HistoryFreak1912

According to my History of England to 1603 professor, Mary Tudor was treated wrongly by historians. She was not responsible for the St. Bartholomew Day massacre, and my professor believes that she wasn't as "bloody" as they paint her. Only 300 Protestants died under her reign.

He paints her as a tragic figure, a woman who tried to be a good ruler, and wanted to be a married woman, so she married King Philip of Spain. Of course, that ended up pissing people off more.

So, what's your opinion of her? Are his assessments correct?

Labienus

Pardon me, but wasn't St. Bartholomew's Day massacre in Paris, as part of the French religion turmoils of the 16th century?

As far as I know, it had nothing to do with Mary Tudor.

Tuor

Aside from being gorgeous?


I think I'd agree with your professor's assessment. I believe she did try to be a good ruler, after finally becoming ruler, foiling plots against her ascending the throne.


Ya, you're right Labienus.

tjadams

Mary had some big shoes to fill in an awkward time. I don't think she has been correctly portrayed by history. And yes, the one from "The Tudors" was easy on the eyes.

Nietzsche

Indeed she was a good ruler, although the death of a few is more than needed but the amount that lost their lives during her reign was microscopic in comparison with some of the others who ruled.

In my eyes that alone makes her a good ruler.

Star

You're right Labienus, historians are reassessing Catherine de Medici's instigation of the massacre. She was blamed for it, and many other ills of the French wars of religion. What a frightful time. Has anyone ever read "First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women" (Knox) ? I don't think I have the stomach for it, but it rails against the many regency governmnts headed by women in the mid 1500s.

Star

True, I have also read reassessment biographies comparing her burnings to the many ordered by her father. The difference is thought to be because she was zeroed-in on heretics and was influenced only by the catholic faction, and Henry VIII was indiscriminate in his reasons for execution...if I remember correctly. Her reign was much shorter, too. People spread the anti-Mary feeling during a long, prosperous protestant reign (so we see the weight against her was stacked).

But I tend to agree that she was villified.

Louise C

I think she was basically a good person but her persecution of heretics made her unpopular, particularly as the people burnt during her reign were mainly quite lowly. And her marriage to Philip of Spain was very unpopular and didn't help. If she had married someone different and burnt fewer heretics she might have retained the popularity she had at the beginnign of her reign. England, outside of London and the Home Counties, was still mainly Catholic, and she had a lot of support.

History Chick

I didn't think Mary was ever held responsible for the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre in the first place?

Anyway, you have to remember the old saying that history is written by the victors. Mary's attempt to make England Catholic again ultimately failed and therefore protestants as the "victors" would paint her badly.

But I don't think most historical figures can be labelled either a "good" or "bad" person. It's not that black and white - most are more complicated people than that.

Linschoten

Her persecutions were chronicled in great detail (and on the whole quite accurately) in Foxe's Book of Martyrs, and this had a devastating effect on her reputation. They make grim reading. At a personal level she was not cruel or vindictive, but she thought it was her duty to eliminate heresy, and to burn heretics where necessary.