tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55130345687561064152024-03-06T12:01:59.362-08:00Mary Tudor: Renaissance QueenSeries of random posts on the life and reign of the Queen Mary I, England's first anointed, and most notorious, queen regnant.little_miss_sunnydalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04834404563322701533noreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5513034568756106415.post-49512268529438175382011-12-29T13:53:00.000-08:002011-12-29T14:05:03.113-08:00New Work on the Wardrobe of Mary I<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_VuHPc_NmwHH0fBcTH2J20iw_3iIPUSfKr8k9R4j6GkPm3QF48KNmJsLTzs0gA2uF-VEBq3iayHsc_d2O0MosBDc8f96gJZ_Z4J2f-_iqAy76TUiyxY6xS-YHtQu-3nH1_rgDhgnryeDZ/s1600/5392287441_d01b23ec4e_o.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 317px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_VuHPc_NmwHH0fBcTH2J20iw_3iIPUSfKr8k9R4j6GkPm3QF48KNmJsLTzs0gA2uF-VEBq3iayHsc_d2O0MosBDc8f96gJZ_Z4J2f-_iqAy76TUiyxY6xS-YHtQu-3nH1_rgDhgnryeDZ/s320/5392287441_d01b23ec4e_o.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5691673345730150066" /></a><br /><br /><br />Over a year ago I posted a rather simplistic account of the fashion of Mary I. Very little had been done on this subject except Alison J. Carter’s ‘Mary Tudor’s Wardrobe of Robes: Documentary and Visual Evidence of Mary’s Dress Style as Princess, 1516-1553, and as Mary I, Queen of England’, MA thesis., (Coutauld Institute of Art, 1983). Now there is a new study and one available online. It’s Hilary Doda, ‘Of Crymsen Tissue: The Construction of a Queen. Identity, Legitimacy and the Wardrobe of Mary Tudor’, MA thesis, (Dalhousie University, 2011). According to the abstract:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote>‘Clothing, together with other bodily adornments, is a valuable tool for communicating loyalty, identity and status. The coded messages inherent in the interplay between garments, bodies and society play a fundamental role in political culture, and the early modern era was no exception. The example of Mary I of England and her wardrobe choices demonstrates precisely how useful this tool could be. Through examination of previously-unpublished warrants, information from Privy Purse records, contemporary accounts and portraiture, this thesis analyzes the contents of and changes in Mary I’s wardrobe through the course of her adult life. By examining what the queen wore and when, patterns emerge that correlate with important parts of her political strategies. The first queen regnant, Mary used her wardrobe as a vital tool in the construction of her identity and self-representation, and as a means of navigating through the political and domestic upheavals that threatened her authority.’ (p. ix)</blockquote><br /><br /><br />You read the work <a href="http://dalspace.library.dal.ca/bitstream/handle/10222/14360/Doda,%20Hilary,%20MA,%20HIST,%20Dec%202011.pdf?sequence=3">here</a>.<br /><br /><br />(<em>Image</em> - Design for a medallion with a representation of the Trinity by Hans Holbein the Younger, c.1532-43. Pen and black ink with green and red wash. Inscribed ‘TRINITATIS GLORIA SATIABIMUR’ (‘We will be filled with the glory of the Trinity’). The British Museum.<br /><br />The inclusion of marigolds may indicate that the item was intended for Princess Mary. The 1542 inventory of jewels belonging to Mary recorded that she possessed ‘a grene Tablett garneshed with golde havyng the Picture of the trinite in it’).little_miss_sunnydalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04834404563322701533noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5513034568756106415.post-12965106164319808412011-12-22T01:55:00.000-08:002011-12-22T02:35:03.812-08:00Review of Harry Kelsey's Philip of Spain, King of England: The Forgotten Sovereign (2011)Harry Kelsey, <em>Philip of Spain, King of England: The Forgotten Sovereign </em>(London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2011), 288pp. £18.99.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVwu4AtAGOAqAfBksNLrQy8r3xBbCb2XJf4uSU7KD7t_8kKVjkOJ7_U8QxOi0qO21JC6gGubscOR4vmr6Tiq2feEN0dT4NYFgKf4FpYgqgPFIdDDEakGdIBuzdITbedq1mwxL2cUqXBORa/s1600/kelsey+Philip+of+Spain.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 217px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVwu4AtAGOAqAfBksNLrQy8r3xBbCb2XJf4uSU7KD7t_8kKVjkOJ7_U8QxOi0qO21JC6gGubscOR4vmr6Tiq2feEN0dT4NYFgKf4FpYgqgPFIdDDEakGdIBuzdITbedq1mwxL2cUqXBORa/s320/kelsey+Philip+of+Spain.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5688892437876441490" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br />There have been several calls for a study of Philip of Spain’s time as King of England over recent years. This is hardly surprising. Present-day scholarship of Mary’s reign is continuously growing, drawing attention to remaining overlooked areas. Interest in queenship, especially during the Tudor period, has increased. Yet examinations of Mary’s status as England’s first crowned queen regnant can only progress so far without a comprehensive study of her consort. Research into the Marian Church is also somewhat affected by the lack of work on Philip. We have come to recognise the influence some within Philip’s retinue exerted. The decision to return to Rome under Mary was certainly not the policy of these men alone, nor were they chiefly responsible for the measures implemented by the queen and her government, but the case of Friar Bartolomé Carranza alone indicates the significant role some played.<strong>1</strong> An oversight of a more important figure – Mary’s own husband – is nonsensical. Finally, Philip was England’s first king-consort. Matilda in the twelfth-century and Jane Grey/Dudley in 1553 both were married at the time they made a bid for the throne but neither were crowned and Jane, acknowledged as queen at one point, never conferred upon her husband the title of ‘king’. Philip, on the other hand, married Mary around year after she became queen, was acknowledged as her lawful husband and thus king by all. Yet he was also refused a coronation, faced numerous limitations on his powers and had a complex relationship with his new subjects the English that continued long after Mary’s death. This is interesting stuff and should be examined in its own right.<br /><br /><br />So Philip Kelsey’s study, <em>Philip of Spain, King of England: The Forgotten Sovereign</em>, should be a welcomed addition to the numerous works already published on Mary’s reign. Anna Whitelock’s review on the dust-jacket promises the book to be ‘a timely attempt to place him [Philip] centre stage’. Sadly I was unable to agree.<br /><br /><br />This is not an in-depth study of Philip’s role as King of England. The book is 162 pages long (of main text) and though book-lengths aren’t everything this is clearly a rather fast-paced observation. Often the basics are covered with little attempt to divulge further. An example of this can be found in Kelsey’s account of Mary and Philip’s wedding. It amounts to just four pages and is concerned chiefly with providing a literal description, from who said what to who stood where. Kelsey does not elaborate upon the fact that contemporary accounts state Mary was placed on the right and Philip on the left during the service – a reversal of the typical positions for bride and groom – and that Mary sat on a larger throne. As Alexander Samson put it, ‘the positioning of Philip and Mary in the church was designed to underline Mary’s continuous precedence over Philip as English sovereign, even in the context of her marriage to him, by placing her in the space traditionally reserved for a king and Philip in that of a queen consort’.<strong>2</strong> Nonetheless there were similarities in their dress leading to the theory that ‘a kind of equality between them in terms of power’ was being suggesting here.<strong>3</strong> None of this is discussed by Kelsey. He does mention in a footnote that ‘the various descriptions of the ceremony differ considerably. I have relied largely on Figueroa, who wrote his report the next day, while events were fresh in his mind’ (fn 12, p. 188). But he does not discuss why such contradictions existed; why English chroniclers suggesting one thing, and Spanish observers claimed another.<br /><br /><br />Kelsey’s rather constrained examination of issues regarding female rule at that time is evident throughout this book. Of Mary’s speech at the Guildhall, London in 1554, he provides the rudiments, namely Mary’s arguments that prospective husband Philip would be able to defend England against its foreign enemies (pp. 68-9). What he does not mention is arguably the most famous aspect of the speech – when Mary referred to herself as ‘wedded to the realm’, with her coronation ring being her ‘spousal ring’ signifying the enduring bond between herself and the people. Mary’s own perceptions about her upcoming marriage and the impact it would have upon her powers and relationship with her subjects is overlooked. References to studies on queenship are thin on the ground. The only two of significance used are Glyn Redworth, ‘‘Matters Impertinent to Women’: Male and Female Monarchy under Philip and Mary’, <em>English Historical Review</em>, 112, 447 (1997), pp. 597-613 and Judith Richards, ‘Mary Tudor as ‘Sole Queen’? Gendering Tudor Monarchy’, <em>Historical Journal</em>, 40 (1997), pp. 895-924.<br /><br /><br />This leads to a major issue of the book. When exactly was it written? It was published only last month (November 2011), though reads as if it was completed around five or so years ago. The bibliography only confirms this. The most up-to-date studies I could find there were Eamon Duffy and David Loades (eds.), <em>The Church of Mary Tudor </em>(Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006) and Elizabeth Svoboda, ‘<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/health/05pseud.html">All the Signs of Pregnancy Except One: A Baby</a>’, New York Times, 5 December 2006 (an article concerning pseudocyesis – ‘phantom pregnancy’ – a condition that Mary may have experienced twice). If this was completed around, let’s say 2006-8, then Kelsey may be forgiven for his overlooking recent works. I acknowledge that the gap in writing to publication may be out of Kelsey’s hands but surely concerns were raised about the status of the book in the wake of a spate of works into Mary and her reign? And, if we accept it was written just past the mid-2000s this still doesn’t explain why Kelsey ignored several studies, some dating to the 1990s, that are of vital importance to any historian writing on Philip as King of England. I am thinking mainly here of the research of Alexander Samson. Samson’s PhD thesis, ‘The Marriage of Philip of Habsburg and Mary Tudor and Anti-Spanish Sentiment in England’ (University of London, 1999) is undoubtedly useful, especially Samson’s diligent consultation of both Spanish and English sources. If Kelsey had issues in obtaining the thesis, this does not excuse the oversight of Samson’s article, ‘Changing Places: the Marriage and Royal Entry of Philip, Prince of Austria, and Mary Tudor, July-August 1554’, <em>The Sixteenth Century Journal</em>, 36, 3 (2005), pp. 761-84. There was also no reference to David Loades’s work on ‘Philip II as King of England’, nor to a collection of articles on Friar Bartolomé Carranza’s role in the Marian Church which provides evidence of Spanish influence in the English church naturally initiated by Philip’s marriage to Mary.<strong>4 </strong> Why ignore research with obvious relevance to your own study?<br /><br /><br /><br />There were some other issues I had with particular details in the book. Apologises if this all sounds too pedantic...<br /><br /><br />Kelsey implies Mary was unused to government. After all, she had never been raised to be monarch; Henry VIII’s desire to produce a son and secure a male succession is well known. But Kelsey goes too far in asserting that Mary ‘was never allowed to participate in government or to learn the intricacies of court politics’ (p. 27). Mary may have not been granted political office during her father’s lifetime, but at a young age had been created as the <em>de facto </em>princess of Wales and made head of a vice-regal household sent to the Welsh Marches. Yes, Mary was young and not expected to govern independently, but the Crown was still to be represented through her person and Mary was to engage in a ceremonial and symbolic role. Ultimately it was a role, however confined that may be and, ironically, it was a greater experience in matters of government than her siblings received during their father’s lifetime. I also find it incredibly hard to assert that Mary was unused to the intricacies, and intrigues, of the court. An argument for Mary striving to keep in her father’s good graces unattached to any particular faction at court can be made for 1536 onwards, but the idea she was completely unused to the whole concept of court politics (which was in essence court life) makes little sense. Mary maintained a complex network of affiliates, with court reformers and conservatives alike, and was able to call upon the assistance of many of these individuals during her bid for the throne in July 1553. But simple, she was a witness and member of the Henrician court. She may have been barred from it during her years of disgrace (c.1533-6), but the 1540s was a different story. Kelsey even contradicts himself on this point. He later writes that ‘some historians now argue that Mary deliberately created much of her reputation as an ineffective ruler in order to achieve the goals she wanted, as well as to deflect attention from herself and blame others for the more intractable problems that plagued her government’ (p. 124). Admittedly I do not think this interesting argument is a credible one, but whether we wish to believe it or not it must be acknowledged that this strategy is highly calculating and impractical to carry though by someone unfamiliar to participation in government and ‘the intricacies of court politics’. Kelsey toys with the idea that Mary was astute and manipulative and in doing so makes her appear a far more impressive political player than he implies her education allowed her to be.<br /><br /><br />Kelsey notes that Henry VIII made the infant princess Elizabeth ‘Princess of Wales, reducing Mary to the status of lady-in-waiting’ (p. 29). Mary never occupied such a role; the imperial ambassador Eustace Chapuys gave raise to fears she would be made to be some servant to Elizabeth but this irrational accusation turned out to be false. Additionally Elizabeth was never officially created princess of Wales. Kelsey dates the third Act of Succession (that re-included Mary and Elizabeth into the line of succession) to 1543 when it was ratified in 1544 (p. 33). Philip’s fourth wife is named as his ‘cousin’ Anne of Austria, though she was his niece (p. 139). Kelsey mentions that Bishop Stephen Gardiner wanted Mary to marry an English candidate, including Cardinal Reginald Pole but this was not possible for by her accession Pole had received Holy Orders (p. 53). This seems highly unlikely. Gardiner’s support for Pole as archbishop of Canterbury at this time was begrudgingly given at best. Gardiner clearly favoured Edward Courtenay, earl of Devon as Mary’s prospective husband, not Pole. As one of Gardiner’s biographers put it, Gardiner was ultimately prepared to see Pole as the next archbishop for this ‘would have the added advantage of ensuring that he could not rival Courtenay as the indigenous candidate for Mary’s hand’.<strong>5</strong> On the issue of Philip’s status upon his marriage to Mary, Kelsey notes that Charles V gave his son the kingdom of Naples and dukedom of Milan as wedding gifts (p. 77). Yet in a separate footnote, Kelsey mentions that around the same time Philip asked a herald not to mention his status as duke of Milan for he had been given it back in the early 1540s so it was ‘old stuff’ (fn 15, p. 189). He also mentions earlier on that Charles had named Philip the duke back in 1546 (p. 27). An explanation of the rather complicated history surrounding Philip’s investiture as duke of Milan is not provided for the reader. Philip had been invested with the title in 1541 and 1546 though Charles had not relinquished control over the duchy. It was transferred again to Philip in 1554 at the time of his marriage, though it was a title he regarded as having been his for some years.<strong>6</strong> Finally, Kelsey mentions the possibility that Elizabeth I ‘suffered from Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome’, a condition whereby ‘a male child has the external features of a female but with shallow vagina and undeveloped ovaries’. Evidence for this, we are told, ‘is contradictory’ (p. 156). ‘Contradictory’ is too diplomatic a term; I would just go with ‘absurd’. <br /><br /><br /><br />So far I have dwelled on the negatives, and in truth I believe they overwhelm the qualities of the book. However I take to heart the advice that if you do not have anything nice to say (or write) then say nothing at all! This isn’t all bad. Kelsey’s writing style is good; the reader is not faced with numerous grammatical mistakes or my pet hate – a string of very short paragraphs. Though I have issues with what he references, he does reference frequently so there is no chasing around for sources. There is a good selection of manuscripts used though often Kelsey cites from nineteenth-century transcripts like the State Papers, Foreign and Domestic, etc series. Kelsey gives due consideration to Philip’s personality and upbringing, and his romantic escapades. He cannot be accused of being either blind to Philip’s faults or neglectful of his qualities as many previous historians have been. I was especially interested in Kelsey’s observation of previous treaties between England and Spain, namely the 1542 one which promised aid to in times of conflict. Kelsey shows how this was raised during Mary and Philip’s marriage when the Spanish sought assistance in their war with the French. It is often implied that England entered war with France, and subsequently lost Calais, through the Spanish marriage alone, but the precedent for assistance between the Habsburgs and Tudors is emphasised here (pp. 118 and 129). The book does include illustrations though they are not of exceptional quality and are predominantly much later (including nineteenth-century) images. The maps are useful, but Kelsey fails to incorporate the illustrations into the text. They standalone which some may find absolutely fine, but I think if pictures are included there should be some purpose to them and not used in a decorative-like manner.<br /><br /><br /><br />In 1570, some 12 years after Mary’s death, Philip claimed that he could give Pope Pius V ‘better information and advice on that kingdom [England], and on its affairs and people, than anyone else’.<strong>7</strong> Clearly Philip believed he had not come away from the whole experience empty handed. His relationship with the English was at best complex but he took his role as King of England seriously and, as the quote suggests, believed himself to be an authority on that realm. This book has not proved to be a definitive or substantial account of Philip’s time as King of England. It covers briefly his involvement in the Marian Church and his influence over the direction of foreign policy, but there is no discussion of his improvements of the English navy (which of course backed fired on him in the end!), nor on his interest in another part of Mary’s realm – Ireland. It also suffers from a lack of discussion of recent works. As a result it seems distinct from current scholarship, in sharp contrast with John Edwards’ excellent <em>Mary I: England’s Catholic Queen</em> (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2011), which paid due consideration to Philip’s role, used an array of Spanish sources and up-to-date studies. As a result I would recommend Edwards’ biography of Mary over this book when it comes to the issue of Philip’s time as king-consort. More needs to be done though on the Habsburg who became England’s king. Popular knowledge of Philip’s later and troublesome relationship with the English and former sister-in-law Elizabeth I is well known. It is time to shed more light on the origins of that relationship, which was not as fruitless as the events of the 1580s would have us believe.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong>1</strong> John Edwards and Ronald Truman (eds.), <em>Reforming Catholicism in the England of Mary Tudor: The Achievments of Friar Bartolomé Carranza</em> (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005).<br /><strong>2</strong> Alexander Samson, ‘Changing Places: The Marriage and Royal Entry of Philip, Prince of Austria, and Mary Tudor, July-August 1554’, <em>The Sixteenth Century Journal</em>, 36, 3 (2005), p. 763.<br /><strong>3</strong> Ibid, p. 765.<br /><strong>4</strong> David Loades, ‘Philip II as King of England’, in C. Cross, D. M. Loades and J. J. Scarisbrick (eds.), <em>Law and Government under the Tudors: Essays Presented to Geoffrey Elton</em> (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 177-94. For the articles on Carranza see fn 1. Kelsey also ignores John Edwards’ work on Spanish influence in Marian England including Edwards, ‘A Spanish Inquisition? The repression of Protestantism under Mary Tudor’, <em>Reformation and Renaissance Review</em>, iv (2000), pp. 62-74.<br /><strong>5</strong> Glyn Redworth, <em>In Defence of the Church Catholic: The life of Stephen Gardiner</em> (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990), pp. 306-7. We also have to consider that Pole had no intention to marry Mary in 1553 nor was she interested in him.<br /><strong>6</strong> M. J. Rodríguez-Salgado, <em>The Changing Face of Empire: Charles V, Philip II and Habsburg Authority, 1551-1559</em> (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp.103-6.<br /><strong>7</strong> Philip II to Don Guerau de Spes, 30 June 1570, cited from Geoffrey Parker, ‘The Place of Tudor England in the Messianic Vision of Philip II of Spain’, <em>Transactions of the Royal Historical Society</em>, 12 (2002), p. 185.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />And on a completely unrelated note - Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you all!little_miss_sunnydalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04834404563322701533noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5513034568756106415.post-86669096958071013052011-11-17T02:33:00.000-08:002011-11-17T02:44:00.376-08:0017 November 1558: The deaths of Mary I & Archbishop Pole<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8toejYMvh7HnYyAxK-Q3CI7YNwPlRBp3M406AAhk_BDj8f_g-PVQD_49CfdIxBG5iSEzCTPn2MtebhkOJ_tvQkX8bieS1i0iATzs9GCwfG6KTprXWmMHxjUMVskAxXgRad5lUr0TOCPg3/s1600/effigy+mary.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 234px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8toejYMvh7HnYyAxK-Q3CI7YNwPlRBp3M406AAhk_BDj8f_g-PVQD_49CfdIxBG5iSEzCTPn2MtebhkOJ_tvQkX8bieS1i0iATzs9GCwfG6KTprXWmMHxjUMVskAxXgRad5lUr0TOCPg3/s320/effigy+mary.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5675912340313590162" /></a><br /><blockquote>Funeral effigy of Mary I</blockquote><br /><br /><br />On this day in 1558 Queen Mary I died at St James's Palace. She was 42 years old and had reigned for little over five years. <br /><br /> <br /><br />Details of the deathbed scene were provided by John Foxe in the second edition (1570) of the famous <em>Actes and Monuments </em>('Book of Martyrs'). The 'great afflications fallyung vppon this Realme' under Mary, 'wherin so many mē, women, and children were burned, many imprisoned and in prisons starued, diuers exiled, some spoyled of goods and possessions, a great number driuen from house and home, so many weepyng eyes, so many sobbyng hartes, so many childrē made fatherles, so many fathers bereft of their wiues and children so many vexed in conscience' (you get the drift), came to an abrupt end in the winter of 1558,<br /><br /> <br /><br /><blockquote>'...after all this (I say) now we are come at length (the Lord be praysed) to the xvij. day of Nouember, day as it brought to the persecuted members of Christ, rest from their carefull mourning, so it easeth me somwhat likewise of my laborious writyng, by the death I meane of Queene Mary. Who beyng long sicke before, vpō the sayd xvij. day of Nouember, in the yeare aboue sayd, about iij. or iiij. a clocke in the mornyng, yelded her life to nature, and her kyngdome to Queene Elizabeth her sister.'<br /><br />[Foxe, <em>Actes and Monuments</em>, 1570 edn., Book 12, p. 2336].</blockquote><br /> <br /><br />Foxe recorded that 'some said that she dyed of a Tympany', a diagnosis that has proved enduring though seems to have lost favor in recent years. But he also speculated whether 'by her much sighing before her death, supposed she dyed of thought and sorow.'<br /><br /> <br /><br />What of the famous tale that the dying queen declared that when she was gone, and her body opened, the word 'Calais' would be found engraved upon her heart? Here too Foxe comes to the rescue; the story is first mentioned in the second edition of Actes and Monuments. Though it is a highly improbable claim it nonetheless perfectly sums up popular perceptions of Mary and her reign. For subsequent centuries Mary has been regarded as an incompetent ruler - one of England's worst - best remembered for her spectacular failings in government, the church and in war. The loss of Calais, England's last remaining territory in France, in early 1558 has frequently been selected as a good example of how utterly disastrous her reign was. So why not incorporate it somehow into her deathbed speech? Especially as such a loss was for many of Mary's opponents, not least Foxe, explicit evidence of divine disapproval of this queen and her religious policies.<br /><br /> <br /><blockquote>'Wherupon her Counsell seyng her sighing, and desirous to know the cause, to the end they might minister the more ready cōsolation vnto her, feared, as they sayd, that she tooke that thought for the kynges Maiestie her husband, which was gone from her. To whom she aunswering againe: In deede (sayd she) that may be one cause, but that is not the greatest woūd that pearceth my oppressed minde: but what that was she would not expresse to them. Albeit, afterward she opened the matter more playnely to M. Rise and Mistres Clarentius (if it be true that they told me, which heard it of M. Ryse him selfe) who then beyng most familiar with her, and most bolde about her, tolde her that they feared she tooke thought for king Philips departing frō her. Not that onely (sayd she) but when I am dead & opened, you shall find Calyce lying in my hart....'<br /><br />[Foxe, <em>Actes and Monuments</em>, 1570 edn., Book 12, p. 2336-7].</blockquote><br /> <br /><br /><br />Foxe and co had another cause of celebration. Christmas came early for the Protestants as Archbishop Reginald Pole died that same day. In a matter of hours England lost its last Catholic monarch who governed an England united with Rome (unlike James II) and its last Catholic archbishop of Canterbury. It would be complete wrong of me not to make some mention of the death of one of the most brilliant, albeit controversial and divisive, churchmen of the sixteenth-century, if not the early modern period.<br /><br /> <br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWTenb4DK3Sdjn9wQ-3NnmL05JH1NZ1Z79hVgjj_P3I-6fPc2H16OA8KwLT2sFmxKPuGIanaiejNsKbknMe_QPVPz2lFDkaeGlRWSHrQ0TSPG0plecz0YlNc4MXCeVS0vT0czdVmwk-QG4/s1600/reginald+pole.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 239px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWTenb4DK3Sdjn9wQ-3NnmL05JH1NZ1Z79hVgjj_P3I-6fPc2H16OA8KwLT2sFmxKPuGIanaiejNsKbknMe_QPVPz2lFDkaeGlRWSHrQ0TSPG0plecz0YlNc4MXCeVS0vT0czdVmwk-QG4/s320/reginald+pole.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5675913110920945106" /></a><br /><br /><blockquote>Reginald Pole by unknown artist, c.1550? Lambeth Palace, London.</blockquote><br /><br /><br />Like Mary, Pole had been suffering ill health since the late summer of 1558. Though Foxe claims Mary died sometime between 3-4am, we know from Alvise Priuli, Pole's close confidante who was with him to the end, that she 'died at 7 after midnight on 17th' [around 7am]. So she passed away before Pole who died at 7pm. News of the queen's death reached him though initially his attendants thought it best to keep the news secret lest it quicken his demise. As Priuli wrote to his brother on 27 November, someone went 'against this order' and all was revealed.[1] Naturally Pole was 'very worried about results of her death', but was nonetheless preoccupied with his own impending end.[2] With the support of attendants, Pole left his bed and bowed his head almost to the floor where he engaged in prayers.[3] He died a few hours later.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Three days before he died Pole wrote to Princess Elizabeth declaring that he thought it best 'to leave all persons satisfied of me especially you, thanks to God's providence' before making a futile plea for his chaplain to converse privately with her on religious matters.[4] For Elizabeth, the deaths of the Catholic sister and archbishop of Canterbury in rapid succession was a godsend. When the coup to place Jane Grey on the throne failed in July 1553 Mary was quick to declare God's hand in her succession. Like her namesake she was favored; God had established her on the throne so she may oversee the restoration of true religion. It was now Elizabeth's, and the Protestants', time to rejoice in the mercy of the Lord. Thus the new young queen when informed of her succession is supposed to have declared 'A Dominum factum est illud, et est mirabile in oculis nostris'. It is this the lord's doing and it is marvelous in our eyes.<br /><br /> <br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /> <br /><br />2008 marked the 450th anniversaries of the deaths of Mary and Pole. Mary's demise went largely unmarked; Pole's ecclesiastical position appears to have secured him some recognition. For an example of this see the Requiem Mass 'offered for the repose of the soul of Reginald Cardinal Pole' held in the chapel of Magdalen College, Oxford (Pole's own college), in 2008:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/paullew/sets/72157609310417557/with/3038728057/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/paullew/sets/72157609310417557/with/3038728057/</a><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />[1] Priuli's letter to his brother Antonio, 27 November 1558. Thomas F. Mayer (ed.), <em>The Correspondence of Reginald Pole: Volume 3. A Calendar, 1555-1558: Restoring the English Church</em> (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004).<br /><br />[2] Ibid.<br /><br />[3] Priuli's letter to the archbishop of Toledo, aft. 15 December 1558. Ibid, pp. 588-90.<br /><br />[4] Pole's letter to Princess Elizabeth, written from Lambeth, 14 November 1558. Ibid, p. 579.little_miss_sunnydalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04834404563322701533noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5513034568756106415.post-64740677702506893702011-10-01T00:06:00.000-07:002011-10-01T00:22:28.082-07:0010 facts about Mary I’s coronationRejoice! On this day in 1553 Mary I became England’s first crowned queen regnant with her coronation in Westminster Abbey. Here are ten facts about this momentous occasion, not just for Mary, but for contemporaries who were evidently amazed at the sight of a woman being crowned as monarch. <br /><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIyDkZFcjywiX-jYxsr5I9r6FDGBz_A38BygXZhBkxU9KDhJvHKxzLJbOCjh3oxwNuZWiuL9ZSC2hVmOTm9_waoBdVXyXYD2RLnl6hn6eYnf-uDSOQk5J3nqFKr-0acUeesOmDy3kUBkmg/s1600/crownedmary.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 318px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIyDkZFcjywiX-jYxsr5I9r6FDGBz_A38BygXZhBkxU9KDhJvHKxzLJbOCjh3oxwNuZWiuL9ZSC2hVmOTm9_waoBdVXyXYD2RLnl6hn6eYnf-uDSOQk5J3nqFKr-0acUeesOmDy3kUBkmg/s320/crownedmary.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5658419341400641138" /></a><br /><br /><br />1. Mary did not wish to be anointed with the holy oils consecrated by Edwardian ministers – men whose views she deemed as heretical. So she had the bishop of Arras in Brussels send ‘untainted’ oils. The bishop sent three lots though apologised about the rather plain vessels encasing them. Had I longer than three weeks to send them I would have commissioned some nicer cases, he told the Imperial ambassador Simon Renard.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoD1F3lCmVGsIK_-5nJl3ezWF1dewsTOdKQuwCtb0vodWs2IT_KViQuPnmna5P6h3nIYrU3aH5bRnfc4toGdVmZE0jqHiMdJMz6UHqcNxTg7rxrUmodvYI8LNUqbtnvpRsFSyejsaZmOa_/s1600/roll+-+Copy.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 221px; height: 143px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoD1F3lCmVGsIK_-5nJl3ezWF1dewsTOdKQuwCtb0vodWs2IT_KViQuPnmna5P6h3nIYrU3aH5bRnfc4toGdVmZE0jqHiMdJMz6UHqcNxTg7rxrUmodvYI8LNUqbtnvpRsFSyejsaZmOa_/s320/roll+-+Copy.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5658419531978596562" /></a><br /><br />2. The archbishop of Canterbury did not preside over the coronation ceremony, as was customary. Instead Stephen Gardiner, bishop of Winchester took lead. The reason? The current archbishop was her loathed enemy, Thomas Cranmer, then imprisoned in the Tower. Ally Gardiner was a safer bet.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoD1F3lCmVGsIK_-5nJl3ezWF1dewsTOdKQuwCtb0vodWs2IT_KViQuPnmna5P6h3nIYrU3aH5bRnfc4toGdVmZE0jqHiMdJMz6UHqcNxTg7rxrUmodvYI8LNUqbtnvpRsFSyejsaZmOa_/s1600/roll+-+Copy.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 221px; height: 143px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoD1F3lCmVGsIK_-5nJl3ezWF1dewsTOdKQuwCtb0vodWs2IT_KViQuPnmna5P6h3nIYrU3aH5bRnfc4toGdVmZE0jqHiMdJMz6UHqcNxTg7rxrUmodvYI8LNUqbtnvpRsFSyejsaZmOa_/s320/roll+-+Copy.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5658419531978596562" /></a><br /><br />3. Mary’s coronation was naturally unique given she was first woman crowned as monarch in her own right. So during the ceremony she held, as Gianfrancesco Commendone records, ‘<em>in her hands two Sceptres; the one of the King, the other bearing a dove which, by custom, is given to the Queen </em>[queen consorts]’. It would have been the same dove-topped sceptre her mother, Katherine of Aragon, held during her coronation alongside husband Henry VIII in 1509.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoD1F3lCmVGsIK_-5nJl3ezWF1dewsTOdKQuwCtb0vodWs2IT_KViQuPnmna5P6h3nIYrU3aH5bRnfc4toGdVmZE0jqHiMdJMz6UHqcNxTg7rxrUmodvYI8LNUqbtnvpRsFSyejsaZmOa_/s1600/roll+-+Copy.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 221px; height: 143px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoD1F3lCmVGsIK_-5nJl3ezWF1dewsTOdKQuwCtb0vodWs2IT_KViQuPnmna5P6h3nIYrU3aH5bRnfc4toGdVmZE0jqHiMdJMz6UHqcNxTg7rxrUmodvYI8LNUqbtnvpRsFSyejsaZmOa_/s320/roll+-+Copy.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5658419531978596562" /></a><br /><br />4. Mary’s crown was carried in the abbey by the aged Thomas Howard, 3rd duke of Norfolk (who had recently been released from the Tower). His steward was his grandson and heir, Thomas. The duke’s estranged wife, Elizabeth, helped carry the train of Mary’s magnificent coronation robes.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoD1F3lCmVGsIK_-5nJl3ezWF1dewsTOdKQuwCtb0vodWs2IT_KViQuPnmna5P6h3nIYrU3aH5bRnfc4toGdVmZE0jqHiMdJMz6UHqcNxTg7rxrUmodvYI8LNUqbtnvpRsFSyejsaZmOa_/s1600/roll+-+Copy.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 221px; height: 143px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoD1F3lCmVGsIK_-5nJl3ezWF1dewsTOdKQuwCtb0vodWs2IT_KViQuPnmna5P6h3nIYrU3aH5bRnfc4toGdVmZE0jqHiMdJMz6UHqcNxTg7rxrUmodvYI8LNUqbtnvpRsFSyejsaZmOa_/s320/roll+-+Copy.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5658419531978596562" /></a><br /><br />5. Mary progressed to the abbey under a ‘<em>rich canapye of Bawdkyn</em>’ carried ‘<em>by the barouns of the v ports</em>’ (i.e. the Barons of the Cinque Ports). This was completely in line with tradition and was identical to the one used in her father’s coronation in 1509. <br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoD1F3lCmVGsIK_-5nJl3ezWF1dewsTOdKQuwCtb0vodWs2IT_KViQuPnmna5P6h3nIYrU3aH5bRnfc4toGdVmZE0jqHiMdJMz6UHqcNxTg7rxrUmodvYI8LNUqbtnvpRsFSyejsaZmOa_/s1600/roll+-+Copy.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 221px; height: 143px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoD1F3lCmVGsIK_-5nJl3ezWF1dewsTOdKQuwCtb0vodWs2IT_KViQuPnmna5P6h3nIYrU3aH5bRnfc4toGdVmZE0jqHiMdJMz6UHqcNxTg7rxrUmodvYI8LNUqbtnvpRsFSyejsaZmOa_/s320/roll+-+Copy.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5658419531978596562" /></a><br /><br />6. In order to ensure the entire congregation could witness Mary’s crowning, a platform was erected within the abbey. It was twenty steps high, and Mary had to ascend a further ten steps to get to the throne situated on its own dais.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoD1F3lCmVGsIK_-5nJl3ezWF1dewsTOdKQuwCtb0vodWs2IT_KViQuPnmna5P6h3nIYrU3aH5bRnfc4toGdVmZE0jqHiMdJMz6UHqcNxTg7rxrUmodvYI8LNUqbtnvpRsFSyejsaZmOa_/s1600/roll+-+Copy.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 221px; height: 143px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoD1F3lCmVGsIK_-5nJl3ezWF1dewsTOdKQuwCtb0vodWs2IT_KViQuPnmna5P6h3nIYrU3aH5bRnfc4toGdVmZE0jqHiMdJMz6UHqcNxTg7rxrUmodvYI8LNUqbtnvpRsFSyejsaZmOa_/s320/roll+-+Copy.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5658419531978596562" /></a><br /><br />7. To the abbey Mary wore ‘<em>her parlement robes of crymsyn veluit</em>’ (as traditional) which covered her ‘<em>gown of blew velvett</em>’. During the ceremony she changed and wore a ‘<em>mayntell of Crymsyn velvit bordered with Ermyn with buttons and tasiles of sylke and golde</em>’.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoD1F3lCmVGsIK_-5nJl3ezWF1dewsTOdKQuwCtb0vodWs2IT_KViQuPnmna5P6h3nIYrU3aH5bRnfc4toGdVmZE0jqHiMdJMz6UHqcNxTg7rxrUmodvYI8LNUqbtnvpRsFSyejsaZmOa_/s1600/roll+-+Copy.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 221px; height: 143px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoD1F3lCmVGsIK_-5nJl3ezWF1dewsTOdKQuwCtb0vodWs2IT_KViQuPnmna5P6h3nIYrU3aH5bRnfc4toGdVmZE0jqHiMdJMz6UHqcNxTg7rxrUmodvYI8LNUqbtnvpRsFSyejsaZmOa_/s320/roll+-+Copy.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5658419531978596562" /></a><br /><br />8. Mary was the second (not the first as sometimes stated) English monarch to be crowned with three crowns. They included St Edward the Confessor’s crown, the imperial crown commissioned by Henry VIII, and a crown ‘<em>purposlie made for her grace</em>’. The first monarch crowned in such a manner was her predecessor, and brother, Edward VI.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoD1F3lCmVGsIK_-5nJl3ezWF1dewsTOdKQuwCtb0vodWs2IT_KViQuPnmna5P6h3nIYrU3aH5bRnfc4toGdVmZE0jqHiMdJMz6UHqcNxTg7rxrUmodvYI8LNUqbtnvpRsFSyejsaZmOa_/s1600/roll+-+Copy.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 221px; height: 143px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoD1F3lCmVGsIK_-5nJl3ezWF1dewsTOdKQuwCtb0vodWs2IT_KViQuPnmna5P6h3nIYrU3aH5bRnfc4toGdVmZE0jqHiMdJMz6UHqcNxTg7rxrUmodvYI8LNUqbtnvpRsFSyejsaZmOa_/s320/roll+-+Copy.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5658419531978596562" /></a><br /><br />9. The queen’s champion – the man whose task it was to boldly announce he would fight any man who refused to recognise Mary as the sovereign– was Sir Edmund Dymoke. He appeared during the coronation banquet on horseback dressed in full armour and flung down his gauntlet daring anyone to accept the challenge. In gratitude Mary gave him her gold drinking cup filled with wine. <br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoD1F3lCmVGsIK_-5nJl3ezWF1dewsTOdKQuwCtb0vodWs2IT_KViQuPnmna5P6h3nIYrU3aH5bRnfc4toGdVmZE0jqHiMdJMz6UHqcNxTg7rxrUmodvYI8LNUqbtnvpRsFSyejsaZmOa_/s1600/roll+-+Copy.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 221px; height: 143px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoD1F3lCmVGsIK_-5nJl3ezWF1dewsTOdKQuwCtb0vodWs2IT_KViQuPnmna5P6h3nIYrU3aH5bRnfc4toGdVmZE0jqHiMdJMz6UHqcNxTg7rxrUmodvYI8LNUqbtnvpRsFSyejsaZmOa_/s320/roll+-+Copy.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5658419531978596562" /></a><br /><br />10. 7,112 dishes were served at Mary’s coronation banquet. The lady herself was served over 312 dishes. Of these numerous dishes around 4,900 were listed in records as ‘<em>waste</em>’. <br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br />But before you shake your head at such excess and greed, it seems the remaining dishes were distributed to Londoners. And Londoners appreciated the freebies. There was a desperate scramble for the food (as there was for the bits of carpet Mary walked on and the rails constructed to keep the crowd in line). The kitchens were soon emptied. But not just of food. The celebratory mood caught fire and soon even bits of furniture were ripped from the kitchens. Such vandalising and looting in London! Thank goodness we live in more civilised times...<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoD1F3lCmVGsIK_-5nJl3ezWF1dewsTOdKQuwCtb0vodWs2IT_KViQuPnmna5P6h3nIYrU3aH5bRnfc4toGdVmZE0jqHiMdJMz6UHqcNxTg7rxrUmodvYI8LNUqbtnvpRsFSyejsaZmOa_/s1600/roll+-+Copy.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 221px; height: 143px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoD1F3lCmVGsIK_-5nJl3ezWF1dewsTOdKQuwCtb0vodWs2IT_KViQuPnmna5P6h3nIYrU3aH5bRnfc4toGdVmZE0jqHiMdJMz6UHqcNxTg7rxrUmodvYI8LNUqbtnvpRsFSyejsaZmOa_/s320/roll+-+Copy.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5658419531978596562" /></a><br /><br /><br />For more on the coronation see,<br /><br />John Edwards, <em>Mary I: England’s Catholic Queen </em>(London and New Haven, Yale University Press, 2011), pp. 123-34.<br /><br />Alice Hunt, ‘’What art thou, thou idol ceremony?’: Tudor coronations and literary representations, 1509-1559’, PhD thesis, Birbeck, University of London, 2005.<br /><br />Alexander Samson, ‘The marriage of Philip of Habsburg and Mary Tudor and anti-Spanish sentiment in England: political economies and culture 1553-1557’, PhD thesis, Queen Mary, University of London, 1999), pp. 54-67.little_miss_sunnydalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04834404563322701533noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5513034568756106415.post-10047750945850322242011-09-07T08:40:00.000-07:002011-09-07T08:50:27.239-07:00Review of John Edwards, Mary I: England’s Catholic Queen (2011)Last week’s holiday provided me with the perfect chance to read the latest biography of Mary. Perhaps not ideal beside-the-pool reading, but I wasn’t disappointed...<br /><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgu-kxntYaUdxsKwS9Aytq0Nz0d0SYundZbU-7wAAxRjUmTWeUtECAblS6N4gRRmiV5BlhNQrDnu7TkcjQjs-9loN2jffRWCF4TQlPG6H7JlmpLSG0jHxf1lB707HjQeLMyKFHDSvlDSeDy/s1600/Edward%252CMaryI.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 214px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgu-kxntYaUdxsKwS9Aytq0Nz0d0SYundZbU-7wAAxRjUmTWeUtECAblS6N4gRRmiV5BlhNQrDnu7TkcjQjs-9loN2jffRWCF4TQlPG6H7JlmpLSG0jHxf1lB707HjQeLMyKFHDSvlDSeDy/s320/Edward%252CMaryI.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5649643488596203602" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br />John Edwards, <em>Mary I: England’s Catholic Queen </em>(New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2011), 387pp. £25.<br /><br /><br /><br />Works on Mary I and her reign do not reach the number of studies on her father and half-sister. Still, she is the subject of a fair number of biographies. Compare this to biographies of Henry VIII; Scarisbrick’s <em>Henry VIII</em>, first published in 1968, still remains the leading account of this monarch’s life. Mary, on the other hand, has at least five biographies to her name published since 2006 (not counting reprints), all of which are readily available in mainstream book shops. This includes the latest offering, by John Edwards, which has already been heralded as ‘the first time we have a proper account of her with a fully European-wide perspective’ (Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch) and ‘the best scholarly biography of Mary I’ (Professor Ethan Shagan). And such comments are not far off the mark.<br /><br /><br />John Edwards’ book forms part of the Yale English Monarchs Series which already includes separate biographies of the Tudor kings. The works, or at least the ones I have read, act as introductory texts yet are also incredibly valuable to those rather clued up on the various figures. Having read nearly all the biographies of Mary published in modern times, it is easy to get – dare I say this? – slightly bored of reading lengthy discussions on Mary’s parental and maternal ancestry at the beginning of each biography along with a very detailed account of Katherine of Aragon’s time in England before her daughter’s birth, her marriage to Prince Arthur, then to Henry VIII, the accompanying treaties, etc. Edwards is particularly skilled in providing the reader with the necessary details, naturally of great benefit to those new to Tudor history, whilst not diverting from his subject. It is a very subtle way of dealing with the always essential but sometimes burdensome context. <br /><br /><br />It’s best to start with the positives of this book and there are many. Undoubtedly this biography is the most important one of Mary in regards to her marriage, her husband’s role as King of England, and Anglo-Spanish relations in general throughout the course of Mary’s lifetime. Edwards is a Modern Languages Faculty Research Fellow in Spanish at Oxford University and specialises in Early Modern Spain. He has already written a joint biography on Mary’s maternal grandparents, Ferdinand and Isabella, along with a separate one on Isabella. He is an authority on the Spanish Inquisition and Spanish religious influence in mid-Tudor England. His knowledge of Spanish sources of this period shines through this book. Not only has he exhausted Spanish archives for primary sources (some of which are not used in other works on Mary) but he is mindful of secondary Spanish sources. I was impressed (and jealous) that he got hold of María Jesús Pérez Martín’s <em>María Tudor: La gran reina desconocida</em> (Madrid: Ediciones Rialp, 2008) which clearly helped guide him to certain primarily materials in Spain. The result of such wide-ranging research, unconfined to the libraries and archives in the UK, is a marvellous account of Mary’s relationship with her Habsburg relations. Or, as Diarmaid MacCulloch nicely put it, Mary as ‘a Trastamara princess as well as a Tudor’.<br /><br /><br />There is ample information on Mary’s marriage to Philip of Spain, namely the complicated route to the union, Philip’s attitudes to becoming King of England, and of the grand plans Philip’s father Charles V had for his dynasty. The personalities of these Spanish figures and their relationships with one another are discussed in more detail than I have seen elsewhere in works on Mary. I’ll give you an example of this – Edwards points out that by the early 1550s Philip and Charles’ relationship was suffering somewhat, that Philip, understandable for his age, wished for more independence, and his plans for this often put him at odds with his father. We are also told that Philip, who wished to marry Maria of Portugal by the time Mary became queen came to understand his father’s desire for him to marry the new queen of England and instead of assenting to his <em>father’s plans </em>he decided not to lose face by turning the situation around and announcing to Charles that he had decided to break off marriage talks with Portugal through his own initiative (p. 147). It feels as if a battle of wills was in effect here, with Mary’s marriage being the policy of several characters – Mary, Charles, Philip – all of whom liked to think they were in control of the entire affair. A very insightful and personal account of the road to Mary’s marriage.<br /><br /><br />Edwards’ discussion of Philip’s own role as Mary’s consort is superb. Philip’s own anger at the terms of the marriage treaty, his involvement in English affairs, his recognition of the implications the Habsburg conflict with France had on England, and his admiration and later frustration with the English is laid out well. Alongside this is plenty of analysis of how Philip’s Spanish attendants regarded Mary’s realm. We are reminded of how highly the Spanish regarded English history and myth (Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table especially). Philip was also committed to such tales and ‘fully shared the popular taste of western Europeans for the romances of chivalry’ (p. 185). Upon marrying Mary ‘he seems to have slipped immediately and naturally into the chivalric role’ that the monarchs, male always before Mary, were expected to adopt (p. 210). This leads to some interesting questions about the negotiation of roles between Mary and Philip as well as how Mary was able to maintain her authority and declare her powers as queen regnant to be equally to that of a king’s, yet recognise that certain aspects of rule had been appropriated by her male counterparts. The sense I got from Edwards’ work is that Mary and Philip were a productive partnership with Mary perceiving her husband to be useful in carrying out the tasks denied to her sex (whether it was associated with chivalric orders and their rituals or, more pressingly, the matter of the battlefield). That is not say Edwards ignores the blatant conflicts that the marriage caused, including Philip’s own exasperation at the marriage treaty that placed great restrictions on his involvement in English affairs. Edwards also believes there was a sense of a culture clash that led to confusion and outright hostility between the Spanish visitors and the English. Occasionally he provides some amusing antidotes to highlight the problems in Anglo-Spanish relations. When, for example, the high-ranking Spanish noblewomen, the duchess of Alba, was greeted in Southampton alongside the recently arrived Philip, the earl of Derby attempted to welcome her in the English custom by kissing her on the lips (p. 185). Such was not the practice in Spain and it led to an awkward moment where the lady stiffened before politely accepting such informal English etiquette. <br /><br /><br />As already noted, Edwards has written about the Spanish Inquisition and Spanish religious influence in Marian England. These themes are further explored in this book. The reader is provided with an excellent overview of the legacy of heresy trials in England by the time of Mary’s reign, along with an understanding of contemporary attitudes towards heresy on the continent (especially pp. 254-8). Like several recent historians, including Thomas Freeman, Edwards does not seek to ignore Mary’s own support for the infamous heresy trials. His work is also in line with the arguments of the late William Wizeman in seeking to perceive the religious policies of Mary’s reign as part of the so called Counter Reformation in Europe. Mary’s church was not a standalone example to be examined as such but part of the wider Catholic Church influenced deeply by European churchmen including the many that formed part of Philip’s entourage. This in essence is the argument of Edwards’ book. Mary’s reign should not be examined merely in context with events that occurred in England beforehand, including Henry VIII’s break from Rome in the 1530s and even the Tudors whole establishment on the throne in 1485. The actions of previous Tudor monarchs especially in regards to the church are certainly important but a deeper understanding of the European political stage, papal affairs throughout these years, and the role European religious and political thinkers had in Mary’s England is imperative in our understanding of the first Tudor queen’s reign. <br /><br /><br /><br />That being said there were some aspects I had issues with.<br /><br /><br /><br />When discussing Mary’s decision to conform to her father Henry VIII’s demands in 1536 – to recognise her father as head of the church, his marriage to her mother Katherine as unlawful and thus herself as illegitimate – Edwards argues that Mary’s ‘emotional prop in the succeeding years’ was the pope and not her cousin Charles V (p. 50). But he fails to provide sufficient evidence to show such a connection between Mary and the pope. We are told that Paul III allowed Mary’s confessors to absolve her in secret (Edwards seems to be relying upon ambassador Chapuys’s letters for this though it should be noted that Chapuys was inconsistent in his claims that a) Mary was concerned about seeking papal approval for her actions and b) that the papacy was that directly involved). Edwards then fails to discuss the papacy much in the following pages. When he refers to the pope does he specifically mean Paul III? If so there really is little evidence in this book that Paul III was ever an ‘emotional prop’ for Mary. Paul III may have (allegedly) allowed Mary that one concession but, as Edwards also mentions, he ‘would not give her licence to renounce secretly her submission to her father, and hence continue to be regarded as a Catholic in the eyes of the Church’ (p.50). He even credits this unfavourable decision as adding to Mary’s turmoil over the rejection of her faith (p.52). Some emotional prop.<br /><br /><br />On the same issue, Edwards also appears to contradict himself about Mary’s religious views from c.1536-47 and her attitude towards her submission. Clearly he regards the submission as disingenuous and stresses that Mary wished for the pope to absolve her in secret so she could be a practising Nicodemite. He mentions this, for example, on p. 68. On the bottom of the same page he goes on to state that ‘it is particularly important to note that Mary seems at this time to have accepted the state and nature of the Church as Henry left it’ (pp. 68-9). What he is referring to here is the conservative nature of many aspects of Henrician doctrine which suited both Henry VIII and Mary. I entirely agree with Edwards on this point, and it is an argument that Judith Richards promoted with great effect in her book <em>Mary Tudor</em>. But Edwards’ recognition that Mary could worship in her father’s church and was accepting of the nature of it does conflict with his previous arguments that its state was so unpleasant to her – in danger, she believed, of threatening her soul – that she sought papal approval and was distraught at the problems she encountered in this. His repeated comparison between Mary and Nicodemus is not a neat one. Mary’s own religious approach was much more complex as was her attitude to papal authority. It would certainly have helped had Edwards mentioned Richards’ work and tackled it head on, and/or discussed more of the nature of Henry VIII’s church. <br /><br /><br />Then there are the errors. I’m rather forgiving of the odd slip-up because I’m certainly prone to them (and not just the odd one!). But Edwards has the misfortune of repeating some of these mistakes. On at least two occasions he states that Margaret Tudor, sister of Henry VIII and Mary’s aunt, was the mother of Mary, Queen of Scots (p. 63, p. 76). Remarkable given Margaret had died the year before <em>granddaughter</em> Mary of Scotland’s birth. What makes this mistake even sillier is that earlier he correctly identified the Scottish queen’s mother as Marie de Guise and later on talks about Marie’s role as regent. Edwards also states that Edward Courtenay, earl of Devon was Cardinal Reginald Pole’s nephew (p. 149). He was not. Edwards names Mary’s sister-in-law, the widowed duchess of Richmond, as ‘Elizabeth Howard’ though she was another Mary (p. 102).At one point Edwards refers to a letter by Jane Grey ‘apparently written to Mary’ (pp. 115-6), which was actually a conversation Jane had with an individual in the Tower recorded by one ‘Lea’ (probably Richard Lea, a London goldsmith). The text in question is discussed well in Eric Ives, <em>Lady Jane Grey: A Tudor Mystery</em>. (Thanks to the <a href="http://twitter.com/#!/Ladyjanegreyref">Lady Jane Grey Reference Guide </a>for pointing that error out to me.) <br /><br /><br /><br />The book jacket declares the biography to be ‘original and deeply researched’, offering ‘fresh understandings of her religious faith and policies, as well as her historical significance in England and beyond’. It succeeds in this and it is certainly a biography that should be consulted by any Mary/Tudor scholar. Those looking for a biography that merely discusses Mary’s personal history – who wish for another presentation of what Edwards’s brilliantly calls the ‘‘little woman’ approach’ to Mary (p. 105), that dwells on her ‘tragedies’ and purports an image of her as a domesticated queen denying her of any acumen and unable of governing decisively – will be disappointed. But it is his refusal to support such an image that attracts me to this book. It manages to cover a wide range of themes, contains an excellent bibliography and regular footnoting (though I felt at times Edward could have referenced more). The seventeen illustrations, though in black and white, have very detailed labels. The Mary that emerges from this book is a queen convinced that God favoured ‘and done great things for her, by bringing her to both throne and marriage’ (p. 347). It was such ideas that encouraged Mary’s steadfastness and determination, not always wisely pursued but nonetheless apparent and sometimes courageous. But it is not admiration of Mary that Edwards seems to seek. It is the recognition that she was monarch with achievements, long since ‘undermined and attacked’ but nonetheless present and necessary to appraise. He is neither the first nor the last historian to recognise the successes of Mary’s reign and to defend her ability to govern. But he is one of the first to have taken her role as a Habsburg wife very seriously.little_miss_sunnydalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04834404563322701533noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5513034568756106415.post-45126979281470342542011-08-21T15:09:00.000-07:002011-08-22T02:23:28.493-07:00A Mother and Husband to the Realm? How Mary’s Speech as Queen Helped Elizabeth I<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9GB2nPq2WMoKScO0VMv4Qy-LCQCIctTwjLpd7vWILlJ1m5O1kFYi3tZQx0yUps5iwMyI1oQUDltp7yV-xCbTwXLwV8I0t_Q7QruN196o11KCBZT0HFHRT9m2YjxVewMKD-JQOqYxn7-Rz/s1600/IMG_0004.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 276px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9GB2nPq2WMoKScO0VMv4Qy-LCQCIctTwjLpd7vWILlJ1m5O1kFYi3tZQx0yUps5iwMyI1oQUDltp7yV-xCbTwXLwV8I0t_Q7QruN196o11KCBZT0HFHRT9m2YjxVewMKD-JQOqYxn7-Rz/s320/IMG_0004.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5643435428355116994" /></a>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Yesterday I came across an article by Cristy Beemer published only a month ago on ‘The Female Monarchy: Rhetorical Strategy of Early Modern Rule’ (<em>Rhetoric Review</em>, 30, 8, pp. 258-74). The article explores the manner in which Mary and Elizabeth, England’s first queen regnants, presented themselves to a kingdom accustomed only to male rulers. Beemer identified Mary and Elizabeth’s tendencies to employ ‘the figures of the spouse, the mother, and the maiden to embody conventional roles for women in Tudor society’ (p. 259) though naturally these two occupied very remarkable roles for women of that age. Unlike other ‘mothers’ and ‘maidens’ they were not answerable to a male figure. Like their fellow Tudor monarchs, they expected to be recognised as the superior authority in the realm. Their bodies, Beemer argues, naturally invoked traditional gendered roles but at the same time their speech denied such roles. In other words, Mary and Elizabeth did not adopt submissive language but rather formulated speech that demonstrated their authority, their independence as rulers – their right to govern as powerfully and freely as their male predecessors.
<br />
<br />
<br />But it is Beemer’s specific focus on Mary’s speech that I wanted to draw attention to. Like several recent historians, namely Judith Richards, Beemer argues that Elizabeth had a lot to thank her sister for as Mary of course governed first, challenged preconceived notions of female rule first, tested the waters so to speak, and made mistakes which proved equally valuable for Elizabeth. It is Mary’s speech before the Guildhall in 1554 that Beemer focuses on specifically. In 1554 the rebels of Wyatt’s uprising (primarily a protest against Mary’s prospective marriage to Philip of Spain) marched towards the city of London and the authorities were anxious that they would receive a warm reception once they got there or at least could not be held outside the city. Mary, who was advised to leave the capital, decided to stay and give a rousing speech at the Guildhall, which won her acclaim and plenty of support. During the speech, Mary declared that she was,
<br />
<br /> ‘...wedded to the realm and laws of the same (the spousal ring whereof I have on my finger, which never hitherto was, nor hereafter shall be left off), you promised allegiance and obedience to me’ (p. 263).
<br />
<br />
<br />Beemer points out that Mary very deliberately avoided calling herself a ‘wife’. She is ‘wedded’ to her kingdom but she employs the word ‘spouse’. She does not cast herself in the submissive role of a wife who was expected to obey her husband duly. Thus Mary gives her subjects no reason to believe they hold the power to command her; ‘Mary takes on the role as the person to whom obedience is sworn’ (p. 264). Beemer concludes ‘in one of the first examples of the strategy of gender play that female monarchs used to establish ethos, Mary will not be a wife to England, but rather, a husband’ (ibid).
<br />
<br />
<br />In the same speech Mary went on to refer to herself as a ‘prince and governor’ instead of just using the term ‘queen’. Beemer points out (and I never noticed this before), that the <em>Oxford English Dictionary </em>attributes the first reference to a female sovereign as ‘prince’ to Geste’s 1560 sermon where he is referencing to Elizabeth I.<strong>*</strong> But Mary endorsed this term as early as 1554 (Beemer does point out rightly that the Guildhall speech was first recorded after Mary’s death but if accurate, and there is wide consensus that the speech is correct, it was still said by Mary six years before Geste used the term). Elizabeth described herself as ‘prince’ on numerous occasions. She was obviously supporting existing terminology advanced earlier by Mary who was keen to emphasise her similarity to male counterparts.
<br />
<br />
<br />As everyone knows, Mary went on to marry and hoped the union would produce children, namely that longed for Catholic Tudor-Habsburg heir. How did a pregnant queen, or one who hoped of bearing heirs in the immediate future, continue with her image as a ruler whose power and rights matched a king’s? Beemer points out again that Mary continued this dual role; she emphasised her female body, namely her ability to produce children but in the same breath she explained that she hoped to continue the dynastic line like ‘my progenitors have done before’ (p. 265). Beemer explains that ‘Mary’s careful choice of the word progenitors is rhetorically savvy. Unlike the neutral gender marking of the Latin origin of prince, princeps, the term progenitors is gendered masculine in the Latin. Like the male princes before her, Mary’s ruling progenitors are exclusively male. Evoking a history of men, the discussion of succession is changed. Mary places her fertility on a level playing field with the men who came before her; the issue is one of succession only and not complicated by her gender. Although her female body signifies difference, her single status is no more problematic than any of the single men who ruled before her.’ (Ibid). The rest of the article chiefly concerns Elizabeth ‘mirroring’ her sister. And if we credit Beemer’s arguments, she was a useful model of queenship to follow.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Beemer’s article is well worth reading and I probably haven’t done it enough justice here. She is not the first, nor probably the last historian to draw attention to the legacy Mary left to Elizabeth, an inheritance which has forever been seen in a negative fashion (loss of Calais, religious turmoil, etc), but which was more fruitful than many have liked to admit.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Full article: Cristy Beemer, ‘The Female Monarchy: Rhetorical Strategy of Early Modern Rule’, <em>Rhetoric Review</em>, 30, 8 (2011), pp. 258-74.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong>*</strong> For those who don’t have a subscription to the OxfordED, here is the relevant entry:
<br />
<br /><em>Prince</em>
<br /><strong>Applied to a female sovereign. Obs.</strong>
<br />
<br />
<br />1560 Geste Serm. in H. G. Dugdale <em>Life</em> (1840) App. i. 191 Let us low our prince [sc. Q. Eliz.],‥nothing thinking sayeng or doyng that may turne to hyr dyshonor, prayeng all way for hyr long and prosperus reigne.
<br />
<br />little_miss_sunnydalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04834404563322701533noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5513034568756106415.post-16954311226314750782011-08-08T09:07:00.000-07:002011-08-09T03:18:58.658-07:00New books, talks & an exhibitionUnfortunately I have to start this post with bad news. As <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8688070/Hundreds-of-historic-papers-lost-from-National-Archives.html">reported yesterday </a>in the Telegraph, hundreds of documents have been ‘mislaid’ in The National Archives. Worse, from our perspective, they include documents relating to the sixteenth-century. The article only comments on the loss of works from the courts of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, but this may be the usual offhand way of saying Tudor dynasty as a whole (if they put ‘and the court of Mary I’, they are unlikely to elicit the same outrage from the average reader than stating we have lost records from Henry and Elizabeth’s reigns. <em>Sigh</em>). How many documents of Mary’s reign have also been lost is yet to be seen.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />On to more pleasant matters; there are several upcoming books of interest. John Edward’s biography of Mary is due out the end of this month (<a href="http://mary-tudor.blogspot.com/2011/05/new-mary-biography.html">more info here</a>). Several studies of Mary’s kin are in the works. They include:
<br />
<br />
<br />Patrick Williams, <em>Catherine of Aragon: A Life </em>(Amberley Publishing). Confusingly two dates have been supplied for this – one being the 15th of this month, the other June 2012. This ‘monumental new biography’ claims to be ‘the first to make full use of the Spanish Royal Archives’. Hopefully it will be akin to Eric Ives’s masterly study of Anne Boleyn.
<br />
<br />
<br />At last we have a full scale study of Mary’s husband’s time as, well, her husband. Harry Kelsey’s <em>Philip of Spain, King of England: The Forgotten Sovereign </em>(I.B. Tauris), is out on 30/11/2011. The synopsis:
<br />
<br /><blockquote>‘The Spanish Armada conjures up images of age-old rivalries, bravery and treachery. However the same Spanish monarch who sent the Armada to invade England in 1588 was, just a few years previously, the King of England and husband of Mary Tudor. This important new book sheds new light on Philip II of Spain, England's forgotten sovereign. Previous accounts of Mary's brief reign have focused on the martyrdom of Protestant dissenters, the loss of English territory, as well as Mary's infamous personality, meaning that her husband Philip has remained in the shadows. In this book, Harry Kelsey uncovers Philip's life - from his childhood and education in Spain, to his marriage to Mary and the political manoeuvrings involved in the marriage contract, to the tumultuous aftermath of Mary's death which ultimately led to hostile relations between Queen Elizabeth and Philip, culminating in the Armada. Focusing especially on the period of Philip's marriage to Mary, Kelsey shows that Philip was, in fact, an active King of England and took a keen interest in the rule of his wife's kingdom. Casting fresh light on both Mary and Philip, as well as European history more generally, this book will be essential reading for anyone interested in the Tudor era.’</blockquote>
<br />
<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXzbOB69qameB31d3nEcir0AtFogHFwwPW54ZupiK1-V7G30ONdui6_qo0-f9UfNJ4UbxIQ0OokTuDXbkgLhNJZZLjD9PQXX7rlvHvnPf3_ZHbeastsymSmNrN5UvmrWNOdYW245RjX-jg/s1600/9781848857162.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 217px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXzbOB69qameB31d3nEcir0AtFogHFwwPW54ZupiK1-V7G30ONdui6_qo0-f9UfNJ4UbxIQ0OokTuDXbkgLhNJZZLjD9PQXX7rlvHvnPf3_ZHbeastsymSmNrN5UvmrWNOdYW245RjX-jg/s320/9781848857162.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5638519656274947698" /></a>
<br />
<br />
<br />Kelsey is not the only one to focus on this issue. For some years now Glyn Redworth has been researching Philip’s time as King of England. I’m always checking his Manchester University page to see whether he has a study on this coming out, but as yet no word. Back in <a href="http://e-tout.blogspot.com/2009/11/current-research-glyn-redworth.html">late 2009 </a>he mentioned he was writing an account of ‘The Short Reign of King Philip the Brief of England (Philip I, 1554-1558’) –‘Philip the brief’, love it! He is doing a talk on this matter for a <a href="http://www.history.ac.uk/events/event/2974">conference on prince consorts</a> at the IHR this December. I’m very tempted to attend despite this talk being the only one of interest to me in the whole programme. If you are interested in this conference, the programme and registration details will be confirmed on 1st Sept.
<br />
<br />
<br />A study of Mary’s aunt and namesake, Mary Tudor (youngest daughter of Henry VII; consort of Louis XII of France and the grandmother of Lady Jane Grey) is currently being written by Jennifer Kewley Draskau. The biography entitled, <em>The Tudor Rose: Princess Mary Rose, Henry VIII’s Sister</em>, will be published by The History Press Ltd in May 2013.
<br />
<br />
<br />Kelly Hart has got books on two Tudor women connected to Mary out (one due next year). One is on Katherine Brandon, duchess of Suffolk. Despite going into exile during Mary’s reign, the duchess and Mary were on good terms for a number of years (as Mary’s expense records attest; plenty of trips to see the duchess for some serious gambling. Tut tut!). The study will focus on the rather overblown (in my opinion) one-time rumour that Henry VIII considered ditching sixth wife Katherine Parr and making the duchess his next missus. There already exists a superb study of the duchess and her religious affiliations by Melissa Franklin-Harkrider, so I’m not sure this new book will make much of an impact.
<br /> Hart’s other biography will be on Jane Seymour, Henry VIII’s third wife and Mary’s stepmother. Mary and Jane were of course on good terms, and I imagine the nature of their relationship will be explored fully. Apparently the book is out in March.
<br />
<br />
<br />The ever productive David Loades has yet another book out soon. This time it is a new overview of the Tudor dynasty. Lets hope his section on Mary pays careful consideration to the works on her reign that have been published in recent years. Loades’s book, <em>The Tudors: History of a Dynasty </em>(Continuum Publishing Corporation) is out in March.
<br />
<br />
<br />Finally the exhibition, <em><a href="http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/artmuseum/exhibitions/archive/making-history/">Making History: Antiquaries in Britain</a></em>, which celebrates the achievements of the Society of Antiquaries of London, will be coming to the US. The exhibition will first be held at the McMullen Museum of Art, Boston College, from 4 September 2011 to 11 December, then will move to the Yale Centre for British Art from 2 February 2012 to 27 May. Why do I mention this? Well amongst the many fascinating gems on display, is one of the most <a href="http://www.sal.org.uk/museum/paintings/23361.jpg/photoalbum_photo_view?b_start=0">important and famous portraits of Mary </a>(by Hans Eworth):
<br />
<br />
<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhi9Dwo9XMyRIFSnevU1cD6iFfzsEFUhXlNbXDd5tVtecl1Vik2LteHoySHnU13VZECwIzyTmHzv9cI0lF0hnmRWYDMPuRAajrONIfh89eBeaj0NeRLfpmGv6dD-I7fKupYYxAfQ6ZGQNMo/s1600/marytudorbyeworth.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 222px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhi9Dwo9XMyRIFSnevU1cD6iFfzsEFUhXlNbXDd5tVtecl1Vik2LteHoySHnU13VZECwIzyTmHzv9cI0lF0hnmRWYDMPuRAajrONIfh89eBeaj0NeRLfpmGv6dD-I7fKupYYxAfQ6ZGQNMo/s320/marytudorbyeworth.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5638519293123823378" /></a>
<br />
<br />
<br />So make sure you see it!
<br />
<br />little_miss_sunnydalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04834404563322701533noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5513034568756106415.post-44304373982211495172011-07-21T11:13:00.000-07:002011-07-21T11:31:02.254-07:00Review of Doran and Freeman (eds.), Mary Tudor: Old and New PerspectivesOh, I have waited for this book for so long!...<br /><br /><br />Susan Doran and Thomas Freeman (eds.), <em>Mary Tudor: Old and New Perspectives </em>(London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), 345pp. £15.99.<br /><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvd1V4xDR_MB6PVjovtc1lDIINdgvkxoBlQHAgJGOkEjKftMlcIyT_qLrwzHQ0HHx1K4bK-o9OkcOY-G7WlH_aihj7kzUnR78IIn_cNNxCj-vdLDkf7-_jA0bYOn1HlJO5tc1aGu7p4jA-/s1600/ShowJacket.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 204px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvd1V4xDR_MB6PVjovtc1lDIINdgvkxoBlQHAgJGOkEjKftMlcIyT_qLrwzHQ0HHx1K4bK-o9OkcOY-G7WlH_aihj7kzUnR78IIn_cNNxCj-vdLDkf7-_jA0bYOn1HlJO5tc1aGu7p4jA-/s320/ShowJacket.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5631873994135344274" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br />In the wake of an revival of interest in Mary Tudor, namely in her personal history and the religious policies of her reign, it is refreshing to have a study that steps back and reconsiders the foundations of the belief that Mary’s life and reign were abject failures. Readers of this blog do not need to be told that Mary has long been considered a disappointment – worse still, as a tyrannical or hysterical queen whose rule was marked by indefensible cruelty. Biographies of Mary briefly discuss the origins of this reputation but there has not been a full study into the history of Mary’s posthumous reputation and the changing nature of scholarship on her.<br /><br /><br />Fortunately ten historians have addressed this gap and produced one of the most important studies on Mary in recent years. This volume consists of a series of articles and an introduction, all original, nearly all controversial. Which naturally makes this book an impressive and exciting read!<br /><br /><br />The scope of topics is varied. The book is divided into two sections, with the first examining the reputation of Mary and her reign after her death, and the second offering new examinations into aspects of her life and rule ‘which were distorted by centuries of myth and misrepresentation’ (p. 15). Mary’s religious policies are naturally a hot topic but it is by no means the singular issue. Her education, relationships, and her ability to govern independently and decisively, along with that pressing and often neglected issue of Mary’s role as England’s first crowned queen regnant, are all considered with fresh new perspectives offered.<br /><br /><br />The book starts with a bold claim that sets the tone perfectly for the volume. The reader is told that had Mary the fortune of living longer – let’s say another decade – ‘almost certainly, England would be Catholic and probably Scotland as well, since the Scottish Protestants would not have had the crucial backing from England that they received at the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign’ (p. 1). Susan Doran and Thomas Freeman even undermine the argument that Elizabeth I’s accession was a sure thing, saying that had Mary lived longer providing time for Mary, Queen of Scots to be widowed and back in Scotland, there was the possibility of the young Scottish queen having the chance to claim the succession, or even Lord Darnley, the son of Mary I’s favourite, Margaret Douglas. Fortunately this book is not a series of ‘what ifs’ that are useful in reiterating the success of Mary’s policies up till her death and even longer had she lived on but can prove tedious, if not futile, arguments. The contributors are all concerned in placing matters in the context they occurred to prove Mary’s accomplishments and make a case for how unjustifiable this poor image of herself and her reign is.<br /><br /><br />The first article is by Doran and appropriately examines the perception of Mary through the eyes of Elizabethan Protestants. Doran indicates how Mary was perceived in a rather complex way by these Protestant writers; clearly there was no standard view of her. They may have all agreed in the ‘absurdity’ and sacrilegious nature of her religious views and policies, but quite a few conceded that she was an amiable figure, if not weak willed and thus no tyrant. Consequently others, namely Mary’s bishops, were selected as scapegoats for the persecutions of that reign. There were of course exceptions to this – as the work of John Foxe clearly illustrates – but Doran makes the excellent point that in the late sixteenth-century Mary was not perceived as the ‘bloody’ queen we are so familiar with. We can thank developments in the seventeenth-century for that (a time when, Freeman notes in another article, the term ‘Bloody Mary’ was used repeatedly and thus popularised). Doran also refers to the often lack of references to Mary in Elizabethan works, attributing this to a conscientious desire by some writers to focus their narratives on the Marian martyrs. By ignoring Mary they were denying her the glory and fame that was seen as the rightful properties of those she had persecuted.<br /><br /><br />Victor Houliston continues the focus on the Elizabethan period, albeit he is concerned with Elizabethan Catholics and their perceptions of Mary. He examines the usual suspects – prominent Catholic polemists like Allen, Persons and Sanders – many of whom naturally felt an affinity to Mary’s reign and were keen to preserve her reputation as a godly, charitable and virtuous woman. A particular point I found interesting is reference to some Elizabethan Catholics being uncomfortable with the policies of Mary’s reign, namely the burnings. Houliston mentions that Sanders, writing in the 1560s, argued that some fellow Catholics assumed an ‘air of pity’ and condemned the persecutions (p. 43). Houliston’s end point, that there existed an ‘icon’ of Mary who ‘reflected the glory of Catholic Europe’ is certainly one to consider though I came away from the article intrigued by Catholic disapproval in Mary than her status as an exemplary figure. Though maybe any disdain for Mary was worn away by the persecutions that Catholics themselves faced throughout Elizabeth’s reign. Critical comments dating to the 1560s could easily be transformed after decades of hardship prompting nostalgia for Mary’s ‘Catholic England’.<br /><br /><br />Paulina Kewes and Teresa Grant’s respective articles both consider contemporary political developments and their effect on the reputation of Mary. Kewes examines the legacy of the 1553 succession crisis during Elizabeth’s reign when the absence of an acknowledged heir led not only to speculation and intrigue about who should succeed Elizabeth, but even to notions that the next sovereign should be appointed, ‘elected’, by the elite. The memory of Mary was a powerful tool to use here. Though those who advanced the idea of an elected monarch did not want to say that Edward VI’s own appointment of Lady Jane Grey was a good thing, for that would have greatly offended Elizabeth as it had done Mary, they did use the example of Mary’s reign as reason enough not to have another Catholic monarch. And given that the Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots was practically Elizabeth’s heir in all but name for many years, it is easy to see why Protestant polemists would drag up the example of Mary Tudor to advance their argument that they should have some say in the appointment of the next king or queen.<br /><br /><br />Grant meanwhile looks at the slightly later years – the rule of the Stuarts – where the memory of Mary was equally important. Anti-Spanish feeling was rife at certain periods especially post Gunpowder Plot (1605). This naturally led to criticisms of Mary, characterised as subservient to Spain and to her husband, Philip. But Grant also identified attacks on Mary’s personality as well. In the early seventeenth-century play, <em>Sir Thomas Wyatt</em>, she is depicted as materialistic (linking, of course, to the then prevailing stereotype of Catholicism as a worldly faith marred by avarice), as well as being insincere. She is first presented to the audience as like a ‘<em>nun</em>’, steadfast in her faith, only to swiftly agree to marriage and adopting a fixation with her frequently absent husband. She was by now seen as a woman who lacked judgment and sought poor counsel. <br /><br /><br />The theme of Mary as a woman who was unprepared to act independently, and when she did she failed miserably, is one which has widely been supported in works on Mary till present day (as we are reminded on several occasions in this book). One of the most controversial issues relating to this is Mary’s involvement, or more accurately her responsibility, in the notorious burnings of the Protestants. Here two of the contributors of this volume disagree. In his article on the Marian persecutions, Thomas Freeman’s argues for Mary’s zealous backing of the policy, noting her ‘acute interest in and oversight of the burnings’ (p. 172). This is at odds with Judith Richard’s article which seeks to stress the involvement of local authorities in the process of trying heretics. Richards does not deny Mary’s support for the policy but her insistence on the role of others in the effort conflicts with the rest of her article. Firstly her claim is not backed with nearly enough evidence as Freeman backs his own with. Secondly, Richard’s article principally concerns Mary’s abilities as queen, her thorough grounding of the law, and her often astute, if not reasonable, way of handling situations. It is clear that local authorities played a role – no one could claim Mary was alone in enforcing and defending the policy – but her support for the decision and even her interventions in the process are documented more than once. Arguably Richards’ view is inconsistent – maybe too favourable? But she does raise several other excellent points, not least that the perception that Mary’s actions were controlled by her ‘hysteria’ is an absurd, prejudicial view, with little historical basis. Worrying, this grossly outdated view is still being voiced. Richards observed that only recently the Wikipedia page for Mary presented as fact that her probable phantom pregnancies and the alleged trauma or ‘hysteria’ that such an event procured, was the reason for Mary’s persecutions of the Protestants!<br /><br /><br />Mary’s role in the affairs of her reign is also discussed in the late William Wizeman’s article on the religious policies of her reign. In many respects the article is an excellent summary of recent works into the vitality and successes of the Marian Church, not least the Eamon Duffy’s impressive <em>Fires of Faith</em>. Wizeman also advances the argument he has made previously – that Mary’s church was not an insular establishment, but important to consider in context of the ‘Counter Reformation’ sweeping Europe. He provides ample examples of Mary’s England being a breeding ground for Catholic talents, many of whom would later emerge as significant figures of the ‘Counter Reformation’. Unlike Duffy who ascribes Cardinal Pole as the leading figure of Mary’s church, Wizeman recognises Mary’s initiative and believes she was self-consciously presenting herself as a ‘chief model of the faithful and devout layperson’ (p. 167). This is an appealing point. As Mary shunned the headship of the church and acknowledged papal supremacy, her role as that of the exemplary follower instead makes a lot of sense. One thing that Wizeman leaves open for others to examine further is whether Mary was involved in ‘self-fashioning’. I found this fascinating not least because it is something I touched upon in my MA work in regards to the way in which Mary presented herself prior to her succession. Certainly it would be too cynical to say that every act of charity and good deed was committed by Mary consciously to cultivate a specific image, but like many contemporary monarchs and especially Elizabeth I later, she was deeply concerned with her image and of the need to encourage support for herself and her policies.<br /><br /><br />Mary’s education has frequently been ignored or touched upon lightly in biographies, but two articles in this volume seek to address the prevailing crude notion that Mary was, in the words of Geoffrey Elton, ‘rather stupid’. Andrew Taylor’s assessment of the young Mary’s education and knowledge of humanist texts is admittedly stifled by the lack of evidence we have on this in the years before the collapse of her parents’ marriage. Yet both Taylor and Aysha Pollnitz make the comparison between Mary and her great grandmother Margaret Beaufort, a patroness of renowned learning. The influence Katherine of Aragon had on her daughter has long been recognised and is backed by Taylor and Pollintz, but the impact of Beaufort (dead before Mary’s birth) is a new and intriguing one. It was Margaret, Pollintz argues, who set a standard for subsequent aristocratic women in devotional habits and patronage of scholars and colleges. Mary was the true heir of this legacy. Pollintz uses as example of this Mary’s involvement in the translation of Erasmus’ Paraphrase on John, encouraged by stepmother Katherine Parr, then at the centre of a remarkable scholarly circle of court women. The uncompleted translation proved Mary’s competence as translator along with her ability to exploit her position as a royal female to help advance the ‘<em>enstruccion and edifynge of whole realms in the knowleage of god</em>’, a view strongly felt by Parr (p. 132). Pollintz shows it was a belief that Mary continued to take very seriously as queen.<br /><br /><br />What though of the pitfalls, if any, of this book? The articles largely focus on Mary’s posthumous reputation in text throughout the centuries, including some fascinating discussions on presentations of her in children’s textbook from the nineteenth-century onwards. But there is no exploration of the way in which she was portrayed through images. It should be remembered that significant developments in the production of prints, especially in techniques in the late seventeenth-century and throughout the eighteenth century, led to the mass production of cheap prints of images. There began a roaring trade of prints of prominent persons, including past English monarchs and other royals. Countless images of Mary were produced for popular consummation and not all were mere copies of contemporary portraits of her. Portraits of her prints started to introduce references to the burnings; she became immortalised as ‘Bloody Mary’, her name forever linked to the most scandalous aspect of her reign. Along with portraiture, perhaps we should also address Mary’s reputation in film and TV, which reaches large audiences and frequently affects popular perceptions of her more so than academic studies, as well as her appearance in historical fiction. <br /><br /><br />That said there is little to complain about this book. It is undoubtedly an important text in our understanding of Mary and her reign and draws attention to areas where there is so much potential for further research (particularly the question of gender and Mary I, as Thomas Betteridge notes in his article). In the appendix is provided a thorough list of the Marian martyrs (with plenty of footnotes; always a good sign!) Will this book make much of an impact? I sincerely hope so and, given the names involved in this book, the relatively low price of it, and the original nature of its focus, it will attract attention. But can we ever put aside longstanding anxieties about Mary’s reign that have plagued accounts of it? As Freeman notes, Mary ‘has continually been judged by the standards of the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and not surprising, has been found wanting’ (p. 100). The authors are correct that is about time we form our own understanding, but it is a difficult process, unsettling for some, that perhaps is not as easy as Freeman’s allegory to the art restorer ‘carefully removing the layers of overpainting to reveal as much as possible of the original portrait that lies beneath’. The question of course – can we ever find the real Mary?little_miss_sunnydalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04834404563322701533noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5513034568756106415.post-56577022651043297512011-05-12T05:07:00.000-07:002011-05-13T13:30:58.995-07:00New Mary biography<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigTTvKcxnvCy5_CUS1qyAHw6i2RdgNBYIEMNtrySCBaRy0x2xipHAiPs6OdQVuvR2zMaQRbFdbnUDtQFF-_levn_S10n3n85qN04eFbuXCq-cz018zARtVHjXXWIcmbzHULONHlx_2fvWD/s1600/Edward%252CMaryI.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 214px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigTTvKcxnvCy5_CUS1qyAHw6i2RdgNBYIEMNtrySCBaRy0x2xipHAiPs6OdQVuvR2zMaQRbFdbnUDtQFF-_levn_S10n3n85qN04eFbuXCq-cz018zARtVHjXXWIcmbzHULONHlx_2fvWD/s320/Edward%252CMaryI.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5605800622639743634" /></a><br /><br /><br />Finally Yale University Press’s English Monarchs Series has included Mary! The upcoming biography on the queen had been written by Dr John Edwards, Modern Languages Faculty Research Fellow in Spanish, University of Oxford, and is due out in August/Sept. Edwards has written extensively on early modern Spain, Catholicism and Mary’s grandparents, the famous Catholic monarchs Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon. He was one of the editors of <em>Reforming Catholicism in the England of Mary Tudor: The Achievements of Friar Bartolomé Carranza </em>(Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005) – a must read for Mary enthusiasts. <br /><br /><br />The synopsis:<br /><br />‘The lifestory of Mary I—daughter of Henry VIII and his Spanish wife, Catherine of Aragon—is often distilled to a few dramatic episodes: her victory over the attempted coup by Lady Jane Grey, the imprisonment of her half-sister Elizabeth, the bloody burning of Protestants, her short marriage to Philip of Spain. This original and deeply researched biography paints a far more detailed portrait of Mary and offers a fresh understanding of her religious faith and policies as well as her historical significance in England and beyond. <br /><br />John Edwards, a leading scholar of English and Spanish history, is the first to make full use of Continental archives in this context, especially Spanish ones, to demonstrate how Mary's culture, Catholic faith, and politics were thoroughly Spanish. Edwards begins with Mary's origins, follows her as she battles her increasingly erratic father, and focuses particular attention on her notorious religious policies, some of which went horribly wrong from her point of view. The book concludes with a consideration of Mary's five-year reign and the frustrations that plagued her final years. Childless, ill, deserted by her husband, Mary died in the full knowledge that her Protestant half-sister Elizabeth would undo her religious work and, without acknowledging her sister, would reap the benefits of Mary's achievements in government.’<br /><br /><br /><br />I have a feeling it will rank alongside Loades, <em>Mary Tudor: A Life </em>and Richards, <em>Mary Tudor</em>. I want it!little_miss_sunnydalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04834404563322701533noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5513034568756106415.post-60922437226546774772011-03-30T03:47:00.000-07:002011-03-30T04:06:46.376-07:00On This Day in 1558 – Mary Makes Her Will<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_HcJ52UKaNTiaTY5QiOoVlcn5tTLGKqb8uO89VxYow8U5_HA-V3c5ocOvrB8EWMwP44nTHBJdEAB-Q3z0JsMqZtj-jzIEZ02WnZgqdThobj9r7dApzhjVCI7FYunRKV4Hnx4XhofalG60/s1600/bedingfield.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 270px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_HcJ52UKaNTiaTY5QiOoVlcn5tTLGKqb8uO89VxYow8U5_HA-V3c5ocOvrB8EWMwP44nTHBJdEAB-Q3z0JsMqZtj-jzIEZ02WnZgqdThobj9r7dApzhjVCI7FYunRKV4Hnx4XhofalG60/s320/bedingfield.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5589826929699391682" /></a><br /><br /><blockquote>Sir Henry Bedingfield, by unknown artist, 1573. Oxburgh Hall, Norfolk.<br />Bedingfield, one of Mary's longterm supporters, was a witness of her will.</blockquote><br /><br />During her reign, Mary perceived herself to be pregnant on two occasions. The final time was in 1557-8, the last years of Mary’s life and reign. Philip left England in July 1557, and by December Mary was confident enough of her pregnancy to write to him of the news. <br /><br />On this day in 1558, Mary made her will believing the birth was fast approaching (a due date of early/mid April appears to have been given). This was a customary procedure. Childbirth was rife with danger, so the prospect of the queen and her infant dying in the process was daunting though certainly not unthinkable.<br /><br /><br />The will can be read in its entirely in David Loades, <em>Mary Tudor: A Life </em>(Oxford, 1989), pp. 370-80. I have broken it down into the key sections:<br /><br /><br />1. Declaration of faith (standard statement placed at beginning of early modern wills. Provides insight into Mary’s faith)<br /><br />‘<em>Fyrste I do commend my Soulle to the mercye of Almighty God the maker and Redeemer thereof, and to the good prayers and helpe of the most puer and blessed Virgin our Lady St. Mary, and all of the Holy Companye of Heven. My body I will to be buried at the discression of my executors: the interment of my sayd body to be made in such order and with such godly prayers, Suffrages and Ceremonies as with consideracyon of my estate and the laudable usage of Christ’s Church shall seme to my executors most decent and convenient. Also my mynde and will ys, that during the tyme of my interment, and within oon moneth after my decesse owte of this transitory lyfe, ther be distributed almes, the summe of oone thousand pownds, the same to be given to the relefe of pore prisoners, and other pore men and whomen by the discression of my executors</em>’.<br /><br /><br />2. States her desire to have her mother’s remains brought to Westminster Abbey so the pair may rest together.<br /><br />‘<em>And further I will that the body of the vertuous Lady and my most dere and well-beloved mother of happy memory, Quene Kateryn, whych lyeth now buried at Peterborowh, shall within as short tyme as conveniently yt may after my burial, be removed, brought and layde nye the place of my sepulture, In wch place I will my Executors to cawse to be made honorable tombs or monuments for a decent memory of us</em>’.<br /><br /><br />3. Grants of money to religious houses re-established during her reign, namely the continuation in funds to ‘<em>the oon of Monks of th’ order of Carthusians and th’ other of Nunns Ordines of Stae Brigittae’</em>. Also that ‘<em>the said Religious howses of Shene and Sion</em>’ by granted ‘<em>the summe of five hundred pownds of lawfully money of Englond</em>’, along with other financial provisions. Later she provides assistance to the observant friars of Greenwich (the chapel of which she was baptised in), and to Savoy Hospital founded by her grandfather, Henry VII.<br /><br /><br />4. Requests for masses to be sung for her soul, her husband’s after the occasion of his death, her mother’s and her royal predecessors ‘<em>namely the said Kynge Henry 5</em>’.<br /><br /><br />5. Five hundred pounds to the ‘<em>pore Scolers in ether of the Universities of Oxinford and Cambridge’</em>.<br /><br /><br />6. Asks that her executors ‘<em>provide some convenient howse within or nye the Suburbs of the Cite of London</em>’ which will have ‘<em>onn Master and two Brotherne</em>’ (so three priests). This ‘<em>howse or Hospitall</em>’ would be endowed with lands and money and would be dedicated to aiding the ‘<em>pore, impotent and aged Souldiers’ </em>and those who had fallen into extreme poverty.<br /><br /><br />7.Asks that all her debts be paid, and all debts accumulated during the reigns of her father, Henry VIII, and brother, Edward VI.<br /><br /><br />8. States that it is her ‘<em>dewtie to God</em>’ to return to the Church various former church lands where permissible. Mentions Cardinal Pole’s efforts in the return to Rome and commends him to continue this after her demise. (Ironically Pole died on the same day as Mary). <br /><br /><br />9. Money to be given to her ‘<em>pore Servants</em>’, distrusted at a time when her executors saw fit.<br /><br /><br />10. Now the important part – her successor. She leaves her realm to the ‘<em>heyres, issewe and frewte of my bodye accordyng to the laws of this Realme</em>’. So her successor is her supposed unborn child. Aware of the possibility of leaving the throne to an infant, Mary provides a regent. This was to be ‘<em>my saide most Dere and well beloved Husband’</em>. She lists her husband’s many virtues, especially his dedication to the Church. She asks for the loyalty shown unto her by her subjects to be transferred to her husband on the occasion of his regency.<br /><br /><br />11. Near the end of the document she asks her husband to keep several jewels in her memory. This included on ‘<em>table dyamond</em>’ that had been sent to her by Philip’s father, and Mary’s cousin, Charles V. She notes that Philip may do what he wished with these items, including possibly later given them to their child that she believed she carried.<br /><br /><br />12.Cardinal Pole is given a thousand pounds. Money is also left to various noblemen and other churchmen. Longstanding household attendants are also remembered.<br /><br /><br /><br />The '<em>wytnesses</em>' of the will were men who had served her for a number of years and had been her most ardent supporters during her attempts to gain the throne in 1553 (naturally they were also devout Catholics) – <br /><br /> Henry Bedingfield<br /> Thomas Wharton<br /> John Throckmorton<br /> Richard Wilbrahm<br /><br /><br /><br />So ‘<em>the’ Imperiall Crowne of this Realme’ </em>(Mary does not completely abandon her father’s views), is left to her unborn child and Elizabeth is not mentioned throughout. The following month, Mary realised she was not pregnant. On 28 October 1558, her will was extended to accommodate the change in circumstances. Yet again Elizabeth is specifically not named. Her right is approved indirectly, for Mary states that her successor’s was according to the ‘<em>Laws and Statues of this Realme’</em>. So the 1544 Act of Succession and Henry VIII’s will remained, facilitating the accession of the last, and longest reigning, Tudor monarch.little_miss_sunnydalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04834404563322701533noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5513034568756106415.post-48071239414581945482011-03-24T07:37:00.000-07:002011-03-24T07:47:57.567-07:00New book, Elizabeth Taylor and Royal Weddings!<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvlODkp6IKgYEzcy9YoqnZO0biwleqmMRVtsjgWihdyFuyjFZCu_YL5sItMdtt4L8ahXIOXIwaMcYi7pmInn9PjS6r4rijjmjWdXayozpet7SkL705N0xtxuaSuRNUXO_lR0kWIrfgoIiu/s1600/2422408201_10fbedd05a_o.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 222px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvlODkp6IKgYEzcy9YoqnZO0biwleqmMRVtsjgWihdyFuyjFZCu_YL5sItMdtt4L8ahXIOXIwaMcYi7pmInn9PjS6r4rijjmjWdXayozpet7SkL705N0xtxuaSuRNUXO_lR0kWIrfgoIiu/s320/2422408201_10fbedd05a_o.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5587657525983226530" /></a><br /><br /><em><blockquote>Mary I by Hans Eworth, c.1554. The portrait was purchased for the National Portrait Gallery with the assistance of Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor (who passed away yesterday).</blockquote></em><br /><br /><br />My first blog of 2011 focused upon upcoming works on Mary. Unfortunately I have little else to report on that front. I did forget to mention one publication – C.S. Knighton and David Loades, <em>The Navy of Edward VI and Mary I </em>(Ashgate, 2011). More information here:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ashgatepublishing.com/default.aspx?page=637&calctitle=1&pageSubject=3198&sort=pubdate&forthcoming=1&title_id=10404&edition_id=13582">http://www.ashgatepublishing.com/default.aspx?page=637&calctitle=1&pageSubject=3198&sort=pubdate&forthcoming=1&title_id=10404&edition_id=13582</a><br /><br /><br />Yesterday one of my favourite stars, Elizabeth Taylor, passed away in Los Angeles. You may wonder why I mention this on a blog on Mary Tudor. In her vast collection of jewels, Taylor owned a pearl believed to be "La Peregrina”, given to Mary by Philip of Spain upon the occasion of their marriage in 1554. Taylor and Richard Burton also helped purchased a Hans Eworth portrait of Mary (depicted wearing the pearl) for the National Portrait Gallery. Hope Walker, a PhD Student currently working on the works of Hans Eworth, has posted a fabulous article on Taylor’s contributions to the arts on her site:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.hanseworth.com/blog_taylor.html">http://www.hanseworth.com/blog_taylor.html</a><br /><br /><br /><br />I don’t need to reminder readers of this blog that we have a Royal Wedding fast approaching. Naturally this has prompted the publication of several books on royal marriages, including one by <a href="http://www.shirebooks.co.uk/store/Royal-Weddings_9780747810933">Shire Publications</a>. I imagine that Mary and Philip’s wedding will be covered. Little fact for you all – Mary was the first of only two English/British queen regnants who married during her reign. After Mary (who married Philip in 1554), the next was Queen Victoria who married Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha in 1840. The other queen regnants married before their accessions or in the case of Elizabeth I remained unmarried.<br /><br /><br />And speaking of Elizabeth – today marks the 408th anniversary of her death. She died in the early hours of the morning at Richmond Palace with the archbishop of Canterbury, John Whitgift, by her side. She was subsequently buried in Westminster Abbey with Mary (can’t imagine either lady appreciated this. Oh well!)<br /><br /><br />On a personal note, I have recently gained a place for my PhD and have been awarded full funding. I am thrilled about starting this autumn! My thesis will not be on Mary because, whilst researching my MA dissertation on her (it was on Mary and her associates during the years c.1533-53), I noticed the lack of in-depth work on religious conservatives at court. I will therefore be working on this area, with my proposed time frame being c.1530s to 1558. Obviously Mary will play an important role in my research (I’m particular interested in the nature of support for her often synonymous with ardent loyalty to the Crown). One issue I look forward to researching is the supposed existence of a ‘Catholic party’ during Edward VI’s reign that wanted to make Mary the regent until the boy king came of age to govern independently. It is a fascinating concept but one I believe (so far) that Mary never supported.<br /><br /><br />Finally, congratulations to Gareth Russell on the 1st anniversary of his <a href="http://garethrussellcidevant.blogspot.com/2011/03/one-year-of-ci-devant.html">blog</a>! His series of articles documenting Anne Boleyn’s downfall are a wonderful read.little_miss_sunnydalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04834404563322701533noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5513034568756106415.post-53101695451262588292011-02-16T08:04:00.000-08:002011-02-16T08:57:01.391-08:00Henry VIII's funeralToday in 1547, Henry VIII was laid to rest in St George’s Chapel, Windsor, next to wife number three, Jane Seymour. The poor pallbearers had some difficulty in handling the oversized coffin; we are told that it took sixteenth yeomen and ‘<em>four strong linen towels</em>’ to lower the coffin into the crypt. As was the custom, the accession of the next king, Edward VI, was pronounced at the ceremony. Mary was now heir to the throne.<br /><br /><br />A few months back I consulted several documents regarding Henry’s death in the National Archives, amongst them his will (<a href="http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATID=-825157&CATLN=7&accessmethod=5&j=1">TNA E/23/4/1</a>). Mary’s position within the succession was approved in the third Act of Succession (1544) – ‘<em>the saide Imperall Crowne and all other the p’misses shallbe to the Ladye Marie the Kinges Highness Daughter</em>’[1]. The Act also allowed Henry to name additional successors in his will or by letters patent, which he duly did. In the will, the throne was left to the heirs of Frances Grey if is his youngest daughter, Elizabeth, died childless. Frances’s children, Jane, Katherine and Mary Grey, were the granddaughters of Henry VIII’s younger sister, the other Mary Tudor. So Henry bypassed the heirs of his elder sister, Margaret, Queen of Scotland which included, by 1547, the young Mary, Queen of Scots and Margaret Stewart, Countess of Lennox (who was good friends with our Mary Tudor, so much so that it was rumoured, during Mary’s reign, that she would make Margaret her heir and deny Elizabeth the throne).<br /><br /><br />Here is page eight of the will. After leaving the throne to Edward, Mary is named as the next in line:<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5wnJoz9z6vllSBXJwcjEtrMwQaKn8fCteCZcaBdma5rOscRkMJzvyBpoWKoJoJ6MximDFLtH7ripA_Mg28XjBxWPDZ1C4fUowtUgq1TMzm1YoEKorQFHRYBjuX7tytGNKs59CfueFwMcF/s1600/DSCN2767.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 285px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5wnJoz9z6vllSBXJwcjEtrMwQaKn8fCteCZcaBdma5rOscRkMJzvyBpoWKoJoJ6MximDFLtH7ripA_Mg28XjBxWPDZ1C4fUowtUgq1TMzm1YoEKorQFHRYBjuX7tytGNKs59CfueFwMcF/s400/DSCN2767.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5574320829087757586" /></a><br /><br /><br />Notice the tiny error made – the clerk put down first that the crown was to be left to ‘<em>our sayd doughter Mary lawfully begotten</em>’, then quickly adding in before ‘<em>lawfully</em>’ – ‘<em>and the heyres of her body</em>’. Mary’s children had to be legitimate in order to succeed her. She, on the other hand, could inherit as the King’s illegitimate daughter. It then goes on to state that any marriage she entered into must have the approval of the Privy Council. Failing to secure their consent, she risked being denied the throne.<br /><br /><br />Now only was Mary an heiress, she was also a wealthy one:<br /><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjP1PJGT5s6DawzZaibsedhEqKmO7qzvIeh9W1MSOORTAgVk5gNrZzAFCVBKQMkvdXQJtJUWrexn2rHcmMsuG1Z_nSmtslvDZG_3jm-vDFQhaZbx-ZaNgB9m_jcIt__ebIvl6wFlSaGDjtZ/s1600/DSCN2788.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 224px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjP1PJGT5s6DawzZaibsedhEqKmO7qzvIeh9W1MSOORTAgVk5gNrZzAFCVBKQMkvdXQJtJUWrexn2rHcmMsuG1Z_nSmtslvDZG_3jm-vDFQhaZbx-ZaNgB9m_jcIt__ebIvl6wFlSaGDjtZ/s400/DSCN2788.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5574321323450520018" /></a><br /><br />‘<em>Further our will is that from the furst hower of our death until such tyme as the sayd Counsaillours canne provide either of them </em>[Mary and Elizabeth] <em>or bothe of sum honorable mariages they shall have eche of them thre thousand poundes ultra reprisas to lyve on</em>...’<br /><br />Both also inherited properties and precious goods; Mary received over thirty properties in the south-east. She continued to acquire estates, the most significant being Framlingham Castle, Suffolk, granted to her by the Crown in mid 1553. Framlingham played an <a href="http://mary-tudor.blogspot.com/2010/07/wednesday-12-july-1553-mary-arrives-at.html">important role </a>during her campaign for the throne in the same year.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />We do not know for sure whether Mary attended her father’s funeral. Katherine Parr certainly did, witnessing the burial from the Queen’s Closet that had once been constructed for Henry’s first wife, and Mary’s mother, Katherine of Aragon. There are records though for materials, namely yards of black velvet, needed for Mary and her household who were now in mourning. The National Archives holds the Lord Chamberlain’s account of ‘<em>The precedente of the Buriall of oure late Soveragane lorde kynge henry the eighte</em>’ (LC 2/2). It lists the ladies, gentlewomen, gentlemen, ushers, and other household staff attending Mary, providing all with suitable mourning clothes. Many of the individuals mentioned served Mary for many years, including Susan Clarencius, Mary Finch and Beatrice ap Rhys the laundress (who had been in Mary’s household by the early 1520s).<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvIRhatjhWCmYHLr2cg-34blHD1R5S3ISfD1uwde4dcY452o0bM7AsR8bOtA0od-Nxwh8Awkp9g3FLaxC9DCcXaBJUyDem2jnR2VTmpymHKBxL4dwk8BNDUn04TJuwgIHaJhkXmbnVG4F_/s1600/DSCN2586.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvIRhatjhWCmYHLr2cg-34blHD1R5S3ISfD1uwde4dcY452o0bM7AsR8bOtA0od-Nxwh8Awkp9g3FLaxC9DCcXaBJUyDem2jnR2VTmpymHKBxL4dwk8BNDUn04TJuwgIHaJhkXmbnVG4F_/s400/DSCN2586.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5574326639345806322" /></a><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4TPjFJ10x_gM1IPSg4150fe-Lpvoy5IGgYH7AADjtT30imOBskaAOGHbPNycFzRMcq-ARMV9QbAPapKnTCS5sMuYzRo05OFygBPZ3CquVQ0Pfd7z0nB6fUWhDwFccED2GZJpFiV-8HQO1/s1600/DSCN2587.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 207px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4TPjFJ10x_gM1IPSg4150fe-Lpvoy5IGgYH7AADjtT30imOBskaAOGHbPNycFzRMcq-ARMV9QbAPapKnTCS5sMuYzRo05OFygBPZ3CquVQ0Pfd7z0nB6fUWhDwFccED2GZJpFiV-8HQO1/s400/DSCN2587.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5574326911809705682" /></a><br /> (Ladies and gentlewomen attending Mary)<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />For further information on Henry's will, see J. L McIntosh, <em>From Heads of Households to Heads of State: The Preaccession Households of Mary and Elizabeth Tudor, 1516-1558</em> (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009), pp. 201-17, which can be read online: <a href="http://www.gutenberg-e.org/mcintosh/appendix-a.html">http://www.gutenberg-e.org/mcintosh/appendix-a.html</a><br /><br />[1] <em>The Statutes of the Realm</em>, vol. III (London, 1817), p. 955.little_miss_sunnydalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04834404563322701533noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5513034568756106415.post-51033189685418929202011-01-25T07:45:00.000-08:002011-01-25T08:24:47.326-08:00Possible portrait of a young Mary?In <a href="http://mary-tudor.blogspot.com/2010/07/research-into-possible-portrait-of-mary.html">July</a> I mentioned a portrait in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY, that is currently undergoing research. It was once alleged to depict a young Mary, though this identification went out of favour some time ago for numerous reasons (amongst them the difficulty of explaining how a portrait of Mary could have been commissioned during the period of her disgrace).<br /><br />We are fortunate to possess several images of Mary prior to her accession, including a <a href="http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw04264/Queen-Mary-I?LinkID=mp07168&role=art&rNo=0">painting</a> by one Master John, now in the National Portrait Gallery. This painting is particularly valuable as it appears to be the first portrait commissioned by Mary herself, probably to commemorate her re-inclusion in the succession (Act of Succession of 1543). The NPG also holds a <a href="http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw09583/Queen-Mary-I?LinkID=mp02995&role=sit&rNo=0">miniature</a> of Mary by Lucas Horenbout (c.1521-5), which may be the earliest surviving English portrait miniature.<br /><br />Whilst rummaging through numerous files on my computer, I came across an image of one Holbein miniature purported to be Mary. I thought this would be of interest to those intrigued by the story of The Met portrait. It is a roundel depicting a young woman in profile. It is similar in style to a <a href="http://www.metmuseum.org/works_of_art/collection_database/all/edward_vi_1537_1553_when_duke_of_cornwall_workshop_of_hans_holbein_the_younger_english_after/objectview.aspx?page=1&sort=6&sortdir=asc&keyword=holbein&fp=1&dd1=0&dd2=0&vw=1&collID=0&OID=110001113&vT=1&hi=0&ov=0">portrait</a> of Prince Edward (later Edward VI), which is also held in The Met.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEM5bzJSNwGpnTsBNVco0GuK8crZVqDEz03KesaYrDRqMm35TfFevEfZQ8SHqC9ixDDu6kgCPjnK2rXpXKaKcLnO6ozjGkNnMd2Bi3CPgZARw80eaTqVYzRMtVSXO9Adjrzja7TmjGI4ca/s1600/Scan_Pic0001.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 318px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEM5bzJSNwGpnTsBNVco0GuK8crZVqDEz03KesaYrDRqMm35TfFevEfZQ8SHqC9ixDDu6kgCPjnK2rXpXKaKcLnO6ozjGkNnMd2Bi3CPgZARw80eaTqVYzRMtVSXO9Adjrzja7TmjGI4ca/s320/Scan_Pic0001.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5566152447759438754" /></a><br /><br /><blockquote>'Princess Mary, daughter of Henry VIII', or a young woman of the court of Henry VIII, c. 1543</blockquote><br /><br /><br />Paul Ganz in <em>The Paintings of Hans Holbein: First Complete Edition</em> (London: The Phaidon Press Ltd, 1950) provides this brief discussion of the portrait:<br /><br /><blockquote>'Like the roundel of Prince Edward, the portrait comes from an unknown collection; it was discovered in 1937 completely overpainted and was restored at the same time, whereby the damage to the collar was revealed and repaired. The identification of the sitter with Princess Mary is based not only on the striking similarity between her profile and that of her brother Edward but also on a comparison with various other portraits. An early one in three-quarters view must have been painted by Holbein during a former reconciliation in 1536. It is now lost and known only from an etching by Wenzel Hollar with the inscription: Princeps Maria Henrici VIII Regis Angliae filia. H. Holbein pinxit, W. Hollar fecit. Ex Collectione Arundeliana 1647. A badly damaged portrait study at Windsor Castle with the inscription ‘Lady Mary after Queen’ which, owing to its present condition, I did not regard as an original appears to have been the preliminary drawing for Hollar’s engraved portrait with the sides reversed. Recently it has been acknowledged as authentic by <em>Parker (W.DR. 41)</em> and by <em>H.A. Schmid (Hans Holbein d. J. 113)</em>.’ (p. 257)</blockquote><br /><br /><br />Evidently this was written over six decades ago, and some of the findings no longer stand. The <a href="http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/eGallery/object.asp?maker=12102&object=912220&row=26">‘Windsor’ sketch</a>, concluded by Ganz to be a copy, is currently believed to be an original. The portrait of Edward is now believed to be from the workshop of Holbein, and not by the artist himself. The portrait of 'Mary', may also be by a follower.<br /><br />The roundel is also discussed by Roy Strong. In <em>Holbein: the Complete Paintings </em>(London: Granada, 1980), Strong includes the portrait and states ‘Called the Princess Mary; Oil and tempera on wood/diam. 37/c.1543. London, Private Collection. Attributed work’ (p. 90). An image of the portrait can also be found in the National Portrait Gallery’s Heinz Archive in the sitter's box for Mary. No further information is provided, aside from the brief mention that it was once exhibited at the Walker Art Gallery (Liverpool).<br /><br /><br />So, do you think the portrait, possibly by a follower of Holbein, is of Mary and that there is ‘striking similarity’ between the sitter and Prince Edward? Further research would be great, but like many other portraits in private collections, we are unlikely to find out more. Aside from the question of the identity of the sitter, the portrait provides an interesting view of contemporary dress; the detail on the hood is excellent.<br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxUC1bp2TEtFNkatVtwQolyyPGoP5rM781z2cEpJ93b0o6Fy9RzbGusVl4WmuBxyxFH4GJNabOvTq5jPtCXO5cHoZ3FbCOa3qbe3pyqSLbQtvOllbEdWLprIIAlj6lfYsYrflwzmH36xfg/s1600/edwardandmary.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 196px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxUC1bp2TEtFNkatVtwQolyyPGoP5rM781z2cEpJ93b0o6Fy9RzbGusVl4WmuBxyxFH4GJNabOvTq5jPtCXO5cHoZ3FbCOa3qbe3pyqSLbQtvOllbEdWLprIIAlj6lfYsYrflwzmH36xfg/s400/edwardandmary.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5566156853058210466" /></a><br /><br /><blockquote>Siblings? Both portraits date to c.1543. The portrait of Edward may have been completed for the prince's sixth birthday (12 Oct 1543)</blockquote><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZ3IMyoRwHU5ktt4PvULPrsZa9bZt-UQnsFAfndMyPr1Q6yOsDRIcsrfuLCpx-aAt33Ug5NxG2b-SNg12vRe95WKdQEzyd2VClaGcRL1A8OSFibLwAarZ2Yp-O0NeTeiaDzir8TpYcCt6q/s1600/Scan_Pic0002.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 298px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZ3IMyoRwHU5ktt4PvULPrsZa9bZt-UQnsFAfndMyPr1Q6yOsDRIcsrfuLCpx-aAt33Ug5NxG2b-SNg12vRe95WKdQEzyd2VClaGcRL1A8OSFibLwAarZ2Yp-O0NeTeiaDzir8TpYcCt6q/s320/Scan_Pic0002.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5566157299009896210" /></a>little_miss_sunnydalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04834404563322701533noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5513034568756106415.post-30861856942735393772011-01-15T04:13:00.000-08:002011-01-15T05:07:05.505-08:00First post of 2011!<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjL3sTQ-46bHyEtpGlh2hO8XYXn1xcATmvHQTgCJWijK6Hvt0bqn5soBeht8jFpPBbAkVNf9CZMpBarGniCFHkTv0TO_8d0j7bc-Q4QP7Sc0zBmaoi649GD_aGHhMQfk7OH5qBVOGpQ8YuZ/s1600/DSCN2916.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 240px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjL3sTQ-46bHyEtpGlh2hO8XYXn1xcATmvHQTgCJWijK6Hvt0bqn5soBeht8jFpPBbAkVNf9CZMpBarGniCFHkTv0TO_8d0j7bc-Q4QP7Sc0zBmaoi649GD_aGHhMQfk7OH5qBVOGpQ8YuZ/s320/DSCN2916.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5562388846045073410" /></a><br /><br /><blockquote>‘Queen Mary Tudor’s Chair’ (c.1554) in Winchester Cathedral. According to a seventeenth-century account, this chair was used by Mary during her marriage ceremony.</blockquote> <br /><br />I can’t believe it has been two months since I last posted! I promise that this is not due to any sudden lack of interest in Mary, or in Tudor history as a whole. Since my last post I been awarded my MA, worked throughout Christmas, and been busy with PhD applications. I am very glad that the last few months are over with and I can finally get back to updating the <a href="http://marytudor.wordpress.com/">Mary bibliography site </a>on a regular basis!<br /><br /><br />So, what will 2011 bring for us Mary enthusiasts?<br /><br /><br />This year will see the publication of several ‘Mary-books’. Dr Alexander Samson’s study on her marriage, <em>Mary Tudor and the Habsburg Marriage: England and Spain 1553-1557</em>, is out later this year (no date of publication as yet). There is finally a confirmed date on Susan Doran and Thomas Freeman (eds.), <em>Mary Tudor: Old and New Perspectives</em> (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), <a href="http://mary-tudor.blogspot.com/2009/08/new-book-out-on-marys-historical.html">mentioned previously </a>on this blog. Both the paperback and the hardback will be released on 25 March. Alice Hunt and Anna Whitelock (eds.), <em>Tudor Queenship: The Reigns of Mary and Elizabeth</em> (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), has already been published in hardback, but at a rather unfriendly price. A preview of the book is available to see <a href="http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/hist2011/browse/inside/9780230111950.html">here</a>. Will a paperback version be printed? It looks unlikely :(<br /><br /><br />Jeri McIntosh, whose PhD thesis focused on the pre-accession households of both Mary and Elizabeth (a recommended read!), is currently working on a biography of Mary. It appears to be part of the Queenship and Power series (which Hunt and Whitelock’s <em>Tudor Queenship </em>is attached to). No date has been provided for the biography. There will be a volume on early modern queenship but this is due in 2014.<br /><br /><br />Are we seeing a new direction in scholarship? In recent years, attention has been paid to the Church under Mary (and we have seen such remarkable works as Eamon Duffy’s <em>Fires of Faith</em>), but it is becoming apparent that there is growing interest in Mary’s role as first crowned queen regnant. The subject of female rule in the early modern period has become a hot topic. Alongside the publications being brought out by the Queenship and Power series, there is also a PhD in the works by a candidate at Liverpool university (Anne Mearns, ‘Early modern queenship: the evolution of gender and power in England, 1553–1714’).<br /><br /><br />The ‘Religious History of Britain, 1500-1800’ seminar at the IHR has a number of interesting talks planned for this year. Amongst them is a paper given by Anthony Rustell on ‘Evangelical survivalism in Norfolk 1553-8: the careers of Protestant clerics and their patrons in the reign of Mary Tudor’. The talk is planned for 3 May. For more information click <a href="http://www.history.ac.uk/events/seminars/146">here</a>. <br /><br /><br />Unfortunately there isn’t much else to report. Any news of talks/further literature on Mary’s life and reign would be greatly appreciated.little_miss_sunnydalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04834404563322701533noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5513034568756106415.post-42232713997338934572010-11-05T09:06:00.000-07:002010-11-05T09:26:03.755-07:00Interview with Giles Tremlett on new Katherine of Aragon biographySome time back, I discovered that a new biography on Katherine of Aragon was in the works. Intrigued by the prospect of a new study on this figure – it has been a while since we have had a biography on her! – I contacted the author, Giles Tremlett. As I was unable to attend his talk at this year’s Cheltenham Literature Festival, I was particularly thrilled to receive a reply. I would like to thank Mr Tremlett for answering my queries and allowing me to post this mini-interview here. Obviously this blog is not about Katherine, but I’m certain that those interested in Mary, and in Tudor history in general, will wish to know more about this book. I highly recommend this book; make sure to put it down on your Christmas list! <br /><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxoJ3nI7rKzbs9log6ZOFY-bQtmdflw8sLLqcikaBjZwV61zK434iTWXgfwjT-P46VOfMd4_b_Qi34wj3qW76rcDWN6V6RJQE24KZOpg5J1aO9rlm6hq9k4RdpzN0qECxtLMa5L-ZRQL1L/s1600/516KJUR+ZDL__SS500_.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 214px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxoJ3nI7rKzbs9log6ZOFY-bQtmdflw8sLLqcikaBjZwV61zK434iTWXgfwjT-P46VOfMd4_b_Qi34wj3qW76rcDWN6V6RJQE24KZOpg5J1aO9rlm6hq9k4RdpzN0qECxtLMa5L-ZRQL1L/s320/516KJUR+ZDL__SS500_.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5536098817189952914" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><em>Why did you decide to write a biography on Katherine of Aragon? Was it due to an existing interest in her life story or perhaps a response to the limited amount of work on her?</em></strong><br /><br />There had been no serious solo biography of her since Mattingly in 1942. As a Spanish speaker with access to archives here in Spain, I felt I might be able to add something new to her story – if only by virtue of adopting a 'Spanish' perspective. In fact I have found some “new” (or, rather, previously underused) documents and have gone over many of the original documents (or transcripts of them) that can only by seen in their abbreviated, version in the Rolls Series of calendars (Letters and Papers of Henry VIII, Calendar of Spanish Papers etc...) They have allowed me, I think, to add new “shading” to her life. On a personal level, I also feel a natural sympathy for her as a 'displaced' Spaniard in England (being, myself, a displaced Englishman in Madrid, Spain). The result is “Catherine of Aragon: Henry's Spanish Queen” (note the different spelling) published by Faber and Faber in the UK and Walker in the U.S.<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><em>What is Katherine’s reputation in Spain? Every year the Spanish Embassy sends representatives to attend the commemorative services held for Katherine at Peterborough Cathedral. I was wondering whether this action was reflective of general sentiment in Spain or was just a nice gesture on behalf of the ambassador.</em></strong><br /><br />Katherine is barely known in Spain. She is overshadowed by her sister Juana “The Mad”, who was queen of Castile and (as her name implies) a troubled and colourful character. Katherine is a footnote in Spanish history. That footnote reads little more than this: “Victim of a wicked husband, Henry VIII”. The first proper biography written by a Spaniard (Luis Ulargui) was published just a few years ago and doesn't seem to have made much impact.<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><em>Katherine acted as Queen Regent during her husband’s military expedition to France in 1513. Do you think Katherine’s actions were heavily influenced by the example of her mother’s queenship?</em></strong><br /><br />Absolutely. Isabel had shown that a woman could organise a war (though not lead troops into battle, which neither Katherine nor her mother ever did), so she was by no means scared of the experience. In fact, reading her letters, she rather seemed to enjoy it. I think that, subconsciously, she probably also saw what she did in terms of the partnership that her mother and father enjoyed as monarchs of Castile and Aragon respectively – and was happy to be offering her husband victories at home, while he fought abroad. At one stage she compares their wars to her father's own conquest of Navarre, for example.<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><em>Some of Mary I’s biographers stress that it was Katherine who ensured her daughter was educated to be queen, and certainly Katherine was always confident that her daughter should rule in her own right. Would you agree that Katherine played a significant role in Mary’s education?</em></strong><br /><br />I am not sure that Katherine was confident that her daughter would be queen – especially not at the end. I imagine she always hoped to give birth to a son. But she certainly made sure Mary was well educated, commissioning a book from the Spanish humanist Juan Luis Vives outlining the proper education for a daughter. There is evidence that Katherine was personally active in educating Mary before she was sent off to Ludlow with her own court. She also taught her daughter absolute obstinacy in the defence of her rights (even at the risk of martyrdom, see below). <br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><em>Several years ago, David Starkey argued in his study of the six wives of Henry VIII that Katherine was probably lying about the non-consummation of her first marriage, but this lie was understandable and done to protect her position and later her daughter’s. From your research would you concur, or do you think evidence points to Katherine being honest in this regard?</em></strong><br /><br />Starkey says that Katherine knew how to lie, and I agree with him on that – the evidence is clear in the case of her first pregnancy, for example. But I think there is good evidence that she may have been telling the truth on this particular issue. The strongest piece of evidence is that Henry never took up the opportunity of swearing on oath that she was not a virgin when they married. Was he worried for his soul if he lied? We don't know. He may, of course, not have known enough about women's biology to be able to determine whether she was a virgin or not. I have also discovered, in a Spanish archive, the evidence given by some of those who travelled with Katherine to England. They said, at a hearing at the cathedral in Zaragoza (which historians of the period either seem to be unaware of or simply ignore – I cannot say why), that the wedding night was a disaster and all was doom and gloom the following morning. The English witnesses said pretty much the opposite when questioned at a hearing at Blackfriars. Basically, there is not enough evidence either way. Certainly her father said right from the beginning that she was still a virgin, when no-one really cared. I can't see why he would lie about that, unless he wanted to get her dowry money back or foresaw the kind of challenge that Henry would later make to the marriage.<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><em>In a letter to her daughter (probably dated around late 1533), Katherine commanded her to always obey God and to remember that ‘we never come to the kingdom of Heaven but by troubles’. One recent historian (Anna Whitelock) has argued that Katherine was inviting her daughter to a sort of ‘shared martyrdom’ and that Mary adopted the principals presented in this letter. Do you agree with this?</em></strong> <br /><br />I absolutely agree with this. Katherine inherited an intensity of character – and intense religiosity – from her mother. That made her both obstinate and tough when convinced she was in the right. She was prepared to pay the ultimate price herself (of martyrdom) and was ready to take her daughter with her, if that was the only way to save their souls (which, by her terms, would have been lost had they bowed to all Henry's demands).<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><em>Katherine of Aragon has been portrayed in film and TV productions on several occasions, including recently on the show, ‘The Tudors’. But these productions often depict her later in life and as physically different from what she actually appeared. Do you think such productions have presented a distorted and/or limited view of Katherine, or do you think they do a good job in getting people interested in her life? </em></strong><br /><br />I haven't watched them, I'm afraid. Ideas of beauty change over time, anyway, so I am not sure her physical aspect matters that much.<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><em>Katherine’s successor and rival, Anne Boleyn, is often the subject of much interest, so much so that there exists at least three major academic biographies on her. From your research, what are your own views of Anne Boleyn?</em></strong><br /><br />Anne Boleyn is fascinating, though I do not claim to be an expert on her. She was clever in all senses of the word - sometimes running rings around Henry - and a very strong character. I think Henry found her exciting as long as he could neither bed nor marry her. Once they were married (and once he was divorced) she was less of a challenge, and soon became less exciting. In fact he began to find her annoying. I can't help feeling sorry for her. She waited ages to marry him (while Katherine fought the divorce) and then lasted only a few years before having her head chopped off. Katherine's marriage lasted far longer..<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><em>Finally (sorry for all these questions!), if one was planning a trip to Spain and wished to visit sites relating to Katherine, what particular places would you recommend? </em></strong><br /><br />She spent so little of her life here (leaving at the age of 15) - and most of that was spent following her mother and father about on their wanderings - that there are very few places to visit. The only place she could ever really call home was the Alhambra at Granada – where she spent most of the last two years of her time in Spain. The Royal Alcazares at Seville were another place she stayed during that final period. Her birthplace of Alcala de Henares is a charming, if overbuilt, university town outside Madrid. For a symbolic place in her mother's story I recommend the Toros de Guisando (the ancient stone bulls, set in open countryside an hour's drive from Madrid, where the pact that sealed her position as heiress to the throne was agreed).<br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiz2WLbI3kZ3dULeyEZ1abb7PyfSfV_-rVQWkl3wYlgyhY1ajSaqI6k199JqSCuSp7w35ZFe22CriQ5oVmzprCNJcjZOOmOq2VTxYm-IFht3gyhoe5V_PGVYo7Gt0VW9_YmFf8XWThtDplr/s1600/3070492339_9312f1e23b.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 246px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiz2WLbI3kZ3dULeyEZ1abb7PyfSfV_-rVQWkl3wYlgyhY1ajSaqI6k199JqSCuSp7w35ZFe22CriQ5oVmzprCNJcjZOOmOq2VTxYm-IFht3gyhoe5V_PGVYo7Gt0VW9_YmFf8XWThtDplr/s320/3070492339_9312f1e23b.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5536101350157944402" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br />Giles Tremlett's book, <em>Catherine of Aragon: Henry's Spanish Queen</em> (Faber and Faber, 2010), <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0571235115?ie=UTF8&tag=yourandacom-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=6738&creativeASIN=0571235115">is out now in the UK</a>.little_miss_sunnydalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04834404563322701533noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5513034568756106415.post-32777801683582823432010-10-10T09:20:00.000-07:002010-10-10T09:37:28.489-07:00New Mary site<a href="http://mary-tudor.blogspot.com/2010/08/some-updates.html">Over a month ago</a>, I asked readers of this blog whether a site holding a complete list of works on Mary would be of interest. The response was really encouraging so I decided it was definitely something to pursue. I’m certainly not computer savvy – hence my use on the rather dependable wordpress! – but I have started work on it. <br /><br />The site can be found here:<br /><br /><a href="http://marytudor.wordpress.com/">http://marytudor.wordpress.com</a><br /><br />As you can tell, it is nowhere near complete. But I will be uploading information on a regular basis and once I’ve completed the categories, I will organise the site more effectively. I am also including a section on personalities associated with Mary and her reign, with information regarding articles/books on these persons. <br /><br />I hope this site will be of use to students/Tudor enthusiasts in general. One thing I have found interesting whilst devising the lists, was that certain areas relating to Mary, have barely been touched upon. Categorising the complete bibliography allows us to identify the areas that are need of more attention, along with those that have been of particular interest to scholars over the past decade or so.little_miss_sunnydalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04834404563322701533noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5513034568756106415.post-87810794583315394312010-09-16T16:03:00.000-07:002010-09-16T17:16:42.695-07:00Mary’s suitors – Part I: The Dauphin, François<em>In 1554, Mary married the most eligible royal in Europe. Wealthy, heir to numerous lands, handsome and chivalrous, Philip was the ideal candidate. He was also family, and we know how keen Mary was to preserve links with her Habsburg relatives. Mary did not marry for love; she had never met Philip before agreeing to marrying him and though she quickly became devoted to her husband, her choice was based primarily on his connections. In fact, the newly crowned Mary was more interested in Philip’s father, Charles V, who she had once been betrothed to (until he discarded her for Isabella of Portugal, Philip’s mother). Charles politely declined. He was, he argued, a rather old man, tied down with numerous problems across his vast empire. But he offered her his son and Mary readily accepted. <br /><br /><br />Throughout her life, Mary had been betrothed to, or there had been talk of her being married off to, the most prestigious figures in Europe. Despite being repudiated as heir to the throne in 1533, Mary was still regarded as a promising marriage candidate. This is part one (of what will probably be many!) posts looking at the men Mary was linked to. </em><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong>François, Dauphin of France</strong><br /><br /><br /><blockquote>Name: François, Dauphin of France<br /><br />Parents: Francis I of France and Queen Claude (Francis’s first consort and the daughter of Louis XII of France who, incidentally, had once been married to Mary’s aunt, the ‘other’ Mary Tudor).<br /><br />Position: The Dauphin; eldest son of the King of France and thus heir to the throne.<br /><br />Live span: 1518-36<br /><br />Qualities: Was heir to the throne of France; a great catch! <br /><br />Faults: Dropped dead in 1536, a significant impediment.</blockquote> <br /><br /><br /><br />The moment Mary was born speculations regarding her marriage were discussed. She was not the boy Henry and Katherine desired, but the appearance of a healthy baby gave the couple hope that a brother would soon follow. In the very early years of her life, marriage negotiations were somewhat ambiguous in nature, for they treated Mary as princess but were vague on her position as heir. Naturally those who sought her as their bride were quite excited by the prospect that Mary could be queen and they the king of England. <br /><br /><br />Dauphin François was betrothed to Mary at a very young age. In fact, he was still contently growing in his mother's womb when Henry and Francis I vaguely discussed a marriage between Mary and the child Queen Claude carried. Claude’s other children were daughters so like Katherine she faced pressure to deliver the necessary prince. Thankfully she had more luck than the English queen, and on 28 February 1518, François was born. In October, the Treaty of London was signed establishing ‘Universal Peace’ and promising Mary to the future king of France. Two betrothal ceremonies were held, one at Greenwich on 5 October, and the other in Paris on 16 December. <br /><br /><br /><br />On 5 October, two-year-old Mary was taken to court and presented to the French ambassadors for the betrothal ceremony. The man standing in for the groom was Guillaume Gouffier, Lord Admiral of France. Wearing a gown of gold cloth, a small black cap to cover her auburn hair, and covered in jewels, Mary initially stood in front of her mother until the ceremony when she had to be held up to participate. The French ambassadors asked the royal parents for their, and thus Mary’s, consent which they duly gave. Then Mary’s godfather, Cardinal Wolsey, presented a magnificent diamond ring that was placed by the Admiral on the toddler’s finger. Mary was on her best behaviour but the event was naturally confusing for the child. She assumed the Admiral was her future husband. “<em>Are you the Dauphin of France</em>?” she asked. “<em>If you are, I wish to kiss you</em>.” <br /><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEOJp0xL7d0HLDq8mQ1UYJs9x16ZjC0YlB1w780aFPZ4AAeEvrxHW-LE6vN6gKkiwmSjCXns8MkzD2gAgluIAJDQF6cMQkyEJjJbB1J6oAZCqsz_lE86fIuf6QfqVon7gU0_0MRSNFN0b4/s1600/admiral.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 245px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEOJp0xL7d0HLDq8mQ1UYJs9x16ZjC0YlB1w780aFPZ4AAeEvrxHW-LE6vN6gKkiwmSjCXns8MkzD2gAgluIAJDQF6cMQkyEJjJbB1J6oAZCqsz_lE86fIuf6QfqVon7gU0_0MRSNFN0b4/s320/admiral.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5517653095996367570" /></a><br /> <em>Portrait of The Lord Admiral by Jean Clouet, c.1516. Musée Condé, Chantilly</em><br /><br /><br /><br />Shortly after, she was returned to the comforting world of the royal nursery, where her lessons in French would soon begin. Even by the end of her life, Mary’s proficiency in French was excellent and she conversed to her eventual husband, Philip of Spain, in this language. Her progress, and especially the state of her health, was carefully monitored by the French representatives at court. She only had few occasions to be displayed to them, namely in 1522 when Francis sent several diplomats to check up on the princess who was residing in Richmond. She entertained them by playing the virginals, performing with great skill for someone of her ‘<em>tender age</em>’. Yet she never visited France, nor ever met her intended husband.<br /><br /><br /><br />Henry’s alliances with the French were always uncomfortably made, unsurprising given his desire to conquer rather than befriend them. Katherine, a Spanish princess, was horrified by the prospect of a French marriage for her daughter. Her father had once been engaged in a heated war with France, continued by his grandson and Katherine’s nephew, Charles V. She had been sent to England in 1501 to marry the prince of Wales, and help foster good relations between her native country and her adoptive one. This was the task of sixteenth-century foreign princesses – to act as ‘royal breeding machines’ (to coin a famous Tudor historian’s words!) and as diplomats. Mary’s engagement to the Dauphin signified Katherine’s failure. The same year she gave birth to a stillborn daughter; it would be her last pregnancy. 1518 must have been one of the bleakest years of Katherine’s life.<br /><br /><br /><br />Fortunately for Katherine, Henry began to lose interest in the arrangement. Queen Claude dutifully sent an image of little François for his in-laws and bride to admire, along with a beautiful jewelled cross worth six thousand ducats. But Henry was reluctant to be so benevolent in return. Significantly, he failed to bring Mary to the Field of Cloth of Gold in 1520, though Francis and Claude brought the Dauphin with them. It came as no surprise when, in 1521, Henry broke off Mary’s engagement to the Dauphin and betrothed her instead to Charles V. The dauphin had been ditched.<br /><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDGeNlXq5a6NjlozM4lpTyI-7YdkKVlu7_BTeZ39vFSrPCF7OVrn7TjQVemV2TP08pU9EsA1A3PaGiXlVm19TY1mVmoweXbfFUB-mutLu8Z-YZsgJo1AVPYFFQXGrLiMqJDDW31y1U7qsd/s1600/dauphinroyal+collection.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 245px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDGeNlXq5a6NjlozM4lpTyI-7YdkKVlu7_BTeZ39vFSrPCF7OVrn7TjQVemV2TP08pU9EsA1A3PaGiXlVm19TY1mVmoweXbfFUB-mutLu8Z-YZsgJo1AVPYFFQXGrLiMqJDDW31y1U7qsd/s320/dauphinroyal+collection.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5517655321823734242" /></a><br /> <em>Minature of the Dauphin by Jean Clouet, c. 1525-8. Royal Collection</em><br /><br /><br />Alliances were always feeble in nature and eventually the arrangement with Charles broke down. The English got a taste of their own medicine when in 1525 Charles married another cousin, the incredibly wealthy Isabella of Portugal. By 1526 a French marriage looked like a good prospect again. Unfortunately Francis had arranged another marriage for his heir, or to be more specific, it had been forced on him by Charles V. On 14 February 1525, Francis was captured in battle against the imperial forces at Pavia and to secure his freedom the French government sought an exchange – Charles may have the custody of Francis’s two eldest sons if he released the King (and the boys remained in captivity for around four years). Out of these talks came an agreement to marry the Dauphin to Charles’s niece Maria of Portugal and, given the unreliability of the English, the French regarded it as fair game to marry off the Dauphin elsewhere.[1] Thus by 1526 the Dauphin was no longer an option but Francis had other sons and he proposed that his second, Henri, duc d'Orleans, marry Mary. There was also talk of Francis being considered given that Claude had died in 1524. <br /><br /><br />Dauphin François and Mary were never betrothed again. In the mid 1530s there was some talk of a possible marriage between himself and Princess Elizabeth, Henry VIII’s daughter by Anne Boleyn, which came to nothing. On 10 August 1536, the Dauphin died suddenly at Tournon, an incident widely, and wildly, attributed to poison, resulting in the execution of one of his servants, Sebastiano de Montecuculli.[2] François’s death paved the way for his brother, Henri, to succeed to the throne. Henri was another of Mary’s one time ‘fiancées’. He would also turn out to be her main enemy. <br /><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHumVcdVdmKmlJP8-XYAfBcF7JZbExLZuTLVOxcduyzPF9pJ-O6cFi0MxO9W7R-JAUkc2xMxMTeg8l5fDffhz98Vd97P2c8akGwpAPWBvflUt3cZJuUMq_TuzMDBR1sy7I_AzAuUI3Yyzi/s1600/dauphin.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 274px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHumVcdVdmKmlJP8-XYAfBcF7JZbExLZuTLVOxcduyzPF9pJ-O6cFi0MxO9W7R-JAUkc2xMxMTeg8l5fDffhz98Vd97P2c8akGwpAPWBvflUt3cZJuUMq_TuzMDBR1sy7I_AzAuUI3Yyzi/s320/dauphin.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5517657808823375298" /></a><br /><br /> <em>Portrait of the Dauphin by Corneille De Lyon. Date unknown though seems mid-1530s</em><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />[1] Maria of Portugal was the daughter of Charles’s sister, Eleanor, who married Francis I in 1530. The marriage was one of the terms Charles forced upon the defeated Francis.<br /><br />[2] François is said to have died after drinking contaminated water after building up a thirst playing a game of tennis. Tennis was a dangerous game for French royals. Charles VIII of France knocked himself out whilst playing the game, an injury which led to his death, and Louis X was said to have died after drinking large amounts of cold water after playing tennis for hours in the heat. Ironically, François’s brother, Henri (who became king in 1547), also suffered a sports-related death. This time it wasn’t the curse of tennis, but the ever dangerous pastime of jousting. A lance pierced Henri’s right eye and entered his brain. Physicians tried to save him but after ten agonising days he succumbed. In short, French royalty should never play sports.little_miss_sunnydalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04834404563322701533noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5513034568756106415.post-54094518159268460382010-09-13T07:27:00.000-07:002010-09-13T09:33:09.960-07:00A guide to WinchesterA few days ago, I visited the city of Winchester for the first time. Winchester is a particularly special place for the subject of this blog for, in July 1554, Mary married Philip of Spain in the fine cathedral. Here is a (very!) brief guide of the Mary sites in Winchester that will hopefully prove useful to anyone planning a visit:<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong>Winchester Cathedral</strong><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0quNMmoehwAfYf8CZ3bFOg6FYnrTRu6LmXLzj0R5NVwCrnxRvIbwad7G2pb9jzD8Mvmq09Zmz-72ODJTs8HIrGnqY1RnqP8rrd4e2ciKzDtM7ChR8Sy5g0WeuXtYgn_lyahxaJ8IlEBzW/s1600/DSCN2814.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0quNMmoehwAfYf8CZ3bFOg6FYnrTRu6LmXLzj0R5NVwCrnxRvIbwad7G2pb9jzD8Mvmq09Zmz-72ODJTs8HIrGnqY1RnqP8rrd4e2ciKzDtM7ChR8Sy5g0WeuXtYgn_lyahxaJ8IlEBzW/s320/DSCN2814.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5516410863265100434" /></a><br /><br />Philip arrived at Southampton on the 19 July 1554. He stayed there for a few days, reaching Winchester in the early evening of 23rd. Soon after, he celebrated mass at the cathedral, then retired to the Dean’s house, changed dress, and went to Wolvesey Palace to meet Mary for the first time. Winchester’s proximity to Southampton, and the splendour of the cathedral, made it an ideal setting for the wedding. Additionally, the couple were to be married by the bishop of the diocese – Stephen Gardiner, the Lord Chancellor. The favourable comments made about the cathedral from Spanish visitors attests to the success of Mary’s decision to hold her special day there.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiba2eJ_-tiSaM5u-wH2Gk3zvnuIodaB7vfZEoxpn1oP_bm6z4cMRaLUih1wv1xPcnszyP225yS2RpLrh3ojIM86Avg_yvvRQ67QBbMh-hQ1ygQVDRUmzwSPY91A0C-2W45nn14L6z118wi/s1600/DSCN2817.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiba2eJ_-tiSaM5u-wH2Gk3zvnuIodaB7vfZEoxpn1oP_bm6z4cMRaLUih1wv1xPcnszyP225yS2RpLrh3ojIM86Avg_yvvRQ67QBbMh-hQ1ygQVDRUmzwSPY91A0C-2W45nn14L6z118wi/s320/DSCN2817.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5516413329827417890" /></a><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhF09NnxObJL3tYhhRaZO8FMIOZZs0wkB_6oTjGXHzVqSQBI63qavNYvUZ0z0sQ0Dy3gqdBOA659EziWHqBVTy6SLrWMePuAcs5fqnj-fiW-OnVFQNqFOrKEntRoEkwBX_zc62Sm-WQtaM9/s1600/DSCN2819.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 240px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhF09NnxObJL3tYhhRaZO8FMIOZZs0wkB_6oTjGXHzVqSQBI63qavNYvUZ0z0sQ0Dy3gqdBOA659EziWHqBVTy6SLrWMePuAcs5fqnj-fiW-OnVFQNqFOrKEntRoEkwBX_zc62Sm-WQtaM9/s320/DSCN2819.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5516415002847842898" /></a><br /><br /><br />The couple married on 25 July, an auspicious date for it marked the feast day of St James, patron saint of Spain. The groom wore white and gold and the bride wore purple and white (sounds ghastly, I know! But from a contemporary perspective the couple were dressed magnificently). Philip’s ‘suit’ was a gift from his bride, who had spent quite some time arranging her own dress. Clearly she was determined to see Philip – the new King of England – as well turned out as she.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6DgBqvBWp8d_Yrsvfa1NbjVARy9v0vKD7s1dYfCTmYQfyX8FPMyed4rsKe8LsPjep-czxSq1bwJQrwp6emfKv6TZ9_qxjvOhfa6b0wGnV0ysUTFIOBszoD9coF14e5vPiEby9PyoebCwA/s1600/DSCN2825.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6DgBqvBWp8d_Yrsvfa1NbjVARy9v0vKD7s1dYfCTmYQfyX8FPMyed4rsKe8LsPjep-czxSq1bwJQrwp6emfKv6TZ9_qxjvOhfa6b0wGnV0ysUTFIOBszoD9coF14e5vPiEby9PyoebCwA/s320/DSCN2825.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5516416085570305682" /></a><br /><br />When visiting cathedral today, it is hard to fully appreciate the setting of the wedding for the couple married on a specially constructed scaffold that was removed shortly after. Two days earlier, they had met for the first time and this had also been a public affair. We are told that another sort of a stage had been constructed (this time in Wolvesey’s Palace, a short walk from the cathedral), where the couple first greeted each other in front of their receptive, and rather large, entourages. Thousands crammed into the cathedral for the ceremony, so the platforms proved handy. Along the nave a raised walkway had been built so the grand procession could be visible. This was no shabby affair. The cathedral was covered in ‘<em>ryche hanginges</em>’ and two sumptuous chairs were placed in the quire where Mary and Philip would sit during points of the ceremony. As the officiating herald recorded,<br /><br /><blockquote>‘<em>First the said Church was richlie hanged with Arras and cloath of gold, and there was a stage made along the bodie of the Churche that is to saie from the west dore untill the Rode Lofte wheare was a mounte made of iiii degrees of height as large as the place wold serue. The Stage and Mounte covered with Redd saie and underneath the Rode Loft was there ii trauerses made, one for the quenes Matie. on the right hand an other for the Prince on the left side. The which places served very well for that purpose. The quier was aloft hung with rich cloath of gold, and on eche side the high Aulter was there a rich Trauers one for the queen on the right side another for the Prince on the left Side</em>.’</blockquote><br /><br /><br />None of the rich cloth that adorned the cathedral has survived. Yet, if you go into the Triforium Gallery (in the South Transept) you will see ‘Mary Tudor’s Chair’. This sixteenth-century seat was allegedly the one used by Mary during her wedding.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiT6WlRQ9vlFM5z1PFZTx9Xo4EvMO2E4DdCHJI5avNRrEvjKPjBvtzqb25o0b4Gsvfirl4Yt-e6Gaghtjg9lHxwCK3Zb53FdVPDif-EWo5pEU0y7zPgxGvdjNehsYyd-OcyM03GZ9MiFIV_/s1600/DSCN2916.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 240px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiT6WlRQ9vlFM5z1PFZTx9Xo4EvMO2E4DdCHJI5avNRrEvjKPjBvtzqb25o0b4Gsvfirl4Yt-e6Gaghtjg9lHxwCK3Zb53FdVPDif-EWo5pEU0y7zPgxGvdjNehsYyd-OcyM03GZ9MiFIV_/s320/DSCN2916.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5516418542304156562" /></a><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4JezcURsncsCUuWj2KBABPY8YjjEj11LXM0uuAQLf-HVEj-xw89IPWo36ndrQnDebwd07VgWNWhSIeZOFRrwITFNRagLf3zYo-_U7pE8grKgzskGSOLW_k-d0Y8w8lvE7aCEIp4-7rPj7/s1600/DSCN2920.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4JezcURsncsCUuWj2KBABPY8YjjEj11LXM0uuAQLf-HVEj-xw89IPWo36ndrQnDebwd07VgWNWhSIeZOFRrwITFNRagLf3zYo-_U7pE8grKgzskGSOLW_k-d0Y8w8lvE7aCEIp4-7rPj7/s320/DSCN2920.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5516418954200711570" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br />Remarkably, throughout the ceremony Mary was placed on the right and Philip on the left, a reversal of the traditional situation. Mary presented herself as the active monarch with Philip as her consort. Naturally this caused some murmurs though, on the whole, both English and Spanish commentators explained away this situation and presented it as perfectly normal.<br /><br /><br />Bishop Gardiner began with a sermon, then asked the congregation whether anyone knew of any lawful impendent why the pair could not marry which, thankfully, no one decided to provide. Mary had no father to give her away and in theory she was to be given on behalf of the whole realm. The Marquis of Winchester and the earls of Arundel, Derby, Bedford and Pembroke, represented the people and answered Gardiner’s request as to who was to give the lady away. When they replied that they represented the whole realm, the crowd gave a cheer and acknowledged their acceptance of the marriage. Rings were then exchanged – Mary famously asking for a plain band – and Philip gave Mary gold coins which she handed over to Margaret Clifford (her first cousin once removed), who was attending upon her. They then celebrated mass at the High Altar. The ceremony was over; now it was time for ‘<em>triumphing, bankating, singing, masking, and daunsing, as was never seen in Englande heretofore</em>’. <br /><br /><br />Whilst in the cathedral make sure to check out Stephen Gardiner’s tomb. Unfortunately his effigy was spoiled by parliamentary troops in the seventeenth-century. The magnificent tomb of Cardinal Henry Beaufort, is relatively intact. Beaufort was the son of John of Gaunt by his mistress, then wife, Katherine Swynford. He was the great-uncle of Margaret Beaufort, Mary’s great-grandmother. Mary’s paternal grandmother, Elizabeth of York, is represented in a stained glass window in the beautiful Lady Chapel (which also features some amazing sixteenth-century murals). <br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYV1JMPJZJQM7doEooR9USzUwHep6wnBnb1C0BuHkgmy2DXsNrZrRc3eFiNGrLXVLe6XD28mkHgBCvthyphenhyphenmfhJ2g_9Uc64y3QkcNDi_JVcHWenCa83XQY65uXBbxvN1kUmIWgIh7sFNUwss/s1600/DSCN2890.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 240px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYV1JMPJZJQM7doEooR9USzUwHep6wnBnb1C0BuHkgmy2DXsNrZrRc3eFiNGrLXVLe6XD28mkHgBCvthyphenhyphenmfhJ2g_9Uc64y3QkcNDi_JVcHWenCa83XQY65uXBbxvN1kUmIWgIh7sFNUwss/s320/DSCN2890.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5516419522159155394" /></a><br /><blockquote>Bishop Gardiner's tomb</blockquote><br /><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEEDrWZy9ptxzHhKD49zLqk9A3OnqIYiM1hkDYl4FyQjq_wuqFFl77RCu15NtWYBDEgsbe36z65w-UXdqSfqHv2gECKONdbox9llWf2-uWQM8U8RO3UWxnr96nAPpNMIrac6EJDbQfKi84/s1600/DSCN2888.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEEDrWZy9ptxzHhKD49zLqk9A3OnqIYiM1hkDYl4FyQjq_wuqFFl77RCu15NtWYBDEgsbe36z65w-UXdqSfqHv2gECKONdbox9llWf2-uWQM8U8RO3UWxnr96nAPpNMIrac6EJDbQfKi84/s320/DSCN2888.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5516425826811059282" /></a><br /><blockquote>Bishop Gardiner’s effigy which has been beheaded</blockquote><br /><br /><br />The cathedral charges a small fee for entrance and photography is free (though prohibited in the library). It was one of the friendliest cathedrals I have ever been to and it is easy to spend hours in there. Jane Austen, one of my favourite authors, is buried in the Nave. Austen once remarked of Mary:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote>‘This woman had the good luck of being advanced to the throne of England, inspite of the superior pretensions, Merit & Beauty of her Cousins Mary Queen of Scotland & Jane Grey. Nor can I pity the Kingdom for the misfortunes they experienced during her Reign, since they fully deserved them, for having allowed her to succeed her Brother — which was a double piece of folly, since they might have foreseen that as she died without Children, she would be succeeded by that disgrace to humanity, that pest of society, Elizabeth. Many were the people who fell martyrs to the protestant Religion during her reign; I suppose not fewer than a dozen. She married Philip King of Spain who in her Sister's reign for [sic] famous for building the Armadas. She died without issue, & then the dreadful moment came in which the destroyer of all comfort, the deceitful Betrayer of trust reposed in her, & the Murderess of her Cousin succeeded to the Throne – '</blockquote> <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong>Wolvesey Palace (aka ‘Wolvesey Castle’ and the ‘Old Bishop’s Palace’)</strong><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6qHDGgIDH4OVrjyOtx-QH-KCnP9MEW2Df-KIko-KeHRz_m_xMezeZkBgP-RjguGigjGf25JnlV6V0jhQqp1Idpg9SODPr9HITkXZfQV44FWdmWTiu9l1gQoWbni_PUnA9h0dkRJofGPYe/s1600/DSCN2967.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6qHDGgIDH4OVrjyOtx-QH-KCnP9MEW2Df-KIko-KeHRz_m_xMezeZkBgP-RjguGigjGf25JnlV6V0jhQqp1Idpg9SODPr9HITkXZfQV44FWdmWTiu9l1gQoWbni_PUnA9h0dkRJofGPYe/s320/DSCN2967.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5516426924759063586" /></a><br /><br /><br />Wolvesey Palace is a short walk from the cathedral. Only ruins are left, but it is still worth exploring. For it was here, on the 23 July 1554, that Mary and Philip met for the first time. Philip arrived in Winchester on the same date, and moved into the dean’s house. Mary had only recently settled in the palace. Dressed in a ‘<em>cloke of blacke cloth embrodred with silver, and a paire of white hose</em>’, Philip proceeded to the palace with a huge retinue. Mary was waiting on the constructed platform which she ‘<em>descended, and amiably receaving him, did kisse him in presence of all the people</em>’. After what must have been a somewhat uncomfortable first meeting, witnessed by a large crowd, the couple retired to the presence chamber with prominent lords and ladies in attendance. One of the first challenges was figuring out how to communicate. As a young girl, Mary had been fluent in her mother’s native tongue. Now, she was no longer confident in her Spanish. So Mary spoke French whilst Philip replied in Spanish. They talked for some fifteen minutes after which Philip returned to his apartments. Before retiring he turned to the noblemen present and declared “<em>Good night my Lords all</em>”. It was the first and last time he spoke English. One of his companions alleged that he returned to the palace at ten at night, where the pair met once more, this time with fewer witnesses.[1] <br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVutxV53Xbbmj4CPbfg1MsYSEsU6QraBYF1Vqe_sCZ_GYYExDpbUC2feHlj-l9PmMIaet1REet-zJpxTUnzLUiLLYh69WArTMrYa9pr_Qeo7X249T_QAumOVz9R8cby7Mu-OwJflRRjeTW/s1600/DSCN2959.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 240px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVutxV53Xbbmj4CPbfg1MsYSEsU6QraBYF1Vqe_sCZ_GYYExDpbUC2feHlj-l9PmMIaet1REet-zJpxTUnzLUiLLYh69WArTMrYa9pr_Qeo7X249T_QAumOVz9R8cby7Mu-OwJflRRjeTW/s320/DSCN2959.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5516428889234886498" /></a><br /><br /><blockquote>The East Hall (the audience chamber). The wedding banquet was held here.</blockquote><br /><br /><br />The palace was also the scene of the banquet and celebrations that commenced after the marriage service. Mary spent the first days of married life in seclusion (as was seen appropriate) and it is probable that she remained within the palace.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhR_Dg7BLWK2eL_zvUrKNAXrb4VUxbHOupGWpXBpkUHTTM7ihSniRYsOZohtah_iZHbDyXd48fquZ3bxPPVnl36V234FJamgsdNdwtLqLYFa1xGLo4Xi2p4C9mbVtY6l7jgGsSSa9xIwTRD/s1600/DSCN2975.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhR_Dg7BLWK2eL_zvUrKNAXrb4VUxbHOupGWpXBpkUHTTM7ihSniRYsOZohtah_iZHbDyXd48fquZ3bxPPVnl36V234FJamgsdNdwtLqLYFa1xGLo4Xi2p4C9mbVtY6l7jgGsSSa9xIwTRD/s320/DSCN2975.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5516429963218475234" /></a><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9xpL1BglVD_DFkZ-qMg3JS-I4A3Bijk-Z5-sEeth6HmD55DNCDYtcLMWYnTJszCtncViCjJGPWC7mK5I23WjaV89snGK-OLvb6_Qr5pAH4INPtamCSoTE_q_uTH0pAGDBh062rSx8Q8a5/s1600/DSCN2967.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9xpL1BglVD_DFkZ-qMg3JS-I4A3Bijk-Z5-sEeth6HmD55DNCDYtcLMWYnTJszCtncViCjJGPWC7mK5I23WjaV89snGK-OLvb6_Qr5pAH4INPtamCSoTE_q_uTH0pAGDBh062rSx8Q8a5/s320/DSCN2967.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5516429961785765010" /></a><br /><br /><br />The palace is now owned by <a href="http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/wolvesey-castle-old-bishops-palace/">English Heritage </a>and is free to enter. The presence chamber is clearly marked; walking through the main archway, it is situated in front of you. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong>Great Hall and Round Table</strong><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8bKGJqwR_p64lp7mL_D5mywqj-3S4gitOf5qFpKeieANSKsvBpK_XTA14gIhSZKht2PEt_5Ca0mXK9oZZ-E8x8fo9s93D2QGcMoIHL4TO9GZ-uOX72vW1CQwIGemg3nRlZH1Lp-Nvc7mJ/s1600/DSCN3005.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 240px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8bKGJqwR_p64lp7mL_D5mywqj-3S4gitOf5qFpKeieANSKsvBpK_XTA14gIhSZKht2PEt_5Ca0mXK9oZZ-E8x8fo9s93D2QGcMoIHL4TO9GZ-uOX72vW1CQwIGemg3nRlZH1Lp-Nvc7mJ/s320/DSCN3005.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5516431193906811314" /></a><br /><br /><br />In 1522, Charles V visited England for six weeks. During the course of his stay, a betrothal was arranged between himself and the six-year-old Mary. As his arrival was celebrated in London, Henry VIII decided to take Charles to Winchester so he may see ‘King Arthur’s round table’. The table was constructed in the thirteenth-century by Edward III and painted in c.1516-7 (hence why King Arthur looks so like Henry!). Mary and Philip stayed in Winchester for several days after their wedding, and it is unknown whether Philip was show the table. However whilst Mary remained in seclusion following the wedding, Philip toured Winchester and it seems highly likely that he saw the town’s star attraction. The Great Hall remains a popular tourist site. Free to enter, it contains a magnificent set of nineteenth-century stained glass windows depicting the arms of individuals of importance to Winchester. Mary and Philip’s are included.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgd5LLx4_PTwLUdPACLkncosVn3goUMqEev8Rw_tXpCwBi3ZGStS5fGvj0WWIMClzB5GSlHCQDN59gezbaZcqeMqNNDRPw30tum-qXEA9Dml7TxNwO0C-Actpj9FXDUyVe6Y1MyG2uLWI-h/s1600/DSCN2994.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgd5LLx4_PTwLUdPACLkncosVn3goUMqEev8Rw_tXpCwBi3ZGStS5fGvj0WWIMClzB5GSlHCQDN59gezbaZcqeMqNNDRPw30tum-qXEA9Dml7TxNwO0C-Actpj9FXDUyVe6Y1MyG2uLWI-h/s320/DSCN2994.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5516431558352639234" /></a><br /><br />The Great Hall is free to enter and photography is permitted.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong>Westgate Museum</strong><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbeWi-_DANMz18sNlGkR4gMcUY6POAQUAzBkhjtnHBIBAHcuXVcDO03HrJD02nwexbqZEnWxdxWc0wDvymybLkV-CZrz0HBFUJgqlOkfl4E2opL1ek3Mc1ixTziosshhyphenhyphenB0F_yqXzMV1df/s1600/DSCN2811.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbeWi-_DANMz18sNlGkR4gMcUY6POAQUAzBkhjtnHBIBAHcuXVcDO03HrJD02nwexbqZEnWxdxWc0wDvymybLkV-CZrz0HBFUJgqlOkfl4E2opL1ek3Mc1ixTziosshhyphenhyphenB0F_yqXzMV1df/s320/DSCN2811.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5516432073316006802" /></a><br /><br />Westgate, one of the two surviving medieval fortified gateways in the city, is now a small museum and holds some interesting items. John White, Warden of Winchester College from 1542 to 1554, commissioned a splendid painted ceiling for his apartments that may have been ordered to celebrate Mary’s marriage. Mary and Philip visited the College after their wedding though it is unknown whether they saw the ceiling, or if it was specially made for the occasion. <br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVKg4yEOolL6kve9xpUAflfNhR03mks8Q_4bw5BO6CVkQcTl2ida1fvoqFfIKcbObZxUi1aXqz-WRWLL-jKt39e0D_nyTbvouHHHfgnkYBbi0ox0tTUQKK94aNQ_VcwE-3zUksz6ASdFVp/s1600/DSCN3011.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVKg4yEOolL6kve9xpUAflfNhR03mks8Q_4bw5BO6CVkQcTl2ida1fvoqFfIKcbObZxUi1aXqz-WRWLL-jKt39e0D_nyTbvouHHHfgnkYBbi0ox0tTUQKK94aNQ_VcwE-3zUksz6ASdFVp/s320/DSCN3011.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5516432689821447010" /></a><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWs6NrpjiP6iwAexlO6ajEOzn3A_Z4W_2EEPMnuYy-9j9mllUP98Ce5BA86YHEayS6ahtZ84nlaDsWUDGg9uaUoSjAIb11IMyBuOsnKKFClH77V8fl9oti3rBEkADekAXKLW3lNDJ6Gykk/s1600/DSCN3019.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWs6NrpjiP6iwAexlO6ajEOzn3A_Z4W_2EEPMnuYy-9j9mllUP98Ce5BA86YHEayS6ahtZ84nlaDsWUDGg9uaUoSjAIb11IMyBuOsnKKFClH77V8fl9oti3rBEkADekAXKLW3lNDJ6Gykk/s320/DSCN3019.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5516432691346377138" /></a><br /><br /><br />Following conservation, the panels were given to the museum. Westgate also holds a portrait of Ralph Lamb, a wealthy resident of Winchester, who attended the wedding. The portrait is by an unknown Spanish artist and dates to c.1554, thus was commissioned to mark the event. He is probably depicted in the attire he wore for the occasion.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg87TJGJuNz9N9qmcWV6M9F2Yic7c5Ex0sclL9vPVokYqpB7CRXHJU6BvhpuOZvm7p-BGmLioxDb0u7HNjeUOJR7JOGGKULBFvIJG0UsnuyuEkL6aCxfOSdHQFEY1pfzMWJapd5rPy9RB_T/s1600/DSCN3017+-+Copy.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 285px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg87TJGJuNz9N9qmcWV6M9F2Yic7c5Ex0sclL9vPVokYqpB7CRXHJU6BvhpuOZvm7p-BGmLioxDb0u7HNjeUOJR7JOGGKULBFvIJG0UsnuyuEkL6aCxfOSdHQFEY1pfzMWJapd5rPy9RB_T/s320/DSCN3017+-+Copy.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5516433568049267474" /></a><br /><br /><br />The museum is free to enter provides spectacular views of the city from the open rooftop.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />[1] It is often stated that only one meeting took place. However one of Philip’s companions, Juan de Figueroa, mentioned another meeting at night.<br /><br /><br /><br /><em>(I have been working on the content for the Mary bibliography site, mentioned in my last post. I am not particularly computer savvy, so if anyone could give me some tips about which site I should use to create the website, I would be very grateful. Preferably something that I will find easy to use!)</em>little_miss_sunnydalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04834404563322701533noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5513034568756106415.post-25821584144472832292010-08-23T07:50:00.000-07:002010-08-23T07:56:39.189-07:00Some updates<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGZ7sHb6moK-B0MtGg7gnI2Hzarrs_BRvpLNDh_DHkQkWyyGcv7OHco_Rwzi-dgZ2C-VyBNMqSjHIvHk0Tat0XjLsKQbHY27X5PyHZ4CiUluz15XkIZoYiPugR0jbrHtaJAnsLurWdiKv4/s1600/258-510.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 158px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGZ7sHb6moK-B0MtGg7gnI2Hzarrs_BRvpLNDh_DHkQkWyyGcv7OHco_Rwzi-dgZ2C-VyBNMqSjHIvHk0Tat0XjLsKQbHY27X5PyHZ4CiUluz15XkIZoYiPugR0jbrHtaJAnsLurWdiKv4/s320/258-510.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5508619085013675138" /></a><br /><br /><br />Apologies for the lack of updates. I am currently writing my dissertation (due in less than a month!) and the last weeks have been dedicated to this alone. When I have [finally] finished it, I will discuss some of my findings here as I came across some intriguing information. <br /><br /><br />Giles Tremlett, The Guardian's Spain correspondent, has written a biography on Katherine of Aragon. He will be attending the Cheltenham Literature Festival (<a href="http://cheltenhamfestivals.com/literature-2010/catherine-of-aragon-giles-tremlett/">16th October</a>), which I attend annually so I should be able to go. If you can’t make it to Cheltenham, don’t fear – Mr Tremlett will also be speaking at Hampton Court Palace on <a href="http://www.hrp.org.uk/HamptonCourtPalace/educationandcommunity/adultlearning/eveninglectures.aspx">11th November</a>. Fellow HRP members, we can get a bit of discount on tickets. <br /><br /><br />Its early days yet, but I have decided to start a new site which will, hopefully, be of use to students and nonstudents alike. It will basically be a bibliography of works on Mary, cataloguing books, articles, PhD and MA theses. I will divide studies up into sections (so a list of biographies, of works relating to the Marian Church, Marian government, art under Mary, music, etc...). I may even develop this further by adding primary sources as this summer I have worked extensively in the British Library and the National Archive and have become familiar with documents relating to Mary between the years c.1533-1553 (a little give away about the time frame of my dissertation!). I would love feedback about this. If you feel such a site would be useful, please say; if you think it is pointless, tell me. I have got lists of works saved on my computer for my own use but if this will prove useful to anyone else, student and other Mary enthusiasts, then I will gladly post them. I also have a number of magazine articles that I could post there. I will provide links to journal articles, including those that do not require subscriptions to see (which are, admittedly, just a handful!). So please tell me what you think. In the meantime, if someone is working on a Mary related project now and needs some guidance with reading materials, don’t hesitate to contact me.little_miss_sunnydalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04834404563322701533noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5513034568756106415.post-17149896416710134472010-08-03T14:00:00.000-07:002010-08-03T15:19:10.864-07:00A Mary themed tour of London!I moved to London last September and sadly will be leaving this lovely city in two months time when my degree finishes. But I have made great use of my time here, visiting all those spots which I failed to before. Fortunately I grew up less than two hours away from London and visiting frequently allowed me to become familiar with the capital before I decided to study here. But there were still places I failed to visit, including those associated with Mary. Many visitors to London wish to spend their time at the famous landmarks and with a limited time in the capital this is entirely understandable. But there are other areas which are rather neglected and worth a visit too – some are even free to enter (a rarity in London!). So here is a brief list. Just to point out some were not part of London in Mary’s day but are now, so I’m counting places that constitute today’s city. <br /><br /><br /><br />1. Greenwich <br /><br />As the place of Mary’s birth, Greenwich fully deserves it places on this list of Mary related London sites. The palace where she was born (also the birthplace of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I) and the adjoining Church of the Observant Friars where she was christened are long gone. But Greenwich is still a great tourist hotspot. The <a href="http://www.oldroyalnavalcollege.org/discover-greenwich/">Discover Greenwich centre </a>has recently opened and various sixteenth-century artefacts are on display (though the focus is very much on Henrician and Elizabethan Greenwich). The park, where Henry VIII often went hunting, was a familiar site to Mary. Be sure to check out <a href="http://www.st-alfege.org/">St Alfege Church </a>which is about 5 minutes from Cutty Sark tube station. Though much amended since Mary’s day it is the burial place of the great sixteenth-century composer, Thomas Tallis, who served in the Chapel Royal under Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary and Elizabeth. The church also holds the ‘Tallis keyboard’ which contains several sixteenth-century keys that were allegedly played by Tallis and the princesses Mary and Elizabeth. <br /><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCrEJ-ep-hYVdq9zXvF7X1chGBIWUUiKn9UfITLqRAt3FHgoD6kMUBqjuyjOSQJl1F9uV41-k8nwQt2kXlrJTZATLvjwUafwPTF9QPU5I42TgcaW03_7Y-H5yzeYbhK0JvOwmWQ-GJYHXV/s1600/DSCN2285.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCrEJ-ep-hYVdq9zXvF7X1chGBIWUUiKn9UfITLqRAt3FHgoD6kMUBqjuyjOSQJl1F9uV41-k8nwQt2kXlrJTZATLvjwUafwPTF9QPU5I42TgcaW03_7Y-H5yzeYbhK0JvOwmWQ-GJYHXV/s320/DSCN2285.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5501292198848608162" /></a><br /><blockquote>The 'Tallis Keyboard' </blockquote> <br /><br /><br />2. St Margaret’s Church, Westminster<br /><br />Located right by the abbey, <a href="http://www.westminster-abbey.org/st-margarets">this church </a>admittedly has little in connection to Mary. But it is worth going in to see the stained glass window depicting a young Henry VIII and Katherine of Aragon. The window was commissioned by Henry VIII in the 1520s and was given as a gift to Waltham abbey, but shortly after the break from Rome it was confiscated by the King and placed in the chapel at Beaulieu. <a href="http://mary-tudor.blogspot.com/2009/06/mary-and-royal-manor-of-beaulieu.html">Beaulieu</a>, otherwise known as New Hall, was one of the properties Mary inherited from her father and was one of her favourite residences. So the window was once her property and something she would have known well. It was relocated to St Margaret’s in the eighteenth-century. Entrance is free but photography is not allowed. <br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg3x6ds5HEt4I6uVURdK3VIG18Mw2H4I8dSBf1hLudfGdhshGWX8_6hhyphenhyphenkJpE7lXukzvi6asWwkPazd-Tnd_89FAh6-iVjrkTHziRqPIuSUmuOtINLFkQTtPLWw3qZYHNbZ3HptKgQy0d1/s1600/DSCN2434+-+Copy+(2).JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 250px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg3x6ds5HEt4I6uVURdK3VIG18Mw2H4I8dSBf1hLudfGdhshGWX8_6hhyphenhyphenkJpE7lXukzvi6asWwkPazd-Tnd_89FAh6-iVjrkTHziRqPIuSUmuOtINLFkQTtPLWw3qZYHNbZ3HptKgQy0d1/s320/DSCN2434+-+Copy+(2).JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5501292926786982066" /></a><br /><blockquote>Detail of Katherine of Aragon in the stained glass window in St Margaret's</blockquote><br /><br /><br />3. The National Portrait Gallery<br /><br />Though small, the Tudor galleries in the NPG are a delight. See the c<a href="http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait.php?search=ap&npgno=428">.1544 portrait of Mary</a> – the first portrait she commissioned of herself, to mark her re-inclusion in the succession. There is also a <a href="http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw09583/Queen-Mary-I?LinkID=mp02995&role=sit&rNo=0">miniature of Mary </a>by Lucas Horenbout which depicts her wearing a brooch with her then betrothed’s name on it (Emperor Charles V). Room one is a collection of portraits of Mary’s family – a posthumous <a href="http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw01144/Catherine-of-Aragon?search=ss&sText=of+aragon&LinkID=mp00801&role=sit&rNo=2">portrait of her mother</a> can be found here, along with a fabulous <a href="http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw01957/Catherine-Parr?search=ss&firstRun=true&sText=Parr&LinkID=mp00803&role=sit&rNo=1">painting of Katherine Parr </a>that was misidentified as Lady Jane Grey for many years. But no Tudor gallery would be complete without a portrait of Henry VIII and by Holbein no less. Holbein’s <a href="http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw03080/King-Henry-VIII-King-Henry-VII?search=ss&firstRun=true&sText=Henry+VIII&LinkID=mp02145&role=sit&rNo=3">preparatory drawing of the King </a>for the Whitehall Mural is one of the first items you see when you enter the room. Ironically the portrait of Mary is almost directly opposite one of her victims – <a href="http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw01563/Thomas-Cranmer?search=ss&firstRun=true&sText=Thomas+Cranmer&LinkID=mp01089&role=sit&rNo=0">Thomas Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury</a>. Entrance is free. Make sure to go next door into The National Gallery (also free) and see the <a href="http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/hans-holbein-the-younger-christina-of-denmark-duchess-of-milan">Holbein portrait of Christina of Denmark</a>, Mary’s cousin once removed and at one point a possible stepmother when Henry attempted to negotiate a marriage with the widowed Christina in the late 1530s. Luckily Christina eluded him. <br /><br /><br />4. All Hallows by the Tower<br /><br />The oldest church in the City of London, <a href="http://www.ahbtt.org.uk/">All Hallows </a>name partly derives from its proximity to the Tower of London. Fortunately it is one of the only churches in the city that survived the ghastly fire of 1666 primarily because it was so close to the Tower (which was full to the brim of ammunition which meant the authorities did everything they could to keep the fire away). Mary had no direct connection with the place but it is believed that one of the most ardent defenders of her parents’ marriage, John Fisher, bishop of Rochester (St John Fisher), was buried there following his execution in 1535. The chapel of St Peter ad Vincula within the Tower is well known as the burial ground of condemned traitors but All Hallows served as an alternative resting place. Who else connected to Mary was buried here remains a mystery; perhaps various individuals she sent to their deaths? The church is also worth visiting for its connections to William Penn (who was baptised here), and John Quincy Adams who married here in 1797. The church is free to enter and photography is permitted.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBHmPblyb7JdzHTGY7XOzoL4XPgYmImOF1SPXFhRllV2m38SgeEUCPWb-BhORzzMc1MMMn5qYTW_URacQNyev7av8ctx65ReXMhOJq4v6whf1fWVt93DffwNDw3Xxc2iuidOo76Jwy0P37/s1600/DSCN2048.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 240px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBHmPblyb7JdzHTGY7XOzoL4XPgYmImOF1SPXFhRllV2m38SgeEUCPWb-BhORzzMc1MMMn5qYTW_URacQNyev7av8ctx65ReXMhOJq4v6whf1fWVt93DffwNDw3Xxc2iuidOo76Jwy0P37/s320/DSCN2048.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5501295730207383266" /></a><br /><blockquote>Alleged site of Bishop Fisher's resting place.</blockquote><br /><br /><br />5. Old Chelsea Church, London<br /><br />Chelsea Manor, a grand house owned by various prominent individuals including Sir Thomas More, is long gone though the church remains. Most of <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/20631910@N03/sets/72157623710348642/">the church </a>was destroyed by bombing in WWII yet the More chapel remained. Jane Dudley, duchess of Northumberland who, ironically, Mary was close to and was godmother to at least one of her children, is buried here. It was at Chelsea Manor that Jane Grey was told of Edward VI’s death; Anne of Cleves, Mary’s stepmother, died here in July 1557. The property was also owned by Katherine Parr who settled here after Henry VIII’s death with her stepdaughter and Mary’s sister, Elizabeth, in her care. The church is free to enter and photography is permitted.<br /><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0fS88Q0Ofyec67cGsSJtpbV3PzNfSlF5QKPOnlNivaIYrMpzsYgMI762SGNIXFVOXgaEpMS8jXEQR8yOVptFqW5pdSdW1D_tqZIzdTkgK-LBWyMFLEasHId3dbNea4H9FtyX5hESWuRWs/s1600/DSCN1987.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 240px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0fS88Q0Ofyec67cGsSJtpbV3PzNfSlF5QKPOnlNivaIYrMpzsYgMI762SGNIXFVOXgaEpMS8jXEQR8yOVptFqW5pdSdW1D_tqZIzdTkgK-LBWyMFLEasHId3dbNea4H9FtyX5hESWuRWs/s320/DSCN1987.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5501296361521003602" /></a><br /><blockquote>Image of Jane Dudley, duchess of Northumberland on her tomb</blockquote><br /><br /><br />6. Whitehall<br /><br />Virtually nothing remains of the impressive palace Henry constructed. It was the grandest palace he owned and <a href="http://mary-tudor.blogspot.com/2009/08/princess-marys-lodgings-at-whitehall.html">special lodgings for Mary</a> were constructed there in the 1540s. Henry died here in January 1547 and in 1554 it was the scene of Cardinal Reginald Pole’s public reception by Mary and her husband Philip; Pole’s arrival signified the official proceedings that reunited England with the Catholic Church. ‘<a href="http://www.shadyoldlady.com/location.php?loc=433">Henry VIII’s wine cellar’</a>, the last remnant of his palace, is located in the basement of the Ministry of Defence.<br /><br /><br /><br />7. Guildhall<br /><br />A definite must see. It was here, in 1554, that Mary rallied the citizens of London against the rebels of Wyatt’s uprising that attempted to take the city. Jane Grey was condemned to death here in 1554 along with her husband Guilford Dudley, his brothers Henry and Ambrose, and the archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer (though Cranmer would later be tried for heresy and sentenced to death on these charges). The present <a href="http://www.guildhall.cityoflondon.gov.uk/">Guildhall</a> was built between 1411 and 1430 though was affected by both the fire of 1666 and bombing in WWII. One single window survived the blast – when entering the hall it is on the immediate right. There is a plaque in the hall commemorating notable trials that took place, listing several that occurred during Mary’s reign. Make sure to go into the crypts to check out the medieval foundations and a nineteenth-century stained glass window depicting Sir Thomas More.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1mFVepYN8412i2vuBlWvk6fiiXfA2tzpWDVhyc_MEagCS8Wxb99WRvXmWZkfxrECkYMGMYAb2ktdIplSblD-mZAHDe7EVo5sbzc-wDptZl-c-Hftf1W2szKRIjAK990WRslEkNxVNd0Dx/s1600/Greenwich.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1mFVepYN8412i2vuBlWvk6fiiXfA2tzpWDVhyc_MEagCS8Wxb99WRvXmWZkfxrECkYMGMYAb2ktdIplSblD-mZAHDe7EVo5sbzc-wDptZl-c-Hftf1W2szKRIjAK990WRslEkNxVNd0Dx/s320/Greenwich.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5501305749741918114" /></a><br /><blockquote>Guildhall</blockquote><br /><br /><br />8. Westminster Hall<br /><br />The oldest part of the Palace of Westminster, <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/building/palace/westminsterhall/">the hall </a>was built in 1097 intending to be a place for banquets. The hall later served several functions, including becoming the scene of many famous trials. In 1553 Mary’s opponent, John Dudley, duke of Northumberland, was tried for treason here and a year later the duke of Suffolk, father to Lady Jane Grey, was condemned to death for his involvement in Wyatt’s rebellion. On 1st October, Mary proceeded into the hall in full regalia shortly after her coronation ceremony. She subsequently presided over her magnificent coronation banquet which lasted for some hours. It goes without saying that security is tight and queues long. Photography is permitted in only the hall.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVMPjPfA0w7Sl3OjZcYAAjwJF__uxFpO_Z739teCm9wR1Gnw6NN0v72yvHD_kXritQnpP3-4H11Mr8KoMYt3T7Ym7pHJxNdIu1VGI-5keSR7FILGsFYo1OwfKRpG04AiDBUWPo840_q8T6/s1600/DSCN1098.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVMPjPfA0w7Sl3OjZcYAAjwJF__uxFpO_Z739teCm9wR1Gnw6NN0v72yvHD_kXritQnpP3-4H11Mr8KoMYt3T7Ym7pHJxNdIu1VGI-5keSR7FILGsFYo1OwfKRpG04AiDBUWPo840_q8T6/s320/DSCN1098.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5501300431227733218" /></a><br /><blockquote>Westminster Hall</blockquote><br /><br /><br />9. The Tower of London<br /><br /><a href="http://www.hrp.org.uk/toweroflondon/">The Tower of London </a>is one of those places which everyone has to visit at least once. Well maybe twice. Or three times; or even four, and maybe.... well, lets just say that despite the absurdly high entrance fee it must be seen. Mary’s allies and enemies spent time in this gloomy fortress and she resided her briefly before her coronation as was the custom. Most of these condemned individuals were executed outside on Tower Hill (right by the tube station of the same name), though of the few executed within, on Tower Green, Mary could claim connections. Two of her stepmothers lost their lives here (Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard) as well as her long-term governess, supporter and relation, Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury. It was also the site of an execution carried out on her orders – the beheading of Lady Jane Grey. Elizabeth, Mary’s sister, would famously spend time here, after she was accused of complicity in Wyatt’s rebellion. As mentioned, entrances prices are high and if you are thinking of visiting on a frequent basis I recommend applying for membership. For £41 a year you can visit the Tower (and Hampton Court Palace) to your heart’s content. <br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvmfqX3lhC_Ysuc09cUuNJsZMYCeZqnFRparRppUbNhUo4le-bEraU2m4-UpdLtbuqd6d0RU6MqpI8IeqG4l1a1GGoZSgWUNn6gmhzcBjnXPQxaI39DU_tCLEo5zQdpjCGKitQF_u6wGTq/s1600/DSCN0214.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 240px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvmfqX3lhC_Ysuc09cUuNJsZMYCeZqnFRparRppUbNhUo4le-bEraU2m4-UpdLtbuqd6d0RU6MqpI8IeqG4l1a1GGoZSgWUNn6gmhzcBjnXPQxaI39DU_tCLEo5zQdpjCGKitQF_u6wGTq/s320/DSCN0214.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5501301673730459890" /></a><br /><blockquote>The Chapel of St Peter ad Vincula</blockquote><br /><br /><br />10. Southwark Cathedral and Winchester Palace<br /><br />During Mary’s reign, trials for heresy were held in the Retro-Choir, the oldest part of the <a href="http://cathedral.southwark.anglican.org/">cathedral</a>. The trials were overseen by Stephen Gardiner bishop of Winchester, for the cathedral was then under his authority. The first individual burnt for heresy during Mary’s reign – John Rogers – was condemned here, as was Bishop John Hooper who was sent back to his diocese of Gloucester to die. There is no entrance fee but if you wish to take photos there is a very small charge. <br /><br />Though only a few ruins remain, <a href="http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/winchester-palace/">Winchester Palace </a>is still a place to visit. It located less than 10 minutes from Southwark Cathedral so it is best to see both during one trip. It was the seat of Stephen Gardiner, who was also Lord Chancellor under Mary. According to one contemporary, Gardiner entertained Henry VIII and Katherine Howard at this residence during Henry’s attempts to annul his marriage to Anne of Cleves, facilitating his union with Katherine (Mary’s fourth stepmother).<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpeur1QV84tI8Z1hkOubv2k-42rQGOQXqOg_8cYSU82yAjFF_ZZ6JE_in8d6GlcfuM84cFtS_ZYeeN1Z1okWr_eveXhJhUXTnwFcbYx-JxyPUt-GDngBDimI04Cuot079saHxKlkv2d8KP/s1600/DSCN2483.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 240px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpeur1QV84tI8Z1hkOubv2k-42rQGOQXqOg_8cYSU82yAjFF_ZZ6JE_in8d6GlcfuM84cFtS_ZYeeN1Z1okWr_eveXhJhUXTnwFcbYx-JxyPUt-GDngBDimI04Cuot079saHxKlkv2d8KP/s320/DSCN2483.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5501302856813093058" /></a><br /><blockquote>Southwark Cathedral</blockquote><br /><br /><br />11. Smithfield<br /><br />Today known for the meat market, Smithfield was once a notorious place of execution. In Mary’s day it was a cattle and horse market, which also served as a venue for public burnings of heretics. During Mary’s reign, seven Protestants were sent to their deaths here including John Rogers, John Cardmaker, John Bradford, John Philpot, Thomas Tompkins, John Warne and John Leafe. Rogers was the first Protestant to die on charges of heresy during Mary’s reign and his courageous example was regarded as inspirational by supporters. Offered a pardon at the execution, Rogers refused, told the crowd to be unwavering in their faith, was tied to the stake and the fire lit. Whilst the flames consumed his body he ‘<em>washed his hands in the flame</em>’ (Foxe, Acts and Monuments) until it covered his whole body; a symbolic act of washing away the sins. A plaque commemorating the Marian martyrs can be found on the site. When in the area be sure to go into the <a href="http://www.greatstbarts.com/">Priory Church of St Bartholomew the Great</a> which contains one of only two pre-Reformation fonts in London. From 1539 the Lady Chapel served as a printing house. Benjamin Franklin once worked here (when it was Samuel Palmer's printing shop). Fans of films set in the Tudor period may find the place familiar; scenes from <em>Shakespeare in Love </em>and <em>The Other Boleyn Girl</em> were filmed here. There is a small entrance fee and photography is permitted. <br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4xAgKhcJx-xifMb4ElexyjaEwMhwmjUk1mqxLi4oDNbfd_zoG70eDEm94G8HRyEjIz1qV4Lgb8Gv_9XDxZlKAtN-fFErVNJwtYWKYLr9HikEvqNeiWjW3v8zHZn2Utu5XsDG7M925rXM-/s1600/DSCN1958.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 240px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4xAgKhcJx-xifMb4ElexyjaEwMhwmjUk1mqxLi4oDNbfd_zoG70eDEm94G8HRyEjIz1qV4Lgb8Gv_9XDxZlKAtN-fFErVNJwtYWKYLr9HikEvqNeiWjW3v8zHZn2Utu5XsDG7M925rXM-/s320/DSCN1958.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5501303563227071042" /></a><br /><blockquote>Plaque for the Smithfield martyrs</blockquote><br /><br /><br />12. Museum of London<br /><br />A <a href="http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/English/">museum</a> which, as the name suggests, charts the history of the city. The galleries of interest to Tudor enthusiasts were recently renovated. There isn’t much on Mary aside from a very small section on the London Protestant Martyrs and the Reformation, but it is still worth seeing. They also house artefacts from the long gone Nonsuch palace, which was built by Henry VIII in the 1530s. Evidently Mary knew the palace well. The museum is free to enter. <br /><br /><br />13. The Victoria and Albert Museum<br /><br />The <a href="http://www.vam.ac.uk/">V&A</a> does hold objects relating to the Tudors but not a vast collection. However its new renaissance wing, which provides context on the age Mary lived through, is outstanding. There are some interesting objects connected to her relatives, including a stained glass window of her aunt and her husband’s grandmother, Juana of Castile. In the British gallery there are different objects connected to the Tudors, including Henry VIII’s writing desk. Entrance is free.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwXrFQfENZHYmqYjAGeP5-HR6Xt9nX6X8LKiqTLMlmvg2z8th8A49ofjv-SxBv3VaTuDM0iEudCGa-zk8cSoWFkTED827jEBRnhfEYvEjKhFyNiYxcHgpZ83gIMvmqg4r-kDVjTZcuFTbR/s1600/Juana.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 240px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwXrFQfENZHYmqYjAGeP5-HR6Xt9nX6X8LKiqTLMlmvg2z8th8A49ofjv-SxBv3VaTuDM0iEudCGa-zk8cSoWFkTED827jEBRnhfEYvEjKhFyNiYxcHgpZ83gIMvmqg4r-kDVjTZcuFTbR/s320/Juana.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5501306072211541762" /></a><br /><blockquote>Stained glass window depicting Juana of Castile commissioned for the Chapel of the Holy Blood in Bruges, c.1496</blockquote><br /><br /><br />14. Westminster Abbey<br /><br />No tour of places connected to Mary is complete without a visit <a href="http://www.westminster-abbey.org/">to her resting place</a>. Mary requested burial in the abbey and intended to have her mother’s body brought here where the two would share a grand tomb. In the end Mary did end up sharing a tomb with a female relative but not one she would have been happy to be situated next to. The grand monument to Elizabeth marks the spot of Mary’s burial. A plaque in front of the tomb reads, ‘<em>Partners both in throne and grave, here rests we two sisters, Mary and Elizabeth, in the hope of one resurrection</em>’. Aside from Mary and Elizabeth, two other Tudor monarchs can be found in the abbey, Henry VII and Edward VI, along with Mary’s grandmother, Elizabeth of York and her stepmother, Anne of Cleves. Cousin Frances Grey, duchess of Suffolk (Jane Grey’s mother) was also buried here as was Margaret Douglas, Countess of Lennox who Mary was rumoured to favour as her successor. Be sure to check out the abbey’s museum (entrance fee included with the ticket for the abbey) that houses Mary’s funeral effigy. It goes without saying that the ticket price is absurdly high but like the Tower it just is one of those places you have to go to. Get there early to avoid the queues! <br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTSfqKs4TjCmZDiy4Zbb2HaTMDqCgcPLT7UkA07pRkwbU-Mx-3sDJjWndgK6rQVUCkijOFUR9_tMOT4GbYpbJXDppTnafBRWKyjEeNOu1h6rUfd1ChfVNwOdQWYVRwibBz4wCm9GRyd0ZK/s1600/Mary.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 234px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTSfqKs4TjCmZDiy4Zbb2HaTMDqCgcPLT7UkA07pRkwbU-Mx-3sDJjWndgK6rQVUCkijOFUR9_tMOT4GbYpbJXDppTnafBRWKyjEeNOu1h6rUfd1ChfVNwOdQWYVRwibBz4wCm9GRyd0ZK/s320/Mary.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5501306904609577794" /></a><br /><blockquote>The head of Mary's funeral effigy</blockquote><br /><br /><br /><br />Enjoy the Mary tour!<br /><br /><br /><br /><em>(Though I’ve stated that some places allow photography, always ask beforehand. I have not included Hampton Court Palace as that was not part of London then nor is it now, though it is located a short train ride away and is lovely to look around in summer. <a href="http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/eltham-palace-and-gardens/">Eltham Palace</a>, the childhood home of Henry VIII, is also worth a trip. Take the DLR all the way to Lewisham and from there board a train to Eltham which is about 10 minutes away).</em>little_miss_sunnydalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04834404563322701533noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5513034568756106415.post-8517723580998187922010-07-28T15:39:00.000-07:002010-07-28T16:07:33.524-07:00New Year’s Gift List of 1534 & the possible portrait of MaryYesterday, whilst working on my dissertation in the National Archives, I consulted one document which relates somewhat to my previous post on the <a href="http://mary-tudor.blogspot.com/2010/07/research-into-possible-portrait-of-mary.html">possible portrait of Mary</a>. The portrait allegedly dates to c.1535 a time which, I argued, would not make sense given Mary was in disgrace. To emphasise this further here is the New Year’s Gift list of 1534 which details gifts granted to and from the King. You will notice a blatant omission. Mary was clearly out of favour owing to her stance against Henry’s new marriage, behaviour which Henry regarded as dangerous and unruly. She was given nothing and no gift from her was accepted by him (not that she was in a sufficient financial position to get her father a gift in the first place).<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJYsgPTu62N3sv1e1B7hrF4TDOoXYlHYb6E3aGmvlfV1iwQSg_fT8FNvRPY3QsgaWPJjcLSl8YXcezEnY-s8owzZv8kHTvd7MSsyGfbn4rz7tbo0cADZXbeQYfpWKQ6M0AFB_mZvXXMzuJ/s1600/DSCN2605.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 300px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJYsgPTu62N3sv1e1B7hrF4TDOoXYlHYb6E3aGmvlfV1iwQSg_fT8FNvRPY3QsgaWPJjcLSl8YXcezEnY-s8owzZv8kHTvd7MSsyGfbn4rz7tbo0cADZXbeQYfpWKQ6M0AFB_mZvXXMzuJ/s400/DSCN2605.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5499090977366932626" /></a><br /><br />(Notice Henry VIII’s signature on the top of the list. His signature can also be found at the end of the document).<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwYpEavviYmnNy4N867cCCZvUSeeRCGdJ-kEl9d4S6fgMUenk6m9HeIgWzHYmP3tzaChE_LGr2jRyLb3IiTFF0YWLbeniOfw09wrl4EanZNxjU1uZpqUy1-QbGMdhZulgI2g2RUbOE95-H/s1600/DSCN2609.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwYpEavviYmnNy4N867cCCZvUSeeRCGdJ-kEl9d4S6fgMUenk6m9HeIgWzHYmP3tzaChE_LGr2jRyLb3IiTFF0YWLbeniOfw09wrl4EanZNxjU1uZpqUy1-QbGMdhZulgI2g2RUbOE95-H/s400/DSCN2609.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5499091489087224242" /></a><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoWuYCtCAT5vmgNhx7QkjtMk4djaFIUtYGGg3_O-a54vthyphenhyphenlldRM8grFWQhst6qeGU4Yi8o5ipd8FaRFQ1cUG2sYbvs4N7DIFLkKzn_E-ZoXrk39S04d7SuFC-wNjuEvogeCw7WW3__C4R/s1600/DSCN2607.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoWuYCtCAT5vmgNhx7QkjtMk4djaFIUtYGGg3_O-a54vthyphenhyphenlldRM8grFWQhst6qeGU4Yi8o5ipd8FaRFQ1cUG2sYbvs4N7DIFLkKzn_E-ZoXrk39S04d7SuFC-wNjuEvogeCw7WW3__C4R/s400/DSCN2607.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5499091861506660258" /></a><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDqtvAe-k0L4PadXG-vqKKD3gfi9zaZbNtCFgZdNs7ziz6TquSh2eiu1fnkp3lP-9QECSTVekoRfUXKNfdASyL_0YlWg4BowCeeD4UrknfmhnNDad-m1vfby033Y_-ct1nn84YK0iI65n-/s1600/DSCN2616.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDqtvAe-k0L4PadXG-vqKKD3gfi9zaZbNtCFgZdNs7ziz6TquSh2eiu1fnkp3lP-9QECSTVekoRfUXKNfdASyL_0YlWg4BowCeeD4UrknfmhnNDad-m1vfby033Y_-ct1nn84YK0iI65n-/s400/DSCN2616.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5499092186177945634" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br />The question of who would commission the portrait remains. Certainly Henry would not have ordered it. As for Mary’s supporters, would they have risked the King’s wrath by having a portrait of Mary commissioned? There is certainly no evidence of Mary sitting for a portrait from late 1533 to the summer of 1536. Could supporters have produced portraits without requiring a sitting? This idea is undermined not only by the lack of evidence of any supporter actually having such a portrait produced, but also by the French ambassador’s claims in 1541 that no image of Mary could be made without the King’s consent. Explaining why he had failed to obtain a portrait of Mary he explained, ‘<em>no painter dare attempt it without the King’s command</em>’. Mary would only commission her own portrait in 1544, immediately after she had been reinstated in the succession. The painting in question is one of the <a href="http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw04264/Queen-Mary-I?LinkID=mp02995&role=sit&rNo=1">most familiar images of Mary</a>.little_miss_sunnydalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04834404563322701533noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5513034568756106415.post-89661774795890297832010-07-23T08:56:00.001-07:002010-07-23T10:30:23.142-07:00Research into a possible portrait of Mary<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTU48y-MoOdOa3JpPtkKpO983b3t2N8YVnDvSdMNqL6JptBQmu-Cb3a5a4O7ojhO4ikmr11tvIWlwL-4dMSDZHD-PgtO9JxxTt34lt8uh11Cb9EX01ctb0AMDmdIU3W8OrnNzdml7HP2IJ/s1600/mary+as+princess.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 312px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTU48y-MoOdOa3JpPtkKpO983b3t2N8YVnDvSdMNqL6JptBQmu-Cb3a5a4O7ojhO4ikmr11tvIWlwL-4dMSDZHD-PgtO9JxxTt34lt8uh11Cb9EX01ctb0AMDmdIU3W8OrnNzdml7HP2IJ/s400/mary+as+princess.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5497131287981553842" /></a><br /><br />Back in the 1920s a portrait of a young woman was sold to Jules S. Bache in New York as 'English Princess', with the implication that the sitter was Mary. The portrait is by a unidentified Netherlandish artist and has been dated to about 1535.<br /><br /><br />The portrait is currently being examined by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY, who have labelled this as ‘Portrait of a Young Woman’ whilst they look into the credibility of the claim that it is of Mary.<br /><br /><br />If the dating of the portrait is correct – so 1535 – the implication that this is of Mary is problematic. Mary was still in disgrace by that date and thus not in a position to have her portrait taken (nor is there evidence of her sitting for such a portrait between late 1533 to mid 1536). There is a <a href="http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/egallery/object.asp?maker=12102&object=912220&row=45">Holbein sketch dated c.1536 </a>in the Royal Collection that is believed to be of Mary, a date which is more logical given that by the summer of that year Mary was back in her father’s favour upon her decision to recognise her demoted status and her father’s headship of the church. The situation was markedly different in 1535. Furthermore the girl appears younger than nineteen, the age Mary was throughout most of 1535.<br /><br /><br />Previous analysis of this portrait was insufficient to prove that it was of Mary. Hopefully the current investigation will determine the identity. <br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSwgqw5bjf8yPLsLyuylCfeU76dkOvQlXf-pcLSXIqTiGAHP2oUBZXfWvVy1YAHwGzJ0J8xWmbiIapdVbZUrlwPWX9FN7b-sOzlG-EL1SbqOI7A-WMe53RVnnrJfpLXsg7nFy2I_5BubC8/s1600/zoom3.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 312px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSwgqw5bjf8yPLsLyuylCfeU76dkOvQlXf-pcLSXIqTiGAHP2oUBZXfWvVy1YAHwGzJ0J8xWmbiIapdVbZUrlwPWX9FN7b-sOzlG-EL1SbqOI7A-WMe53RVnnrJfpLXsg7nFy2I_5BubC8/s400/zoom3.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5497155007287917794" /></a>little_miss_sunnydalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04834404563322701533noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5513034568756106415.post-89534054868872882412010-07-20T08:31:00.000-07:002010-08-19T04:37:05.385-07:00Thursday, 20 July 1553 – Judith and Holofernes<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGCZIIcWL9pBKk3uCf3iJaXKcAwkxu4pw5oDbCTe-Lwe05rsTTiX875qOMO2KmqeBsallVoxi3N4ui-wll3XUpv_QJ0_rYXcUcyw8lrPXIpdyThcZLxWh0JYXApyve-TlqDqDktA2axLtu/s1600/3498056820_8daf629d65_o.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 207px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGCZIIcWL9pBKk3uCf3iJaXKcAwkxu4pw5oDbCTe-Lwe05rsTTiX875qOMO2KmqeBsallVoxi3N4ui-wll3XUpv_QJ0_rYXcUcyw8lrPXIpdyThcZLxWh0JYXApyve-TlqDqDktA2axLtu/s320/3498056820_8daf629d65_o.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5496016066348097842" /></a><br /><br /><br /><blockquote>“<em>When the battle-line seemed fully drawn up, sacred Mary rode out from Framlingham castle about four o’clock (the day was a Thursday), to muster and inspect this most splendid and loyal army. While her majesty was approaching, the white horse which she was riding became rather more frisky at the unaccustomed sight of such an army drawn up in formation than her womanly hesitancy was prepared to risk, so she ordered her foot-soldiers, active and dutiful men, to lift up their hands to help their sovereign until she got ready to get down; obedient to their gentle mistress’s request, they brought the queen down to the ground. Once she had got down from her horse, the good princess first gave warning in an order that no harquebusier should fire his gun, nor any archer release his arrows until her majesty had inspected her army. When this order was given, such was the respect that everyone felt for their sovereign that no harquebusier nor archer fired after her command; but the soldiers bowed low to the ground and awaited their beloved mistress’s arrival with as great an obeisance as they could manage. When she came along, they offered her such reverence that I had serious doubts whether they could have given greater adoration to God if he had come down from Heaven</em>.”<br /><br />(Wingfield, <em>The Vita Mariae Angliae Reginae</em>, 1554)</blockquote><br /><br /><br /><br /><blockquote>“<em>But be you assured, you shall never escape death; for if she</em> [Mary] <em>would save you those that now shall rule will kill you</em>.”<br /><br />(Edwin Sandys to the duke of Northumberland, 20 July 1553)</blockquote><br /><br /><br />In her coronation procession, Mary was likened to courageous Judith who had brought about the demise of her peoples enemy, Holofernes. Fortunately Mary did not have to resort to seducing the duke of Northumberland in order to destroy him. But she procured the same result – the severed head of her opponent.<br /><br /><br />The duke had long been unpopular in certain parts of the kingdom but at least he had allies who had stood alongside him in the early days of Jane’s reign. Now, like his daughter-in-law, he had been abandoned by almost everyone. Aside from his wife and sons, few would mourn his death. Fellow members of the Privy Council were attempting to distance themselves from him and to indicate that he was responsible for Mary being denied the throne. They had decided the previous day to proclaim Mary queen in London and shortly after the announcement the earl of Arundel and Lord Paget rode to Framlingham to deliver the news to their new monarch. They would declare themselves her ‘<em>most humble, faithful and obedient subjects</em>’ and would beg ‘<em>your majesty to pardon and remit our former infirmities</em>’.<br /><br /><br />However the men did not arrive till the evening and before then Mary believed she would need to take the capital by force. Her soldiers were called for an inspection. Evidently she had been able to gather an impressive display of arms. ‘<em>The infantry made ready their pikes, the cavalry brandished lances, the archer bent his bow, and girded on his quiver, the harquebusier filled his weapon with powder</em>’, and all men stood in place not moving ‘<em>a finger’s breadth from position</em>’. At four o’clock she rode out though a restless horse lead her to inspect her troops on foot. She spoke to the men for some time, treating them ‘<em>with exceptional kindness</em>’. But perhaps most importantly she was recorded as adopting a relaxed approach, investing in her men a sense of confidence they would prove victorious. As soon as she got back on her horse to ride away, a large section of the cavalry ‘<em>suddenly streamed forth and beat and trod the ground with such a thunderous noise and spread so widely through the field that it seemed like one enemy in pursuit of another</em>’.<br /><br /><br />The day would only prove to get better. Arriving back in the castle she was told that the Privy Council had declared her queen and London was the scene of much rejoicing. This was confirmed in the same evening when Arundel and Paget arrived and begged for her clemency. Then came others equally remorseful. Amongst them were two men from the duke’s army, Sir John Clere and Lord Clinton. Richard Rich, the man infamous for his involvement in the downfall of Sir Thomas More and his ability to change allegiance without much concern, also arrived later that evening.<br /><br /><br />The duke was also informed on this date of the turn of events. Along with his son, John Dudley, Sir John Gates and the earl of Huntington he went to the marketplace in Cambridge, threw his cap in the air, scattered coins in celebration, and called for Queen Mary. Having done his duty he told Edwin Sandys, one of the few men who hadn’t deserted him, that he hoped Mary would prove merciful and spare him as she would the other councillors. When the earl of Arundel came to arrest him only a few days later, he posed the same question and asked the earl to intervene for him. “<em>My Lord, you should have sought for mercy sooner</em>”, was the only response he was met with.<br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg75cOlDJdSfGTBg6mYd-Vl3krvq4VOvwo_MAjxE-_p6ERiCjQtCgoPXuXWl_BvbxXICHTqJeG3upm8t2jqHexKY_zL8i0Fy6SFgCTJ9XrvhFzF9-rsgu8bcKe5U2vVTfaylaGFODKJSWnD/s1600/STANZI~1.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 234px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg75cOlDJdSfGTBg6mYd-Vl3krvq4VOvwo_MAjxE-_p6ERiCjQtCgoPXuXWl_BvbxXICHTqJeG3upm8t2jqHexKY_zL8i0Fy6SFgCTJ9XrvhFzF9-rsgu8bcKe5U2vVTfaylaGFODKJSWnD/s320/STANZI~1.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5496017172127568530" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />(Top image - <em>Reenactment of Mary’s inspection of her troops at Framlingham. Photo taken by Malcolm R Bell and posted on his <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/malcolm-bell/">Flickr account</a></em>)<br /><br />(Bottom image – <em>Judith with the Head of Holofernes by Massimo Stanzione, c.1630-35. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY</em>)little_miss_sunnydalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04834404563322701533noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5513034568756106415.post-23850303499166913932010-07-19T16:30:00.000-07:002010-07-19T16:39:19.370-07:00Wednesday, 19 July 1553 – Victory<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiF6V_h0eAyYUPzfa-YeADE1a2Aw0ptf0zwgKPxibPkO7sDdqksAd6PI68gr9iKEHvzf-hMLCZe9dZs_GJD8AeTDWl65JpHRW_rPFATIycAwKnt7YiPxePZSO6aKONXP-FZDsswzR4A3DJp/s1600/maryimage.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 270px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiF6V_h0eAyYUPzfa-YeADE1a2Aw0ptf0zwgKPxibPkO7sDdqksAd6PI68gr9iKEHvzf-hMLCZe9dZs_GJD8AeTDWl65JpHRW_rPFATIycAwKnt7YiPxePZSO6aKONXP-FZDsswzR4A3DJp/s320/maryimage.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5495765396087469938" /></a><br /><br /><br /><blockquote>“.. <em>the xix. day of the same monyth, was st Margarettes evyne, at iiij. of clocke at after-none was proclamyd lady Ma</em>[ry to] <em>be qwene of Ynglond at the crose in Cheppe with the erle of Shrewsbery, the earle </em>[of Arundel], <em>the erle of Pembroke, with the mayer of London, and dyvers other lordes, and many of the ald[dermen] and the kynges schrffe master Garrand, with dyvers haroldes and trompettes. And from thens cam to Powlles alle, and there the qwere sange Te Deum with the organs goynge, with the belles ryngynge, the most parte alle </em>[London], <em>and that same nyght had the </em>[most] <em>parte of London Te Deum, with bone-fyers in every strete in London, with good chere at every bone </em>[fyer], <em>the belles ryngynge in every parych cherch, and for the most parte alle nyght tyll the nexte daye to none</em>.”<br /><br />(The Chronicle of the Grey Friars of London, 1553).</blockquote><br /><br /><br /><blockquote>“<em>We your most humble, faithful and obedient subjects having always (God we take to witness) remained your Highness’s true and humble subjects in our hearts ever since the death of our late sovereign lord and master, your highness’s brother whom God pardon; and seeing hitherto no possibility to utter our determination herein without great destruction and bloodshed both of ourselves and others till this time, have this day proclaimed in your city of London your majesty to be our true, natural sovereign liege lady and queen, most humbly beseeching your majesty to pardon and remit our former infirmities and most graciously to accept our meanings which have been ever to serve your highness truly</em>.”<br /><br />(Council’s message to Mary, 19 July 1553)</blockquote><br /><br /><br />Sometime in the late morning of the 19th the earls of Arundel and Pembroke, standing before the rest of the Privy Council, managed to convince the same body of men to abandon Jane and proclaim Mary queen. It was not a particularly difficult task given that many of these men congregated in Baynard’s Castle were quite willing to switch sides. Days earlier some had tried to flee the Tower to rush to Mary and offer their allegiance but had been prevented from doing so. Now they discussed terms. They would submit completely to Mary’s will, profess themselves her true subjects and attribute Jane’s accession to the ambition of the Lord President of the Council – the duke of Northumberland.<br /><br /><br />The earl of Pembroke’s desperation in securing the council’s approval for Mary was evident. “<em>If the arguments of my lord Arundel do not persuade you, this sword shall make </em>[her] <em>queen, or I will die in her quarrel</em>”, he threatened. The earl of Arundel was equally assertive in his desire to present himself as one of Mary’s most ardent supporters and in a speech before the Council he explained away his previous loyalty to Jane as a product of fear caused by the duke’s threats. Both men were now committed supporters of Mary and were determined to protect their lands, positions and lives. One contemporary noted on the same day that he saw ‘<em>the earl of Pembroke threw away his cap full of angellettes </em>[jewels]’ in the street after Mary had been professed queen. <br /><br /><br />The reaction of the populace was positive. Mary’s accession was announced by the earl of Pembroke in the late afternoon and there were scenes of wild rejoicing. Merchant Henry Machyn recorded in his diary that ‘<em>all the belles ryngyng thrugh London, and bone-fyres, and tabuls in evere strett, and wyne and bere and alle, and evere strett full of bonfyres, and ther was money cast a-way</em>.’ At Leadenhall Street, one of the sites in London where Mary’s accession was proclaimed, the ‘<em>people started running in all directions and crying out</em>’. On the same street Sir John York, a loyal supporter of Jane’s, allegedly ‘<em>cried out to the people that it was not true</em>’ and was met with fierce hostility. ‘<em>Though he was on horse-back he escaped alive with difficulty and was taken into the house of Sheriff Garrett</em>’, it was remarked. <br /><br /><br />Before the announcement was made the imperial ambassadors were informed by the earl of Shrewsbury and John Mason of the Council's decision to support Mary. Throughout the events of the past two weeks, the ambassadors had assumed that Mary’s cause was a hopeless one if her cousin, Charles V, would not intervene on her behalf. Now they were being told of her victory accomplished without their aid. Shortly afterwards the mayor of London was summoned to Baynard’s castle and also informed of the decision so he could quickly prepare the festivities. The drinking, the banquets and the ringing of the bells would go on through the night, only calming down midday on the 20th.<br /><br /><br />Mary would not know till the following day that her claim to the throne was now recognised by the Council and she had the capital. The possibility that she would have to take the Crown by force – that she would need to enact the role of warrior queen – was one she believed she now faced. Her maternal grandmother, another queen regnant, had faced her own succession crisis and emerged victorious. Isabella of Castile had been married at the point of her accession and her husband had played a role in securing her throne. In contrast Mary was unmarried though she did have male associates whose loyalty was unquestionable and she trusted to lead her forces. As a woman, Mary could not lead her troops into battle though like her grandmother she still had a role to play. She organised an inspection of her troops that would take place the next day and consulted with her commanders. According to Robert Wingfield she would spend several hours speaking to and inspecting her troops which won her much admiration. All this was entirely new to Mary; her education as a young girl, when she was still heir to the throne, had not entailed lessons in warfare and she was certainly not taught this after Henry VIII had disinherited her. But Mary knew how to make use of the sentiments of loyalty many felt for her and in all things she was meticulous, a habit she inherited from her paternal grandfather, a Tudor who also battled his way to the throne. With the temerity of Isabella of Castile and Henry VII, Mary planned her military campaign. Fortunately she would face no battle but she would make show of her forces when she marched to London to be received as queen. <br /><br /><br />The other woman at the centre of this succession crisis was told in the evening that she was no longer queen. Her father, the duke of Suffolk, did the honours. He ripped down the cloth of estate and announced that she was no longer ‘Queen Jane’. She responded that this was a wise decision and allegedly asked if she could go home. There was no anger over the decision to recognise Mary nor did she breakdown. Jane had accepted the throne graciously and admitted defeat in the same fashion. As various men who once served her rushed off to Framlingham to pay homage to Mary and beg for their lives, Jane waited in the Tower, her royal residence now turned her prison. Now all waited to see whether Mary would prove merciful or whether she was truly her father’s daughter.<br /><br /><br /><br />(Image - <em>Queen Mary I enthroned and flanked by angels with the destruction of the duke of Northumberland and the rebels depicted in the background to the right. Coram Rege Rolls, 1553. KB 27/1168/2</em>)little_miss_sunnydalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04834404563322701533noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5513034568756106415.post-53196837865576416652010-07-18T11:08:00.000-07:002010-07-18T11:52:10.455-07:00Tuesday, 18 July 1553 – Et tu, Brute?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeayabXeKY2Dh3haFytyeKt9dCRCyizl3jicted7YIeB1K00jgmtf3Spz0Og7AIOfNRvkkFaveoz_PKD3h_shWMdqmXs85XvwWDs_1QPKX6CNi2sI5UzuS7d9_qObQhOgx4wTrfMR5KcCg/s1600/portraitofearlofarundel.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 247px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeayabXeKY2Dh3haFytyeKt9dCRCyizl3jicted7YIeB1K00jgmtf3Spz0Og7AIOfNRvkkFaveoz_PKD3h_shWMdqmXs85XvwWDs_1QPKX6CNi2sI5UzuS7d9_qObQhOgx4wTrfMR5KcCg/s320/portraitofearlofarundel.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5495320410571702818" /></a><br /><br /><br /><blockquote>“<em>And if you will ponder all these matters without passion of selfishness, you will recognise that they are unbearable and blameworthy. I believe that you know well enough the ways and means that the Duke is using to reduce to subjection this Kingdom and that he is not moved either by zeal of the public welfare nor of the Religion, but only by the ambition to rule because to enslave a free Kingdom cannot be regarded as caring for the public welfare, nor can he be called religious who has violated the faith due to his King</em>.”<br /><br />(Earl of Arundel’s speech to the Privy Council convincing them to abandon Jane Grey and blame the affair on the duke of Northumberland, 19 July 1553)</blockquote><br /><br /><br /><br /><blockquote>“<em>And consider that I have done nothing but by the consents of you and all the whole council</em>.”<br /><br />(The duke of Northumberland’s remarks to the earl of Arundel upon his arrest on 20 July 1553)</blockquote><br /><br /><br />As the duke of Northumberland left Cambridge for Bury St Edmunds on the morning of the 18th, his colleagues back in London were preparing to betray him. It now seemed obvious that Jane’s cause was all but lost and they had their properties, positions and their lives to consider. Regardless of this understandable desire to safeguard all they held dear, there is something distinctly unpleasant about this whole affair. Even Mary’s most ardent admirers, pleased as they were by this abandonment of Jane, were uncomfortable with this treachery. As Robert Wingfield reported, the duke was ‘<em>so ill-served by his followers</em>’. The men in question chose not only to reject Jane’s cause but also to find someone to blame for this all mess – a scapegoat who could easily be discarded. And that was of course the duke. <br /><br /><br />The earls of Arundel and Pembroke were now residing in Baynard’s Tower and were joined by others including William Paget. Despite discussions about switching to Mary’s side, the Council itself was still, officially at least, for Jane and were sending letters urging local gentry to suppress Mary’s forces. Robert Dudley called again for Jane at King’s Lynn on this date and even Jane wrote to some, including John Brydges and Sir Nicholas Poyntz of Gloucestershire, requiring them to continue to fight in her name. But their efforts were in vain. Now the men who helped to place Jane on the throne were busy discussing a way to negotiate with Mary and save themselves in the process. They were entirely innocent, they claimed. They had supported Jane not out of their own free will, succumbing instead to the duke’s threats and lies. They were merely the victims of the wicked duke’s ambition. No longer was Edward VI responsible for the alterations to the succession. It was the vile, tyrannical and traitorous duke who wished to see the advancement of his own line. They had always loved Mary and were now taking a stand. Conveniently this demonstration of loyalty took place after Mary had won the royal fleets, commanded numerous forces and won the support of various counties. <br /><br /><br />The following day the earl of Arundel would make a speech calling on the Council to proclaim Mary queen in London. Though made on the 19th, the ideas within the speech were evidently formed in the last days of Jane’s days. The earl had been one of the duke’s closest allies and had offered felicitous words when the duke left London to face Mary’s supporters. How quickly he now changed his views. He felt compelled to “<em>speak against the Duke of Northumberland, a man of supreme authority and who disposes of all our armies, and also desirous of bloodshed as vell as unhampered by scruples</em>.” <br />This man, he claimed,<br /> <br /><blockquote>“<em>endeavoured to put me to death with such perverse wickedness, as your goodselves have witnessed, but only the concern for the public weal and the freedom of this Kingdom, to which it is our duty to attend more than to our own welfare. At the same time my conscience was burdened with remorse considering how the rights of My Lady Mary, true heir to this Crown, were usurped and that we have been robbed of that liberty which we have enjoyed so long under the rule of our legitimate Kings. And if you will ponder all these matters without passion of selfishness, you will recognise that they are unbearable and blameworthy. I believe that you know well enough the ways and means that the Duke is using to reduce to subjection this Kingdom and that he is not moved either by zeal of the public welfare nor of the Religion, but only by the ambition to rule because to enslave a free Kingdom cannot be regarded as caring for the public welfare, nor can he be called religious who has violated the faith due to his King</em>.”</blockquote><br /><br /><br /><br />The duke would learn of the Council’s decision to call for Mary on the 20th – the day after the Council proclaimed her queen and the same day Mary learnt of the news. When she heard she was naturally delighted and she would send the earl of Arundel to arrest the duke and take him to the Tower. It was a calculated choice. Now the betrayer faced the man he deserted – a brilliant act deemed to test the earl’s loyalty to herself whilst making him face the consequences of his actions. And, of course, to taunt him with an example of what she would do to those who were the subject of her displeasure.<br /><br /><br /><br />(Image - <em>Portrait of Henry Fitzalan, 12th Earl of Arundel by unknown artist, 1560s. NPG, London</em>)little_miss_sunnydalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04834404563322701533noreply@blogger.com0