Introduction to Mary I of England: How justified is the sobriquet ‘Bloody Mary'?

How justified is the sobriquet ‘Bloody Mary’ for Mary I of England?

by Darcy R. Keim, MA

 

In Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, Mary I was recorded to have proclaimed, “[...] loving subjects, what I am, ye right well know. I am your queen, to whom at my coronation, when I was wedded to the realm and the laws of the same, you promised your allegiance and obedience unto me”^[1]; albeit a Protestant martyrologist, John Foxe respected this display of kingly authority in the face of Wyatt’s rebellion.^[2] As England’s first Queen Regnant, the reign of Mary I continues to be one of the most controversial and widely discussed in English history. Notably, there are few monarchs whose accession and regime have been as heavily disputed upon. Indeed, it is possible to observe that there are degrees of opposition in the way academics continue to assess the political nature of her five-year period of rule as a monarch. With regards to both popular and academic history, it may be confidently determined that Mary’s reputation is often negatively polarised. This is clearly exemplified by the fact she is commonly known under the title of ‘Bloody Mary’; a sobriquet that references the burning of Protestants during her reign.^[3] As to whether the polarisation of her image is justified, it is first essential to assess the factors that moulded her as a political ruler. Born to Henry VIII and his first wife, Katherine of Aragon in 1516, Mary – although treasured by both parents – was not the desired male heir that either had hoped for.^[4]  In her book, Women Who Would Be Kings: Female Rulers of the Sixteenth Century, author Lisa Hopkins wrote that, “...the Tudors were a new dynasty, still insecure on the throne, who desperately needed strong healthy male heirs of undoubted legitimacy”^[5]; emphasising the fact that the sixteenth century was systemically based on a patriarchal structure. This is an element that doubtlessly contributed to Mary as both an individual and as a figurehead for female rule. It may be confidently ascertained that the concept of a Queen Regnant during this period was not a widely accepted one.^[6] This is highlighted by Charles Beem in his book, The Lioness Roared: The Problems of Female Rule in English History:

 

Female rulers throughout English history held an office otherwise occupied overwhelmingly by men, and did so in societies held together by gendered hierarchies of a social and political natured, that placed women of all social classes outside the formal and public realms of royal politics and government^[7]

 

 

With regard to context, the pressure to produce a male heir and secure dynastic stability ultimately led to an annulment between Henry and Katherine, as well as the removal of Mary from royal succession (until the passing of the Third Succession Act in 1543 when both Mary and her half-sister, Elizabeth were restored). However, it has been noted that due to these events – particularly with an understanding of the psychological distress she had endured during the annulment period – Mary had never been provided the critical skills that would have made her an effective political leader.^[8] Although this may have been the case, it is additionally possible to observe that Mary I has been given a far more oppositional treatment in comparison to her male counterparts. Therefore, it is imperative to take into consideration that there is a distinct difference in the approach had towards female rulership.^[9] What this essay will attempt to provide is a balanced assessment as to whether the construct of ‘Bloody Mary’ does accurately represent the reign of Mary I, or if the nickname is simply a continuation of Protestant and Elizabethan propaganda that set to undermine Mary’s accomplishments as a monarch. This will be done by taking into consideration the issue of her gender, the nature of her upbringing, and her image as a Catholic figurehead in a landscape that was rapidly shifting towards Protestantism.

 

Firstly, it is essential to acknowledge that the construct of ‘Bloody Mary’ as an image was initially created by a Protestant.^[10] John Foxe - chronicler of the popularly regarded Foxe’s Book of Martyrs - is often regarded as initiating the image; particularly in relation to his accounts of the executions of Protestants that had taken place during the Counter Reformation: a movement that set to abolish Protestantism from England and instead, replace it with Marian Catholicism.^[11] Notably, it has been suggested that the imagery provided by Foxe was a catalyst in establishing Mary I as synonymous with bloodshed and tyranny. This is certainly exemplified in ‘The Prayer of K. Edward. A letter and Protestation of Lady Mary’:

 

Albeit he in his wyll had excluded his sister Mary from succession of the crowne, because of her corrupt Religion: yet the plague which God had destinate vnto this sinful Realme, could not so be voyded, but that shee being the elder sister and daughter to king Henry, succeded in possession of the Crowne. Of whose dreadfull and bloudy regiment, as it remayneth nowe consequently to discourse[...]^[12]

 

Principally, what this excerpt is demonstrative of is the strict opposition between Protestants and Catholics in England during the mid-sixteenth century. The birth of the Church of England and the introduction of Protestantism – through the Henrician Reform – in the early 1530s contributed to a social, as well as political divide. This sudden religious shift resulted in a multitude of rebellions throughout the Tudor dynasty; such as Wyatt’s rebellion in 1554. Despite the popularity Mary experienced during her reign, it has been argued that her devotion to Catholicism led to a lack of positive support of her regime after her death in 1558. Incidentally, it is imperative to take into account that Mary was the last Catholic queen regnant and her attempt to reintroduce Catholicism into a realm that had begun to favour Protestant ideologies contributed heavily to her unfavourable reputation. Robert Tittler, author of The Reign of Mary I, highlights this as he states that it was due to her faith in Catholic ideals, rather than people, that Mary had fashioned herself as a distrustful queen.^[13] Nevertheless, the violent pursuit of establishing Marian Catholicism is often regarded as a focal-point in whether the sobriquet of ‘Bloody Mary’ is considered justified. Although this may have been the case, it is possible to note that Foxe’s Book of Martyrs did not entirely place the fault of the Counter-Reformation on Mary but instead suggested that this was due to the influence of her counsellors. This is clearly illustrated when he wrote,

 

You have a queen who, as she is most noble, is a princess ready to hearken to all sober and wholesome counsels…but in our state, as in all states, there are pests who rejoice in confusion, who pervert the minds of princes, and encourage cruelty for their own purposes…^[14]

 

Nonetheless, it ought to be noted that Foxe’s discretion – in regards to public criticisms of Mary – had been largely due to his connection with William Cecil; an English statesmen who had remained politically and personally close to Mary’s half-sister and Protestant figurehead, Elizabeth Tudor. Evidently if any outward criticism concerning Mary were to have emerged, it would have endangered Elizabeth’s position. However, despite the underlying propaganda, the depiction of Mary in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs may well be regarded as tragic; elaborating on her unfortunate position; as well as highlighting her loss of Calais due to the endeavours of her Spanish husband, Philip II of Spain.^[15] Primarily, what Foxe’s documentation does emphasise is that the construct of ‘Bloody Mary’ proved useful in negatively associating Catholicism with English rulership. The success of this is evident, particularly when taking into consideration that the earliest recorded use of 'Bloody Mary' was in 1657 – a century after her reign – by English minister, John Canne’s in his piece, The Time of End. In this, Canne’s openly remarks, “We see it and feel it every day to be of the Beast, and more bruitish than those that have gone before; bloody Mary her self abhorring to make it Treason for words as they have done.”^[16] Through this, it is possible to argue that by advocating the Protestant construct of ‘Bloody Mary’, both popular and academic history would be indulging in aggressive propaganda from an opposing faith.

 

With particular regard to the ‘bloody’ aspect of the sobriquet, it is possible to argue that the violent nature of Mary’s reign is hardly anomalous in comparison to other English monarchs. The number of executions that occurred during this five-year period is distinctly less than those of her father, Henry VIII and her half-brother, Edward VI. According to Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, Mary was responsible for the execution of 284 Protestants. In comparison, the Holinshed’s Chronicle - a publication of English history initially released in 1577 - records that Henry had approximately 72,000 people executed during his reign.^[17] Additionally, as a result of their involvement in the Prayer Book Rebellion of 1549, Edward VI was responsible for the death of 5,500 Cornish rebels. Acknowledging the difference in these statistics does demonstrate a sense of prejudice regarding Mary’s historical representation. Ultimately, it does highlight the necessity for a re-assessment of Mary’s character in both popular and academic history; putting forward the question as to why Mary has been negatively aligned in direct relation to the protestant executions, when her father had been responsible for the deaths of thousands. With reference to this – and despite his tyrannical nature – Henry VIII continues to be referred to by such names as ‘Bluff King Hal’ in popular historiography.^[18]Arguably, this is a title that dismisses the brutality of his thirty-eight years of rule. However, a justification for the image of ‘Bloody Mary’ is that the executions she had been responsible for had revolved around the issue of religious heresy. It is possible to observe that there is a certain understanding had for Henry and Edward’s positions, as the majority of their executions regarded rebels and traitors of the state; it was a required component of successful kingship to suppress uprisings. With consideration for this, the status of martyrdom that Mary’s victims would have acquired posthumously would have received far more empathy. However, this is a considerably weak argument as a similar understanding could be applied elsewhere. For example, the result of ‘The Pilgrimage of Grace in 1536’ saw the execution of 246 Catholics who had attempted to defend their faith. It is with an understanding of Mary’s upbringing as a staunch Catholic, as well as the abuse that she had experienced from Reformists, that provides an insight as to why she had undoubtedly viewed Protestantism as a threat to both her realm and position.

 

In terms of the approach had towards Mary in comparison to her father, there is a distinct difference in the manner in which both have been publicly received. Additionally, it may be observed that popular culture often celebrates the ‘Golden Age’ of Elizabeth I whilst simultaneously vilifying Mary’s achievements as England’s first queen regnant; although it has been proposed that Elizabeth’s reign had been heavily shaped by Mary’s strategies regarding female rule.^[19] Mary’s reign is often summarised with a particular focus on the Counter-Reformation and the introduction of Marian Catholicism. Undeniably, this focus on the religious aspect of Mary’s regime does disregard the beneficial aspects of her rule. There are a variety of examples that support Mary’s rulership was both socially and economically successful. With regard to periodical context, Mary’s ascension to the throne happened to overlap with a period of social and economic instability in the realm.^[20] It is possible to affirm that these areas had been bettered during the Marian regime; a point that is further emphasised by Tittler:

 

The most important areas of Marian activity included (1) the regime’s efforts to facilitate better commercial relations abroad; (2) its attempts to strengthen the government’s fiscal resources, largely through reform of the customs system; (3) its forthright intervention, often for the first time, in domestic commerce and industry; (4) its responsive interest in the problems of towns and cities; and (5) the resourceful initiatives which it took toward problems of charity and welfare.^[21]

 

From this, it is essential to acknowledge that the sobriquet of ‘Bloody Mary’ is based on a singular aspect of Mary’s regime. Furthermore, it is possible to argue that the use of this sobriquet deeply undermines the positive attributes and successes of her reign.

 

Even so it is possible to argue that ‘Bloody Mary’ does reflect a significant aspect of the reign of Mary I, it is to a degree unjustified. As it has been established, the sobriquet is a product of effective Protestant propaganda. As such, the focal-point of it is to emphasise the supposed ‘tyranny’ of Catholicism and highlight the suppression of Protestantism during this five-year period. However, it is essential to note that the Catholic faith had additionally experienced decades of suppression during the Henrician Reformation. Although it is possible to propose that the short-term length of her reign meant that there were a concentrated amount of executions, it ought to be acknowledged that in the backdrop of the English monarchy, Mary I was no less violent (though statistically less so) than her predecessors. Overall, the sobriquet of ‘Bloody Mary’ does not take into account the events that shaped Mary as an individual. Moreover it does perpetuate outdated myths regarding her regime and does not give her the admiration that is deserved of the first female monarch, as well as her contribution in shaping the position for Elizabeth I. In his book, Mary Tudor: A Life, author David Loades highlights an imperative aspect of Mary’s identity; the nature of her resistance and her kingly authority are the characteristics that she ought to be remembered for, as his highlighted when he quotes, “[...]the Regall Power of this Realme is in the Queenes Ma’ie as fully and absolutely as ever it was in any of her most noble progenitors, Kinges of this Realme”.^[22]

 

Bibliography

 

Primary Sources:

Foxe, J., ‘Foxe’s Book of Martyrs’, John Foxe’s The Acts and Monuments Online, accessed 22/12/14, www.johnfoxe.org

 

Foxe, J., The Acts and Monuments of John Foxe, in George Townsend (ed.), A New and Complete Edition: with a Preliminary Dissertation, (London, 2009)

 

More, T., Three Early Modern Utopias, (Oxford, 1999)

 

Strype, J., Memorials of Thomas Cranmer (Oxford, 1840)

 

Secondary Sources:

Beem, C., The Lioness Roared: The Problems of Female Rule in English History, (New York, 2006)

 

‘Bloody Mary’, Oxford English Dictionary, 22/12/2014, www.oed.com

 

Dickens, C., The Complete Works of Charles Dickens: A Child’s History of England by Charles Dickens, (1852-1854)

 

Hopkins, L., Women Who Would Be Kings: Female Rulers of the Sixteenth Century, (New York, 1991)

 

Hunt, A., ‘The Monarchical Republic of Mary I’, The Historical Journal, 52 (2009), 557-72

 

Loades, D., Mary Tudor: A Life, (Massachusetts, 1989)

 

Richards, J., ‘Gender Difference and Tudor Monarchy: The Significance of Queen Mary I’, Parergon, 21 (2004),

 

Tittler, R., Seminar Studies in History: The Reign of Mary I, (New York, 1983)

 

Weikel, Ann, ‘Mary I’, Oxford Database of National Biography, accessed 14/12/2014, www.oxforddnb.com/

 

 

 

 

 

---

^[1] John Foxe, The Acts and Monuments of John Foxe: A New and Complete Edition: With a Preliminary Dissertation, by the Rev. George Townsend, (South Carolina, 2007), 414

^[2] Charles Beem, The Lioness Roared: The Problems of Female Rule in English History, (New York, 2006), 1

^[3] Ibid.

^[4] Lisa Hopkins, Women Who Would Be Kings: Female Rulers of the Sixteenth Century, (New York, 1991), 105

^[5] Ibid.

^[6] Charles Beem, The Lioness Roared, 1.

^[7] Ibid.

^[8] Ann Weikel, ‘Mary I’, Oxford Database of National Biography, accessed 14/12/2014, www.oxforddnb.com/

^[9] C. Beem, The Lioness Roared, 2.

^[10] Charles Beem, The Lioness Roared, 1.

^[11] Robert Tittler, Seminar Studies in History: The Reign of Mary I, (New York, 1983), 8.

^[12] John Foxe, ‘Foxe’s Book of Martyrs’, accessed 22/12/2014, www.johnfoxe.org

^[13] Robert Tittler, ‘The Reign of Mary I’, 3.

^[14] John Strype, Memorials of Thomas Cranmer (Oxford, 1840), 937.

^[15] John Foxe, ‘Foxe’s Book of Martyrs’, accessed 22/12/2014, www.johnfoxe.org

^[16] ‘Bloody Mary’, Oxford English Dictionary, 22/12/2014, www.oed.com

^[17] Thomas More, Three Early Modern Utopias, (Oxford, 1999), 216.

^[18] Charles Dickens, Child’s History of England, (2009), 232.

^[19] J. Richards, ‘Gender Difference and Tudor Monarchy: The Significance of Queen Mary I’, Parergon, 21 (2004), 28.

^[20] Robert Tittler, ‘The Reign of Mary I’, 50.

^[21] Ibid.

^[22] David Loades, ‘Mary Tudor: A Life’, (Massachusetts, 1989), 1.