What do you think?
Rate this book
Mary Tudor: England's First Queen
She was the first woman to inherit the throne of England, a key player in one of Britain’s stormiest eras, and a leader whose unwavering faith and swift retribution earned her the nickname “Bloody Mary.” Now, in this impassioned and absorbing debut, historian Anna Whitelock offers a modern perspective on Mary Tudor and sets the record straight once and for all on one of history’s most compelling and maligned rulers.
Though often overshadowed by her long-reigning sister, Elizabeth I, Mary lived a life full of defiance, despair, and triumph. Born the daughter of the notorious King Henry VIII and the Spanish Katherine of Aragon, young Mary was a princess in every sense of the word—schooled in regal customs, educated by the best scholars, coveted by European royalty, and betrothed before she had reached the age of three. Yet in a decade’s time, in the wake of King Henry’s break with the pope, she was declared a bastard, disinherited, and demoted from “princess” to “lady.” Ever her deeply devout mother’s daughter, Mary refused to accept her new status or to recognize Henry’s new wife, Anne Boleyn, as queen. The fallout with her father and his counselors nearly destroyed the teenage Mary, who faced imprisonment and even death.
It would be an outright battle for Mary to work herself back into the king’s favor, claim her rightful place in the Tudor line, and ultimately become queen of England, but her coronation would not end her struggles. She flouted the opposition and married Philip of Spain, sought to restore Catholicism to the nation, and fiercely punished the resistance. But beneath her brave and regal exterior was a dependent woman prone to anxiety, whose private traumas of phantom pregnancies, debilitating illnesses, and unrequited love played out in the public glare of the fickle court.
Anna Whitelock, an acclaimed young British historian, chronicles this unique woman’s life from her beginnings as a heralded princess to her rivalry with her sister to her ascent as ruler. In brilliant detail, Whitelock reveals that Mary Tudor was not the weak-willed failure as so often rendered by traditional narratives but a complex figure of immense courage, determination, and humanity.
Though often overshadowed by her long-reigning sister, Elizabeth I, Mary lived a life full of defiance, despair, and triumph. Born the daughter of the notorious King Henry VIII and the Spanish Katherine of Aragon, young Mary was a princess in every sense of the word—schooled in regal customs, educated by the best scholars, coveted by European royalty, and betrothed before she had reached the age of three. Yet in a decade’s time, in the wake of King Henry’s break with the pope, she was declared a bastard, disinherited, and demoted from “princess” to “lady.” Ever her deeply devout mother’s daughter, Mary refused to accept her new status or to recognize Henry’s new wife, Anne Boleyn, as queen. The fallout with her father and his counselors nearly destroyed the teenage Mary, who faced imprisonment and even death.
It would be an outright battle for Mary to work herself back into the king’s favor, claim her rightful place in the Tudor line, and ultimately become queen of England, but her coronation would not end her struggles. She flouted the opposition and married Philip of Spain, sought to restore Catholicism to the nation, and fiercely punished the resistance. But beneath her brave and regal exterior was a dependent woman prone to anxiety, whose private traumas of phantom pregnancies, debilitating illnesses, and unrequited love played out in the public glare of the fickle court.
Anna Whitelock, an acclaimed young British historian, chronicles this unique woman’s life from her beginnings as a heralded princess to her rivalry with her sister to her ascent as ruler. In brilliant detail, Whitelock reveals that Mary Tudor was not the weak-willed failure as so often rendered by traditional narratives but a complex figure of immense courage, determination, and humanity.
368 pages, Hardcover
First published September 1, 2009
165 people are currently reading
5994 people want to read
About the author
Anna Whitelock
10 books78 followersAnna Whitelock gained her PhD in History from Corpus Christi College, Cambridge in 2004 with a thesis on the court of Mary I. Her articles and book reviews on various aspects of Tudor history have appeared in publications including the Guardian, the Times Literary Supplement and BBC History. She has taught at Cambridge University and is now a lecturer in Early Modern History at Royal Holloway, University of London.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 214 reviews
April 14, 2025
This is one of the harrowing stories of the Reformation. It surprises me that letters and papers remaining from the Tudor era should be so rich with family recrimination and accusation. King Henry VIII’s cruelty to his wife and daughter — so that Anne Boelyn might bear him an heir — is enraging. Mary has the reader’s sympathy at first. But then she goes on to burn 300 or so “heretics.”
But before that, in order to reconcile with her father, she is made to: (1) acknowledge the illegitimacy of her mother’s marriage to him, (2) confirm herself a bastard — relinquishing her claim to the throne — and (3) renounce the Catholic church. All things she had refused to do for years that cast her into exile in her own land. After Henry VIII’s death Mary is harangued, threatened with execution, and has her privacy invaded by Church of England goons for hearing the Catholic mass at her residence.
“ON JUNE 9, I549, THE DAY THE FIRST ENGLISH PRAYER BOOK became law, Mary celebrated Latin Mass in her chapel at Kenninghall amid incense, candles, and the chiming of bells. In doing so she publicly signaled her opposition to the religious changes and defied [her brother] Edward's authority as king. The Privy Council responded swiftly. In a letter dated June 16, Mary was given ‘advice to be conformable and obedient’ to the law: Mass was no longer to be celebrated in her house. Her comptroller, Robert Rochester, and her chaplain, Dr. John Hopton, were summoned to court to receive further instructions.
“A week later, addressing Somerset and the rest of Edward's Council, Mary responded directly to their charges:
“‘My Lorde, I perceive by the letters which I late received from you, and all of the king's Majesty's council that you be all sorry to find so little conformity in me touching the observation of his Majesty's laws; who am well assured that I have offended no law, unless it be a late law of your own making, for the altering of matters in religion which in my conscience, is not worthy to have the name of a law, both for the King's honour's sake, the wealth of the realm... and (as my conscience is very well persuaded) the offending of God, which passes all the rest.’” (p. 143)
I read the history of royalty but have no interest in the pomp. Therefore, when it comes to Mary’s coronation, I think the descriptions far too long. But one can’t blame the author. There are so many vivid accounts of that event, but to me it feels like padding. To wit:
“After the choir quietened, Mary moved to a curtained traverse at the left-hand side of the altar, accompanied by some of her ladies, Here she made her first change of clothing in preparation for her anointing. This, the most solemn part of the ceremony, was intended to mark the monarch with the indelible stigma of divine majesty. Her mantle of crimson velvet was removed, and she returned to the altar in a simple petticoat of purple velvet. She lay again before the altar, a pall held over her by four knights of the Garter, and she was anointed by Bishop Gardiner on her shoulders, breast, forehead, and temples with the holy oil and chrism secretly obtained from Flanders. Returning to the traverse dressed in her robes of state, Mary was led to the altar, where she received the ornaments, her symbols of power: the sword, the scepter, and the orbs. She was crowned with the crown of Edward the Confessor, the imperial crown of the realm, and with another specially made for her, a vast yet simply designed crown with two arches, a large fleur-de-lis, and prominent crosses. The choir then burst into a Te Deum.” (p. 210)
Unending this stuff, which some readers will love. Please, for me though, onward to the splendid autos-da-fé.
Most fascinating is when Queen Mary marries. Her choice is Philip II of Spain, son of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and her cousin. Now, when the people hear of this, they go bat shit crazy. Because while a King may choose any woman from any distinguished royal family he chooses, a Queen obviously doesn’t know her own mind well enough to choose for herself. This is where everyone gets Mary wrong, for she is shrewd and capable. Nevertheless entire armies march to prevent Mary’s marriage to Philip II, convinced the Spaniard will enslave England.
When the Queen’s army goes to meet with Thomas Wyatt, the rebel leader, he “dismisses their conciliatory overtures, declaring that he would not lay down arms before he had secured control of queen and capital, and proceeded to march on London. ‘I am no traitor,’ he declared, ‘and the cause whereof I have gathered the people is to defend the realm from our overrunning by Strangers; which follows, this Marriage taking place.’” ( p. 231)
In short order, he is beheaded. Mary undergoes a wrenching false pregnancy. Her husband, Philip II, leaves for the Netherlands, causing emotional pain. Then, as hundreds of dissenters are being burned at the stake, she goes about acts of Christian humility — washing the feet of the poor, giving them small gifts, praying over the scrofulous. To get Philip back she goes to war with France and the Pope. It is in her love for him that she loses all her former cagey shrewdness. And Philip more or less extorts her with his absence to act as he wishes.
“Principal among Mary's distresses were those that arose from her love for Philip and her resentment of her sister, Elizabeth. Philip's constant traveling left Mary bereft, ‘not only of that company, for the sake of which (besides the hope of lineage) marriages are formed,’ but the separation ‘which to any person who loves another heartily, would be irksome and grievous’ is felt particularly by a woman so ‘naturally tender.’ Her ‘fear and violent love’ for Philip left her constantly in a state of anxiety. If to this were added jealousy, the [Venetian] ambassador [Michieli] continued, ‘she would be truly miserable,’ as to be parted from the king was one of the ‘anxieties that especially distresses her.’” (p. 324)
Superb.
But before that, in order to reconcile with her father, she is made to: (1) acknowledge the illegitimacy of her mother’s marriage to him, (2) confirm herself a bastard — relinquishing her claim to the throne — and (3) renounce the Catholic church. All things she had refused to do for years that cast her into exile in her own land. After Henry VIII’s death Mary is harangued, threatened with execution, and has her privacy invaded by Church of England goons for hearing the Catholic mass at her residence.
“ON JUNE 9, I549, THE DAY THE FIRST ENGLISH PRAYER BOOK became law, Mary celebrated Latin Mass in her chapel at Kenninghall amid incense, candles, and the chiming of bells. In doing so she publicly signaled her opposition to the religious changes and defied [her brother] Edward's authority as king. The Privy Council responded swiftly. In a letter dated June 16, Mary was given ‘advice to be conformable and obedient’ to the law: Mass was no longer to be celebrated in her house. Her comptroller, Robert Rochester, and her chaplain, Dr. John Hopton, were summoned to court to receive further instructions.
“A week later, addressing Somerset and the rest of Edward's Council, Mary responded directly to their charges:
“‘My Lorde, I perceive by the letters which I late received from you, and all of the king's Majesty's council that you be all sorry to find so little conformity in me touching the observation of his Majesty's laws; who am well assured that I have offended no law, unless it be a late law of your own making, for the altering of matters in religion which in my conscience, is not worthy to have the name of a law, both for the King's honour's sake, the wealth of the realm... and (as my conscience is very well persuaded) the offending of God, which passes all the rest.’” (p. 143)
I read the history of royalty but have no interest in the pomp. Therefore, when it comes to Mary’s coronation, I think the descriptions far too long. But one can’t blame the author. There are so many vivid accounts of that event, but to me it feels like padding. To wit:
“After the choir quietened, Mary moved to a curtained traverse at the left-hand side of the altar, accompanied by some of her ladies, Here she made her first change of clothing in preparation for her anointing. This, the most solemn part of the ceremony, was intended to mark the monarch with the indelible stigma of divine majesty. Her mantle of crimson velvet was removed, and she returned to the altar in a simple petticoat of purple velvet. She lay again before the altar, a pall held over her by four knights of the Garter, and she was anointed by Bishop Gardiner on her shoulders, breast, forehead, and temples with the holy oil and chrism secretly obtained from Flanders. Returning to the traverse dressed in her robes of state, Mary was led to the altar, where she received the ornaments, her symbols of power: the sword, the scepter, and the orbs. She was crowned with the crown of Edward the Confessor, the imperial crown of the realm, and with another specially made for her, a vast yet simply designed crown with two arches, a large fleur-de-lis, and prominent crosses. The choir then burst into a Te Deum.” (p. 210)
Unending this stuff, which some readers will love. Please, for me though, onward to the splendid autos-da-fé.
Most fascinating is when Queen Mary marries. Her choice is Philip II of Spain, son of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and her cousin. Now, when the people hear of this, they go bat shit crazy. Because while a King may choose any woman from any distinguished royal family he chooses, a Queen obviously doesn’t know her own mind well enough to choose for herself. This is where everyone gets Mary wrong, for she is shrewd and capable. Nevertheless entire armies march to prevent Mary’s marriage to Philip II, convinced the Spaniard will enslave England.
When the Queen’s army goes to meet with Thomas Wyatt, the rebel leader, he “dismisses their conciliatory overtures, declaring that he would not lay down arms before he had secured control of queen and capital, and proceeded to march on London. ‘I am no traitor,’ he declared, ‘and the cause whereof I have gathered the people is to defend the realm from our overrunning by Strangers; which follows, this Marriage taking place.’” ( p. 231)
In short order, he is beheaded. Mary undergoes a wrenching false pregnancy. Her husband, Philip II, leaves for the Netherlands, causing emotional pain. Then, as hundreds of dissenters are being burned at the stake, she goes about acts of Christian humility — washing the feet of the poor, giving them small gifts, praying over the scrofulous. To get Philip back she goes to war with France and the Pope. It is in her love for him that she loses all her former cagey shrewdness. And Philip more or less extorts her with his absence to act as he wishes.
“Principal among Mary's distresses were those that arose from her love for Philip and her resentment of her sister, Elizabeth. Philip's constant traveling left Mary bereft, ‘not only of that company, for the sake of which (besides the hope of lineage) marriages are formed,’ but the separation ‘which to any person who loves another heartily, would be irksome and grievous’ is felt particularly by a woman so ‘naturally tender.’ Her ‘fear and violent love’ for Philip left her constantly in a state of anxiety. If to this were added jealousy, the [Venetian] ambassador [Michieli] continued, ‘she would be truly miserable,’ as to be parted from the king was one of the ‘anxieties that especially distresses her.’” (p. 324)
Superb.
March 17, 2023
ROYALTY PROJECT READ
3/12 so I decided on a two star rating. I determined that because I felt like this was almost an overview being billed as an end all be all. And I just can’t accept that. I have quite the hefty queen Mary tome on my shelf right now that will probably be more to my liking. Most other people would probably be satisfied with this book.
I just see queen Mary as a complex “character” of the Tudor period. I may even go so far to say she suffered second only to her mother, Katherine of Aragon. And that was just not expressed in this book. It was more of a timeline of events.
3/7 ok I think I understand what’s happening here. RE: my statement below
This author is doing a bit of narrative slight of hand. And actually it’s being done in a close to masterly way (if the reader had a simple understanding of the Tudor dynasty). As events occur unless that event has any relevance or affect on Mary it’s left out-period. If an historical figure who would have not typically had some interaction with Mary at a particular important historical event or introduction to another figure then those people are not mentioned OR, ( and this is what I like better) the one with more influence in Mary’s life will be a part of her story, but the connection between those other people will be at best glossed over -case in point the Seymour brothers. With this knowledge I need to return to the first chapter to see if any of this constituted an “error” or if there truly were mistakes.
With this in mind I’ve discovered I know more about Mary’s (or Marye as she spelled it) story than I thought. I think it’s easy for Tudor faction to just read about Henry VIII and Elizabeth I and write the rest off. That’s really an injustice. Currently my question is about her health. We’ve all read about her fragility and “female issues” and migraines. Not so much this book. They are glanced at, it’s almost assumed the reader just knows this about her. I think a lot of it stems from her Ill treatment and constant high levels of stress. Looking on it I’m a tad surprised she wasn’t taken out at some point due to her obstinacy. She was so popular until she so was not.
I’m on page one and srsly I think I’ve counted four incorrect statements. The first page people! This does not bode well. I’m thinking the author cut out details, which should not have been done, and didn’t notice that the butcher job jacked up the beginning of this entire book.
Good lawd
3/12 so I decided on a two star rating. I determined that because I felt like this was almost an overview being billed as an end all be all. And I just can’t accept that. I have quite the hefty queen Mary tome on my shelf right now that will probably be more to my liking. Most other people would probably be satisfied with this book.
I just see queen Mary as a complex “character” of the Tudor period. I may even go so far to say she suffered second only to her mother, Katherine of Aragon. And that was just not expressed in this book. It was more of a timeline of events.
3/7 ok I think I understand what’s happening here. RE: my statement below
This author is doing a bit of narrative slight of hand. And actually it’s being done in a close to masterly way (if the reader had a simple understanding of the Tudor dynasty). As events occur unless that event has any relevance or affect on Mary it’s left out-period. If an historical figure who would have not typically had some interaction with Mary at a particular important historical event or introduction to another figure then those people are not mentioned OR, ( and this is what I like better) the one with more influence in Mary’s life will be a part of her story, but the connection between those other people will be at best glossed over -case in point the Seymour brothers. With this knowledge I need to return to the first chapter to see if any of this constituted an “error” or if there truly were mistakes.
With this in mind I’ve discovered I know more about Mary’s (or Marye as she spelled it) story than I thought. I think it’s easy for Tudor faction to just read about Henry VIII and Elizabeth I and write the rest off. That’s really an injustice. Currently my question is about her health. We’ve all read about her fragility and “female issues” and migraines. Not so much this book. They are glanced at, it’s almost assumed the reader just knows this about her. I think a lot of it stems from her Ill treatment and constant high levels of stress. Looking on it I’m a tad surprised she wasn’t taken out at some point due to her obstinacy. She was so popular until she so was not.
I’m on page one and srsly I think I’ve counted four incorrect statements. The first page people! This does not bode well. I’m thinking the author cut out details, which should not have been done, and didn’t notice that the butcher job jacked up the beginning of this entire book.
Good lawd
July 5, 2010
This was dissapointing. I was hoping for a fresh insight into Mary I, to erode my previous bias against the Bloody Queen. The book was clearly in Mary's favour, almost idolising her at times, whilst demonising those who stood against her. Something guarenteed to turn me against her even more. I left this book with a worse impression that when I started. Perhaps she is just really that unlikable?
Still looking for a book on Mary not tinged with heavy bias so I can give her a fair chance.
Still looking for a book on Mary not tinged with heavy bias so I can give her a fair chance.
July 24, 2025
Mary Tudor receives considerably less press than her more glamorous younger half-sister. Elizabeth's long reign, fascinating relationships and excellent self-promotion (i.e. Mary's death anniversary is celebrated as "Elizabeth's Accession Day") have been grist for historians, novelists and movie directors. In contrast, Mary is often considered interim figure known primarily for her nick-name, deserved or not, "Bloody Mary".
Author Anna Whitelock presents a very sympathetic portrait of Mary. While she is highly persuasive, the sources she's relied on, such as Eusatce Chapuys, the envoy of the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, and The State Papers of the Vatican, I expect, are overly supportive of Mary. It would be interesting to see another bio, more reliant on other less partisan material.
It is clear, that history has not given Mary her due. She took strong, life threatening stands against her father and brother on behalf of herself, her mother and her cause. This sort of chutzpah for a woman of her time is amazing. Mary undoubtedly had leadership qualities; she inspired loyalty among her staff, the nobility and the population in general. On the death of Edward VI, she had great instincts and was decisive. She raised an army and plotted her own successful revolt against a seated monarch. Her first speech as Queen hit just the right note. It seems that once she achieved power, she didn't know what to do with it.
One does have to sympathize with Mary as she suffers the unnecessary stringency of house arrest in her tender years. Quoted material shows Elizabeth to have a cocky attitude, particularly regarding the Wyatt affair. Mary gets lip service but little support from her uncle (and sometime suitor) Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. While it seems that Philip might never have intended to stay in England it's clear he did not intend to honor the marriage treaty that kept him out of its governance.
You can see from Mary's story the lessons that Elizabeth learned. She saw how being the "rising sun" allowed her to escape blame for plots against Mary. She saw how a husband was more hindrance than help.
This is a good book, but it's a once over lightly. I hope future biographers take a closer look at Mary as a person (analyzing her relationship with Philip and her pseudo pregnancies), the Mary-Elizabeth relationship (nicely introduced in Elizabeth's Women: Friends, Rivals, and Foes Who Shaped the Virgin Queen but worthy of its own volume), and Mary's role in the burning of martyrs. At times she seems detached, but in the case of Thomas Cramner, revenge is clearly her motive. In the meanwhile, this is a accessible sympathetic overview of Mary and her reign.
Author Anna Whitelock presents a very sympathetic portrait of Mary. While she is highly persuasive, the sources she's relied on, such as Eusatce Chapuys, the envoy of the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, and The State Papers of the Vatican, I expect, are overly supportive of Mary. It would be interesting to see another bio, more reliant on other less partisan material.
It is clear, that history has not given Mary her due. She took strong, life threatening stands against her father and brother on behalf of herself, her mother and her cause. This sort of chutzpah for a woman of her time is amazing. Mary undoubtedly had leadership qualities; she inspired loyalty among her staff, the nobility and the population in general. On the death of Edward VI, she had great instincts and was decisive. She raised an army and plotted her own successful revolt against a seated monarch. Her first speech as Queen hit just the right note. It seems that once she achieved power, she didn't know what to do with it.
One does have to sympathize with Mary as she suffers the unnecessary stringency of house arrest in her tender years. Quoted material shows Elizabeth to have a cocky attitude, particularly regarding the Wyatt affair. Mary gets lip service but little support from her uncle (and sometime suitor) Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. While it seems that Philip might never have intended to stay in England it's clear he did not intend to honor the marriage treaty that kept him out of its governance.
You can see from Mary's story the lessons that Elizabeth learned. She saw how being the "rising sun" allowed her to escape blame for plots against Mary. She saw how a husband was more hindrance than help.
This is a good book, but it's a once over lightly. I hope future biographers take a closer look at Mary as a person (analyzing her relationship with Philip and her pseudo pregnancies), the Mary-Elizabeth relationship (nicely introduced in Elizabeth's Women: Friends, Rivals, and Foes Who Shaped the Virgin Queen but worthy of its own volume), and Mary's role in the burning of martyrs. At times she seems detached, but in the case of Thomas Cramner, revenge is clearly her motive. In the meanwhile, this is a accessible sympathetic overview of Mary and her reign.
January 12, 2025
she did nothing wrong! we HATE women just bcs they're not pregnant, mentally ill, and burning 300 protestants at the stake. that's really not that many people-- only slightly higher than the number of wives henry viii decapitated.
3 stars instead of 5 because i'm always wishing for more character analysis and after a fun run-through her horrible young adulthood, once we hit upon her reign we truly don't learn ANYTHING about her non-catholic non-marital activities and yet i'm advised by my late friend tommy cromwell that england is made up of maybe hundreds of behaviors and economies. "she was an incredibly industrious queen, doing paperwork for hours every afternoon" ok what's on those papers?!
3 stars instead of 5 because i'm always wishing for more character analysis and after a fun run-through her horrible young adulthood, once we hit upon her reign we truly don't learn ANYTHING about her non-catholic non-marital activities and yet i'm advised by my late friend tommy cromwell that england is made up of maybe hundreds of behaviors and economies. "she was an incredibly industrious queen, doing paperwork for hours every afternoon" ok what's on those papers?!
June 21, 2011
I know what you may be thinking: that you love Elizabeth I and that Mary is just, well, her depressed older-half sister who as a staunch Catholic had 300 heretics burned. What you must realize is that Mary was a trailblazer as the first Queen of England, she paved the way for Elizabeth. There would be no Elizabeth without Mary. Mary was a fighter and fought for her throne: literally. Her coup was the most succesful revolt against central government in 16th-century England.
If you are interested in discovering the world of Mary which goes far beyond the confines of popular propaganda via John Knox and John Foxe depicting her a conservative, "bloody", and evil leader; then settle down with a copy of this book. Whitelock provides a overview of Mary's entire life from the moment of birth to her death (that would be 42 years). Sadly, this novel is less annotated than would be preferable and there are no facts or revealing information which you haven't heard before so you won't be left astounded. Simply put, Whitelock's offering is better as a refresher course on Mary Tudor's life or as an introduction to someone who may have never read about her before.
One of the stronger highlights was the explanation regarding the loss of Calais to the French. Mary is always blamed for this loss (and she has revealed that it was her biggest heartbreak) but most books never go beyond the accusation of her loss. Whitelock dives deeper and explains how although against popular sentiment, Mary had to enter war against the French because of rebellions against her person backed by the French. Garrisons weren't properly protected and the council and parliment refused to supply the men in Calais so basically the loss resulted in fingers pointing in every direction on who was to blame. Like any war where the victory is attributed to the leader, conversely the loss was blamed on Mary. This is the first book to make these actions clear.
Unfortunately, I do have some complaints. The book has some sequencing issues and would jump from explaining events in one year and then back track and go ahead once more. It can get confusing if you are the type of reader who liked to keep track of dates. Additionally, the cause of reversing Mary's poor reputation was somewhat lost. If you are writing a book to change popular opinions, you have to be argumentative, vindicative, and strong. The epiloque was more moving and against the propaganda than the actual text. Basically, the book doesn't sway you until the end.
Again, not a bad choice as a refresher or an introduction to Mary and certainly (despite my complaints) a interesting and smooth-paced read.
If you are interested in discovering the world of Mary which goes far beyond the confines of popular propaganda via John Knox and John Foxe depicting her a conservative, "bloody", and evil leader; then settle down with a copy of this book. Whitelock provides a overview of Mary's entire life from the moment of birth to her death (that would be 42 years). Sadly, this novel is less annotated than would be preferable and there are no facts or revealing information which you haven't heard before so you won't be left astounded. Simply put, Whitelock's offering is better as a refresher course on Mary Tudor's life or as an introduction to someone who may have never read about her before.
One of the stronger highlights was the explanation regarding the loss of Calais to the French. Mary is always blamed for this loss (and she has revealed that it was her biggest heartbreak) but most books never go beyond the accusation of her loss. Whitelock dives deeper and explains how although against popular sentiment, Mary had to enter war against the French because of rebellions against her person backed by the French. Garrisons weren't properly protected and the council and parliment refused to supply the men in Calais so basically the loss resulted in fingers pointing in every direction on who was to blame. Like any war where the victory is attributed to the leader, conversely the loss was blamed on Mary. This is the first book to make these actions clear.
Unfortunately, I do have some complaints. The book has some sequencing issues and would jump from explaining events in one year and then back track and go ahead once more. It can get confusing if you are the type of reader who liked to keep track of dates. Additionally, the cause of reversing Mary's poor reputation was somewhat lost. If you are writing a book to change popular opinions, you have to be argumentative, vindicative, and strong. The epiloque was more moving and against the propaganda than the actual text. Basically, the book doesn't sway you until the end.
Again, not a bad choice as a refresher or an introduction to Mary and certainly (despite my complaints) a interesting and smooth-paced read.
August 28, 2015
Mary Tudor,yang turut dikenali sebagai Mary I (18 Februari 1516 - 17 November 1558) merupakan Ratu England pertama yang naik takhta sebagai pemerintah berdaulat pada Julai 1553. Lantas,menjadikan Mary wanita pertama yang diiktiraf sedemikian rupa. Tambah menarik,baginda juga merupakan seorang yang beragama Kristian Katolik,sebuah mazhab agama yang pada ketika itu dilarang anutannya di England. Sepanjang pemerintahannya,tidak terlepas beberapa peristiwa yang menimbulkan kontroversi. Paling popular,pembunuhan terhadap lebih kurang 300 penganut Protestan. Peristiwa ini menyebabkan baginda digelar Bloody Mary oleh para penentangnya. Melalui buku ini,Mary Tudor: England's First Queen,Anna Whitelock cuba untuk membersihkan nama Mary dan cuba memberikan imej yang lebih positif. Whitelock beranggapan bahawa Mary sering disalahanggap. Disebalik imej seorang Ratu yang dianggap kejam ini,terdapat imej atau personaliti yang berlainan sama sekali. Keteguhan kepercayaan kepada agamanya,anak yang taat kepada ibu-bapa,bakat kepimpinan dan karisma merupakan antara sifat-sifat yang dimiliki Mary.
Melalui pembacaan saya,saya merasakan buku ini umpama sebuah buku biografi rasmi mengenai Ratu Mary,walaupun penulisnya bukanlah dari era yang sama dengan subjek penulisannya. Penulis sendiri tidak menyembunyikan 'berat sebelahnya' dengan menyatakan sendiri di ruangan 'Penghargaan' bahawa sememangnya adalah niat beliau untuk memberikan perspektif yang lebih positif mengenai Mary,terutamanya kepada generasi kini. Perkara ini mungkin akan menimbulkan persoalan di kalangan pembaca yang lebih suka kepada penulisan yang objektif sifatnya. Namun,pada pandangan saya,saya alu-alukan penulisan yang sebegini. Saya akui pengetahuan saya mengenai monarki British masih cetek. Jadi,buku tulisan Whitelock ini boleh dijadikan batu asas untuk mengenali Mary dan membaca lebih banyak bahan bacaan mengenai baginda.
Melalui pembacaan saya,saya merasakan buku ini umpama sebuah buku biografi rasmi mengenai Ratu Mary,walaupun penulisnya bukanlah dari era yang sama dengan subjek penulisannya. Penulis sendiri tidak menyembunyikan 'berat sebelahnya' dengan menyatakan sendiri di ruangan 'Penghargaan' bahawa sememangnya adalah niat beliau untuk memberikan perspektif yang lebih positif mengenai Mary,terutamanya kepada generasi kini. Perkara ini mungkin akan menimbulkan persoalan di kalangan pembaca yang lebih suka kepada penulisan yang objektif sifatnya. Namun,pada pandangan saya,saya alu-alukan penulisan yang sebegini. Saya akui pengetahuan saya mengenai monarki British masih cetek. Jadi,buku tulisan Whitelock ini boleh dijadikan batu asas untuk mengenali Mary dan membaca lebih banyak bahan bacaan mengenai baginda.
February 9, 2017
History has vilified her as Bloody Mary. Why? Because she burnt over 300 heretics in her reign. She tried to stem the tide of Protestantism in England, to return the country to the Catholicism that reigned at her birth and until her father's lust (for both power and women) got the better of him. Unable to produce an heir, the crown returned to a Protestant (Queen Elizabeth I) and Mary was consequently vilified on religious grounds.
I had always thought that Elizabeth was the first queen of England and that her sister Mary was Mary Queen of Scots. How little I knew! Mary Tudor was a phenomenal woman. She lived in interesting times. To have your entire family turned against you for your beliefs - beliefs that they shared until very recently - must be extremely disorienting for anyone. She handled herself extremely well. I am impressed by her complete belief and the way that she was willing to stand by her belief and not simply renounce it for another, milder version of the same faith as so many others did. Unlike Elizabeth, she was not willing to pretend to comply with the religious dictates of her family and the law. She was prepared to die for what she believed. History would have been far kinder to her if she had.
This is a story of a remarkable woman. I admire her greatly for her unwavering determination to do what she believed was right. I may not agree with what she believed, or what she did, but I admire the courage that she showed at a time when she was abandoned by all who should have supported her. This is a woman who did much for the equality of women and the rights of women at a time when the notion was never even considered. This is a highly recommended biography.
I had always thought that Elizabeth was the first queen of England and that her sister Mary was Mary Queen of Scots. How little I knew! Mary Tudor was a phenomenal woman. She lived in interesting times. To have your entire family turned against you for your beliefs - beliefs that they shared until very recently - must be extremely disorienting for anyone. She handled herself extremely well. I am impressed by her complete belief and the way that she was willing to stand by her belief and not simply renounce it for another, milder version of the same faith as so many others did. Unlike Elizabeth, she was not willing to pretend to comply with the religious dictates of her family and the law. She was prepared to die for what she believed. History would have been far kinder to her if she had.
This is a story of a remarkable woman. I admire her greatly for her unwavering determination to do what she believed was right. I may not agree with what she believed, or what she did, but I admire the courage that she showed at a time when she was abandoned by all who should have supported her. This is a woman who did much for the equality of women and the rights of women at a time when the notion was never even considered. This is a highly recommended biography.
June 9, 2012
Well written, interesting and thankfully, the author does a nice job of differentiating between all the same names! Charles, Henry, Mary,ect- wow -seems like 90% of the folks during the 16th Century had about 5 different names to choose from!
Very much enjoyed this book- gave me more info on the Tutors- a subject I am quite interested in- and continue to read about- Unlike the more famous Alison Weir- The author tells a story...she does not spend countless pages on minute details like Weir who can write a whole chapter on the different types of fabrics used in the dresses of that time- to show off how much research she has done- Whitelock includes alot of information and a facinating narrative.
Very much enjoyed this book- gave me more info on the Tutors- a subject I am quite interested in- and continue to read about- Unlike the more famous Alison Weir- The author tells a story...she does not spend countless pages on minute details like Weir who can write a whole chapter on the different types of fabrics used in the dresses of that time- to show off how much research she has done- Whitelock includes alot of information and a facinating narrative.
November 27, 2015
Mary Tudor highly deserves a more appropriate title than history gives her and this bio really shows who she really was.Not the "Bloody Mary" of legend but a trailblazer for queenship in England,a courageous,intelligent and very capable queen who accomplished most everything she set out to do.She won her rightful throne,married her prince and returned the country to Roman Catholicism.This was a basic introduction to Mary I and I don't think I could have read a much better one.It didn't happen to be too detailed but for someone looking for an overview of her life you can't go wrong with this.A very readable,intelligent account.
August 13, 2025
Mary had a beleaguered upbringing. With her mother Katherine of Aragon cast aside for Anne Boleyn and now titled, the Kings bastard, she was virtually sent to imprisonment in the countryside. Unable to converse with her mother nor see her in person, she wept alone when her mother passed nearby.
With the death of her half brother Edward VI, who was 15, Mary ascended the throne after ousting the nine day Queen, Lady Jane Grey. This due to Mary's Spanish decent, proclaimed our sweet isles Catholic. Obviously people descented, only to burned at the stake for their protestant values.
To kick the general public in the teeth, she then married Spanish Prince Phillip, so the people thought they were now ruled by Spain. Various uprisings were quashed but the mood of the public was in favour of Mary's half sister, Elizabeth. The daughter of Anne Boleyn. A confirmed protestant.
Most of the turmoils of the Tudor period was caused by religion. Even today, most wars are caused by it. It all depends which fictitious entity you happen to believe in. Luckily, Mary did everyone a favour and died aged 42 in 1558. Ever known, as Bloody Mary for her burnings, she was definitely Henry the eighths daughter.
A very good trip down memory lane
With the death of her half brother Edward VI, who was 15, Mary ascended the throne after ousting the nine day Queen, Lady Jane Grey. This due to Mary's Spanish decent, proclaimed our sweet isles Catholic. Obviously people descented, only to burned at the stake for their protestant values.
To kick the general public in the teeth, she then married Spanish Prince Phillip, so the people thought they were now ruled by Spain. Various uprisings were quashed but the mood of the public was in favour of Mary's half sister, Elizabeth. The daughter of Anne Boleyn. A confirmed protestant.
Most of the turmoils of the Tudor period was caused by religion. Even today, most wars are caused by it. It all depends which fictitious entity you happen to believe in. Luckily, Mary did everyone a favour and died aged 42 in 1558. Ever known, as Bloody Mary for her burnings, she was definitely Henry the eighths daughter.
A very good trip down memory lane
October 30, 2020
The first time I read it, I gave it four stars. Looking back, I was wrong. This merits five stars because rather than revisiting history, Anna Whitelock reports history. She doesn't judge this figures nor adds her own spin to fill in the gaps but rather admits that some gaps that are still missing in Mary's story, aren't likely to be filled anytime soon (or ever). When she makes inferences, these are done based on people's attitudes and the geo-political and religious situation wrecking Europe at the time.
The story of Mary is a sad one. The union of her parents, Henry VIII and Kathernie of Aragon, started off as a fairy tale. Rather than blaming it all on her father, she preferred to lay the blame on others. And yet, in spite of her resentment towards the Protestant factions, Mary's life and Catholic practice shows that she could be the most forgiving royal. As Queen, she did try a middle-of-the-road approac but when this failed, she scaled back on her father and half-brother's religious decrees to turn back the clock on what once was. But this is where another dychotomy arises: Mary I - despite her propaganda machine - didn't do away with all of these regulations. She used some of these to reform English Catholicism and have a tighter control of the clergy. What she was trying to recreate here was something that had been attemped many times before by Plantagenet Kings and something her maternal grandparents, Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon, achieved in their respective kingdoms. This tells us that kingship - or in this case, sole queenship - wasn't a simple matter. As a politician, Mary had to embrace practical measures, but as a Catholic wishing to be reconciled with the papacy and to forge strong alliances that would benefit England and counter the Scottish and French menace, she had to show how devoted she was to her faith.
Monster, religious warrior or brilliant queen? To simplify her reign would be a huge disservice to her and other monarchs of her era, including her successor, Queen Elizabeth I; but to swing the pendulum to the other side would also be prejudicial. Mary was none of the aforementioned. She was the first Christian Queen to rule in her own name, England, Ireland and Wales. She committed actions that we would consider reprehensible today. Her Protestant detractors certainly did (though they were usually silent when the pendulum swung the other way), and some of her Catholic advisers, though not disapproving of her actions, believed she was acting to rashly. From her view, these were radicals who wanted to undermine her reign and radicalize the whole country. On the other side of the spectrum, they also though the same thing about Mary I. Yet, her efforts to regulate the church, help her friends and hesitancy towards her sister, speak of a kind and forgiving nature which she was ultimately at odds with the crown she inherited.
I highly recommend this biography, as well as Linda Porter's biography on Mary I. If you can, read them together so you can get a broader perspective on England's first Queen.
The story of Mary is a sad one. The union of her parents, Henry VIII and Kathernie of Aragon, started off as a fairy tale. Rather than blaming it all on her father, she preferred to lay the blame on others. And yet, in spite of her resentment towards the Protestant factions, Mary's life and Catholic practice shows that she could be the most forgiving royal. As Queen, she did try a middle-of-the-road approac but when this failed, she scaled back on her father and half-brother's religious decrees to turn back the clock on what once was. But this is where another dychotomy arises: Mary I - despite her propaganda machine - didn't do away with all of these regulations. She used some of these to reform English Catholicism and have a tighter control of the clergy. What she was trying to recreate here was something that had been attemped many times before by Plantagenet Kings and something her maternal grandparents, Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon, achieved in their respective kingdoms. This tells us that kingship - or in this case, sole queenship - wasn't a simple matter. As a politician, Mary had to embrace practical measures, but as a Catholic wishing to be reconciled with the papacy and to forge strong alliances that would benefit England and counter the Scottish and French menace, she had to show how devoted she was to her faith.
Monster, religious warrior or brilliant queen? To simplify her reign would be a huge disservice to her and other monarchs of her era, including her successor, Queen Elizabeth I; but to swing the pendulum to the other side would also be prejudicial. Mary was none of the aforementioned. She was the first Christian Queen to rule in her own name, England, Ireland and Wales. She committed actions that we would consider reprehensible today. Her Protestant detractors certainly did (though they were usually silent when the pendulum swung the other way), and some of her Catholic advisers, though not disapproving of her actions, believed she was acting to rashly. From her view, these were radicals who wanted to undermine her reign and radicalize the whole country. On the other side of the spectrum, they also though the same thing about Mary I. Yet, her efforts to regulate the church, help her friends and hesitancy towards her sister, speak of a kind and forgiving nature which she was ultimately at odds with the crown she inherited.
I highly recommend this biography, as well as Linda Porter's biography on Mary I. If you can, read them together so you can get a broader perspective on England's first Queen.
April 7, 2010
Bloody Mary! If history has ever painted any English monarch, then it certainly daubed a large brush, dipped in bright red gloss, all over Mary Tudor. Well, quite right too, wasn't she the daughter of Henry VIII who reversed daddy's break with Rome? Chopped the head off that pretty 19 year old Queen Jane? Set fire to heretics up and down the land like there was no tomorrow? Married the catholic Phillip of Spain for god's sake, and was nothing but nasty to the fair protestant princess Lizzy. If all that wasn't bad enough, she lost Calais!
Well just hang on a mo. Anna Whitelock's 2009 publication of England's first Queen paints a most sympathetic portrait of Mary. The daughter of Henry and Katherine of Aragon had always a Habsburg bond, that she held throughout her life. In the summer of 1553 she led the only successful revolt against government in the sixteenth century and restored the country to Roman Catholicism. Without Mary Tudor we would have had no Elizabethan England.
Whitelock's Mary Tudor is a great read, leaning heavily upon the Calendar of State papers,Domestic,Foreign,Spanish and Venetian and a wealth of historical manuscripts and letters that tell this history in the words of the participants and witnesses at court.
Well just hang on a mo. Anna Whitelock's 2009 publication of England's first Queen paints a most sympathetic portrait of Mary. The daughter of Henry and Katherine of Aragon had always a Habsburg bond, that she held throughout her life. In the summer of 1553 she led the only successful revolt against government in the sixteenth century and restored the country to Roman Catholicism. Without Mary Tudor we would have had no Elizabethan England.
Whitelock's Mary Tudor is a great read, leaning heavily upon the Calendar of State papers,Domestic,Foreign,Spanish and Venetian and a wealth of historical manuscripts and letters that tell this history in the words of the participants and witnesses at court.
April 12, 2017
An amazing biography
November 8, 2021
This biography of Mary Tudor reads almost like a novel and with a life as dramatic as Mary Tudor's, it makes for easy reading. The author is clearly sympathetic to Mary and her circumstances, and I appreciate that stance in a biographer. I do wish more had been included about Mary's governance, her approach to politics, the extent of her religious transformation, and analysis of her foreign policy. The glimpses of these aspects are intriguing - Mary sometimes stood her ground in the face of opposition from her councilors, her husband, and even the Pope toward the end of her reign - I would love to read more about her motivations in these circumstances, as clearly she was more powerful and more adept than one may otherwise be led to think. Overall, this was a good biography of a queen often overlooked in favor of her more glamorous sister, but certainly one worth learning more about.
March 23, 2022
I truly am enjoying my history nonfiction books this year, and this was no exception. A readable, interesting view of one of my favourite Tudor monarchs to study, I will definitely be reading more from Anna Whitelock.
January 12, 2021
its about time i finished this
May 19, 2022
revision innit
August 12, 2023
An excellent read a detailed bio of Queen Mary I England’s first Queen highly recommended
November 8, 2011
After the many books on Henry VIII, Anne Boleyn, and Elizabeth I, here is a fascinating read about Henry's eldest daughter, Mary. History lovers, Tudor aficionados, and fans of the tv show "The Tudors" will enjoy this biography, as it's written in a style that is easy to read. Each chapter is short, but there's quite a thorough amount of information within the sections. On a side note, "Tudors" fans might be interested to know that numerous key lines from the show were lifted straight from history; quite a few examples can be found here. Readers get to follow Mary's entire journey, from her background in England with her mother, Katherine of Aragon's first marriage, to her death and the way the Protestants painted her as the "Bloody Mary" figure we've grown up knowing about. In reality, Mary was not that bad of a queen; granted, she had a lot of people killed in her quest to restore Catholicism to England, but then, didn't her father and sister do the same thing in their own right? Anyhow, readers will get to see Mary in a brand new, unbiased light. Between this excellent biography and the wonderful portrayal of Mary in "The Tudors," it seems Mary might be finally getting the positive recognition that she deserves.
January 25, 2011
My interest in Tudor history began early- I was booted off a tour of the Tower of London at age 13 for the running commentary I was sharing with my mother! Elizabeth has always been my focus, so I was very excited to see this book on Mary because she is so often treated as only a springboard to Gloriana. Unfortunately, this book just missed the mark for me.
Despite the wealth of information and historical references, this book never made Mary a person to me. The manuscript seemed disjointed, and at times contraditory in its assessment of possible motivations. Quite frankly, the portions about Katharine of Aragon were the most human; her daughter Mary still came off as a cardboard figure throughout the rest of the book.
I appreciated the effort to reveal more about this fascinating woman's story, but was left feeling as disconnected as ever from Mary Tudor. This book is a decent history, but reading it was not a particularly enjoyable experience.
Despite the wealth of information and historical references, this book never made Mary a person to me. The manuscript seemed disjointed, and at times contraditory in its assessment of possible motivations. Quite frankly, the portions about Katharine of Aragon were the most human; her daughter Mary still came off as a cardboard figure throughout the rest of the book.
I appreciated the effort to reveal more about this fascinating woman's story, but was left feeling as disconnected as ever from Mary Tudor. This book is a decent history, but reading it was not a particularly enjoyable experience.
November 7, 2010
This is a fantastic book and a really compelling read in a way that history books really ought to be. I came away not only knowing more factual information about this much maligned figure but understanding her motivations in a way that made much more sense than the rather incomplete treatment of her in most books on the Tudors. Considering the current hype and romanticization of Anne Boleyn, knowing the true story of Mary (and her mother) is very interesting and a good balance to inject a little reality about just how brutal that era could be to all women, no matter how powerful or which side of a dispute they chose.
January 16, 2011
This was a clear narrative account of Mary Tudor's life and times, but I've given it only two stars as it was really lacking in analysis; we know what happened, but I don't feel that the author really explored how things impacted on Mary herself enough.
March 10, 2016
Excellent.
December 13, 2024
The genealogies of the UK's royal families is a convoluted mess that properly requires the use of a slide rule to untangle. Aside from all the inbreeding, the habit of naming generation after generation with the same first names only adds to the confusion. Henry IV, V, and VIII dominate the history of the middle ages, as do Mary I and Mary, Queen of Scots. Rightfully confused after all the Marys in the historical record, I was nearly finished with this volume before I realized that Mary I and Mary, Queen of Scots were two different people. Mary I, or Bloody Mary as she has been known for nearly six hundred years, executed nearly 300 of her countrymen for heresy, a condition set in motion by her father, Henry VIII, and his demolition of the English church to accommodate his lust for Anne Boleyn. Anna Whitelock wrote this biography out of concern that Mary I has been maligned by history's chroniclers, but there is nothing in her study that would warrant such an effort at revitalization that I can see. Its real worth is as a reminder of how religion has always been a tool of political power to disguise the violence and destruction of the autocratic ruling classes.
January 27, 2019
This book was pretty good. The one thing that is disappointing or frustrating when reading about history is that you CANNOT change it. While reading this book, I found myself constantly wondering what would have happened if_____? Though I know the history of Mary I pretty well having been reading about the Tudor era since I was 12 years old (I'm 62 now). This book went from Mary's birth up to her death and did not linger overlong on any one particular time. Nor did it linger too long on characters that were not involved. Usually in books about Mary I, authors tend to get stuck on Elizabeth and how her birth affected Mary but this book did not. I really like that fact!
I would recommend this book to anyone who wishes to know why Mary I "earned) (erroneously in my opinion) the moniker of "Bloody Mary). And for anyone who wants to learn about England's FIRST ruling Queen and how courageous she truly was, this book is a must.
I would recommend this book to anyone who wishes to know why Mary I "earned) (erroneously in my opinion) the moniker of "Bloody Mary). And for anyone who wants to learn about England's FIRST ruling Queen and how courageous she truly was, this book is a must.
December 24, 2022
Even without in-depth analysis, I appreciate the author showing that Mary is not the absolute monster often made out to be.
March 17, 2024
Perfect book for those interested in learning more about the life & death of Mary Tudor / Bloody Mary / The First (reigning) Queen of England. The reviews of this book mention how the author writes from the side of Mary, glorifying her in a sense- and I agree with that. I liked it in this context, since most past reading I’ve done regarding Mary depicted her in a negative light. This book mentions critiques Mary faced both during her life and after, making it a point to argue both the negative and positive aspects of her reign. This book is packed to the brim with information & I feel more comfortable with my understanding of the Tudor dynasty after finishing it.
—————
My favorite quotes:
“Mary’s relationship with her mother is key, and Katherine must be understood not as a weak, rejected wife but as a strongly, highly accomplished, and defiant woman who withstood the attempts of her husband, Henry VIII, to browbeat her into submission and was determined to defend the legitimacy of her marriage and of her daughter’s birth.” (XVI)
“Regno consortes et urna, hic obdormimus Elizabetha et Maria sorores in spe resurrectionis. [Partners both in throne and grave, here rest we two sisters, Elizabeth and Mary, in the hope of one resurrection.]” / “Elizabeth does not lie alone; she inhabits her eldest sister’s tomb.” (XVII)
“It is the contrast between Mary as queen and the personal tragedy of Mary as a woman that is the key to understanding her life and reign.” (XXI)
“For Katherine, female sovereignty was comparable with widely obedience and there was no good reason why Mary should not succeed her father. Katherine was determined to prepare her daughter for rule.” (21)
“As Vives explained, men would benefit from having educational spouses, as ‘there is nothing so troublesome as sharing one’s life with a person of no principles.’ Since a woman ‘that thinketh alone, thinketh evil.’” (22)
“Chivalric romances were to be avoided, as they were thought to incite women’s imaginations and corrupt their minds, given their moral frailty.” (22)
“Besides reading, Vives approved of the classical female recreations of spinning, needlework, and cooking, as all such activities put off the moral danger of idleness.” (23)
“Mary’s love for Charles was so passionate that it was confirmed by jealousy, ‘one of the greatest signs and tokens of love.’” (26)
“As Nicholas von Schomberg, archbishop of Capua, wrote to the emperor, ‘in time of war the English make use of the princess as an owl, with which to lure birds.’” (33)
“Although Mary loved and respected Henry as her father, she refused to submit to him as king, and at the vulnerable age of seventeen, this meant painful rejection.” (59)
“… her only grief is about the struggles of the Queen her mother.” (63)
“Often when people came to pay their respects to the infant Elizabeth, Mary was locked in her room and the windows were nailed shut.” (64)
“Henry meant to fulfill what ‘had been foretold of him, that is, that at the beginning of his reign he would be as gentle as a lamb, and at the end, worse than a lion.’” (70)
“But Mary would not be swayed. As Lady Shelton informed Anne, she would ‘rather die a hundred times than change her opinion or do anything against her honour and conscience.” (75)
“On the day of Katherine’s burial, Anne Boleyn was delivered of a stillborn son. Four days earlier, Henry had fallen badly from his horse during a joust…” (76)
“I hope it may be so, and that no scorpion lurks under the honey.” (77)
“On the day of Anne Boleyn’s death, Henry VIII was betrothed to Jane Seymour.” (80)
“She was willing to obey her father in all matters except those that injured her mother, her present honor, or her faith, and in this she was steadfast.” (87)
“In one stroke she had been compelled to betray the memory of her mother and the Catholic faith of her childhood. She had signed away all that her mother had resisted until her death; all that Mary herself has clung to and fought so hard to defend. It was in this moment of total and agonizing submission that the seeds of Mary’s future defiance were sown.” (90)
“It was folly to think that they would marry her out of England, or even in England” / “for she would be, while her father lived, only Lady Mary, the most unhappy Lady in Christendom.” (105)
“As Katherine governed from Hampton Court, Mary was with her and later Edward and Elizabeth too. Both stepdaughters witnessed a woman governing and imposing her authority on her male counselors. It would prove formative for both.” (119)
“She would not succumb again.” (147)
“They are wicked and wily in their actions, and particularly malevolent towards me, I must not wait till the blow falls”
- Mary to Van Der Delft, May 2, 1550. (152)
“There was both ‘peril in going and peril in staying.’” (156)
“Riper age and experience will teach Your Majesty much more yet.” /// “You also may have somewhat to learn. None are too old for that.” (163) Mary & Edward arguing.
“This attempt should have been judged and considered Herculean rather than womanly daring, since to claim and secure her hereditary right, the princess was being so bold as to tackle a powerful and well-prepared enemy, thoroughly provisioned with everything necessary to end or to prologue a war, while she was entirely unprepared for warfare and had insignificant forces.” - Robert Wingfield (179)
“… these were extraordinary times: a woman was now to wear England’s crown.” /// “The first queen to rule England was a small, slightly built woman of thirty-seven. With her large, bright eyes, round face, reddish hair, and love of fine clothes, she cut a striking figure, though one marked by age and ill health.” (187)
“But unlike Mary, Elizabeth had no desire to be a martyr.” (202)
“Mary increasingly suspected that Elizabeth went to Mass only ‘out of hypocrisy; she had not a single servant or maid of honour who was not a heretic, she talked every day with heretics and lent an ear to all their evil designs.’” (203)
“…. the Tudor colors or green and white.” (207)
“Mary had told Renard that she had never thought of marrying before she was queen and ‘as a private individual she would never have desired it, but preferred to end her days in chastity.’” (219)
“Philip was twenty-six, eleven years Mary’s junior. She was the granddaughter of Ferdinand and Isabella; he was their great-grandchild. He had already been married to his cousin…” (220) /// they really kept it in the family, huh
“It was, she told them, ‘entirely vain for you to nominate a prospective husband for me from your own fancy, but rather let it be my free choice to select a worthy husband for my bridal bed- one who will not only join with me in mutual love, but will be able with his own resources to prevent an enemy attack, from his native land.’” /// “She warned that ‘if she were married against her will she would not live three months and she would have no children.’” (224)
“She had pledged herself to her country in entirely feminine terms but with an invocation of motherhood that was strong and resolute.” /// “Five hundred peasants were said to have deserted Wyatt in the night of the queen’s speech alone.” (233)
“In the past she had ‘extended her mercy, partially and privately,’ but ‘familiarity had bred contempt’ and rebellion had resulted; ‘through her leniency and gentleness much conspiracy and open rebellion was grown.’ It was not necessary for the mercy of the commonwealth that the ‘rotten and hurtful members’ be ‘cut off and consumed.’ His meaning was clear.” (235)
“At present there is no other occupation that the cutting off of heads and inflicting exemplary punishments. Jane of Suffolk, who made herself Queen, and her husband have been executed; Courtenay is in the Tower; and this very day we expect the Lady Elizabeth to arrive here, who they say has lived loosely like her mother and is now with child. So when all these heads are off no one will be left in the realm able to resist the Queen.” (236)
“The seventeen-year-old Lady Jane watched as her husband departed…” (237)
“More than half of her second sheet of paper was left blank; she scored it with diagonal lines so that no words could be added and attributed to her…” (240) okay Elizabeth, slay
“Philip and Mary were married on July 25, 1554….. and it was the first wedding of a reigning English queen.” (255)
“Mary was served on gold plates, Philip on silver to indicate his subordinate status.” (257)
“The conspiracy left Mary in a state of profound distress.” /// “By the summer there was reported to be something of a ‘siege mentality’ at court. Mary no longer appeared in public, living instead in a state of seclusion, the palace full of armed men and the queen so afraid that she dared not sleep more than three hours at night.’” (304)
“Once again, Elizabeth had been invoked at the heart of a conspiracy seeking to depose Mary, yet this time, in line with Philip’s instructions, the assumption was made that Elizabeth was innocent.” (308)
“She had lived a life ‘little short of martyrdom, by reason of the persecution she endured.’” (323)
“Mary had, the Venetian reflected, become a queen of regrets. She had been ‘greatly grieved’ by many insurrections, conspiracies, and plots that continually formed against her at home and abroad, and she mourned the decline of the ‘affection’ universally evinced towards her at the beginning of her reign, which had been ‘so extraordinary that never was greater shown in that kingdom towards any sovereign.’” (324)
“She was a King’s daughter, she was a King’s sister, she was a King’s wife. She was a Queen, and by that same title a King also…” (332)
“Mary had requested that her executors ‘cause to be made some honorable tombs or decent memory’ of her and her mother, but this, her dying wish, was ignored.” (334)
“But there is, of course, a different Mary: a woman marked by suffering, devout in her faith and exceptional in her courage. From a childhood in which she was adored and feted and then violently rejected, a fighter was born. Her resolve almost cost her her life as her father, and then her brother, sought to subjugate her to their wills. Yet Mary maintained her faith and self-belief. Despite repeated attempts to deprive her of her life and right to the throne, the warrior princess turned victor and became the warrior queen.” /// “The boldness and scale of her achievement are often overlooked.” /// “She was a woman who lived by her conscience and was prepared to die for her faith. And she expected the same of others.” (336)
“Upon her accession, Mary adopted the motto Veritas Temporis Filia- Truth is the Daughter of Time…” (337)
“In certain things she is singular and without an equal; for not only is she brave and valiant, unlike other timid and spiritless women, but so courageous and resolute, that neither in adversity nor peril did she ever display or commit any act of cowardice or pusillanimity, maintaining always, on the contrary, a wonderful grandeur and dignity… it cannot be denied that she shows herself to have been born of a truly royal lineage.” - The Venetian ambassador, Giovanni Michieli (339)
—————
My favorite quotes:
“Mary’s relationship with her mother is key, and Katherine must be understood not as a weak, rejected wife but as a strongly, highly accomplished, and defiant woman who withstood the attempts of her husband, Henry VIII, to browbeat her into submission and was determined to defend the legitimacy of her marriage and of her daughter’s birth.” (XVI)
“Regno consortes et urna, hic obdormimus Elizabetha et Maria sorores in spe resurrectionis. [Partners both in throne and grave, here rest we two sisters, Elizabeth and Mary, in the hope of one resurrection.]” / “Elizabeth does not lie alone; she inhabits her eldest sister’s tomb.” (XVII)
“It is the contrast between Mary as queen and the personal tragedy of Mary as a woman that is the key to understanding her life and reign.” (XXI)
“For Katherine, female sovereignty was comparable with widely obedience and there was no good reason why Mary should not succeed her father. Katherine was determined to prepare her daughter for rule.” (21)
“As Vives explained, men would benefit from having educational spouses, as ‘there is nothing so troublesome as sharing one’s life with a person of no principles.’ Since a woman ‘that thinketh alone, thinketh evil.’” (22)
“Chivalric romances were to be avoided, as they were thought to incite women’s imaginations and corrupt their minds, given their moral frailty.” (22)
“Besides reading, Vives approved of the classical female recreations of spinning, needlework, and cooking, as all such activities put off the moral danger of idleness.” (23)
“Mary’s love for Charles was so passionate that it was confirmed by jealousy, ‘one of the greatest signs and tokens of love.’” (26)
“As Nicholas von Schomberg, archbishop of Capua, wrote to the emperor, ‘in time of war the English make use of the princess as an owl, with which to lure birds.’” (33)
“Although Mary loved and respected Henry as her father, she refused to submit to him as king, and at the vulnerable age of seventeen, this meant painful rejection.” (59)
“… her only grief is about the struggles of the Queen her mother.” (63)
“Often when people came to pay their respects to the infant Elizabeth, Mary was locked in her room and the windows were nailed shut.” (64)
“Henry meant to fulfill what ‘had been foretold of him, that is, that at the beginning of his reign he would be as gentle as a lamb, and at the end, worse than a lion.’” (70)
“But Mary would not be swayed. As Lady Shelton informed Anne, she would ‘rather die a hundred times than change her opinion or do anything against her honour and conscience.” (75)
“On the day of Katherine’s burial, Anne Boleyn was delivered of a stillborn son. Four days earlier, Henry had fallen badly from his horse during a joust…” (76)
“I hope it may be so, and that no scorpion lurks under the honey.” (77)
“On the day of Anne Boleyn’s death, Henry VIII was betrothed to Jane Seymour.” (80)
“She was willing to obey her father in all matters except those that injured her mother, her present honor, or her faith, and in this she was steadfast.” (87)
“In one stroke she had been compelled to betray the memory of her mother and the Catholic faith of her childhood. She had signed away all that her mother had resisted until her death; all that Mary herself has clung to and fought so hard to defend. It was in this moment of total and agonizing submission that the seeds of Mary’s future defiance were sown.” (90)
“It was folly to think that they would marry her out of England, or even in England” / “for she would be, while her father lived, only Lady Mary, the most unhappy Lady in Christendom.” (105)
“As Katherine governed from Hampton Court, Mary was with her and later Edward and Elizabeth too. Both stepdaughters witnessed a woman governing and imposing her authority on her male counselors. It would prove formative for both.” (119)
“She would not succumb again.” (147)
“They are wicked and wily in their actions, and particularly malevolent towards me, I must not wait till the blow falls”
- Mary to Van Der Delft, May 2, 1550. (152)
“There was both ‘peril in going and peril in staying.’” (156)
“Riper age and experience will teach Your Majesty much more yet.” /// “You also may have somewhat to learn. None are too old for that.” (163) Mary & Edward arguing.
“This attempt should have been judged and considered Herculean rather than womanly daring, since to claim and secure her hereditary right, the princess was being so bold as to tackle a powerful and well-prepared enemy, thoroughly provisioned with everything necessary to end or to prologue a war, while she was entirely unprepared for warfare and had insignificant forces.” - Robert Wingfield (179)
“… these were extraordinary times: a woman was now to wear England’s crown.” /// “The first queen to rule England was a small, slightly built woman of thirty-seven. With her large, bright eyes, round face, reddish hair, and love of fine clothes, she cut a striking figure, though one marked by age and ill health.” (187)
“But unlike Mary, Elizabeth had no desire to be a martyr.” (202)
“Mary increasingly suspected that Elizabeth went to Mass only ‘out of hypocrisy; she had not a single servant or maid of honour who was not a heretic, she talked every day with heretics and lent an ear to all their evil designs.’” (203)
“…. the Tudor colors or green and white.” (207)
“Mary had told Renard that she had never thought of marrying before she was queen and ‘as a private individual she would never have desired it, but preferred to end her days in chastity.’” (219)
“Philip was twenty-six, eleven years Mary’s junior. She was the granddaughter of Ferdinand and Isabella; he was their great-grandchild. He had already been married to his cousin…” (220) /// they really kept it in the family, huh
“It was, she told them, ‘entirely vain for you to nominate a prospective husband for me from your own fancy, but rather let it be my free choice to select a worthy husband for my bridal bed- one who will not only join with me in mutual love, but will be able with his own resources to prevent an enemy attack, from his native land.’” /// “She warned that ‘if she were married against her will she would not live three months and she would have no children.’” (224)
“She had pledged herself to her country in entirely feminine terms but with an invocation of motherhood that was strong and resolute.” /// “Five hundred peasants were said to have deserted Wyatt in the night of the queen’s speech alone.” (233)
“In the past she had ‘extended her mercy, partially and privately,’ but ‘familiarity had bred contempt’ and rebellion had resulted; ‘through her leniency and gentleness much conspiracy and open rebellion was grown.’ It was not necessary for the mercy of the commonwealth that the ‘rotten and hurtful members’ be ‘cut off and consumed.’ His meaning was clear.” (235)
“At present there is no other occupation that the cutting off of heads and inflicting exemplary punishments. Jane of Suffolk, who made herself Queen, and her husband have been executed; Courtenay is in the Tower; and this very day we expect the Lady Elizabeth to arrive here, who they say has lived loosely like her mother and is now with child. So when all these heads are off no one will be left in the realm able to resist the Queen.” (236)
“The seventeen-year-old Lady Jane watched as her husband departed…” (237)
“More than half of her second sheet of paper was left blank; she scored it with diagonal lines so that no words could be added and attributed to her…” (240) okay Elizabeth, slay
“Philip and Mary were married on July 25, 1554….. and it was the first wedding of a reigning English queen.” (255)
“Mary was served on gold plates, Philip on silver to indicate his subordinate status.” (257)
“The conspiracy left Mary in a state of profound distress.” /// “By the summer there was reported to be something of a ‘siege mentality’ at court. Mary no longer appeared in public, living instead in a state of seclusion, the palace full of armed men and the queen so afraid that she dared not sleep more than three hours at night.’” (304)
“Once again, Elizabeth had been invoked at the heart of a conspiracy seeking to depose Mary, yet this time, in line with Philip’s instructions, the assumption was made that Elizabeth was innocent.” (308)
“She had lived a life ‘little short of martyrdom, by reason of the persecution she endured.’” (323)
“Mary had, the Venetian reflected, become a queen of regrets. She had been ‘greatly grieved’ by many insurrections, conspiracies, and plots that continually formed against her at home and abroad, and she mourned the decline of the ‘affection’ universally evinced towards her at the beginning of her reign, which had been ‘so extraordinary that never was greater shown in that kingdom towards any sovereign.’” (324)
“She was a King’s daughter, she was a King’s sister, she was a King’s wife. She was a Queen, and by that same title a King also…” (332)
“Mary had requested that her executors ‘cause to be made some honorable tombs or decent memory’ of her and her mother, but this, her dying wish, was ignored.” (334)
“But there is, of course, a different Mary: a woman marked by suffering, devout in her faith and exceptional in her courage. From a childhood in which she was adored and feted and then violently rejected, a fighter was born. Her resolve almost cost her her life as her father, and then her brother, sought to subjugate her to their wills. Yet Mary maintained her faith and self-belief. Despite repeated attempts to deprive her of her life and right to the throne, the warrior princess turned victor and became the warrior queen.” /// “The boldness and scale of her achievement are often overlooked.” /// “She was a woman who lived by her conscience and was prepared to die for her faith. And she expected the same of others.” (336)
“Upon her accession, Mary adopted the motto Veritas Temporis Filia- Truth is the Daughter of Time…” (337)
“In certain things she is singular and without an equal; for not only is she brave and valiant, unlike other timid and spiritless women, but so courageous and resolute, that neither in adversity nor peril did she ever display or commit any act of cowardice or pusillanimity, maintaining always, on the contrary, a wonderful grandeur and dignity… it cannot be denied that she shows herself to have been born of a truly royal lineage.” - The Venetian ambassador, Giovanni Michieli (339)
March 16, 2024
A nice biography of Mary Tudor. It really helped me understand her and her actions better.
September 10, 2024
First dissertation book read like a book for pleasure!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 214 reviews