Mary I (1516-1558)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
By the time Mary was of an age to marry Henry was disputing the legitimacy of the marriage. To marry her off would imply that the marriage was legitimate. Once the marriage was annulled then Mary was illegitimate and therefore not a catch for anyone.

Also she couldn't continue the Tudor line as she was a woman and her line would have become that of her husband, just as Henry's sister didn't continue the Tudor line but her descendents are the Stuarts and from whom the present royal family are descended.
 
As a Princess of England, there was no need to wait to secure a marriage for Mary Tudor.. as most royal daughters were basically political property and their marriages were treated as alliances or treaties between kingdoms.

Henry did take an interest in his daughter's marriage in her childhood and she was betrothed several times, but the arrangements just never came off.

Mary was betrothed to Francis III, Duc de Bretagne and Dauphin de Viennois, the infant son and heir of Francis I of France, when she was a toddler. But the political goals of England and France changed and the contract was repudiated around 1520. The Duke of Brittany died at the age of eighteen, in 1536, unmarried and without legitimate issue.

In 1522, Mary was contracted to marry Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor - a contract no doubt greatly influenced by her mother Queen Catherine. Charles was twenty-two years old and Mary was merely a child.. years away from being a co-habitating wife and mother of an heir.

Despite the fact that officially their betrothal lasted several years, Charles eventually broke the agreement so that he could marry Isabella of Portugal in 1526. His need for an heir was probably greater than even Henry VIII's, and he could not wait for his child bride to grow up.. besides, his interest in the match was most likely purely political.. despite his family connection to Catherine of Aragon.

Following the broken contract with Charles V, Mary was suggested as either the second wife of Francis I of France (whose Queen Claude had died in 1524), or as the wife of his second son Henri, Duc de Orleans. At that time Francis was eager to secure an alliance with England, and a contract was signed giving Mary's hand in marriage to one or the other.

But Cardinal Wolsey found a way to secure the alliance without the marriage, and the issue was dropped.

Shortly after this began Henry's Great Matter, which effectively took Mary Tudor out of the marriage market.. until she became Queen.

Iluvbertie is right though.. after she was declared illegitimate, there was no point in trying to secure a marriage for her.. and no marriage plans were made for Elizabeth either, for the same reason.

I do, however, have to slightly disagree that Mary Tudor would not have continued the Tudor line. Had either she or Elizabeth married and provided England with an heir, it may have officially changed the ruling dynasty's name, but the royal blood would have still been half Tudor. Or it could have been a case of the heir to the throne taking the Tudor name to inherit, and therefore continuing the official dynasty.. much like the Windsors have done.

The case of Queen Margaret is slightly different, in that she was a Queen Consort and not a Queen Regnant. It was her duty to provide an heir for the royal house she married into.. which would not have been the case for Mary or Elizabeth, who held the throne in their own right.
 
that's what i meant by mary continuing the tudor line--i meant blood, not the name.. henry's blood/dna would have been in his grandchildren..
actually, i think some of henry's dna did get passed along--thru mary boleyn's children..
 
kbear87 said:
that's what i meant by mary continuing the tudor line--i meant blood, not the name.. henry's blood/dna would have been in his grandchildren..
actually, i think some of henry's dna did get passed along--thru mary boleyn's children..
Click to expand...

As a direct descendant of Katherine Carey Knollys, I quite agree with you :)
 
HM Queen Catherine said:
As a direct descendant of Katherine Carey Knollys, I quite agree with you :)
Click to expand...
wow, that's cool! since she had 15 children:eek: i bet there are a ton of relatives, lol. how are you related to her? i wonder why henry viii did not recognize mary's children since he did acknowledge his son with bessie blount?? i guess it was because he was pursuing anne?
 
What I always find terribly sad is that Mary was considered evil by a very biased Protestant critique. She probably killed closed to 200 Protestants in her reign. Her father waa responsible for over seventy thousand Catholics not to mention the very pious and wonderful Thomas More. YET, she gets the bad rap. I am in no way a Catholic apologist but I like Mary because she did do a lot of good things in her reign as well that get overlooked because she inserted her absolute will like any other ruler. At least she stood for her faith because she believed it was right and not because she had other motives.

I also hate when people downplay her accomplishments to praise Elizabeth who was a great politican, for sure, but not without her faults or bloody hands (she just hid her dirty deeds well). I feel like she is often hyped and Mary treated like crap.

Love Mary and her mother. She could have been a whole lot worse considering what she went through.
 
persian85033 said:
Didn't Henry VIII have Thomas More executed?
Click to expand...

More was tried, and found guilty, under the following section of the Treason Act 1534:

If any person or persons, after the first day of February next coming, do maliciously wish, will or desire, by words or writing, or by craft imagine, invent, practise, or attempt any bodily harm to be done or committed to the king's most royal person, the queen's, or their heirs apparent, or to deprive them or any of them of their dignity, title, or name of their royal estates...
That then every such person and persons so offending... shall have and suffer such pains of death and other penalties, as is limited and accustomed in cases of high treason.
Click to expand...

After the jury's verdict was delivered and before his sentencing, More spoke freely of his belief that "no temporal man may be the head of the spirituality". He was sentenced to be hanged, drawn, and quartered (the usual punishment for traitors who were not the nobility), but the king commuted this to execution by decapitation. The execution took place on 6 July 1535.

- From the ever loved Wikipedia, but I have a spidersense that there is sarcasm somewhere within one of the posts above. :flowers:
 
persian85033 said:
Didn't Henry VIII have Thomas More executed?
Click to expand...

My dear Persian,

I was not questioning the death of St Thomas More at Henry's direction--I was questioning the deaths of 70,000 Catholics under Henry. I am too lazy to dig out my biographies on him at the moment. BTW, my confirmation name was Thomas for St. Thomas More, so I am very familiar with his life and death. He truly believed in his Church, unlike me at the moment.:ohmy:
 
This thread has been dormant for a while, but I have been reading a lot about the Tutors recently. In answer to Vasillisos Markos question, the claim that Henry VIII was responsible for the deaths of 72,000 people can be traced from the Holinshed's Chronicles, which were written by Raphael Holinshed, which were published in 1587.

I don't think there is an accurate record of all the executions ordered by Henry VIII, but I think it is well settled that he ordered the deaths of tens of thousands of people. Even taking the length of his rule into account (Henry VIII ruled for around 38 years and Mary I ruled for 3 years), Henry VIII executed more people per year than Mary I did.
 
Queen Mary I was alienated from and made a bastard by her father, Henry. When she eventually came to the throne after the death of her brother Edward VI and the short rule by Lady Jane Grey, Mary began the persecution against many of the leading Protestants of the day gaining the infamous title of "Bloody Mary".

But did she really deserve to go down in history as a bloodthirsty, cruel monarch. I have just completed a short review of her life which you may read at Queen Mary I
 
Thank you for the excellent summary of Queen Mary's rule. It was a fascinating time.

It's hard to understand from a modern perspective, but persecuting protestants was seen as protecting her people. At that time, the monarch was responsible for the spiritual welfare of the kingdom. The Queen was honestly concerned that heretics would led innocent people astray, which would mean those innocent people would then suffer eternal damnation. It was also a superstitious time, some people were afraid that if England separated from the true church, God would have sent some sort of natural disaster.
 
In Royal Britain, it was stated:

On November 16, 1553 Mary declared her intention of marrying the Roman Catholic Prince Philip of Spain, son of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain.
As 7,000-odd rebels prepared to attack the City of London, Queen Mary made a passionate appeal to an assembly of Londoners declaring, 'I love you as a mother loves her child'. She won their loyalty and the rebels were crushed.
​

In Kings and Queens of Great Britain, David Soud wrote:

Mary's sense of herself as queen was molded by her Catholic faith -- to an extent that she proved incapable of grasping the ambiguities and complexities of her position. In her mind, God had given her the task of restoring England to the Catholic fold, and that mission became the overriding priority of her reign.
​

Mary was named after Henry VIII's sister, Mary Tudor, Queen Consort of France and Duchess of Suffolk.
Mary I liked to be painted with her Italian Greyhounds at her feet.
​

It was interesting to learn that one of the possibilities of a husband for Mary I was Edward Courtenay.
He was a descendant of the House of York.
Edward's title was Earl of Devon.
​

In The Kings and Queens of England, Ian Crofton wrote:

When she was visited by Nicholas Ridley, the Protestant Bishop of London, she (Mary) dismissed him with the following words: My Lord, for your gentleness to come and see me, I thank you; but for your offering to preach before me, I thank you never a whit.
​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
After the rebellion was put down (poor Lady Jane Grey) Mary was proclaimed Queen in London. Londoners went wild. Foreign observers looked on in amazement as the city celebrated.

According to 'Children of England' by Alison Weir, one Italian reported 'I am unable to describe to you, nor would you believe, the exultation of all men. They ran hither and thither, bonnets flew into the air, shouts rose higher than the stars, fires were lit on all sides, and all the bells were set a-pealing, and from a distance the Earth must have looked like Mount Etna.'

Once things were settled Mary had to make a decision about Edward VI's funeral. She wanted to hold a requiem mass and wrote to the Imperial Ambassadors asking their opinion. They replied that her brother should be buried according to the rites of the faith in which he had lived and died. 'The Emperor would not like you to make any innovations'.

Mary was very disappointed with that response as she had hoped for support. She therefore decided to ignore their advice.
 
CyrilVladisla said:
Mary was named after Henry VIII's sister, Mary Tudor, Queen Consort of France and Duchess of Suffolk.

​
Click to expand...

I read that Mary I was named after Mary Tudor because she was Henry VIII's favourite sister, but I would need to double check that.

Vita said:
I am in no way a Catholic apologist but I like Mary because she did do a lot of good things in her reign as well that get overlooked because she inserted her absolute will like any other ruler. At least she stood for her faith because she believed it was right and not because she had other motives.
Click to expand...

I know I'm quoting an old post here (mea culpa), but the bolded is how I feel about Mary I as well. She and the Tudors have also always fascinated me, and I first became interested in the BRF when I was around eight or nine because I had been reading about these historical periods in question. I've read that one of the good things Mary I would do during her reign was to disguise herself as a peasant woman, and knock on the doors of the houses of the poor, and if she saw anything that she thought wasn't right or that could be improved, she would go about doing so, but that's another fact I would need to double check.
 
CyrilVladisla said:
Mary was named after Henry VIII's sister, Mary Tudor, Queen Consort of France and Duchess of Suffolk.
​
Click to expand...

That *is* mentioned in the wiki article on Mary Tudor, but if you're going to quote wikipedia one line at a time, wouldn't it be easier to just link the entire article? :lol:
 
Lee-Z said:
That *is* mentioned in the wiki article on Mary Tudor, but if you're going to quote wikipedia one line at a time, wouldn't it be easier to just link the entire article? :lol:
Click to expand...

Our Cyril is our tidbit trivia man. I tend to remember the short bits entered into a thread more than if I had read the entire article.

That's me though. :D
 
Mary's phantom pregnancy certainly caused both she and Philip enormous humiliation throughout Britain and Europe. Philip departed England soon afterwards. There was a second false pregnancy in early 1558, that again ended in nothing.

There were so many false alarms, and on at least one occasion bells pealed and the people of London celebrated what they believed was the birth of a prince. Had Mary given birth to a healthy boy then that would have been the end, I think, of England as a Protestant nation, and maybe excuses would have been made later to execute Elizabeth.
 
:previous: Thank you An Ard Ri. It's good to read something different about this unhappy, unfortunate, misguided woman for a change.
 
I agree its very rare to see anything written in defense of Mary I!
 
:previous: Thanks for sharing An Ard Ri. I've always been interested Mary I and learning about the Tudors in primary school at the age of 8 was what first made me interested in British royalty.
There's lots of info on all the negative events that happened during Mary I's reign, so it's always interesting to read about her successes.
 
Mary Mary Bloody Mary...there are a lot of reasons why she is so hated main ones being England is Protestant and she is viewed as a Catholic enforcer plus her ties to Spain and their history with the Inquisition. She had a sad life which rarely had any happiness let in, even after she finally got married to a man she adored he only tolerated her, her subjects hated him and rebelled and then she had those phantom pregnancies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blog Real
King Charles IV/I of France and Navarre and Wifes (Blance, Marie and Joan of Évreux)
Replies
2
Views
559
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
Blog Real
King Filip and Queen Ingegerd Haraldsdotter
Replies
0
Views
180
Blog Real
Blog Real
Blog Real
King Magnus II (1130-1161) and Queen Birgitta Haraldsdotter
Replies
0
Views
280
Blog Real
Blog Real
Blog Real
Genealogy of Queen Mary of Denmark
Replies
1
Views
2K
Muhler
Muhler
Blog Real
Prince Edward, Duke of Kent & Strathearn & Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld
Replies
8
Views
2K
Lee-Z
Lee-Z

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom