Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
1:41 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Ok this is something I’ve been juggling with for a few weeks.
Mary was as much as a tyrant in her way as Henry was. She was determined to undo what she saw as the mistakes of her father’s reign and drag England back to Rome kicking a screaming along the way. Unfortunately she refused to see that the England she knew as a child had changed and her way was now as abhorrent to the English people, as executions are to us today.. Yes there were still Catholics in England, who still screamed for the old ways of smells and bells, but would they really of wanted to be ruled by the Pope once again? Many of these Catholics did well under Henry’s reign, and became richer and more powerful since Henry had told the Pope to “get stuffed”, so would they want to give back the homes (which for the most part were confiscated Monasteries and Convents) and the money brought in from rental and revenues from the tenant farmers etc. The answer I believe would be NO.
Mary’s reign started out well, the daughter of Old Bluff Hal and Catherine of Blessed memory was popular, people remembered the merry girl who was the centre and chief jewel of Henry’s world, and they hoped that she would be like Henry was when he was younger. A kindly Monarch who was merciful and just, and all that was true for a while. Mary was wise, merciful and just. So what Happened?
Firstly as we know she was determined to return to the old ways come hell or high water, instead of allowing people to choose their own way as Elizabeth did, she made it clear it was her way or death, no other idea or thought would be tolerated.
Secondly killing Lady Jane, an innocent little girl who was a cruelly used pawn by Northumberland and his termites.
Thirdly her marriage to Philip, her total devotion to him made her blind to all reason. Her marriage to Philip who was a staunch Catholic was the last nail in England’s coffin where Mary’s popularity was concerned, the thought of having a foreigner and a Catholic foreigner at that, for a consort, was simply too much for the English people to stomach, and I rather think that was the end as far as the English people were concerned to any sort of liking for Mary and also helped kill the memories that some people had of Old Bluff Hal and the sweet natured gentle KOA.
Mary belief in having a child also in my opinion caused a sort of mental breakdown in her which made her behaviour all the more irrational, she believed that the reason God hadn’t blessed her with a child was because he/she was angry with her for not burning enough heretics. Even Philip who hated her couldn’t reason with her about this, and I think this was part of the reason why he left England as fast as his ship could take him, back to Spain, despite his faith I believe he did have a tolerant sort of nature where faith was concerned, and believed that in order to get people to except the Catholic doctrine it should be done by gentle persuasion not all out tyranny and wholesale burnings, that was not showing people that God was all merciful etc., Mary’s way of religion was nothing short of mass murder.
I also have trouble with reasoning out Mary’s decision to go all out in overturning the great divorce getting herself named as the only legitimate successor to the Henry 8th etc. Surely the 1544 parliamentary act took care of all that? If Mary was so determined to keep in England in Catholic hands surely she would have named a Catholic successor in the event of no child of her own body upon her death, and made it official in Parliament, thus overturning her father’s 1544 act.
I think perhaps she knew really deep down that she would have no children, but her stubborn pride wouldn’t let her except it, I also think that she believed that Elizabeth would except the Catholic faith, and therefore would be worthy of the throne.
One thing has always puzzled me, when Eddy died was he buried under his own religious rights or Mary’s? and again when Mary died was she buried with all the smells and bells or under Elizabeth’s religious rights
I feel sorry for Mary as she so wanted to build a brand new world, and perhaps return to the days where everything was just a wild ride of happy days and holidays, but she so misjudged everyone’s thoughts and feelings including her own, and her spite and malice just turned inwards upon herself and destroyed her, but it also destroyed the people’s belief in the Catholic religion too. If only someone could have given her a damn good shaking and make her remove the rose tinted glasses she appeared to have superglued to her face, then maybe history would remember her in a more favourable light instead of the moniker of Bloody Mary.
There is no doubt that Mary suffered from a number of illnesses, I believe she did suffer with depression and/or another mental health problems. I also believe she suffered from something called Gondotropin, which affects fertility and is centred around the putrity gland, this is also something I believe affected Henry to some degree too.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
3:14 pm
October 28, 2011
Offline
Edward had a Protestant funeral, but I think Mary had Roman Catholic masses said for him. Mary I would think had a Catholic funeral, the Bishop of Winchester was a Catholic and he gave her funeral service. And I suspect Elizabeth wouldn’t have kicked up a stink about it.
Elizabeth did not bury her with her mother as she requested. But it really makes me smile that James buried them together. I think it’s wonderful.
Now that’s a long post Bo I’m going to go back and read more
9:07 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Olga Glad you liked it.
It was the Bishop of Carlisle Dr. Olgethrope who crowned Elizabeth.
Elizabeth was first buried in the Henry 7th crypt, James decided to bury the sisters together in 1606. I kind of think that was James’s way of say the Tudor dynasty is well and truly over and now I rule here etc.
The inscription on their tomb reads:
Sacred to memory: Religion to its primitive purity restored, peace settled, money restored to its just value, domestic rebellion quelled, France relieved when involved with intestine divisions; the Netherlands supported; the Spanish Armada vanquished; Ireland almost lost by rebels, eased by routing the Spaniard; the revenues of both universities much enlarged by a Law of Provisions; and lastly, all England enriched. Elizabeth, a most prudent governor 45 years, a victorious and triumphant Queen, most strictly religious, most happy, by a calm and resigned death at her 70th year left her mortal remains, till by Christ’s Word they shall rise to immortality, to be deposited in the Church [the Abbey], by her established and lastly founded. She died the 24th of March, Anno 1602 [this is Old Style dating, now called 1603], of her reign the 45th year, of her age the 70th.
To the eternal memory of Elizabeth queen of England, France and Ireland, daughter of King Henry VIII, grand-daughter of King Henry VII, great-grand-daughter to King Edward IV. Mother of her country, a nursing-mother to religion and all liberal sciences, skilled in many languages, adorned with excellent endowments both of body and mind, and excellent for princely virtues beyond her sex. James, king of Great Britain, France and Ireland, hath devoutly and justly erected this monument to her whose virtues and kingdoms he inherits”
On the base of the monument:
Partners in throne and grave, here we sleep, Elizabeth and Mary, sisters, in hope of the Resurrection.”
Poor Mary is only mentioned once.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
9:17 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Thanks for posting that Boleyn. I didn’t realize all that was written there. I only have heard what is at the base of the monument. What a nice tribute to Elizabeth. Nothing to Mary, huh?
Love your post, as usual. Need to reread.
12:36 am
October 28, 2011
Offline
I hadn’t read that either Bo, just the part on the base. Thanks for posting it. I suppose Mary’s reign was short and she didn’t manage to make much of a political/useful impact. Off the top of my head I certainly can’t think of anything. Mary’s legacy will unfortunately always be one of death. It’s very sad. Sometimes I wonder if she had listened to the Pope and not married would she have lived longer?
I don’t know if Mary was unpopular with Catholics at the time, honestly I haven’t read enough about her. But there were plenty of Catholics still in England up until the end of Elizabeth’s reign, and still plenty who wanted Elizabeth dead. I don’t believe Mary destroyed anyone’s belief in the Catholic religion, who wasn’t already turning towards Protestantism. She may have destroyed their belief in her, but I don’t think on the religion as a whole.
I don’t believe everyone agreed with her methods, of course, it was Pole and Gardiner who were trying to get her to stop the burnings when they saw it wasn’t working. But by then it was too late.
But then, a spin-off question. Do you think Katherine of Aragon would have approved of Mary’s burning of “heretics”? After all her own mother burned many people for heresy, but no-one seems to call her Bloody Isabella. They call her a Warrior Queen. I suppose her earlier achievements may outweigh what she did later *shrug*
3:15 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
For me, it was Katherine’s promotion of her’s and by default, Mary’s Spanish heritage that was Mary’s problem. Mary was simply incapable of being English in outlook.
This was shown by Mary’s reliance on the various Spanish ambassadors during H8’s and E6’s reigns. When Mary finally ascended to the throne, she appears to have been loath to give up her reliance on them and seek more impartial advice. Which caused her to rush into a marriage that her subjects didn’t really want but Mary was blind to that fact.
Henry dismissed Mary’s education since she was a girl and left it to KoA, had she been a son Henry would have been proactive in making sure the education was biased towards an English king rather than allowing his wife total domination of the education of a possible future ruler.
It's always bunnies.
9:54 am
April 17, 2012
Offline
What a great post Boleyn (i refuse to call you BO, it sounds like you are body odour!) It was wonderful to read the full inscription on the Tudor Queens’ grave, i love the part “the most happy” i think it makes it seem obvious that James had respect for Elizabeth and her lineage, even if he didnt by name favour the Tudors. To be honest, I do not feel any sympathy for Mary. Perhaps i am not educated on her enough, but i find just as much pity for Hitler and Stalin. She was comitting genocide. It’s as simple as that. And i truly believe, that no matter what your upbringing, your lineage, your life, your health, it does not pardon pure evil. I am not catholic, nor do i follow any religion, but i have tremendous faith, and frankly, i feel she was one of the most evil women in history. We can reason that perhaps she was a victim of her time, bad political council, inappropriate upbringing, but it is obvious she was an intelligent woman, her mother was also, and she received a better education that even elizabeth would have. Her advisors though spanish in blood and belief, could not have told such an intelligent woman to kill thousands of innocent people unless it was a strategy she herself agreed with. I think it’s sad that her childhood and early adulthood were marred with her fathers idiocy, his on again off again claims of ascendency, and his lack of paternal love for any of his female children, i feel bad that she was demeaned and bastardised, and even it pains my heart to think of a little girl unable to see her mother even on her death bed, but really, what claim did any Tudor women or noble birth have over their children? But this is not a list of reasons why it’s ok for a ruler even by birth to burn people at the stake! Even her father was sympathetic to Anne Boleyn by his decision to choose her to be exectued by a swordsman, not burned at the stake, which to me is great proof that people of her time, people of her blood, believed it to be an unacceptable option for execution. I know about Anne Askew etc, but i believe even Henry had his doubts about that. Maybe i am being too judgemental, I may have overlooked points, perhaps the health thing did mess with her, but i have to say, i have myself suffered from a prolactinoma (pituatry tumour) and i never thought about killing anybody! I know i may be dismissing her, but I really feel as i said, that i would not find it in my heart to consider Hitlers upbringing, or his so called syphillis as some sort of compensation to the people he burned! There are people who are put in a bad position, and make bad decisions, and then there are people who should never have been put in a position of power, but a person who so wantonly lack respect for human life. that considers their beliefs and power give them the right to burn people alive as if they were rats, that is something that cannot be accounted for by anything other than evil.
1:55 pm
June 7, 2010
Offline
I’ve always assume Mary misunderstood that the people’s desire for her to be Queen. The people wanted Henry’s will and Act of Succession to be followed correctly. Mary thought is was a desire for England to be brought back into the Catholic fold. I am sure there were plenty of Catholics who wanted this, but it seemed the majority had left the old Medieval world behind, and fully embraced the reformation. I always see a contrast between Mary as the connection to the old Catholic, medival world of KOA. While Elizabeth is the glorious child of the renaissance and reformation, much like her mother.
Mary also made the fatal error of marrying a foreigner, relying on foreign interests, and carrying out the Spanish punishment of burnings. It seemed she was more Spanish than English, and we all know how the people felt about those Spanairds. I recall Elizabeth utilizing her Englishness as Queen, which seemed in total contrast to her sister’s image.
I’ve always felt for Mary. She became the pawn in her parent’s bitter divorce. Whatever I feel for her decisions as Queen, I an still reminded of the sad, pathetic girl whose desire for love and affection was replaced with bitterness, hatred, and fantaicism. I still recommend David Loades book on Mary. Despite his recent publications, Loades’s book speaks to Mary the person.
It seems Mary’s desire to legitimise her parent’s marriage was a result of her inability to ever accepts it’s decline. She held strong to her notions of her parent’s marriage as valid and wanted it to recognised as such. I say let sleeping dogs lie. It did nothing to further cement her right to rule. Her father’s will and choice of succession did that.
I am not sure if any of this makes sense; I am suffering from a potential strep throat/head cold. YUCK!!! So my brain’s a little fuzzy today. I apologize in advance for any ramblings/complete rubbish found in this post.
"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn
6:17 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Totally agree, Anyanka it was almost as if Mary’s English blood didn’t exist. KOA to her credit was at least interested in Mary’s education, but she was also bringing her up to rule as a consort not as Queen. The great Isabella was an exceptional ruler but even so it was never Isabella and Ferdinand the Spanish monarchs it was always Ferdinand first, and the same would be true when it came to Mary’s turn at Queendom she would always take backstage to her husband even though she was a Queen in her own right.
By the way did anyone know that Isabella actually stole the throne of a woman called Joanna, who was considered the legal heiress to Castille’s throne, before Isabella.. Her father was Henry 4th of Castille and her mother was Joan of Portugal.
Joanna was also Queen of Portugal, she reigned from 1475 to 1479 when she was finally defeated by Isabella, who was her half Aunt.
When Joanna’s father died the kingdom of Castille was thrown into total choas half wanted Joanna whilst the other half wanted Isabella.
The reason being because Isabella’s faction believed that Joanna was the bastard child of Beltrán de la Cueva y Alfonso de Mercado, 1st Duke of Alburquerque, who was suspected of being Joan of Portugal lover.
At the battle of Toro in 1479 Joanna’s army was soundly beaten by Ferdinand of Aragon army and Joanna was forced to abdicate in Isabella’s favour..
Although to be fair to Isabella instead of killing Joanna she offered her a choice marriage with someone of Isabella’s chosing or life in a convent?
Joanna chose the latter, and lived happily until 1530, however any letter that she was required to write was always signed as Joanna la Reina.
Anyway back to Mary, when she came to the throne, it was almost as if she forgot that she was half English by birth, the English bit of her died when her father told the Pope to “get stuffed”. Yes at first her Catholic people were overjoyed at finally having some semblance of order returned to their land. Eddy’s reign wasn’t exactly a disaster, but it wasn’t exactly a wild ride on the log flume at Alton towers or Disneyland either. Plus there was the added hassle of their being a regency council where it mainly consisted of arguing the toss and oneupmanship on each other.
After that fiasco England needed a strong ruler, and people looked to Mary to be that person. Someone who would do what was right for the English people and for England and for about 6 months or so Mary did, however apart from the mistakes I’ve mentioned in my first postings, she somehow became anchored to and only listened to Renard and his advice however well meaning he thought it was, was also a contributing start of her downfall.
When she made the decision to Marry Philip over and above any other suitor she had even after her councillors advice and Cardinal Pole’s advice to say “Look old girl this isn’t on a forgien King is simply not what we need right now, and Philip is only interested in your money” she simply refused to see the wood for the trees. Renard’s insistance that Jane Grey should die certainly didn’t help matters either. In Mary’s case the saying that love makes you blind to all reason was certainly true and in her case deaf too. If you think about it the real threat to Mary’s reign was Elizabeth not Jane, so I really don’t understand why Renard insisted that Jane had to die..
Taking a wild guess here I’m inclined to think that the object of Philip’s true affection here wasn’t Mary but Elizabeth. He had no doubt heard about her charms etc.. and thought well why not if I marry Mary I’m in England and I can in time get rid of the old bag (Mary) and marry Elizabeth instead.
This is purely an idea not to be taken as fact.
Poor Mary she just couldn’t do anything right, and went to her grave a broken bitter and unloved Queen.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
7:02 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Boleyn,
Jane was young, but she was most willing to take on the duties as Queen. She was innocent, but she would have always had people using her against Mary. Jane would have been to Mary as MQOS was to Elizabeth. Northumberland shouldn’t be blamed for all that happened to Jane. I tend to think Edward had a lot to say about who should follow him, and I think he was correct in his thinking. Edward knew that Jane would have carried on with religious reform, and he knew that his sister Mary would have destroyed all the major steps forward that had been made. Edward also considered both Mary and Elizabeth as bastards and therefore, he felt neither of them should rise to the throne. Had they had more time, Edward and his entire council would have had their own proclamation in Parliament and Jane would have been Queen by law.
Mary always stumps me. So many bad decisions. Her decision to burn Cranmer just makes my blood run cold. She arrested him in the beginning of her reign and after he had denied his beliefs, I think three times, which should have saved him from the stake, she burned him. It was pure revenge for his claiming an end to her parent’s marriage which in turn made her a bastard. Revenge, pure and simple.
Mary saw that the people loved her when she first took the crown as hers, and she thought that love translated into their desire for the country to be returned to the Catholic faith. Mary didn’t understand that the country had been moving towards reform for two decades. Going backwards was not an option. She so wanted her faith restored, her parent’s marriage to be recognised, and her legitimacy acknowledged.
Another lesson Elizabeth learned from her sister…leave well enough alone.
7:21 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Renard tried everything in his power to get Mary to execute Elizabeth. When no evidence could be found against Elizabeth to prove she was a threat, Mary had to release her. Much to Renard’s regret. Mary may not have liked Elizabeth because to her Elizabeth was her father’s bastard, but she seemed to respect the fact that her father had named Elizabeth to reign after her.
1:45 am
October 28, 2011
Offline
Great post Anyanka, that gives me something to think about.
Tash, I am going to have to disagree with Mary “wantonly lacking respect for human life” It’s not possible someone so deeply religious to lack respect for human life or for their immortal souls. Mary thought she was doing the right thing. We may know it is not the right thing, but that doesn’t cancel out her beliefs in what she was doing.
I am also going to point out that Henry burned at the stake, boiled alive, hung people in chains, pulled out their intestines and organs and showed them to the half-alive victims, and all sorts of other atrocities that are bringing up my breakfast. Henry allowed Anne Askew to be racked. Fisher and Margaret Pole were elderly and suffered horribly in the Tower, being both ill and freezing, for a long time before they were executed. And they are just two older people I can think of off the top of my head.
Sharon sometimes I think Mary had a bit of a revenge thing for Cranmer. I don’t know maybe it’s silly, but it’s like Katherine blaming Anne for her marriage breaking down, I think she blamed Cranmer for her parent’s divorce. Of course no-one ever seemed to blame Henry 
Duchess I’m glad you mentioned that book, I have three here on Mary to read, that being one of them. I also agree with Mary being used as a pawn by her parents, whatever anyone says, I think her childhood affected her deeply.
1:48 pm
February 24, 2012
Offline
I have many thoughts about Mary, none of them nice. Yes, she had been bastardized and didn’t live in the way that she should have and yes, she wasn’t allowed to see her mother but Elizabeth lived in the same way, except she couldn’t see her mother because her father had had her killed. Not only that, but she would have grown up hearing all the rumors about her mother. I don’t think Mary’s childhood excuses her actions when she came to the throne. I think she enjoyed persecuting Protestants and if she had lived long enough would have killed them all and then said “Look…I brought all England back to the true faith”. I think she did have an evil side. She not only married a foreigner, but one that was persecuting Protestants in his own countries. She didn’t have to make Phillip King of England, but I’m sure that was one of the conditions he made to marry her. To get his hands on English money, he had to have enough power. I don’t think Mary gave two hoots about the people of England. She was on a huge power trip in the name of her religion and didn’t care what happened to anyone who got in her way. After what happened to Jane Grey, I feel sorry for Elizabeth. She must have had to watch everything she said and did and kept her distance from anyone that could/would show her support. It would have been a lonely existence that she had had to put up with as a bastard child and then also later when her sister was queen. I think they were both their mothers’ daughters. Mary was stubborn and willful, set in the old ways like her mother. Elizabeth was forward thinking and ‘modern’ like Anne. Is it hard to tell that I have no respect for Mary as queen, but a great deal for Elizabeth? 
Do you think that Mary would have done anything differently if she had married an Englishman? Of course, that would have opened up a huge can of worms too.
5:11 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Totally with you on Mary’s stubborness Sharon..
Mary just simply refused to move forward with the times. Henry’s breaking away from the church was the final stamp on the matter where Henry was concerned, but the rot had set in long before then.
Mary blamed Anne for the crash of the Catholic faith, and then Cramner for her being cast off, and ignored. Agree 100% about Mary’s treatment of Cranmer it wouldn’t have mattered if he had recanted 1000 times he was dead in Mary’s eyes the minute he said Mary was a bastard, although I find it strange that she forgave Gardiner and the others who agreed with Cramner that Mary was a bastard, after all they too foreswore of Rome’s authority when Henry broke from Rome and all agreed that his marriage to KOA was null and void. They recanted just the same as Cramner and said we are sorry Mr Pope we got carried away take us back please and we won’t be naughty anymore. Killing Cramner in my opinion was just spiteful and not neccessary he could have just been left in the Tower to rot. By the time Mary came to the throne he was getting old and the conditions in the Tower weren’t exactly brilliant, and the cold and damp would have soon finished him off anyway. Many’s whole reign was built on Rage, Paranoia, Spite, Malice and Vindictiveness. Even her marriage to Philip was part of getting her own back on the people of England.
Why did Mary refuse to move forward or except that the world she once knew was gone? I rather think she was afraid, she was afraid if she moved with the times she would damn her soul and that by moving on she had excepted that her mother and father really weren’t married and that would be betraying her mother too. In making a big breww ha ha in getting the great divorce turned over she had hoped to perhaps clear her concious of when she signed Henry’s command. But again in 1544 when she was reinstated to the succession along with Elizabeth, Henry himself had done that for her. It was perhaps the only decent thing he’d done for Mary since casting her off all those years before. Ok it wasn’t exactly saying my marriage to your mum was legal and therefore you aren’t a bastard, but by saying you will rule after Eddy if he dies with no heirs it was his way of saying you were begotten legally or should I say you are legitimate.
Did Mary inherit her Aunt Joanna’s madness in someway? Her complete devotion to Philip seem to suggest that she was unhinged somehow..
Joanna refused to allow her Husband’s body to be buried for some months after his death and she would insist that where she went he would go, she would often sleep by him at night and spend her days talking to him, not even noticing that he was starting to stink the place out. I have even heard that when he finally was buried she would sleep naked on his grave and talk to him begging him to wake up and make love to her.
Although not as bad as that Mary was completely devoted to Philip even though he hated the sight of her, and got as far away from her as he could at the first chance he could..
Good Question Janet.. Mary did have a few English suitors for her hand one of them was Edward Courtney, who she released from the Tower upon her accession to the throne, having spent most of his life in the Tower he had none of the courtly graces that one would expect in the nobility. He did try to woo her but just ended up making a complete ass of himself and embarrassing Mary who sent him packing. He then tried to woo Elizabeth who saw him for what he was a simpleton and sent him off with a flee in his ear. He then ended up somehow or other getting invlved in the Wyatt plot once Mary had made it known she intended to marry Philip, and it was partly due to him that it failed, as he paniced and told Mary about this plot, when it kicked off it was actually said that he wet himself in sheer terror. It was then Mary exiled him, as she knew he was going to make himself a nuicence when and if Philip ever turned up.
To give Mary a little bit of credit although she suspected Elizabeth of being involved in plot after plot against, some of which I believe were down to pure paranoia on Mary’s part, the fact that she refused to have her executed shows that she did at least have some feelings for her as her sister. But why was Renard so urging on wanting Mary to execute Elizabeth as well as Jane? Personally I think that was all down to the Spanish Allience, Maybe they though that once Mary was married to Philip she would name him as King, with Elizabeth dead there would be no one left to challenge his reign when Mary died, and therefore he would rule both England and Spain, however because Mary council refused point blank to grant Philip the Crown Matrimonal, Philip wanted and needed Elizabeth alive, so therefore Renard had to change tack, but even so I think he still hoped to trap Mary into killing Elizabeth.
Jane was guilty but not in any real sence of the world, she didn’t want the throne and it was thrust apon her by Northumberland and others.
If Northumberland had managed to get Eddy’s order for Jane to have the throne over his sisters ratified in Parliament I think she would have had to have excepted it albeit reluctantly, and would have tried to make the best of it, but lets face it she wouldn’t really have wielded any power the country would be ruled by proxy by Northumberland, and I rather feel as horrible as this sounds I think Jane’s rule wouldn’t have lasted very long,
She would have been kept around long enough to produce an heir and then done away with. Northumberland could then in effect be ruler of England by proxy and bring Jane’s child up how he wanted and to marry who he wanted too. Guildford was a weak kneed arse who only concern was for himself and his own pleasures..
Jane’s reluctance to wanting to take throne I think, is where a lot of the misconception about Frances Brandon has come from.. Frances was very strict and it wasn’t uncommon for a child to recieve a beating if they felt that the child had done something wrong. But from what little we know about Jane or what she had supossidly said to people I find it hard to believe that Frances was such a sadist towards Jane as some people believe.
Frances was probably frustrated by Jane’s lack of wanting to do as she did, Jane perferring to stay indoors reading a book or maybe sewing or playing music, but does that mean Frances would beat the bejebus out of her just because Jane was different? I did at one time think that Frances perhaps did do just that but now I’m not too sure.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
11:55 pm
October 28, 2011
Offline
Boleyn said
Did Mary inherit her Aunt Joanna’s madness in someway? Her complete devotion to Philip seem to suggest that she was unhinged somehow..
Joanna refused to allow her Husband’s body to be buried for some months after his death and she would insist that where she went he would go, she would often sleep by him at night and spend her days talking to him, not even noticing that he was starting to stink the place out. I have even heard that when he finally was buried she would sleep naked on his grave and talk to him begging him to wake up and make love to her.
Joanna didn’t bury Philip immediately because she wanted to take him back to Granada to be buried, as was his wish, and the trip was long. She did open the coffin to check on the corpse once. She most certainly did not lie naked on his grave. Joanna may have suffered from clinical depression, but it was propaganda perpetuated by firstly her father, then her son, so they could steal her crown. Her mental health deteriorated far more after she was forcibly imprisoned by her father, and then her son. Further aggravated by the fact she was kept in two rooms for more than fifty years. Her caretakers treated her abominably. Julia Fox wrote an excellent book this year trying to dispel some of the myths surrounding Joanna.
It really annoys me (and no offence of course Bo) that people assume Mary inherited any mental instability from her mother’s family. As far as I am concerned any madness she might have inherited, if that were the case, would have come straight from Henry. Joanna may have suffered from depression, as did Isabella, as Katherine may have in a milder form. There was no tyranny in Katherine or Joanna, that is all Henry.
Janet I want to point out that Mary’s treatment was far worse than Elizabeth’s. Yes Elizabeth lost her mother, but she was only ten by the time Katherine Parr married Henry and she had an assured place in the family. Mary was already in her early twenties by the time Jane Seymour married Henry, and her place in the succession was not restored until she was in her late twenties. Mary was harassed and physically threatened, and feared for her life in her teens. Elizabeth simply did not (thankfully) suffer at the hands of Henry as much as Mary did.
Mary was not quite that sappy about Philip either, as far as I know he had to have permission from her before he did anything, they had to jointly sign on things as well.
1:52 am
October 28, 2011
Offline
Oh Bo Gardiner was in the Tower wasn’t he? I thought Mary released him.
3:14 am
June 15, 2012
Offline
Elizabeth didn’t suffer as much as Mary simply because she never challenged Henry the way Mary did. She might have been an unwanted daughter, but she was also an obedient daughter, whereas Henry saw Mary as willful, stubborn, unnatural and disobedient. He saw her as treasonous for not submitting to his will and was determined to break her. If she had not submitted when she did, he may well have sent her to the Tower or even executed her.
4:12 am
February 24, 2012
Offline
Sorry Olga. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Yes, Mary was harassed but she brought a lot of that on herself. She was as stubborn as her mother and that did KOA absolutely no good at all. Elizabeth may have had an easier time of it with Henry because she knew when to keep her mouth shut and her thoughts to herself. In order to keep herself safe, that had to continue when Mary came to the throne. She would have known the Spanish would want to be rid of her and Mary would be looking for any excuse to shut her in the Tower. I think she lived with a kind of harassment longer than Mary. Anywho, the point I was trying to make (and failed LOL) was that I don’t buy into Mary’s childhood as being a reason why she was such a tyrant.
8:20 am
October 28, 2011
Offline
You didn’t fail Janet LOL, I get your point. To tell you the truth I don’t always buy into the theory of parents having a huge impact on people’s personalities, but with Mary I really do think it affected her.
I should point out I don’t admire Mary as a monarch, and I don’t think it had a direct impact on the actual tyrannical part of her reign. I do think her childhood affected her health and her mental health in a lot of areas though. I confess I remain completely mystified as to how she turned into what she was later.
Also, Gill and Janet, to be fair, I think the age between the two girls makes a difference. Elizabeth was an actual child when Anne was executed, how would she even be in a position to challenge Henry, and she was never put in that position anyway. She didn’t live with him and he all but ignored her for years. Mary was already in teens/adulthood when her and Henry’s woes began. As far as I know (and I could be wrong) neither girl had any issues with Henry after he married Kate Parr and everything was settled succession-wise. Mary certainly was stubborn and wilful, and never the astute politician Elizabeth (who I adore by the way) grew to be. But as for railing against Henry when she did, I can hardly blame her. If my father was treating my mother that way there’s no way I’d be meekly subservient to him. Especially if I was an angry teenager.
9:58 am
June 15, 2012
Offline
I also think Mary was a lot like her mother. Katherine never burned anyone, but was a fanatical Catholic and was never actually in a position to do so. She was only a consort, never the ruler, and the reformation only really got underway once she had long lost influence over Henry. Given her own mother’s record with the Inquisition and that Katherine seems to have had a very similar outlook to her, and the fact that Mary seems to have adopted the same position, it may be that KOA would have actually approved of Mary’s actions. Mary was very much a product of KOA’s upbringing and outlook.
