At three o’clock in the afternoon, of 7th September 1533, just thirteen days after she had taken her chamber at Greenwich Palace, Anne Boleyn gave birth to a healthy daughter.
The birth had been straightforward, and mother and baby were both fine, but the baby was not the boy that astrologers had predicted, or that Henry VIII thought that God would bless his new marriage with. Letters had already been written giving thanks to God for sending Anne “good speed, in the deliverance and bringing forth of a prince”, and they had to be altered. An ‘s’ was adding to the word ‘prince’. A celebratory joust was cancelled, like it had been when Mary had been born in 1516, but a herald proclaimed the good news, a Teu Deum was sung at the Chapel Royal and a lavish christening was planned. The baby’s gender may have been a disappointment, but she also gave hope. Her birth showed that Anne Boleyn was fertile and could carry a healthy baby to term. There was hope for the future, sons could follow.
The little girl was named Elizabeth, the name of both her grandmothers, and we know her now as Elizabeth I, the famous Tudor monarch who has gone down in history as the Virgin Queen and Gloriana. She certainly wasn’t a disappointment as a monarch.
I really admire Anne Boleyn, but I admit I’m more than a little mystified as to why she was such a great Queen. Hear me out please, I may be wrong but I refuse to budge on my judgement of her as a person if not a Queen. You hear how she presided over a magnificent period of art and theatre and that was indeed true. But it was true all over Europe as it was the height of the Renaissance! Elizabeth didn’t have anything to do with personally implementing policies that fostered it significantly, or did she and I’m misled? I think attributing this to her – someone born to money and privilege and the Crown – is a little insulting to the wonderful mostly middle class people who wrote, performed and worked their way to the top. It seems to me that her reputation as such has been drawn more from her longevity than any particular clever set of policies she put in place. Yes, she was competent enough to be the leader that quashed the Armada, but much of that was luck too, as well as the fact the Armada only came because of her execution of Mary of Scots. I understand the execution in the context of its day and would be willing to forgive that, but when you examine the situation more closely the poorer I see Elizabeth, because she quickly assigned blame for the deed to others, and failed to do the thing that ALL leaders MUST do (indeed it is the price of such) to take responsibility for decisions!
Where I am sure is her failings as a person. Whenever I read the story of Dudley and the Queens cousin Lettice, I’m filled with rage at her for being so selfish. She flat out told Dudley she wouldn’t marry him ever, but she put him in chains and denied him the happiness of a second marriage and a family. He knew she’d never consent, and followed his heart. Lettice for her part was in love and for what scraps she was given – she was second choice remember – for that scrap of happiness was too great for Elizabeth to allow Lettice. Elizabeth had everything she wanted, and not marrying Dudley was her choice, but she still was bothered by this poor woman getting her scraps, that she ruined poor Lettice’s life. I understand this was a different time yes, but good people are good people and bad acts remain bad acts. She gave poor Lettice a rough treatment, and her treating Dudley the same as before almost, proves that to me. Lettice was cast as the villain, Dudley was quickly forgiven. Let’s face it, Elizabeth was insanely jealous of her cousin and wanted her to suffer as much as she could for that injury to her pride, however innocently and unwillingly Lettice was to it.
That’s why Elizabeth was such a great Queen, at the top there. Whoops!
Quote:
“Elizabeth didn’t have anything to do with personally implementing policies that fostered [renaissance in England] significantly, or did she and I’m misled? I think attributing this to her – someone born to money and privilege and the Crown – is a little insulting to the wonderful mostly middle class people who wrote, performed and worked their way to the top. It seems to me that her reputation as such has been drawn more from her longevity than any particular clever set of policies she put in place.”
On the contrary, Elizabeth was known for encouraging those same middle class people to work their way up. Her court is filled with “new men” who became her advisers in a political sense as well as men who were interested in the cultural life of society at the time. To be an excellent dancer and a great wit, such as was the case with Sir Christopher Hatton, would certainly attract the attention of Elizabeth. Clever men such as Burghley and his son Robert became great statesmen and without the help of an ancient and noble aristocratic title.
When some of the more puritanical leaning figures in government, attempted to squash the burgeoning theatre groups, Elizabeth stepped in and created the Queen’s Men. Other aristocrats created their own groups such as John De Vere, 16th Earl of Oxford who created the Oxford Men (and probably inspired his son Edward, 17th Earl of Oxford). With illustrious patrons such as the Queen, who would then attempt to suppress theatre and the actors when the Queen herself had her own troupe of men? Related to this was literature, particularly in the form of plays and poetry, that blossomed throughout the period ensuring that eminent names such as Sir Philip Sidney are still known down the centuries. Shakespeare wasn’t from yeoman stock, yet he is acknoweldged as one of the greatest (if not the greatest) playwrights the world has ever seen. Intellectuals such as Francis Bacon wrote commentaries about his time from which we can learn much today. Other writers included women such as Lady Mary Sidney, Countess of Pembroke. She wrote plays such as “The Doleful Lay of Clorinda” (1595). It is possible that Shakespeare himself was inspired by her “The Tragedie of Antonie” (a translation from the French) when he wrote his play “Anthony and Cleopatra”. Then we have Aemilia Lanyer whose poems in her “Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum” were all in iambic pentameter. And remember, that Elizabeth herself was a writer too – particularly of the sacred.
Then we see that the courtiers built beautiful houses, many of which still exist today, in a bid to encourage the Queen to visit them (though this would be a double edgesd sword!). Though the Queen herself did not do much building she certainly appreciated her subjects doing so.
Artists were also encouraged and this was done through allowing them to create portraits of the Queen herself. There is a wealth of jewellery and clothing was beautifully and exquisitely made. Music, secular and sacred, spawned the names of Tallis, Taverner and Dowland amongst many.
To say she didn’t “personally implement policies that fostered” the renaissance is missing the point. Legislation won’t necessarily encourage a renaissance in culture – its possible it could suppress it!
Elizabeth, by making it abundantly clear that she loved music, literature, dance and theatre, became a leader of the arts and culture, and as such she encouraged others to create what she loved. Moreover, she protected those who did create – such as the theatres and actors.
So, without Elizabeth, we probably wouldn’t have heard of all the great men, many of whom were from middling class stock, as well as many women, who created such beauty in so many areas of Elizabethan life and blazed a trail that was then picked up in the early 17th century and then inspired other artists in the 19th century.
Well said, Bess, and I completely agree.
Even if people argue over whether Elizabeth’s reign was a golden age, she achieved so much, including:
(Taken from my article at http://www.elizabethfiles.com/elizabeth-is-main-achievements/2465/.
I believe that Elizabeth was a great monarch and deserves to be remembered as such.
Claire,What spot on points you and Bess make,we can’t condem Elizabeth, just because the King and Queens Mariage failed.There were all sorts of opticals against this soon to be Queen .Who to say that if Queen Anne had survived,but know sons ,Elizabeth still would have taken the crown in her turn,as we well know the out come of of Henry’s sons.This England was in ruin after the dimise of the King, know money navel,army ,alot for such a young royal to take on!!She got her smarts from someone he father and her mothers,lets not forget she was raised by Henry so to speak,that and with a royal gene pool,that is all these royal s know it is how they were raised.Also we must not forget Fransise Wolesingham, hope I spelled his name right?Her closest adviser and closest friend,he had a great part in cousel to Elizabeth1,he had one mission that was to see that the Queen live and ruled ,he saught all her enmeys and rid England to any harm to his beloved Queen Elizabeth. Her rgien as they say THE GOLDEN AGE. Happ Birthday Elizabeth!
Thank you for replying. I knew about the Queen’s men of course, but was not sure if she had started this herself or whether it was something decided by parliament. I assumed the latter simply because when she died it was not a question of the groups existence, but simply a change of name to the Kings Men.
I also had always liked that she had fostered ‘new men’; one of the few redeeming features her father had. That Tudor habit certainly didn’t last and disappeared for hundreds of years until the 1980’s when Charles felt he had to marry a virgin from aristocratic stock rather than the woman he loved, causing all sorts of heartache for everyone involved, when we are all better off being honest and not having silly rules that try to stop us being human! At least now things have changed sufficiently for Kate Middleton to be accepted!
I can see that I was not fully aware of how she really did foster the arts, and that is an impressive feat even for a Queen. That was why I was willing to hold my judgement on that for want of further information. Unfortunately I still do feel that she was possibly not a very personally kind person. I only have anecdotal evidence for those things, so we don’t know how ingrained that side of her was as to whether it was a trait or an abberation, but we know her animosity toward Lettice lasted many decades without the Queen softening and perhaps lessening the punishment at some point. Perhaps much of my worry of her as a person comes from the wide range of books I have read on non-fiction topics, of which she makes her appearance in many.
As you touch on, it was both a huge blessing and an enormous curse for the Queen to bless you with a visit. These ‘visits’ sound perfectly lovely until you realise that the Royal person in general, and Elizabeth in particular, travelled with hundreds of aides and servants who all needed their top class lodgings and treats attended to and all expected to be treated to tables full of delicious hot fresh food, enough for grown men each spending the day in the saddle! The costs and labour of it all were completely unthinkable in today’s money. Often, they would arrive late or leave late, or overstay their invite, and all of these possibilities had to be keenly ready for for Elizabeth was well known for changing her plans at the last minute. Deciding to NOT visit somewhere after all was enough to completely devastate a noble. They would be financially ruined from the wasted money (usually they went the whole hog and renovated their homes completely and dug lakes, put boats on it, made fountains, rehearsed intricate plays to mention just a few) but also ruin them socially by a public snub. One poor gent in London felt his residence was too shabby for a visit so he promised the Queen that he would build a beautiful home just for her visit. He spent so much money on it that when he died he was hundreds of thousands of pounds in debt (equivalent to many hundred millions now) and the Queen never expressed an interest to visit it even though he had made it specially for her. Another noble had the Queen and her party join him on the progress and he had very special artwork to show her at dinner. She gave it a glance and said nothing but in front of them all, gathered up his expensive table service including the salt dispenser, and put them in the royal handbag to take home! I’m telling these stories more of personal interest in personalities of history rather than anything mean spirited toward her. To me it’s almost likeable in a very eccentric sort of English posh way; something you could almost imagine Prince Charles doing while everyone gapes in shock at him! In any case; the worst stories of this sort of history belong to the English King that on his royal progress left, um, human waste in cupboards and under beds etc for the poor master to discover to his horror the next day or week! I can’t quite recall which king it was but possibly one of the Charles’. This wasn’t one of those things that just seem awful now to us, but the unfortune noble himself wrote an appalled account of it for posterity, so we know it was offensive even in that age of very public toileting!
I try to not even get into the Queen of Scots issue. Both ‘sides’ seem to have good arguments for either why Mary was a danger or why Elizabeth was criminal in signing the warrant. The issue seems so difficult to get a clear cut factual analysis of who did what when and what the law dictating and who and how that law was deviated from. I know it was another age and a figure head alive was a dangerous thing, but for the life of me the thought of poor Mary in prison for so long and her humiliating lonely sad death with her pet doggy wrapped in her skirts just breaks my heart. Elizabeth as Queen and lady, should at minimum have taken the responsibility for the act I feel. But perhaps that’s not a personal failing but a leadership one. It is a problem I’ve encountered with a few managers I’ve worked with. Poor managers love the part about being called a manager and getting more pay, but don’t realise that for that they are responsible not only for the successes – something they never have a problem taking credit for – but also the failings.
i cant accept how elizabeth treated her cousin mary either and i never will .elizabeth had no compassion in her at all for anyone ,she like her mother had one thing in common ,the crown and power ,well it didnt work out for anne and elizabeth ended up a very bitter lonely old woman ,as regarding lettica ,more power and contol there,was there no kindness and compassion and pity in these people we call monarchs ,they did send people to their deaths and got away with it ,how can anyone look up to these people and actually admire them .anne boleyn was not a saint or a martyr and unfortunately for her was not very intelligent ,look what happened to her , henry was jealous of everyone and spolt ,mary was half mad and elizabeth ended bitter and lonely at the end of her days just like her father ,no one could say boo to any of them without risking losing their heads .well i view them for what they were ,all power crazed.
But times were so different then Margaret, this is what we have to remember when we ‘judge’ them. Executions were part of those times, long before the Tudor age too, and long after.
The personality traits of those you have mentioned above are very black and white, but human nature is a complex thing, with a lot of grey areas, we have to take into consideration the time in which they lived, how they were brought up, what they were taught, and what they saw and experienced. As we apply to people today when necessary.
I don’t think it is fair to say that Elizabeth was without compassion. But from the books I have read about her she could be bad tempered, vain, jealous, and demanding. No doubt she could be spiteful, vindictive and contrary too, and all the rest of the natural human traits we all have to some degree, that doesn’t make her uncompassionate or a bad person without feelings, just a ‘Human’ one. I agree with you that she was probably a lonely person deep down, and afraid too sometimes, I bet there were times when she wished she had a husband and children of her own, instead of a crown, and how frustrated and empty she must have felt as a woman because of this. As for Mary Queen of Scots execution, she had been held in England for nearly 20 years, so it was a long time in the making of that decision, and I personally think Elizabeth lived with it heavy on her conscience for the rest of her life. If the ‘boot’ had been on the other foot, I have no doubt Mary would have done the same to Elizabeth if it was to remove danger from herself and her throne…which monarch wouldn’t in those turbulent times.
I can’t say I have noticed anyone on here portraying her mother Anne as a saint or a martyr, she had human weaknesses yes, but it certainly wasn’t the lack of intelligence that put Anne on the scaffold…it was the lack of a living son that did that, with the help of others.
Henry, was as you say spoilt, jealous and many, many other negative things in the end, but that was not always the case, the same with Mary. Nor am I saying that these people did not abuse their position of being an absolute monarch at times, it is obvious they did, just as people in power do today…many
of us probably see that some of the things these monarchs did as shocking, and totally unacceptable to our modern eyes, but their deeds were relative to their times, and to judge them otherwise is to judge them unfairly, as we don’t really know what it was like to have lived then.
Hi everyone. I just had to reply to this post. Of course Elizabeth was a great queen. Look at who her parents were. Henry VIII, despite all of his faults was a leader to be reckoned with.
Elizabeth’s mother, the great martyr, Anne Boleyn, was one of the most intelligent women, if not THE most intelligent (who was far ahead of her time) in the English court. Not only was she beautiful, more in a modern day than renaissance sense, she was a political animal and learned her craft by observation. If Anne would have lived during our time, I truly believe that she would have been Prime Minister of England, and would have done a great job of it as well.
As for Elizabeth, she learned early on in life to watch, observe, listen, and be silent. These are four of the greatest virtues any leader can possess.
Elizabeth was the product of a tumultuous relationship, and although her sainted mother was whisked away from her at the tender age of 3, Elizabeth never forgot where she came from.
When Elizabeth inherited the throne in 1558, England was a poor and almost bankrupt countryl. it took all of Elizabeth’s wits to raise her country back up from the brink of collapse.
When she inherited the crown from her half sister Mary, the country was on the brink of civil war, the coffers were empty, and England was the laughing stock of the countries on the continent.
No one believed that she would be able to rule single-handedly. Even her advisors, men such as Francis Walsingham and Lord Burghley didn’t have faith in her ability to rule single-handedly. The poor woman was constantly being bombarded with suitors for her hand in marriage.
Elizabeth went on to build a country greater than even that of her father and grandfather. She was a woman alone in a man’s world. A woman who braved the world of men, and came out the victor.
She has taught me to never underestimate the power of a woman!
Congratulations to Gloriana on this her 479th birthday.
Just a very sincere Thank you Claire and all of your followers who are helping to clear up the modern day perceptions of the Tudors. I just started your book – The Anne Boleyn Collection and am so relieved that someone is pointing out all of the horrors of Phillipa Gregory’s misinformation.
As to Elizabeth I , I ask all your readers to ask themselves to put themselves back in time – to imagine having Henry VIII as a father – a man who murders your mother; – and a mother who clearly loved you so much as to thwart society by allowing you to stay by her side at public gatherings (i.e. Anne Boleyn). Did Elizabeth remember her mother? You betcha.
add to this having a portion of your family calling you illegitimate… and always the possibility of misadventure in the form of unexpected early demise.
Not an easy childhood.
As they say – don’t judge someone until you’ve walked a mile in their shoes…
They were both on my mind as I sat in work earlier this afternoon. I know Elizabeth was born this day and the back of my mind had still stored something about 3pm, 479years ago today.
I have spent my lifetime reading about the Tudors. My favorite t-shirt reads “Team Boleyn 1533.” Having just come back from England I can tell you that my resolve for how I feel about Queen Anne and Elizabeth I is stronger than ever. Queen Anne was a very intelligent woman in a time when women were not supposed to be. What is remarkable is that her precious daughter became a ruler for the ages. All of you have better laid out those points, so I need not bore you.
What I wonder is how such a remarkable Queen came to be? It wasnt as though she was smothered with a mothers love,or a fathers guidance. Matilda had both and could not sew her country together when her duty came.(Thought you might enjoy my play upon words.) Queen Elizabeth didnt have any role models for positive female leadership within her country.In my opinion, she hardly had any male ones either. The mere fact that she survived using her own wits and judgement astonishes me. The pressure that she faced everyday would have made most women fold, and a few men too..I think.
I dare say the one thing that her dear mum taught her was, “Stay single and you can have your own mind. Marry and you become nothing more than a walking uterus. Once your married, if you displease your husband, many unpleasant things can happen. Oh yes, lets not forget you had better produce a male heir or die trying to do so.” Being an intelligent woman with your own ideas wasnt what was wanted in the Tudor age and to be honest, at times, isnt completely wanted in this age either. I have had my own tussle with men who couldnt deal with the fact that I had my own mind and ideas. Men who were very confused about their calendars. They thought it was the copper age, not the modern age. ( I actually said that once to a fella, I kid you not..his reply was “What does money have to do with anything?)” Of course, I live in Oklahoma where some people find their marriage partners at family reunions. Thankfully, most men are wonderful and welcome any fresh idea or approach to an old problem. More yet, those who are thankful that I was a problem solver, not a problem maker.
Id be happy to compare Queen Elizabeth’s resume with any King who has ruled through the ages. How could anyone doubt she brought about the Golden Age? Whenever a ruler can stabilize a country, there is growth in every area. War does not bring growth. When a people can think on other things beyond protecting themselves and their country, history shows we produce great things. Our ideas turn into our prose of choice…. be it math, science, agriculture, music, art, or literature. Literature being my favorite.
Well I havent added much to such intelligent thought. However, what I did find laughable on my last visit to the towers was this. Before, there was a small plaque that showed the names of famous people who had been beheaded. One name that wasnt accounted for was George Boleyn. Several prominent historians have pointed this out. Letters have been written,for years, by these same people to please add poor George to the list.
Now they have this very pretty large ornate glass “Platter”. I find it hysterical that the prejudice is still there. George was once again left off the list.
As always I am so very grateful to Claire for this site. It is a great deal of work but it keeps that twinkle for the love of history in my eye. Love to you Claire!!!!
However, Claire knows I impersonate Elizabeth I, as a living history guide to help students become excited about the Tudor Age. I gave my first lecture of the year to an 11th grade class, where a student asked me If Elizabeth I… really did give birth to her own grandchild. That blasted movie “anonymous” (I refuse to give it a capital letter.) has caused me grief in my effort to enlighten our youth. Between it and Phillipa G., I must stay on my toes to disband such wretched notions because we all know, it must be true if they made a movie about it…..right?
Thank you all for reading. Please forgive my dangling participles, typos and other great english grammar misgivings.
Prejudice has nothing whatsoever to do with it, and those Prominent Historians you mention are mistaken. George Boleyn’s name does not appear on the Tower Green memorial because he was executed elsewhere (on Tower Hill, behind the Tower).
The Tower Green memorial commemorates seven prominent people, mostly women, executed within the precincts of the Tower itself:
William, Lord Hastings (1483)
Queen Anne Boleyn (1536)
Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury (1541)
Countess of Rochford, George Boleyn’s widow (1542)
Queen Katherine Howard (1542)
Lady Jane Grey (1554)
Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex (1601)
With the exception of Hastings these were extremely high-status prisoners given a private execution, in Essex’s case because an uprising was feared if he was beheaded in public, for which event crowds of thousands would have assembled on Tower Hill.
I am always distressed at Tower Hill that none of the men killed as Anne’s alleged accomplices are commemorated. There are plaques for Edward Seymour, Cromwell etc etc, but no mention of George or the rest. Surely there should be a plaque to commemorate men who were clearly innocent?
It is odd, isn’t it? The names on the plaque relevant to that period go from Thomas More in 1535 to Lord Darcy in 1537, if I remember rightly.
I remembered this yesterday and sent a prayer up to the Lovely Ladies.. It just makes me appreciate the time I have with My two girls Rhiannon and Sydney, all the more …. Never underestimate the feminine power WE ALL HAVE !!! Much LOVE to ALL in these times of shift…
Hello all,
What an intriguing list of comments! Thank you all for making this my favorite history website to read. Frankly, I am torn over Elizabeth who had a vindictive nature at times, but was a great queen too. I wish she had been more kind to the Catholics still living in England, but I also believe she took her role as the head of the church very seriously. And, she took her role as queen equally as serious. To know that her father murdered her mother, but that her father was this powerful and fear king, must have been traumatizing for her to reconcile. I can only imagine the pain she went through growing up, and let’s face it, her sister Mary, went through hell too with Henry’s contradictory behavior.
The psychological damage done to both women by their father was perhaps insurmountable yet bot did surpass it, or tried to when they each became queen of England. However, going off track a bit, so happy Birthday to Queen Elizabeth!!
Should proofread before posting! Sorry for the typos!
Elizabeth agonised over sending Mary Stuart to the block. It was no light decision. Elizabeth was ‘landed’ with the problem of Mary – who was deposed and imprisoned by her own people after a disasterous reign. Escaping and fleeing to England meant the Scottish lords were relieved of the burden of what to do with her. I’m sure she would have met with an ‘accident’ or ‘sudden illness’ if she had remained there. The tragedy for Mary was that she had little to do except to plot and make trouble for Elizabeth. Ah, if only she hadn’t murdered her second husband and married his murderer she would never have ended up as Elizabeth’s prisoner;> Oh, and as for them being cousins – they never met, so they had no bond, and Mary had desired Elizabeth’s death many, many times, and had the roles been reversed, I don’t think she would have waited 18 years.
Elizabeth I became a great queen, I think because she as a young child learned from her father’s and mother’s mistakes. I honestly believe that she took everything in and learned what to do and what not to do. Her father changed women like he changed underwear and that in my opinion affected how he ruled. I think she learned from that and that’s why she decided to not get married. But I often wonder…..Henry, Mary, and Elizabeth acted a bit nutty as they got older. Phantom pregnancies, standing in a corner for hours before dying. Do you think the madness ( if it was madness) was inherited from Henry? Just my opinion that they went a bit crazy.
I don’t think Elizabeth was mad at all. The reason she stood for so long before dying was probably her way of not showing weakness. She knew what had happened when her sister was dying, and courtiers deserted her for Elizabeth, and I’m sure she didn’t want that to happen.
Elizabeth ruled at a time when women were not seen as effective rulers. Her mother had lost her life because she hadn’t produced a male child. That was a terrible legacy to live with. She said herself there would be no master at court, early in her reign. She had seen her father marry and discard wives, knew one had died in childbirth, (and then Katherine Parr did after her re-marriage), her sister’s treatment by Phillip of Spain and desperation for a child that never arrived and her cousin Mary deposed and her son placed on her throne. No wonder she never wanted to get married. But that didn’t stop her playing the courtship game, as did all the royals in Europe.
Claire ,I must agree with you and Bess, she makes some very good points!Elizabeth in on word GREAT.I think we can all see why Queen Anne gave her life for her child,and she was so right,Elizabeth1greatest Queen that ever ruled England!!! Baroness
I have to go back to Margrets reply ,lets not forget how Mary treated Elizabeth,always calling her the bastard,having her arested and jailed,almost putting her to death.Mary was not a very nice person and a very bloody Queen.
Mary was no better or worse than Elizabeth and killed far less people for political or religious purposes. Mary had treated Elizabeth fairly up to the time that she was implicated in the Wyatt plot and then she feared for her life. Quite rightly she had her arrested and taken to the Tower where she was actually kept in luxery and not in a dungeon. She was closely guarded and feigned illness to get away with being questioned by the Privy Council. She eventrually persuaded Mary and everyone that she was not involeved but Mary did not and could not trust her after this. She was returned to her house at Hatfield, a very grand palace with gardens and huge hunting grounds around it and although officially under house arrest was given a lot of freedom and lived in luxery. She even bullied and terrified her own guards.
Mary when she came to the throne was actually very careful not to cause a lot of trouble and let many of the people who had plotted with the not so innocent Jane Grey to seize her crown with respect and generous spirit. They were not executed and she even pardoned most of them. It was after six months that another two rebellions with many of the same lot involved that Mary was forced to try and then execute the Duke of Suffolk, Jane’s father and the other leaders. Yes, Wyatt and several rebels were executed, but only a fraction of them and far less than those killed by Henry VIII or Elizabeth. Jane was also on the brink of being pardoned and released when the second attempt to place her on the throne failed and Mary was advised that she could not allow her to live. She was too dangerous and a focus for rebellion. The reluctant Mary then did what Elizabeth did with her cousin Mary Queen of Scots and tried and executed her according to the law.
The numbers of heretical people killed seems much higher than it actually is because of the short period of time. Perhaps had Mary been lucky enough to come to the throne at the age of 25 instead of 37 she may have gone on the marry a better man, had children, lived for another 40 years and been a great Queen. She also passed fair laws for ordinary people and her religious policy was actually very successful. She was doing what every other monarch did in Europe: repeated heretics were seen as traitors and enemies of the state and the human race; they were seen as a threat to the entire social order; that made them dangerous and that was why they were dealt with harshly. We cannot judge the ideas of Elizabeth, Henry or Mary, or make claims about who was right in their religious policy by our timid modern perspective. You mentioned words like equality and tolerence in those days and you would be laughed at. The Tudors did not have any conception of these modern notions. In the majority of the country Mary was popular; it was the hotly Protestant south that did not accept her persecutions. Elizabeth would not come to the north and hardly ever into the mIdlands; she was too afraid to come as she did not agree with our Catholic ideas. She span that she was the most popular monarch in the world but she knew that this was far from the truth.
Both Elizabeth and Mary should be called bloody if they are going to be given such ridiculous names: but in reality they were no better or worse than each other. Mary was unfortunate to only reign a short time and Protestants are the winners and so write the distorted history. Her persecution stands out as it was for a short period and in fact was running out as the policy was starting to succeed. Propaganda and public speaking and writing also promoted the return to the Catholic Faith and was also having a large effect. Had she came to the throne earlier she would be remembered as a great Queen also.
As to the other myth about Mary not being a nice person; well how do you or anyoen know as we have never met either woman. We hear of Elizabeth not being very nice and pinching her maids hands and hitting them with hair brushes and slapping them. Mary very rarely called Elizabeth a bastard. She treated her well and protected her. She may have called her this from time to time, but she was also called this by her own father and others and Anne called her this as well. Legally both ladies were unjustly called bastard by Acts of Parliament and then it was reversed. Mary was a teenager when she was being bullied by the King’s council and told to call Anne Queen instead of her mother and declare her parents marriage illegal. You know what teenagers are like and even more so when the evil step mother figure comes in. I do not believe Anne was an evil step mother but she is often portrayed in this manner. But how would you like your mother to be shut away and you not allowed to see her especially in the years that you need her most: your teens? Of course she reacted and for her Catherine her mother was the real Queen. Wh can blame her for rebelling and for reacting again when she felt threatened for her life? She did the correct thing in arresting Elizabeth. It may have been wrong, but she came to common sense in the end and sent her to Hatfield instead.
Elizabeth also showed some clever dealings here with the letter that she wrote and playing one side off against the other. She saw how things could be if you rebelled and that made her wiser than Mary, in some things; and that may have helped her as Queen.
It is said that The Virgin Queen never married because she was secretly a man its so interesting you never know it is also said that when she was young she was very ill and her father King Henry Vlll was coming to visit her but she has already died and the people that had to tell King Henry were afraid they were going to be killed so they got a boy Elizabeths age put him in he robes and he acted like Elizabeth she barely spoke so he just had to sit there and as time grew by and he was growing up he would were wigs pluck all his eyebrows and wear very long and buff clothing that would hide his masculin figure could that be why Elizabeth never married even in her quotes ” I have the heart of a man, not a woman, and I am not afraid of anything,’ she declared. or even “I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England, too. hmm makes you wonder doesnt it???
Well I believe that story is just a myth as Elizabeth wore gowns with long necklines-even in old age! Also her doctors frequently checked her to see if she was menstruating and too check that she was fertile and they always reported that she was normal! As for the quotes, those were probably just ways of saying how great she was because queens were still regarded as being consorts while Kings were the ones who held all the power!