"Bloody Mary"? (Mary I)

[ilyala]

however, there are dictators that think about the good of their people and those who don't. i'm not saying those in the first category are not dictators. maybe they consider the people because they're smart enough to know that they can't go against them for long.

fact is that elizabeth was popular and mary wasn't. and that happened because while she eventually got her way, elizabeth was always careful with her public image and maintained it. mary just didn't give a damn.

[Romanov_fan]

Of course Tudor society was not the society of today in America or basically the western world. People with religious opinions ( everybody), were willing to fight for them, and persecute those who weren't of their faith. Some people are naturally more intolerant than others, so they did worse with it. These people would still be intolerant today. And some people, although everyone cared about religion then, were more moderate and were willing to see extremes didn't benefit anybody, as the religious wars of France of the 16th century aptly demonstrate.And some were willing to go along with whatever the state religion was, go to the services in some countries, and mass in others, and get on with their lives. Today they would be the people who don't care much about religion. Elizabeth was moderate and did her best to get a good religious settlement for England that mostly worked.This is impressive in a century that was tolerant of intolerance. As for Mary, she was more extreme, and didn't care about what religion/religious settlement was good for her country, but rather for herself. This doesn't mean she was a bad person; perhaps it means she wasn't a very astute ruler. If it hadn't been for Elizabeth, the 16th century in England could have been plagued with religious wars like France.

[zackattack]

Of course Tudor society was not the society of today in America or basically the western world. People with religious opinions ( everybody), were willing to fight for them, and persecute those who weren't of their faith. Some people are naturally more intolerant than others, so they did worse with it. These people would still be intolerant today. And some people, although everyone cared about religion then, were more moderate and were willing to see extremes didn't benefit anybody, as the religious wars of France of the 16th century aptly demonstrate.And some were willing to go along with whatever the state religion was, go to the services in some countries, and mass in others, and get on with their lives. Today they would be the people who don't care much about religion. Elizabeth was moderate and did her best to get a good religious settlement for England that mostly worked.This is impressive in a century that was tolerant of intolerance. As for Mary, she was more extreme, and didn't care about what religion/religious settlement was good for her country, but rather for herself. This doesn't mean she was a bad person; perhaps it means she wasn't a very astute ruler. If it hadn't been for Elizabeth, the 16th century in England could have been plagued with religious wars like France.

It actually was plagued with religious conflict. It just wasn't out in the open. Thousands of  people died behind the scenes as a result of Elizabethan era religious policies. We will simply never know an exact number for sure.
I think you're actually talking about her leniancy towards Catholicism in the beginning, and not tolerance due to her very realistic view that Catholicism wouldn't dissapear overnight. Tolerant people don't ban religions.

I've always found that there's alot of selective logic when discussing religion during this time period. For example, I've had many classmates defend Elizabeth by saying that her persecution was about treason, and not religion, due to the fact that she would let priests and other convicted Catholics go if they renounced their religion. But if that is the case, then why spare execution to those convicted of being Catholics go if they swore to renounce their religion? IF they really were involved in treason, then being so leniant would be both foolish and dangerous. The only logical answer was that it was about religion. And perhaps due to the fact that she really had a very very weak claim to the throne, as did the whole Tudor dynasty. 

I'm not arguing that Elizabeth was without redeeming value, mind you. Only that this time period wasn't a "golden age," nor were things as settled on the religious front as well as has been long believed.   
 

[ilyala]

i'll tell you why, zack. the pope had excomunicated her in 1571 and in 1580 his secretary issued a statement saying that whoever kills her wouldn't sin but do a favor to the catholic church and would be forgiven of her killing due to the positive effect it has on so many other people's souls. basically the pope (because i don't think he didn't know of his secretary's statement) said 'go and kill elizabeth and be a good catholic'. after that, being a good catholic meant not only not accepting elizabeth but also killing her. any faithful catholic was a threat to her. if the guy was willing to convert it meant he wasn't such a faithful catholic after wall, and therefor not really a threat.

i don't think that she was tolerant because she knew that she couldn't get rid of catholics so fast. i think she persecuted them because she knew that she wouldn't be understood if she didn't. look at catherine de medici. she was definitely not religious and yet she is thought to be the cause of st. bartholomew. that happened, just like elizabeth's persecutions (that i still think were a gesture of self-defense rather than a religious persecution), because at that particular moment one could not separate state politics from religion.

[Romanov_fan]

Well, religion was a volatile issue of the age. And there was conflict in every country over it. England was no less than others there, I never said that it was. Just that the religious conflict in France caused more trouble than it ever did in England in Elizabeth's reign, largely because of her. She did persecute Catholics; but it was more a political neccesity than a personal interest. She was a astute ruler, who knew what she had to do to stay on the throne.And that might not look good to modern eyes, but that's what she had to do.

[zackattack]

i'll tell you why, zack. the pope had excomunicated her in 1571 and in 1580 his secretary issued a statement saying that whoever kills her wouldn't sin but do a favor to the catholic church and would be forgiven of her killing due to the positive effect it has on so many other people's souls. basically the pope (because i don't think he didn't know of his secretary's statement) said 'go and kill elizabeth and be a good catholic'. after that, being a good catholic meant not only not accepting elizabeth but also killing her. any faithful catholic was a threat to her. if the guy was willing to convert it meant he wasn't such a faithful catholic after wall, and therefor not really a threat.

i don't think that she was tolerant because she knew that she couldn't get rid of catholics so fast. i think she persecuted them because she knew that she wouldn't be understood if she didn't. look at catherine de medici. she was definitely not religious and yet she is thought to be the cause of st. bartholomew. that happened, just like elizabeth's persecutions (that i still think were a gesture of self-defense rather than a religious persecution), because at that particular moment one could not separate state politics from religion.

what translation of the papal bull are you reading?There were no orders to kill in that papal bull.

 if someone is willng to denounce their religion in order to save themselves from being hung, drawn, and quartered, how would this stop
them from assasinating Elizabeth if this had in fact been their intention? Human nature just doesn't work that way.
The priests and other Catholics  were oftem released  back into the streets right after they denounced their religion. Plenty of time to be forgiven and get right back to work on killing the Queen if that was there intention (NOTE: I'm NOT saying there weren't attempts on the Queen's life by Catholics. only that the vast majority of Catholics were faithful to the crown , and she most likely knew it).....

comparing elizabeth's persecutions to catherine de medici's is like comparing apples to oranges. elizabeth never led a general massacre
 of Catholics in the streets of London.

Your argument that Elizabeth's religious persecutions were a result of self defense is weak though. They started well before the Papal bull
was issued. At the start of her reign to be exact. No burning at the stake at first, but the slow heavy arm of English law... 

[bell_the_cat]

Zack, would you like to be more specific about the nature of Elizabeth's religious persecution between 1559 and 1571? I think the "slow heavy arm", though picturesque (!), is a bit vague.

Then we can decide if this was indeed worse (as you say) than the treatment dished out to the opponents of Mary's religious settlement.

[David_Pritchard]

I have been watching this thread since it started and the title of this thread is offesive to Catholics. As we all well know Elizabeth I murdered more Catholics than Mary I murdered Protestants. The thread should be changed from Bloody Mary to the neutral Mary I. I call upon Romanov Fan or the moderator to make this change. Centuries of anti-Catholic propoganda have made the name Bloody Mary de rigeur among English speakers but it is just as offensive as referring to Elizabeth I as the Heretic Elizabeth or the Bastard Queen.

[bell_the_cat]

 Hi David,

I understand your feelings, but this thread has been going for more than a year now!  Many posters have been defending the reign of Mary, as it happens,while others have been criticising the religious policy of her successor.

We are discussing whether this nickname, which is sometimes (though increasingly rarely) applied to the reign of Mary Tudor, is justified or not.  The debate has been robust, but I don't think religious feelings have been hurt. For any sensitive souls out there maybe we could call the thread "Bloody Mary" in inverted commas, or ""Bloody" Mary? ".

[Prince_Lieven]

Good suggestion Bell. I've changed the title of the thread accordingly. I hope the new title doesn't offend anyone.

[bell_the_cat]

Prince Lieven waves his magic wand! 

[Kimberly]

Thanks Liam, you beat me to it. And David, please don't "shout".

[bell_the_cat]

Yes, all this stress is making me want to go to the kitchen and pour myself a large Bloody Mary.

Oops I meant "Bloody Mary"?....

[zackattack]

Yes, all this stress is making me want to go to the kitchen and pour myself a large Bloody Mary.

Oops I meant "Bloody Mary"?....

  I like! I like!

[ilyala]

what translation of the papal bull are you reading?There were no orders to kill in that papal bull.

Your argument that Elizabeth's religious persecutions were a result of self defense is weak though. They started well before the Papal bull
was issued. At the start of her reign to be exact. No burning at the stake at first, but the slow heavy arm of English law... 

i was not referring to the papal bull itself. read more carefully: i was talking about  (i quote) "in 1580 his secretary issued a statement saying that whoever kills her wouldn't sin but do a favor to the catholic church and would be forgiven of her killing due to the positive effect it has on so many other people's souls. basically the pope (because i don't think he didn't know of his secretary's statement) said 'go and kill elizabeth and be a good catholic'. after that, being a good catholic meant not only not accepting elizabeth but also killing her. any faithful catholic was a threat to her. if the guy was willing to convert it meant he wasn't such a faithful catholic after wall, and therefor not really a threat."

this was not the bull in itself, it was a statement, pope pius wasn't even alive anymore (pope pius excomunicated elizabeth), the secretary of the next pope (i don't even know who it was) issued this particular statement. i am at work and i haven't got the quote with me, but i have *several* (not just one), several books quoting this statement, including a book about the popes written by a catholic writer (but who is clever enough to realize when a catholic person did wrong).  the statement did exist and it did pretty much excuse the murder of elizabeth!

and we've discussed the NUMBER of people killed by both mary and elizabeth. but is the number really relevant? for god's sake, mary reigned for five years, elizabeth reigned for 45! obviously the number of people who died under elizabeth is much greater, because the period of time is much longer! you cannot possibly think that that particular piece of fact is relevant as to who persecuted more.

as for "Your argument that Elizabeth's religious persecutions were a result of self defense is weak though. They started well before the Papal bull
was issued. At the start of her reign to be exact. No burning at the stake at first, but the slow heavy arm of English law... ". there's another thing i must point out: elizabeth was not ruling alone. she had advisers who had just come out of mary's rule, a rule that persecuted (through killing or otherwise) protestants. elizabeth was a mere woman and (with the disastruous example of her sister, the only other female ruler england had seen) was not (at least at the beginning) very trusted about the rule. i am absolutely certain that many of her decisions in the first five or so years weren't hers. unfortunatly the human nature is very keen on revenge, and the protestants wanted to behave towards the catholics the way the catholics had behaved during the previous reign towards them.

religious toleration at that particular time was not possible! not completely. look at france! catherine de medici issued a decree of religious toleration and it was *not* accepted! people were not open to the idea of religious toleration. the spirit of the time was: 'if you're on one side, you must fight the other side. you cannot mix with it'. i'm sure there were people (common people) who did not agree with that particular idea, but a monarch who showed weakness (ie tolerance) towards a religion (a catholic towards the protestants and a protestant towards the catholics) was considered secretly longing for that religion. if you want, the best example i can think of is charles 1st: he was an anglican, and if there's any proof of that is that he forbade his children to convert to catholicism (that was his last word to them). but because he had a catholic wife, and because he did not fight with catholics as much as he fought with the puritans (maybe because the catholics were in his times much more quiet), he was thought to have catholic sympathies and that ultimately led to hate, war and execution! and religion had a lot to do with it.

elizabeth could not be *completely* tolerant, even if she wanted to (and i believe she did). if she just let the catholics roam around freely she would have 1. endangered her own life and 2. lost her popularity with the protestants who would have started to be suspicious about her sympathies. and not in the least, most of her council (if not all, i don't know all the people who formed it) was protestant.