The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 04-30-2010, 10:59 PM
Ladygodiva's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Glasgow, United Kingdom
Posts: 8
William & Mary were joint rulers ......And equal, unlike Mary & Philip.

Consorts generally had no power, although in the eyes were equal, the above is the only actual joint rulership with equality.

There's been plenty of consorts though (Catherine of Aragon being one)
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-01-2010, 11:02 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
If Mary had her way, Philip would have been her co-equal.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-02-2010, 05:36 PM
Ladygodiva's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Glasgow, United Kingdom
Posts: 8
Yeah, there was no doubt she was madly in love with him. It's a shame for her really. I always feel a bit sorry for her, despite her rather cruel intentions at the time. I blame Henry & Ann for her rule. It seems she got her revenge for their behaviour during her time as Queen, I always wonder what it would have been like had she lived longer and had surviving children.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-11-2010, 11:36 PM
Tiggersk8's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Evansville, Canada
Posts: 1,375
This is one of the two periods of English History that's always fascinated me. This thread has made for wonderful reading over the last few days.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned though...I've read in quite a few books over the years that Princess Mary was created Princess of Wales in her own right. Something that hasn't happened to any other Heiress Presumptive since. Now, would Henry have done that if he thought he'd have more children w/Katherine of Aragon (As a Lord of the Rings fan and fan fiction writer, you have no idea how hard it is not to turn "Aragon" into "Aragorn"...LOL!!)? I don't think so.

By doing this, was it his way of possibly putting out the idea to England of a Sovereign Queen? Since the title of Prince of Wales is the one given to the Heir to the Throne, I've often wondered if Henry did this to further any negotiations w/the respective European Powers for Mary's hand and bethrotal/alliance.

Or maybe I'm just babbling about nothing too, but...Just my thoughts. :o)
__________________
Recycle Life ~ Be An Organ Donor!!
Recieved my Kidney Transplant on December 10th, 1993 and will be forever grateful to the family of my donor for the greatest earliest Christmas Present I've ever been given
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-12-2010, 03:24 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiggersk8 View Post

One thing I haven't seen mentioned though...I've read in quite a few books over the years that Princess Mary was created Princess of Wales in her own right. Something that hasn't happened to any other Heiress Presumptive since. Now, would Henry have done that if he thought he'd have more children w/Katherine of Aragon (As a Lord of the Rings fan and fan fiction writer, you have no idea how hard it is not to turn "Aragon" into "Aragorn"...LOL!!)? I don't think so.

By doing this, was it his way of possibly putting out the idea to England of a Sovereign Queen? Since the title of Prince of Wales is the one given to the Heir to the Throne, I've often wondered if Henry did this to further any negotiations w/the respective European Powers for Mary's hand and bethrotal/alliance.

Or maybe I'm just babbling about nothing too, but...Just my thoughts. :o)
Thank you for your thoughts but, and I may be wrong, I thought Mary was styled as the Princess of Wales but never actually invested with the title. Henry did accord her many of the prerogatives which went with the title and Mary is the only royal daughter to be styled the Princess of Wales but she was never invested with the title, whereas her mother was called by the King the "Dowager Princess of Wales" because Arthur was the Prince of Wales when Katherine married him. Henry did invest his only legitimate son, Edward, with the title Prince of Wales but there is not a comparable title for the Heiress Presumptive.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-14-2010, 02:23 AM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vasillisos Markos View Post
Thank you for your thoughts but, and I may be wrong, I thought Mary was styled as the Princess of Wales but never actually invested with the title. Henry did accord her many of the prerogatives which went with the title and Mary is the only royal daughter to be styled the Princess of Wales but she was never invested with the title, whereas her mother was called by the King the "Dowager Princess of Wales" because Arthur was the Prince of Wales when Katherine married him. Henry did invest his only legitimate son, Edward, with the title Prince of Wales but there is not a comparable title for the Heiress Presumptive.
There seems to be some confusion over this issue, but I do believe that Mary Tudor was formally invested with the title Princess of Wales in 1525.

This was about the time that Henry VIII was negotiating Mary's betrothal to the Holy Roman Emperor Charles. Henry's "Great Matter" had not begun (he was still probably having his affair with Mary Boleyn), so perhaps her investiture was a political demonstration to the Emperor that Mary was looked upon as the heir to England's throne, and as such was indeed a suitable match for him.

Mary was sent to Ludlow Castle to preside over the Welsh Council, although she couldn't have actually done much since she was only 9 years old at the time.

Though she was formally recognized as Princess of Wales, it was still basically a symbolic recognition due to her young age. Any legitimate son born to Henry VIII would have automatically reverted the title to the Crown for investiture in the male heir.

She lost all royal rank when Henry declared her illegitimate. But if that had not been the case, Mary Tudor may have kept the title until Edward was born, and/or invested as Prince of Wales.

Once he was born, Mary lost her position in the succession anyway.. and her betrothal to the Emperor had long since been voided.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-14-2010, 10:47 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
Henry did send Mary to Ludlow Castle and afforded her the prerogatives which customarily went to the Prince of Wales but was there an actual investiture? Surely, if so, there would have been some written account. I would love to be proved wrong but I had always thought that Mary was styled Princess of Wales until she fell out of favor with the King and he may have styled her as Pss of Wales, as you point out, in order to make her a suitable match for a marriage abroad. But styling her as Pss of Wales is not the same as investing her with Pss of Wales.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-15-2010, 04:40 PM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vasillisos Markos View Post
Henry did send Mary to Ludlow Castle and afforded her the prerogatives which customarily went to the Prince of Wales but was there an actual investiture? Surely, if so, there would have been some written account. I would love to be proved wrong but I had always thought that Mary was styled Princess of Wales until she fell out of favor with the King and he may have styled her as Pss of Wales, as you point out, in order to make her a suitable match for a marriage abroad. But styling her as Pss of Wales is not the same as investing her with Pss of Wales.
Perhaps investiture is an incorrect term in this case.. Mary Tudor was created Princess of Wales in 1525. And I suppose there is a difference between the two.

She was not invested as Princess of Wales, since that would appear to absolutely declare her heir to the throne (something Henry would not have done). But she was formally created Princess of Wales in her own right, and was recognized as such until she was declared illegitimate in May 1533.

The marriage agreement between Mary and the Emperor Charles designated her as heir to the throne if Henry had no legitimate Heir Male.

I suppose Mary's creation as Princess of Wales would have been somewhat similar to the creation of a peerage.. the way he created Anne Boleyn the Marquess of Pembroke before their marriage. However, the title was more than just a style, even though it was less than an investiture.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-16-2010, 11:30 AM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
HM Queen Catherine,

Thank you for clearing that up. I would love to read more about this subject. Can you recommend some sources?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-04-2010, 07:19 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: nashville, United States
Posts: 14
one thing i've always been curious about is why henry viii never let mary marry?? she had plenty of offers and she would have continued the tudor line if she had children. so why did henry let her grow old and never marry?? as far as arthur and catherine consummating their marriage, i don't believe they did just because catherine was a deeply religious woman and i don't think she would have lied and wouldn't henry have known if she wasn't a virgin on their wedding night?? i wonder about arthur's cause of death too because TB and the sweating sickness were both very contagious and catherine did not become ill herself.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 10-04-2010, 07:33 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
By the time Mary was of an age to marry Henry was disputing the legitimacy of the marriage. To marry her off would imply that the marriage was legitimate. Once the marriage was annulled then Mary was illegitimate and therefore not a catch for anyone.

Also she couldn't continue the Tudor line as she was a woman and her line would have become that of her husband, just as Henry's sister didn't continue the Tudor line but her descendents are the Stuarts and from whom the present royal family are descended.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10-04-2010, 07:08 PM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 303
As a Princess of England, there was no need to wait to secure a marriage for Mary Tudor.. as most royal daughters were basically political property and their marriages were treated as alliances or treaties between kingdoms.

Henry did take an interest in his daughter's marriage in her childhood and she was betrothed several times, but the arrangements just never came off.

Mary was betrothed to Francis III, Duc de Bretagne and Dauphin de Viennois, the infant son and heir of Francis I of France, when she was a toddler. But the political goals of England and France changed and the contract was repudiated around 1520. The Duke of Brittany died at the age of eighteen, in 1536, unmarried and without legitimate issue.

In 1522, Mary was contracted to marry Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor - a contract no doubt greatly influenced by her mother Queen Catherine. Charles was twenty-two years old and Mary was merely a child.. years away from being a co-habitating wife and mother of an heir.

Despite the fact that officially their betrothal lasted several years, Charles eventually broke the agreement so that he could marry Isabella of Portugal in 1526. His need for an heir was probably greater than even Henry VIII's, and he could not wait for his child bride to grow up.. besides, his interest in the match was most likely purely political.. despite his family connection to Catherine of Aragon.

Following the broken contract with Charles V, Mary was suggested as either the second wife of Francis I of France (whose Queen Claude had died in 1524), or as the wife of his second son Henri, Duc de Orleans. At that time Francis was eager to secure an alliance with England, and a contract was signed giving Mary's hand in marriage to one or the other.

But Cardinal Wolsey found a way to secure the alliance without the marriage, and the issue was dropped.

Shortly after this began Henry's Great Matter, which effectively took Mary Tudor out of the marriage market.. until she became Queen.

Iluvbertie is right though.. after she was declared illegitimate, there was no point in trying to secure a marriage for her.. and no marriage plans were made for Elizabeth either, for the same reason.

I do, however, have to slightly disagree that Mary Tudor would not have continued the Tudor line. Had either she or Elizabeth married and provided England with an heir, it may have officially changed the ruling dynasty's name, but the royal blood would have still been half Tudor. Or it could have been a case of the heir to the throne taking the Tudor name to inherit, and therefore continuing the official dynasty.. much like the Windsors have done.

The case of Queen Margaret is slightly different, in that she was a Queen Consort and not a Queen Regnant. It was her duty to provide an heir for the royal house she married into.. which would not have been the case for Mary or Elizabeth, who held the throne in their own right.
__________________
i vethed...n i onnad. Minl pedich nin i aur hen telitha. - Arwen & Aragorn, The Lord of the Rings
(English translation: "This is not the end... it is the beginning. You told me once, this day would come.")
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10-04-2010, 08:40 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: nashville, United States
Posts: 14
that's what i meant by mary continuing the tudor line--i meant blood, not the name.. henry's blood/dna would have been in his grandchildren..
actually, i think some of henry's dna did get passed along--thru mary boleyn's children..
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10-08-2010, 04:46 PM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbear87 View Post
that's what i meant by mary continuing the tudor line--i meant blood, not the name.. henry's blood/dna would have been in his grandchildren..
actually, i think some of henry's dna did get passed along--thru mary boleyn's children..
As a direct descendant of Katherine Carey Knollys, I quite agree with you :)
__________________
i vethed...n i onnad. Minl pedich nin i aur hen telitha. - Arwen & Aragorn, The Lord of the Rings
(English translation: "This is not the end... it is the beginning. You told me once, this day would come.")
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10-08-2010, 10:50 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: nashville, United States
Posts: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by HM Queen Catherine View Post
As a direct descendant of Katherine Carey Knollys, I quite agree with you :)
wow, that's cool! since she had 15 children i bet there are a ton of relatives, lol. how are you related to her? i wonder why henry viii did not recognize mary's children since he did acknowledge his son with bessie blount?? i guess it was because he was pursuing anne?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-06-2012, 01:14 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 161
What I always find terribly sad is that Mary was considered evil by a very biased Protestant critique. She probably killed closed to 200 Protestants in her reign. Her father waa responsible for over seventy thousand Catholics not to mention the very pious and wonderful Thomas More. YET, she gets the bad rap. I am in no way a Catholic apologist but I like Mary because she did do a lot of good things in her reign as well that get overlooked because she inserted her absolute will like any other ruler. At least she stood for her faith because she believed it was right and not because she had other motives.

I also hate when people downplay her accomplishments to praise Elizabeth who was a great politican, for sure, but not without her faults or bloody hands (she just hid her dirty deeds well). I feel like she is often hyped and Mary treated like crap.

Love Mary and her mother. She could have been a whole lot worse considering what she went through.
__________________
"I had this garden party for my father's birthday, I said to RSVP cause it was a sit-down dinner, but people came who did not RSVP and so I was totally buggin'...but, by the end of the day, it was like, the more the merrier...So, if the government could just get in the kitchen, rearrange some things, we could certainly party with the Ha-ti-ans." Cher--Clueless
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-06-2012, 01:44 AM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vita View Post
Her father waa responsible for over seventy thousand Catholics not to mention the very pious and wonderful Thomas More.
My dear Vita,

Can that possibly be right?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-08-2012, 05:27 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Phoenix, United States
Posts: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vasillisos Markos View Post
My dear Vita,

Can that possibly be right?
Didn't Henry VIII have Thomas More executed?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-08-2012, 05:45 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by persian85033 View Post
Didn't Henry VIII have Thomas More executed?
More was tried, and found guilty, under the following section of the Treason Act 1534:

Quote:
If any person or persons, after the first day of February next coming, do maliciously wish, will or desire, by words or writing, or by craft imagine, invent, practise, or attempt any bodily harm to be done or committed to the king's most royal person, the queen's, or their heirs apparent, or to deprive them or any of them of their dignity, title, or name of their royal estates...
That then every such person and persons so offending... shall have and suffer such pains of death and other penalties, as is limited and accustomed in cases of high treason.
After the jury's verdict was delivered and before his sentencing, More spoke freely of his belief that "no temporal man may be the head of the spirituality". He was sentenced to be hanged, drawn, and quartered (the usual punishment for traitors who were not the nobility), but the king commuted this to execution by decapitation. The execution took place on 6 July 1535.

- From the ever loved Wikipedia, but I have a spidersense that there is sarcasm somewhere within one of the posts above.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-09-2012, 03:00 AM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by persian85033 View Post
Didn't Henry VIII have Thomas More executed?
My dear Persian,

I was not questioning the death of St Thomas More at Henry's direction--I was questioning the deaths of 70,000 Catholics under Henry. I am too lazy to dig out my biographies on him at the moment. BTW, my confirmation name was Thomas for St. Thomas More, so I am very familiar with his life and death. He truly believed in his Church, unlike me at the moment.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Crown Princess Mary and The Mary Foundation (Launched September 11, 2007) MissSaga Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary and Family 511 09-11-2014 12:38 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman picture of the month poland pom president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:20 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]