of martyrdom --- for her execution, and her biographers agree that it was a political as well as religious statement.

In regard to Mary Tudor, I have always found it interesting that she enjoyed widespread support at the time of the Grey usurpation. I suppose some of it might have stemmed from an allegiance to "legitimacy", or residual sympathy for her sufferings during the period during and after the Divorce. But I think a case could easily be made that the majority of the English welcomed the return to Catholicism that they knew would follow her accession. And in fact, she was remarkably open to the reformed church until the Wyatt rebellion. She was politically vulnerable. Many of the reformers had fled to the continent, and were conducting a propaganda campaign against her rule. As has been ably pointed out above, there is simply no way to separate religious conviction and political activity in Tudor England. Even Elizabeth was forced into it by the Bull issued by the Vatican around 1570 deposing her.
"Simon --- Classy AND Compassionate!"
   
"The road to enlightenment is long and difficult, so take snacks and a magazine."

ilyala

  • Guest
Re: Bloody Mary (Mary I)
« Reply #27 on: August 07, 2005, 07:09:44 AM »
about the support for mary during the jane grey phase: accepting jane grey meant accepting northumberland and he was very unpopular. the popular support for mary was actually disapproval for northumberland

ferngully

  • Guest
Re: Bloody Mary (Mary I)
« Reply #28 on: August 17, 2005, 10:56:46 AM »
Quote

BTW, does anyone else find it strange that she is nearly always referred to as 'Mary Tudor' rather than the more proper Mary I. Elizabeth is never called Elizabeth Tudor.


well mary the 1st was apparantly the 1st queen of england in her own right, not becuase she was married to a king, so i think maybe that might be it, though, i'm probably wrong
selina                   xxxxxxxxx

umigon

  • Guest
Re: Bloody Mary (Mary I)
« Reply #29 on: August 17, 2005, 11:08:46 AM »


It is also possible that there is some type of Spanish influence in this last issue. I mean, Mary Tudor has always been María Tudor, here in Spain. But Elizabeth is also called Isabel Tudor (she is also known as Isabel de Inglaterra, but Isabel Tudor is very common).

My theory is this: probably in those times Mary Tudor was also known as María Tudor for the Spaniards who accompanied her husband and maybe the knickname got to the common people... I really don't know, but it could be!