Customer Reviews

The First Queen of England: The Myth of "Bloody Mary"

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Mary I of England (1516-1558), the elder daughter of Henry VIII, has long been overshadowed by her younger half-sister Elizabeth. As it happens, Mary's "Bloody" reputation is a partly a construct of the following era, due largely to John Foxe and encouraged by Elizabeth herself. But many of the successes of the Elizabethan period, resulting in economic prosperity and flourishing of the arts, were actually continuations of Mary's reforms and policies. One of Elizabeth's advantages was sheer longevity, together with the country remaining Protestant. As a result, historians have traditionally had a rather foreshortened view of Mary's reign.

In her new biography, Linda Porter aims to rehabilitate Mary as a good and competent monarch on balance, and as a pioneer among reigning queens. Porter sets out by explaining the woman that Mary became, examining the people and events that shaped her life--especially her increasingly complicated family and its drama. The resulting depiction of Mary, usually convincing and very well-written, is a worthy addition to historical studies of the Tudor era and queens regnant.

From her mother Katherine of Aragon, Mary learned at an impressionable age that "conscience was the most important justification for behaviour that anyone could make." Katherine refused to step out of the way for Henry's dynastic concerns--she wouldn't even countenance retiring to a nunnery, though Henry, by declaring their marriage invalid from the beginning, actually foreclosed that option. Because Henry divorced Katherine in the end, Mary had to be declared illegitimate.

Strangely--or naively--Henry didn't think that displacing Mary in this way would affect her negatively. But for the young lady who had yielded precedence within the kingdom only to her parents, being uprooted from her (as she saw it) God-given place was simply inconceivable. She objected to any perceived affront, and Henry in his lenience only made the matter worse by not forcing her obedience right away. "The delay raised false hopes and developed in her a pattern of opposition based on conscience and self-identity, where suffering almost became a goal in itself."

Anne Boleyn's jealousy towards Mary grew as the king's divorce dragged on, and in 1531 she became so defensive ("Did she fear that Mary could still salvage her parents' marriage?") that she didn't allow Mary at court at Christmas. Even after Henry married Anne, Mary refused to recognize her as queen, and their encounters always degenerated into rudeness and reprisals. The moral victory was always Mary's:
"A more subtle woman [than Anne] might have considered outmanoeuvring Mary by occasionally bringing her to court, treating her with kindness and consideration and letting her show the world that, if she continued to defy her father, she was just a sulky, jealous child and a disobedient daughter. The new queen, who liked to be the centre of attention, feared Mary too much to follow such a strategy."

After Anne's death (which Mary may have helped bring about indirectly) and a brief euphoric period in which Mary thought she would be restored to her former position, Henry finally forced his older daughter to submit and acknowledge her reduced status. Mary endured another fifteen years of subjection, first to her father (although she got along quite well with Catherine Parr, her last stepmother) and then to her half-brother Edward VI, whose tolerance of her Catholic observance did not last.

Against the background of this understanding of Mary's character, the events of the last six years of her life fall into place: She rose up with the support of the people to triumph over John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, who would have ruled in the name of his daughter-in-law, Lady Jane Grey. She resumed the practice of the traditional religion, whose beauty and mystery most people probably missed (Northumberland even reverted to the Catholic faith, a huge propaganda victory for the new regime). She married Philip of Spain somewhat reluctantly, it seems, and made it clear that her motherly relationship to her people would take priority. She encouraged trade and reformed the currency that both her father and brother had debased. As for her sobriquet, the level of violence during her reign, although inexcusable to our sensibilities, was not that different from other early modern regimes. As for Calais and its loss, the author glosses it over as ultimately untenable and not all that valuable (an explanation that is not completely satisfying). But when Mary's poor health finally overtook her, she brought about a smooth transition to the next regime by acknowledging Elizabeth as her heir.

Only in the last thirty years or so has Mary I has been rehabilitated and recognized for her own accomplishments, by a series of sympathetic (but not hagiographic) biographers starting with David Loades (newer version), and continuing with Carolly Erickson, J. A. Froude, and others. Porter's biography is not just the latest of these, but also one of the best, with an admirable level of detail and accuracy (especially in the characterizations of supporting figures like Catherine Parr). It is a riveting book, and I finished it with the sense that the traditional smears had been peeled back to reveal something of the pivotal ruler that Mary actually was.

Dr Linda Porter has meticulously researched the tragic life of England's first queen regnant in her vivid and well-written book. For readers who only know the 'myth' of Bloody Mary, Porter's book offers a real glimpse of the all-too-human queen behind that myth. For those who think they know the 'real' Mary, they, too, will have a stunning surprise and fascinating read. We see Mary hurtling toward disaster after disaster, from the moment she's put in the care of her tutor, Jean de Vives; to the confrontations of long, obdurate duration with her father, Henry VIII; through the separations from her mother and her half-siblings; and headlong into a disastrous, love-struck marriage with Philip II of Spain. Mary's story has been much neglected by historians to date -- with the great Dr David Starkey even lumping her together with her half-brother Edward VI as the 'forgotten Tudors'. Yet Mary's reign (as well as that of her brother Edward) was a watershed, not only in English history, but in the history of the Protestant reformation movement that spread with England's nascent empire during her half-sister Elizabeth I's reign. Without understand Mary Tudor, we can't understand why and how Elizabeth and other monarchs acted after her. This is a must read for anyone interested in British history, family history, or the history of Catholicism and the Protestant reformation.

The name Mary Tudor often conjures the image of a rather dull and unattractive Catholic queen. Mary is long remembered for her unpopular marriage to Philip of Spain and the burning of hundreds of Protestants. In the Myth of Bloody Mary: The First Queen of England, Linda Porter has attempted to bring to light information that have been overshadowed by Mary negative image.

When you think of Queen Elizabeth's sister, you probably imagine a very stoic and reserved woman. While it is true that Mary did not share Elizabeth's people person personality, Mary Tudor was anything but dull. She loved music and especially dance. She was also considered quite the fashionista trendsetter of her times. Mary loved beautiful gowns in the French design. She also loved beautiful jewelry and owned many exquisite pieces. Like her sister, Elizabeth, Mary had coppery red hair, a long nose, and a heart shaped face. Porter writes that although Mary was not considered a beauty, she well known for her beautiful complexion and graceful manners.

Mary's decision to marry a foreigner, especially a Catholic one who clearly did not love her and was even physically repulsed by her, made Mary incredibly unpopular to some in her day. However, Porter claims Mary's marriage to Philip was made after much deliberations and careful planning. Mary saw marriage to a great European power as a way of bolstering England's power in sixteenth-century world politics. After all, marriage to an English subject would bring nothing to the table for England. Instead, Porter claims that Mary carefully considered the pro and cons and made the best decision for her country.

Mary made a special effort to restrict Philip's powers. He would not appoint Spaniards to posts and offices and most important he would not have any place at court after Mary's death. This contradicts the well known story of Mary falling helplessly in love and throwing caution to the wind upon viewing Philip's portrait. Philip's lack of interest in Mary is a well known fact. The author does write of Philip's romantic and sexual indifference towards Mary, however, she claims Philip did care for his wife. In fact, his charming manners and attentive ways may have been mistaken for romantic love by Mary.

The nickname of bloody Mary has been attributed to Mary due to the burning of three hundred Protestants during her reign. Porter writes that the majority of these deaths were ordered by local authorities and consisted of common people. Mary Tudor ordered few executions. The executions that Mary did order involved high profile Protestants, one of them being the Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, who pronounced her father's divorce from her mother, Katherine of Aragon. Overall, Mary had little to do with the burning of other Protestants. Porter claims Mary support of the execution of Protestants had more to do with her attempt to enforce her role as monarch and less to do with religious intolerance. Instead Mary favored peaceful means of converting Protestants. She encouraged fervent sermons to educate the young and the publication of Catholic literature to counter the numerous Protestant pamplets circulating throughout England.

Linda Porter credits Mary's negative image to Protestant reformer and historian, John Foxxe, a man that Mary most likely never met. John Foxxe left England for Protestant Basle in 1554 where he wrote his Acts and Monuments, a book of Christian martyrs who died during Mary's reign. It was this book that Linda Porter believes created the negative image of Mary that survives to this day.

I found The First Queen of England: The Myth of Bloody Mary extremely enlightening. I always thought I knew everything there was to know about Mary Tudor, but this book proved me wrong. Behind the stories of Protestant executions and an unrequited love to a Spanish prince, there is a story of a brave and strong-willed woman who lost everything, her father, her mother, her title, and her place in the line of succession. One thing Mary Tudor refused to ever give up is in her faith in the Catholic church. It is unfortunate that Mary's loyal devotion to the Catholic doctrine is what tarnished her reputation.

This book took me a lot further into a story I thought I already knew. Though I haven't read any of the works that condemn Mary as a monarch, I hardly felt that this work was overly-sympathetic or forgiving. I think everything was explained very clearly and I enjoyed the book a lot. I give the book five stars because I feel like I learned a lot from it, it was an enjoyable read, and I think the author did a great job putting all of this information together.

Mary Tudor has always been a kind of place holder in my mind, along with Edward VI, connecting the longer reigns of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. She was the long-suffering daughter of spurned Katherine of Aragon, and is remembered as a bitter, unattractive, hysterical, and vengeful queen who ruled for only a few years.

Author Linda Porter straightened me out. Porter finds that Mary was well-educated and confident, an accomplished musician, something of a fashion-setter, and a woman who knew her own mind. I was fascinated to learn that Mary was what we might call a problem gambler, for a time spending as much as a third of her income on cards and dice. She employed a fool to entertain her, a woman named Jane Cooper. A woman fool in a Tudor court! Who knew?

But as we know, Mary's life was not all games and laughs.

Porter takes us from her relatively peaceful childhood to the upheaval of her adolescence when Henry VIII decided that his need for a male heir was paramount. Mary's status changed from heir to the throne to illegitimate daughter of the King. Porter describes the family loyalties, religious considerations, and politics involved clearly and objectively. She backs up her findings with endnotes and a comprehensive bibliography.

Most of the book is not controversial, in spite of the promise implicit in the title. (The book has gone through a series of titles: Mary Tudor: The First Queen was the U.K. title, the U.S. hardcover is The First Queen of England: The Myth of "Bloody Mary" and the paperback edition is The Myth of "Bloody Mary: A Biography of Queen Mary I of England.) Mary turns out to be surprisingly interesting and mostly sympathetic in this biography.

Porter only addresses the "Myth of Bloody Mary" late in the book, and rather briefly. She puts the violence and horror of the hundreds of people burned at the stake into historical perspective. But you can't just explain away the Reign of Terror aspect of Mary I. Yes, it was a violent time, but the special brutality of burning people alive was reserved for heretics. Mary intended to make an example of those she condemned to the stake, despite the counsel of her closest advisors, including her husband. Philip, who would later rule a Spain that was still in the throes of the Inquisition, had no qualms about burning heretics, so he and others who advised her against mass executions were doing so for pragmatic reasons, not out of sympathy or horror. They knew that the burnings would be as likely to turn the public against Mary as to discourage heresy or worse, treason.

Even though I wasn't convinced that Mary didn't deserve her bloody nickname, I learned a lot and thoroughly enjoyed the book. In fact, I've just put Linda Porter's upcoming book, Katherine the Queen: The Remarkable Life of Katherine Parr on my wishlist.

I've read a lot about "Bloody Mary" and this book gave me a "devil's advocate" approach if you would. It takes into account all the things she went through in her life, including the horrible way I feel she was treated by her family(Hapsburgs, included) and gives you a look into why she made the decisons that she made. It hasn't changed my mind about her, but it's nice to see a book that isn't totally negative for once.

One approaches a biography of a famous person with prejudices. You already have an opinion. The book may agree with your assessment or refute it and the success of the book and the characterization of the protagonist depend upon which way the wind blows- the book agrees with you or convinces you that you need to have second thoughts.

I approached Mary Tudor with many prejudices. I had looked at the portraits of Mary with her little wizened face, upon which her suffering is clearly etched and I had felt a profound pity for her- but on the other hand I deplored her persecution of the Protestants, her gullibility in thinking she could forcibly mold England into a Catholic state, her lack of understanding of the English psyche when she married Philip. I was judging Mary by twenty first century standards and what this book does is to put Mary where she belongs, in the sixteenth century, and we have to judge her not from here but from there, in her own back yard. This book made me much more tolerant of Mary and it is a fine read as well.

Author Porter does not whitewash Mary, she simply fleshes her out, creates a whole person rather than a two-dimensional cardboard figure. Whatever your feelings about Mary are, this is a must-read for Tudor buffs. Because the book is written from the perspective of Mary, not say, Anne Boleyn or Henry VIII, there are many vignettes and facts presented that you may not be familiar with. For instance, the redoubtable Margaret Pole Countess of Salisbury who helped to bring Mary up, appears in some detail. And the fact that Henry VIII had this venerable 67 year old lady beheaded by an executioner so inexperienced he hacked at her shoulders and took many strokes to finally do the job will make you shudder.

Eustace Chapuys, the famous ambassador of Charles V and staunch supporter of Mary, plays a big role in the book. We get a fine glimpse of Catherine Parr, Henry's sixth wife and good friend to Mary and she appears as a most attractive personality. Of course we see all the well known players on that stage- Katherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, Henry himself, Philip II and Lady Jane Grey that "hideously manipulated slip of a girl". Many other personalities are brought to life by this skillful writer.

One of the most fascinating parts of the book is the relationship between Mary and her brother Edward VI. Edward is not portrayed as the somewhat Jane Seymourish pallid personality often encountered in biographies. Before his final illness, he appears as a robust, feisty young man on the cusp of manhood who couldn't wait to attain his majority and was determined to put his sister Mary in her place both as a Catholic and a woman, women being inferior. He lumped Mary and Elizabeth together as being unsuitable for the succession. Confrontations between Edward and Mary could result in their both succumbing to tears. But Edward was king and his "Devise for the Succession" put Lady Jane Grey and her heirs male on the throne and caused a civil war and Mary's ascension. So Mary triumphed in the end over Edward.

And now for the infamous burning of some 300 Protestants. Author Porter does not condone the executions, but she believes that most of the gruesome killings were ordered by magistrates on the local level and Mary possibly didn't even know about many of hem. She was, of course, highly responsible for sending Cranmer to the stake but he had been a thorn in her side for years and had been instrumental in obtaining Henry's divorce from Catherine. Heresy was to Mary the most venal sin and Cranmer in her eyes was the supreme heretic. Mary was acting according to her conscience.

Poor Mary. She was discarded by both her father Henry VIII and her brother Edward VI. She endured two highly embarrassing phantom pregnancies and was married to a man who barely tolerated her. She died at 42. You still may not like her after you read this excellent book, but she just can't be swept under the rug.


P.S. We learn in the book that Henry VIII was rumored to have had a high-pitched, thin voice, whereas many resources remark on his daughter Mary's exceptionally deep voice. That Mary's voice may have been lower than that of her huge, hulking father, boggles the mind.

Loved this book! It did exactly as I hoped it would, which was to give me a perspective of Mary I. The Tudor era has ever focused on Henry VIII and Elizabeth. Henry because of all the controversay in his personal/political life and Elizabeth because of her origins and her long reign. Mary's life and reign has almost been lost in the shuffle because her life before she became queen was sorrowfull and her reign so short she barely had time to stabilize before she died. Never having much of an interest in Mary I was prepared not to agree with everything and doubted my blaise opinion of her would change in the least. But I was wrong, through this book I understand Mary I as much as anyone can 400+ years later and much to my surprise I actually like and respect her as much as anyone can in 400+ years of a changed world.

I was also very happy with the detailed research of other people of the era. With all the namesakes and the nobility referred to by their titles and so on I often find myself thinking 'ok, so is this the same -name- who did this or that or is this a different one?' I found this book easy to follow who was who and learned almost as much about other noteworthy perons as I did of Mary herself and in some cases sparked my interest enough to start looking up more information on these new to me fascinating persons of the times.

After I read "Wolf Hall," which I loved, I realized I knew almost nothing about Mary, Catherine's daughter. It wasn't that easy to find anything - another surprise. I didn't want something too scholarly, but this book written by a trained but not practicing historian seemed promising, and it was.
I had no notion she ever married, nor that she had what was likely some type of false pregnancy. She did execute many people, there's truth in that.
The book is nicely done, consistently interesting, never shrill for one view of Mary or the other.
I recommend it to "Wolf Hall" readers highly.

Enjoying this biography. not through with it. however i do like it takes you through great detail of the beginning with her parents and you understand a little more of her childhood and her parents backgrounds...