Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 22:48:14 GMT
I may be wrong but i read some where that she had far less people executed on average in a year than the other Tudor monarchs. So why is Mary I the only one that is called Bloody. I mean based on what i understand the other Tudor monarchs was just as bloody if not even more.
Yes i know she only ruled for 5 years the shortest reign of the Tudor monarchs ( i do not count Lady Jane Grey) But even if we only take one year Mary I had less people executed then what the other Tudors did in a year. I am not saying that Mary I was a good Queen. But i do think that History is a bit unfair on her. Considering that she was far from the bloodiest Tudor.
Of course i am not an expert on Tudor England and i admit that. So i may be wrong in what i just wrote. And if i am. I am sure somebody will correct me.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Feb 25, 2017 9:31:31 GMT
Most who fell to the rage of Tudor monarchs other than Mary were usually from the upper echelons of society. As we would say today of the greedy nobility and the "upwardly mobile". Mary's victims were from across the whole spectrum of the populace.
Mary had always rejected and resented the break with Rome that her father had instituted and his subsequent establishment of the Anglican Church that had flowed from her half-brother's protestantism, and now she tried to turn England back to Roman Catholicism. This effort was carried out by force, and hundreds of Protestant leaders were executed. The first was John Rogers (a.k.a. “Thomas Matthews”), the printer of the “Matthews-Tyndale Bible”. His execution was followed by the execution of former Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, who was primarily responsible for the printing of the “Great Bible”. Hundreds more would follow in Mary’s bloody reign of terror. This earned her the title of “Bloody Mary” which she well deserves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 9:48:36 GMT
Most who fell to the rage of Tudor monarchs other than Mary were usually from the upper echelons of society. As we would say today of the greedy nobility and the "upwardly mobile". Mary's victims were from across the whole spectrum of the populace. Mary had always rejected and resented the break with Rome that her father had instituted and his subsequent establishment of the Anglican Church that had flowed from her half-brother's protestantism, and now she tried to turn England back to Roman Catholicism. This effort was carried out by force, and hundreds of Protestant leaders were executed. The first was John Rogers (a.k.a. “Thomas Matthews”), the printer of the “Matthews-Tyndale Bible”. His execution was followed by the execution of former Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, who was primarily responsible for the printing of the “Great Bible”. Hundreds more would follow in Mary’s bloody reign of terror. This earned her the title of “Bloody Mary” which she well deserves. It may be deserved but she was still not the bloodiest Tudor. The rest of the Tudors are just as deserving to get that nickname. She was really no bloodier than any other monarch of that era. She is not even close to being the bloodiest Tudor monarch or the bloodiest monarck in English history. Yes she had hundreds killed. Henry VIII had up to 72.000 All the other Tudor monarchs had far more people killed on average in a year than Mary. Even if all of them had ruled for 50 years Mary I would still have had less people killed than her Father, Half-Sister and Half Brother. |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Feb 25, 2017 12:50:43 GMT
This fromWiki:
"In practice, Tudor monarchs used patronage to maintain a royal court that included formal institutions such as the Privy Council as well as more informal advisers and confidants. Both the rise and fall of court nobles could be swift: although the often-quoted figure of 72,000 executions during his reign is inflated..."
Henry did undoubtedly execute at will, but so did most mediaeval absolute monarchs, but I would dispute those figures, and call for a breakdown of them, and the source of information. Also his ministers who were as corrupt as they are today, were responsible for much of the slaughter, but as they say "the buck stops" at Henry's door
The Tudor dynasty up to the reign of Elizabeth, and she had her moments, was a particularly bloody one.
a) Henry VII's reign was full of dissent due to his extremely dubious claims to the throne (in fact he didn't really have one), and many rebels were dispatched.
b) Henry VIII had his dispute with the Pope and the monasteries were dissolved etc etc.
c) Elizabeth's reign was also full of Catholic dissenters wanting her off the throne, so there were many executions.
But (a) and (b) covered a period of about 62 years, and (c) a period of nearly 45 years, 107 years compared to Mary's five. Edward VI's reign of six years I haven't dealt with.
I'm certainly not arguing in favour of any of the Tudor monarchs, they were a pretty nasty bunch. But to answer your question, which was, "Is it really fair to only name Mary I as [the] Bloody[iest] of the Tudor, I'd say given that what she did in the time she had, to the ordinary folks of the land as well as those who probably deserved punishment, and only to further the Vatican's will, and to sate her own obsession, the answer would have be, yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Feb 25, 2017 12:51:21 GMT
Why is there a line through the last two lines of my prose?
In case you can't read them it ended "I'd say given that what she did in the time she had, to the ordinary folks of the land as well as those who probably deserved punishment, and only to further the Vatican's will, and to sate her own obsession, the answer would have be, yes."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 13:15:00 GMT
The fact is still that she was no more bloody than any of the other Tudor monarchs.
And Elisabeth I treated catholics the same way Mary I treated protestants.
Mary I was not a good queen. But the fact is that her father, sister and brother are just as deserving of the nickname bloody as she is.
People need to stop acting as she is the bloodiest monarch England has ever had. She is not she is not even in the top 10.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Feb 25, 2017 13:57:49 GMT
Most people in England, indeed the UK, couldn't care less. Nor could I. She was given the deserved name of Bloody Mary by one of her victims, and the name stuck. I'm sure she's not the bloodiest monarch in British history. Try Edward Longshanks. He created a Nazi regime against the Jews hundreds of years before Hitler was even thought about. So is Mary really THAT important? What's more important to me is clearing Richard III's name from detestable Tudor propaganda.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 15:07:43 GMT
Elizabeth didn't persecute Catholics on a level anywhere near what Mary Tudor did with Protestants. If you just look at the suggested tally of folks killed by each of them at face-value, it's easy to think they were almost even, but I agree you have to compare the respective lengths of their reigns. Mary wiped out a whole lot of Protestants in a very short time, whereas Elizabeth's numbers are stretched out over forty-four years, y'know? Also, I think Mary got the reputation she did because she really was rather fanatical about her Catholicism, I think it's pretty well documented that she had true contempt and hate for Protestantism (a mix of religious fervor, and everything that happened to her mother due to Henry's obsession with marrying Anne Boelyn). There really was a strong element of blind hatred in her motivations. Elizabeth was responsible for the deaths of many Catholics, but she mainly went after Catholics who were suspected or proven to be plotting against her in order to reclaim the throne for Catholicism (primarily through plots involving the Roman-Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots). I *think* Elizabeth got a little execution-happy toward the end of her reign, when she was older and jaded by years of stress from various plots against her, but for the most part, she left Catholics well enough alone in terms of murders/executions. I mean, she had Mary, Queen of Scots, as a prisoner in England for years and years, which was pretty dangerous, but she hesitated to harm her until it became too dangerous *NOT* to execute her (and only after they set-up that big sting operation and obtained written proof Mary was down with plots against Elizabeth). Old Bess seems to have had all sorts of mixed emotions and petty jealousies toward Mary, but I don't believe she really *wanted* to kill her, and even if she did, I don't think it was because Mary was Catholic, it was because Mary's continued existence threatened her life and throne (and no matter how hard she tried, there was no getting around that fact). I think that says a lot about her. Mary Tudor really did seem to be a very angry, fanatical Catholic, with various dark emotional issues. Really, though, it's kind of understandable in view of what she endured because of Henry VIII's actions (actions which, rational or not, she may have inexorably tied with Protestantism in her mind). I don't think Elizabeth was any saint either, don't get me wrong on that. Elizabeth could be pretty damn vengeful when she wanted to be, and she certainly had plenty of blood on her hands too. I just feel the reigns of Mary and Elizabeth are extremely different, for so many reasons. Having said that, I totally understand feeling annoyed that female rulers in history do seem to get vilified for doing the same stuff male rulers did without any such judgment being passed on them. We don't call Henry VIII "Fat Hank - The Horny Murdering Bastard", do we?  Still, I agree with Tarathian in terms of not really being able to help what history dubs this person or that, y'know? We still call Nixon "Tricky Dick", even though plenty of other U.S. Presidents got up to their own tricks, some as-bad or worse than what Nixon pulled, but they weren't publicly humiliated for it so they don't get the 'tricky' nickname. What can ya do? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 15:25:43 GMT
Before marking her as the embodiment of evil, we have to look at the circumstances she was surrounded with. Lady Jane Grey basically usurped her God given right! Her half-brother Edward VI tried his best to remove her from the line of succession. Reasons given were on religious grounds. Her half brother was a devout protestant, and by the looks of it, her younger half-sister and successor Elizabeth I might have had a hand in her early death. Her reign was short-lived and history was revised by her long ruling successor. Elizabeth I did her best to demonize Mary I. link |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Feb 26, 2017 16:25:50 GMT
That should be of no surprise considering Mary had the young Elizabeth locked in the Tower on suspicion of supporting Protestant rebels. Elizabeth's supporters in the government, including Lord Paget, convinced Mary to spare her sister in the absence of hard evidence against her. Instead, on 22 May, Elizabeth was moved from the Tower to Woodstock, where she was to spend almost a year under house arrest in the charge of Sir Henry Bedingfield. Crowds cheered her all along the way. After her release she was kept at Hatfield House, where she heard of Mary's death with much adulation. Elizabeth had no reason to love Mary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 16:57:15 GMT
That should be of no surprise considering Mary had the young Elizabeth locked in the Tower on suspicion of supporting Protestant rebels. Elizabeth's supporters in the government, including Lord Paget, convinced Mary to spare her sister in the absence of hard evidence against her. Instead, on 22 May, Elizabeth was moved from the Tower to Woodstock, where she was to spend almost a year under house arrest in the charge of Sir Henry Bedingfield. Crowds cheered her all along the way. After her release she was kept at Hatfield House, where she heard of Mary's death with much adulation. Elizabeth had no reason to love Mary. I sense all the haters here are Protestants. Have you forgotten that Elizabeth I's brother did the same to Mary I ? During Edward's short-lived minority (1547-53) the Church of England was reshaped by his strongly Protestant advisors. Reforms were relatively moderate at first, but eventually radical Protestants gained full sway and an attempt was made to rid the Church of all vestiges* of "popery." When Mary Tudor, a devout Catholic, came to the throne in 1553, she sought to restore Roman Catholicism and papal authority in England. She did nothing wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Feb 26, 2017 17:25:23 GMT
No haters just folks interested in history.
A slight difference here. Scottish Mary plotted against ER many times and was looking to usurp the English throne whereas young E had no designs to dethrone English Mary. E's supporters perhaps did have. Also war, intrigue, and wielding the axe when necessary, came with the royal territory, but slaughter for a valid reason is a whole lot different than slaughter for religious obsession which both Marys certainly had.
ER looked after Scottish Mary for years after she had been thrown out of Scotland, and ER thought hard and long before signing her death warrant. ER was totally against regicide. In the end after all the plotting I guess she considered she had no choice. As it happened Scottish Mary's son gained the throne. Ironic that he was a Protestant. :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by louise on Feb 26, 2017 18:17:30 GMT
she was no bloodier than any of the others. but she executed a lot of protestants, and by the end of her sister Elizabeth's reign England was mainly protestant, so Mary got a bad press. Foxe's Book of Martyrs was very popular.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Feb 26, 2017 18:38:54 GMT
Whereas Mary had no compunction in having Protestants killed, Elizabeth made it be known that whatever religion her subjects practised would be tolerated as long as they the subjects were loyal to her. She said this in a declaration before Parliament assembled, and the speech is available for all to see. But woe betide traitors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 18:43:02 GMT
People will rather belive propaganda than facts
Its sad really.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 18:53:31 GMT
No haters just folks interested in history. A slight difference here. Scottish Mary plotted against ER many times and was looking to usurp the English throne whereas young E had no designs to dethrone English Mary. E's supporters perhaps did have. Also war, intrigue, and wielding the axe when necessary, came with the royal territory, but slaughter for a valid reason is a whole lot different than slaughter for religious obsession which both Marys certainly had. ER looked after Scottish Mary for years after she had been thrown out of Scotland, and ER thought hard and long before signing her death warrant. ER was totally against regicide. In the end after all the plotting I guess she considered she had no choice. As it happened Scottish Mary's son gained the throne. Ironic that he was a Protestant. :-) That is completely subjective and biased Protestant revisionism of events. |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Feb 26, 2017 18:56:19 GMT
You don't believe me, fine, but I suggest you go read some history.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 18:56:43 GMT
Whereas Mary had no compunction in having Protestants killed, Elizabeth made it be known that whatever religion her subjects practised would be tolerated as long as they the subjects were loyal to her. She said this in a declaration before Parliament assembled, and the speech is available for all to see. But woe betide traitors. Mary I did the same. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 19:00:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Feb 26, 2017 19:02:23 GMT
If you read Mary's statement properly you'll see that what she's really saying is that all her subjects should embrace the Catholic faith, not as Elizabeth stated to tolerate all faiths. It's not remomotely the same. The Protestant faiith isn't even mentioned by Mary.
|
|
