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.

Defying Henry VIII: Edward Stafford

Edward Stafford came from a brief line of unfortunate Dukes of Buckingham. The first Duke of Buckingham, Humphrey Stafford, Edward's great-grandfather, had been killed at the Battle of Northampton during the Wars of the Roses, fighting with the Lancastrian army. At his death, Henry Stafford, Edward's father, gained the title. He is infamous for first supporting Richard III and then rebelling against him. He was executed after being denied an audience with the king. Because of Henry's treason, his son, Edward, did not inherit the title until it was granted to him by King Henry VII in 1485. Given his history, one might have expected Edward Stafford to live and speak carefully. One would be wrong.

Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham

Edward had been a child when his father was executed, and he does not seem to have learned the lessons he should have from his demise. Proud of his royal lineage that he traced back to Edward III, Edward was also a cousin to the king through his mother, Katherine Woodville. He was not the only one to notice that his blood was equally royal as Henry VIII's.

But did he commit treason? Edward's most serious sins seem to be pride, vanity, and an uncontrollable mouth. His household was always splendidly dressed and decorated with a coat of arms that included the Plantagenet lions and French fleur de lis, claiming his royal lineage. He was not shy about pointing out his close relation with the king and may have even claimed he could do a better job at it than cousin Henry. He arranged excellent marriages for his children, including securing Ursula Pole of royal York blood for his son.

However, Edward had also served alongside Henry in France, served as an ambassador, and been a member of the Privy Council. Buckingham had failed to please the king in controlling Welsh marcher lords, but seems to have served him well besides. Contemporary reports describe his astonishment and grief when arrested.

So what made Henry change his mind?

Coat of Arms of Edward Stafford, Duke of Buckingham

In 1521, Henry VIII was the father of a single daughter and husband to a wife who had proven her inability to provide him with a son. Where Henry had once embraced his extended family in a way that his father never had, this situation made him look more suspiciously at families such as the Staffords, Poles,  Courtenays, and de la Poles. These families, each with noble blood to rival his own, were no longer trusted by him and each paid the price for thriving while he could only pray for a son.

Besides the king's obsession with the future of his dynasty, a problem that would mar the remainder of his reign, a bill of attainder also enabled him to obtain Buckingham's great wealth, including the beautiful, newly built Thornbury Castle.

Edward Stafford was one of the first to pay the ultimate price (Edmund de la Pole had been executed in 1513). He was accused of "imagining and compassing the death of the king," a controversial and doubtful charge at best. But Henry VIII's desires were known. Therefore, Stafford was found guilty and executed on May 17, 1521. His son, Henry Stafford, never received the Buckingham title but was created Baron Stafford decades later.


Don't miss the rest of the Defying Henry VIII series!

Edward Stafford is a character in Faithful Traitor: The Story of Margaret Pole, 

available on Kindle, paperback, hardcover, or audiobook.

Defying Henry VIII: Thomas More

Like many people who defied Henry VIII, Thomas More had reason to believe that he may be able to speak his mind while retaining the relationship that he had built with the king over the years. Also like many others, he was fatally incorrect.

Sir Thomas More
by Hans Holbein the Younger

More became one of the thousands of religious martyrs of the sixteenth century or, perhaps more accurately, one of the large number sacrificed on the altar of the Church of Henry. King Henry had counted Thomas More as a close friend and confidant for years. A scholar and humanist with friends like Erasmus, More was welcome at court where the king appreciated great thinkers and theological conversation. More and the king both wrote at length against the reformer Martin Luther. Yet when Henry decided to make his own protest against the Catholic Church, he expected More to give him his support.

More did not. And Henry should not have been surprised, for he knew More's past and understood his passion for the church better than most. Even as a young lawyer with a bright future ahead of him, More had considered becoming a monk and had lived as much like one as possible while practicing law at Lincoln's Inn. A desire for marriage and statesmanship kept the devout young man from committing himself to the life of a Carthusian.

Even as a married man, More had lived much less ostentatiously than the typical Tudor courtier. He was generous and hospitable but never glamorous. The habit of wearing a hair shirt beneath his clothing that he had picked up while living in the monastery was maintained for the remainder of his life. Striving to serve his country and the people, More was hesitant to become too close to the king. Despite being Henry's confidant and having been awarded several lucrative positions, More maintained that, "If my head would win him a castle in France, it should not fail to go."

Although More had a clear understanding of his king's willingness to sacrifice others to gain his desires, he was unafraid to challenge him. In writing Utopia, More courageously pointed out immorality and corruption in all areas of society, including government and church. As a new member of Parliament, he spoke passionately against the king's request for funds that More felt placed an unfair burden on the populace. When Henry first presented his evidence for annulment from Katherine of Aragon, More promised to research the issue but not to give his unconditional support.

Sir Thomas More Bids Farewell to his Daughter
by Edward Matthew Ward

Nothing he read and nothing the king could say convinced More of the righteousness of Henry's divorce. As England's Lord Chancellor, it was More's duty to serve the king and enforce the Act of Succession, which required signed oaths recognizing Henry as Head of the Church. As he refused to sign it himself, More resigned his position. Henry accepted the resignation, and More retired to his estates.

Perhaps he would have been safe yet had More studied and lived the quiet life of a country gentleman. However, he was compelled to write defenses of his faith, and he refused to attend the coronation of Anne Boleyn. More was arrested and sentenced to be hanged, drawn, and quartered - the death of a traitor - when he continued to refuse the oath. In his benevolence, Henry reduced this sentence to beheading. Before his execution, More said he was, "the king's good servant but God's first."

Thomas More, believed innocent by Protestants and Catholics alike, was beatified by the Catholic Church in 1886 and canonized in 1935.


Don't miss the rest of the Defying Henry VIII series!

The Tudor Summit

I was honored to be a speaker at the Tudor Summit this past weekend. If you missed it, you can find my portion of the event here. I also recommend you join the Tudor Summit Facebook group to enjoy other speakers and great discussion of Tudor history.

Elizabeth of York on Henry's Great Matter

The Family of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York

I am frequently asked what I believe Elizabeth of York would have thought of her son's Great Matter, which welcomed the Reformation to England though that was far from Henry VIII's intent. As a woman who clung to her faith during turbulent times and who chose peace at great personal cost, how would Elizabeth have advised her son when he planned to rid himself of Katherine of Aragon? It is not a simple question, and, of course, I cannot answer it with certainty, but I can share my thoughts.

Elizabeth's opinions on events that occurred outside her lifetime can be difficult to guess because there are important issues that she did live through that remain mysteries. We do not know how she felt about Richard III or if she plotted to assist Henry Tudor in coming to power. We do not know how she felt about Perkin Warbeck or if she thought he might be her brother, Richard Duke of York. She kept her ideas about the controversies of the day close and submitted to her husband, Henry VII, as she saw as her duty.

The Family of Henry VIII

Henry VIII inherited the devotion to the Catholic faith that his parents shared. However, he also became a man who always expected to get what he wanted. When he formed the Church of England and broke with Rome, the faith that he created was Catholicism with himself as the Head of the Church in place of the pope. Protestants would continue to be punished for their heretical ideas until Henry's son, Edward VI, took the throne. What would Elizabeth have thought of this act?

On one hand, Elizabeth understood the importance of an heir. The disappearance of her brothers is what cleared the way for her to become queen with the first Tudor king at her side. She risked her own life to bear another child when Prince Arthur died, leaving Henry an only son. Elizabeth would have understood that it was a precarious position to leave the kingdom with a single young girl as heir. Elizabeth had never put forth her own right to the crown over her husband's. Would she have fought for the rights of Princess Mary?

Katherine of Aragon

Even though Elizabeth would have believed that her son would be better off with more children, she may have accepted the situation as God's will. After living through extraordinary times, Elizabeth was accustomed to leaning on her faith and accepting that worldly matters do not always turn out the way we think they should. I believe it would be difficult to convince her of the necessity of setting Katherine aside. It is very possible that Elizabeth would have been just as vehement that Katherine was Henry's true wife as Katherine was.

If Elizabeth could have been convinced that Henry really did require a more fertile wife, I still believe that she would have been horrified by his decision to break with Rome. The very idea would have been more shocking than we can imagine to almost any monarch who ruled before Henry VIII. The pope was God's representative on earth and the final authority in all matters. For Henry to set himself up as equal or above him would have been blasphemy to his mother. She may have been convinced to encourage Katherine to retire to a nunnery, but I do not believe Elizabeth of York would have ever supported her son's more extreme measures.

Would the Church of England have been formed if Elizabeth had still been alive? Would Henry have listened to his mother to any greater degree than he took the advice of anyone else who did not tell him what he wanted to hear? That may be speculation that is beyond me, but I can fairly confidently state that Elizabeth of York would have opposed her son's actions and at least attempted to steer him along a different path.

Elizabeth of York

I would like to think that Elizabeth would have seen possibilities for her granddaughter that had not existed for herself and that Henry would have been convinced that Princess Mary was a more than adequate heir, especially with the right husband at her side. Surely, the Reformation would have made it to England one way or another, but maybe the Dissolution of the Monasteries could have been erased. History might have missed out on Queen Elizabeth I, but maybe the reign of a happily married Queen Mary I would have been much more peaceful. Maybe Henry would have gone on to have a son after Katherine naturally departed this world instead of tearing the kingdom apart to make way for Anne Boleyn.

Or maybe Henry would have completely ignored his mother and done whatever he wanted anyway. But it is fun to think of the possibilities.

Bosworth and the Brandons

August 22nd is famous as the date of the Battle of Bosworth and the end of the Plantagenet dynasty. It is true that Richard III died on this day in 1485 in a courageous final charge in defense of his kingdom, but the day was also a turning point for the Brandon family.

Sir William Brandon was a standard bearer for Henry Tudor, the man who challenged Richard on the field near Bosworth. William was the son of a Cambridgeshire knight of the same name and is best known for the circumstances of his death and the son he left behind. William had been a part of the failed Buckingham Rebellion, but he continued to support Tudor's claim to England, leaving behind a wife and children including an infant son to fight at Bosworth. Shortly before King Richard was brought down by a swarm of enemies, William Brandon died by his hand.

Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk

Charles Brandon was less than two years old when his father died in battle, but William's service to Henry Tudor ensured his son's bright future in a way that might never have occurred had William survived. When King Richard was killed and Tudor crowned as Henry VII, the new king was eager to reward those who had made his reign a reality. Therefore, the young son of the royal standard bearer was brought up alongside the his own children.

This privileged position gave Charles the opportunity to become a close companion to the boy who would become Henry VIII. Charles was an opportunist, eventually going so far as to marry the king's sister, Mary. Even being one of Henry's closest friends did not entirely save Charles from his wrath after this treasonous move. The couple was fined and removed from court for a time but were eventually forgiven and welcomed back.

It had been Charles' only significant fall from royal favor. His relationship with King Henry brought Charles several lucrative and privileged positions and titles. At the pinnacle of his success, this son of a Cambridgeshire knight was made Duke of Suffolk, a title that had been previously held by the Yorkist de la Pole family. Charles was at Henry's side at the Field of Cloth of Gold and through his Great Matter and the Dissolution of the Monasteries.

Charles Brandon died on August 22, 1545, exactly 60 years after his father.

The two sons he left behind followed him to the grave six short years later, dying of the sweating sickness on the very same day. This left Charles' daughter, Frances, as head of the family. She and her husband, Henry Grey, inherited the Suffolk title and attempted their own grasp for the crown through their daughter, Lady Jane Grey, in 1553. The Brandon family had come a long way, but this was a step too far. Both Henry and Jane were executed for treason under Queen Mary I.