Also remember a comment section on an AB files article (or was it Elizabeth Files…?) that quoted Starkey saying COA instilled something of a ‘martyr complex’ in Mary, most commenters saying it was mean/sexist…
And I kind of get that because he definitely has made sexist remarks.
Henry VIII wasn’t as widely-hated in England as pop. history genre claims.
The Reformation, of course, wasn’t universally popular by any means. He was certainly hated and there were definitely dissenters, but to claim he himself was “widely-hated” by the English people during his reign is erroneous, and it probably actually slides farther on the other side of the spectrum.
Actually, considering the religious upheaval, and considering the excommunication of the Pope (which allowed any Englishmen to rebel and depose him, said it was not treason to do so, and that those that did so would still go to Heaven) it’s incredible that they’re weren’t more rebellions than there were.
His reign was nearly 40 decades, and all in all there were only four rebellions. For roughly the first 16 years, there were none. None of the rebellions were aimed at deposing Henry.
The first was in 1525, against a high tax. The ringleaders of this one were pardoned after Wolsey interceded for them. There was also the Kildare Rebellion, the Pilgrimage of Grace, and Bigod’s rebellion.
In contrast, Henry VII had six rebellions during his reign, some calling for his deposition, within the span of 11 years. Edward VI had three rebellions within the same year. Mary I had one rebellion with the aim of her deposition within her reign of five years. Elizabeth I had seven rebellions, some with the aim of her deposition, within the 45 years of her reign.
So, doing the ratio of years vs. rebellions/uprisings, Henry VIII actually had the least among the Tudors, and none for his deposition.
That is rather remarkable, and the question of why exactly this was (despite the costly wars, despite how the Reformation hit those in poverty the hardest, despite the alleged extremely high number of executions– 72000 seems very unlikely) is a matter that deserves further examination and attention.
Right….I still believe Ireland should be counted. It’s very convenient to ignore Irish rebellions during Elizabeth’s reign (considering that most of the rebellions were Irish ones), but they were her subjects and their complaints and grievances were just as legitimate as those of her English subjects.
Hypothetically, if I were to discount Ireland, that means I’d have to discount the Kildare rebellion during Henry VIII’s reign as well (which I did include above), as that was an Irish one. Bigod’s is considered by some scholars to be an extension of the Pilgrimage of Grace, but I still included it as its own.
I’m also specifically focusing on the difference of rebellions that call for the deposition of their monarch vs. those that do not, and are just looking for reforms to laws, taxes, fines and fees, treatment of subjects etc. In regards to rebellions that called for the deposition of the monarch, Henry VIII had none while Elizabeth I did– and so my point still stands in comparison, even if we do disregard Ireland (which I still don’t think is fair to do).
*I do realize that I made the point above as being “as widely hated in England”, which is somewhat misleading. I should have reworded to “as widely-hated by his subjects”, as his English subjects were certaintly not his only ones.
While I definitely agree that Mary I suffered mistreatment as a teenager, I do not agree that this either justified or necessitated the later violence in her reign.
There’s a lot of this rhetoric in comment sections on YouTube documentaries– “is it any wonder that happened”, even going as far as saying that if those years at Hatfield had never happened (even going as far as blaming Anne Boleyn, in a roundabout way, for them– that her specific mistreatment of Mary guaranteed Mary doing this later), the violence wouldn’t have either, or at least not to the extent it did.
I’m sure it affected her psyche in some way, and it’s awful to have to to balance between two parents that want you to do different things. Surely she felt humilitation at being made a servant after a life of pomp and importance (de facto Princess of Wales), surely she was made to feel uncomfortable for not signing the Oaths she was asked to, and pain at being ignored/not acknowledged by Henry for doing so (besides to call her, later, his “worst enemy in the world”). While her mother’s treatment of her certainly didn’t match Henry’s callousness, and she always insisted she was legitimate, nor can I say it was entirely selfless, and much as Mary loved her, it was probably hard to know she wouldn’t do anything for her. COA begged to be allowed to visit Mary when she was ill, but wasn’t willing to take the actions that would have allowed her to do so. She was certainly capable of being manipulative, implying that she risked hell if Mary did anything to make her living situation more comfortable and reconcile with Henry (that is, to sign the Oaths) in a letter:
Answer with few words, obeying the King, your father, in everything, save only that you will not offend God and lose your own soul.
Even that to put up with any discomfort made her more holy:
I’m not implying their treatment of Mary was equitable in any way– Henry’s, obviously, was much worse– but she did receive a significant amount of pressure both parents, and that has an effect.
Nevertheless, I wouldn’t go as far as saying this mistreatment guaranteed the later violence. Maybe if her parents had continued to live together, maybe if COA had agreed to an annulment and Mary stayed legitimate in good faith it wouldn’t have happened, maybe if Henry and Anne married but Mary was allowed to keep her own household in the comfort and luxury in which she was accustomed to, and allowed visits with her mother, it wouldn’t have happened.
But I think the only potential scenario in which we can say it was guaranteed that Mary wouldn’t have had hundreds burnt at the stake is if, quite simply, she never had the power to do so.
