Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 19:08:17 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. And i am not even a catholic.
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Feb 26, 2017 19:11:40 GMT
I said in one of my earlier posts that "Elizabeth's reign was also full of Catholic dissenters wanting her off the throne, so there were many executions.I think you'll find that any "wars" against Catholics were forced on her, mainly instigated by Scottish Mary, Philip II of Spain, and the Vatican.
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Feb 26, 2017 19:16:26 GMT
I've no time for any religion.
With regard to Marys statement, you didn't finish the sentence.
And yet she doth signify unto all Her Majesty’s said loving subjects that of her most gracious disposition and clemency Her Highness mindeth not to compel any her said subjects there unto unto such time as further order by common assent may be taken therein
In other words she intended not to keep her word.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 19:20:54 GMT
I said in one of my earlier posts that "Elizabeth's reign was also full of Catholic dissenters wanting her off the throne, so there were many executions.I think you'll find that any "wars" against Catholics were forced on her, mainly instigated by Scottish Mary. It can be argued that the war against the Protestants was forced on Mary by her Protestant Step Brother who tried his best to get her killed just because she was not his blood sister. Even though you are an atheist, you seem to have a bias against the Catholics and maybe perhaps the Scots too. Are you xenophobic ? You said that Mary I was Scottish hence her hatred for the English Protestants, or implied that. Weren't the Scottish people unjustly made servants of the English monarchy ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 19:39:58 GMT
I've no time for any religion. With regard to Marys statement, you didn't finish the sentence. And yet she doth signify unto all Her Majesty’s said loving subjects that of her most gracious disposition and clemency Her Highness mindeth not to compel any her said subjects there unto unto such time as further order by common assent may be taken thereinIn other words she intended not to keep her word. Mary I made England Catholic once again. Currently Protestantism is the most popular religion practiced in the United Kingdom. Naturally Protestants will hate her due to her being Catholic and enforcing Catholicism and then She is a "Scot"? Another reason to hate her? Notice how you defended Elizabeth I even though she pretty much waged a war against the Catholics? I am sure if in the future England becomes a Catholic majority, people will be praising Mary I instead of giving her these unwanted names. I would argue that Elizabeth I was worse than her. I would say that Henry VIII and Edward VI were more evil. Try reading this: Mary Tudor: The First QueenAnother reason why she is resented is misogyny.
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Feb 26, 2017 19:42:39 GMT
I neither said nor implied any such thing. I called her Scottish Mary to denote a difference between Mary !. Same names can cause confusion. In fact Scottish Mary being brought up in France hated the Scots court.
Ah, I see, you've been watching "Braveheart". :-) You're a bit out of your time frame. Scotland was independent of England until the Acts of Union of 1707.
The Kingdom of Scotland emerged as an independent sovereign state in the Early Middle Ages and continued to exist until 1707. By inheritance in 1603, James VI, King of Scots, became King of England and King of Ireland, thus forming a personal union of the three kingdoms. Scotland subsequently entered into a political union with the Kingdom of England on 1 May 1707 to create the new Kingdom of Great Britain.
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Feb 26, 2017 19:48:54 GMT
And just how did she do that? She was childless, hence the throne fell to Elizabeth, who as it happened was also childless. When Elizabeth died so did the Tudor House. It fell to the Stuarts.
Did you just think that one up. :-)
Just a point on religion: You really can't judge and equate religion of mediaeval times into how we think of reliigion today. Religion and their faith was the centre of mediaeval lives. Almost everything revolved around it. Today religion has been sidelined by science somewhat, but we still have the fanatical. :-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 21:51:38 GMT
tarathian123 Thank you for an interesting discussion and making me more informed.
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Feb 27, 2017 3:56:38 GMT
My pleasure. I think perhaps you were occasionally confusing Mary I of England ("Bloody Mary"), daughter of Henry VIII, sister of Elizabeth, but who was also the wife of Phillip II of Spain, with Mary Queen of Scots ("Scottish Mary"), Elizabeth's first cousin once removed, and who succeeded her father (James V of Scotland) to the Scottish throne. She was also known as Mary Stuart, or Mary I of Scotland, and reigned over Scotland from 14 December 1542 to 24 July 1567.
After both the deaths of Mary of Scots and Elizabeth, the next in line for both the Scottish kingdom and the English kingdom was Scottish Mary's son James, who became James I of England and James VI of Scotland, The two nations later unified, but not for over a hundred years later. We had a little conflagration called the English Civil War, and an English Republic, before that happened.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Mar 1, 2017 4:29:07 GMT
Having taken core courses in Tudor history in college, Mary I was declared a bastard which ruined her chances for a stable political marriage, she was separated from her mother, beaten and abused by Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard and threatened by the growing Puritan movement in Henry's/EdwardVI's courts.
She was treated like trash.
She was not the fanatic that film portrays her. HVIII was against Luther and believed himself a Catholic on his death-bed. It was a period influenced by opinions and whims.
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Mar 1, 2017 14:53:31 GMT
----------- A few remarks in response to the above: A Royal decree in making someone, or indeed a whole family line, illegitimate, was a successional machination used throughout all of the mediaeval period. There was nothing unique about it. Nonsense, the bastardy only lasted for a few years. She was reinstated legitimacy when her father married Jane Seymour. From 1531, Mary was often sick with irregular menstruation and depression, although it is not clear whether this was caused by stress, puberty or a more deep-seated disease. After the execution of Anne Boleyn her marital successor Jane Seymour enticed Henry to put Mary back into favour, which he did, and so father and eldest daughter were reconciled, and Elizabeth was removed from the line of succession. You make it sound like Mary was an abused child. I've seen no evidence that she was. Any perpetrator of such on a 16th century royal princess would likely end up on the block or the rack., or even worse, given a traitor's death. That said, throughout the ages even to the present day, royal children have been treated differently to other children. Comes with the territory of given privelege and power. Catherine of Aragon (Mary's mother) went to live at The More castle in the winter of 1531/32. Mary was already 15 /16 years old (in those times not exactly considered as a child). In 1535 Catherine was transferred to Kimbolton Castle. There, she confined herself to one room (which she left only to attend Mass), dressed only in the hair shirt of the Order of St. Francis, and fasted continuously. She was permitted to receive occasional visitors, but yes she was forbidden to see her daughter Mary. At the time of the marriage between her father and Anne Boleyn, Mary was 17 years old. As said not exactly a child. As for Katherine Howard... ... she was 7 years younger than Mary, reared away from court, and would have had little if any contact with the young Mary, and even if they had met, she [Katherine] would have been only a toddler. You really should check your dates and facts. I never attended any college, but I can count. Henry broke with the Roman Catholic Church and declared himself Supreme Head of the Church of England. In early 1533, Henry married Anne Boleyn, who was pregnant with his child, and had the marriage with Catherine of Aragon made void, and the marriage to Anne made valid. Catherine of Aragon was demoted to Dowager Princess of Wales (a title she would have held as the widow of Arthur), and Mary was deemed illegitimate. She was styled "The Lady Mary" rather than Princess, and her place in the line of succession was transferred to her newborn half-sister, Elizabeth, Anne's daughter. But as said above this was reversed just a few years later. I'm not sure where you got this information, as Puritans didn't gain any real credence as a movement until after Elizabeth came to the throne. You're perhaps mixing up puritanism with general protestantism or radical protestantism. I doubt that Mary herself was much threatened in Henry's court, she was still the king's daughter, but there was religious animosity between Mary and Edward, but by then she was certainly no child. She was about 31 when Edward was crowned, and she would have had many protectors, and throughout most of his reign Mary remained on her own estates and rarely attended court, and I believe there were plans to spirit Mary away to Continental Europe should any danger be in evidence. They were never used. Any abuse Mary may have received she certainly gave back ten-fold when she gained the throne. After the Heresy Acts were revived in late 1554, numerous Protestants were executed in the Marian persecutions. The first executions occurred over a period of five days in early February 1555. Hundreds of rich Protestants, chose exile instead of martydom. It mustn't be forgotten that the Vatican and Spain played devious, divisive and self-purposeful roles in English politics at this time, especially during Philip of Spain's marriage to Mary from 1554, and it all happened during one of the bloodiest times of the Spanish Inquisition, a situation not unknown and dreaded by Englishmen. I guess it would be seen with horror and dread by them, as with views of the later French Revolution, the rise of Nazism, and the Holocaust. Mary's one main goal, indeed obsession in life, besides having a successful pregnancy in which she failed, was to make England a Catholic state and submissive under the Church of Rome. Everything she did from an early age was geared to that end. If that isn't fanaticism, I'd like to know what is.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Mar 5, 2017 4:40:34 GMT
It depends solely upon the books that you read.
Is your response about your lack of education or about malice?
I will NOT waste time arguing with you.
BTW, Puritans were not simply waiting in closets until Edward and Elizabeth were on the throne.
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Mar 5, 2017 8:15:09 GMT
Check any history book you wish. The ages at a given time of the people concerned won't change. In the case of Katherine Howard in particular, it was impossible that she "beat and abused Mary".
I didn't say I had a lack of education. I remarked that I'd never attended any college. No malice intended, just curiosity as to why someone who did, cannot count. And you did rather conceitedly put your college education upfront. Your quote was..."Having taken core courses in Tudor history in college,..", implying that you consider yourself some sort of expert.
The word "Puritan" was applied unevenly to a number of Protestant churches (and religious groups within the Anglican Church) from the late 16th century onwards. Puritans did not originally use the term for themselves. The practitioners knew themselves as members of particular churches or movements, and not by a single term. "Precise men" and "Precisians" were other early derogatory terms for Puritans, who preferred to call themselves "the godly."
They were later called Puritans because they wanted to "purify" the Church of England from its "Catholic" practices, maintaining that the Church of England was only partially reformed.
Members of the clergy who had been exiled under Mary I, returned to England shortly after the accession of Elizabeth in 1558, and founded the movement which eventually became known as the "Puritans". The Puritans as we now understand them weren't around in either Henry's, Edward's or Mary's reigns.
:-) These are discussion boards are they not? To my mind discussions are where points of interest are discussed and argued about, but in an orderly manner. If you disagree with my discussion points then kindly argue against them as you wish. Argue or run away, makes no difference to me. :-)
--------------
Referring back to the OP's original question as to whether or not Mary I was the bloodiest Tudor monarch, I will add that Jack the Ripper wasn't the most prolific serial killer on the books. There have been many more who have claimed many more victims than he. Jack is remembered for his method of killing over a relatively short period of time, rather than the number. I think this rather applies to Mary too, and the reason the name "Bloody Mary" has stuck to her.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Mar 5, 2017 14:39:59 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. elizabeth took a much harsher line after the pope excommunicated her. people were fined for not attending a church of England service on sundays, and catholic priests were executed.
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Mar 5, 2017 14:59:48 GMT
Quite so Louise. I'm not saying that ERI was a soft monarch. She was anything but. She was an absolute and ruthless monarch of her day. Consider the way she rewarded her sailors who fought the Armada. She left them out at sea starving so she wouldn't have to pay them. She wasn't exactly Gloriana at that time. As I said in a previous post imo the Tudors as a whole were a pretty nasty bunch. I think the books, contemporary poets, TV, and Hollywood have been far too kind to her. That said, I believe her half-sister Mary was about the nastiest of the breed. :-)
|
|
|
Post by TheOriginalPinky on Mar 8, 2017 21:01:22 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. In her short reign, she had a LOT of people tortured and put to death. She was a religious zealot and was a fanatical Roman Catholic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2017 21:10:41 GMT
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. In her short reign, she had a LOT of people tortured and put to death. She was a religious zealot and was a fanatical Roman Catholic.She had less people killed on avarage in a year then both her siblings and father. So if they all had ruled for only 5 years she would still be the least bloody of them. Because on average in a year she had less people killed than her father, brother and sister. Yes she was a religious zealot and a fanatacial roman catholic. But the fact still is that even if they all ruled for 5 years or 50 years based on the average number of people each of the Tudor had executed Mary I would have less people executed than her father and siblings.
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Mar 8, 2017 22:08:44 GMT
Agreed that monarchs throughout British history, both Tudor and otherwise, and also monarchs from elsewhere, have been responsible for far more deaths than Mary, but none have been given the name of "Bloody". The nearest I can think of off-hand is Vlad the Impaler.
What has earned her the title is not the number of her killings, but the fanatical zeal, reason, and methods, indeed one could almost say enjoyment (and yes in such a short time), by which she had the executions carried out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2017 0:45:11 GMT
People prefer historical myths and that is sad.
|
|