Was Bloody Mary Really so Bloody?

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/

Just why do we Love the Tudor Dynasty?

The Tudor Dynasty ruled the Kingdom of England and its realms, Wales and Ireland, from 1485 until 1603. It remains one of the periods of British history people are most fascinated by and includes two of the greatest and most famous – or in one case infamous – monarchs: King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I. Here, Victor Gamma explains why we continue to love the Tudors so much.

Portrait of King Henry VIII of England, 1542. By Hans Holbein.

In the recesses of a magnificent palace, a man enters a rich chamber. He is wearing a doublet of blue and red velvet. It is lined with cloth of gold in addition to purple satin embroidered with gold. Underneath is a white silk shirt, frilled at the neck and wrists. His lithe movements betray an athletic tendency. All in all, he is a magnificent sight. He smiles as a woman enters. Her lustrous, black hair is only partially hidden by a gable hood with pinned up lappets and a hanging veil. Her jet-black eyes are set in a face that is not stunningly beautiful but rather handsome, of an olive complexion. It is his mistress. The man is married but his wife will not grant him a divorce. The scandal has become not only the talk of the court, but the talk of Europe. The couple embraces. The lady’s eyes, always expressive, sparkle under her lover’s passionate attention. After a moment of flirtation, the discussion turns serious. An argument ensues. She presses him to know when his divorce will finally come through. He is evasive and grows irritated. Her fiery temper gets the better of her and she lashes out, “It has been three years and we are no nearer the promised betrothal than we were then. I could have contracted an advantageous marriage by this time! I am about to turn 30.” The man, feeling the pressure of being caught between a stubborn wife and a nagging mistress, rushes out of the room in a huff. This is not a scene from a soap opera or made-for-TV historical drama. It is one of many real-life incidents in the life of the Tudors, and it is one element that makes this dynasty provide such rich fodder for an ever-adoring audience.  

In 1603 Elizabeth I, the last of the Tudors, died without an heir. Her successor, James I, was proclaimed king within eight hours. He set about immediately on a triumphant procession from Scotland to take the throne he had coveted so long. Even in this honeymoon period, though, signs appeared that anyone hoping for a continuation of the great Tudor administrations was in for a disappointment. At Newark, a thief was caught in the act and James ordered him to be executed without a trial. This was but once instance in which James displayed his utter lack of knowledge regarding English customs. He also brought with him a penchant for lecturing, a feature which did not endear him to those who suffered through them, including Parliament. The excellent rapport Elizabeth had nurtured with Parliament soured. He made peace with Spain, and deprived Englishmen of the popular enemy. Before long many an English heart yearned for the days of Gloriana, the Sea Dogs and the great victory over the Armada. Since that time, the Tudors, especially the gigantic personality of Henry VIII, have been celebrated in every media imaginable. The author has observed this phenomenon throughout his own lifetime. In childhood I learned the cut of the beautiful 15th century court costumes from  “Anne of a Thousand Days,” and “A Man for All Season.” Then as an adolescent I grew up on the outstanding BBC productions on “The Six Wives of Henry VIII,” and “Elizabeth R.” Down to our own times I have observed the success of the television series “The Tudors.” On any visit to Barnes and Noble, a lavishly illustrated book on the Tudors is almost certain to greet your eyes. Why this on-going obsession with a dynasty that died out over 400 years ago? Diverse elements serve to explain the perennial love affair with a long-past British dynasty. 

Made for television?

The Tudors were made for the camera. First, the Tudor dynasty was full of colorful characters and dramatic events; Henry VIII and his six wives.... fierce religious controversy.... the tragic tale of Lady Jane Grey... the great intelligence of Elizabeth I and the artistic accomplishments of her reign… Bloody Mary… Drake and Hawkins...Shakespeare, the list goes on. It doesn’t hurt that the sixteenth century was a pivotal time for Britain. During that bursting-at-the-seams hundred-year period, England transitioned from the medieval world to the modern. Most notably it marked the end of the Catholic Church in England. A new spirit of confidence and patriotism swept the country. Great naval exploits began the great English seafaring tradition. Whether as pirates, officers or explorers, Elizabethan sailors controlled the seas. And besides the political and religious changes, the Tudors themselves were interesting and complex people.

The Tudors have everything an audience could want; Passion, sex, power, conflict and strong characters. In the passion department, Henry VIII made up for his descendants shortcomings. Not only did he have six wives, he found time to carry on affairs with a variety of mistresses. A costume drama at its best, who can resist an alluring woman dressed up in full Renaissance regalia? But it wasn’t just its plentiful supply of love-interest. Henry wasn’t the only monarch with an over-active libido, Charles II’s reign also consisted of basically one royal fling after another. But Charles lacks the personal magnetism of Henry and only had one wife. Every school child knows that Henry VIII had six wives, and many can name at least some of them. But who remembers the name of Charles II’s wife?

Additionally, everyone loves drama. Even today, the royal-watching media feeds on one main narrative to keep its audience enthralled: dysfunction! Many other monarchs had devoted and sedate family lives which do not make for tantalizing reading or viewing. In fact they can be downright dull. What attracts people is the sensational and extraordinary. The Tudors possessed enough dysfunction to keep tabloids, if they had existed at the time, busy forever. Here we have a man with a succession of six wives, each of which provided her own tantalizing drama: two are beheaded, one dies in childbirth, one is tossed aside, but the king, ever the courtier, allows her a palace and a castle to live out her days, and one nurses him in his old age. After Henry we have a sickly youth, Edward VI, who is so nervous he throws up when he is proclaimed king. After a brief reign he tries, on this deathbed, to disinherit his own sister from the throne. He is followed by a queen who reigned for a grand total of nine days before her overthrow and execution. Her successor, Mary, spends most of her reign pining over her un-besotted (and absent) husband, burning heretics and trying to destroy everything her father tried to accomplish. Finally comes Elizabeth. She did the unthinkable and refused to marry during her long reign. She became the target of countless schemes and a succession of courtships, but survived everything to become one of the most praised rulers in English history. And of course, constant intrigue surrounded these events. 

Henry VIII

Let’s focus for a while on the most famous, or infamous, Tudor, Henry VIII. Britain today still bears his imprint. The England Henry VIII left behind in 1547 was much different than the one he inherited in 1509. This can be seen physically in the ruined shells of the monasteries that dot the English countryside, reflecting the turbulence of Henry's reign. It can also be seen in the monarchy's titles of fidei defensorand Supreme Head of the Church of England. Additionally, until recently, "Britannia rules the waves" was a reality largely as the result of Henry's labors. His work to build up England’s power at sea earned him the name “Father of the English Navy.” “Fortress England” also began to emerge in reaction to the threat of invasion. Medieval England was torn to shreds in the hands of this giant personality and thrust kicking and screaming into the modern age. The forces of change he unleashed became the dominant themes upon which Edward and Elizabeth built and Mary tried to destroy. Since England was to export its culture to the far corners of the globe, Henry's actions not only changed the course of English history, but affected the whole world. 

The spiritual landscape of England is ax§lso greatly reflective of Henry's will. The Anglican Church displays Henry's wish as a middle way between Catholicism and extreme evangelicalism. So passionate was he in his conviction that his subjects were united religiously that he gave in to tears when addressing Parliament. The division of Ireland into Protestant and Catholic realms began with Henry's attempt to establish the Reformation in that land. The break with Rome and subsequent events led to a growing anti-Catholic feeling which became increasingly identified with English nationalism. The critical event in this development was Henry's initial break from the Roman church. The Reformation that Henry began and established by law in the form of the Acts of Appeals and Six Articles. This has been called a 'revolution in jurisdiction.' The fundamental relationship between church and state was changed. The freedom of the church from secular jurisdiction, traced back to the Magna Carta and beyond, was shattered. All religious matters would now become a parliamentary concern under the authority of the king-in-parliament - in particular, the dissolution of the monasteries brought huge changes throughout the countryside. 

American connection – And success

Also, Americans are keenly aware that under Elizabeth, the first stumbling but bold efforts to establish an empire in the US took place. Those fly-speck beachheads would grow to a mighty torrent in the following generations. We know that although the first permanent English settlement would not be established until after the last Tudor died, it was this dynasty that started the process. Americans feel a special kinship with the Tudors for that reason. The story of the English-speaking United States really begins with names like Raleigh, Drake, and Hawkins.

Moreover, they were successful. They contained not one but TWO of the greatest royal administrators in history: Henry VIII and his daughter Elizabeth I (by the way, Henry VII, who started it all, was not a bad ruler as well!). The previous dynasties had too many ups and downs. The Hanoverians are known for losing America. Later dynasties don’t count because they had no real power. No one considered the House of Stuart successful by any stretch. Everyone loves a winner and the Tudors fit the bill and then some. With a small bodyguard and no standing army, they maintained and expanded the respect and power of the monarchy, preserved the peace, held their own against the best diplomacy and military Europe could throw at them, and guided the nation through changes that destroyed others. A comparison with France will shed some light on the measure of their success. France suffered from decades of cruel religious wars. While Britain, despite even more drastic change, experienced very little upheaval. The political and administrative skills of the Tudor monarchs are admired even today. Monarch and parliament enjoyed a stable and workable relationship. The development of a national consciousness, or 'Englishness', developed throughout the sixteenth-century.

The appetite for exploring the intriguing characters of “Bluff King Hal,” “Bloody Mary,” and “Gloriana” shows little sign of abating. So brace yourselves for the next Tudor drama, it's sure to come soon!

What do you think of the Tudors? Let us know below.

If you want to learn more about the Tudors, read Victor’s series on Henry VIII’s divorce of Catherine of Aragon here.

What if… King Henry VIII had not become King of England? The untimely death of Arthur, Prince of Wales

King Henry VII of England’s eldest son and first in line to the English throne was Arthur, Prince of Wales (1486-1502). However, he suffered an untimely death at the age of 15 and this led Henry to become first in line to the throne - and later King Henry VIII of England. But what would have happened had Arthur survived and become King of England? We explain here (and follows the author’s past Tudor article on King Edward VI here).

Arthur, Prince of Wales. Painting c. 1500.

The Tudors are one of the most renowned and notorious English royal families in history with countless books, movies, articles, and research devoted to understanding them. No doubt King Henry VIII is the center of historical interest in the Tudors, with particular emphasis on his six wives and the reigns of his three children. Henry VIII of England presided over sweeping political and religious changes that brought the nation into the Protestant Reformation and radically altered the fabric of English life.

But Henry was only second in line to the English throne after his elder brother Arthur, Prince of Wales, who died in April 1502, most likely of tuberculosis. The short life of Prince Arthur Tudor is overshadowed and largely forgotten from Tudor history, only to be recounted in “The King’s Great Matter” nearly thirty years after his death. Had Arthur lived and ascended to the English throne instead of Henry VIII, what course would English history have taken?

The Birth of Arthur

When Arthur was born in Saint Swithun’s Priory (now Winchester Cathedral Priory) on September 19/20 1486, not only was he heir to the English throne but the result of two unified royal houses, York and Lancaster. His place of birth was believed to have been the capital of the legendary Camelot and the site of King Arthur’s castle. Hence, the infant boy was given the name Arthur, to induce memorable sentiments of the legendary King Arthur, who led the defense of Britain against Saxon invaders in the late 5thand early 6thcenturies.

With the Tudor dynasty off to a successful start, Henry VIIwas convinced his son’s birth would bring about a golden age. Arthur was given a magnificent christening on September 24th, noted by David Starkey as “the first of many spectacular ceremonies that Henry used to mark each stage of the advance and consolidation of the Tudor dynasty.” At two years of age, Arthur was betrothed to Katherine of Aragon, the youngest daughter of the joint Spanish monarchs, Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile. The following year, in November 1489, Arthur was became Prince of Wales. In 1492, in a traditional precedent set by the grandfather, Edward IV, the heir to England was sent to reside at Ludlow Castle in the Welsh Marches to begin his education as the future king.

Starkey writes of Arthur growing up to be “a model prince” who “displayed the exaggerated sense of responsibility of the eldest child.” Personality wise, he was “intellectually precocious” and presented a stiff public manner. Historians Steve Gunn and Linda Monckton describe Arthur as “amiable and gentle” and a “delicate lad.”

Meeting his future wife – And Tragedy…

In the autumn of 1501, Katherine of Aragon landed in England and met her husband-to-be at Dogmersfield in Hampshire. They were married on November 14th, 1501. Arthur’s 10-year old brother Henry escorted the bride to the cathedral. Arthur wrote to Katherine’s parents that he would be “a true and loving husband.” We do not know exactly what followed after the traditional bedding ceremony, which was the only public bedding of a royal couple recorded in Britain in the 16thcentury. Yet, the next morning Arthur boasted: “bring me a cup of ale for I have been this night in the midst of Spain!”

His sincere affection and longing for Catherine is noted in a letter from October 1499 in which Arthur refers to Katherine as “my dearest spouse,” and writes:

I cannot tell you what an earnest desire I feel to see your Highness, and how vexatious to me is this procrastination about your coming. Let [it] be hastened, [that] the love conceived between us and the wished-for joys may reap their proper fruit.

After living at Tickenhill Manor for a month, Arthur and his new bride traveled to the Welsh Marches where they established their household at Ludlow Castle. Plague and illness had been lingering around this area, though the young prince disregarded it and carried on with his duties. In late March 1502, he and Catherine were suddenly struck by “a malign vapour which proceeded from the air.” Catherine recovered but not before her husband and heir to the English throne died on April 2nd- just six months short of his sixteenth birthday. Fifty-one years later, Arthur’s nephew, the last male heir of the Tudor dynasty, would die at the same age.

Theories on the cause of Arthur’s death range from cancer to possible consumption. A commonly suggested cause that is consistent with Katherine of Aragon’s illness is the deadly sweating sickness. This disease first made its way to England in the fifteenth century when Henry VII first took the throne and occurred sporadically, with one of the worst epidemics being in 1528.

The heavy responsibility as new heir to the throne would fall on the young Henry VIII who married his brother’s widow in 1509. When his marriage to Catherine of Aragon failed to produce any surviving male heirs, King Henry desired to have it annulled on the grounds that Catherine had been previously married to his brother, something that was forbidden according to Scripture. Catherine argued in defense that her marriage to Arthur had not been consummated. Henry would take matters in to his own hands and break from the Roman Catholic Church to marry his mistress, Anne Boleyn, establish the Church of England, and catapult along the Protestant Reformation in England.

What if… Arthur had become King?

But had Arthur survived and remained married to Catherine, how would history be different? Specifically, what would be the role of reformation in England and would he have lived up to the great legend and “golden age” his parents hoped for?

By all accounts, Arthur’s nature most resembled his father. Italian visitors in 1497 reported that Henry VII “evidently has a most quiet spirit.” In 1504, a Spanish visitor reported back to the Catholic Monarchs that “… He is so wise and attentive to everything; nothing escapes his attention.” It seems the late prince would have been less argumentative and more faithful to his wife like his father and unlike his brother. With his understanding of duty to his country and the likely happy marriage Arthur Tudor and his Spanish bride would have had, Arthur would have had little reason or temptation to relinquish the alliance with Spain. He would have had much less reason to break away from Rome and catapult the English Reformation, especially if Arthur and Catherine managed to produce male heirs. The Reformation had already sprouted in German states.

Much unlike Henry, who would have been trained in the workings of the church as the younger son, Arthur would not have involved or interested in the English church and the strict devotion to Catholicism of Catherine would further deter him from risking excommunication. If, by any far-stretched chance, Arthur was faced with the same succession crisis as Henry, would he have divorced Catherine and remarried? Being the staid boy he was, Arthur would have made some foreign alliance with another European power through a second marriage.

All of this is simply speculation though. If Arthur had indeed fulfilled his parents’ hopes, it would likely have been in the image of his father, which would represent a more careful and consolidated reign that would both avoid war and replace medieval rule with a centralized and united Tudor state. The court would have remained very similar and there would likely have been a distant and occasionally absent king.

And the Tudor Dynasty?

On the question of the continuation of the Tudor dynasty, Arthur and Catherine’s surviving children could have accomplished this for multiple generations. Yet, where would the union of the crowns of England and Scotland come into place? Upon the death of Queen Elizabeth I, without an heir, the English throne was passed to her cousin, King James VI of Scotland, uniting the crowns of both countries. It is unlikely this would have taken place under the continuation of the Tudor dynasty.

Especially under Queen Elizabeth I’s reign, England saw a golden age of literature, music, and visual arts in the midst of the English Renaissance. Would the same have occurred under King Arthur and his descendants? As a child, he was a skilled pupil and educated in poetry and ethics and studied the works of Cicero, Homer, Ovid, and Virgil. By 1501, he had even learned to dance “right pleasant and honourably.”

As for the economic might of England, Henry VII’s hopes for his eldest son would have undoubtedly included lessons on wisdoms and parsimony. Combined with Arthur’s temperate nature and disinterest in fighting wars with other countries, this could have produced a more flourishing economy during Arthur’s reign.

At the time of Arthur’s birth, the fate and hopes of England and that of his father rested on him with the expectation of ushering in a new era. Now, five centuries after his untimely death, he has been easily forgotten and overshadowed by his younger brother, the infamous Henry VIII, and his nephews and nieces. If the 15-year old prince had survived his deadly affliction in 1502, no doubt history would have been drastically different.

What do you think? How would English history have been different if Arthur had become King instead of Henry VIII?

Sources

“Arthur, Prince of Wales.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 27 Nov. 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur,_Prince_of_Wales.

Buckingham, Maddie. “What If Arthur Had Become King of England?” W.U Hstry, 16 July 2016, wuhstry.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/what-if-arthur-had-become-king-of-england/.

Crowther, David. “The History of England.” The History of England, 2016, thehistoryofengland.co.uk/resource/henry-vii-character-and-portraits/.

NikitaBlogger. “A Real King Arthur: How Would English History Have Been Different If Arthur Tudor Had Lived?”Royal Central, 17 May 2017, royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/a-real-king-arthur-how-would-english-history-have-been-different-if-arthur-tudor-had-lived-82381.

Ridgway, Claire. “Arthur, Prince of Wales.” The Anne Boleyn Files, 20 Sept. 2010, www.theanneboleynfiles.com/arthur-prince-of-wales/.

Ridgway, Claire. “The Death of Arthur Tudor by Sarah Bryson.” The Tudor Society, 16 July 2018, www.tudorsociety.com/arthur-tudor-sarah-bryson/.

Tudor Rising: How England Grew During the Reigns of King Henry VII & King Henry VIII

The Tudors monarchs were a very important part of English history for over 100 years. The Tudor kings and queens ruled from 1485 to 1603. Here, Anthony Ruggiero follows his article on Tudor Queen Mary I (here), and considers how the Tudors took power in England and the importance of the reigns of King Henry VII and King Henry VIII. The article includes a consideration of England’s relationship with France and Spain.

Portrait of King Henry VIII of England,

Throughout the sixteenth century, the monarchs of the Tudor dynasty each left a mark on England. For example, King Henry VII reorganized a country that was in disarray after years of civil war, while his son, King Henry VIII, established precedence through forming the Church of England. The Protestant Reformation also greatly affected the country. The Reformation challenged the practices of the Catholic Church, as well as the Pope’s authority in Rome. Many English people were critical of the Roman Catholic Church and embraced the Reformation. While religion was one of the most important and persistent issues, the Tudor monarchs also handled foreign relations with two prominent Catholic and Western European nations at the time, Spain and France. These two countries engaged in an on-and-off rivalry during the sixteenth century, with Tudor England being placed in the middle. England’s involvement with Spain and France would have both negative and positive impacts on the country, such as war, marriage, and trade.

The Tudor Rise – King Henry VII

Prior to the Tudors, the political and social state of England during the fifteenth century was in disarray. The country was divided in a civil war between multiple noble families who were all vying for the English crown. Fifteenth century England was a “prison-house,” where any progression seemed impossible to achieve due to the country’s political issues.[1]Church officials, nobles, and knights controlled a majority of the aggregate land. For example, between 60 and 170 barons, earls, and dukes controlled the land.[2]These nobles produced two-thirds of revenue in the country.  Additionally, there were between 9,000 and 10,000 Church parishes in England.[3]Resources produced on these manors were primarily being sold in local markets. Additionally, foreign advances in trade and alliances were scarce, despite England controlling lands such as Calais in France.[4]

The year 1485 was a pivotal year in England’s history as it resulted in the rise of one of England’s most significant dynasties, the Tudors. Throughout the fifteenth century, the English crown was primarily divided between the ruling houses of Lancaster and York, which fought in a civil war known as “The War of the Roses.” By 1485 the York house had been restored, and King Richard III ruled over England. Despite the restoration, the country was still engaged in a civil war, now between King Richard III and Henry Tudor. Henry’s claim to the throne came through his mother, Lady Margaret Beaufort, who was a descendant of King Edward III. Although his claim was questionable, Henry staunchly fought for his right to the throne.[5]The two engaged in battle at Bosworth Field, where on August 22nd, 1485, Richard III was slain, and Henry, later styled King Henry VII, emerged as the new king of England, effectively ending the War of the Roses.[6]During his reign, Henry VII managed to have multiple positive impacts on the country that helped move England from a decentralized, medieval state towards a stable nation. For example, Henry managed to unite the feuding houses in England through his popular marriage to Elizabeth of York, who was viewed as having a strong claim to the throne in her own right. Henry VII was also responsible for printing books, building more chapels and monasteries, helping reorganize Parliament, and establishing trading relations with the Netherlands and Spain. The latter two resulted in more revenue for England, such as obtaining more trade products in cloth and access to fisheries to increase English food supply and trade circulation.[7]The Spanish treaty also resulted in the marriage of Spanish princess, Catherine of Aragon, to Henry’s son Arthur, and after Arthur’s death in 1502, to Henry’s younger son, Henry. [8]England under Henry VII experienced political stability, economic expansion and a royal marriage that addressed decades of animosity with Spain.

King Henry VIII

Following Henry VII’s death in 1509, his then seventeen-year-old son, who would ultimately become one of England’s most famous and notorious monarchs, Henry VIII, inherited the throne. Henry VIII would ultimately be remembered for breaking away from the Catholic Church; however, prior to these events Henry was a devout Catholic, raised with a strong knowledge of theology. Earlier in his reign, when German priest Martin Luther spoke out against the practices of the Catholic Church that sparked the Protestant Reformation, Henry defended Catholic traditions and was declared “Defender of the Faith,” by Pope Leo X in 1521.[9]However, after the papacy refused to grant him a divorce from Catherine of Aragon in order to remarry to produce a male heir to the throne, Henry sought autonomy from the Catholic Church and decided to break from the Church in what would be known as the English Reformation between 1532 and 1534. During this time, Henry and Parliament devised a series of acts that ultimately fashioned Henry as the Supreme Head of the newly-created Church of England.[10]The Act of Restraint Annates, devised in 1532, forced the clergy in England to stop paying taxes to the church in Rome and required them to pay taxes to the Church of England, which ultimately meant the crown.[11]That same year Parliament would also pass the Submission of the Clergy Actthat would force them to deny the authority of the Pope or face confiscation of their landholdings.[12]Finally, the Act of Royal Supremacy in 1534 officially recognized Henry as the head of the Church of England.[13]Although many of these changes shared similarities with Protestantism, Henry’s new church possessed many Catholic traditions. For example, under the publication of his Six Articlesin 1539, the clergy were recommended to take vows of chastity, which contradicted the Protestant views that the clergy should be allowed to marry. This publication also declared private mass and Holy Communion valid, and any denial of these decrees was subject to excommunication and execution.[14]Henry VIII had a lasting legacy and effect on England through his establishment of the Church of England. Despite these reforms religion would remain a controversial and divisive issue through the reigns of Henry’s three children: Edward VI, Mary I, and Elizabeth I. 

Foreign Policy – France & Spain

England’s involvement with two of the major European powers, Spain and France, would have significant impacts throughout the Tudor period. During the 1490s and early 1500s, Spain prospered from multiple explorations and the accumulation of resources from the New World. During this time, King Charles ruled over the Catholic Spain and would later be created Emperor Charles V.[15]Despite both countries maintaining the Catholic faith, Spain would often clash with France. Ruled by the Valois family, particularly under King Francis I, France plunged itself into war with Spain over claimed lands in Italy, known as the Italian Wars, throughout the sixteenth century.[16]During this time both countries made attempts to rally England behind them; these alliances would alter throughout the fifteenth century and inevitably lead to conflicts between each country. Under both Henry VII and Henry VIII’s regimes England’s relationship with both countries regularly shifted. England’s treaty with Spain earned the country revenue and resulted in the marriage between Catherine of Aragon and the later King Henry VIII. England and France would engage in battle 1513 and would attempt to negotiate a treaty in the years that followed, including at the Field of the Cloth of Gold, which resulted in the betrothal of Henry VIII’s daughter, Mary, to the dauphin of France.[17]However, Henry’s pro-French policies quickly soured, the betrothal of Mary to the dauphin was canceled, and Henry once again turned his attentions towards Spain. This new alliance also resulted in the betrothal of Mary to Charles V who was sixteen years her senior. However, the age gap was an issue for Charles, who ultimately called off the betrothal in favor of a matured bride. This angered Henry who again looked to France for an alliance.[18]This back and forth would ultimately continue through Henry’s reign, but would also occur throughout the reign of his three children.

In Conclusion

The Tudors had significant impact on England during their reign over England in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Henry VII brought stability to England following years of warfare. Although Henry VIII may be remembered by some due to his six marriages, his religious changes ushered in the English Reformation, impacting England for years to come. Furthermore, through Henry VIII’s three children: Mary I, Elizabeth I, and Edward VI, England would continue to experience various changes that would ultimately result in the country emerging as a world power.

What do you think of the importance of King Henry VII and King Henry VII in the rise of England as a global power? Let us know below.

[1]Feiling, England Under The Tudors and Stuarts,8.

[2]Peter Turchin and S. A. Nefedov, Secular Cycles(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009), 83.

[3]Turchin and Nefedov, Secular Cycles, 84.

[4]Feiling, Keith. England under the Tudors and Stuarts. New York: H. Holt and, 1927, 7-8.

[5]Feiling, England Under The Tudors and Stuarts, 19.

[6]Sharpe, Kevin. Selling the Tudor Monarchy: Authority and Image in Sixteenth-century England. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009, 61-62.

[7]Feiling, England Under The Tudors and Stuarts, 27.

[8]Sharpe, Selling the Tudor Monarchy: Authority and Image in Sixteenth-century England, 62-64.

[9]Jones, Whitney R. D. The Mid-Tudor Crisis: 1539-1563. London: Macmillan, 1973, 75.

[10]Jones, The Mid-Tudor Crisis: 15.

[11]Conrad Russell, The Crisis of Parliaments: English History, 1509-1660(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 94.

[12]Russell, The Crisis of Parliaments: English History, 1509-1660, 98-99.

[13]Russell, The Crisis of Parliaments: English History, 1509-1660, 100-101.

[14]Jones, The Mid-Tudor Crisis: 1539-1563, 77.

[15]Thomas, Hugh. The Golden Empire: Spain, Charles V, and the Creation of America. New York: Random House, 2010, 2-4.

[16]Titler, The Reign of Mary I, 77.

[17]D. M. Loades, The Reign of Mary Tudor: Politics, Government, and Religion in England, 1553-1558(New York: St. Martin's Press, 1979), 6, 8.

[18]Loades, The Reign of Mary Tudor: Politics, Government, and Religion in England, 1553-1558, 8-9.

What do you know about the Tudors? An Introduction to Henry VIII’s dynasty

How familiar are you with the Tudors? In this article, Jennifer Johnstone introduces us to some of the key events and people in the period including bloody religious change, kings and queens, and King Henry VIII’s six wives.

Everyone is familiar with the Tudors. Or at least, most people know about Henry VIII, and his six wives: Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves, Catherine Howard, and finally Catherine Parr, alongside another one of England’s longest serving monarchs: Elizabeth I. The first Tudor royal was King Henry VII (1485-1509), then his son, Henry VIII (1509-1547), then to the boy King Edward VI (1553), briefly Lady Jane Grey sat on the throne in 1553, to be ursurped by Mary I, sometimes referred to as ‘Bloody Mary’ (1553-1558), and finally, the last of the Tudor monarchs was Elizabeth I (1558-1603). In the television program The Tudors, Catherine of Aragon describes Anne Boleyn as ‘the scandal of Christendom’; however, it seems like an accurate description of the Tudors themselves, as they divided a country religiously, broke with Rome, and reformed England in a way that changed the country forever.

King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn

Family divisions

The Tudors did not only divide the country of England religiously, between Catholic and Protestant, but they were divisive amongst themselves too. They were a family of intense division.

One of the divisions in the Tudor court came from the contentious relationship Mary I had with Anne Boleyn. It is said that they hated each other, and even tried to kill one another. The Imperial Ambassador of the time, Eustace Chapuys, claimed that Anne tried to poison Mary. But there is a lac k of evidence to suggest that Chapuys’ claim is true. Chapuys wasn’t an impartial figure in the Tudor court; he is said to have supported Lady Mary and her mother Catherine of Aragon. But it is also claimed that Anne said to her brother George that, “she would consider putting Mary to death if the King ever left her as Regent while he was away in France.” Perhaps there is some truth to the claim that Anne thought that it would have been easier on her if Mary was out of the equation, but to accuse her of murder without strong evidence, doesn’t give us an accurate picture of what Anne really thought of Mary.

So, what did Mary think of Anne? Well, Mary seems to have resented the new Queen. And that she even rejoiced when Anne did not and could not produce a son for Henry. Mary seemed to blame Anne for her parents’ divorce, and the ill treatment by her father towards her. It’s possible that Anne could have been partly to blame for Henry’s mistreatment towards Mary, but Henry stripped Mary of being a princess of his own accord; she was in favor one minute and banished the next minute from court. Henry also had the notion that a son was more important to the Tudor’s future; seeing Mary as inferior in this way must have affected her psychologically too. Indeed, Mary later became a bitter, resentful, and brutal Queen.

Henry VII

The divisions which were rife throughout the Tudor period can be seen from the dawn of the Tudor period as Henry VII came to power in a divided country. The country was at civil war when Henry VII defeated King Richard III in battle. The civil war was called the 'The War of the Roses', a battle between two families, the White Rose of York and the Red Rose of Lancaster (the Tudor Rose), hence the name 'Roses'.

Henry VII is know for his ruthless taxes on the populace. With the money taken from these taxes, Henry VII was able to leave a fortune to his son Henry VIII. Henry VII also reformed laws, and the powers of the King. All told, although Henry VII came to power with a bang, nothing terribly noteworthy happened in his reign, hence why some regard Henry VII as an unmemorable ruler. But, we do not have that problem with his son.

Henry VIII

Henry VIII succeeded his father to the throne on April 21, 1509, and his coronation took place on June 24, 1509. He is well known for forming the Church of England at the expense of the Catholic Church. This was partly because the Pope would not grant Henry an annulment on his first marriage, to enable him to marry again. The establishment of his own church gave Henry the chance to marry a total of six times. Interestingly, his marriage with Anne of Cleaves lasted only six months, but he remained friends with Anne for the duration of their lives. Catherine Parr had understandable reservations about becoming Henry's Queen - who of us would want to marry a King who easily tired of his wives, and was prepared to chop off their heads? They say the only one that Henry really loved was Jane Seymour. Perhaps this was because she gave him the son that he desperately wanted.

But Henry seemingly had several other sons, albeit ‘bastard’ (illegitimate) ones. They were Henry FitzRoy, Thomas Stukley, and Richard Edwards. Considering that Henry VIII had many affairs, and the social stigma that surrounded 'bastard' children, there were very likely more children of Henry's too. Of his three sons, only one was recognized by Henry VIII. The rest were not. In short though, Henry VIII can be seen as a self-serving King, particularly during the Reformation.

The Reformation

The Reformation brought scandal to Christendom across Europe. But was the English Reformation about political and religious rule for Henry? Or was it just about Henry VIII seeking to remarry?

The answer is a mixture of both.

The Lutheran Reformation, which began in 1517, was focused on challenging clerical power and educating the public about the bible, including encouraging them to read the bible in English. Another factor were the resented taxes imposed by the Catholic Church on the people of England. The Catholic Church had a lot more power over countries in those days; Cardinals were the politicians of their day. Cardinal Wolsey would be a perfect example; he had a lot of power in Henry VIII’s day.

Usually in history it's a collection of elements that spur these political breaks, so it would be naïve of us to think that the break with Rome was just an issue of Henry wanting to remarry.

Anne Boleyn

Anne Boleyn is often seen as one of the main driving forces of the English Reformation; this is indeed true. Her faith in Protestantism was strong. She adhered to the Lutheran doctrine, a point that one of Anne's Boleyn's biographers argues. In her book on Anne Boleyn Joanna Denny argues that Anne was a passionate reformer. She writes: “Her views were evangelical, many would say Lutheran. She read the bible daily, and believed that everyone should be able to read the bible in a language they understand.” Therefore, it can be seen that Anne, as well as Henry, were both in favor of bringing the Reformation to England. However, they were not alone; there were plenty of powerful figures in the Tudor court that supported the English Reformation, such as Thomas Boleyn and Thomas Cromwell.

So, a country that Henry VII united, was divided again by the Reformation, into two main religious ‘ideologies’: Catholicism and Protestantism. After Henry's VIII’s reign, Mary I burnt Protestants at the stake, while after her Elizabeth I burnt Catholics at the stake.

But to end, let us consider Henry VIII’s own words:

''Alas, how can the poor souls live in concord when you preachers sow amongst them your sermons of debate and discord... here will see these divisions extinct, and these enormities corrected.''

You can find out more about the Tudors as part of our English Civil War blog post series. Read the first article in the series by clicking here.