It is rumored in folklore that if one were to say “Bloody Mary” thirteen times into a mirror, a screaming ghostly apparition will appear, covered in blood. While there is debate over whether this myth is truly inspired by the Tudor monarch Mary I, it is for certain that Mary is vilified in popular culture, yet was she really as bad as many believe? Jeremiah Puren explains.
Mary I or Bloody Mary in 1554. Painting by Hans Eworth.
The case for a ‘Bloody’ Mary I
To understand why Mary is viewed as a tyrant, a brief context of the Tudor period prior to her coronation must be understood. Mary’s father, Henry VIII had famously (and infamously) broken with Rome in 1534, severing England from the control of the Catholic church, and introducing Protestant ideas from the likes of Martin Luther and John Calvin to the English population. Thus, many began to view the Catholic church as a greedy and corrupt institution. Included among those raised on Protestant ideas was Henry’s son, and Mary’s half-brother, Edward VI, who ascended to the throne on February 20, 1547 at the age of nine following Henry VIII’s death. Edward had little control of the nation due to his young age, yet he managed to further the Protestant transformation of England with the help of adamant reformer and Archbishop Thomas Cranmer. Edward approved of and legally enforced Cranmer’s new Protestant liturgy, “The Book of Common Prayer”, which allowed traditionally Latin prayers to be read in English and removed much Catholic dogma surrounding marriage and baptism. This was in line with Protestant ideas that everyone should have access to heaven through faith alone, and that everybody should be free to interpret and access the bible, as Latin was not spoken by the common people. Edward unexpectedly died at the age of 15 on July 6 1553, allowing Mary to gain the crown the same year following a brief competition for ascendency with the Protestant Lady Jane Grey.
With this religious timeline of the Tudor period in mind, it is now possible to see how one may believe Mary was truly regressive. Mary had never been convinced by the Protestant ideas sweeping the nation and desperately wished to revert England to what she perceived as the one true faith: Catholicism. One could argue that, by attempting to suddenly undo her predecessor's changes, she was thrusting England into a state of religious instability. In her first year on the throne, Mary passed her first Act of Repeal, undoing all legislation passed under Edward enforcing Protestantism in an attempt to reinstate the Catholic tradition. However, when ideas settle into certain hearts and minds, it is not a simple endeavor to strip them away. Despite Mary’s legal attempts at flushing out Protestantism, Church services continued in English, Books of Common Prayer continued to circulate and notable Protestant figures continued to preach. This led to Mary resorting to harsher measures. During her short reign of five years, over 300 Protestants were executed by being burned at the stake, with large crowds amassing to witness their dying screams. Most notable of all the executions was the aforementioned Thomas Cranmer, the former Archbishop who had been the architect behind the English Reformation, who dramatically announced: “as for the pope, I refuse him, as Christ’s enemy and antichrist, with all his false doctrine” before being set alight. It is for this perceived injustice that Mary has been most hated throughout history, and is the justification used for her title of “Bloody Mary”.
Was this truly the case?
Throughout medieval history, executions were far from uncommon. Monarchs tended to execute potential rivals and dissidents upon their ascension to preemptively solve potential issues in their reign, as well as to display power and strength. Mary I especially needed to show such strength, as it is important to note that she was the first female monarch of England in a heavily patriarchal society. Thus, the execution of Protestant dissenters, while seemingly unjust by today's standards, was justified at the time, and Mary's subjects would have been largely indifferent considering public executions were a common affair. For example, over the course of the Tudor period, there were roughly 80,000 executions, with nearly 60,000 being during the reign of Mary’s father, Henry VIII. This puts into perspective the normality of executions in this period and shows us that Mary’s burning of Protestants was relatively tame compared to other Tudor monarchs. Mary was also surprisingly lenient with those she persecuted. She gave those she executed numerous chances for repentance of Protestantism, and many were given the opportunity to leave England for mainland Europe. It was only those who stoically stuck to Protestantism such as Cranmer who faced being burned, yet Mary gave more chances than other Tudors.
While one could argue Mary’s policy was ruining years of religious change, causing disarray among the lower classes who had become accustomed to Protestantism, it is necessary to note that the majority of the population were not theologians. The rapid reversion to Catholicism would not have caused chaos among the peasantry, who were the bulk of churchgoers, as while it is true that the ability to read Latin would not be found among this social class, the ability to read English would be similarly rare. The common weekly attendee of the Church would not care for the theological disputes, and thus would not have cared about Mary’s religious policy. In fact, the Protestant attacks on the church, such as Henry VIII’s dissolution of the monasteries, which had stripped Churches of wealth and deconstructed many places of worship, caused great social discontent, as the Church was the center of local communities in this period. It not only acted as a place of worship but a social space, a charity and school simultaneously. Mary’s refusal to continue the dismantling of this institution would have thus been regarded as positive by commonfolk.
Interpreting history
The question then arises: why do we think of Mary as so Bloody? This is a question with an answer which has a scope expanding beyond Tudor studies. For hundreds of years following the Tudor period, much of British historical study was done under the ‘Whig’ tradition. ‘Whig’ historians viewed history as a story of Protestant progress towards freedom and parliamentary democracy. It makes sense then, that these historians would defile the Catholic Mary, as they looked to clearly biased sources as evidence for Mary’s flaws, such as John Foxe’s work of Protestant propaganda circulated in Mary’s successor Elizabeth I’d reign, the “Book of Martyrs”. Foxe’s work included sensationalist rhetoric and twisted the events to ensure all of those killed were seen as martyrs, being killed by an autocratic and immoral Catholic queen. Such a defamation project by historians is incompatible with the evidence previously mentioned that Mary was no worse than other Tudors, shining light on the common mistake made by historians: letting personal views and hindsight hinder the pursuit of the truth. One would hope this no longer happens, and history is viewed from an objective perspective, yet it begs the question. Is it possible to interpret history without an agenda?
What do you think of Bloody Mary? Let us know below.
References
Hanson, Marilee. "Archbishop Thomas Cranmer Death By Execution" https://englishhistory.net/tudor/thomas-cranmer-death/
Heather Y Wheeler. “How Many People Were Executed by the Tudors?” https://www.tudornation.com/how-many-people-were-executed-by-the-tudors/
