"Bloody Mary"? (Mary I)

[RomanovFan]

She was the only child of King Henry VIII and his first wife, Katherine of Aragon. Her mother, Katherine, was the daughter of the famous Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand of Spain (Christopher Columbus in 1492).

But when Mary became Queen of England, why was she so nasty and cruel to her subjects? Particularly to her half-sister, the future Elizabeth I?

[Finelly]

She didn't perceive herself to be "nasty and cruel".  She honestly believed that she knew what was best for people and that what was best was bringing Catholicism back to the country and eliminating Protestantism.   She honestly believed that Protestants had to die in order to save their souls.  

She also saw Elizabeth as a threat, and who wouldn't?  Elizabeth was beautiful and young.  Mary was aged beyond her years.  Elizabeth appeared to be fertile (being young.)  Mary experienced great difficulty getting pregnant.  Elizabeth was popular with the people - Mary was not.  Elizabeth's supporters were bound and determined that Elizabeth would become Queen.  Mary desperately wanted a CATHOLIC heir.  She knew that if she died leaving only Elizabeth as an heir, all of her work was for nothing.  

[Prince_Lieven]

She didn't perceive herself to be "nasty and cruel".  She honestly believed that she knew what was best for people and that what was best was bringing Catholicism back to the country and eliminating Protestantism.   She honestly believed that Protestants had to die in order to save their souls.  

She also saw Elizabeth as a threat, and who wouldn't?  Elizabeth was beautiful and young.  Mary was aged beyond her years.  Elizabeth appeared to be fertile (being young.)  Mary experienced great difficulty getting pregnant.  Elizabeth was popular with the people - Mary was not.  Elizabeth's supporters were bound and determined that Elizabeth would become Queen.  Mary desperately wanted a CATHOLIC heir.  She knew that if she died leaving only Elizabeth as an heir, all of her work was for nothing.  

This is true. And it is really surprising that Mary viewed her sister with suspicioun? Elizabeth's birth, and the events usrrounding it, upset all the certainties in Mary's life. And in her wilderness years, when she was religiously persecuted by first Henry VIII and then Edward VI her Catholocism was all she had left. It became her only solace.

Also, remember, she acted largely on the advice of Emperor Charles V, who in her own words she had always thought of as a father. Ironically, Philip didn't want her to burn English Protestants as he was sure people would think it was his doing.

She tried sometimes to be kind to Elizabeth - remember when Elizabeth knelt to her in the mud when she first aceded and Mary picked her up and kissed her? But in reality, Elizabeth would always remind her of Anne Boleyn. and all her mother's troubles with Henry.

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.

[Elisabeth]

You make very good points, Finelly and Prince Lieven. Mary's life was basically destroyed by her parents' divorce and its horrendous political and personal aftermath. She never recovered from it. She is a truly tragic figure, and one for whom I retain much sympathy, despite her persecution of the Protestants.

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.

As far as my own experience goes, Elizabeth I is sometimes referred to as Elizabeth Tudor, to distinguish her from her successor and namesake, Elizabeth Windsor or Elizabeth II. More to the point, I think that when historians are dealing with the Tudor dynasty as a whole they are more apt to refer to "Mary Tudor" and her sister "Elizabeth Tudor." Otherwise, Elizabeth the I, the Great, distinguished herself as a ruler far beyond her poor sister or for that matter Elizabeth II, and for that very reason is usually referred to simply as "Elizabeth" or, occasionally, in the popular parlance, as "Good Queen Bess."

[Prince_Lieven]

Not to mention the fact that most people forget that she actually was Mary I, since most people forget Mary II.

[Mgmstl]

She didn't perceive herself to be "nasty and cruel".  She honestly believed that she knew what was best for people and that what was best was bringing Catholicism back to the country and eliminating Protestantism.   She honestly believed that Protestants had to die in order to save their souls.  

She also saw Elizabeth as a threat, and who wouldn't?  Elizabeth was beautiful and young.  Mary was aged beyond her years.  Elizabeth appeared to be fertile (being young.)  Mary experienced great difficulty getting pregnant.  Elizabeth was popular with the people - Mary was not.  Elizabeth's supporters were bound and determined that Elizabeth would become Queen.  Mary desperately wanted a CATHOLIC heir.  She knew that if she died leaving only Elizabeth as an heir, all of her work was for nothing.  

I really don't think Elizabeth was considered beautfiul by any stretch of the imagination, but perhaps better looking when compared to Mary.

One reason Mary did not execute her IMO is she knew that Elizabeth was her half sister, child of her father, and she could not execute her own sister, I think that with executing Jane Grey that probably bothered her more than anyone knows.

I am not sure if it is religion as much conscience that stopped Mary from acting.  While she believed she was right, so many of her subjects were not & did not want to be Catholic, so it is like leaders of today who make decisions, that are completely unpopular with the people, and yet continue to justify it as they are right.

[Louis_Charles]

It is arguable that most of her subjects didn't want to be Catholic, and I think she gets a fairly bad rap because of the executions. They were heinous, but they were governmental policy, in much the same way that "Elizabeth's" execution of Mary Queen of Scots was really Walsingham's. The center of the reform movement was London, and the bulk of the executions were cityfolk. Catholicism persisted in the outer areas until well into the 17th century.

I think the saddest thing about Mary is her lack of desire to rule, and her inability to do it well when she attained the throne (much like a Certain Someone more prominently feautured on the rest of this board!). She would have been perfectly happy in the role of wife and mother, but to save her own life had literally no other choice after the death of Edward but to fight for the throne. Northumberland would certainly never have let her live in the event that the Jane Grey queenship succeeded. In the end, it was fortunate that she died. Elizabeth had more of the temperament to rule that was needed.

[Mgmstl]

It is arguable that most of her subjects didn't want to be Catholic, and I think she gets a fairly bad rap because of the executions. They were heinous, but they were governmental policy, in much the same way that "Elizabeth's" execution of Mary Queen of Scots was really Walsingham's. The center of the reform movement was London, and the bulk of the executions were cityfolk. Catholicism persisted in the outer areas until well into the 17th century.

I think the saddest thing about Mary is her lack of desire to rule, and her inability to do it well when she attained the throne (much like a Certain Someone more prominently feautured on the rest of this board!). She would have been perfectly happy in the role of wife and mother, but to save her own life had literally no other choice after the death of Edward but to fight for the throne. Northumberland would certainly never have let her live in the event that the Jane Grey queenship succeeded. In the end, it was fortunate that she died. Elizabeth had more of the temperament to rule that was needed.

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.

[lexi4]

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.

I quite agree Michael. She could have prevented the executions if she wanted to. She was a dour, bitter and jealous woman who was emotionally ill and frequently wrong, imo.

[Louis_Charles]

She was not an absolute monarch. There was a Parliamentary system in place by the middle of the sixteenth century, and limitations to the power of the English monarch stretch as far back as Magna Carta. She presided over a state that was virtually paralyzed by internecine warfare, as it had been in the Wars of the Roses. Remember, she had to fight her way to the throne past a candidate rigged into place by a noble that imposed his choice upon the dying Edward VI. There were serious rebellions during her reign, most notoriously the Wyatt. And throughout her rule she faced the vibrant figure of a young Protestant heir in Elizabeth, and Mary was never able to bend her to her will, or force her to convert to Catholicism.

She was not dour. Her history is filled with anecdotes of her love of parties, gambling, fine jewels and beautiful clothes. If anyone was "dour", it was Elizabeth, who carefully presented herself as a figure of sobriety. Jane Grey once returned a gift from Mary of fine cloth, designed to make a dress, with the remark that she would follow My Lady Elizabeth's example and hold to God, Who apparently liked plain fabrics.

If she was depressed by the end of her life, she had reason to be. Her attempt to reunite England to the See of Rome had failed, her attempt to have a child had failed, and her marriage had failed. Mary died in 1558 knowing that everything she considered important would be undone by the succeeding reign. Far from being an absolute monarch, she was an ineffective one.

I understand that people feel she held too much regard for religion, but honestly --- so did everyone else. Except Elizabeth, I think, and she turned out to be the most successful Tudor monarch, so there it is.

[Mgmstl]

She was not an absolute monarch. There was a Parliamentary system in place by the middle of the sixteenth century, and limitations to the power of the English monarch stretch as far back as Magna Carta. She presided over a state that was virtually paralyzed by internecine warfare, as it had been in the Wars of the Roses. Remember, she had to fight her way to the throne past a candidate rigged into place by a noble that imposed his choice upon the dying Edward VI. There were serious rebellions during her reign, most notoriously the Wyatt. And throughout her rule she faced the vibrant figure of a young Protestant heir in Elizabeth, and Mary was never able to bend her to her will, or force her to convert to Catholicism.

She was not dour. Her history is filled with anecdotes of her love of parties, gambling, fine jewels and beautiful clothes. If anyone was "dour", it was Elizabeth, who carefully presented herself as a figure of sobriety. Jane Grey once returned a gift from Mary of fine cloth, designed to make a dress, with the remark that she would follow My Lady Elizabeth's example and hold to God, Who apparently liked plain fabrics.

If she was depressed by the end of her life, she had reason to be. Her attempt to reunite England to the See of Rome had failed, her attempt to have a child had failed, and her marriage had failed. Mary died in 1558 knowing that everything she considered important would be undone by the succeeding reign. Far from being an absolute monarch, she was an ineffective one.

I understand that people feel she held too much regard for religion, but honestly --- so did everyone else. Except Elizabeth, I think, and she turned out to be the most successful Tudor monarch, so there it is.

Monarchs in England ruled more or less as absolute monarchs up until the reign of Charles I & II, they ruled with parliament, BUT more as an absolute monarch.


The Bill of Rights in England was established after the Glorious Revolution & the overthrow of King James II.  Even though monarchs ruled with Parliament, the constitutional monarchy that we know did not come into existance until AFTER William of Orange & Mary had accepted the throne under the provisions offered to them by Parliament.    The Declaration of Rights and the Bill of Rights Bill of Rights, 1689, in British history, one of the fundamental instruments of constitutional law. It registered in statutory form the outcome of the long 17th-century struggle between the Stuart kings and the English Parliament. Its principles were accepted by William III and Mary II in the Declaration of Rights as a condition for ascending the throne after the revolution in
 (1689) redefined the relationship between monarch and subjects and barred any future Catholic succession to the throne. The royal power to suspend and dispense with law was abolished, and the crown was forbidden to levy taxation or maintain a standing army in peacetime without parliamentary consent. The provisions of the Bill of Rights were, in effect, the conditions upon which the throne was offered to and accepted by William and Mary. These events were a milestone in the gradual process by which practical power shifted from the monarch to Parliament. The theoretical ascendancy of Parliament was never thereafter successfully challenged.

So Mary I ruled more on her own as an absolute monarch as did her father, brother, & sister. While the lady herself might not have been dour, her portraits give the opposite impression.

[lexi4]

Ok, I take back dour. The rest stands

[Finelly]

How about bitter.  Bitter and sour.

[Louis_Charles]

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!

[Finelly]

You're right.  Bitter and sour do not describe Mary as a monarch.  But I think that they are valid comments about her portrait.