Talk:Mary I of England

I think this phrase needs to be re-worded: "Meanwhile, the marriage of Mary's parents was in jeopardy because Catherine had failed to provide Henry the male heir he desired." We now know that the sex of a child is dependent upon the sperm of the father, which chromosome is passed on. Wording the phrase that way assumes that Wikipedia users agree with Henry that it was Chatherine's fault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.195.30 (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that a mistake?

isn't she "Mary I of England"? (even if she was "Queen of France and Ireland, Queen Consort of Aragon, Castile, and Naples, Consort of the Spanish Netherlands. (more...)")

Can someone change her signature in the box? It says "mayze the queen." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.92.219 (talk) 06:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think disambiguation is needed between Bloody Mary, Mary Tudor(Queen of France) and Mary Queen of Scots. They all lived in the same 100 year period, all part of the Tudor family tree and all have alternative names. It's very easy to get into a mess.

I agree that the title "Mary I" doesn't help one bit to point out which Mary she is, especially in light of the other Marys and the fact that there is not Mary II.

Spanglej (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Grammar

Is "conditioned" right in this sentence? it is unsure weather or not she would have betrayed her own father but some people believe that she did - It is generally believed that she would have spared Jane's life if it had not been for the intervention of the Spanish diplomats who conditioned Mary's marriage to their king on her executing Jane.

It doesn't sound right at all to me - I think it's an example of the unnecessary "verbing" of a noun. But I would be interested to know what others think: maybe it is just a legitimate usage which I have not seen before. Nevilley 10:34 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

"Persecutions

"Numerous microbe leaders were murdered..." Huh? Clearly "microbe" must be a homonym for the intended word, but I can't think what that could be. ? 75.18.202.5 (talk) 07:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Nancy R.

Inaccuracies

Henry VIII didn't actually establish the Anglican Church. He broke English Catholicism from Roman Catholicism, but remained in his own eyes a catholic, just one not in communion with Rome. A full break with catholicism is generally dated to his son, Edward VI, who is generally described as England's first protestant monarch. (The first protestant funeral for a member of the royal family was that of Catherine Parr, the widow of Henry VIII. Henry's funeral, like that of his previous wives, was catholic.)

Also - though we often use the word divorce, Henry and Catherine of Aragon were not divorced in the modern sense. They had their marriage annulled, ie, ruled as invalid and so non-existing. That is why Princess Mary was viewed as illegitimate. She wasn't made illegitimate by the king; she was made illegitimate by the declaration that her parents were never married. Henry could have legitimised her but didn't, which is the point. He didn't strip her of her legitimacy (the first time at least), he simply never granted her it (not immediately at least). This sort of confusion always flows when we use a technically inaccurate but popularly used word like divorce to talk about Henry's marriage to Catherine of Aragon (and Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard; he had his marriages to them annulled, then executed them for adultery, conveniently ignoring the facts that if they weren't married to him, how could they have committed adultery against their non-husband?). JtdIrL 08:21 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

Also - family terms wrong, Mary, Edward and Elizabeth were not brother and sisters, but half-brother and half-sisters. They did not share the same mother. JtdIrL 08:29 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

The first paragraph is backwards. Mary brought Catholicism back to England, NOT Protestantism. Sadly, this is supposed to be one of the "better" articles on Wikipedia.

The painting at the right top is in the Gardner Museum, Boston, not the Museum of Prado, Madrid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uihalfive (talk • contribs) 01:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Formal name

It is incorrect to call Mary Tudor "Mary I," because there was no Mary II. Mary of Orange and her husband reigned as a single legal entity called William and Mary. He did not assume the title William III until after her death, and she was never called Mary II. Therefore there was no Mary I. She should simply be called Mary of England. Adam 14:42, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

and why not? they were both named Mary, and both ruled. Sure sounds like a no brainer to me as to why Mary Tudor was Mary I and Mary Stuart was Mary II. Thats how the numering goes. I dont see your point at all.

Because she's often referred to as merely "Queen Mary" in the United Kingdom, whereas this doesn't tend to happen with any of the other kings or queens that had an identically named successor (except for William the Conqueror). The website of the British Monarchy does, however, consistently use Mary I. [1] [2] --Sbp 17:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Mary II DID exist and was titled as such as she was a sovereign in her own right, not a queen consort. She had separate regalia and crowning as a Queen Regnant, they were William III and Mary II. (anon)

Yes, this is correct. Mary II of England was daughter of James II of England and co-monarch with William III of England] ("William of Orange") who overthrew James. --Red King 20:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Red King is right - Their reign was known as the dual monarchy I believe. Mary's sister Anne agreed to give up her place in the succession should Mary die before William, which is of course what happened. Mary was Queen Regnant, and she and Anne both had a claim to the throne more direct than William, as William was descended from Charles II and James II sister Mary, who had married the Prince of Orange. Kevin Q

I would like to point out that Mary herself called herself Mary I. Jp1701a (talk) 07:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Jp1701a, are you saying that Mary Tudor styled herself 'Mary I'? Have you references to back this up? Monarchs only ever style themselves as e.g. 'Queen Victoria'; she does not become 'Victoria I' until there has been a 'Victoria II'. It would go completely against how monarchs are addressed if Mary did so. Boleyn (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

French throne

Hmmm, maybe there were claims to the throne of France from Britain, but were they legitimate? That would mean France had two monarchs all along, huh?? There was especially no legitimate claims in my view to the throne France from Britain since Joan of Arc. If I don't get a reasonable explanation in 24 to 48 hours I may revert the revert. --65.73.0.137

Well, I don't know what you'd call legitimate... there's nothing to stop more than one claimant to a throne (maybe you've heard of King Michael of the United Kingdom? It turns out he's an Australian republican), and there are of course the Stuart Pretenders. Anyway, the point remains, that the claim on the French throne continued to be asserted right up to 1800, even if the French told them to get knotted, and the claim is documented on every single English/British coin minted in the period (see History of the English penny for details). -- Arwel 01:16, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Despite tbe issues on claim to the throne of France, they are not necessarily factual, no matter how widespread the claim was. It is very doubtful that France recognized two monarchs, and though their claims were asserted, they were not necessarily true. --65.73.0.137

The claim goes back to Henry V I Believe, whose Mother was the daughter of a French King (I can't remember which one right now). The French King had no surving male heirs, so according to the English, the throne should have passed to Henry through his mother. But the French used the Salic Law, which does not allow descent through a female line. The monarchs of England continued to style themselves monarchs of France, and had the fluer de lis quartered on their arms. I believe this was finally abanonded in the reign of Victoria. Kevin Q.

Actually the claim began with Edward III of England (read more here). The title was finally dropped by George III of the United Kingdom in 1800 by the Act of Union 1800. He dropped his claim to the throne of France and removed the fleur de lis from his coat of arms. Prsgoddess187 12:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Syphilis and the children of Henry VIII

Though it is sometimes theorized that Henry VIII suffered from syphilis and that the high mortality rate and physical or psychological difficulties of his children arise from that fact, it is important to note that this is a theory, far from the only theory, and certainly not fact. It should also be noted that children acquire congenital syphilis from their mother, not their father, so to "diagnose" congenital syphilis in the children it is necessary to also "diagnose" it in their mothers. - Nunh-huh 07:39, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough - my source stated it as fact. --mav 08:18, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A reference (I haven't seen the article) that postulates that her headaches and visual difficulties were due to prolactinoma, a pituitary tumor, is Keynes M. "The aching head and increasing blindness of Queen Mary I.", J Med Biogr. 2000 May;8(2):102-9.

PMID: 10994057 [PubMed]. - Nunh-huh 20:25, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Many historians note that the issue of Henry VIII's syphilus infection -- and the infection of his children -- was never addressed by historians and writers of the time. It first appears about 100 years after his death. Congenital syphilus has significant physical symptoms very early in life, and would have been a point of discussion, at least by the "disloyal" opposition. In many views, this story is likely a political "slander" by a succeeding dynasty, or a foreign one -----"taking pot shots" at opponents and their ancestors.

Oh, Mary's half sister, Elizabeth I also suffered from severe migraine-like headaches and problems with visual accuity. These problems both run (together) in my family too -- so, they could have been genetic. WBardwin 07:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cause of death

This article states that Mary died of cancer but the source I used to expand this article strongly indicates that she died of influenza after she became infected at the same time Cardinal Pole did in November 1558. I do know that most cancer patients in modern times die of complications due to cancer and not cancer itself. Was the influenza infection in her weakened state what killed her? Or is the info in this article or the info in my source (last one in the refs section) bogus?

FWIW, I have a ref that also states influenza. Probably the question is not answerable from web sources. Refs to look for in a med library would be:

Medvei VC. The illness and death of Mary Tudor. J R Soc Med. 1987 Dec;80(12):766-70. PMID: 3323514 [PubMed]

Osborn ML. Mary Tudor and the empty cradle. Midwife Health Visit. 1974 Oct;10(10):313-6. PMID: 4610320 [PubMed]

-- Nunh-huh 20:25, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would also like somebody to look over my modest expansion of this article to make sure everything is right since my seondary source was the 1911 EB article and my primary source was a bit biased (see above talk section). --mav 08:27, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The article states:- "Mary was interred in Westminster Abbey on 14 December, in a tomb she would eventually share with her half-sister." The article on St. james palace states :- " Mary I died there, with her heart and bowels being buried in the palace's Chapel Royal.", clearly there is a contradiction that needs to be resolved. I would have edited but the article is protected. Could the moderator please modify in line with this. Beadlebum 23:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I just retitled this section in the discussion due to a bit of petty vandalism Wavy (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary

The following paragraph seems to have become controversial:

Many scholars trace the nursery rhyme Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary to Mary's unpopular attempts to bring Roman Catholicism back to England, identfying the "cockle shells," for example, with the symbol of pilgrimage to the shrine of Saint James in Spain and the "pretty maids all in a row" with nuns. However, there is also a school of thought which contends that the rhyme was based on the life of Mary's cousin, Mary, Queen of Scots.

having been replaced by

The nursery rhyme Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary is sometimes said to refer to Mary or to Mary I of Scotland.

and then

The nursery rhyme Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary is sometimes said to refer to Mary or to Mary I of Scotland. However, this is probably spurious.

I have certainly heard the (folk?) derivation of the rhyme from either Mary I or Mary, Queen of Scots, before, but have no authoritative references. Can anyone assist? -- ALoan (Talk) 03:45, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See The Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes, Iona and Peter Opie, as to why this is probably spurious. —Ashley Y 11:57, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

Lady Jane Grey: An interesting inconsistency

From this article:

"Originally, Mary was inclined to exercise clemency. She set the Lady Jane Grey free, recognising that the young girl was forced to take the Crown by her father-in-law. The Lady Jane's father, Henry Grey, 1st Duke of Suffolk, was also released. Only the Duke of Northumberland did the Queen execute..."

And from Lady Jane Grey:

"...Mary was in a determined and unforgiving mood, and only five days after Wyatt's arrest, Jane and Guilford were executed. In addition, Mary planned a marital alliance with Spain, and the Spaniards may have insisted on Jane's death to remove a potential threat to Mary's rule. Jane's execution took place on 12 February 1554 at the Tower of London."

I'm no historian, but... Noting this on LJG:Talk as well. Mashford 04:17, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is actually no inconsistency in this article. After she succeeded to the Throne, Mary set Jane free. It was only afterwards, when a second rebellion was attempted, that Lady Jane was executed. (This is mentioned in the article.) -- Emsworth 15:29, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Right, this is certainly a plausible scenario (and my immediate guess). I looked in all my various Tudor history books (not the best collection, alas), in an attempt to confirm that this was what happened, but alas could not. The two that did make reference to Jane and the Tower after Mary's accesssion state that she was returned to the Tower after the execution of Northumberland - which of course does not preclude her later release. Can anyone provide a reference to her release (preferably with date)? Noel (talk) 16:04, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mary was almost always inclined to clemency. She astonished not only the members of her Council, but in particular foreign ambassadors, when she continually pardoned those who were undoubtedly guilty of trying to dethrone her. This is seen both after her accession as well as after Wyatt's Rebellion when very few of the traitors were executed. When Lady Jane Grey was arrested after her brief "reign", Mary had only three people executed: John Dudley (1st Duke of Northumberland), Sir John Gates (the Captain of the King's Guard), and Sir Thomas Palmer. Jane and her husband Guilford Dudley were arraigned and condemned at the Guildhall in November, but they were "pardoned" by the Queen and returned to the Tower where they both remained (separately) until they were executed in February of the next year. Whereas Wyatt's Revolt had nothing to do with Lady Jane Grey, her father the Duke of Suffolk, who had been pardoned and released on July 31, 1553, again was arrested for treason along with Wyatt and many others. At this point Mary had no choice but to execute Suffolk, but also his daughter and son-in-law. --Massimo377 22:56, 18 Jun 2006

Jane Grey entered the Tower of London on 10 July 1553. She never left it in freedom again. At the end of her brief reign, she became a prisoner rather than a royal resident. She was tried on a count of treason in the Court of King's Bench on 13 November 1553 and found guilty. The original documents of the trial are contained in the records of the Court of King's Bench held in the British National Archives Public Record Office at Kew (KB 8/23). She remained in the Tower, housed in the apartments of the Gentleman Gaoler. She was under superivsory (i.e. loose) confinement rather than close (in a cell) confinement. A parital account of her confinement is contained in "The Chronicle of Queen Jane and of Two Years of Queen Mary," believed to have been written by an official of the royal mint living in the Tower at the time (The original manuscript of this chronicle is in the British Library among the Harleian Manuscripts. It was transcribed and printed by the Camden Society in 1850). Mary was indeed inclined to allow Jane to live, and resisted signing a death warrant, but out of personal conviction that Jane was innocent of seeking the crown rather than a sense of "clemency." The Spanish ambassadors negotiating the contract for Mary's marriage to Phillip of Spain pressed repeatedly for Jane's execution on account of her value to potential rebels (see "Calendar of State Papers, Foreign - Spain, for the Reign of Mary I" and "Calendar of Letters, Papers and Despatches relating to the Negotiations Between England and Spain"). The Spanish fears proved valid during Wyatt's Rebellion of late-January and early February 1553/4. To secure the much sought after marriage with Phillip, Mary relented and allowed Jane's execution to go forward, still believing she wa innocent of any crime herself. Other than a brief trip to the Guildhall for her trial in November 1553, Jane had not left the Tower since entering it on 10 July 1553. Mary did not at any time "free" her. We know this with certainty because in order for a prisoner previously charged with or convicted of treason to be freed, a warrant from the Privy Council was required. The Council was even responsible for granting access to prisoners by those prisoners' families. A visitor needed the written permission of the Council before visiting any prisoner. Several such warrants are recorded in the "Calendar of the Acts of the Privy Council" relating to the Dudley family, as well as for Elizabeth during her imprisonment. There is no warrant recorded that allowed Jane to leave the Tower at any time. In short, any claim that Mary "freed" Jane and that Jane was later "returned" to imprisonment in the Tower is simply false. Jane's father, Henry of Suffolk, was indeed released soon after Jane's abortive reign, but he paid twenty thousand pounds as a surety bond for his good behavior. And lastly, Mary was not "almost always inclined to clemency." The only reason she did not seek the deaths of numerous conspirators in the Jane reign was political reality. The majority of the Privy Council, several bishops, and the Aldermen of the City of London had all affixed their signatures to the instrument that set Mary aside and declared Jane to be Queen of England. As such, all of those individuals were potentially guilty of treason and might be executed. Mary had to make a choice: execute a limited number of scapegoats in order to set an example, or pursue charges of treason against virtually the entire government. Were she to execute everyone involved, she would have been left with precious few men with the experience necessary to rule the realm. Political expediency and necessity overcame personal inclinations. Mary was no fool; she knew she needed those men in order to govern the kingdom effectively. "Clemency" had nothing to do with it. PhD Historian 06:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

hey hey hahahahahah i am soso hyper right now!!!! :)

Names of US locations

New user Bigelow added this material recently, which I have moved here for discussion, because I believe it is nonsense and should be deleted entirely:

Mary's influence in Ireland was possibly the secret reason behind
Lord Baltimore's naming of Maryland, 
which "should have been" named [[Henrietta Maria of
France|Henriettaland]].
An often overlooked fact, is that Mary also had regal status in
dominion over her husband's territories and Mary's reign as Queen of 
Spain supplied her with a fortune from New Spain.  The choice of 
site and naming of the American capital is thought 
to have been derived from Catherine of Aragon's parental preeminence in 
the conquest of the Americas, with Christopher Columbus as their 
claim to fame.

Here's why I think the above should go away: The state of Maryland wasn't founded until 75 years after Queen Mary died. It was intended as a place in which Catholics would be welcome, and was named after (sources differ on this) either the Virgin Mary or the wife of King Charles I. The site of the US Seat of Government was not decided until Queen Mary had been dead for 200 years. The term "Columbia" was used by the American colonials, who knew all about Christopher Columbus and directly drew the association themselves between where they now lived and his discoveries. They would have had no especial reason to contrive a name based upon what a relative of one of Henry VIII's six wives had been a party to. The "possibly" and "thought to have been" clauses in the disputed text confirm, I believe, that it is pious tales and not facts. --StanZegel 05:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Religious Persicution

Mary Tudor was a Catholic and none of you out there can deny thins yes? Well I am just wondering how the religios persicution against them exspecialy by her father for sarting the church of england. how did this efect her child-hood?

"Mary, the fourth and penultimate monarch barfly of the Tudor dynasty, is remembered for her attempt to return Nigeria from Protestantism to Roman Catholicism." I just changed "Nigeria" back to "England", but props to the joker who wrote this one

Prince Henry

In the beginning of the article it states: "...stillborn brother, the prince Henry, had preceded her." However, Prince Henry lived for a while. I think we should remove the 'stillborn', unless someone has sources that state otherwise.

There were two Prince Henrys who preceded her. The better known Prince Henry, who was born in 1511, lived for seven weeks. The second Henry was not thought to have been stillborn, but we know little about him, other than that he was dead within a month of his birth. See Henry, Duke of Cornwall for more information. Boleyn (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Referencing

Henry VIII had i believe two sons both called Prince Henry; one of which was stillborn and the other surved for a little while (possibly 5 days). So stillborn is correct. The referencing in this article is, to my understanding, completely inadequate, in that it gives some books which supposedly substantiate its content in the references section, but gives no actual citations/page references. I am putting this notice here per WP:FARC before requesting this article's featured status be revoked. mgekelly 08:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Bloody Mary

The "Bloody Mary" name is mentioned in the lead section and then at least three more times in the text. That is too much. Just lead section and mention it once more somewhere. I know there are several books that use the title, but that is probably because it is a convenient handle. -- 64.175.42.148 03:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

To say she executed as many people in 5 years as Henry did in 38 and Elizabeth in 45 is not a good argument against her Bloody Mary nickname. She killed a lot of people in her 5 years and her country was happy when she kicked the bucket, as they were when Elizabeth died. But at least there were long honeymoon periods with Elizabeth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemsley666 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Mysterious piece of information

Browsing some articles about this period it strikes me as quite curious a phrase which appears almost always Queen Mary is mentioned with minor differences in the wording or details: " During Mary's five-year reign, 283 individuals were burnt at the stake"(sometimes it adds "for heresy")", twice as many as had suffered the same fate during the previous century and a half of English history".

The same phrase (more or less) in different articles must come from the same source but from where exactly?

Also, I think it is strongly POV (not that I doubt the details are true) because its obvious the conclusion it leads us to with its carefully crafted comparison: She was called Bloody Mary for a good reason.

I am working on identifying the original source for this quote (I suspect it originates in one of the nineteenth-century multivolume histories of the English Reformation), but for now I'm amused by your statement that the sentence is "strongly POV" (point-of-view, I assume?) and "carefully crafted." You seem to be implying that whatever historian worked out the figures was being subjective and deliberately attempting to cast Mary in a particular light. Or am I mis-interpreting your entry? I do know that numerous scholars have done archival research to determine from legal records, especially the Fine Registers, the names and dates of all religiously-based executions in England in the early modern period. The data compiled includes executions (usually but not always by burning at the stake) not only of non-Roman Catholics by Roman Catholics (i.e. the 283 Marian persecutions) but also of Roman Catholics by non-Roman Catholics (the persecution of Roman Catholics by Edwardian and Elizabethan Protestants as well as earlier Henrician Catholic persecutions of Roman Catholics), and Protestant persecutions of heretical fellow Protestants (especially the persecutions of Anabaptists by the Church of England in the late sixteenth century). Dr. J.F. Davis has found, for example, that over 700 men, women and children were burned at the stake in just one small region of southwest England between the years 1525 and 1559. His figures include victims of all religious persuasions and cover at least four distinct periods of official religious doctrine within England. The single common factor is that they were burned at the stake for expressing religious views inconsistent with the official doctrine of their day. But the evidence does reveal an especially vigorous spate of executions during Mary's reign, at least by English standards. By continental European standards, where executions occurred in far greater numbers, Mary was an amateur. But the objective mathematical fact remains: in order to register even an equal number of religiously-based executions as occurred during Mary's reign, one must count back more than 50 years ... more than ten times the length of Mary's reign. An executions-per-year mathematically averaged ratio of more than 10:1 provides a very objective basis for designating her "Bloody Mary." Im not sure how a simple mathematically based comparison qualifies as "strongly POV" or "carefully crafted." Would it be any less "POV" or "crafted" to say that there were as many executions in the five years of Mary's reign as had occurred in the previous fifty years? PhD Historian 11:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You didn´t mis-interpret me, that´s exactly what I think. I am sorry but I don´t see the relevance of your figures to the matter (if any, they obviously contradict the accuracy of the sentence). But let´s focus on the sentence and let me explain why I think it is carefully crafted. Sadly, 283 is not a very impressive figure so the sentence tries to put it in context to make the case for the "bloody" epithet more strong.

First it stresses the shortness of her reign, so that we think in rates and not in absolute numbers. But we are not talking about maths here and the "rate" is not very significant. In a troubled reign there are periods of more strong repression (most often the first years I would guess) and periods of relative calm.

The sentence doesn´t compare executions (as one should think would be the most logical thing to do) but "executions by burning" which I understand was quite uncommon in England. I am guessing that this distinction was necessary to make the case stronger.

Related with this, I think if the burning method was chosen was because anglicans were considered "heretics" by catholics. On the other hand, catholics would be considered "traitors" by anglicans. So, the way the comparison is made, it leaves out the executions of catholics by anglicans.

The reference used to put things in context is not a natural one. Why considering exactly 150 years? Because it makes figures look good. Why not mentioning the situation in the rest of Europe? Why not mentioning the later repression by Elizabeth? Aren´t this part of the historical context?

I may be overanalysing things (I am catholic myself), but it would surprise me to find out that the source for this sentence is not an english, pro-anglican one. I am not asking for the sentence to be deleted, if the facts are true, just want to know where did it came from.

Anyway, thanks for answering me and investigating the matter.

I agree with you on several of your points, actually. For example, I feel certain that the sentence was originally written (as I stated previously) by one of the prominent religious historians of the nineteenth century. And most of those historians were English and Anglican, and were raised in an era when England had only very recently repealed much of its anti-Catholic legislation (i.e. the period shortly after the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, when anti-Catholic sentiment was still strong). And I agree that comparison to the numbers of executions (by burning) on the continent in the same timeframe might be an interesting one. It might also be "apples and oranges." Different population sizes, different mechanisms at work. For example, 238 burnings in a country (England) with a population of just a couple of million would be statistically significantly different from 238 burnings in a country (Spain) with a population of 7.5 million. Similarly, the Inquisition was actively seeking out transgressors in Spain (and many other continental countries), but never operated in England. So from a scholar's point of view (my own), a comparison across time within England has greater statistical validity than a transnational but contemporaneous comparison. The "repression" by Elizabeth that you mention did not entail numerous burnings. Nor were there ever "executions of Catholics by Anglicans" within England under Elizabeth on a scale remotely similar to that of Mary. Repression of Catholics was largely limited to monetary fines for recusancy. Relatively few were burned, and the majority of those few were priests emigrating into England illegally. Mary was a poor politician with strong religious commitments; Elizabeth was an excellent politician with weak religious commitment. 238 burnings is a "not very significant rate"? I disagree. That averages out to 4 burnings per month during Mary's reign. Imagine if the US criminal justice system executed 4 people per month nation wide. Even the bloodthirsty Texans have never reached that level. From my perspective as an atheist Tudor historian, I consider the Marian executions quite significant. Further, the basic data involved and the language (including the appellation "Bloody Mary") began to be used as early as 1563 with the publication of John Foxe's "Actes and Monuments" (aka Book of Martyrs). Foxe began exploiting the numbers for purposes of Protestant (though not yet Anglican) religious propaganda within 5 years of Mary's death, and the name "Bloody Mary" began to appear in the literature shortly thereafter. So it is actually a very old idea, even if the exact wording of the particular sentence is (I suspect ... I'm still checking) only about 125-150 years old. Last point: your understanding that execution by burning in England was "quite uncommon" is erroneous. Prior to the Marian reign it was used with regularity for executing religious heretics. Burning was the method prescribed by Roman Catholic authorities throughout Europe, including England prior to the Reformation. Only after the Marian reign, when England became officially Protestant, did burnings become "quite uncommon." Reformation Protestants did not place the same purifying and salvific value on fire that pre-Reformation Roman Catholics did. If you'd like, I can refer you to some books on crime and punishment in early modern England taht address the issue. PhD Historian 21:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. It looks like the Reformation was really much less bloodier in England than what I thought (and one would expect). However the exact figures are hard to find (in contrast with the precision of the 283 killed by Mary). I know there are around 600 martyrs recognized by the Church for a wide period, which might be an approximation or at least fixes the lowest possible number (by the way, I don´t care about the method of execution).

And I should clarify that it´s not that I don´t think that 283 in 5 years is a significant rate I just don´t think that "rates" in general are very significant to measure or evaluate this kind of events.

Thank you again.

It IS actually possible to find out fairly precisely how many people were executed in England for religious reasons. The data is contained in at least two sources: the Fine Rolls, and ecclesiastical court records. And I am sure that someone has published the data in some scholarly article somewhere. But it is not something you can look up in the Catholic Encyclopedia, for instance. Continental European data is unfortunately less precise, in part due to the spotty survival of records (records of all kinds survived, in general, better in England than on the continent where most of the warfare occurred). I'm sure someone has compiled data for at least some of the European regions, especially Germany. Some of it might be contained in such books as "Theatre of Horror: Crime and Punishment in Early Modern Germany" by Richard van Dulmen, "Judging the French Reformation: Heresy Trials by Sixteenth-Century Parlements" by William Monter, "Venice's Hidden Enemies: Italian Heretics in a Renaissance City" by John Martin, "Les Inquisitions modernes dans les pays-bas méridionaux (1520-1633) Tome II: Les victimes" by Aline Goosens, "Tolerance and Intolerance in the European Reformation" by Ole Peter Grell and Bob Scribner, "Mysticism and Dissent: Religious Ideology and Social Protest in the Sixteenth Century" by Steven E. Ozment, "The Death Penalty: An Historical and Theological Survey" by James J. Megivern. But of those 600 martyrs recognized by the Church, does the number include or exclude the early Roman martyrs? PhD Historian 20:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well it may be possible but it is certainly not easy, and I have looked of course outside the Catholic Encyclopedia. The contrast to the availability of the 283 figure is striking.

The 600 figure does come from the CE and I must make now the precision that only about half are oficially recognized as martyrs, the other half being in the process. This number refers only to England and Wales in the period 1534-1729; I am a little surprised by your question about the "early roman martyrs" of course thousands died then (or are you referring to English catholics in the first years of the reformation?).

Also, the situation in Ireland is much more obscure, with the additional problem of the records being much less reliable than those in England. But that catholics were killed for being so in Ireland under Tudor rule seems quite certain.

I will give this one last shot, and then I am done with it. Yes, certainly there were deaths of Catholics in Ireland at the hands of Tudor-era English Protestants. No arguement there at all. The Tudor, and especially Elizbethan, policies in Ireland were reprehenshible by modern standards. But the "striking availability" of figures for Protestant martyrs in the Marian reign is due largely to the work of one man, John Foxe, the Tudor-era Protestant martyrologist, chronicler, and propagandist. To my knowledge, Catholics have never had a similar single figure recording such events among Catholics, though there are a few lists of modern martyrs being maintained by lay-persons, mostly lists of "unofficial" missionary martyrs in under-developed or war-torn countries, I believe. As you yourself noted, the Catholic Church places martyrs in a special religious category that requires they be "officially recognized" by the Church as martyrs. Protestants have no such "official" process. Protestant martyrs for the Marian period were largely accounted by a single individual (Foxe) working at the end of Mary's reign, while Catholic martyrs are determined by a committee working years, even centuries, after the fact. That more cumbersome Catholic process by its very nature makes the accounting a bit more difficult and imprecise, less "strikingly available." My question about early Roman martyrs was intended to clarify that someone was not referring to the online CE entry on "martyrs," since that entry refers only to Roman-era martyrs and not to martyrs in other eras. The CE does not seem to specifically address martyrs in the early modern period (ca 1500-1789). So, that's that. Yes, the numbers for Protestant martyrs during the Marian reign in England and Wales are "strikingly available" while those for Catholic martyrs are not. But there is a fairly reason for the difference: the 1563 publication of John Foxe's "Actes and Monuments" made the accounting process much easier for Protestant Marian martyrs. PhD Historian 20:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is really no place for a debate. As a good bye the link to the article in the CE http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05474a.htm

Thank you, mysterious "81.9.160.138." That reference is a very good concise listing of the Catholic confessor, missionaries, martyrs (official and unofficial) in England for the early modern period. PhD Historian 00:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Was Mary Spanish-English?

This is a minor issue, but do others consider Mary to have been a Spanish-English person just because her mother was Spanish? Culturally she was as English as Elizabeth, and since European monarchs frequently married each other, that makes most kings hyphenated in some fashion, for instance it make James II French-English. It seems anachronistic to use terms like "Spanish-English" for medieval monarchs, unless they participated in both cultures or were ruling monarchs of two countries. Tocharianne 16:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You have not read her article at all and I don't care one bit for such an incredulous objection you barely make here. She was the granddaughter of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabel of Castile, the Catholic Monarchs who completed the Reconquista with the help of the Spanish Inquisition and sent Columbus to America. Her husband Philip was the son of Charles Habsburg, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain, having the Philippines named after him. Mary instituted the English version of the Inquisition, on par with her mother and husband's birth realm. Her grandfather Henry VII consciously allied England with the Catholic powers, especially Habsburg Spain on the precedents set by John of Gaunt, titular King of Castile and Leon, founder of the House of Lancaster and Edmund of Langley, founder of the House of York. The Titulus Regius ("the greate noblesse and excellence of your Byrth and Blode, as of hym that is descended of the thre moost Royall houses in Cristendom, that is to say, England, Fraunce, and Hispanic.") describes King Richard III has bearing the royal blood of England, France and the Spanish dominions. Both the Lancastrian and Yorkist branches pursued a Hispanic marriage policy that the Tudors inherited, as a result of the end of the Wars of the Roses. Mary Tudor represented the last of native English Catholicism, which survived only on the good graces of Spain. Protestant nationalists will tell you that their Dutch preferences were more English, such as King William III of England. You'd have to wonder why the name James was so popular in the Scottish Royal Family and why King James I of England pursued a pro-Spanish foreign policy (as well as Spanish marriage for Charles, Prince of Wales), except for the fact that it was the name of James I of Aragon, the Conqueror (successful Reconquistador) and Saint James the Great of Spain (Way of St. James). You mustn't be so purist about Spanish influences in England or Britain--nationalism was not a feature of those times. Spanish influences in England were once extremely strong and vibrant; even the whole royal courts were speaking with a Spanish lisp and learning how to strum Spanish guitars--there were a total of eight kings named James in the British Isles. But, go ahead and be bigoted. Try to rewrite history from whatever anti-Catholic fantasy makes you most happy.

Philip and Mary, by the Grace of God King and Queen of England, Spain, France, Jerusalem, both the Sicilies and Ireland, Defenders of the Faith, Archdukes of Austria, Dukes of Burgundy, Milan and Brabant, Counts of Habsburg, Flanders and Tyrol.

Arms of Mary I, impaled with those of her husband, Philip II

Rhode Islander 18:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I just say that Rhode Islander seems to have over-reacted remarkably. Tocharianne certainly didn't seem to be making any anti-Catholic or anti-Spanish statements. His/her point seemed to be more along the lines of, if someone is raised in the culture of England, can they be considered English? In fact, I would say that Mary probably is arguably half-Spanish: her mother would have considered herself Spanish, and by any general modern standards (and, judging from various propagandas in history, then also) Mary would thus be half-Spanish. A different test would be to ask what Mary considered herself: did she think of herself as half-English, half-Spanish? I don't know this for certain; however, judging by her attitude to the Spanish Habsburgs, and the influences of Catherine of Aragon, she probably did. Which would be any reasonable measuring rod (did Henry VII consider himself a quarter Welsh? Or half-Welsh? Or Welsh? That would be a more interesting question.) Of course, it is impossible, tedious and pointless to state precisely what percentage of each nation or kingdom she traced her ancestry from; generally, in all circumstances, people decide their self-identity based on parents and grandparents, upbringing, and sympathies (I consider myself half Russian due to my great-grandparents). I repeat: Tocharianne's question was entirely relevant and important; it's just that there doesn't seem much reason to change our view of Mary as half-Spanish. And Rhode Islander, in future please don't heap your own misunderstandings with intolerable rudeness. Michaelsanders 19:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I also don't understand what the Scottish James's (allies of France, surely?) have to do with Spain. Michaelsanders 19:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is more an American thing to tediously label everyone with their ancestry (African American, Irish American, Chinese American) but it is something that is not done in the UK, full stop and I don't think calling Mary Spanish-English is at all suitable for the article. Katharine of Aragon was descended from John of Gaunt anyway, so was only Spanish 2 or so generations back, and most likely had more English blood in her veins than Spanish, which makes her Spanish-English-English-French-Dutch or something not even worth considering.Paul75 01:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm British. I consider myself a mixture of Russian Jewish, English, and Welsh. And I once read a remark that 'only the English boast about not being English'. Culture and personal belief are important factors. Sweeping generalisations are not. Michaelsanders 02:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if that last comment is a comment on the debate, a jibe at the previous remark, or just the user taking another excuse to make another domineering and arrogant commentPaul75 21:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What a silly topic to even bother debating about. Mary Tudor being born an English Princess does not wipe out all her other forgien ancestors. That is as ridculous as people saying Britian was never ruled by people who were German or have German descent. A person's birth place or where they choose to live does not change their ancestors. It has been my understanding people who tediously label themselves are proud of their heritage, only those who are ashamed tend to delude themselves. RosePlantagenet 12:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

well then we would have to call her spanish-english-portugese-french etc. etc. etc.... 62.56.67.78 (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

de facto vs de jure

In the introduction and at the bottom, the terms de facto and de jure were used incorrect. As established on the page about Edward VI, Jane was the successor to the throne under an (albeit illegal) act, therefore she was the de jure successor. She was recognized by such by law, that is, by the people at the court of the king, the people with power, the people who make the laws. However, Mary was more powerful than Jane and more popular, therefore was successor in all respects except by law and was therefore able to seize power (almost) immediately, afterwards legalizing it. Even this use of these terms can be disputed, see my note in the wiki discussion for the article on Edward VI. However, it seems only logical to use the same terms consistently in both articles and I consider the explanation giving there to be usable. It would seem logical to debate this, work out something that works and then use the same terms in the same way in both articles. Until such time, I've corrected the use of these terms in accordance with the explanation given in the aforementioned article, as only there is any explanation given for use of these terms in these cases. Skeptic77 23:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe you have it backwards--a person who is able to exercise power, without legal authority to do so, is a de facto authority. A person who has legal authority to exercise power is a de jure authority, whether or not that person has the ability to carry out the exercise of her power.

Accordingly, at the moment of Edward VI's death, Mary was de jure Queen of England--Edward lacked testamentary capacity to bequeath the Crown, and his attempt to do so was contradicted by existing Act of Parliament. However, Jane was proclaimed Queen, and actually exercised Royal authority (albeit in a limited sphere), making her de facto Queen until her deposition.--Visagrunt 16:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Surname

Would it be correct to say that Mary's name at her death was "Mary Hapsburg" (due to her marriage with Phillip)?

Excuse me! I am not yet even a teenager, yet I know that it was Habsburg, not Hapsburg! LOL. Anyway, I LOVE HISTORY!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.120.114 (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Queens regnant don't change their surname upon marriage. For example, Queen Victoria belonged to the House of Hanover (not her husband's house) but her son, Edward VII, belonged to his father's house. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.250.113.209 (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal Union?

Am I correct in understanding that, had Phillip and Mary had a son, that son would've inherited both kingdoms, forming a personal union between Spain and England? What an interesting scenario that would've been ... Nik42 09:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It is highly unlikely that Parliament would have been content to see personal union between the English and Spanish Crowns, as any child of Mary and Philip would have been Roman Catholic.--Visagrunt 16:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

At the time, this was not expected, because Philip still had a son, Don Carlos, from his first marriage. Had a child been born, and then succeeded his mother on the throne in 1558, he would have become the heir-apparent to the Spanish throne after Don Carlos's death in 1568. It's unclear if he'd actually have inherited it. As to Catholicism and Parliament, we're talking about the 16th century, not the 17th - Mary's parliaments were all perfectly willing to accept her religious policy, and there's no particular reason to think that the triumph of protestantism was inevitable already in 1553. The issue of foreign domination, I think, would be more significant in inhibiting Mary and Philip's son from accepting the Spanish throne. (on the other hand, English acquisition of the Netherlands seems like a fascinating possibility). john k 18:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Succession boxes changed

Why were the infobox & succession boxes changed at this article. Mary I of England argubaly succeeded the throne on July 6th, 1553. GoodDay (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom of Naples

Csn I ask why this page comes under the Wikiproject Kingdom of Naples category. I don't have a problem with that but was just interested in the link? Contaldo80 (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Because she was Queen consort of Naples. Dimadick (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Latin titles mess

Please somebody undo the drunken mess John made of the infobox. - Timerode (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well thank you very much. So much for putting time and effort into extending relevant data. And from someone who didn't even have the wit to work out how to undo. --JohnArmagh (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's appalling. The picture should be at the top, and the titles nonsense, drastically curtailed, at the bottom. Johnbod (talk) 04:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well that is a particularly banal comment also - the picture never has been "at the top". --JohnArmagh (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but it should be. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, OK then - put the image at the top - for each of the sovereigns of England. It is easy to idly pontificate on what should be. If only the same effort were put into the actual work... --JohnArmagh (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

what did queen mary do that is good

what did queen mary do that is good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.119.190 (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Churchill says her one positive action (that he acknowledges she is not credited with) was that she removed a great many corrupt officals from the regency era of her half brother. The whole article needs work. She was not an evil woman, but very much a woman of her times - and, beyond any shadow of a doubt, a poor ruler. -- Secisek (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Title of bastard

Shouldn't it be noted how Mary was, technically a bastard? Her parents were married when she was born but, because of the annulment, the two were effectively never married and so Mary was technically a bastard daughter.

She was declared legitimate and her parents marriage good and valid near after her accession to the throne —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.81.251 (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Bloody Mary

MARY THE QUEEN DIED AND BECAME A GHOST IN MIRRIORS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.25.136 (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Image question

I'm trying to figure out who the subject of this image by Wenceslas Hollar is. It's labeled "The Lady Mary, Princesse of great Brittaine - Are to be sould by Tho Bankes in Black-friers atop of Bridwell Staires." Hollar died in 1677, so options are limited. I suspect it is Mary I of England, but she doesn't look like any of the other pictures here - is it just an age difference or is there another Princess Mary predating 1677? Dcoetzee 08:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Mary, Princess Royal and Princess of Orange

It's definetely not Mary I. It could be either Mary II or her aunt/mother-in-law Mary, Princess Royal and Princess of Orange. I think it's Mary, Princess Royal and Princess of Orange (see the portrait of her on the left). Surtsicna (talk) 12:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and no, her article does not need the image! Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Grave desecrator

Is it true that Mary dug up Henry VIII's remains and burned them because he was a Protestant? The C of E (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not true and Henry VIII was not Protestant. He was Catholic all his life. Surtsicna (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)