What If Mary & Reginald Got Married?

I'm excited to announce that a new anthology is available from Historical Writers Forum! Each author was asked to answer a historical 'what if' question, and I considered a few before deciding to write a story about Queen Mary I choosing to marry Reginald Pole instead of Philip of Spain. You will love the alternate endings that other historical novelists came up with too!

Did I mention that it is only 99c?!

What if Mary and Reginald got married is a question I have written about before, but this was my first time expanding on it and what might have happened. Without the people rising up against a fear of Spanish rule, would Mary still be remembered as Bloody Mary? Might she have also been happier married to a man who might return her love instead of seeing her as a path to a crown? The fact that Mary and Reginald died on the same day, 17 November 1558, becomes heartbreakingly romantic if we imagine that they were married at the time.

In my Alternate Endings story, I got to think about a few other people who would be impacted by Mary & Reginald becoming co-monarchs. What would Princess Elizabeth think of this, and what would she do to ensure her own position as heir apparent? Perhaps, marriage would be a better path for her as well. How might the Tudor dynasty change?

Writing alternate history is thought-provoking, and I decided to keep some parts of Mary's story as they truly happened, but you'll have to read Tudors with a Twist to discover what stays the same and what is just a might-have-been. One big change alters the course of England's monarchy. Find out what happens in Alternate Endings from HWF!

Explore more Alternate Endings on the HWF Blog Hop Page!

What would you do if you could change history?

The Real 'Bloody Mary'

When I decided to write about Queen Mary, I discovered that most people hold one of two views of her. The first group quickly writes her off as a bloodthirsty butcher who was set upon vengeance. The second is somewhat more sympathetic, still believing her to have killed people with revenge in mind, but not holding her completely responsible because of the difficult life that she lived. What I would like to offer is a third picture of a woman who had a great faith, good intentions, and an unfulfilled desire to love and be loved.

It is impossible to look at Mary without seeing the shadow of the 284 protestants who were burned at the stake during her reign. Elizabeth, a better politician than her older sister, chose to emphasize this image upon her accession. The term ‘Bloody Mary’ comes from the Elizabethan era, not Mary’s own lifetime. While it is difficult to wrap the modern mind around the reasons burning was used as form of punishment, we must attempt to understand if we are truly going to appreciate the history of the sixteenth century.

To the twenty-first century mind, both religious persecution and cruel punishment for crimes are considered unacceptable, but if we are to fairly judge Mary we must look at the expectations and beliefs of her contemporaries, rather than our own. The rulers of the sixteenth century encountered unique issues due to the Reformation. Faith had always been a matter of state and it was one of a monarch’s duties to shepherd their people along the journey to heaven. While some division had taken place in previous centuries, it was nothing like the schism that occurred after Martin Luther issued his 95 theses in 1517.

This is the world Mary entered with a strong faith but little political acumen. She had been raised with the expectation of being queen – at least for most of her childhood. Therefore, she was well educated and understood her responsibilities to her subjects. Yet she had also been neglected and removed from the political stage for her young adult years, leaving her immature in matters of manipulation and negotiation. When Mary took the throne, she was not out for revenge, she was committed to saving a country that she was certain her brother, Edward VI, had placed upon the highway to hell.

We do not think about salvation and eternity the way those living in Tudor times did. This is likely because we do not experience the high rate of infant mortality, raging illnesses with no cure, and battlefield deaths that they endured. Of course, we experience loss, but death was a much more daily part of life, at any age, to one living centuries ago. It would have been an outrage to the people of England if their queen had not been concerned with their faith and eternal life.

Mary was greatly concerned. Throughout Edward VI’s reign, she had continued to keep the liturgical hours and have the mass said at her estates regardless of her brother’s statutes against it. When the people swarmed to her in support in favor of the usurper Lady Jane Grey, they knew that it meant a return to the old faith, and it was what many of them desired. They would have also expected that to mean punishment for those who were involved with heresy.

It is a significant misunderstanding to assume that rebellions against Mary were a rejection of the Catholic faith. Events such as Wyatt’s Rebellion were actually targeted at Mary’s choice of spouse. Having no experience with a queen regnant, Englishmen were wary of what power her husband would be given, both during her life and after her death. When Mary chose Prince Philip of Spain, many saw England’s future as a part of the Holy Roman Empire which Philip’s father, Charles V, ruled. As unrest grew, the outcry of the persecuted Protestants joined that of the anti-Spanish faction to become one.

Why did Mary choose Philip? He was certainly not her only prospect, despite the fact that Mary was thirty-seven when she took the crown. Her mother’s childbearing history and her own poor health gave rise to fears that her choice would have great effect on the future, and Mary understood this. She could have chosen an Englishman. Distant cousins Edward Courtenay and Reginald Pole were good options, reuniting York and Tudor family lines, but Mary trusted the judgement of her uncle, Charles V, to whom she had once been betrothed, when he offered her his son.

Philip, eleven years younger and with his own domains to rule, entered the marriage somewhat reluctantly but dutifully. While Mary was looking for the love that had long been denied her, Philip was hoping for a promptly born heir.

In the meantime, Cardinal Reginald Pole was recalled to England, not to be king, but to be Archbishop of Canterbury after the execution of Thomas Cranmer. Pole was not an advocate of burning, but he also understood that the idea of coexisting religions did not yet exist. He was one of few religious scholars of the day who enjoyed discussions with Catholics and Protestants alike, leading one contemporary to say of him, "He has been very unfortunate . . . being considered a Lutheran in Rome, in Germany a papist." Even with this relatively tolerant point-of-view for the era, he understood Mary’s need to take control as Head of the Church of England.

So, why did Mary burn Protestants? Was it because she blamed them for her mother’s downfall or her father’s rejection? Did she simply hate those who did not share her beliefs? The answer is a resounding no.

Mary believed, as did those who lived during her reign, that burning was a foretaste of hell. It was specifically chosen as a punishment for heresy to give sufferers a chance to repent of their false beliefs and gain entrance to heaven. What we see as a slow, cruel death (and it was) had a purpose. Those who went to their death this way had the opportunity to reject hell and beg God for forgiveness. Witnesses would see what hell would be like – and hopefully see heartfelt recantation – and examine their own faith. As horrid as it seems to us, burning was intended to save the most people for eternity.

In the end, though, Mary’s efforts failed. She failed to bear an heir, failed to build a happy marriage, failed to reunite England with Rome. Yet, when the heartbroken queen went to her death, she did not attempt to deny her sister the crown. Elizabeth had schemed and was expected to undo all that Mary had done, but instead of denying her right to inherit as Edward had attempted to do, Mary accepted her fate and trusted the future to the God she had tried so devotedly to serve.

It may surprise some to learn that Mary’s council frequently accused her of misplaced mercy. She initially refused to have Jane Grey executed for treason, though the woman had ruled in Mary’s rightful position for almost a fortnight. Reluctant queen or not, there was no doubt that this was high treason. Mary also refused to take steps against her plotting sister besides relatively comfortable imprisonment, despite Elizabeth’s hunger for her sister’s throne. Hundreds of soldiers of Wyatt’s Rebellion were pardoned by Mary, as was Henry Grey, Jane’s father, until he rebelled following his original pardon. The woman we know as Bloody Mary would be shocked by the sobriquet, as would most who knew her.

~~~~~~~~~~

This blog was originally written for and published at the blog of Poppy Coburn.

Read my version of Mary's story in Queen of Martyrs, available for Kindle and Paperback worldwide.

Let's Talk about Queen Mary I

I am excited to invite you to participate in a chat on Queen Mary over at the Tudor Society. The expert talk - featuring yours truly - is live now, so you can watch that before the live chat commences on Friday, January 25th.

Here are the times in different time zones:

London, UK - Friday 25th January at 11pm
Madrid, Spain - Saturday 26th January at 12am
New York, USA - Friday 25th January at 6pm
Los Angeles, USA - Friday 25th January at 3pm
Sydney, Australia - Saturday 26th January at 10am

Here is the chatroom!

I look forward to discussing all things Queen Mary with you!

Tudor Persecution of the Carthusian Monks

On February 1, 1535, King Henry VIII's Act of Supremacy came into force, and one of the first groups he proceeded against were the Carthusian monks. Although this order had long been a respected and peaceful group, Henry labeling himself 'Supreme Head on Earth of the Church of England' made it possible for him to charge them with treason for their failure to accept his self-proclaimed level of spiritual power. His retribution was fierce and intended to be an example of any who considered refusing to take the Oath of Supremacy.

Three representatives of a Carthusian house attempted to compromise with Cromwell regarding the oath, but on April 26, 1535, they were sent to the Tower. On May 4th, after a farce of a trial, they were dragged by hurdle to Tyburn where they were hanged while still wearing their religious habits. Taken down while still alive, they were disemboweled, beheaded, and dismembered. Far from traitors, the monks were seen as martyrs of their faith.

Roman broadsheet of the martyrdom of the English Carthusians

Persecution of the Carthusian order was far from complete. Three more monks who refused the oath were chained to posts around the neck and legs and left in this state for weeks. They continued to refuse the oath, but the king and Cromwell were aware that the savagery of the first execution had created public sympathy for the men of faith rather than the king. Efforts to convert the men continued through house arrest, threats, and lectures on the king's supremacy. The monks who continued to refuse the oath were chained to pillars in the dungeon of Newgate and starved to death. Two more were hanged in chains from the city walls at York until they died.

The Carthusian houses fell to King Henry as some took the oath in fear and others fled to Bruges for safety. A small community of English Carthusians remained in Bruges until the reign of Queen Mary. When they began to arrive, they were housed in the Savoy by Queen Mary's Controller, Robert Rochester, whose brother had been one of the monks martyred at York. Mary and her key counselor on religious reform, Cardinal Reginald Pole, wished to reestablish the Carthusians but had also made promises to the purchasers of dissolved religious property that it would not be confiscated.

On November 17, 1555, The House of Jesus of Bethlehem of Shene was reestablished with Maurice Chauncy as Prior. Unfortunately, the restoration did not last long. Queen Mary and Reginald Pole, who was by that time Archbishop of Canterbury, both died on November 17, 1558. Queen Elizabeth forced the Carthusians into exile once more on July 1, 1559. There would be no return to England for them this time.

Anne Boleyn's apology to Princess Mary

Anne Boleyn in the Tower
by Edouard Cibot

Anne Boleyn enjoys much popularity today, almost certainly more than she did while alive. From our modern, enlightened point-of-view, we like to make her out to be a proud, independent woman in a time when women were told to be submissive. The only woman often held up as a better example of 16th century feminism is her daughter, who became Queen Elizabeth I.

Although I do not admire neither Anne nor Elizabeth anywhere near as much as some, I can appreciate that both did make their mark on history. If I see them as a little more self-serving than bold, I hope their fervent fans will forgive me.

Clearly, Anne realized that she had indeed been wrong in her treatment of Henry VIII's eldest daughter, Mary. Anne caused Mary to lose the title of princess that she had held since birth, and Mary refused to recognize Anne as queen. It was a relationship doomed from the start, and neither desired to make any effort toward improving it. Both were known to wish for the death of the other.

However, when Anne's execution was approaching, she decided to apologize to Lady Mary. She had no reason to go out of her way to do so in her last hours, but she called for Lady Kingstone, wife of the Constable of the Tower, and asked her to relay her message of repentance. According to Martin Haile, Anne knelt before Lady Kingstone and requested that she, 'throw herself in like manner at the feet of Lady Mary, and beseech her to forgive the many wrongs which the pride of a thoughtless, unfortunate woman had brought upon her.'

Since she applied for permission to visit Lady Mary after Anne Boleyn's execution, it is believed that Lady Kingstone delivered the message. While Anne may have owed Mary that apology, one can easily argue that both women's problems were much more due to Henry VIII than each other. A bastardized daughter and insecure queen were unlikely to ever make amends before faced with their own mortality.

4 August 2022 NOTE: Because of continuous comments on this post that do not add to civil discourse, I am shutting off commenting for this post. Please, still feel free to use my contact form or join in other discussions on this blog! I apologize to those many dear readers who are not part of the problem. Thank you for your understanding. ~ Samantha

Was Queen Mary advised by a heretic?

Queen Mary I
Painting by Eworth

The reign of Queen Mary I is best known for her attempt at counter-reformation in England. Since we have the benefit of knowing that it did fail, it is easy to look back and wonder how she believed it could succeed. Yet at that time, Mary was able to take the crown that was rightfully hers through great popular support for her and her religion. Her partner in bringing the 'true faith' back to her kingdom was her cousin, Cardinal Reginald Pole.

Reginald Pole was the son of Margaret Pole Countess of Salisbury who had served as Mary's governess. Margaret and Mary's mother, Queen Catherine, had been close friends and may have hoped that Reginald could be a potential suitor for the princess, but her father had other plans for her. In the meantime, Reginald grew up provided with the best education money could buy through the support of Kings Henry VII & VIII. By the time Mary became queen in 1553, Reginald was known as a great scholar and only his refusal to campaign on his own behalf had prevented him from being elected pope in 1550.

Instead, he returned to his homeland to assist Queen Mary in putting her religious house in order. Mary was a staunch Catholic. It was one of the things that had driven a wedge between her and her father and siblings. She assumed, of course, that the good Cardinal was of one mind with her in all church matters, but there was much more to Reginald Pole that met the eye.

The words of Matthew 10:16 were favored by Pole. He had them painted on a window when he lived in Lambeth Palace, and they appear on his tomb.

Be as wise as serpents and as simple as doves.

This line reveals a bit about the deep-thinking man who was more willing than most leaders of the Catholic Church to consider the arguments of the reformers. Reginald was devoted to rooting heresy out of England, but this did not necessarily mean to him what it meant to his queen. Like some men who were persecuted as heretics, he believed that Catholicism should be reestablished free of the corruption that had lead to the Reformation.

Cardinal Reginald Pole

Pole discussed religion with learned men throughout Europe from Thomas More to Niccolo Machiavelli. He was a friend of Michelangelo and Contarini, another Cardinal famous for wishing to be reunited with Lutherans. By reformers, Pole was considered a Papist but he later came under investigation by Inquisitors who called him a secret Lutheran. Pole's writing frequently seems to favor the Lutheran doctrine of justification through faith alone, and he scandalously proposed that church leaders should lead by example and bear the church's burden rather than setting themselves higher than their flock. He believed in a personal relationship with God, not solely through membership of a church, stating that all people are brides of Christ, not just the Catholic Church. These fine lines may seem insignificant to us today, but in the 16th century men had burned for less.

Yet Pole was a highly respected leader of the Catholic Church and was sent to bring England back into the fold. He believed in faith, discipline, and charity, but he also believed that it was vital to put a stop to heresy before it could spread and lead people to eternal damnation. This is what made him the ideal person to cope with the situation in Marian England.

While Pole had defended the right of Protestants to have their views heard, he also supported meaningful debate and edifying conversation that would (hopefully) end with all parties agreeing upon the truth. This gentle easing of people to faith was just what was necessary in a country that had been enduring religious changes - and not all for very religious reasons - for two decades. His position in England is also likely what saved him from more drastic encounters with the Inquisition. He was able to defend himself in writing while emphasizing that his continued presence was required in England.

He was nothing if not clever.

Pole's belief that all heretics should be given the opportunity to hear the truth and be healed before they were condemned coincided well with Queen Mary's merciful character. While we may know her as 'Bloody Mary', her council often accused Mary of not taking decisive enough actions against her enemies. The burning of heretic leaders, those with the most power to lead others astray, did not begin until 1555. As was the case with every previous English monarch, heresy was considered akin to open rebellion.

Disputation of the Trinity
Andrea Del Sarto, 1517
(Web Gallery of Art)

Pole advised the English clergy 'to entreat the people and their flock with all gentleness and to endeavour themselves to win the people rather by gentleness than by extremity and rigour.' Bonner thought Pole was too lenient and found his positions on heretics disappointing. This paints a very different picture of the counter-reformation than has been brought to us by Elizabethan chroniclers.

By the end of 1558, when Reginald and Mary both died on the 17th of November, 284 Protestants had been burned for heresy. Pole felt treatment this harsh should be reserved for only the worst of criminals, those who did not only privately practice heresy but actively spread it. Reunification and peace were his goals, but he had run out of time to see those objectives reached.

But was Reginald Pole a heretic? Ironically, those on both sides of the 16th century religious debate accused him of being one, which just might make him a man who understood men and faith better than any of his accusers.

Additional Reading:

Reginald Pole: Prince & Prophet by Thomas F Mayer
The First Queen of England by Linda Porter

What if Mary Hadn't Burned Heretics?

Queen Mary I is most remembered for the burning of heretics that took place during her reign, and she has been given the cruel sobriquet of 'Bloody Mary'. But what would have happened if Mary had not allowed the burning of heretics?

We assume because religious persecution is unacceptable today that it must have been the same during Mary's lifetime, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Monarchs were expected to lead their subjects in matters of faith, but that became much trickier with the advent of the Reformation. Suddenly, people were divided in ways they had never been before, and rulers had to determine how best to proceed in this new world.

According to historian Eamon Duffy, 'No sixteenth-century European state willingly accepted or could easily imagine the peaceful coexistence of differing religious confessions, and such a coexistence does not seem a particularly realistic aspiration for Mary's England.' In his book, Fires of Faith: Catholic England under Mary Tudor, he points out that we only believe that the counter-reformation was doomed to fail because we have the advantage of knowing that it did. To Mary and those who advised her, they were doing the only thing they logically could do in seeing to the salvation of Englishmen.

The idea that burnings were repugnant to Mary's contemporaries and further drove people from Catholicism is a false idea based on our modern mindset that people must have felt that way. Mary's subjects, from the moment they supported her rule over that of Lady Jane Grey, expected the return of the old faith and the stomping out of the new that would go along with it. Throughout Europe, rulers continued to attempt to regulate the faith of the people long after Mary's reign ended in 1558, and the forms of punishment were no less brutal with Elizabeth ordering the hanging, drawing, and quartering of Catholics during her reign.

Had Mary not attempted to see England united in faith, she would have been viewed as a weak and ineffective monarch - a concern already at the forefront as she ruled as England's first queen regnant. Her supporters expected her to punish heretics and would have been disappointed in her had she sat back and done nothing. In contrast, there was very little outcry regarding the punishments when they took place. The discontent that Mary did have to cope with was the public disapproval of her marriage to Philip of Spain. For those unused to being ruled by a woman, the fear of becoming one more piece of the Holy Roman Empire was very real.

Just as her brother, Edward VI, had been encouraged to lead the nation in faith and punish those who did not follow, Mary had an obligation to uphold holy laws. Protestants and Catholics did not disagree on a monarchs role, but on who were the heretics that should be punished. Mary is often accused of seeking revenge for the many wrongs that she had suffered before she became queen, but in reality she was doing her duty of putting the country's church affairs in order with the advice of an extensive and learned council.

Mary also did not immediately resort to the burning of heretics. For more than than the first year of her reign, her focus was on ensuring that the true faith was preached so that those who had grown up during her brother's reign had the opportunity to hear and learn. Beginning in 1555, those who continued to lead people away from Catholicism were given harsh punishments for their role in what many believed was the spreading of heresy which doomed people to eternal damnation. Those who refused to correct the error of their ways, served as examples for those they led astray.

When people were burned, it was believed that they were given a foretaste of hell that would be their last chance to repent and receive eternal life in heaven. In its way, this punishment was intended as a final effort to convert those believed lost to heresy. Had Mary simply allowed her subjects to live and die condemned for eternity, she would have been accused by her contemporaries of failing to do her duty, but we might not remember her today as 'Bloody Mary'.

Read the story of Mary I from her point of view.

Queen of Martyrs is available on Amazon, Audible, Barnes & Noble, or directly through my little bookshop!

How did a gentle, pious girl become known as Bloody Mary? Read her side of the story.

**18 August 2022 UPDATE: Due to an unreasonable number of nonproductive interactions on this post which I have had to delete, comments will no longer be open. I apologize to the majority of my readers who contribute to civil discourse. It is unfortunate that one person makes this no longer possible.

Publication Day for Queen Mary!

The day is finally here to welcome Queen Mary to your bookshelves! Queen of Martyrs was written to challenge each reader to consider the story of 'Bloody Mary' a little more deeply. Was she vengeful and bitter? I don't think so. The Mary Tudor I have come to know was merciful and devout, choosing her course of action based on the good of the people of England and what is right in the eyes of God. Of course, not everyone agreed at that turbulent time on what God's wishes were, but salvation was still a matter of state, leaving Mary in a sticky situation that has caused her name to be blackened for almost 500 years.

My heart broke for Mary as I watched her go through loss and longing over and over again. How different would her story be if just one person had shown her the devotion and love that she so desired to share? After the deaths of her mother in 1536 and her former governess in 1541, Mary was left with no one who would ever demonstrate the same kind of unconditional love for her.

She never forgot that she was a princess and her father's legitimate heir. Though she would often be weak physically and  naive politically, Mary demonstrated unprecedented strength when she claimed the throne that men conspired to deny her.

Read her story and see if you are not tempted to feel some sympathy - and maybe even cheer a bit - for a lonely bastardized princess who became queen.

A fun blog tour will be taking place over the next few weeks to celebrate this book release. Stay tuned for guest posts, book reviews, interviews, excerpts and more from Queen of Martyrs: The Story of Mary I. The tour started a few days ago at the blog of historical fiction author Tony Riches. Visit The Writing Desk for some background on the woman I hope fewer people will be calling Bloody Mary.

Read an amazing review from the friend who encouraged me to write about Queen Mary at Knight of Angels.

Next, I am at EHFA with Mary I: Her Mother's Daughter, and Sharon Connolly of History - The Interesting Bits has published a lovely review of Queen of Martyrs.

Curious about the relationship between Mary and Lady Jane Grey? You will enjoy this post at the Lady Jane Grey Reference Guide which includes an excerpt from Queen of Martyrs!

A fun post at Tudors Dynasty looks at Mary's marriage possibilities and how things could have turned out better if she had not chosen a Spanish husband.

Suzy Henderson has interviewed me about my writing process and how a book about Elizabeth of York turned into the Plantagenet Embers Trilogy.

Future stops in the blog tour will include History Imagined, book blogger Poppy Coburn, and the blog of historical fiction author Judith Arnopp. Enjoy!


Queen of Martyrs is available on Amazon in paperback and on Kindle.

NOTE TO THOSE WHO PRE-ORDERED

If you have already received Queen of Martyrs on your Kindle, many thanks to you for pre-ordering!! Unfortunately, you may have received the wrong file. Due to a mix up between myself and Amazon, an ARC was sent out to those who pre-ordered. You should be able to update content though your 'Manage your Content and Devices' page under your Amazon account.

I apologize profusely for this mix up and spent several days attempting to clear it up before today, but that is one of the few disadvantages to being an independent author. To Amazon, I am less than a little fish in a big pond. I am a tiny shrimp in a giant ocean. If you have any trouble downloading the correct version of QoM, please contact me directly and I will ensure that you receive it.

Thanks again for supporting my writing!
~ Samantha

Happy Birthday, Queen Mary!

February 18, 1516, was an exciting day in Tudor England. After many attempts at bearing an heir, Katherine of Aragon finally gave birth to a surviving child. Princess Mary would later become the first Queen Regnant of England, despite her father's efforts to replace her in the succession.

To celebrate, and encourage people to drop the 'Bloody Mary' nickname, I am at EHFA today with a post on this unpopular Tudor who has become close to my heart.

My novelization of Mary's story will be available April 12, 2017. You can pre-order it now on Kindle. If I can cause just a few people to look at Mary's tragic story a bit more sympathetically, I will consider this work a success.

Happy birthday, Queen Mary!

The Tudors: What keeps us coming back for more?

The Tudor dynasty lasted 118 years and ended over four centuries ago. Many interesting people have lived and events have taken place both before and after this relatively short-lived dynasty, so what is it about those Tudors that keeps us coming back for more?

By my count, there are approximately a gazillion novels and biographies written featuring the Tudor monarchs and their contemporaries. Yet each time a new book is released, I count myself among the millions who line up to eagerly consume it. Why?

I obviously have an interest in the Tudor era, though I must admit to have accidentally ended up writing about it. My first love is the Plantagenets. That quick-tempered, flame-haired bunch has a vast cast of characters and a long history, far exceeding that of the Tudors. Before the Wars of the Roses doomed them to extinction, the Plantagenets had ruled England for more than 300 years. It was when I took a closer look at one of the quieter Plantagenets that I found myself entering the world of the Tudors.

Elizabeth of York had so little written about her despite an incredible life story that brought her close to all the major players in the close of one dynasty and birth of another. How could I resist? And once I had immersed myself in Elizabeth's story, it was easy to see that her cousin, Margaret Pole, also was deserving of more attention.

Then one of my beta readers asked me if Queen Mary's story was going to be next.

What? No. I don't write about Tudors.

Well, actually, it looks like I do.

I have a few theories about what keeps people intrigued by the Tudors and how this writer has even ended up writing a (soon to be) trilogy featuring them without even meaning to.

Strong men. Henry VII may not be remembered as a musclebound soldier, but you have to admit that it took some nerve to take on Richard III with outnumbered mercenaries in a country he was not well-known in. His strength was evinced in many ways as he made peace, put down challengers, and brought England to a better economic standing. No one would deny that the second Henry Tudor was a strong man who knew what he wanted and usually got it. I don't need to go into detail on this best known Tudor monarch who went through six wives and created an entirely new church to ensure that he would get his way. Less is known about Edward VI, but in his short life he demonstrated that he was his father's son, reforming the church drastically and attempting to subvert the law with his will regarding succession.

Strong women. Much of the drama of the Tudors arises because their women are just as strong in will and spirit as their men. The first two queens of England to rule in their own right were Tudor sisters, Mary and Elizabeth. Elizabeth receives all sorts of credit for refusing to share her rule with a man, but her older sister is often left in her shadow. The fact that Mary ruled at all is proof that she inherited strength from her parents. Those who put Jane Grey on the throne had not expected serious challenge from Edward's sisters, but they had underestimated Mary Tudor. She had been pushed around by her father all her life and was done being told she was unworthy. Her story has been less told than her sister's, so I plan on remedying that with my next book. Hopefully, many people will see that there is much more to poor Mary than false pregnancies and the burning of heretics.

Truth better than fiction. All of history is filled with stories that are better than anything that I could make up, but the Tudor dynasty is practically endless tragedy, betrayal, and scandal that would seem implausible in a novel . . . except that it's all true. A nobody taking the throne, pretenders claiming that same throne, the struggle to bear a son, SIX wives, murder, war, female rulers, conspiracies, adultery......there is almost no fictional plot that I can think of that doesn't actually occur sometime between 1485 and 1603.

What-ifs. It doesn't need to be alternative history, though there is plenty of that, to explore the what-ifs that plague the Tudor dynasty. What if Arthur had lived, or Katherine had a son, or Elizabeth married? With all the astounding circumstances of the Tudor century, there is much for novelists to work with and gaps to be imaginatively filled in. Was Perkin Warbeck really Richard of York? Did Elizabeth secretly have a baby with Thomas Seymour? Was Mary ever really pregnant? Were Mary Boleyn's children fathered by Henry VIII? So many questions that we probably have the answers to, but we're not completely sure.

It comes down to drama. The stuff that makes the best entertainment can all be found in the Tudor dynasty, wrapped up in cloth-of-gold and occurring in fairytale palaces. The riches, the art, the personalities, and the almost unbelievable drama will always keep us coming back for more.

Jane Grey: Lady or Queen?

Lady Jane Grey
NPG D21393

A recent post of mine brought questions to the forefront regarding Lady Jane Grey's status as a Tudor queen. I included her in my list of monarchs but noted that she is not always included in others. This list, for example, mentions her only parenthetically. Jane is referred to as a ruler by Royal.UK, but is still listed by the name Lady Jane Grey. In fact, we most commonly refer to her as Lady Jane Grey rather than Queen Jane.

Why is that? She had not had a coronation, but there are other examples of monarchs who have been accepted as such despite the lack of this ceremony. Edward V is a notable example quite close to Jane's time. Little Edward is never left out of discussions of England's kings though he ruled even less than his distant cousin Jane did.

Jane was proclaimed and deposed with lightening speed, causing some to refer to her as an unsuccessful usurper rather than a legal queen. Yet she had been accepted by Edward VI's council. They called her before them on July 9, 1553, three days after Edward's death, to inform her that she was her cousin's choice of successor.

On July 10, 1553, Jane was proclaimed queen by her father-in-law, John Dudley duke of Northumberland. Thinking this family affair was neatly wrapped up, they did not count on the bold actions of Mary Tudor. It took only nine days for Mary to proclaim herself queen and defeat the poor resistance put forward by Northumberland on Jane's behalf. Jane was officially deposed on July 19th, causing her to become known throughout history as the Nine Day Queen.

Edward VI's
Devise for the Succession

Edward's Devise for the Succession may have been his will as king, but it was not the law of the land. His father, Henry VIII, had implemented a series of laws that secured the line of succession well beyond his own death. Henry's Third Act of Succession was accepted during the Parliament of 1543/44, reestablishing both Mary and Elizabeth as heirs after their younger half-brother. The Treason Act of 1547 further established this law by making it high treason for anyone, including Edward VI, to interrupt this line of succession. Henry's will again confirmed his desire for these laws to be followed. Both Henry's will and Edward's bypassed Jane's mother Frances in the succession.

The misunderstanding that often takes place is that Henry's will simply took supremacy over that of Edward. That is an oversimplification, however. It was not only Henry's will that created the legal line of succession, it was Parliamentary law. Had Edward acted upon his desire to name Jane as his heir earlier and had time to pass laws to counter those of his father, there is a chance that Jane may have enjoyed a long and happy reign. Simply putting his requests within his will was not enough.

 Queen Mary I
NPG 428

Had the laws been changed, there is still no guarantee that Mary would have been content to let Jane rule. Mary had been raised to rule and had been crushed when her father changed his mind and made her a bastard. Though she had been willing to accept her brother's place above her own, there is no indication that she questioned her own right over Jane's.

So, was Jane a queen? Again, I say yes, and technically I believe I am correct. She was proclaimed and acted as queen officially for nine days. However, history seems to have relegated her to always being simply a Lady, which I suppose is better than the title of usurper.

Read more about Mary and Jane in Queen of Martyrs.

Available in paperback, hardcover, Kindle, and audiobook.

FREE with Kindle Unlimited!

The Unexpected Tudors

Allegory of the Tudor Succession, 1572

Though the dynasty is fabulously popular today, nobody before 1485 would have wagered too much on the chances of England hosting a Tudor dynasty. The roots of the Tudors can be traced back far earlier than that, but, for today, I would like to look at the individual Tudors and just how unexpected each of their reigns were.

Henry VII

Henry Tudor was a minor nobleman from a bastard royal line. On top of that, he had been in exile for years before the crown was unexpectedly found upon his head. Before the death of Edward IV, there was little thought of Tudor becoming the last red rose or final hope of the Lancastrians or any other such poetic title. He was simply one of many on the losing side. His father and grandfather, Edmund and Owen Tudor, had both been killed in the Wars of the Roses. Left with his uncle, Jasper Tudor, Henry had little reason to think he would return to England, let alone as it's king.

Even with the shocking death of Edward IV and rise of Richard III, Tudor counted on foreign mercenaries, betrayal, and a lot of luck to secure his victory. His marriage to Princess Elizabeth of York eased the minds of many Englishmen that York and Lancaster were finally united and paved the way for a relatively peaceful reign. This unity may have brought peace, but it also caused the end of a three century long dynasty. The Plantagenets had gone down in familial infighting. The Tudors arose.

Henry VIII

For the first decade of his life, little Henry Tudor, named for his illustrious father, had no inkling of becoming king. His older brother, Arthur, was loudly and widely proclaimed the future king that would bring England unprecedented glory. Sadly, Arthur's future was cut short, and England received the unexpected heir who became one of the most famous (infamous?) monarchs in English history.

Upon his father's death in 1509, Henry VIII welcomed his extended family in a way that Henry VII had never been quite comfortable doing. William Courtenay was released from the Tower and carried Henry's sword at his coronation. Margaret Pole was raised as Countess of Salisbury. Only the de la Poles originally bore Henry's wrath.

Then his first wife Catherine failed to have a son. Suddenly, Henry was suspicious of each person with a drop of royal blood, and his insecurity saw to the death of many whom he had formerly raised up. The birth of Prince Edward to his third wife, Jane Seymour, did little to ease his paranoia.

This unexpected Tudor caused England's break with Rome, the Dissolution of the Monasteries, and tyranny that remains fertile ground for historians and fiction writers today.

Edward VI

Edward VI is the only Tudor who was expected from the moment of his birth to rule England. In fact, if there is anything unexpected about poor Edward, it is that his reign was unmercifully short. Only nine years old when he became king and not quite sixteen when he died, Edward's story is a tragic one. He was the most staunchly Protestant of the Tudors and made many reforms in the Church of England in his brief reign. The tragedy did not end with his own death. Due to his hope to disinherit his sisters and place a reformist cousin on his throne, Edward inadvertently caused a revived round of family battles and bloodshed.

Jane

Lady Jane Grey is not typically included in lists of England's Kings and Queens. I have seen discussions on why this is, most notably that she did not have a coronation (but neither did Edward V . . . . so that discussion is for another day). I have chosen to include her here because no Tudor ruler was quite as unexpected and controversial as she was.

Despite what you may have read in sensationalist fiction, Edward's decision to disinherit his sisters came long before his death was eminent. Not wishing to leave the future of his country and the reforms that he had made in the hands of sisters who were not only women but were bastards, Edward had begun work on naming a new heir months before his death. His cousin Jane was by all accounts intelligent, devout, and expected to marry a reputable Englishman to assist her in ruling until her future son could do so.

Nobody expected Mary, the middle-aged daughter of Henry VIII to put up much of a fight.

Mary I

Mary had so much working against her when she decided to boldly proclaim herself queen. Jane was in London, already proclaimed and signing documents as 'Jane the Queen.' She had the support of Edward's council and had been named successor in Edward's will. However, Mary was through cowering and accepting the events that had transformed her from princess to bastard. She would be queen, as her mother and governess had always taught her.

As a girl, Mary had been her father's heir and had been raised to be a queen, if not of England than as a consort of another country. Her reality had turned out quite differently. She was content for her brother to reign, despite the religious differences between them. She understood that he outranked her. The same could not be said for the future sons of Jane Grey.

Mary had a surprising amount of support from East Anglian gentry and had little trouble overpowering the sect led by John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland. Jane's nine day queenship was at an end.

Elizabeth I

Elizabeth may be the next most famous Tudor after her father, but she had little reason to believe that she would ever become queen. Bastardized before she would have understood the term, Elizabeth was in line behind a brother and sister who would have each been expected to have sons. Not until the death of a childless Mary in 1558 would Elizabeth's way become clear.

The final Tudor made no plans for the continuation of her dynasty. Though she led many men on for several years, she never married any of them. She failed to name a successor and punished her extended family for daring to marry and have children themselves. While her father had obsessively strove for an heir, Elizabeth avoided them. In doing so, she gave England something even more unexpected than the Tudors: the Stuarts.

Are English Monarchs Guilty of Legalized Murder?

A few of my recent posts have turned into discussions of executions

performed by various Plantagenet and Tudor monarchs. Often, in a conversation of the end of one dynasty and the beginning of the next, proponents of one king or the other are likely to pull questionable killings out of the debate arsenal. The truth is, whether you think Henry VII was a horrid usurper or saved the country from the evil villain Richard III, most of these men - and women - have some blood on their hands.

Limiting myself to the 15th and 16th centuries, I decided to take a look at executions that may qualify more as murders ordered by the kings and queens of England.

Henry IV

The most infamous execution under Henry IV's reign is that of Richard II. Rumors abound regarding the death of this inept king who was replaced by his royal cousin. While Richard may have starved himself as he suffered from severe depression, there is no doubt that he died under Henry IV's watch on February 14, 1400.

Henry V

Unlike many who would follow him, Henry V does not have a lengthy list of Englishmen who met their end at his hands. One exception is his friend John Oldcastle who was charged with heresy. This Henry is better known for his escapades in France, where he ordered the execution of French prisoners and the starvation of women and children at Rouen.

Henry VI

This gentle and mentally ill monarch may not have ordered questionable executions himself, but England became a bloody killing field during his reign. Many blame his wife, Margaret of Anjou, for sending thousands of soldiers to their deaths rather than let those next in line advise Henry. Others see her as a strong example of a devoted wife and mother. However you judge her, noblemen began to die in droves until the ascendancy of Edward of York.

Edward IV

Edward would eventually follow the example set by his distant cousin, Henry IV, and order the death of Henry VI. Though this did not happen until 1471, after the death of the displaced king's son and heir, Edward undoubtedly saw Henry's death as the beginning of peace after two violent decades of civil war. Officially, Henry died of melancholy.

Some claim that the death of Edward of Lancaster, son of Henry VI, was also murder by Edward or his followers. All that is known for sure is that he fell at Tewkesbury, during or shortly following the battle.

George of Clarence, Edward's own brother, is another mysterious execution that took place at Edward's command. It is also one of the events that got this discussion started here.

Edward was grew bold in his willingness to clear the land of his opponents. Was this in reaction to the death of his father, Richard of York, and brother, Edmund? Richard had hidden behind armies while asking to advise the king. Edward showed no such hesitance. After Hedgeley Moor, he executed the Lancastrian leaders. He was also not afraid to pull his enemies from sanctuary.

Edward V

The doomed Edward V had little opportunity to order any executions. As the 12 year old heir to Edward IV, he was soon replaced by his uncle Richard III. Was Edward a bastard or Richard a usurper? We may never know.

Before Richard was crowned, he ordered the executions of Anthony Woodville and Richard Grey. These deaths technically took place during Edward's reign, if we can even call it that, but he certainly didn't order them. Anthony was a father figure to Edward, but a threat to Richard. There is little question who truly ordered these deaths.

Richard III

Richard's short reign is plagued by questionable deaths, starting with those already mentioned. The hasty execution of William Hastings is also often noted by many as evidence of Richard's ruthlessness. Hastings, a friend and counselor of Edward IV was summarily killed when Richard became convinced that he was plotting against him with Woodville allies.

Richard is also responsible for the execution of Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, after his ill-fated rebellion against his one-time friend. Richard refused even to speak to Buckingham or give him an opportunity to defend himself. Though Richard is also criticized for this, it was standard procedure of the day.

Finally and most dramatically, Richard is held responsible for the murder of his nephews, Edward and Richard, better known as the Princes in the Tower. Though some have attempted to clear Richard's name of this crime, the fact remains that the two boys disappeared while in Richard's care.

Henry VII

Henry VII is often overlooked in favor of the more intriguing kings that bookend his reign. While some believe he deserves more credit and attention, others believe his ruthlessness is what is understated.

Henry showed himself merciful when he made the rebel figurehead, Lambert Simnel, a member of his household rather than having the boy executed. However, Henry would later execute others with eyes for his throne. Perkin Warbeck, Edward of Warwick, and Ralph Wilford each met this end. Henry also sent assassins after Richard de la Pole in Europe in much the way his son would later hunt Reginald Pole.

Henry VIII

It would be possible to write quite a long list of those who fell to the ax under Henry VIII's order. Another Duke of Buckingham met a treasonous end, this one the son of Henry Stafford. Not stopping there, Henry also trumped up charges against several remaining Plantagenets, including Henry Pole, Margaret Pole, Henry Courtenay, Edmund de la Pole, and Henry Howard.

Henry was fast to cross the fine line between love and hate, executing several former friends. Most notable among these are Thomas Moore and Thomas Cromwell. Of course we cannot forget his unfortunate wives, Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, in addition to the several men who went to their deaths with them.

Deaths at Henry's order could fill a book, so we will simply agree at this point that he may be the bloodiest, and least predictable of the monarchs considered here.

Edward VI

Edward was young and advised by others throughout his reign, leaving little to accuse him of. Possibly the most shocking execution orders signed by him were for his own uncles, Edward and Thomas Seymour. The Tudors like to keep murder in the family.

Mary

Was "Bloody Mary" truly more ruthless than her predecessors or her sister? Protestants, like Thomas Cranmer, would burn at Mary's order, but the same occurred during her father's reign. She gave into pressure to have Jane Grey executed, but Elizabeth went on to make the remaining Grey sisters sorry to be alive. Mary's reign had its fair share of horrid deaths, but they were less than ordered by her father, and at least she remained consistent regarding who she stood against.

Elizabeth

The glorious virgin queen excelled were her sister did not: public relations. Like her father, she executed noblemen who got out of line, including Thomas Percy, Robert Devereux, Thomas Howard, and, of course, Mary Queen of Scots. Several priests met their end, despite Elizabeth's reputation as

religiously tolerant. Elizabeth was also talented in punishments that did not include death. She played a decades' long marriage game with Robert Dudley (and half the other eligible bachelors in Europe), imprisoned the Grey sisters, their spouses, and children when they dared to start families that may match Elizabeth in royal blood.

Many other pieces of evidence could be brought against each of these monarchs, but in the end it may be true that they are each guilty of legalized murder. This seems inexcusable to us by modern standards, but monarchs of the 15th and 16th centuries had long precedent of using ruthless methods to ensure their power.