A good punishment for him in Hell would be to be married to a bunch of women who are constantly cuckolding him and giving birth to girls and stillborns. He becomes the laughing stock of England. His subjects then turn against him, he is thrown in the Tower of London after a sham trial he is decapitated only to come back to life and have the same thing happen to him over and over again for all eternity.
Although the Protestant legacy did result in the conditions that would make Great Britain the leaders of the industrial world and in the short term give us the cany Elizabeth - I can't regret them.
Yes but the first born sons were taught to be rulers. Henry was not the first born. Arthur was. Henry was not taught how to lead, how to rule nor really accessed for his intellectual prowess (which wasn’t a lot). He was corrupt and more than evil but part of this was his fathers fault. Henry then was desperate for a son and Ann Boleyn actually miscarried a son (when Henry had his jousting accident) identifiable as a boy. If he just made Henry Fitzroy his heir, a lot of deaths could have been avoided.
Personally when it comes to that -world's smallest violin - the Catholic church and still does cause a lot of harm and the UK was better off without them IMO. Invividual Catholics I have sympathy being caught between loyalty to monarch and supreme head of your church is rough - but it was the Pope at the time that created that by declaring Elizabeth a heretic and saying whoever killed her did good. Elizabeth said she never sought to interrogate what was in men's souls - as long as you were loyal to her and some Catholics, noteably Marlowe who was a spy for her, were.
Another incisive and excellent video. Queen Mary is altogether more nuanced and more understandable in Dr Kat's talk. Mary Tudor's life was a tragedy of Greek proportions. It is time that this was taken into account.
For Elizabeth to be the "golden answer", the stability after the storm, there has to be a tempest. Blaming their brother, when he had been so young (age 9) when he came to the throne, for the instability enacted by his regents seems heartless... Blaming Lady Jane Grey... although she appears to have been far less of a pawn than was suggested, would not have worked because her support collapsed so quickly. But Mary was 37 when she came to the throne and was there for 5-years. I see her as an adult scared by the power plays of those around her, determined to turn back time, and make pay those who she saw as having wrecked her life. She becomes the perfect target for Elizabeth to hold up and say "If you don't support me, this is what you return too." Just as Henry VII cannot afford to have Richard viewed as a legitimate king, Elizabeth cannot allow Mary's reign to have any hint of gold. The Tudors is nothing else excelled at marketing themselves.
Lake Lili Elizabeth was the consummate politician, her mind had to be always plotting to survive; she was always strategizing playing chess in her head and that helped her keep her head. Mary pretty much was in the same situation, but I don’t think she was as good of a politician- her intentions were too obvious. Her hurt and distrust were as well . But I’m sure that Elizabeth felt the same, and in spades. Like Bette Davis and Joan Crawford, women are always divided and then pitted against each other, So the boys can step back and be entertained by the floor show; too bad they didn’t somehow become close and United, and saw the real enemy for who it was: their father, and, more generally, the patriarchy.
I think Mary was a victim of circumstance. She was pushed around all her life by her Father, disowned, then recognized, then back in the fold. I think she didn’t know if she was coming or going. Your point of her killing Protestants in such a short reign may be the reason she was labeled “Bloody Mary”. Again another great lecture and video and I learned so much. Thank you! 😘
Thank you very much for this video! I've discovered your channel today, and I suppose I'll have to watch every one of your videos. Thanks for keeping me busy for however many evenings!
As you said, the victor writes history. Regardless of the childhood traumas that Mary suffered and the persecutions by her father and brother, personal motivation is not relevant. Protestantism won upon her death. The policy of burning key members of the Protestant faith sealed her reputation as Bloody Mary, not because it was particularly bloody but because the victims became a focus of Protestant revenge against Mary. Making a book of the "martyrs" became an instrument of propaganda for her enemies to blacken her name for posterity. Had she succeeded in producing an heir and England remained Catholic, the book of martyrs would have been made irrelevant. Mary was no more bloody than the average monarch who held absolute power. When challenged or threaten in any way, they all fought back hard and brutally. So is calling Mary bloody fair? No it is not fair but it is reality. It is not worse than calling Richard III an evil hunchback or King John a tyrant who deserved to have his powers curbed. In each case the victors branded the losers. Thank you for your educational videos.
Thank you, Lily. I absolutely agree with your assessment. Although I do also wonder - and I didn't mention this in the video - if Mary's sex also plays a part. What do you think? You mentioned King Richard III and King John, for example. History may remember them as evil and/or deformed, but they aren't commonly referred to in these terms. While John is sometimes called, rather benignly, "Bad King John"; Richard III isn't known best as "Hunchbacked Richard". Equally, you don't commonly find children chanting their names into mirrors three times and screaming. The moniker "Bloody Mary" has become the stuff of urban legend, which I think also erases her queenship - I'm not sure how many those calling for "Bloody Mary" in the mirror know they are calling for Mary Tudor.
Thank you for responding. Yes, I agree with you that Mary being a woman definitely contributed to her becoming a common street chant. Being a woman with power did not make her a model of femininity, and when she used it to brutally suppress her opponents she was seen to be an unnatural woman and therefore evil. The double standard still exists today. If a man acts decisively and takes control, he is consider to be a strong leader. If a woman does the same she is considered to be a b*tch from the netherworld. Mary at least was feared and respected publicly in her life time. Mary, Queen of Scots, on the other hand, suffered the indignity of being forced to flee from her own country for unseemly behaviour that was no worse, if not better, than what Henry VIII had done.
Excellent points, have you seen/read Helen Castor's work on "She Wolves: England's Early Queens"? She argues that there is still an issue with females exercising power - for example, she asserts that the ease with which Elizabeth II was able to ascend the throne is down to the fact that UK monarchs reign rather than rule.
Lily Stonne and Dr. Kat Yes I would have to agree with the both of you! Greetings from Michigan (USA) I did listen to the She Wolves and she makes great points as well. I see what you are saying about women reigning instead of ruling. Thank you ladies for the discussion. Please stay safe and take care-Debbie
When I heard the symptoms of a dear friend who turned out to have ovarian cancer, (and died from it) I said "You need to check on that! It sounds like what killed Mary the First!"
It is nice hearing another perspective on the subject. Times are changing and the way we tell History too, and your videos prove it. I have nothing to say but thank you, and please keep doing these videos! They are helping me a lot
Loved this video. I found there were fewer characters discussed than at other times, in other videos. I actually followed along with the lesson! Amazing feat, for me!
If Henry had better foresight and prepared for his daughters' future earlier, they very well may have had some of their own which would've at least continued his blood line. Instead his direct line died out.
starlights13 which is a good thing, given that they had no right to the throne, as his father, with the help of his mother and her ambitious husband, usurped from the original usurper, Richard 111.
Dr. Kat, I have binge-watched your channel and appreciate your insights and delivery. Love watching your videos so thanks!! I have a question for you. Can you speak about the importance and relevance of context and our own filters when reviewing history? What do we do by pulling facts out of the past into the light of present day that distorts the actual events. How much of what we think we know, do we really know and would our feelings be any different if we were to time travel to the past and learn things first hand? I've been stewing about this notion of how cool it would be to be able to see into the past and see things happen for ourselves rather than through a 21st century lens. I'm trying to gather my thoughts on this and understand and try to evaluate these figures based on the context of their era, not mine. I find it hard to do. So in an effort to mitigate my judgements about all the executions for perceived slights etc, I reminded myself of another recent occurance that I found semi- comparable. Mostly Ive just done a lot of binge watching anx reading of things lately and it's all mixed up in my recent memory. I dont think I would relate these events necesarily in a different context. I must first state though that being underinformed of this era in history I own that I might be wrong about a lot of things, but here it goes, my comparison. Heads of state ALWAYS exterminate threats to their country and are not painted as serial killers for it. Some are, some aren't Even less so, if you happen to agree with their actions. I love President Obama, but he's my example (ps I respect what he did, I just learned something new about the timing of events that I found interesting)....... I watched the White House Correspondence Dinner from a few years back. A comedian roasts the journalists and the president a bit. The president also makes jokes in good nature ribbing and was seen smiling and laughing throughout. I learned only later that at that very same time as he's joking and laughing, he had already sent a SEAL team to kill Osama bin Laden, which they did. None of that really matters to the point of our historical discussions, but I use it as it only recently came up for me and therefore lurks in my recent memory of an odd juxtaposition of events that could be taken out of context and used to define his character if future generation years from now found only a few surviving relics from this day. Or if we applied these same type events to a historical figure.....who's laughing and joking at a feast while his henchmen are out slaughtering an enemy. But it reminded me while I am watching these videos and studying history, to consider things in context - rulers have to act and they always do and still kill people and it doesn't always stand out as horrific in present day. Why would it have registered as horrific historically? Everybody was killing everybody. And we still do. So I guess I wonder why we consider it horric looking into the past, but can see it as a necessary evil in the present. Which then just made me think of the concept and relevance of context in general terms. Why as we study these people and try to learn more about who they were and what times were like do we start to see them as people and not rulers and then perhaps ascribe characteristics and evaluations to them as we might a lay person who kills hundreds versus a ruler who kills hundreds like ALL of them do? Also.....jeez Louise I get lost in my own thought spirals......
I am always amazed when the "cult of Anne Boleyn" ignores the fact that she called for a literal child to be abused. Who was the savage? I know this is beside the point, but I find it so interesting. All humans are some sort of combination of good, bad, and in-between; but recently Anne B. has come to be put forward as some sort of saint. I agree with the historians who call her "a mirror for the people of each specific time".
Jeff Wheeler wrote a fantasy book based off Mary's life mixing her life with Sarah Crew from a little princess. Her father locking her away for his new wife. It was rather heartbreaking. I suppose that since I heard Elizabeth as "Good Queen Bess" vs "Bloody Mary" and the Death of Lady Jane Grey. I didn't see her as a sympathetic character until Jeff Wheeler showed her perspective. I think propaganda is very powerful
Thank you for your sympathetic and reasonable video of Mary Tudor. I have always felt Mary Tudor was given unfair treatment by history, and does not deserve the moniker "bloody". We might say all the Tudors were bloody to an extent, especially Henry VIII. I believe the moniker was given to Mary because she was Catholic. Henry and Elizabeth had priests hung, drawn, and quartered, but the Elizabethan age is called "golden". Not for Catholics.
So, my kids and I are re-binging Reign on Netflix (yes, I'm aware of the historical inaccuracies, but I still love it!). I was hoping to find some Mary, Queen of Scots on your channel. Am I just missing it?????
I loved your video! I have always felt Mary was a tragic figure who tried her best to be a good ruler. The fact that Elizabeth survived her reign is evidence of this.
Does anyone know the reason why Edward wanted the crown to go to a distant cousin rather than his sisters? I can understand him not wanting the country to become catholic but liz was protestant. Why would he not want to keep the crown in his farthers blood line? Was his advisors closer in connection to Jane? Would it have benefited them somewhat to persuade Edward to name jane as his successor?
They had both been declared to be bastards by his father - Mary was the elder, making Elizabeth’s claim harder to push. Also, Jane could helpfully be married off to Guildford Dudley, son of the leader of Edward’s regency council.
Thank you Dr Kat for telling me things I did not know. While this perspective on Mary is fascinating, I still think she's "Bloody Mary." I believe that name was given to her by the same English people who dubbed Elizabeth "Good Queen Bess." It's the quality of those executions. Do we think of hundreds of people executed under Henry VIII? All those monks and nuns homeless, the convents and monasteries destroyed, not to mention all that art? No! In the public eye, Henry VIII is the guy who killed his wives. One can't help wondering what it was in Mary that manifested all that abandonment and loathing. Elizabeth was quite the dragon, but the people adored her. Anyway I'm very happy at finding your channel.
You are so enjoyable to watch to and listen to. Great history. I guess I feel she was treated so horribly by her father but in her short reign was there not another way to punish people instead of having them burned alive. You may say that is a sign of the times but I expected better of a woman and especially since she had been treated to badly would of wanted to set a better example of how a monarch. Very sad.
I always as th felt sorry for Princess/Queen Mary. She had the worst life of anyone in history. As far as the burning’s, that was the way heretics were e most abudive punished. I felt both Mary And Elizabeth had the most abusive father in the world.
I don't really understand why she was not married at the usual time for the day I think if she had and perhaps had a family she would have been happier
I think 'Bloody Henry' is a more appropriate moniker. His children we're raised in a culture of executions. Margaret Pole had been close to Mary. Henry had a habit of killing off advisors, friends, and enemies, alike. So many nobles and two queens met their fates during Henry's reign that his children must have taken it on board as some sort of norm. Edward, although still in his minority, wrote coldly of the deaths of his own uncles by the axe. Mary saw the suffering of burning as cleansing the soul for eternity, so to her it was a good and necessary thing, (Mary's maternal grandmother was, after all, Isabel of Castile, instigator of the Spanish Inqisition). With Elizabeth, well she started her reign declaring she would not look into men's souls, but it became an impossible ideal, once the Pope decreed that all English Catholics must rise against her at peril of their eternal souls. There was a hell of a lot of blood spilled during the Tudor dynasty. I think few with as malicious or selfish intent as those put to death during Henry VIII's year's. Bloody Henry.
I do not think Mary was certainly any more 'bloody' than many/most other historical figures of medieval times. I think that Mary, Elizabeth, their mothers and step mothers were all treated horrifically by Henry. Imagine his (hopeful) horror today were he to learn that the father's sperm determines the sex of the child and that a disease he may have had caused all of this 2nd children to be miscarried or stillborn. There were so many people in history who did horrible things, tried to find more gruesome ways to torture and kill enemies or those who believed differently than they, (thinking Torquemada) or lets face it in their lust for power. Even in this century and the last Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Qaddafi, all of the Kims... I would say by comparison Mary was quite restrained in her killing!
I feel bad for her. She had a traumatic life and after feeling powerless she gets the ultimate power and just let it get to her head probably. It’s a wonder anyone who had anything to do with Henry IV could escape even with a modicum of sanity
Thanks for a balanced and rational yet sympathetic presentation. Rabid Mary-haters like to deny the fact that Mary (like her mother Queen Katharine) was mistreated, humiliated and threatened with execution by both Henry and Anne Boleyn, as Elizabeth was not. That Mary refused to order the execution of Elizabeth even under heavy pressure from her advisers, and that she authorized the execution of Jane Grey only after the pretender had twice been the center of rebellions and had refused to give a guarantee of good conduct. Queen Mary I was the only Tudor monarch to refuse to sign into law the measures of "enclosure" that took land traditionally held in common for centuries by peasant farmers and graziers, and privatized it without compensation, to enrich Tudor courtiers, resulting in the homelessness and indigence of thousands, who were whipped from town to town as "sturdy beggars" and "vagabonds" and "masterless men". (The victims included women and children.) Again, Queen Mary was the ONLY Tudor monarch to refuse to sign such measures into law. Both Henry and Elizabeth were prodigal in this respect, in order to buy the support of local magnates. In comparison to the burning of 300 Protestants in Mary's five years, one can adduce the more than 200 people executed by Henry in less than one year, while putting down the two years' Pilgrimage of Grace (1536 - 1538). Most were hanged, drawn, and quartered, a barbaric atrocity. Several women were tortured and then burned. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrimage_of_Grace and similar websites.) This in addition to all the other tortures and executions for treason ordered by Henry and Elizabeth. Mary is not known to have urged her officials to seek more excruciating forms of torture and execution. Both Henry and Elizabeth are on record (State Papers) as having done so. I would say that she was not so bloody as others of her family.
Seems so!! Again, history written by the winners and grotesquely twisted away from the truth. Thank you for this!! Did not know Mary protected her peasant farmers, from royal land grabs!
The fact that Mary hesitated to execute Lady Jane Grey, after Jane's first attemlt at treason and bad treatment of her as a child... Speaks volumes about her pious catholic character.
Mary grew up completely traumatised - as was Elizabeth. Both reached their adolescence - a period of life in which stability is essential - in a state of almost perpetual fear or outright terror; Henry truly was a thoroughly wicked man.
I am thrilled to have found your channel today, Dr Kat!!! Well researched, no fluff or annoying music/effects, and such interesting content on one of my very fave historical topics! Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge with us here. And may I say, your lovely warm voice and pleasent face makes the info delivery all the more enjoyable. Greetings and warm wishes for your health from Ottawa, Canada ❤
I have always felt bad for Mary , she was seen as a golden child until she is treated like Cinderella. I mean If I was treated like how Mary was ,I would have cracked up too .
I think misogyny had a good part in shaping Mary’s legacy. Women who become queen in there own right seems to nearly always be painted as She-Wolves, power mad, sex mad, or just plain mad. Elizabeth only just escaped this my marketing herself as “The Virgin Queen” and even the half the accounts of her life still try to make her into a monstrous woman.
>burns 280 people alive “noooo you’re being mean to her, she was just misunderstood!” and if it were just misogyny that led to mary’s bad posthumous reputation, why is it that elizabeth is seen so favourably?
Of course, the contemporary parochial and hopefully ephemeral revisionist "all-explaining" demagoguery of "misogyny" must show its ugly head. She was a terrible ruler, left Englad weaker internationally and more bitterly divided internally than almost any other monarch, she lost Calais but of course we must cut her slack and adore her internal struggle because she was a woman, otherwise we are misogynists :D
@Marvin Cooper It could be argued that Elixabeth's image makers, if there were people who conscously thought of themselves as that, simply moved Elizabeth into the huge imaginative vacancy created by the destruction of the Marian Shrines in the reign of Henry VIII and Edward VI. Hadn't England long been called Our Lady's Dowry? The veneration of Our Lady was replaced by the adulation of Gloriana, The Virgin Queen, with wholesale adoption of the imagery and language of worship. Just as Our Lady has many different personas in the prayers of the faithful, humble handmaid, mother of God, protector of the poor, and so on, its not the imagery of the humble vessel that was adopted for Elizabath; it was the imagery of a Queen of Heaven; embattled and victorious, and appropriate for the age, as the reign progressed. I'm not going to the stake for this, as it is only a speculative query.
@Marvin Cooper Let's be real: in order to hold onto power, one has to crave it. That goes for men, and even more so for historic women. But, I don't blame the Katherines, Elizabeths and Hatshepsuts of long ago. Why should they not strive for the top? To me the question isn't whether they were "power mad", it is whether they were good or bad for their nations.
I think Mary just like Elizabeth had been scared deeply by their father and the times. Why didn't Henry do the right thing by his daughters and find husbands for them. Even though they were declared Bastards he still could have seen to their future. No, he was more concerned about his own life, his own wants and needs. Mary had nothing but her faith to cling too after her mother's death. She was bullied and threatened by Anne and made a fool of by Katherine Howard. Not one did her father defend her against these people. She was still of his blood he should have protected her but he did not. So when she became Queen, she wanted to do what was right, restore in her mind the true faith, she wanted to marry and have children. But I doubt Phillip was much of a husband to her. And who knows maybe she had been pregnant and someone made sure no child was born. We shall never really know will we?
Yes, Henry VIII could have, through marriage to the right men, basically disarmed both the princesses from ever gaining the throne and, more than likely, given them much more contented lives. I think that a possible reason he didn't could have been that he was covering his bases. He wanted one of his children to sit on the throne after him, he wanted his legacy, and if he ended up with no male heirs then his daughters were the back up. It's also possible that in marrying Mary to Phillip he hoped to get a grandson that he could perhaps name heir. I tend to see her marriage to Phillip as a nod on Henry's behalf that she was his legitimate daughter and, as Henry's break with Rome had been for trying to establish a male heir rather than an issue of dogma, I think he may have envisaged Mary's ascension to the throne as a way for his country to heal the rift with Rome after his death.
@@kezkezooie8595 Henry VIII had been dead for years when Mary became engaged, then married to Philip. So, Henry had no idea about it. Not trying to be rude. I just want the proper info to be out here on the internet. That's all. Do have a lovely day.
I think once Henry declared them bastards, marriage became much more of a problem than before. Eligible foreign princes would be less willing to marry a daughter declared illegitimate in her own country, and what benefit would it bring. Similarly, an English "noble" house, was equally obsessed with their bloodlines. The easy acceptance of king's bastards had to wait for a very different English court under Charles II, 130 years later, and that acceptance was relatively shortlived, as the FitzClarences discovered another 100 years or so later in the late 1700s.
@@christopherseton-smith7404 And there you have it. No one really is interested in royal bastards. Elizabeth could have been married off to her childhood friend Robert Dudley, but his family was ambitious and she had "no prospects" as was said of the future Charles II around 100 years later. The deposed Charles, while Cromwell and cronies reigned, was mentioned as having "no prospects" in correspondence, when he sought marriage afterward. Amazing how fate delivers other outcomes, and the ambitious suddenly have regrets. BTW, a look at Charles II would also be interesting. He had a similar problem, in that his legal wife was barren, and there was no one he could trust, as everyone had schemes and ambitions. Perhaps Nell Gwynn was favored simply because she was genuine, having no expectations other than patronage.
Really good video. It's interesting that Mary has the 'Blood Mary' moniker after 300 deaths (yes horrible but we're talking about numbers here), whereas Henry murdered over 70,000 of his own subjects. He's not known as 'The Ginger Serial Killer' though.
She ruled for 5 years out of which she spent about one and half in seclusion with her "pregnancies". Care to estimate, how many dead would have been there had she ruled for 37 years like him?
@@CzechMirco Sure! If Mary murdered 300 unfortunate Protestants in the 5 years she ruled (leaving out for generosity the seclusion with her 'pregnancies') - if she ruled for 40 years, then she would have possibly murdered 8 times that amount as 8 x 5 = 40. So I make that 24,000 people, still far less than her volatile, spoiled, cruel father. I've no doubt that she was pretty terrible but she had a wretched upbringing.
@@TiffanySommerfeld Well sadly Mary wasn't a very successful ruler. Her half-sister Elizabeth was better at the PR and a much better politician all round. I'm sure she was responsible for a lot of deaths, but a bit like the Allied atrocities in World War 2, they've been swept under the History Carpet.
@@janepurcell6747 You are not taking into account that protestantism would have grown during her reign not only because it had suited the nature of English people more but also because catholicism would have been increasingly seen as a symbol of foreign (spanish) opression and thus there would have also been a nationalistic momentum to protestantism. And the more protestants, the more burnings by the steadfastly devout queen. I mean even during her real 5 years old reign the number of protestants actually increased (especially when they got their "martyrs", those burned by her).
I don't believe that Mary was malicious in her vision for England. She was trying to bring back peace to the land that she probably thought in her mind was destroyed by the Protestants. Also, Mary had to be made to look like the bad guy so Elizabeth's reign could look as golden as we were made to believe.
You have summed up the real reasons for Queen Mary 1's reputation as "bloody" The Tudor period was one of dreadful brutality and injustice. Queen Mary 1 was just a product of her time. Queen Elizabeth I was much more scheming and devious.
@Dee A are you taking about Anne or Elizabeth? Because we don't know what Anne would have done as reigning queen, she was only the queen consort. Elizabeth is another story we do know what she did as reigning monarch and, while Mary is no saint, Elizabeth executed thousands, more than Mary, she was just smarter about it. But being burned to death or having your head hacked off with multiple strikes, I'll pass on both. Both are horrible ways to die.
Yousef Thorneycroft it’s near impossible to judge Tudor England and some of their behaviors by our safe, democratic, modern standards...we literally cannot relate to what any of these women went through. I think scheming, brutal and hard was just a FACT of the time, for any serious ruler who wanted to stay the ruler.....
That was the kindest portrayal of Mary I have ever heard. I so love how you always find interesting points to have us reevaluate our opinions and suppositions of famous people. So sad the way her life turned totally upside down several times.
I always liked Mary I and have always tried to find historical fiction books to read about her but these are few and far between. Everything tends to be about Elizabeth I. Sadly, Mary has been overshadowed by her sister in both life and death 😢
@@ReadingthePast Unfortunately, I believe that Elizabeth was just the better ruler and she made more of a mark in history than Mary. Plus she reigned longer. There is more to talk/read about.
@@nd4610 It’s not fair to say who is the better ruler since she has been over shadowed. I can’t find anything on her. I might barely find two non-fiction books on Mary, but Elizabeth you can find 10 -12 books on her. You can’t find any books on their bother Edward Tudor. Also Elizabeth could have had all her literature burned when she became Queen.
Mary had such a sad terrible life. I feel so sorry for Mary although I staunchly disagree with her policies. Mary was mentally destroyed long before becoming queen and I cannot believe that she was at all emotionally stable. I feel great pity for her. She suffered greatly and maybe her death was a blessing.
@@stephsmith9911 Damn Skippy that is why she never married! And you are right, they were both damaged. Elizabeth luckily lived long enough to come to terms with her f-ed up childhood, Mary's life continued down a terrible path of misery.
@@HabrenOdinsdottir I never meant to state the obvious LOL. Some people think she did not marry because of power, vanity, etc. I simply think she was damaged. All accounts of Elizabeth state she was a very intelligent and precocious child. She may not have remembered her Mother much, but I have always believed she might have had a vague memory....and then her governess (Kat....something or other, I cannot remember her name but want to say Kate Ashley?) even wrote once that the very little girl asked after her Mother. Elizabeth's problem was that she saw what a man could do-and while she longed(I believe this) for a husband and children her Father ruined her forever. Nowadays, she would have been in intense therapy. Mary, on the other hand......she learned nothing. She fell passionately in love with Phillip, to the point of almost begging him to lover her back. Yes her Father ruined her, but she didn't learn. I cannot, to this day, decide which one deserves my pity more.
I was brought up in a Suffolk village in the 1960s where Bloody Mary had burnt a local Protestant. It was taught to us almost as something in living memory. Although as an adult I learnt of her complex psychology and upbringing, its hard to describe the visceral hatred of her still alive and well in that village where people still laid flowers on his memorial centuries after the event.
Loved this!! Have just discovered your channel. I've always defended Mary. I'd love to hear a psychologist's take on it, but I feel like maybe she, in her early teens and later, subconsciously learned that Protestantism = bad, especially with Anne Boleyn. I think she just also had bad luck. A lot of the things that Elizabeth was successful in have come from her seeing Mary failing in them, and knowing what not to do. Mary being the first queen regnant of England had to figure things out blindly, and was the guinea pig. Another reason I think she's given the name bloody Mary is because Protestantism became the 'winning' religion in England, not just with Elizabeth but forever (despite the odd Stuart Catholic) - if you compare to Mary's maternal grandparents who are just called the "Catholic monarchs". Would love for you to do a video on Kathryn Howard! She's another that I'll always defend, that she was more of a victim than a promiscuous idiot..
Tayla, can you explain why you think Catherine Howard was a victim and not a promiscuous idiot? Sure she was young, too young (in my opinion), to be manipulated into Queen-hood. But as a cousin of Anne Boleyn, she would have known the consequences of cheating on the King.
@@ChaleeRenee There is evidence to suggest Francis Dereham and Thomas Culpeper used blackmail to take advantage of Katherine Howard. It is rather suspect that she appointed Dereham as part of her staff knowing Henry's temperament. Plus she was very young and sheltered away when Anne Boleyn 's fall occurred. Who knows how much of the episode she knew or what could be learned from it?
Tayla McRae Hi Tayla, I am a psychologist in so I often do what is called in the business a “psychological autopsy” of a deceased legend, Which is obviously a best guess of their mental state and character from what we can infer from primary sources. I’m also a writer and a published on the app, Medium, A short essay in our subject entitled, “ in defense of bloody Mary.“ Here’s the link: link.medium.com/77JP7CZYD5: Many of the points that you and others have brought up here I also concluded. My nom de plume on Medium is Patrick Oh!. check my story out; it also includes pretty pictures LOL. Please leave any feedback; that would be most appreciated. In writing it, I tried to come from an empathic, compassionate position, putting myself in her shoes, though acknowledging that some part of the monstrous caricature depicted in popular history and myths probably has some a of truth. of all the tutor monarchs, Mary had the bluest blood, and was certainly a legitimate queen, and yet she was saddled in history with the most denigrating of monikers.though no better, she was certainly no worse than the rest of that bloody lot! I’m not sure if its been mentioned, but Marys final humiliation occurred at her superstar sisters burial site in Westminster abbey, as Bess’ body was piled on top of Mary’s for eternity, but Mary was never provided the proper headstone and death mask accorded a ruler. There is no acknowledgement that the 2 sisters, Rulers of England, share the crypt. Just as her father had cruelly attempted to obliterate her mother’s memory after having her executed under the most scandalous charges by removing Anne’s coat of arms and any other decorative remnants representing her that were etched into the walls of Hampton court, so Elizabeth Showed not a tempered, but rather more extreme cruelty and personal vengefulness as she aged , similar to her father, hers directed towards Mary. These dark feelings endured for her until the end, and her attempt to sling a final debasement at her dead sister at her own death only serves in her own judgement.
Well I think nobody should be murdering each other to death it's stupid people need to learn to tolerate each other beliefs I personally don't care what God or Goddess you worship or how you worship has long has you are not hurting anyone. People should be able to live beside each other with out butchering one another in the name of religion only fanatical nuts do such things.
After your comments about the number of executions under other monarchs, Mary doesn't seem all that bad. I just grew up hearing the term "Bloody Mary" and never really questioned it. She's a tragic figure.
Yes but, Mary I was only queen for about four years. Elizabeth I was queen for forty-five years. Not sure about Henry, but it was around thirty or so. I'm not great at math, but, I'm sure a math wiz could figure out the percentages on how many executed people they averaged per year. I'm pretty sure Marys would be the highest. JS
@@reneenayfabnaynay5679 That's kind of an unfair narrative, especially considering the fact that Mary's reign was short due to death from illness rather than dethronement, court machinations, etc. If you boil down those death totals into specific eras/events instead of spreading them out across each monarch's entire reign, I don't think Henry's numbers are too dissimilar from his daughter. A large number of his executions took place around the time of or due to his separation from the Catholic church. Mary was fanatical in her faith, but her execution numbers have long been misrepresented due to these sort of comparisons.
@@tosinakin2508 There is nothing wrong on pointing out the absolutely demagogic comparision of numbers for very different time intervals spent on the throne. Mary's reason for killing those people wouldn't have changed throughout her life because her catholic devoutness and the number of protestants in the population wouldn't have changed (if anything, it would have increased). Thus for the same time on the throne she would have ended up with the same if not higher numbers as Henry.
Elizabeth 1 and her cronies reduced her to only this. Very little of her achievements is referenced. I like to think of her as that determined young lady who gathered armies and a following and rode victoriously into London to take the throne that was rightfully hers. She made it possible for Elizabeth 1 to become Queen.
Elizabeth, as princess, was right there, at her big sisters back, when Mary I came riding into London that fateful day. Elizabeth made it known who she was loyal to. Elizabeth knew her sister was the rightful queen.
Absolutely right. If she hadn't rode into London to challenge the usurper, Jane Gray, Elizabeth would probably not have ascended the throne eventually. She paved the way for Elizabeth.
Henry VIII was the cause of much of the insanity of the Tudor era. He was heartless and ruthless, and lacked character. If I were a woman in his court, I would have quaked at the thought of him turning an eye towards me!
Mary is a tragic figure. She loved her God, church, country, husband, mother, father and even her stepsister Elizabeth. Perhaps only her mother gave her the love she needed but she was denied her mother's comfort in the last years of Katherine's life. God did not grant Mary the child she desperately needed. The others failed her one way or another. After all this, history has renamed her Bloody Mary and there is a cocktail named after her.
Anna Morris quite true, she was treated horribly by her father and her step-mother. She was also a petty, deeply insecure, paranoid, cold blooded murderer who, along with her Spanish husband and the Catholic priests and men in power, mercilessly ordered the slaughter of countless thousands of her own English subjects - men, women and children, all burned alive or hacked to pieces by her soldiers. Babies and toddlers were tossed screaming into the same fires that their parents would then burn to death in. Simply because they were believers of or were accused of being Protestants by neighbours greedy for their possessions/land. She was a fanatic - a religious zealot, and I strongly suspect deeply mentally disturbed. She very much earned her moniker of “Bloody Mary”. Tragic...but absolutely quite horrifyingly mad.
@@Caninecancersucksrocks The deeper tragedy is that Mary and others who participated in such persecutions, believed what they were doing was for the good of their victims as well as the country. Burning could purify souls or give a last moment for the victim to turn to the 'true faith'. The eternal life after death was more important in those days than any suffering on earth. In forcing England to become Catholic again she believed she was saving the souls of all of her people. Amazing!
This is a great channel! I have always thought Mary has an undeserved bad reputation, especially to do with the heresy executions. I would have enjoyed listening to you compare her reign to another queen, her maternal grandmother Isabelle of Castile. Also did England not think she would try to take it back to Catholicism when they welcomed her as queen?
It's hard to quantify how many English people still kept faith with Rome when she ascended the throne, so they may have welcomed such a change. Full disclosure, my specialism is British history but I'd like to look into Isabella further, with the hopes of making a video on her in the future.
@@ReadingthePastoh please do; i have seen a video on another channel calling the people’s history and it’s fantastic and very well researched and it was better than anything in Spanish media about queen Isabella; not that im throwing you into this as a challenge; but Dr. Kat you are also a badass at what you do; in fact one of the best; of selected few ones; who offer a fair and balanced view of historical errors; you also say it as it was; rather than sugarcoat it; rather than revisionist views; you go much further; and much more in depths; i really think your video on Isabella of Castile would be nothing short of spectacular and brilliant; you did a video on her daughter Juana the mad; and you absolutely nailed it; also as a Spanish myself i haven’t seen anything as good as your video on Juana of Castile in Spanish media; and i have seen and watched them all; im obsessed with history; but you went into a more serious discussion about her madness; going into important details; making great points to make honor to your channel; the importance to understand the past to better understand our present; and perhaps do better in the future; of course it doesn’t always happen that way; but as far as explaining past history; you make people want to know more and explain it in ways that highlight the importance of knowing more accurately what happened or didn’t happen; rather than just hear about it; or reading about it, you put everything into context and you do it so brilliantly; so i say you already have an honorary badge of honor without you realizing it in major Spanish history as well; great job: cannot wait long enough for a video on queen Isabella. cheers
@Mo Fa - I completely agree with you about, Mary! Elizabeth I may have been considered more tolerant, yet she beheaded Mary Queen 👑 of Scots who was a true anointed Queen 👑, twice in her life. I can’t imagine having the life that Mary lived. She starts out a beloved princess of her mother and father, The Queen and The King 👑. She goes through such a fall at a young age. The fact that she’s being physically abused in the household of the new Princess Elizabeth at the request of her “wicked stepmother” Ann Boleyn, says a lot for how she must have felt as she grew to adulthood. Mary had everything against her for so long, I think it’s miraculous she acted as she did and not much, much worse.
@@TeresaEAnn henry was king and everything that happened to his children was reported back to him. If anne abused mary henry knew about it and allowed it.
@@Valcour Well, don't take my word for it. Look at what's happening at the moment eg in the US. Just like smashing the windows of Jewish shops in Berlin, 80 years ago, it's all coming back into fashion.
I found this video really interesting. It certainly seems a little unfair that Mary is known as “Bloody Mary” if she was no crueller or more sadistic than the other monarchs who reigned in the same period. Do you think that any Catholic on the throne at this time would probably have ordered the execution of lots of prominent Protestants? I was thinking that as a Catholic Mary may have been quite anxious (possibly even paranoid) about being overthrown and so felt that she had to try to shore up her position by instilling fear in people. I guess that Mary would have realised that if people witnessed or heard about the terrible punishments that people like Thomas Cranmer received they would be far less likely to oppose or disobey her so perhaps in certain cases she ordered that people be executed not out of any genuine cruelty or malice but simply because she felt that her power was under threat and she needed to assert her authority and show people what could happen to them if they didn’t obey her. I wondered if someone might also try to defend Mary by arguing that as a committed Catholic she genuinely believed that England should be Catholic rather than Protestant and that for their own good her people needed to be guided towards the right faith. If that was her mindset, she may have viewed prominent Protestants as a threat not only to her but to her citizens too: if Protestant bishops and priests tried to spread their heretical teachings then people might come to believe lots of false and dangerous things that could ultimately threaten their place in Heaven and see them condemned to Hell instead. I guess that someone putting forward this sort of defence would argue that Mary may have felt that the threat of her people being led astray and rejecting her faith justified her in ordering the execution of anyone who openly rejected Catholicism - although public executions were incredibly cruel and unpleasant they served an important purpose and were ultimately justified by the necessity of protecting people from the wrath of God.
Hi Charlotte, thank you so much for this comment. You make really excellent points. You are spot on about Mary feeling the need to cleanse her nation of "heresy" in order to secure the security (spiritual and possibly physical) of that nation. In relation to your query about other Catholic rulers disposing of their Protestant subjects, I am reminded of the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre in Paris - perhaps I should make a video about that event in the New Year - what do you think?
It's really kind of you to reply to my comment. I must confess that I don't know anything about this massacre - I hadn't even heard of it until I read your message! I love all your videos and always find them very interesting so I am sure I would get a lot out of a video on the massacre that you mentioned (although I would probably find it quite upsetting). I have always been too shy to ask you if you could make a video on a particular theme or topic! Thank you so much for the videos that you share with us. I just wish that you had been my history teacher at school!
Thank you for your lovely words, you are very kind. I would love to hear any suggestions / requests for videos that you may have, if / when you are ready to share. In the meantime, I will certainly get to work on that video!
Isabella the Catholic burned and tortured more"heretics" but was considered one of the best Spanish mornachs. Do you think Elizabeth 1 deliberately ensured her sister would be remembered this way?
Charlotte Bakewell hmmm... I’m don’t think many people are aware of the link between the burnings and her desire to get Philip to return to England . Perhaps we could delve further into that?
Context is so important for understanding Mary's actions as queen. As a Roman Catholic monarch, she believed thather soul and the souls of the entire country were in peril were she to tolerate heresy in her kingdom. She would have seen her actions as tough love, although it horrifies us in the 21st century. I think one exception is her execution of Cranmer, which strikes me as vindictive.
Both Mary & Elizabeth come across as somewhat unhinged which shouldn't be any surprise when you take into account their upbringing. Elizabeth's strength was the people that she had surrounding her, Mary didn't have anybody of such calibre.
I'm always wary of videos about Mary because I do feel her reputation is worse than she deserves. People tend to malign her and it does seem very unfair. While she was no angel, she was no worse then most of the other rulers of her day. I do feel her reputation was the result of the victor writing the history and once a story is told enough times people don't question it any longer and that has happened here. Thank you for the balanced video, I really appreciate hearing this.
I am especially apprecitive that you delve in and debunk the misconstrues and the myths. Give new information and ways to look at what history and time has come to make one believe. So stimulating to my brain compared to the same stories being told again and again!
Her life and reign was doomed from the start. As queen, her sole mission was to return England to Catholicism and to seek reconciliation with the Pope. However, it is evident her emotional instability and significant losses of family and rank had a devastating impact on her emotional psyche. Even her later portraits, as compared to earlier paintings of Mary, show how her bitterness and penchant for revenge was so pronounced in her face. In the end however, she was no different from her father or her sister in the end. All of them unhappy and bringing much misery to those near and far. Family Dysfunction at best...bloody at worst.
Look at all she went through from a very young age, all the losses and betrayal by her father, losing her mother's presence, being told she was a princess one day, a bastard the next. She was terrorized and bullied for years. Maybe that's why she didn't retain fresh and dewy loveliness.
I love your videos so much! As an American who has no history of kings and queens I find the subject fascinating and you do such a great job! I do find it interesting that Henry never considered marrying off Mary in hopes of a grandson for the throne. It just shows how truly self centered he was?
Mary Tudor had a tragic childhood, that’s the least we can say. Seeing her religion being butchered would have devastated her. After becoming Queen she did what all others before and after her did, take out her enemies. According to me she wasn’t more or less cruel than other royals. The fact that history is being written by the victors and that in that time the writers were men could make up a big part of the myth of her being a vengeful Queen aka Bloody Mary. Personally I think she did great being Queen although her life was tragic and sad.
“Nothing succeeds like success”: and conversely, nothing fails like failure. Mary’s life was a failure on several levels: she was de-legitimised, she didn’t get to marry until she was past her best, she failed to have a baby, she failed to hang on to Calais and she was swimming against the current of the increasing momentum of the Reformation. Her sister Elizabeth, on the other hand, was ultimately a sparkling success, she just seemed to have the knack of playing her cards well and coming up trumps every time. That is how history has judged their respective careers, but in recent years, and especially following the sympathetic and attractive portrayal of Mary by beautiful actress Sarah Bolger in “The Tudors”, we are all starting to re-evaluate Mary and have a more nuanced understanding of the influences that shaped her eventual destiny.
Parliament liked its precedents, and the only precedent at the time was that of the marriage of John of Gaunt to his mistress Katherine Swynford (sister in law to Geoffrey Chaucer) in the late 1390s. Their children were legitimised, but they were expressly debarred from succession to the throne. I think it might have set up too many issues around the descent of Henry VII, the king's father, from this legitimised branch of the House of Lancaster.
Henry VIII would have kn own that to attempt his son's legitimization would have thrown England into chaos again. The 100 yrs. war wasn't that far gone and Henry V11 had gained his legitimate claim to the throne through his marriage to Elizabeth of York. She was royal, he was not. Margaret Beaufort came from the a legimated line yes but they could not take the crown by law. Old history can be so confusing sometimes that's why I love these u tube sites and I read a ton. I'm so glad to have you Dr Kat I love to listen and learn some more.
It seems like the times/political climate always forced Henry VIII to create a fiction to support and justify his actions. He couldn’t just divorce or discard Catherine of Aragon, he had to create the justification that their marriage was never legal in the first place. He couldn’t just execute Anne Boleyn because he wanted her out of the way, Henry had to conjure charges of adultery to justify her execution. I don’t think the court or the public would have gone along with the king just decreeing a bastard was legitimate. There had to be a veneer of a reason to get around the inconvenient truth.
Mary is a sad figure, a child left bewildered by the workings of the world around her, and saddened by the ostracization of her mother. She must have been full of rage and bitterness. Unloved and tyrannized by her beliefs, she became a tyrant in turn. Not an excuse for her actions, but there is a case to be made for feeling some pity for her.
Thanks! Great, ( informative) video. Considering all her Father put her through, in particular not allowing her any contact with her beloved Mother just to name one. To me it’s amazing how she even managed to keep going, ( raise an army) to defend her birthright. Her entire life was lived fighting for security, & happiness. Neither of which she got, she died as badly as she lived. In spite of the burnings, I can’t help but feel sad for her.
Thank you for this analysis of Mary I's life. I would be interested in your take on her "afterlife", or how she has been remembered at different points in history. I once read that while the memory of Mary wasn't particularly fond during Elizabeth's reign (Foxe, etc), she wasn't truly villianized and given the moniker of "Bloody Mary" until the 17th C, shortly before the Glorious Revolution. At that time, those seeking to dethrone James II and ban all future Catholics from ruling held her up as an example of the horrors that would inevitably occur if James' Catholic son were to inherit, and therefore resurrected Foxe's Book of Martyrs in an effort to paint her rule as being as horrific as possible (ie "Bloody Mary"). And of course, the Victorian obsession with Jane Grey as victim only made this interpretation more entrenched. Have you encountered anything about this? Do you know at what point she became "Bloody Mary" in common parlance?
I really love your history talks. Many thanks, Dr. Kat. I feel very sorry for Queen Mary. She and her beautiful mother were treated dreadfully by Henry Vİİİ. No wonder she sought revenge on men like Bishop Cranmer, and reacted carelessly when trying to restore Catholicism to England. And what a sad marriage and failed attempts in trying to have an heir to the throne. Poor Mary.
Honestly, I think the reason for her reputation (like most things) has many reasons, most of which you cite in one way or another. She didn't just kill people but burn them to death for following the faith which was the official Church during her father and brother's reigns. She was vindictive in a very public way towards Thomas Cramner. She marriage was deeply unpopular for a variety of reasons. More, she showed little moderation when she came to the throne. Under the circumstances, she gave plenty of fodder to the Protestant historians that came later. But--and I love that you do this--her actions must been seen in the context of her entire life to be understood. This was an extremely traumatized child, who grew up into a fierce woman beset by the neuroses of an emotionally abusive, ruthless father just as her half-sister Elizabeth was. I read or saw somewhere that at some point, I think during King Henry's reign, there was a plot to smuggle her away from England. From what I recall, the author/narrator maintained this event marked an profound change in her, that after this she never seemed to doubt herself again. It was almost as if she decided at this point she had to start acting like a Queen, and frankly in her mind that meant following the model of her strong-willed and ruthless father. What do you think?
Thomas Cranmer was a nasty piece of work and between burning someone and eviscerate slowly someone I cannot found a difference. Moreover, you cannot compare the number of victims of Mary, and Elizabeth and Henry. And finally, Mary risked her life if she show weakeness, and she was very benign the beginning of her reign.
I'm obsessed with your videos! Incredible delivery, all info and no nonsense but you manage to still tell it in a really interesting manner. Your hard work is easy to see, thankyou so much for this content!
It's really spooky how and what Google learns about you. I've recently finished reading "The Voices of Morebath" and am halfway through "Fires of Faith" both by Prof. Eamon Duffy and have obviously been Googling for extra research round the topics. "Morebath" is about the journey of a very ordinary West country parish (very reluctantly) through the reformation and "Fires of Faith" is specifically about Mary's reign. And for a week or two, RU-vid has been presenting me with your excellent video as a choice that today I've just sat down and watched. Does it know what I'm thinking now! I'm fascinated by how ordinary people very far removed from London and also far removed from power reacted to the incremental; inch by inch, then foot by foot, then yard by yard changes to the religion of their ancestors. How were they conditioned to accept it? How many of them complied with the outward requirements of the new, but secretly hung on to some of the old? I have a sense that Mary was pushing on a more "open door" in many parishes (certainly in some regions) than you perhaps give her credit for. My wife and I are very amateur historians of our own village and it's interesting how many local wills (many still in Latin long after the reformation) still ask for prayers for the deceased or close with small signs of the Virgin Mary. And the parish records remain in Latin until well into the 1700s - but then we live in a County described as a "nest of papists" well into James I/VI's time. I'm also intrigued by the regional variations in the way ordinary people react. London was strongly Protestant during Mary's time and was also strongly for Parliament in the civil wars. The East of England seems to have taken the reformation to heart much more quickly than the West. The Pilgimage of Grace quickly gained support in the North. I have a sense this is under explored by historians - but then being about ordinary people, it's sometimes hard to find sources. Anyway, thanks again for the video. I'll look at some of the others now.
Bovine...... : Are these books by Eamon Duffy? I already have "The Stripping of the Altars" and it is so good. Have you read "A History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland " by William Corbett?
Mary is always a very interesting character study. Her story is a compelling one. However I find it interesting that people always compare the body count of her reign to her father's and her sister's. The reason being that Mary was only on the throne for five years, while both Henry and Elizabeth ruled for about 40 years each. So I guess we can say she was much more efficient at getting rid of people she didn't like.
@@GreatGreebo sauce or no sauce, roasting meat over a fire was a huge thing in the time of Mary , actually ever since man started using fire... and about tomatoes : apparently they were in England in the late 16th century, but it took a very long time before anyone thought they were edible...ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--BHXH5am7B0.html
Dani Stark do you think jokes are more important than jokes? Maybe you should try defying the Laws of Levity for a change, instead of the Law of Gravity?
Please, oh please, do two episodes: one on Jane Grey, tragic girl; and a second on the traitorous family of men---but also the great love of Elizabeth--- the Dudleys.
Thank you for your marvelous recounting of history, especially your fairness in reporting all. You give us the whole picture, not your personal bias as to what may have happened. Well done Dr. Kat!
I find it ridiculous in the extreme-granted I do so from a Modern mindset- that the REAL monster, the ruiner of lives, the husband who cast aside an exceptional wife-Katherine of Aragon.. is NEVER blamed for the turmoil he caused. In his pursuit of a younger woman who at the beginning of the whole mess was in love with Henry Percy..and he with her. ..too bad. Henry wanted what he wanted. Being denied an honorable marriage of love, Anne Boleyn, having seen Henry treat his former mistresses like used tissue..HER OWN SISTER BEING ONE SUCH...firmly decided it would be all or nothing for her: marriage or refusal. This was Henry's mess. YET.... On the scaffold, AN INNOCENT ANNE spoke lovingly and respectfully of the tyrant who had ruined her life...and was ending it unjustly. Mary never blamed her father. Catherine Howard-a mere child, though admittedly a sexually Precocious one- extolled him. As for poor Mary...I lay ALL of Mary's horrific behavior sturdily at Henry VIII'S feet. HE created the religious fanatic, the poor woman so pathetically enamored of her uncomfortable husband.. whose Father's marital messes had caused her to be left on the shelf, far past her "best-by" date. Tragic. Whether his actions were health-based or no, to my mind he was a "Right Royal Wretch". Poor Mary...
I blame Henry the 8th for much of Mary's issues. It is said she suffered from not so good health physiclly, or mentally. You can't blame Elizabeth for it either, because she didn't ask for any of it. She tried to be faithful to Mary, while Mary was queen, but she couldn't bring herself to become catholic any more than Mary leave being catholic. I also blame Phillip for not staying with Mary and involving England in a war it had no business being in. It just seems like Mary was set up for a fall most of her life. She never should've taken a vengeful direction with Sir Thomas Kramer. That was her bad.
I see the "Bloody Mary" moniker as appropriate -- not due to Mary Tudor's executions, but due to her being "bloody-minded", i.e. unreasonably stubborn. In many instances, her persistence in the face of difficulties was a strength, but in some cases, such as insisting on marrying a Spanish Catholic & ordering English troops to support his wars, or creating a martyr of Cranmer after he'd already recanted, her bloody-mindedness led to her downfall. She & her half-sister Elizabeth are fascinating partly because of the ways that their father's oddities & excesses shaped their childhoods & ultimately their lives.
I think Mary is a good example of how current events/how the winner can change history. I mean, Mary is known as "Bloody Mary" when she was rather benign as a queen but you have other monarchs like King Richard I, who was much worse one almost all account, was given the title 'the Lionheart.' Like, that dude hated England, had fruitless crusades, killed a bunch of Jews, cost England tons of money in ransom, let his bro run roughshod over England, dies stupidly, and this guy is 'the Lionheart'. But Mary kills 300 and she's Bloody Mary.
Is it known if the many miscarriages and infant deaths suffered by Henry's wives were because of 16th century health practices, or the health of either Henry or his wives? Thanks!
There are theories he had some gene that conflicted with women, who didn't have it. Only the firstborns could live, after that mothers body antigenes were activated. Well, there exceptions though. In favor of this theory they mention a desease associated with this gene, when a men goes crazy)) in midlife, around 40, cognitive abilities decline, more aggression, as well as physical problems - difficult to move. Seems like that is all about Henry.
As the only follower of Mary I, i want to thank you for this video. That unfair name has always bothered me, particularly for those of us who really study history. It is known that without Mary there´s no Elizabeth, the policies implemented by Mary continued under Elizabeth's rule. Like you said in the video, winners tell the story, and in this case Mary didn't.
Cami Jaque it actually isn’t clear that Elizabeth would not eventually assume the throne had Lady Jane Grey been successful. Undoubtedly, Mary one would’ve probably been killed off, but since I believe the big reason why Lady Jane was put forward was to secure the Protestant reform, since Elizabeth was protestant , I’m not sure she’d have a reason to kill her. It’s all hypothetical, but Elizabeth was nothing if not a survivor, last in line, she made it there, and then lasted the longest, more than her father.
Mary was a spoiled child who couldn’t handle life. Her father was responsible for spoiling her and then disposing of her. I wish there was a way to hear what Katherine, Henry, Anne, Edward, Mary would have to say about Elizabeth’s great reign. But alas you can’t bring back the dead
I've always felt sympathetic towards Mary. It must have been torturous after she was shunned by her father, who she trusted up until that point, and was forced away from her mother. Then to make things worse she was neglected during her prime marrying age, and was unable to produce children. I'm sure she was desperate to have someone who would love her and want her. Being a mother would have given her that. Such a tragic story.
I feel that much of Mary's negative reputation as Bloody Mary is do to the extreme anti-catholic feeling that arose After her reign. I think that many historians tend to emphasize her Catholicism and her desire to make England a Catholic country again from political point of view rather than a religious one. We must always be careful to remember that our modern attitudes towards religion are nothing like they were at that time. People were sincerely concerned with the disposition of their mortal souls. It was central to the way they lived their lives every day. I believe that Mary had a very strong and sincere religious faith and believed that the changes in her country put the Eternal Souls of her populace (both the heretics and the orthodox - Because the heretics Could also sway the orthodox into beliefs that might send them to hell). at terrible risk. I feel that she would have done nearly anything to preserve the people from eternal damnation (from her sincere and deep religious faith). As I understand it during that time Heretics were burned because the terrible pain would hopefully cause them to repent of their sins and be saved. eternally even though their bodies would die eternally even though their bodies would die. I also think that the reason that fire was used I was echoing the biblical belief that God refines us as in fire. obviously the way she handled Thomas Cramner was purely for revenge, but I think we need to consider that the other burnings were justified in her mind.
She was such a tragic character and person. Her status, her mother, her life, her faith in God and every other aspect of her life was controlled, for the first half of her life, by a quarrelsome, wretched and cruel father who saw in her as being only in "the diseased state" of being female. I cannot imagine the suffering she endured, even though she was born to extreme privilege and the best of social circumstance. Perhaps this makes her plight yet worse, to have known the very height of esteem, then thrown away like a piece of garbage when her sister Elizabeth and then brother Edward were born. It would be enough to drive anyone to utter madness, and I do believe that she suffered from severe depression, even a delusional state of mind. Though killing others for their beliefs for me is the worst of offenses, I do understand at least why. She was a product of her times trying her best to do, at every turn, what was expected of her. One wonders, if she had been otherwise born, what her real personality would have been like.
Thank you for that compact summary of Queen Mary. How very sad a life she led and an unfair one. I have to agree on her decision to take out her enemies King Henry was in a word, an ass, and the cause of a lot of unneeded suffering. It seems peace only came to her when she passed and no I do not agree she earned the brand of bloody Mary.
Since I actually pay attention to history she's never been bloody Mary to me. Anyone who has read any history at all recognizes that yes she was a disastrous Queen and yes she was desperately shaped by her her childhood and her father's Constance but she was not that type of tyrant she wasn't a bloodthirsty tyrant if she had been Elizabeth never would have survived why it's plot. But she was still a disaster as a queen.
I'm about a year late, but I will still give my opinion. I think her mistake was making it all personal. Once she was queen she used her power to do what she wanted and it at least seems she put the needs and concerns of her county second. I think that is one reason it was easy for people to take a more negative opinion of her.
If Henry had focussed on marrying Mary ( even as a Lady rather than Princess) he could have at least had a Grandson to make his heir. He was too vain and focussed on his own marriage beds.
Mary has been treated harsh by history and I am glad that you go into detail about her life and the things that must have been very traumatic to her. Everything she loved was ripped away from her. Her mother and governess were executed, she became a bastard, her father and first stepmother were horrible to her and her beloved faith was abolished in England. No wonder she held on to her believes and tried to make it 'right', some people think that turning back time will fix everything and that their problems will vanish. Also, she was a woman and as you pointed out, there was one example that trew England in chaos. The only other women who grabbed power were the wife of Edward II, Isabella of France and of course Margaret of Anjou, the first more than the latter. And both were (and are!) depiced as she-wolves.
Fantastic video Kat. Thank you. All history, especially famous figures, suffer from a need to reduce their description down to something short. Inevitably this condensing down is inaccurate in full but, indicative at least in part for they rarely come out of thin air. Had it not been for the execution of Archbishop Cranmer I wonder if she would have been so easily termed 'Bloody Mary', for here I think she showed her hand. She was after revenge and therefore can we believe her motivations for the other burnings were without this sort of motivation? I think the key to her reputation as 'Bloody Mary', as it has endured through the centuries and therefore cemented in our received history, was down to the incredible tenacity of Foxe to create his 'Acts and Monuments'. His work has made it impossible to ignore the executions on her directive in a way that can be for her father and sister, for it was public and accessible and indeed still is.
