u/Suerly-04

It is quite natural to see these three dates as representing three stages of Mary’s life: the first period from 1516 to 1533, the second from 1533 to 1553, and the third from 1553 to 1558.

The dates I gave in the title refer not so much to the dates on which the signatures were written, but to the periods during which Mary used those forms of signature. When Mary was demoted from princess to lady in 1533, she resisted this for three years and continued to sign her letters as “Mary Princess.” Eventually, however, she was forced to give up the title of princess. In 1553, she simply began using her title, “the quene,” after her name.

It is very simple, but as I once read somewhere, it reminds us of who she was. Other monarchs would simply sign their names, while some would also add an “R,” the initial of the Latin word for their title, rex or regina.

This is what makes Mary’s signature particularly interesting.

Today, I wanted to share something I learned recently with you as well.

Although monarchs usually have a famous motto, they may also have other mottos that are less well known. These sometimes appear in inscriptions, on coins, or are spread through words.

We all know Mary’s famous motto, “Truth, the Daughter of Time”, but we often do not know that Mary had another motto as well.

This is the motto whose Latin form is “A Domino factum est istud, et est mirabile in oculis nostris.” and whose English translation is “This is the Lord’s doing; it is marvelous in our eyes.” (The shortened Latin version of this phrase is also written on the coin in the image.)

Mary had this motto inscribed on coins bearing her portrait.

Before researching why Mary chose this motto, it was necessary to look into whether it was a family tradition. If other members of the family had also commonly used this phrase, then it would not have been entirely Mary’s personal choice, and it would not have given us the answer we were looking for.

The mottos Henry generally used on his coins include: “A rose without thorns”, “A dazzling rose without a thorn”, “Consecrated by such a sign the mind cannot waver”, etc.

Edward’s mottos, on the other hand, include: “As for his enemies, I shall clothe them in shame”, “The word is a lamp unto my feet”, “The fear of The Lord is the fountain of life”, etc.

So, Mary’s choice was something she made of her own free will.

“This is the Lord’s doing; it is marvelous in our eyes.” is a religious verse, and it is verse 23 of Psalm 118.

Thinking that most things have a meaning, I began researching Psalm 118. At first, I thought it was a religious story, but it was not.

It is a religious discourse consisting of 29 verses, and I read it.

If we set aside the theological aspects of texts like this, while reading most of the text, I felt as though these words had been spoken by Mary herself.

Mary chose this motto after ascending to the throne in 1553, and when you read this text, you understand why Mary chose it. You can see Mary’s past, some of the suffering she endured, the situation she was in at that moment, her faith in God, her expectations for her future, and perhaps the true reason for her accession to the throne, at least according to Mary herself.

I cannot share all of these verses—most of them are praises to God, and I will be leaving those parts out—but I wanted to share some of them, particularly the ones I saw as connected to Mary herself and the way she lived.

This may bring us a little closer to Mary’s way of thinking and quietly tell us why Mary chose her motto from this Psalm.

•”When hard pressed, I cried to the Lord; he brought me into a spacious place.” (We can imagine that Mary had heard these verses many times before she came to the throne, but after her accession, she must have felt just how true these words were for her.)

•”The Lord is with me; I will not be afraid. What can mere mortals do to me?”
•”The Lord is with me; he is my helper. I look in triumph on my enemies.”
•”It is better to take refuge in Lord than to trust in princes.” (These three verses reminded me of the phrase Mary often said: 'if God is with us, who can be against us.')

•”All the nations surrounded me, but in the name of the Lord I cut them down.”
•”They surrounded me on every side, but in the name of the Lord I cut them down.”
•”I was pushed back and about to fall, but the Lord helped me.”
•”Shouts of joy and victory resound in the tents of the righteous: “The Lord’s right hand has done mighty things!” (In a statement Reginald made to Mary, he said that 'the Lord's right hand' saved her. He may have quoted from here. This could also be an allusion to the joy of Mary's victory.)

•”I will not die but live, and will proclaim what the Lord has done.”
•”The Lord has chastened me severely, but he has not given me over to death.”

•”The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone;” (This is a very beautiful phrase. Mary must have remembered being rejected by her own family members here.)

•”This is the Lord’s doing; it is marvelous in our eyes.”

This is a religious text, and of course, it was not written for Mary, but it fits Mary so perfectly. This motto could absolutely not have suited anyone else as well as it suited Mary!

Thank you for reading. I’m sending you all lots of love and happiness! I hope you have a wonderful day—or, if it’s nighttime, a wonderful day when you wake up!

This document was written in 1555 to inform Cardinal Pole of the birth of a prince.

The document reads as follows:

“Most Reverend Father in God, our right trusty and right entirely beloved cousin, We greet you well: And whereas it hath pleased Almighty God, of His infinite goodness, to add unto the great number of other His benefits bestowed upon us, the gladding of us with the happy deliverance of a prince, for the which we do most humbly thank Him;

Knowing your affections to be such towards us as whatsoever shall fortunately succeed unto us, the same cannot be but acceptable unto you also ; We have thought good to communicate unto you these happy news of ours, to the intent you may rejoice with us ; and praying for us, give God thanks for this his work accordingly.

Given under our signet, at our house of Hampton Court, the __ of __, the 1st and 2nd year of our and my Lord the King's reign.”

Since the baby had not yet been born, the dates were left blank, as you can see. The letter was written in May 1555.

During this period, a letter announcing the birth of a prince was also prepared for the Pope, and the dates were left blank in that letter as well. If the baby turned out to be a girl rather than a boy, two “s” would be added to the word “Prince.”

Letters announcing the birth of a child were also prepared for other rulers—the King of France, the Dowager Queen of France, the Queen of Portugal, the Regent of the Netherlands, the King of Bohemia, the Doge of Venice, and other prominent figures. In these letters too, the child’s sex and date of birth were left blank.

As you can see, the letter states that it was issued “by the Queen,” and it bears the signatures of both Mary and Philip.

This document is a surviving trace, even 500 years later, of the great hope and expectation surrounding the anticipated birth. The expected baby never came. What happened was never erased either from the rest of Mary’s life or from the memory of the English people.

More than a century later, when Queen Mary of Modena was pregnant with her son James Stuart, her opponents claimed that she, too, was only pretending to be pregnant, supposedly placing a pillow beneath her clothes, just as Queen Mary had done.

This reflects the way Queen Mary’s pregnancy was viewed by some people in the 17th century: that she had pretended to be pregnant by placing pillows beneath her clothes.

During Queen Mary’s own lifetime, she had also been subjected to cruel and degrading rumours about her unsuccessful pregnancies. It was said that she would give birth to nothing but a monkey or a calf, that she had miscarried nothing more than a piece of flesh, or that she would steal someone else’s child. Such rumours were even circulated on posters displayed on walls and, at times, on the gates of the palace.

Sadly, even after her death, Mary was not spared such cruel and degrading stories.

Thank you for reading. Lots of love to you all.

If you read the Privy Expenses record, in which Mary’s expenditures between 1536 and 1544 were recorded, you can come across many interesting expenses or people.

In these records, we first see the Dudley family in 1537, when Mary paid a fee of 7 shillings and 6 pence to the wet nurse of Lady Dudley’s daughter, of whom Mary was godmother.

(Mary frequently paid money to the midwives and wet nurses of children of whom she was godmother. There are many examples of this in the Privy Expenses records.)

Then, a few months later, in March, Mary also became the godmother of a son of the Dudley family and paid 20 shillings to the baby’s wet nurse. She then also made a payment of 11 shillings and 3 pence to the midwife.

In October 1537, 60 shillings were given to John Dudley, who had gone to Spain to inform the Emperor of the birth of Prince Edward, so that he could purchase some items from Spain.

In 1538, she made a payment of 5 shillings to the wet nurse of this child of whom she was godmother. A few months later, she made another payment of 5 shillings to the baby’s wet nurse.

In 1543, a payment of 2 shillings was made to a servant of Dudley who brought Mary some apples.

Later, she gave 7 shillings to one of Lord Dudley’s daughters

These may tell us something about the relationship between Mary and the Dudley family.

After noticing these, I looked through the book House of Dudley a little and read that Mary and Jane Dudley got along well despite the differences in their religious beliefs.

We are all familiar with Mary and John Dudley’s relationship that continued from Edward’s reign and ended on the execution scaffold, but their relationship before this is somewhat overlooked. I suppose this is because the two of them were not personally very close.

In Carolly Erickson’s book Bloody Mary, it is stated that John Dudley was one of the officials who went to Wales with Mary in 1525. Their acquaintance may have come from here, but I also do not think that Mary knew every official in her household, because she travelled to Wales with an entourage of 300 people.

In 1541, following the scandal of the forbidden love affair that took place at court, Mary was sent by order of the King to go to Prince Edward, and John Dudley accompanied Mary on her journey.

However, what I am mainly interested in are the two Dudley children of whom Mary was godmother. The main reason I looked at the book House of Dudley was because I was curious about who these two children were. -Unfortunately, I have not read the book yet; I have only looked at certain sections of it.-

The book stated that these children were Mary Dudley and Guildford Dudley. Mary Dudley most likely received her name from Princess Mary. The dates of birth of these two children are not known, and are only estimated within certain ranges.

Since Mary Dudley still had a wet nurse in January 1537, this child must have been born in late 1534 or early 1535. Mary Dudley is generally thought to have been born between 1530 and 1535. I think babies were breastfed until the age of two —although, of course, I am not completely certain about this—.

However, Mary was a captive in 1534 and 1535, so I do not know whether she could have been the godmother of a child. Perhaps this child may have been born as early as the middle of 1533 —before Mary was imprisoned— and Mary may have paid her wet nurse later. Because two months after she made this payment, another Dudley baby was born, and she also paid the wet nurse of that baby. Perhaps they may have had the same wet nurse.

(As an additional piece of information, Mary Dudley married Henry Sidney in 1551. From this marriage, the famous poet Philip Sidney was born in 1554, taking his name from his godfather, Philip of Spain.)

What surprised me the most was that Mary was the godmother of Guildford Dudley. As stated in the book —because the child’s name is not written in the expense records— if this child was Guildford Dudley, he must have been born around March 1537.

Guildford was executed alongside Lady Jane Grey in 1554.

Mary’s relationship with the Dudley family deteriorated in the late 1540s, and in 1549 Mary described John Dudley to the Imperial ambassador as “the most unstable man in England,” and described his rise as follows: “You will see that no good will come of this move; this is a punishment from heaven and may be only the beginning of our misfortunes.”

Thank you for reading. Lots of love to you all!

If you would like to read Mary’s Privy Expenses—which I definitely recommend—you can read Frederic Madden’s Privy Purse Expenses of the Princess Mary.

If you are looking for the original records, like the one I shared in the image, you can also look at the British Library’s Royal MS 17 B XXVIII collection. The text in the image reads: “It̃m Delyūed in like mañ to s̃ Johñ Dudley to bye c̄teī stuf in Speyne.”

Although many of the letters written by Mary have been lost and have not survived to the present day, there are also a small number of letters that have survived. This letter was written to Queen Jane on 26 June 1536. Before this letter, Mary had also written letters to her father, asking God to grant him and the Queen children. We understand that around this time she received a letter from Queen Jane. Unfortunately, this letter has not survived to the present day; based on Mary’s letter, we can make an estimate of what its contents might have been.

Mary’s letter to Queen Jane reads as follows:

“My duty most humbly remembered to your grace. Pleaseth the same to be advised that I have received your most gracious letters, being no less full of motherly joy for my towardness of reconciliation, than of most prudent counsel for my further proceeding therein; which your grace of your most abundant goodness promises to travail to bring to a perfection, as most benignly you have commenced and begun the matter of the same.

The inestimable comfort which I have conceived of that most joyful promise, like as I cannot with tongue or pen express, so with haste and mind this I shall assure your highness, that from this day forward neither shall my office want to the king’s majesty my most merciful and benign father, who has the whole disposition of my heart in his noble hand, nor yet my service to your grace to serve you as humbly and obediently with my hand under your noble feet as is possible to be devised or imagined.

Most humbly beseeching your grace with such acceleration as shall stand with your pleasure to have in your gracious remembrance (touching the accomplishment of my most hearty desire) for the attaining of the king’s most noble presence.

Your grace’s most humble and obedient daughter and handmaid,
Marye

To the Queen’s grace, my good mother”

Jane tried to act as an intermediary between Mary and her father, and in doing so, she was also met with Henry’s reaction.

It is likely that Mary was also aware, through Chapuys and her other supporters, that Jane was trying to help her.

Chapuys reports the following incident: “and when speaking to mistress Jane Seymour about their future marriage, the lady proposed to him to replace the Princess in her former position; and on the King telling her that she must be out of her senses to think of such a thing, and that she ought to study the welfare and exaltation of her own children, if she had any by him, instead of looking out for the good of others, the said Jane Seymour replied that in soliciting the Princess’ reinstatement she thought she was asking for the good, the repose, and tranquillity of himself, of the children they themselves might have, and of the kingdom in general, inasmuch as should the reinstatement not take place, neither Your Majesty nor the English people would be satisfied, and the ruin and desolation of the country would inevitably ensue.”

We can see from Mary’s expenditure records that she sent cucumbers and quails to Queen Jane during her pregnancy and rewarded the queen’s gardener. We can also see that she gave a large amount of alms in honour of Edward’s birth and gave money to Edward’s midwife, wet nurse, and the women who rocked his cradle.

Mary was so distressed after the queen’s death that the Marquess of Exeter had to represent her as chief mourner. However, she was able to compose herself for the later ceremony. Again, from the records, we can see that after Jane’s death, Mary rewarded many of the late queen’s servants.

I want to end these words with what Chapuys said to Jane: “Among the many felicities which I enumerated, I said to the Queen, certainly the chief one was the Princess, in whom, without having had the pain and trouble of bringing her into the world, she had such a daughter that she would receive more pleasure and, consolation from her than from any other she might have. I ended by begging her to take care of the Princess' affairs; which she kindly promised to do, saying that she would work in earnest to deserve the honorable name which I had given her of pacificator, that is, "preserver and guardian of peace."

Jane was certainly a woman who deserved to be praised, and I think she deserves much more attention and love.

Thank you for reading! Lots of love to you all!!!

The letter was written by Mary on 14 December 1536. As we can see, the letter is written in 16th-century English. What is written in the letter would be roughly as follows in modern English:

“My lord, after my most heartfelt commendations, because I cannot conveniently send to you in person, by word of mouth, those thanks for the great goodness I find in you daily, which the same truly deserves, I thought it my duty, at least by these my letters, to inform you that, of my goodwill and prayers to do you service or pleasure, you shall always be assured throughout my life.

I trust your gentleness will accept this kindly, considering that, with all that I have, I cannot repay any part of that care and perfect friendship that I have and do find in you. I heartily request your continuance, which, besides helping me obtain redress in my suit, with which I ever trouble you, shall be my great comfort.

And thus I beseech God to send you as well to fare as I would wish myself. At Richmond, this Thursday night.

Your assured loving friend,
during my life,
Marye”

The letter, as we can see, is a letter full of affection and respect, written in Mary’s own hand. If you ask what makes this letter mysterious, it is simply that we do not know who it was written to. From the letter, we can only understand that it was written to a lord.

However, based on what I have read and what I know, I think this letter was very likely written to Thomas Cromwell.

Mary had asked Cromwell to act as an intermediary between herself and her father, and she signed those letters as “your loving friend.” However, that alone is not enough. From that time onward, Mary continued to write to Thomas Cromwell quite frequently, asking him to help some of her servants. From one of Mary’s surviving letters to Cromwell, we can also understand that Cromwell did help her in this matter and showed her goodwill. For this reason, I think it is very likely that this letter was also written to Cromwell.

You can find this letter, along with many other letters, in the British Library’s Cotton MS Vespasian F III collection.

There are many letters written by Mary and many letters written to Mary, and some of them are very difficult to read. This particular letter by Mary is much more understandable compared to some of the others. There are some letters that I simply cannot read at all, but the worst part is that some of them are written in Latin. A language I absolutely don’t know!

This collection contains letters belonging to many Tudor figures, including Catherine of Aragon, Henry VIII, Anne Boleyn, Catherine Parr, Edward, Elizabeth, Mary, and Henry FitzRoy. You can look through them yourself—they are open to everyone!

Thank you for reading! Lots of love to you all!!

When I saw this beautiful painting—I had actually seen it a while ago—I wanted to share it with you as well. I love paintings depicting Mary, but unfortunately, there are very few of them.

As you can probably tell, the painting is a Victorian-era work. It was painted by Marcus Stone in 1869.

Queen Mary is seated on a throne marked by a coat of arms bearing a Tudor rose on one half and a sheaf of arrows on the other. The sheaf of arrows was part of the coat of arms of her grandmother, Isabella of Castile. It is worth remembering that Mary’s grandparents were the Catholic Monarchs.

During Mary’s reign, Elizabeth conformed to the Catholic religious settlement. In fact, shortly before Mary’s death, she sent one of her ladies-in-waiting to Elizabeth and asked her to promise that she would not change the religion of the country. Elizabeth said that she was a Catholic herself and promised her.

This reconciliation is represented here as well. There are Catholic symbols in the room.

Elizabeth is depicted dressed entirely in white. White symbolizes innocence. This was done deliberately. While everyone else in the room—including Mary—is dressed in red or paler colors, Elizabeth stands out. She draws the viewer’s attention to herself through her clothing.

If we look at it from the perspective of historical accuracy, in the early portraits of Elizabeth’s reign, we see Elizabeth wearing black dresses. During Mary’s reign, Mary was often criticized by Protestant circles for being too extravagant and for wearing very elaborate clothes. The same circles praised Elizabeth at this time for her simple style of dress. And indeed, during Mary’s reign, Elizabeth preferred understated, modest clothing that did not draw attention. (I suppose if these people had seen those magnificent dresses in Elizabeth’s later portraits, they would have had a heart attack hahaha.)

In the painting, several people are looking towards the chapel where the service is about to be sung. Elizabeth is not looking at the service. The other people are either talking to one another or looking around absent-mindedly. Queen Mary, on the other hand, is watching the service with her hands clasped together and giving it her full attention.

Queen Mary is wearing the red dresses she is so often associated with. I read an article about this the other day. Mary is generally depicted wearing either black or red dresses. This helps portray her as dark and bloody.

If we look at Mary’s clothing from the perspective of historical accuracy, Mary loved changing her clothes and spent a great deal of money on them. As we learn from the ambassadors’ reports, she changed her clothes several times a day. Although she did have black and red dresses, she had a very varied wardrobe: purple, silver, white, blue, orange, and so on. She had dresses in many different colors. Clothing, as it was for all monarchs, was a powerful tool for Mary as well, and she used it frequently throughout her reign.

I really love this painting. I don’t think Mary is portrayed particularly well in it, but it’s still a beautiful painting. There are probably many more details to notice, but these are the ones that stood out to me. If you noticed any other details, feel free to share them too.

(I think the man standing next to Mary is Spanish. He seems to be wearing a badge that looks like the Order of the Golden Fleece. But, unless I’m mistaken, he also seems to have the Garter around his neck. The two recipients of the Golden Fleece to whom Mary gave the Garter were Philip and her cousin from Savoy, but they were both very young, so this white-haired man can’t be either of them.)

Thank you so much for reading! Sending lots of love to all of you!!!

473 years ago, around this time, Mary and her council were working feverishly on the endless preparations for her coronation. England had never before witnessed a woman being crowned in her own right—as a sovereign. For this reason, there was no precedent for the important ceremonies of the coronation—crowning, anointing with holy oil, and girding with the sword—so they created the precedent themselves.

However, there was still a sense of astonishment and happiness caused by Mary’s accession to the throne. And this happiness was not limited to England.

In his letter informing the Pope of Mary’s accession to the throne, Reginald Pole writes:

“The news of the succession of the Princess Mary to the kingdom of England on the death of her brother… the nature of the event appearing to me such that since many years nothing has occurred in Christendom on which one could more reasonably congratulate any Christian mind, and especially that of your Holiness.

And God of his goodness, to render his proceeding (operation) more illustrious, has chosen to annihilate in one moment all these long cherished projects by means of a woman, who for so many years has suffered contrary to all justice, being in a state of oppression shortly before this took place, and who is now victorious and called to the throne, thus affording reasonable hopes that, together with her, there will be called to reign in that island…”

Later, Reginald also wrote a letter to Queen Mary, in which he says:

“Blesses the hand of God, not only for having placed her Highness on that high throne and put her in possession of the kingdom which belonged to her since many years—all good persons desiring the event and asking it of the Divine goodness in their prayers—but yet more the mode of producing it, heartily rejoices all her true servants…

…from its having happened without bloodshed, which might with reason have been feared, considering the malignant devices of her adversaries, backed by no small force, employed by them to deprive her of her just succession, and the long period conceded them by God, for the yet greater manifestation of his Divine providence, at the moment when they thought already to have accomplished their iniquitous design, which was instantaneously frustrated, without the aid of any other forces or resistance save that which the Spirit of God roused in the hearts of men, converting those who…

Should any one marvel and inquire how against such great malice and power her Majesty, without any external forces, and not many soldiers with the. heart to declare themselves for her, could have recovered her crown—should any one ask in surprise, the fact itself will reply, The Holy Spirit came into the hearts of men and willed by these means to give her the kingdom”

Although during this victorious period some people—including Reginald—presented this victory as if it had been achieved through divine intervention, it was actually much more than that.

Mary had been removed from the line of succession no fewer than three times within twenty years. How many people in the world have been removed from the succession so many times and yet still managed to ascend the throne?

During the struggle, which lasted exactly thirteen days, at first no one believed that Mary could become queen. She had only a few loyal men at her side. Those on the opposite side, however, had a huge army and unlimited power and money. After Edward’s death, Mary quickly sent letters to her supporters and to those whom she believed would support her. Within a short time, thousands of people gathered around her and defended her rightful cause. She delivered an impassioned speech before her army of thousands.

Considering the period’s view of women, this was regarded as a rather extraordinary and “unnatural” event.

This event was “celebrated as a Herculean undertaking rather than a feminine courage,” and, as stated in a work from the period, “because in claiming and securing her hereditary right, the princess, although wholly unprepared for war and possessed of insignificant forces, was courageous enough to fight an enemy who was powerful and well prepared, and fully supplied with everything necessary to bring the war to an end.”

This made Mary a warrior queen in the eyes of the people, and following the execution of John Dudley, she herself was compared to the famous warrior women Tomyris and Judith, who cut off the heads of their enemies.

This victory was praised throughout Mary’s reign. Although it later became invisible, every monarch who ascended the throne after 1553 ultimately rose to the throne thanks to Mary’s victory.

The crown had been within Mary’s reach for years—sometimes close, sometimes more distant—and in the end, she placed it upon her own head with her own hands.

Thank you for reading. Lots of love to you all!

—

The Coronation of Queen Mary I of England by Fortunino Matania

Tudor Queenship The Reigns of Mary and Elizabeth, Alice Hunt and Anna Whitelock

7 August 1553, Cardinal Pole to Pope Julius III

13 August 1553, Cardinal Pole to the Queen of England

In 1536, after years of pressure and bullying, Mary submitted to her father. Although she repeatedly said that she would not sign it, after learning that her father would have her executed, she was forced to sign.

In Mary’s own handwriting, it says:

Item—“I do freely, frankly and for the discharge of my duty towards God, the King’s Highness and his laws, without other respect, recognize and acknowledge that the marriage heretofore had between his Majesty and my mother, the late Princess dowager, was by God’s law and man’s law incestuous and unlawfull.”

The fact that this letter has survived both surprised and moved me.

One of the first things Mary did when she came to the throne was to legitimize her parents’ marriage and restore her mother’s title of Queen. In this way, Catherine remained Queen of England until her death, as everyone already knew and believed her to be.

You can find this declaration, along with many other letters, in the British Library’s Harley MS 283 collection. I came across this completely unexpectedly while looking for another letter from Mary, and I wanted to share it with you as well. Much love to you all.

In August 1554, the Venetian ambassador wrote important reports in which he also mentioned Mary’s love of jewels.

In his report, he says:

“She also makes great use of jewels, wearing them both on her chaperon and round her neck, and as trimming for her gowns; in which jewels she delights greatly, and although she has a great plenty of them left her by her predecessors, yet were she better supplied with money than she is, she would doubtless buy many more.”

When we look at Mary’s contemporary portraits, we can also see many precious jewels around her neck, on her fingers, on her headdress, and decorating her gowns.

The first of Mary’s two important rings was the ring placed on her finger at her coronation in 1553, which Mary frequently said symbolized her marriage to her kingdom.

On 7 January 1554, the Imperial ambassador wrote in a letter:

“She had already espoused her kingdom, she said, showing us the ring on her finger, where the Bishop of Winchester put it on the day of her coronation, and she again repeated that she was bound to her realm…”

Mary mentioned this ring again later, in her Guildhall speech on 1 February 1554:

“I am your queen, to whom at my coronation when I was wedded to the realm and to the laws of the same (the spousal ring whereof I have on my finger, which never hitherto was, nor hereafter shall be left off) ye promised your allegiance and obedience unto me. And that I am the right and true inheritor to the crown of this realm of England; I not only take all Christendom to witness, but also your acts of parliament confirming the same.”

Mary’s other important ring was the ring placed on her finger during her betrothal ceremony in March 1554. Philip was represented at the ceremony by the Count of Egmont. The Imperial ambassador described the event as follows:

“Then, before the Bishop of Winchester, the promises and form per verba de praesenti were intelligibly pronounced by M. d’Egmont and the Queen.

The Queen then knelt down once more, and called upon those present to pray with her that God might give her grace to accomplish the treaty to which she had sworn, and favour her marriage. Also, M. d’Egmont gave her the ring sent by your Majesty, which she showed to all the company; and indeed, Sire, it is a jewel worthy to be seen.”

Unfortunately, I do not know whether there is any other detailed account of this ring. However, we do know that Mary apparently never took it off her finger.

On her wedding day, she was also given a simple gold hoop ring as her wedding ring.

A contemporary chronicle describes it as follows:

“Her marriage ring was a round hoop of gold without any stone, which was her desire, for she said she would be married as maidens were in the olden days, and so she was.”

Mary did not remove these rings from her fingers, and she frequently spoke about what they represented, even showing them to people.

At the end of 1554, the French ambassador wrote to the King of France and described an interesting conversation:

“In reply to my words, the Admiral related to me that he had asked the Queen to dance the previous evening, and that the Queen, showing him two rings on her fingers, spoke as follows: She said that with one of the rings she was married to her kingdom, and with the other to her husband; however, the former (the coronation ring) carried a far greater obligation to maintain friendship with You (France) than the second, and that under no circumstances did she wish to act contrary to it.”

(Knowing that Mary would reluctantly go to war with France three years later makes this quotation rather sad, but it is also incredibly valuable.)

There is actually only one reason why I am talking about these rings. It is because, after Mary’s death, her betrothal ring was removed from her finger and taken to Elizabeth.

The ring is frequently shown in television series and films about Elizabeth.

Before Mary’s death, Elizabeth asked Nicholas Throckmorton to make arrangements with one of Mary’s ladies-in-waiting and, as soon as Mary died, to have this ring brought to her as proof that Mary was indeed dead. Although Nicholas was somewhat late in carrying this out, he eventually did so, and the ring was removed from the dead queen’s finger by one of her ladies-in-waiting.

First of all, I should point out that this was not Mary’s wedding ring symbolizing her marriage to England. It was most likely the betrothal ring that the Emperor sent to Mary for the engagement, and which she is said never to have removed from her finger.

Although this ring is sometimes described as a wedding gift from Philip, I believe it was the ring from the March betrothal ceremony. The ring is described in some sources as being decorated with black enamel.

However, these details are not really the main issue. The real question is: which of Mary’s ladies-in-waiting removed the ring from her finger?

The first biography of Mary I ever read was Linda Porter’s Mary Tudor, and Linda seemed rather critical of Mary’s ladies-in-waiting. This actually led me to start researching them.

I don’t think many of Mary’s ladies-in-waiting had much affection for Elizabeth, although we know very little about many of them beyond their names. Nor do I think Elizabeth was particularly fond of them.
After Mary’s death, some of these women fled England, some withdrew from court life, one became involved in a rebellion against Elizabeth, and another was imprisoned for hearing Mass. Some also had children who were later exiled.

These are just some of the things I have found so far. But there is one woman who stands out: Barbara Hawk.

After Elizabeth came to the throne, Barbara received two dresses from her as gifts on at least two occasions. Barbara’s daughter, also named Elizabeth, later served Queen Elizabeth in her Privy Chamber for twenty-four years.

We don’t know exactly when Barbara entered Mary’s service, but we know that she was serving in Mary’s Privy Chamber by 1553.

Charlotte Isabelle Merton, in her article on the Privy Chambers of Mary and Elizabeth, suggests that Elizabeth may have recruited Barbara to act on her behalf within Mary’s household, and that Barbara’s service to Elizabeth during Mary’s reign may have been a way of repaying her for that service.

Since Mary had more than fifty ladies-in-waiting, it would hardly be surprising if one of them turned out to be an agent, but I found this quite interesting.

I don’t know whether this was a practice that was also carried out after the deaths of kings, but I have read that after Elizabeth’s death, her ring was also taken to the new king.

Thank you for reading. Lots of love to you all!!

History has not been recorded on a film reel; we cannot see everything vividly, but some memories left behind from the past can help us. They catch our eye and extend beyond what the reports make us feel. This prayer book is one such example.

This prayer book belonged to Joan Vaux, Lady of Guildford. It was made in the 16th century. It contains notes and signatures from some important Tudors. The inside of the book is decorated with beautiful illustrations.

The prayer book contains notes from Henry VII, Elizabeth of York, Princess Margaret, Henry VIII, Catherine of Aragon, and Princess Mary. It was a traditional practice to share other people’s prayer books and leave notes for their owners.

For example, Henry VII left a note saying: “Madam, I pray you remember me, your loving master. Henry King.”

Queen Elizabeth of York also wrote: “Madam, I pray you do not forget to pray to God for me so that I may have a share in your prayers. Elizabeth the Queen.”

And Princess Margaret Tudor wrote: “And as for me, I pray that you always keep me in his good grace. It is Margaret.”

King Henry VIII does not have a note, but his signature can be found inside the prayer book.

The first image I shared contains the signatures and notes of Catherine and Mary, while the second image contains the notes and signatures of Henry VII, Elizabeth of York, and Princess Margaret. You will notice a difference between them. While the others remain intact, Queen Catherine’s and Princess Mary’s titles have been scratched out.

Queen Catherine wrote in her note: “I think the prayers of a friend are the most acceptable to God, and because I consider you one of my trusted friends, I pray you remember me in yours. Catherine the Queen [erased].”

As you can understand from the note, it is a kind note from a kind queen. However, someone scratched out Queen Catherine’s title with a cutting instrument.

Inside this prayer book, there is also a prayer that Princess Mary translated from Latin into English.
The prayer book refers to this translation as follows:

“The prayer of Saint Thomas of Aquino, translated out of Latin into English by the most excellent Princess Mary, daughter to the most high and mighty Prince and Princess King Henry the Eighth and Queen Catherine his wife, in the year of our Lord God 1527, and the eleventh year of her age.”

But here again, Catherine’s and Mary’s titles have been scratched out.

Apart from this, there is also a sweet note belonging to Princess Mary inside the prayer book:

“I have read that nobody lives as he should do but he who follows virtue, and reckoning you to be one of them, I pray you to remember me in your devotions. Mary the princess [erased].”

However, as you can see, Mary’s title has also been scratched out with a sharp instrument.

What could have caused this? What kind of fear and pressure could drive a person to make the title of a queen of 24 years and the title of a legitimately born princess disappear?

During and after the annulment of Catherine and Henry’s marriage, attempts were made to destroy Catherine’s emblems. They were removed from walls and boats. Other coats of arms were put in their place.

However, Henry did not manage to have all of these emblems completely removed.

Some were removed, some were overlooked, and perhaps some could not be brought to be destroyed. These emblems are everywhere: on a jewel unearthed from beneath the ground 500 years later, in Mary’s prayer book, on Mary’s official patents…

Thank you for reading, and lots of love to you all!!

The prayer book’s reference is: “British Library, MS Additional 17012”

• The first image contains the notes of Queen Catherine and Princess Mary found inside the prayer book.
• The second image contains the notes and signatures of Henry VII, Elizabeth of York, and Princess Margaret.
• The third image is from Anne Boleyn’s music book. Anne’s symbol, the falcon, is pecking at the pomegranate, Catherine’s symbol.

I believe we all know how poor Mary’s menstrual health was. I have mentioned this many times myself, so I do not want to repeat the same things over and over again.

One day, someone said under one of my posts, “No one wants to marry a woman who is going to reach menopause soon.”

It may seem rude because I am taking it out of context, but it was an idea that made me think quite a lot.

Could this actually have been true?

According to a commonly held belief, Mary’s mother Catherine last had sexual intercourse with Henry in 1524. It is often said that they stopped having sexual intercourse because Catherine had entered menopause and Henry was no longer attracted to her. Catherine was about 39 years old in 1524.

There have been many women throughout history who entered menopause at a relatively young age.

But the claim that Catherine had already reached menopause at 39 surprised me. However, this is not actually known. We have no idea when Catherine entered menopause. She was fifty when she died, and the people around her still believed that she could become pregnant. This would suggest that she had not yet reached menopause.

Catherine and Henry continued to have sexual intercourse until 1527, and it has even been suggested that they may have had sexual intercourse several times in 1528. There is evidence for this. So the claim that they last had sexual intercourse in 1524, and that Catherine stopped menstruating in the same year, is simply incorrect.

Henry believed that Catherine could no longer have children. This may have led people to assume that she had entered menopause, but Catherine’s last pregnancy was in 1518, when she was 33 years old. Therefore, Henry may simply have thought that because Catherine had not become pregnant after the age of 33, she would never become pregnant again at 45.

However, Catherine was still having her periods. Even though the chances of becoming pregnant were very low, it was still possible for her to have another child.

There were many women who became pregnant at an advanced age. During Mary’s pregnancy, many older women and their babies were even brought to court to reassure Mary.

(As an additional detail: Thomas Cromwell’s mother gave birth to him when she was 52.)

Mary was 42 years old when she died. Apart from the two false pregnancies she experienced, and despite the fact that her periods were extremely irregular, she had not entered menopause.

Mary first experienced menstrual problems in 1531. During the period of captivity she endured between 1533 and 1536, these problems became increasingly severe.

She frequently suffered from menstrual pain during this period as well. Such illnesses were not openly discussed in those days, but Mary’s condition was widely known. At Chapuys’s insistence, King Henry sent his own doctors to Mary. The doctors told him that Mary’s health problems were caused by the circumstances she was living under and that her health would improve if she lived in better and more peaceful conditions. Henry merely described the situation as “an unfortunate circumstance.”

Although Mary was released from captivity in 1536, she never recovered completely from these illnesses, and her menstrual problems continued to affect many aspects of her life. Because of this, the French king, who wanted to arrange a betrothal between his son and Mary, personally instructed his ambassadors to ask whether Mary’s depression would affect her ability to have children. The ambassadors asked one of Mary’s ladies-in-waiting whether Mary was still menstruating. Her lady-in-waiting confirmed that Mary was still having her periods.

When Mary announced her pregnancy in 1554, some people didn’t believe her. Because she was so old(!) and unhealthy.

When Mary believed that she was pregnant, she was overwhelmed with joy. After so many years of uncertainty, she had ascended the throne, she had a wonderful husband, she was pregnant, and the true religion would once again prevail in England through her.

A cradle was prepared for the baby, and a nursery was prepared as well. Since we know that Mary enjoyed sewing, it is not difficult to imagine her sewing clothes for her baby with her own hands.

Although it is known that one of Mary’s ladies-in-waiting suspected that she was pregnant, the pregnancy was generally regarded by Catholic circles as a gift from God.

However, not everyone was happy. The French ambassador had been skeptical of Mary’s pregnancy from the very beginning. Protestant circles didn’t believe it either.

They began attacking Mary. They claimed that she was lying and that she was pretending to be pregnant so that Philip would not leave her.

In 1554, an ambassador reported:

“With regard to this matter, five or six days ago a placard was found hanging on the door of her palace, bearing, in summary, these words: ‘O noble Englishmen, are we so foolish as to believe that our Queen is pregnant? What else could she be pregnant with except a monkey or a calf? For there is no other way it could be true.’”

This was neither the first nor the last insult directed at Mary concerning her pregnancy. Placards were put up in London claiming that Mary was not pregnant and that she would steal another woman’s child. Some ambassadors even reported that Mary had expelled a piece of flesh.

In a report written in 1557, the Venetian ambassador said:

“Returning now to my first discourse about the Queen, I repeat that from the aforesaid causes and considerations, she the more distresses herself, perceiving daily that no one believes in the possibility of her having progeny, so that day by day she sees her authority and the respect induced by it diminish, nor is to be told how much hurt that vain pregnancy did her; which, as I know that many persons interpreted it in a different sense to what it deserved, I therefore, to rectify the mistake of some of those who had a contrary opinion, assure your Serenity that there was neither deceit nor malice in the matter, but mere error, not only on the part of the King and Queen, but on that of the councillors and of the whole Court, which for a long while rendered their belief common to everybody, as besides all the other manifest signs of pregnancy there was that of the swelling of the breasts and their producing milk, although, as the outcome showed, that too was caused by the stoppage of her periods.”

To avoid experiencing the humiliation she had suffered during her first pregnancy again, Mary kept her second pregnancy secret for a long time. It was Reginald Pole who informed Philip of Mary’s pregnancy when she was estimated to be around seven months pregnant. Mary had told Philip nothing about her pregnancy herself.

And it was not only Philip. She was telling no one. Despite the fact that her belly was swollen, she did not speak to anyone about it, perhaps apart from Reginald and her ladies-in-waiting.

However, just as at the end of her first pregnancy, rumours spread during this pregnancy that the Queen had given birth to a baby boy.

During Mary’s first pregnancy, bells rang at night on 31 April 1555, and it was said that the Queen had given birth to a son. The palace later denied this. It is not known who rang the bells. However, the rumour that the Queen had given birth to a son reached even the Emperor, who distributed money in celebration.

During the second pregnancy, someone told a French ambassador in France that the Queen had given birth to a boy. It was said that the French ambassador had to make a great effort to keep a serious expression on his face.

We can imagine that these rumours, particularly the ringing of the bells in 1555, caused Mary considerable stress.

She did not want to experience such humiliation again. In February 1558, a Spanish diplomat said:

“They say that she is certainly pregnant, although she tries to keep it a secret.”

During her first pregnancy, Mary wanted to give birth at Hampton Court Palace. Hampton Court was the palace where Edward had been born and where Queen Jane Seymour had died. We do not know what Mary felt about this, but it may have reminded her of the dangers of childbirth.

In 1548, a few months before her stepmother Catherine Parr would die in childbirth, Mary wrote to her expressing her concern about her pregnancy. In the letter, she said:

“I shall be very glad to hear good news of Your Grace concerning your great belly, and in the meantime I would very much like to hear news of your health, which I pray Almighty God may preserve and increase according to your heart’s desire.”

Whatever Mary may have felt during her first pregnancy, during her second pregnancy she believed that she might die if she gave birth to the baby. As a result, she prepared a will.

She began her will as follows:

“Thinking myself to be with child in lawful marriage between my said dearly beloved husband and Lord, although I am at present, thanks be to Almighty God, otherwise in good health, yet foreseeing the great danger which by God’s ordinance remains for all women in childbirth, I have thought it proper, both for the discharge of my conscience and the continuation of good order within my realms and dominions, to declare my last will and testament…”

She left all her possessions and everything she owned to the child she believed would be born from her body.

After she realized toward the end of 1558 that she was no longer pregnant and needed to name an heir, she added the following to her will:
“Forasmuch as God hath hitherto sent me no fruit nor heir of my body…”

These are some of the sad events Mary experienced during her pregnancies. I realized that the beginning and the end of the post may seem a little different, but I was too lazy to interrupt the flow and fix it. You can think of this as a post covering two related topics.

If Mary had lived longer, she most likely still would not have had a child. However, I don’t think she would have reached menopause for at least another eight years. Although the cause of Mary’s phantom pregnancy may have been related to her age, I am more inclined to believe that it was connected to the health problems she had been suffering from since 1531.

Thank you so much for reading. Lots of love to you all!!!

Sources:

•Sylvia Barbara Soberton, Medical Downfall of the Tudors: Sex, Reproduction & Succession
•Anna Whitelock, Mary Tudor
•Linda Porter, Mary Tudor
•A report by Antoine de Noailles from late 1554
•A report by the Venetian ambassador from May 1557

I had never seen this beautiful painting before. The title of the painting is "Queen Isabel the Catholic Presiding over the Education of Her Children." It was painted in 1864 and depicts Queen Isabel and her children. It is currently on display at the Museo del Prado in Spain. The Prado Museum also displays an original portrait of Queen Mary I painted by Antonis Mor.

The person beside Queen Isabel, most likely her daughter Catherine, is showing her a piece of paper (a letter?). Catherine was Isabel's youngest child. Her brother Juan is playing the virginal. Catherine had three sisters named Isabella, Joanna, and Maria, but there are four girls in this painting. I think one of the girls may be Margaret of Austria, the wife of Catherine's brother Juan.

This painting gives us a glimpse into Catherine's childhood. Catherine spent her life in Spain before coming to England in 1501. She did not have a quiet life; her family was constantly travelling throughout Spain, and Catherine accompanied them. During her early childhood, she grew up in Spain in a social and cosmopolitan culture alongside Christians, Muslims, and Jews.

Her brother Juan died a few months after his marriage. Juan's wife, Margaret, did not leave Spain immediately; she stayed there for another two years and, at the request of Elizabeth of York and Margaret Beaufort, helped teach Catherine French. A close friendship developed between them that would last until Margaret's death.

Her eldest sister Isabella died in childbirth in 1498 at the age of 28. Her other sister Joanna spent much of her life isolated in a castle. Catherine's closest sister, Maria, died in 1517 from ailments caused by frequent childbirth.

We can imagine how much sorrow a young girl felt over losing two of her siblings in succession. However, Catherine continued her education under her mother's supervision and received an accomplished education.

I would also like to share a passage I read a few days ago about Catherine's childhood in Theresa Earenfight's book:

"As she traveled, she came into contact with an array of cultural influences—Mudéjar and Gothic, Christian and Muslim—in the towns she visited and at the court of her parents, who relished the mix of styles even as they conquered the Nasrid kingdom of Granada. Some places mattered to her more than others: Arévalo, where her grandmother lived; Guadalupe, her spiritual home; Seville, site of many family gatherings; and Granada, where she soaked up both the sun and Islamicate culture. The act of travel shaped Catalina's aesthetic taste and created meaningful social practices. But the royal processions promoted more than just Isabel and Fernando's ambitions. Catalina received an important education in queenship as she watched her parents interact with their subjects and convoke the regional assemblies of nobles and townspeople. Her identity was shaped by the geography of the Iberian Peninsula—from the mountains of the north to those of the south, and inland and coastal cities. She spoke several languages and could read even more, a cultural fluency she gained during a childhood spent literally on the move."

The traces of the culture in which she grew up did not leave her when she came to England, and throughout her queenship she formed friendships with famous humanists such as Thomas More, Erasmus, and Juan Luis Vives. She supported them and asked Vives to write a book for the education of her daughter, Princess Mary. Vives wrote a book entitled De Institutione Feminae Christianae (The Education of a Christian Woman) and dedicated the book to Catherine of Aragon. Again at Catherine's request, Vives prepared a study programme for Princess Mary.

Catherine ensured that her daughter Mary received an education as accomplished as her own. When Mary was 11 years old, she translated a prayer by Saint Thomas Aquinas from Latin into English. Although this translation was most likely done as homework, it circulated in certain circles. Sometime between 1537 and 1547, Henry Parker (Jane Boleyn's brother) wrote the following to Mary about this translation:

"I remember very well that when you were scarcely twelve years of age, you were already so proficient in the Latin language—a rare thing among women—that Your Grace could not only perfectly read, write, and construe Latin, but furthermore translate any difficult text from Latin into our English tongue. And among all your other most virtuous endeavors, I have seen a prayer translated by your own hand from Saint Thomas Aquinas that, I assure Your Grace, is so well done and so faithful to the Latin original that whenever I look upon it—as I possess a copy of it—I not only marvel at its execution, but furthermore, because of its excellence, I have placed it in my own book or books, as well as in those of my poor wife (your humble beadwoman) and my children, so that it may give them occasion to remember to pray for Your Grace."

Richard Fetherston, who served as Mary's Latin teacher from 1525 to 1533, also played a part in this achievement.

After Richard Fetherston became her daughter Princess Mary's tutor in 1525, Queen Catherine wrote the following to Mary:

"As for your Latin writing, I am glad that you are to go to Master Fetherston, for it will greatly benefit you to learn from him how to write correctly. Nevertheless, I would like you sometimes to send me the Latin passages you have written yourself, after having them read over by Master Fetherston, so that it will be a great comfort to me to see that you retain its Latin, its fine style, and everything else."

Since we know that Mary's knowledge of Latin was at least as good as her English, we can understand that Federston was a good teacher.

(Additional note: Mary's last recorded words were in Latin.)

As for her teacher Richard Federston, it is worth mentioning a few things about him as well. He was a great supporter of Queen Katherine and Princess Mary during the annulment proceedings. As a result, he was imprisoned in the Tower of London around 1534 and, after approximately six years of imprisonment, was hanged, drawn, and quartered alongside other supporters of Queen Katherine and Princess Mary.

Thank you for reading this somewhat messy post. Initially, I was only going to talk about this painting I newly discovered and Catherine’s childhood, but then I suddenly included Mary as well. Sending love to you all!!

Theresa Earenfight, Catherine of Aragon

Valerie Schutte, Princesses Mary and Elizabeth Tudor and the gift book exchange

Throughout her early life and reign, connections were drawn by her supporters between Mary and the Virgin Mary. It is very easy to guess that this association pleased Mary. Even before her reign, comparisons between her and the Virgin Mary were drawn much more easily owing to her name and her virginity.

In 1549, John Proctor presented and dedicated his work, The Fal of The Late Arrian, to Mary. Capitalizing on the similarity between their names, he stated: "So that a man may rightly think in his mind and reasonably conclude that, according to the law of Pythagoras, although the bodies have changed, the souls are the same." Furthermore, she was praised by some as the rarest flower of virginity.

This praise continued during her reign, but unfortunately, I cannot recount every single instance here. Since the part I am going to explain pertains to Mary's pregnancy, I will focus on that period.

Mary and her council went to great lengths not to present Philip as a foreign king. Through his parents—who were Mary's first cousins—Philip was descended from Edward III. He possessed English royal blood; he was not entirely a foreign monarch.

In the 16th century, as well as in earlier and later times, the role of queens was often reduced solely to bearing children. However, during Mary's reign, while producing an heir was one of her duties, it was not her sole or most important duty. Mary held the title of queen and Philip held the title of king, but the practical execution of these titles shifted during her reign. Mary acted as the king, and Philip as the queen. There was only one thing the English people viewed as Philip's primary duty: getting the Queen pregnant.

We can observe this in a letter written angrily by a Spaniard: "They refuse to crown our Prince, though he is their King, for they do not recognise him as such or as in any way their superior, but merely as one who has come to act as governor of the realm and get the Queen with child. When she has had children of him, they say, he may go home to Spain. Would to God it might happen at once! for it would be a good thing for him and I believe he would be very glad; we certainly should all be delighted to get away from these barbarous folk."

As can be understood from this reproachful letter, despite holding the title of King, Philip was not all that important, and his primary duty, as stated above, was to get the Queen pregnant. (How nice to see gender roles reversed!)

During Mary's pregnancy, Philip was experiencing his peak popularity in England, yet this did not make him any more significant politically. By September 18, rumors that Mary was pregnant began circulating in court circles, but the official public announcement coincided with Reginald Pole's arrival in England in November. From that moment on, Mary was once again compared to the Virgin Mary, and parallels were drawn between them.

As Sarah Duncan notes, comparing a pregnant queen to the Virgin Mary might seem unusual at first, yet the analogy persisted.

How can you compare a pregnant queen to the Virgin Mary? By ignoring the father of the child.

Sarah Duncan states: "During Mary's phantom pregnancy, the role of the Virgin Mother served as a convenient metaphor to convey the idea that the father of the child was not Philip, but God."

On November 28, 1554, Mary's pregnancy was announced to all of England. Immediately upon his arrival in England, Cardinal Pole was received by Mary and greeted her with a religious quotation regarding the Virgin Mary:

“Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb."

Mary was delighted and moved by this greeting and the comparison to the Virgin Mary; at that exact moment, she felt the baby move in her womb.

Prayers were offered and hymns were sung for Mary and her baby. In one of these hymns, another religious citation appeared: "Fear not, Mary; for thou hast found favor with God."

During this period, poems and prayers were written praising Mary and the expected heir. Philip's name was excluded from these prayers, which asked God to protect Mary.

I would like to share a quote on this subject from Sarah Duncan's book, as I find it more accurate to present it directly rather than adapting it:

When Cardinal Reginald Pole learned of the queen's pregnancy, he wrote to Mary that he had heard "that Divine Majesty had granted the queen the grace to bear fruit in her womb, thus making her the mother of an heir to this earthly kingdom." Pole did not merely refer to the queen as the Virgin Mary on account of her pregnancy; he also linked her condition to her role in restoring Catholicism to England. Just as God had blessed her with a child, He had also granted her the grace to be "the mother of those who will inherit the eternal kingdom." Thus, the queen could rightfully be called mater deorum—the mother of God—leading God's children into His unity and obedience.

Attributing so much meaning to an unborn child might seem somewhat pointless by today's standards, but for that era, it was an event of paramount importance. The Cardinal also wrote passionate, enthusiastic letters to the Pope regarding Mary's pregnancy, in which Philip likewise occupied no significant place.

Even though Philip was Spanish and the unborn child would genetically inherit more Spanish than English blood, according to the marriage treaty, the child would be the heir to England and could not be taken out of the country. This significantly restricted Philip's authority over the unborn child.

Therefore, Philip may have become somewhat invisible in the prayers offered, letters written, and poems composed; however, it can also be argued that the reason for this was the deliberate attempt to liken Mary to the Virgin Mary. To establish these parallels between the Virgin Mary and Queen Mary, Philip's presence was obscured on numerous occasions and during various events—including parts of Mary's funeral—and Mary was repeatedly praised for her virginity.

Thank you for reading! Sending love to you all!

There are also narratives comparing Mary to Jezebel, and these could be discussed separately under their own heading. Likewise, the horrible things that were written about Mary during her pregnancy certainly deserve a separate post and, moreover, condemnation.

Please excuse the poor image quality; it looks this way because I cropped it.

Sarah Duncan, Mary I
Valerie Schutte, Princesses Mary and Elizabeth Tudor and the gift book exchange

Initially, I thought this piece should focus solely on Queen Mary I of England for specific reasons. However, after realizing that all three women John Knox fiercely hated shared the name Mary, I felt it ought to be titled John Knox's Three Marys. Then, I stumbled upon a beautiful portrait of Elizabeth and decided to include her as well. Still, I must clarify that our main focus remains Queen Mary I.

John Knox served as a royal chaplain to King Edward VI, but following Queen Mary’s accession to the throne, he rightfully fled England in 1554. As an intellectual of his era, Knox gathered with other English exiles and penned several writings.

Although Knox fled from the rule of one woman, Mary was not the only female monarch reigning during this period.

John Knox was a Scot, and at that time, Mary of Guise—mother of Mary, Queen of Scots—was ruling Scotland as regent on her daughter's behalf.

Initially, Mary of Guise was not entirely hostile toward Protestantism. In 1555, when Knox was accused of heresy by the Catholic hierarchy following a popular and successful preaching tour in Scotland, Mary quashed the case.

Emboldened by a mix of hope and courage from this outcome, Knox drafted a letter expressing his desire for church reform. Mary of Guise dismissed Knox's request as a joke. Furthermore, after Knox left Scotland, the bishops revived his trial and ultimately burned him in effigy. Following this event, Mary became the target of Knox's prophetic rage.

In a letter written in 1558, he spoke of "God's hot displeasure" against her for persecuting the righteous and ignoring the call for reform. As he later added, the regent's crown fitted her "as a saddle upon the back of an unruled cow."

That same year, John Knox published a treatise openly opposing rule by women, titled The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regiment of Women.

Although the treatise generally argued against the right of all women to rule, it was primarily written in opposition to Queen Mary I of England. In his work, Knox explicitly branded Mary a bastard and a traitor, addressing her as Jezebel:

“Wonder it is, that amongst so many pregnant wits as the isle of Great Britain hath produced, so many godly and zealous preachers as England did sometime nourish, and amongst so many learned, and men of grave judgment, as this day by Jezebel are exiled, none is found so stout of courage, so faithful to God, nor loving to their native country, that they dare admonish the inhabitants of that isle, how abominable before God is the empire or rule of a wicked woman (yea, of a traitress and bastard)”

“I am assured that God hath revealed to some in this our age, that it is more than a monster in nature that a woman shall reign and have empire above man.”

“To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion, or empire above any realm, nation, or city, is repugnant to nature; contumely to God, a thing most contrarious to his revealed will and approved ordinance; and finally, it is the subversion of good order, of all equity and justice.

And first, where I affirm the empire of a woman to be a thing repugnant to nature, I mean not only that God, by the order of his creation, hath spoiled woman of authority and dominion, but also that man hath seen, proved, and pronounced just causes why that it so should be. Man, I say, in many other cases blind, doth in this behalf see very clearly. For the causes are so manifest, that they cannot be hid. For who can deny but it is repugnant to nature, that the blind shall be appointed to lead and conduct such as do see? That the weak, the sick, and impotent persons shall nourish and keep the whole and strong? And finally, that the foolish, mad, and frenetic shall govern the discreet, and give counsel to such as be sober of mind? And such be all women, compared unto man in bearing of authority. For their sight in civil regiment is but blindness; their strength, weakness; their counsel, foolishness; and judgment, frenzy, if it be rightly considered.

I except such as God, by singular privilege, and for certain causes known only to himself, hath exempted from the common rank of women, and do speak of women as nature and experience do this day declare them. Nature, I say, doth paint them forth to be weak, frail, impatient, feeble, and foolish; and experience hath declared them to be inconstant, variable, cruel, and lacking the spirit of counsel and regiment. And these notable faults have men in all ages espied in that kind, for the which not only they have removed women from rule and authority, but also some have thought that men subject to the counsel or empire of their wives were unworthy of public office.”

John Knox was certainly justified in his rage against Mary; after all, by the end of 1558, when his work was published, around 280 Protestants had been martyred. However, I view the situation as more layered. Since John continued to uphold these views even after Mary’s death, there is no reason not to see him as a misogynist. At the same time, given that misogyny remains a widespread affliction today, we might simply describe Knox as a man of his time.

Queen Mary I of England died just a few months after the publication of this work. Knox wished to return to England, but the new monarch, Queen Elizabeth I, refused him entry. By explicitly labeling female rule as "monstrous," Knox earned the hatred of Elizabeth as well. Even though Elizabeth was a Protestant, Knox remained unsatisfied, criticizing her use of crosses and candles and dismissing her as "neither a good Protestant nor a resolute Papist."

When Mary of Guise died in 1560, Knox viewed her death as an outcome that could have been avoided had she only heeded his words.

By this time, the only surviving Queen Mary—Mary, Queen of Scots—had returned to her homeland.

Upon her arrival in Scotland, Knox, who was back in the country, did not hold back his fiery words from the young queen. He openly opposed her attendance at Catholic Mass and delivered sermons criticizing her. As a result, Knox was summoned before the queen, leading to five face-to-face meetings between them.

During their first encounter, Mary argued that subjects ought to follow the religion of their sovereign, whereas Knox rejected the idea that a monarch had the right to impose their religion on the people of their realm.

In their second meeting, Mary swore she would never attend Protestant services.

After their third meeting, Knox learned of Mary’s plans to marry the Crown Prince of Spain—a move that would entrench her deeper into Catholicism and heighten the potential for persecution against the Reformed Church of Scotland. Knox took to the pulpit once again, this time to warn against her marriage to a Catholic prince.

This led to their fourth meeting, where Knox was criticized for interfering in Mary's private life. He later wrote: "Her shouting was turned to female weeping, which interrupted her speech," and her tears flowed "in great abundance according to the matter."

Knox was eventually tried for treason, which led to their fifth meeting. The Queen accused Knox of summoning her subjects to a gathering without her permission. Ironically, Mary’s own interventions backfired during the proceedings, ultimately leading to Knox's acquittal. Her mistakes allowed others to forcefully defend Knox’s ministerial right to freely assemble his congregation.

It is worth noting that throughout these interviews, Knox never treated Mary with contempt simply for being a woman; he addressed her as he would any king. Yet, this did not stop him from displaying overt condescension. At one point during the legal proceedings, he remarked: "Madam, I have begun to speak logically with the Secretary; I consider him a much better dialectician than Your Majesty."

Apart from this, Knox’s 1558 treatise on the monstrosity of female rule brought him significant trouble and sparked backlash from fellow Protestants. Most English Protestants did not share his views on women, yet Knox expressed no regret for writing the work.

Thank you for reading. Sending you all my love and best wishes for happiness.

Note: The italicized sentences in the Queen Mary I section are direct quotes from Knox. The italicized portions concerning the other two Marys are direct quotes from the article I read. While John Knox himself is not my primary focus—as my main interest lies with Queen MaryI - I had to rely more heavily on quotes for the other two Marys.
To prevent any religious debate, I should clarify that these are the opinions of a single individual and cannot be attributed to any entire religion. Personally, I view every religion as misogynistic to a certain extent. Since my interest lies with Mary, her detractors are naturally Protestants; had my focus been Elizabeth, I would have found equally harsh writings penned by Catholics. Therefore, I have no desire to spark a theological argument.
That aside, I find it quite cool for a woman to have an entire treatise written about her by a furious, misogynistic man. (Of course, by “cool,” I mean it from Mary’s perspective.)
History offers dozens of such examples across various religions.

——

John Knox, The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regiment of Women 1558

Sean Morris, How do you solve a problem like Maria (And Mary, and Mary and Elizabeth)? Part II

I recently came across the inventory records of Mary's jewels kept up until 1546, and I wanted to share some of them with you.

From these records, we can see that Mary had a lot of pearl jewelry. I can't name them all one by one, but she had many pieces in this style.

In the 1542 record, it states that Mary had a diamond IHS emblem with 3 drop pearls attached. Later, in 1546, Henry gave Mary another one of these jewels, but this one was smaller. This pendant (or whatever it's called) is actually a very familiar piece of jewelry to us. We first come across it in a miniature portrait of Queen Catherine of Aragon, and later Queen Jane Seymour is shown wearing it in her famous Holbein portrait. I reckon Jane might have been the first one to give this jewel to Mary.

Then it mentions that Mary had an "M" shaped jewel (pendant) with 3 rubies, 2 diamonds, and a large drop pearl. She also had a ruby set inside an "H" with a drop pearl. She might have worn these as necklaces.

It's also noted that Duke Philip of Bavaria gifted Mary a diamond cross containing 4 diamonds and a large drop pearl.

Mary often took part in Valentine's Day lotteries. Princess Mary's name was drawn by Anthony Browne, and in return, Anthony Browne drew a portrait of Princess Mary himself and gave it to her as a Valentine's gift. Mary, in exchange, gave him a gold brooch with black enamel, featuring an agate depicting the story of Abraham and four small uncut rubies.

Mary had a gold book with portraits of her father Henry and her mother Catherine inside. Even though Mary gave jewelry as gifts all the time, she never gifted this to anyone; it says "remained in her possession" next to this jewel. However, she did gift a round locket with black enamel containing portraits of the King and Queen Jane at a wedding.

She gifted a gold-plated green locket depicting the Trinity to Princess Elizabeth. She also gave Elizabeth a gold pomander containing a sundial—I read somewhere that Queen Catherine Howard had given this pomander to Mary.

Since we know Mary was a religious person, it comes as no surprise that she had a lot of rosaries. She had a gold rosary with black and white enamel, a lapis lazuli rosary with gold trimmings, a coral rosary with gold trimmings, and a round garnet rosary also with gold trimmings. She even gave the heart-shaped end of a lapis lazuli rosary with a heart at the tip to a lady's daughter.

Catherine Parr gifted Mary a pair of bracelets adorned with small pearls.

But I want to talk about the jewel that surprised me the most: in 1546, King Henry gave Mary an emerald featuring a ruby and a large drop pearl, with a half rose and pomegranate motif on the back.

In 1546 again, Henry gave Mary a brooch set with a beautiful table diamond framed by 4 rubies, depicting the story of Pyramus and Thisbe. After Mary became queen, she gifted this brooch to Elizabeth on July 21, 1553. And Elizabeth—if I remember correctly—later gifted this jewel to Mary, Queen of Scots, who was in England at the time. An interesting connection.

Mary also had a gold signet ring with a rose motif inside.

Apart from these, she had many jewels engraved with stories of religious figures: a locket depicting the story of Solomon's Temple, an Old Testament story brooch, another brooch with Jacob sleeping, a brooch showing Christ healing the paralytic, a Noah's Flood brooch, a David story brooch, a Solomon story brooch, a Moses story brooch...

There are other lockets, rings, brooches, bracelets, and various jewels besides these. But unfortunately, I can't list them all one by one.

We know Mary gave gifts very often. During this period, jewelry gifts to Margaret Douglas, Margaret's son Henry, her cousin Frances, Frances's daughter Lady Jane, her brother Edward, and many ladies are recorded.

This jewel inventory generally shows the jewels she possessed in 1542 and 1546. The jewels she owned during Edward's reign or her own reign are not listed in this record.

If you'd like to read about the jewels in more detail, the source is Privy Purse Expenses of the Princess Mary by Frederick Madden.

Thanks for reading, sending much love to you all!

I was reading about Mary, and I came across this passage while reading the introduction of the book. The publication date of the book is listed as 1831, but I found it interesting that someone back then thought this way about Mary—perhaps it was added later. This is because Mary had a remarkably poor reputation during that period and throughout the subsequent Victorian era. We can perhaps attribute the general effort to rehabilitate Mary's reputation to the last fifty years or so. I found it quite surprising that someone could think along these lines during that era.

Here is the quote:

“Perhaps no figure in English history has been condemned as widely and indiscriminately as Mary, Princess and Queen of England. Many of the most popular writers have consistently described her with harsh criticism and contempt, and because these opinions have been repeated so often in print, many readers have accepted them as fact.

As a result, labels such as “narrow-minded,” “ill-natured,” “bad-tempered,” “gloomy religious fanatic,” and “Bloody Mary” have, until recently, become almost interchangeable with her name.
Such sweeping and one-sided condemnation immediately suggests a lack of fairness, and when examined calmly and objectively, it reveals an even greater lack of historical truth.

Even the historian Strype—who could hardly be accused of being biased in Mary’s favor—acknowledged that Mary’s true character cannot be understood by relying only on Protestant writers. When we also remember how much it benefited Elizabeth’s court to encourage attacks on her predecessor, it becomes much less surprising that Mary’s religious intolerance came to overshadow every admirable quality she possessed as both a woman and a monarch.

The editor has no intention of defending the religious policies adopted by Mary and her advisers after she became queen, nor of trying to erase the reputation that the so-called “Marian persecutions” have left on her reign.

However, it is important to remember that we should not judge the sixteenth century solely by modern standards. It was, in every respect, an age of religious intolerance. Both Catholics and Protestants believed they were carrying out God’s will when they executed people who rejected their religious beliefs.

If respected figures such as Sir Thomas More, Hugh Latimer, Nicholas Ridley, and even Archbishop Thomas Cranmer could calmly accept—or even support—the burning of those they considered heretics because of doctrinal differences, then perhaps we should also understand the religious zeal of a woman whose greatest mistake was her unwavering commitment to the faith she had been taught since childhood.

It was the religion in which her mother had lived and died, a faith strengthened by centuries of tradition. Mary’s own painful memories of the suffering endured by both herself and her mother naturally shaped her convictions.

Mary’s life and character before she became queen, especially during the years when she was still a princess and before her father’s death, are the main focus of this memoir. It is during this period, the author believes, that Mary deserves the greatest sympathy and admiration.

If any woman ever suffered humiliation and mistreatment without deserving it, Mary did. And if any woman spent years in isolation developing qualities such as kindness, generosity, compassion, sincere religious devotion, and a love of learning and the arts—qualities that enrich both the mind and character—it was Mary.

These are not simply the editor’s opinions. They are supported by surviving historical documents and by the conclusions of many respected modern historians. Scholars such as Lodge, Lingard, Turner, Ellis, and Singer provide strong evidence that challenges the harsh judgments made by writers like Rapin, Hume, Walpole, and Grainger.

The editor also notes that earlier writers, whether they praised or condemned Mary, were often influenced by the political and religious biases of their own time. For that reason, their testimony should be treated with caution.”

Although I share similar views to those expressed in this passage, I look at things a bit differently. I would love to hear your thoughts on this text as well.

Thank you for reading. Sending love to you all.

I think this is one of the historical narratives I dislike the most. Unfortunately, it is also one that is repeated very frequently. While I do not believe it is entirely false, I do think it is heavily coloured by prejudice.

I should say from the outset that I see the origins of this “old queen and young prince” narrative in Philip’s Spanish household.

Before continuing, however, I should make one thing clear: this article is not intended to be an antithesis to that narrative. In other words, what would the opposite argument be? That Mary was young and beautiful while Philip was old and ugly? No—that was not the case either.

What follows is simply my own opinion and my criticism of this particular narrative.
At the same time, I do not believe that those who promote this view are completely detached from reality. Nevertheless, I think it is a narrative that can also be examined through the lens of prejudice and misogyny.

Philip himself left no recorded remarks about Mary’s appearance. The comments we possess come primarily from his closest friend and adviser, Ruy Gómez de Silva, and from the members of the Spanish household who accompanied him to England.

Only a few days after Mary and Philip’s wedding, they began expressing their opinions about the Queen. They said that the Queen looked older than they had been led to expect; that she was very thin, very short, and very pale; that she had no eyebrows; and that she dressed very poorly. They added that if she dressed more elegantly, she might appear younger.

Ruy Gómez later made the famous remark:
“It takes the help of God to drink this cup.”

Judging from the context, he was referring to Philip’s lack of physical attraction to Mary.
Many of these observations are accurate. They are also confirmed by the report written only a few months later by the Venetian ambassador describing Mary’s appearance.

Before turning to the observations of other ambassadors, however, I should provide a little context.

Yes, Mary was very short. I believe she inherited this trait from her mother. She is generally believed to have stood between 5 ft 1 in and 5 ft 2 in tall.

One point should be added, however: Philip himself was not tall. He was also very slender.

The claim that Mary was extremely pale is likewise true. Some of the books I have read suggest that this may have been the result of the frequent bloodletting she underwent.

As for the claim that she had no eyebrows, she obviously did. They were probably just so fair as to be barely noticeable. I also recall reading that both Henry VIII and Edward VI were once described as having “no eyebrows,” so perhaps this was simply a hereditary trait.

The criticism of Mary’s clothing also deserves some context. Mary dressed in the French style. In fact, it was not only Mary—French fashion was popular throughout England at the time, and much of the English court dressed in the same manner. Because the Spanish regarded the French as their enemies, they looked down upon French fashions as well. Mary even had Philip dressed in French clothing, and one can easily imagine how much this irritated the Spaniards.

Another point worth mentioning is that the Spanish courtiers were generally unimpressed by English women. They considered only a handful of them attractive and regarded the rest as unattractive. Unfortunately, these rather rude opinions about women did not end with Mary’s death. They continued to make disparaging remarks about women for many years afterwards.

I do think it is true that Mary appeared older than her actual age. Philip, however, also looked older than he was. The difference was that Philip was widely regarded as an attractive man—a fact reflected in how deeply each of his wives fell in love with him.

There is also something worth mentioning about Ruy Gómez himself. He was the same age as Mary: thirty-eight. Yet only a year earlier he had married a thirteen-year-old girl—someone almost three times younger than both himself and Mary.

Yet while marriages between young men and older women were often regarded as deeply problematic, and women’s appearance was subjected to constant scrutiny, we rarely hear the views of the young girls who married men old enough to be their fathers.

Mary’s appearance did not cease to be the subject of disparaging remarks from the Spanish after her death. A year later, Philip married a thirteen-year-old girl—someone even younger than his own son—and one Spanish minister reportedly remarked:
“His Majesty will have no cause to complain that he has been forced to marry an ugly old woman.”

Unfortunately, the identity of this minister is never given in the sources. He is referred to only as “a minister.”

If we set aside the rather rude opinions of Philip’s Spanish household, we still have other contemporary descriptions of Mary.

In 1554, the Venetian ambassador wrote:

“So she yesterday completed her 38th year and six months. She is of low stature, with a red and white complexion, and very thin; her eyes are white and large, and her hair reddish; her face is round, with a nose rather low and wide (largo); and were not her age on the decline she might be called handsome (bella) rather than the contrary. She is not of a strong constitution, and of late she suffers from headache and serious affection of the heart (grave passione di cuore), so that she is often obliged to take medicine, and also to be blooded. She is of very spare diet, and never eats until one or two in the afternoon, although she rises at daybreak…”

Another report, written in 1557, described Mary as follows:

“She is of low rather than of middling stature, but, although short, she has no personal defect in her limbs, nor is any part of her body deformed. She is of a spare and delicate frame, quite unlike her father, who was tall and stout; nor does she resemble her mother, who, if not tall, was nevertheless bulky. Her face is well formed, as shown by her features and lineaments, and as seen in her portraits. When younger she was considered not merely tolerably handsome, but more than moderately beautiful. At present, apart from a few wrinkles—caused more by anxiety than by age—which make her appear a few years older, her appearance is otherwise very dignified. Her eyes are so piercing that they inspire not only respect but fear in those upon whom she fixes them, although she is very short-sighted and unable to read or do anything unless she holds it close to her eyes. Her voice is rough and loud, almost like a man’s, so that she can always be heard from a considerable distance. In short, she is a respectable woman, and even at her present age she is by no means to be regarded as ugly, even without taking into account her rank as Queen.”

I should make one important point here. This article is not intended to argue that Mary was not ugly but beautiful. Personally, I find it rather distasteful to debate how beautiful—or how unattractive—people who have been dead for centuries were.

This is, to a large extent, a matter of perspective. Different people will naturally view the same person differently.

Another point I would like to address is Mary’s age.

Mary was thirty-seven when she became Queen and thirty-eight when she married. Yet while Mary was described as an “old woman” at the age of thirty-eight, her father, Henry VIII, was still described as “very young” when he was thirty-eight.

Perhaps this perception had something to do with fertility. However, Mary’s cousins, Frances and Margaret, were around the same age as Mary and were giving birth one child after another. Of course, these were not their first pregnancies. When it was believed that Mary would give birth in 1555, many older women from across England who had recently given birth were brought to court in an effort to reassure her.

The question of Mary’s “old age” is also often discussed in relation to life expectancy. Yet Mary was actually one of the earliest deaths within her immediate family.

Her mother, Catherine of Aragon, died at fifty, while her father, Henry VIII, died at fifty-six. The same is generally true of her grandparents—Elizabeth of York, who died in childbirth, being the obvious exception. Her sister Elizabeth lived to the age of seventy, and her husband Philip died at seventy-one—although, of course, no one at the time could have known that.

Most of Mary’s relatives—apart from brothers who died young and female relatives who died in childbirth—lived comparatively long lives.

Had the swelling in Mary’s abdomen not ultimately claimed her life, she might well have lived much longer.

Another issue worth mentioning is that whenever a man marries a woman older than himself, the woman’s age is almost always emphasised.

We can see this even in television series about Henry VIII, where Catherine of Aragon is often portrayed as though there were at least a ten-year age difference between her and Henry, when in reality the difference was only about five and a half years.

This is often used to excuse or justify a king’s infidelity and mistreatment of his wife. The woman is portrayed as old; therefore, the man cheats on her. Therefore, he treats her badly. They are presented as an unsuitable match from the beginning, and the audience is expected to see it that way as well.

Kings, on the other hand, marry much younger girls and this is usually mentioned only in passing.

Mary herself had been deeply anxious about marrying a younger man before her marriage. Renard, the Imperial ambassador, whom she regarded as something of a spiritual adviser, tried to reassure her. He told her that a man approaching his thirties could no longer be considered young and that the prince was already a middle-aged man, as evidenced by the fact that he already had an eight-year-old son.

Whether Renard’s words truly comforted Mary, we cannot know. What I do know is that, had she heard the remarks made about her afterwards, I have little doubt that she would have been deeply surprised—and deeply hurt.

Thank you for reading this rather long and inconclusive post. Sending lots of love to you all!

•I came across the image I shared some time ago, but despite searching, I couldn’t find much information about it. I saw it identified in a few places as depicting the marriage of Mary and Philip, so I decided to share it here. If anyone knows anything about the image, I’d be happy if you could share any information.