What Mary’s counsellors never understood (and Elizabeth later grasped instinctively) was that for a queen regnant to have married one of her subjects would have been massively problematic and complicated. Nor was Spain the habitual enemy in 1553/54 that it would later become, as demonstrated by Henry VIII’s marriage to Katharine of Aragon (who was, let us not forget, his brother’s widow). What’s interesting, and a sign of the way the succession is becoming a matter of negotiation between crown and parliament, is that although Philip was bona fide King of England and jointly sovereign with Mary, that status lasted only for Mary’s lifetime (unlike, for example, William III, who reigned for eight years on his own 1694-1702 after his wife, Mary II, died). Marrying Philip made a lot of sense geopolitically, as, had they had any children, one would have inherited not only England and Ireland (and the traditional formal claim to France) but also the prosperous Habsburg possessions in the Low Countries, with whom England did so much trade.
These points are all so fascinating, thank you for commenting. Mary’s reign (and the way that Philip’s role was defined) were clearly such a blueprint for what to do, and not to do, for Elizabeth, Mary II and othe Queens Regnant. The thought of if she’d had children also opens so many avenues of imagination; with England and Spain so connected by her children, so much of history would have been different.
Your description of her shut away for her confinement for all that time and then having to just quietly sidle out and act like nothing had happened was devastating - such a sad story.
Never discount the power of propaganda to take a female leader down — Elizabeth I’s propagandists were responsible for besmirching many other queens, I think. I love this. Thank you for this. I love Mary Tudor - one of the most interesting figures out there and one that history has managed to entirely flatten.
Also, she's never included in any of the GIRLBOSS LADIES WHO CHANGED THE WORLD books which [insert my issues with those sorts of books later] but she's so swept aside to make Elizabeth look better, when actually Elizabeth succeeded in part by seeing what went wrong with Mary's reign such as marriage. Mary also primed England to be OK with a female ruler, which helped Elizabeth.
Snapping fingers, saying ‘hear hear’, all the things. YES. Elizabeth learns from Mary. About husbands, about how to manage religions, about how manage public expectations, about keeping people on their toes. Part of why Elizabeth wins is because England won in the global empire race (and religion race), and so the narratives that have propelled that empire-building (Armada…) have spread worldwide - including diminishing Mary. Also: popular culture just loves to hate a queen.
I would love to hear more about your issues with GIRLBOSS LADIES WHO CHANGED THE WORLD books. I have had some questions about books like the Nightime Stories for Rebel Girls, even though they are beloved, even though their intentions are good, and I wonder if my questions are the same as yours.
I think they were a fantastic thing when they started out (15 years ago? 10 years ago?). Inserting notable women into the historical record, especially for children, was a needed course correction. I find these often veer too hard into “all women leaders have always been great” where… no. They’re not ALL great, nobody is. And messy people are worth discussing, and filing all the messy bits off of women like Elizabeth does her a disservice.
Yep. I think Elizabeth killed many more Catholics during her reign, but she got to set the narrative so all of Elizabeth's executions were seen as necessary (to her propagandists) while Mary was just a chaotic villain (to Elizabeth's propagandists).
What Mary’s counsellors never understood (and Elizabeth later grasped instinctively) was that for a queen regnant to have married one of her subjects would have been massively problematic and complicated. Nor was Spain the habitual enemy in 1553/54 that it would later become, as demonstrated by Henry VIII’s marriage to Katharine of Aragon (who was, let us not forget, his brother’s widow). What’s interesting, and a sign of the way the succession is becoming a matter of negotiation between crown and parliament, is that although Philip was bona fide King of England and jointly sovereign with Mary, that status lasted only for Mary’s lifetime (unlike, for example, William III, who reigned for eight years on his own 1694-1702 after his wife, Mary II, died). Marrying Philip made a lot of sense geopolitically, as, had they had any children, one would have inherited not only England and Ireland (and the traditional formal claim to France) but also the prosperous Habsburg possessions in the Low Countries, with whom England did so much trade.
These points are all so fascinating, thank you for commenting. Mary’s reign (and the way that Philip’s role was defined) were clearly such a blueprint for what to do, and not to do, for Elizabeth, Mary II and othe Queens Regnant. The thought of if she’d had children also opens so many avenues of imagination; with England and Spain so connected by her children, so much of history would have been different.
Your description of her shut away for her confinement for all that time and then having to just quietly sidle out and act like nothing had happened was devastating - such a sad story.
Never discount the power of propaganda to take a female leader down — Elizabeth I’s propagandists were responsible for besmirching many other queens, I think. I love this. Thank you for this. I love Mary Tudor - one of the most interesting figures out there and one that history has managed to entirely flatten.
Also, she's never included in any of the GIRLBOSS LADIES WHO CHANGED THE WORLD books which [insert my issues with those sorts of books later] but she's so swept aside to make Elizabeth look better, when actually Elizabeth succeeded in part by seeing what went wrong with Mary's reign such as marriage. Mary also primed England to be OK with a female ruler, which helped Elizabeth.
Snapping fingers, saying ‘hear hear’, all the things. YES. Elizabeth learns from Mary. About husbands, about how to manage religions, about how manage public expectations, about keeping people on their toes. Part of why Elizabeth wins is because England won in the global empire race (and religion race), and so the narratives that have propelled that empire-building (Armada…) have spread worldwide - including diminishing Mary. Also: popular culture just loves to hate a queen.
I would love to hear more about your issues with GIRLBOSS LADIES WHO CHANGED THE WORLD books. I have had some questions about books like the Nightime Stories for Rebel Girls, even though they are beloved, even though their intentions are good, and I wonder if my questions are the same as yours.
I think they were a fantastic thing when they started out (15 years ago? 10 years ago?). Inserting notable women into the historical record, especially for children, was a needed course correction. I find these often veer too hard into “all women leaders have always been great” where… no. They’re not ALL great, nobody is. And messy people are worth discussing, and filing all the messy bits off of women like Elizabeth does her a disservice.
It’s like her mother’s story, too. They’re made into villains in order to prop up Elizabeth’s legacy.
Poor Mary.
Those executions of Protestants were likely the main reason she became known as "Bloody Mary".
Yep. I think Elizabeth killed many more Catholics during her reign, but she got to set the narrative so all of Elizabeth's executions were seen as necessary (to her propagandists) while Mary was just a chaotic villain (to Elizabeth's propagandists).