Janet makes a good point about mary’s somewhat difficult childhood, and it does seem to me that Mary was used by both Henry and KOA to beat each other over the head with.
Mary didn’t know what to do for the best, so in short because of the tension between her parents, she couldn’t live with either of them through fear of what her parents would do to her. Poor Mary’s heart was broken, because of the stubborn pride called mum and dad.

Yeah I agree with that 100% and I think it contributed more than it’s share to Mary’s mental state. I also cannot bring myself to feel any sympathy to KOA because of the choices she made to put her pride over the safety of her own child. I know it sounds judgemental *shrug* but I just can’t feel any differently at present.

Olga said

Yeah I agree with that 100% and I think it contributed more than it’s share to Mary’s mental state. I also cannot bring myself to feel any sympathy to KOA because of the choices she made to put her pride over the safety of her own child. I know it sounds judgemental *shrug* but I just can’t feel any differently at present.

Hi Olga,
I’m not sure if it was KOA”S pride so much as it was her very deep religious convictions. She was Catholic to her core. Many people would have buckled and said, okay you can have your divorce; but she believed that once two people were married, that marriage could never be undone. Only death, could end a marriage in her eyes. Everything she did, was with that belief. As far as Mary was concerned, Katherine felt she was teaching her how to be a good Catholic. If Katherine had too much pride, it was her pride in her religion.

I don’t like what it did to Mary either, but Katherine would have thought that God would guide Mary. She never waivered in her belief that her God would take care of Mary. She believed in God’s plan for her and Mary and everyone else. She would have had to turn her back on her beliefs, and she never came close to doing that. I don’t think she thought she was doing anything wrong with Mary. She was following the edicts of her faith. For Katherine, it was Henry who was the one doing wrong to her, to Mary and to God.

I don’t agree that she was right to do what she did, but that is how I see Katherine. For her, there was no free will. There was only her belief in God’s will.

Sharon said

Mary and Phillip agreed to the burnings before Phillip left England in ’55. I don’t think Phillip had much say in the matter. Simon Renard and Alfonso deCastro both thought it was a bad idea. Phillip was anxious to leave England even at this time when Mary was pregnant, and he wanted to leave it in peace; but that doesn’t mean he didn’t agree with his wife’s moral stand. If he disagreed, he kept quiet.

The first to go was John Rogers Feb of ’55. Then Bishop’s Latimer and Ridley in October of ’55. Cranmer followed in Mar. of ’56. Gardiner defrocked some preachers and they were later turned over for secular trial. However, Gardiner died in December of ’55. He was supposedly a humane man but he did preside as Chancellor of the House of Lords when the vote came up about the heresy laws. I believe had he lived, he would not have been happy with all the burnings.
Pole was at Mary’s side from ’54 to ’57. At first he did favor the persecutions. Later he changed his mind and he even saved some people from the stake.

Although Mary and her religious advisors made policy, it was left up to the local authorities to implement the law. They did this, and it got ugly. Mary gave the order to burn ‘heretics’ but she wasn’t involved in carrying out the sentences. Unless the heretic was right under her nose, she didn’t sign death warrants. She did sign them for the above named men. Cranmer’s death was deeply personal. She never forgot that he was responsible for the divorce of her mother and father. This one was purely for revenge.

Yep I agrre with you there, where Cramner was concerned. I wouldn’t say Mary was spiteful except in this one instance where Cramner was involved. She hated him.

I couldn’t go unless I ‘had to’….but then again I can’t even stomach the execution scenes on ‘The Tudors’. It must have been a terrible thing to be forced to go to

I think i’d look away when they do the actual head cutting off part because all that blood would make me woozy. Remember Cromwell’s execution on The Tudor’s? With the drunken executioner? Now that’s something I definately couldn’t stomach, that man chopped the hell out of his back, neck, and head and he probably felt the whole entire thing. I wish that man who finished Cromwell off would of came up earlier like when the executioner missed the first or second time not wait until Cromwell looked like gratted (?spelling) cheese. And although Cromwell wasn’t someone I liked at all I don’t think that was exactly fair to get the executioner drunk and hungover the night before.

Anyanka said

Definately a grudge due to Cramner’s annuling her parent’s marriage and making her illegitimate.

Annulled! Yes, annulled. Not divorced. I’ll get that right someday.

Cromwell’s execution was botched. Margaret Pole’s was even worse if it can be believed. She took 11 hits of the axe.

Janet said

It’s really hard to put myself in a Tudor England “executions are entertainment” frame of mind. If you had grown up going to executions, I don’t think it would be the horror that we see it as. It’s like the child mortality rate back then. To our modern minds, it’s very sad, but back then it was normal. Giving two sons the same name in case one of them died is unthinkable to us.

One set of my great grandparents( late 1800’s …say 1880-1900) had 2 Rachels, 3 Sarahs and 3 Martins and only 1 Sarah lived to be an adult…the other7 died as infants or children..and they still managed to raise 9 children to adulthood….

No. How anyone could stand and watch is beyond me. According to history, some families used to pack a picnic lunch to ‘add to the entertainment’ of seeing an execution.