The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   British Royal History (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f165/)
-   -   Mary I (1516-1558) (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f165/mary-i-1516-1558-a-22614.html)

Kotroman 06-12-2009 04:12 PM

Mary I (1516-1558)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth (Post 161914)
No, it doesn't happen often; it was the only time in British history that there was a joint monarchy.

Actually, Mary I reigned together with her husband Philip (king of Spain as Philip II). The marriage contract stipulated that Philip will reign together with his wife for as long as they remain married, but that he won't admit any strangers into English offices and that Mary will be de facto superior to him. Both Philip and Mary I appeared on coins, on the Great Seal of the Realm, and on charters; they both signed documents, as was required by the Privy Council, etc. In fact, denying Philip's royal authority was made high treason in Ireland. When Mary II demanded her husband to be recognized as co-sovereign, the example set by Philip and Mary I was cited.

Anyway, it's strange that nobody writes about Mary I of England, who was truly an amazing person.

Her father repudiated her mother when she was 19 and declared Mary a bastard. To do this, her father broke off with Rome, which was terrfying to a Mary as a religious Roman Catholic. She was never allowed to see her mother again and she wasn't allowed to attend her funeral. Her father married her mother's lady-in-waiting and Mary was forced to acknowledge her new stepmother as her queen. The First Succession Act declared Mary a bastard. Mary, who was once heir presumptive to the throne of England, became a lady-in-awiting to her half-sister Elizabeth, the new heir presumptive.

I've read that she had two false pregnancies. She married aged 37, hoping to bear children who would keep her kingdom in Catholic faith which she believed was right. It was highly unlikely for her to get pregnant at that age, and her husband wasn't crazy about her either. She believed to be pregnant twice. During the last false pregnancy, her belly grew and she started lactating. She spent a month laying to preserve the delicate pregnancy, but she wasn't pregnant. Both her mental and physical health declined after she found out that she was never pregant. Her husband didn't support her; he left her and sailed back to Spain right away. What caused these false pregnancies was an ovarian tumour, which killed Mary at the age of 42. She never succeeded in converting her kingdom to the faith she believed was right.

claypoint2 06-12-2009 04:29 PM

:previous:

Not quite the same thing as William III and Mary II, though, because Philip did not continue to rule after Mary I's death. Rather, she was succeeded by her half-sister Elizabeth I.

Unlike William III, Philip had no claim to the English throne other than his marriage to Mary I.

Kotroman 06-12-2009 04:35 PM

:previous:

Of course, but Philip and Mary I were nontheless co-sovereigns. The only real difference between Philip and Mary I and William III and Mary II was that Philip and Mary I were not de iure equal like William III and Mary II were.

Marsel 06-12-2009 04:47 PM

Mary I and Philip of Spain can indeed be called joint rulers.
Under the terms of the marriage, Philip enjoyed all of Mary's titles and honors for as long as their marriage lasted.
All official documents, including Acts of Parliament, were signed with both their names and Parliament was to be called under their joint authority. Coins depicted the heads of both Mary and Philip. The Privy Council instructed that Philip and Mary should be joint signatories of royal documents. An interesting fact; since Philip couldn't speak or read English, all matters of the state were made in Latin or even in Spanish (Mary was fluent in Spanish).
In Ireland, denying Philip's authority amounted to high treason.
The Great Seal showed Philip and Mary together, seated on thrones and holding the crown together. Even the coat of arms of England was modified to include Philip's arms.

After Philip succeeded to the Spanish Throne, their joint style was - Philip and Mary, by the Grace of God King and Queen of England, Spain (in Spain, the list began with Spain then England), France (all English Monarchs after Edward III proclaimed themselves Monarchs of France ap to 1801), Jerusalem (before Philip's accession to the Spanish Throne, his father made him de juro King of Jerusalem, to make his rank equal to his future wife's), both the Sicilies and Ireland (Pope Paul IV issued a papal bull recognizing Philip and Mary as rightful King and Queen of Ireland), Defenders of the Faith, Archdukes of Austria, Dukes of Burgundy, Milan and Brabant, Counts of Habsburg, Flanders and Tirol.

Philip held all the powers of a British Sovereign with only one exception; England was not obliged to provide military or monetary support to any war Spain may be involved in. This, however, proved to amount to nothing; Mary did support Philip's war against France, which resulted in the loss of the last English land on the French soil - Calais.

Kotroman 06-12-2009 05:01 PM

Should I present sources for information presented by Marsel?

Marsel 06-12-2009 05:06 PM

I will do it myself, thank you Kotroman. :smile:
My sources were Wikipedia, the official website of the British Monarchy and personal knowledge.

Kotroman 06-12-2009 05:15 PM

No, I meant secondary sources such as works of scholars. :flowers: I know that you've got your information from Wikipedia, but Wikipedia got it from:

* Stroud a Staff, Angus Stroud, Taylor & Francis: Stuart England, Routledge, 2002
* David Williamson: Debrett's kings and queens of Britain, Webb & Bower, 1986
* Walter Yust: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1952
* Louis Adrian Montrose: The subject of Elizabeth: authority, gender, and representation, University of Chicago Press, 2006
* Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge (Great Britain): The Penny Cyclopędia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, C. Knight, 1839
* Robert Dudley Edwards: Ireland in the age of the Tudors: the destruction of Hiberno-Norman civilization, Taylor & Francis, 1977
* A. F. Pollard: The History of England - From the Accession of Edward VI. to the Death of Elizabeth (1547-1603), READ BOOKS, 2007
* Wim de Groot: The Seventh Window: The King's Window Donated by Philip II and Mary Tudor to Sint Janskerk in Gouda (1557), Uitgeverij Verloren, 2005
* Regina Schulte: The body of the queen: gender and rule in the courtly world, 1500-2000, Berghahn Books, 2006
* Richard Marks, Ann Payne, British Museum, British Library; British heraldry from its origins to c. 1800; British Museum Publications Ltd., 1978
* Norman Davies: The Isles: A History, 1999
* Roger Lockyer: Tudor and Stuart Britain, 1485-1714, Pearson Education, 2005

(This is just to confirm that Marsel and I aren't making stuff up ;))

Marsel 06-12-2009 05:26 PM

I see, thank you again for presenting the rather impressive list of sources. :smile:
Parts of the information I wrote based on 'personal knowledge' come from the works in the list, including David Williamson ("Debrett's Kings and Queens of Britain"), Robert Dudley Edwards ("Ireland in the age of the Tudors") and Roger Lockyer ("Tudor and Stuart Britain").

Iluvbertie 06-12-2009 06:39 PM

One of the reason, I suspect, why Philip of Spain isn't given the credit for being a co-ruler is that he wasn't crowned as King whereas William III was crowned as King. In addition he had arrived in England with an army so was also at least partially a conqueror (although 'invited' by parliament to come over and save England and Scotland from the evils of Roman Catholicism - their views at the time - not mine today).

As a result William could have been seen as a King conqueror in the same way as William I and Henry VII with Mary II, the eldest daughter and therefore the senior Protestant claimant, if the RC were to be disinherited after the birth of her baby brother, seen a bit like Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV and therefore the senior Yorkist claimant. Thus by having joint monarchs it combined two claims, a legitimate one and a conquering one into a joint rule and hopefully into an heir. That happened successfully with Henry and Elizabeth, whose son Arthur was the legitimate Yorkist and Lancastrian heir through both his parents thus ending the Wars of the Roses for good but didn't happen with William and Mary, who didn't have any children, leaving Anne as their heir.

Mary, of course, was also raised with the very real 17th Century attitude that a wife was not to be in a position of power over her husband and would have found it difficult to be a Queen to a husband who had a lower rank than her.

I am determined at some time in the future to research and write a book (probably for my own enjoyment and satisfaction and for no one else to ever see) on the strengths and weaknesses etc of the different Queens' Regnant of England/Britain starting with Matilda in the 1100s through Lady Jane Grey, Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary II, Anne, Victoria and Elizabeth II. It has been floating around in my head for years but it will have to wait for my retirement to get the time.

claypoint2 06-12-2009 06:53 PM

I'd read your book any time, Iluvbertie! I'm fascinated by the subject of the Queens Regnant.

claypoint2 06-12-2009 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kotroman (Post 951823)

Of course, but Philip and Mary I were nontheless co-sovereigns. The only real difference between Philip and Mary I and William III and Mary II was that Philip and Mary I were not de iure equal like William III and Mary II were.

Perhaps this was a misunderstanding between us, but I thought that we were debating precisely their de iure status. Philip may have exercised the rights and duties of a co-sovereign, but it was only thanks to Mary's favor and influence in the realm. Philip's rights terminated upon Mary's death, which tells you about their etiology -- namely, that Philip had no inherent personal claim on the title of King of England but was dependant on the favor and influence of his wife. And, of course, she was raised to believe that she should subjugate herself to her husband, so it was the least that she could do....

Kotroman 06-12-2009 07:12 PM

:previous:
Then we agree on all terms! :flowers: When it came to England, Philip derived his monarchical rights from the concept of iure uxoris (being husband of heiress makes you the co-heir) or more precisely from the marriage contract and parliament's approval. He reigned together with his wife during their marriage and ceased being king at the moment of her death.

However, he shouldn't be compared to queens consort, as queens consort do not exercise sovereignity in any manner, let alone the way he did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 951892)
One of the reason, I suspect, why Philip of Spain isn't given the credit for being a co-ruler is that he wasn't crowned as King whereas William III was crowned as King.

Philip wanted to be crowned and talked to Mary I about the possibility of being crowned. She convinced him that the parliament would not tolerate his being crowned, so he wisely abandoned the idea, choosing not to risk losing the sovereign rights he was already granted. However, being crowned does not make you a monarch if you have documents that confirm your right to reign. Only conquerors need(ed) to be crowned in order to make their claim legitimate and justified.

It would be interesting to know what would've happened had Mary I given birth to a son by Philip. I'm sure he would be named either Philip or Charles. Perhaps the parliament would even like Philip after fathering an heir and securing the succession, and then a coronation would not be impossible.

Marsel 06-12-2009 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 951892)
One of the reason, I suspect, why Philip of Spain isn't given the credit for being a co-ruler is that he wasn't crowned as King whereas William III was crowned as King. <>

There is truth in what you say; Philip, unlike William of Orange, was never crowned King of England, although he was recognized as one.
The situation is similar to Empress Matilda's, who became Queen of England (de juro) after her father's death, however since she was never crowned, she is often emitted from the list of English Monarchs.

Quote:

I am determined at some time in the future to research and write a book (probably for my own enjoyment and satisfaction and for no one else to ever see) on the strengths and weaknesses etc of the different Queens' Regnant of England/Britain starting with Matilda in the 1100s through Lady Jane Grey, Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary II, Anne, Victoria and Elizabeth II. It has been floating around in my head for years but it will have to wait for my retirement to get the time.
That would be a very interesting read; I would certainly not mind reading a well-researched book on English/British Queen Regnants. :smile:


Edit: Kotroman, we do think (and post) similarly! :lol: :smile:

Iluvbertie 06-12-2009 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kotroman (Post 951926)
:previous:
Then we agree on all terms! ...

You may very well be right but I also wonder if the country mightn't have descended into civil war over the religious issue with a RC heir after the protestants had made such strides under Edward.

I have recently been reading quite a bit on Elizabeth I who make the claim that the more Mary persecuted the protestants the more determined the protestants became. Rather than terrifying them into submission to
Roman Catholicism it made anti-Catholicism stronger. Certainly that is the view of Susan Bassnett and a few others - she is the one I finished reading last night which is why she is the one I am clearest on at the moment.

Grace Angel 06-18-2009 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kotroman (Post 951926)
:previous:
Then we agree on all terms!...

I doubt Philip would ever have been very popular, as he was a foreigner of a different religion and was seen to be behind Mary's persecution of Protestants, etc, to some extent. I think if she had had a son though, he would likely have been given his proper rights as heir at first, although that might indeed have caused some issues.

Kotroman 06-19-2009 08:49 AM

:previous:
A majority of queens consort have been foreigners and that didn't make them instantly unpopular. Philip certainly wasn't popular during his reign as King of England, but fathering an heir during a succession crisis could've made him more popular.

It's very likely that England would enter a personal union with Spain rather than Scotland, unless Iluvbertie is right.

Anyway, does anyone else pity Mary I like I do?

Grace Angel 06-19-2009 03:23 PM

Philip was mainly unpopular because of the fact of his religion not his nationality true, since his religion clashed with the Protestant majority in England. The next Catholic consort was Henrietta Maria, wife of Charles I, and her being Catholic wasn't popular either, although when she was queen consort there was no persecution of Protestants, so she wasn't disliked as much. I do feel pity for Mary I, since life kind of passed her by, and history hasn't awarded her a very good reputation.

redrose_2121 04-03-2010 10:52 AM

I think a lot of people think she was much worse than she was. Not that burning so many Protestants is really excusable. However, Mary had a terribly hard childhood. She went from being the jewel of her father's world to being completely hated by him in a relatively short period of time. Then she was separated from her mother (Katherine of Aragon), whom she was extremely close too, and not even allowed to communicate with her. Her mother was replaced by a woman she hated (Anne Boleyn), and her father separated from Rome. Mary truly believed that Catholicism was the true religion and she must have been truly torn between two worlds. She was forced to recognize her mother's marriage to her father as invalid, making herself a bastard. She felt constantly threatened by her sister while she was queen, and she was married to a man whom she was deeply in love with, but did not return her ardor (Philip II). All in all, I truly do pity her.

Melisende 04-26-2010 08:48 AM

You might be interested in David Loades "Mary Tudor: A Life" - a very comphrensive study of both the woman and her reign.

persian85033 04-29-2010 01:41 PM

I do pity Mary. She is judged so harshly, but I don't think she was really evil. It must not have been easy for her to be called a bastard, and then have to put up with Anne's daughter.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises