"Bloody Mary"? (Mary I)

[zackattack]

because he didn't execute 5 % of his subjects!

Maybe several hundred people a year were executed for various crimes in Tudor England. I don't expect the execution rate varied very much under Henry VIII, Edward, Mary or Elizabeth. Or if it did this had nothing to do with the individual monarchs, as executions for murder were as the result of private prosecutions, and not organised by central government (i.e. the monarch).

Top of the list were probably murder, highway robbery and coin clipping (slicing bits of silver off the edges of coins.

Mary was known as Bloody Mary not because of the thousands of ordinary criminals executed during her reign, nor for the number of rebels hanged after the Wyatt rebellion. This was accepted as normal Tudor behaviour. She was called Bloody Mary solely on the basis of the 2/300 heretics burnt for their beliefs. It was this aspect that offended people at all levels of society, because, while not everyone is a highwayman or a rebel, everyone has beliefs.

  Have you looked to see  if the execution rate increased under Henry VIII? IF so, for what reasons did theses executions take place? I just start reading "last days" and the author does present a very strong case that would put Henry VIII on trial for crimes against humanity if he were to be a ruler in this day and age.

As for Mary, though blame for the 300 deaths can be placed at her door, the irony is that it really didn't   offend that many people at the time.( Not that I'm arguing that I approve of what she did, I'm simply talking about public reaction.) Protestants were a tiny alien minority in England at the time, and none to popular as they were believed to have influenced Henry VIII in his policies.   

[bell_the_cat]

because he didn't execute 5 % of his subjects!

Maybe several hundred people a year were executed for various crimes in Tudor England. I don't expect the execution rate varied very much under Henry VIII, Edward, Mary or Elizabeth. Or if it did this had nothing to do with the individual monarchs, as executions for murder were as the result of private prosecutions, and not organised by central government (i.e. the monarch).

Top of the list were probably murder, highway robbery and coin clipping (slicing bits of silver off the edges of coins.

Mary was known as Bloody Mary not because of the thousands of ordinary criminals executed during her reign, nor for the number of rebels hanged after the Wyatt rebellion. This was accepted as normal Tudor behaviour. She was called Bloody Mary solely on the basis of the 2/300 heretics burnt for their beliefs. It was this aspect that offended people at all levels of society, because, while not everyone is a highwayman or a rebel, everyone has beliefs.

  Have you looked to see  if the execution rate increased under Henry VIII? IF so, for what reasons did theses executions take place? I just start reading "last days" and the author does present a very strong case that would put Henry VIII on trial for crimes against humanity if he were to be a ruler in this day and age.

As for Mary, though blame for the 300 deaths can be placed at her door, the irony is that it really didn't   offend that many people at the time.( Not that I'm arguing that I approve of what she did, I'm simply talking about public reaction.) Protestants were a tiny alien minority in England at the time, and none to popular as they were believed to have influenced Henry VIII in his policies.   

[bell_the_cat]

No, I don't think executions increased significantly under Henry. Most executions were the result of private actions brought against the criminal, as I have pointed out on this thread before. This may sound odd to us to day, but the state did not have the resources to do this. Tudor Monarchs had a tiny bureaucracy by today's standards, and spent most of their money on war and the court.

This is the reason that I doubt the figure of 72,000 (let alone 150,000 (5 % of the population!). Most criminals would have escaped unpunished, which is the reason that the executions, when they happened were particularly horrific. When the chance of catching the criminal is low, the punishment has to be severe in order to act as a deterrent.

I think people were shocked by the Marian burnings - they occurred in important centres (London, Oxford), and the victims came from all levels of society. You are right to say that Protestants were a small minority (but no more "alien" than anywhere else in Europe - all the victims were English). The burnings were one factor that contributed to the general dissatisfaction with Mary's reign. Without this dissatisfaction it is difficult to explain the ease with which Elizabeth established the Protestant religion within a year of Mary's death. 

[Prince_Lieven]

Well, anyone who's interested in why people were executed in Tudor England could try slogging through Lacey Baldwin Smith's 'Treason in Tudor England' but I found it hugely dull and extremely difficult to understand. 

[zackattack]

Well, anyone who's interested in why people were executed in Tudor England could try slogging through Lacey Baldwin Smith's 'Treason in Tudor England' but I found it hugely dull and extremely difficult to understand. 

  I actually plan to start reading my copy next week!

[zackattack]

No, I don't think executions increased significantly under Henry. Most executions were the result of private actions brought against the criminal, as I have pointed out on this thread before. This may sound odd to us to day, but the state did not have the resources to do this. Tudor Monarchs had a tiny bureaucracy by today's standards, and spent most of their money on war and the court.

This is the reason that I doubt the figure of 72,000 (let alone 150,000 (5 % of the population!). Most criminals would have escaped unpunished, which is the reason that the executions, when they happened were particularly horrific. When the chance of catching the criminal is low, the punishment has to be severe in order to act as a deterrent.

I think people were shocked by the Marian burnings - they occurred in important centres (London, Oxford), and the victims came from all levels of society. You are right to say that Protestants were a small minority (but no more "alien" than anywhere else in Europe - all the victims were English). The burnings were one factor that contributed to the general dissatisfaction with Mary's reign. Without this dissatisfaction it is difficult to explain the ease with which Elizabeth established the Protestant religion within a year of Mary's death. 

I'm going to do some more research on the executions during Henry VIII's reign, then I'll get back to you. I do remember some details, but I forgotten just where I saw them...

What I meant by "alien" was how the ideas  the protestants were taken by the general populaton. my bad, i should have been more specific.
As for the ease in which the Protestant religion was established, well, as it turns out the people who resisted Elizabeth's new religion were in the majority well into the beginning of the 16th century.

here are the titles of some good books on the subject: "Shadowplay" "The Stripping of the Alters" and "God's Secret Agents" to name a view.

[Prince_Lieven]

Well, anyone who's interested in why people were executed in Tudor England could try slogging through Lacey Baldwin Smith's 'Treason in Tudor England' but I found it hugely dull and extremely difficult to understand. 

  I actually plan to start reading my copy next week!

I'm sure you'll have more luck in understanding it than I did!  I thought it read like a thesis on philosophy or something, WAY too clever for me. 

[Kimberly]

I tried reading that book ages ago......just couldn't manage it, so you are in good company Liam

[bell_the_cat]

Yes, I gave up too - couldn't quite see what he (she?) was getting at. At school I remember Baldwin Smith's bio of Henry was highly recommended. 

[Kimberly]

Yep, his book and also AL Rowse if I remeber correctly. 

[Prince_Lieven]

Thank gawd, I thought it was just me being thick. 

[bell_the_cat]

I'm going to do some more research on the executions during Henry VIII's reign, then I'll get back to you. I do remember some details, but I forgotten just where I saw them...

What I meant by "alien" was how the ideas  the protestants were taken by the general populaton. my bad, i should have been more specific.
As for the ease in which the Protestant religion was established, well, as it turns out the people who resisted Elizabeth's new religion were in the majority well into the beginning of the 16th century.

here are the titles of some good books on the subject: "Shadowplay" "The Stripping of the Alters" and "God's Secret Agents" to name a view.

Actually, the majority of Elizabeth's subjects were able to accept her religious settlement, whether they privately agreed or disagreed with it. If the majority of people had resisted, her regime could not have survived. Most people had other things to worry about anyway!

That this was so would be apparent to anyone who reads Shakespeare (rather than "Shadowlands"). It's surely possible that the man who wrote the plays may have regarded himself as a Catholic - but there is so much more than that to it! The characters  in his plays have usually more interesting things on their minds than the sixteenth century religious settlement - which is why they are still performed today, even in countries without a Christian background.

[zackattack]

I'm going to do some more research on the executions during Henry VIII's reign, then I'll get back to you. I do remember some details, but I forgotten just where I saw them...

What I meant by "alien" was how the ideas  the protestants were taken by the general populaton. my bad, i should have been more specific.
As for the ease in which the Protestant religion was established, well, as it turns out the people who resisted Elizabeth's new religion were in the majority well into the beginning of the 16th century.

here are the titles of some good books on the subject: "Shadowplay" "The Stripping of the Alters" and "God's Secret Agents" to name a view.

Actually, the majority of Elizabeth's subjects were able to accept her religious settlement, whether they privately agreed or disagreed with it. If the majority of people had resisted, her regime could not have survived. Most people had other things to worry about anyway!

That this was so would be apparent to anyone who reads Shakespeare (rather than "Shadowlands"). It's surely possible that the man who wrote the plays may have regarded himself as a Catholic - but there is so much more than that to it! The characters  in his plays have usually more interesting things on their minds than the sixteenth century religious settlement - which is why they are still performed today, even in countries without a Christian background.

Actually, modern day historians are finding very little to support that claim. Read The stripping of the Altars  as well as God's Secret Agents it's a real eye opener from the traditional whig version of history.
If her subjects privately disagreed with the religious settlement, then they didn't accept it. The question is why didn't this majority rise up against the regime? And the answer to that is really quite varied. Perhaps many felt (as I suspect) what happend before could happen again, and England might once again become a Catholic country..so why spill blood and ruin next year's harvest?

And the concept of majority rule just doesn't work with a monarchy that was semi-dictatorship in style, it all depends on were the loyalties of the army and police force lie in order for laws to be put into place. An example of this would be apartheid in South Africa.  That was a horrible thing opposed by most of the people in the world  yet it managed to stick around (very unwelcome in my view) for quite awhile, despite a majority opinion against it... 

PS the book is "Shadowplay"..or is the title different in the UK?

[bell_the_cat]

 

Oops sorry about that! I must have had too many gin and tonics before posting. "Shadowplay" it is.

However I don't think the three authors (who al have their own agendas) you mention qualify to be "most modern historians". I happen to think the book "The stripping of the altars" is quite good though.

You might like to read up on the trouble Elizabeth had in the 1590s with her parliaments. Most of the trouble came from the puritan faction, who didn't think Elizabeth's church was protestant enough. It drove her crazy having to deal with those people. Elizabeth's regime was no more totalitarian than Mary's had been:

non totalitarian features - Elizabeth was forced to summon parliament when she needed to raise money.
People always had a trial - habeas corpus was in force then, a principle which these days is in danger of being suspended. As I said I think most people were quite happy about the religious situation. They had other things to worry about.

[zackattack]

Oops sorry about that! I must have had too many gin and tonics before posting. "Shadowplay" it is.

However I don't think the three authors (who al have their own agendas) you mention qualify to be "most modern historians". I happen to think the book "The stripping of the altars" is quite good though.

You might like to read up on the trouble Elizabeth had in the 1590s with her parliaments. Most of the trouble came from the puritan faction, who didn't think Elizabeth's church was protestant enough. It drove her crazy having to deal with those people. Elizabeth's regime was no more totalitarian than Mary's had been:

non totalitarian features - Elizabeth was forced to summon parliament when she needed to raise money.
People always had a trial - habeas corpus was in force then, a principle which these days is in danger of being suspended. As I said I think most people were quite happy about the religious situation. They had other things to worry about.

No need to be sorry! I make quite a few spelling and grammer mistakes me self!

One thing your just not taking into consideration when you make a judgement that the vast majority of the population were "happy"  about the religious settlement is that Tudor society was not a free society. Nor did people like Elizabeth, Mary, Henry VIII,  etc. ever mean for it to be. And, at the end of the day, there can be no benevolant dictators, whether semi or absolute, for if they were benevolant they would not want to dictate.

 If you belonged to the wrong religion you could be find, jailed, tortured, physically mutilated, killed, attacked in the streets,  exiled, etc. One man got 20 years in prison for simply possessing a statue of the Virgin Mary, and in the meantime his wife and children starved to death in the streets. Small wonder they went to the weekly services  as required by law.

Though I won't be popular for saying this, I will go out on a limb and say it's because of the people that wouldn't conform, at these various points in history, be they puritan Catholic, Jewish,etc, that we enjoy the religious freedom (at least in the west) that we do today.

I to have to disagree with you regarding the authors "agendas". I doubt they have anymore of an agenda then you or I do. They are simply discussing their findings. However, there are alot more then three of them who disagree with the traditional "whig" version of history. I do have a list of these books somewhere. If I find them this weekend, I'll post them.

P.S. Don't worry,  habeas corpus  isn't going anywhere!