Would you have attended an execution? | Page 2 | Tudor Life and Times | Forum

Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

No permission to create posts
sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Would you have attended an execution?
March 22, 2012
6:33 am
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I think my 500 year old self would have been executed before I got the chance to attend one. Most likely for “heresy” Smile
I am glad you would have all come to watch though, I do hope you’d have given me some gunpowder.

March 22, 2012
7:18 am
Avatar
Mya Elise
Ohio,US
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 781
Member Since:
May 16, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I’m not the one for blood and gore, I get a little weezy seeing my own blood sometimes so if an execution would of suppilied alot of bloodshed I don’t think I could stomach it, now or then. But that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t attend, I would out of curiousity or pity or just plain interest.

• Grumble all you like, this is how it’s going to be.

March 22, 2012
9:13 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Olga said

I think my 500 year old self would have been executed before I got the chance to attend one. Most likely for “heresy” Smile
I am glad you would have all come to watch though, I do hope you’d have given me some gunpowder.

Having the old gunpowder bag around your neck wouldn’t have helped you any I afraid Olga, as the gunpowder would have just created a quick flash, and that would have been it and you will still have to suffer the agony of burning Sorry.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

March 22, 2012
7:15 pm
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I’m glad I live in a time where we have freedom to speak our mind Boleyn. Although sometimes I read stories of people who suffered for 30 or 45 minutes burning because of damp wood or incompetent, er “staff”, and I wonder their bodies didn’t go into shock and just shut down from the pain before the flames took a good hold.

March 24, 2012
7:08 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Olga said

I’m glad I live in a time where we have freedom to speak our mind Boleyn. Although sometimes I read stories of people who suffered for 30 or 45 minutes burning because of damp wood or incompetent, er “staff”, and I wonder their bodies didn’t go into shock and just shut down from the pain before the flames took a good hold.

Well Olga, the right of freedom of speech only came about because of what went on in times gone by.
I think a person didn’t actually go into shock or shut down etc. I just think it failed to hurt after a few minutes, but it must have been horrible for those who had to watch all this.. Mary Tudor certainly lived up to her Bloody name.. There is one execution that Mary ordered which really upset me. Read the case of Pettromine Massey, that is terrible sad.

Going off track (as I frequently do) have you ever read of the execution of Guy Fawlkes and his band of mayhem makers.. They all had to suffer the full horror. Poor old Guy was so broken from his meeting with the Duke of Exeters daughter (The Rack) he could even walk to the Scaffold, however her managed somehow to jump of the scaffold when they put the rope around his neck and broke his neck, so although he went through the full horror, he was dead so didn’t feel a thing.. Suppose it was a small mercy, but being Catholic wouldn’t his death in the sence he broke hs own neck, be classed as a suicide, and therefore a sin, so he had not right to go to heaven.. Hmm me thinks I’m going to have to brush up on a little reading matter.. Keep the post comming Olga I look forward to them…

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

March 24, 2012
9:41 am
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn,
Where can we find the story of Pettromine Massey? Or better yet, if you know it, could you please tell us about it.
You have sparked my interest.
I am sad to hear that the gunpowder around the neck did not quicken death. I was under the impression it speeded death. I thought it was a kind act that someone gave Anne Askew gunpowder. That poor lady had suffered so much and I thought it was a kindness that she died more quickly because of the gunpowder. To know she may have suffered more because of the gunpowder is very, very disheartening.
Some of the burnings could take up to 4 hours if the the wood was wet. I recently read that some would die of smoke inhalation before they burned. Not sure if that is true.

March 24, 2012
1:26 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I can’t find anything by that name on the web, but if she’s the one I’m thinking of, she was a pregnant woman sentenced to burning who miscarried while being burnt annd the child was thrown onto the fire too.

It's always bunnies.

March 24, 2012
4:09 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Olga It may be my frightful spelling, which has made it difficult for you to find anything about this poor lady. But it is exactly what Anyanka says. Perotine Massey. I found it quite by chance one day. Anyway it’s a long story so make sure you have a glass of water and a couple of Aspirin on stand by..
Perotine Massey is not a familiar name to many. When we think of the Protestants persecuted during Mary’s reign we often reflect on the prominent victims like Thomas Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury. Perotine was no one ‘special’. So why is she, or more accurately her death, so controversial? Is it because she was a woman? No – women could be arraigned and condemned for a variety of crimes and Perotine was certainly not the first nor the last female burnt for heresy in England. Was it her status? Again no, for she was from a modest background as were numerous other martyrs. So what made Perotine controversial? The answer is that she was pregnant at the time of her death.

Here are the details on Perotine supplied by John Foxe in his Book of Martyrs. She was the daughter of one Katherine Cauches (or ‘Cowchen’) and she lived with her mother and one sister called Guillemine in St Peter Port, Guernsey. A woman in her community had stolen a silver cup and tried to sell it to Perotine but knowing that it was actually the property of anther, Perotine informed the actual cup’s owner. The thief was arrested and Perotine was also questioned for any impossible involvement in the robbery. Sufficient evidence could not be found for her involvement but she was instead accused of not attending church. Was she perhaps accused by the disgruntled thief? Regardless, the case was brought to the dean of Guernsey and on 14th July 1556 she was examined before a number of local important figures (amongst them the dean). Either on the 17th or the 27th July she was condemned as a heretic, and burnt at the stake. She was strangled beforehand but the rope broke. Whilst on the stake she gave birth to a boy and one eyewitness (a ‘W. House’) initially saved the baby but the bailiff, Helier Gosselin, insisted that it too should die. As a consequence the infant was thrust into the flames.

It is a horrifying story. But is it true – and if so why did they still execute her and why, when she gave birth at the stake, did they not save the baby?

And if it is false, why invent such a story in the first place?

Reasons as to why the story was mentioned – or even invented – by Foxe is obvious. The murder of a newborn infant was regarded as heinous to contemporaries, as it does to us, thus those responsible for this were cast as unjust and brutal. This is exactly the manner in which the Protestant Foxe wished to present Mary and the Catholic Church. But that does not necessarily mean he invented it. Not all of what Foxe recorded was inaccurate – no one doubts, for example, that Cranmer was sent to the stake even after recanting his Protestant beliefs regardless of the fact that his recantation should have saved him.

The issue of the pregnancy though raises questions. During the early modern period there was a plea known as ‘benefit of belly’. This was where a pregnant woman who had been condemned to death could raise her condition and as such the execution would be stalled until after the child’s birth. The existence of this plea indicates that the unborn child was not regarded as culpable of its mother’s sins and as such was not to share her fate. She could still remain in prison, and in most cases she was not guaranteed a full pardon. But nonetheless the child was still to live.
So why was Perotine sent to the scaffold? Perhaps her pregnancy was not known to herself or to the officials. Pregnancy in the early stages was hard to determine with much certainty during the sixteenth-century, and obvious signs like the cessation of menstruation could be regarded instead as a symptom of a general ailment. If the female criminal was pregnant she needed to raise the condition first and then be examined. But if she did not know of her pregnancy then she could not do this. There was also the possibility that she could tell the officials of this, be examined by a groups of matrons and have her pregnancy denied. This may sound odd to us but there are cases of women being sent to the scaffold although they claiming to be pregnant but were declared not to be so by others. Cathy McClive records the death of one female criminal who was hanged and dissected in 1666 outside the Louvre. The woman had previously pleaded that she was pregnant but this was overruled. The crowd was said to have been shocked when during the execution it was discovered that she was had been around four months pregnant.

According to Jasper Ridley in Bloody Mary’s Martyrs (2001), Perotine did not tell the judges at her trial that she was pregnant although it is hard to deduce whether this was consciously done or whether she really didn’t know about her condition. But why did the bailiff, once the child was born, decide to condemn the child with the mother? The bailiff was asked the same question years later during the reign of Elizabeth I. He was tried for his actions and his response was that the child had been in the woman’s (and therefore the ‘heretic’s’) womb and therefore shared her sin. This was not regarded to be a just reason and subsequently he was condemned for murder. But Elizabeth pardoned him.

In my opinion the story of Perotine would have made many uneasy because regardless whether the contemporary was Catholic or Protestant the death of a newborn infant was viewed as unacceptable. The charges were so damning that one Catholic writer and Elizabethan exile, Thomas Harding stressed that she had not told the judges at her trial that she was pregnant and had she done so she would have not been sent to the stake. Importantly he did not deny that Perotine had existed or that had given birth at the stake; rather he was challenging the idea that the Catholic Church had anything to do with the death.

The case of Perotine reveals certain problems within the system of persecuting heretics during Mary’s reign. Mary and leading Church officials could of course not involve themselves in every case of heresy – this had to be left to local officials. Therefore the system rested on the belief that local officials could oversee the burnings in a correct and appropriate manner. But as Linda Porter in her biography on Mary notes, ‘some local administrative and justices were as zealous as individuals in pursuing heretics’ and as such the system was capable to be abused (p.361).

So does that mean that Mary is not to blame for the death of Perotine or any other cases of abuse within the system? Should we blame instead zealous officials like the Guernsey bailiff? It is hard to decree that Mary was directly responsible for this case and we have no idea whether she was even informed of it. It is true that she was not there to personally administer the death of the child and it is extremely unlikely that she, along with most contemporaries, would have issued the death of an infant. But before we put the case down to the corruption of those directly involved, it must be remembered that there did exist those close to the political centre that urged caution. Amongst them was the Franciscan friar Alfonso de Castro, who was part of Philip of Spain’s household. Whilst he was a supporter of the method of burning heretics, Castro urged that time needed to be taken to convert the Protestants – in essence that burning should be the final option and the authorities should spend as much time as possible trying to make the person recant. In other words it was not to be a rushed affair, like the case of Perotine.

So Perotine did exist and today a plaque in her honour (along with her mother and sister who were burnt alongside her) can be seen on the Tower Hill steps in St Peter’s Port. She may not have been the most famous Marian martyr, and today her name is frequently left out of books on Mary and the church during this period. But her story was regarded as important enough for Foxe to raise it and for Harding to attack. Ultimately I don’t perceive the case of Perotine to be an example of Mary’s supposed brutality, nor do I think it is fair to use such situations to form a complete judgment of Mary’s church. But speaking as someone who favours a more balanced portrayal of Mary and her church, I wonder whether it is not amiss to ignore certain flaws of the system just as it is illogical to deny this queen of any achievements.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

March 24, 2012
6:01 pm
Avatar
Bella44
New Zealand
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 933
Member Since:
January 9, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Well put Boleyn, I agree with everything you said. I’m rather fond of Mary myself yet the Perrotine Massey case is truly horrific. It’s just heartbreaking all round. Cry
Anna Whitelock mentions the story in her bio of Mary, and as you say, it originally came from Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. She writes that a woman, Vincent Gosset, stole a cup and that Perrotine Massey informed the authorities. In revenge Vincent Gosset accused Katherine Cowchen and her two daughters of being heretics. She also says that Perrotine Massey didn’t inform the authorities that she was pregnant.

March 24, 2012
6:03 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

If you recall, Lady Jane Grey was examinded by a panel of matrons before her execution to check she wasn’t pregnant.

eta wiki on pleading the belly.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P….._the_belly

It's always bunnies.

March 24, 2012
6:37 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said

So why was Perotine sent to the scaffold? Perhaps her pregnancy was not known to herself or to the officials. Pregnancy in the early stages was hard to determine with much certainty during the sixteenth-century, and obvious signs like the cessation of menstruation could be regarded instead as a symptom of a general ailment

But why did the bailiff, once the child was born, decide to condemn the child with the mother? The bailiff was asked the same question years later during the reign of Elizabeth I. He was tried for his actions and his response was that the child had been in the woman’s (and therefore the ‘heretic’s’) womb and therefore shared her sin. This was not regarded to be a just reason and subsequently he was condemned for murder. But Elizabeth pardoned him.

So does that mean that Mary is not to blame for the death of Perotine or any other cases of abuse within the system? Should we blame instead zealous officials like the Guernsey bailiff? It is hard to decree that Mary was directly responsible for this case and we have no idea whether she was even informed of it. It is true that she was not there to personally administer the death of the child and it is extremely unlikely that she, along with most contemporaries, would have issued the death of an infant.

Even now,not all pregnancies are free from bleeding. There have been cases where women have had periods or bleeding though out the pregancy and turned up at the doctors or ER in severe pain and delivered a child shortly after. It’s a huge matter of conjecture how many of these women knew and ignored being pregnant and those who truely thought they were not pregnant due to regular or irregular bleeding.

Ah! The bailiff..If the child really was of less than 7 months or so then the chances of survival of such a premature child was negible.The bailiff probably though it was for the best that the child was put out it’s misery as soon as possible. Of course, there were far more humane methods even then of doing that. IIRC, Catholic doctrine allows miscarried and still born children to be in a state of grace and not sinful. As such it could not have been in a state of sin.

Given the distance between Geurnsey and London, I doubt if Mary knew about these provincial cases leaving it to her lackeys. Given how maternal she was I would like to believe she would have been horrified by such an action.

It's always bunnies.

March 25, 2012
2:00 am
Avatar
Sophie1536
Lincolnshire UK
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 306
Member Since:
January 17, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Anyanka said

I can’t find anything by that name on the web, but if she’s the one I’m thinking of, she was a pregnant woman sentenced to burning who miscarried while being burnt annd the child was thrown onto the fire too.

I recently read something similar in a book about female execution, a case of a mother and two daughters accused of being witches all burnt together. One of the daughters was pregnant and as the burnt she gave birth and the baby being thrown onto the fire. I can’t recall there names but it is true.
I could attend a beheading but to see someone being burnt or an innocent baby well I know I couldn’t have atteneded that It’s so inhumane, the human race is so cruel.

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh144/nicksbabe28/Backstreet%20n%20Graffix/Image4-1.jpg

March 25, 2012
3:21 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Pregnancy back then like a lot of female ailments was a mystery. It is perfectly possible back then as it is now for a woman to show apsolutely no signs of pregnancy and continue to have periods etc. I believe that one of the ways of telling if a woman was pregnant back then was to get her to piddle on 2 sacks one with wheat in in and one with rye in, depending on what happened to either sack I think if the Wheat sprouted then a woman was pregnant. Mary Tudor’s gynological problems were a prime example on just how wrong the Doctor’s at that time could be, she believed she was pregnant and yes she exhibited the signs of it etc, but I bet if you were able to do a scan back then it would show something very different. Actually that has been something that has puzzled me for a few years. What is is that the doctors actually thought they heard when they listened to her stomach? A fetal heartbeat as far as I know is not detecible to the human ear simply by listening to a woman’s stomach, so as far as I can think what they must of heard is her stomach gurgling away and perhaps a bit of wind rubbling around. Just goes to prove how wonderful medical science is. I had heard a few years ago that Mary’s gynological problems could have been solved by simply taking an aspirin every day or in her case chewing willow bark.
I read somewhere once it was years and years ago, I have a feeling it was something to with the witch trial hysteria that took hold, that one of these so called witch hunters masacured an entire villiage of all but 2 of it’s female population, and old deaf blind woman, and a newborn baby.
These horrible witch hunters, rounded up the rest of the females and burnt them all including the mother of the newborn child, who had somehow managed to smuggle it out to safe keeping, before the witch hunter had come for her.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

March 25, 2012
3:32 am
Avatar
Maggyann
Nottingham
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 238
Member Since:
May 7, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I do not know if the story of this horrific execution is true or not, well can we ever know for certain, but I would just say that there are similar stories from many cultures and times including for example in the USA stories of coloured people abused by whites where the similar story is told right down to the person in charge taking the infant and throwing it into the flames of the mother. I think it is quite possible that this is one of those ‘myths and legends’ which has to have had some basis but was/is used by detractors to add to their vilfication of a particular person/group/political party etc.

Let us show them that they are hares and foxes trying to rule over dogs and wolves - Boudica addressing the tribes Circa AD60

March 25, 2012
3:46 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Maggyann said

I do not know if the story of this horrific execution is true or not, well can we ever know for certain, but I would just say that there are similar stories from many cultures and times including for example in the USA stories of coloured people abused by whites where the similar story is told right down to the person in charge taking the infant and throwing it into the flames of the mother. I think it is quite possible that this is one of those ‘myths and legends’ which has to have had some basis but was/is used by detractors to add to their vilfication of a particular person/group/political party etc.

This is true. Some things are generally said at the time about some one and well the saying goes mud sticks and then of course over the years the mud gets added to and becomes a house, when in fact the original story could have been noting more than someone having a boil on the bum. There are many of these odd stories around. I mentioned in prior post about the witch hunts etc, we all know Matthew Hopkins was the worst ever killer of woman back then, but even now there are rumours flying around on the mystery surrounding his own death. From the easy explanination that he died of consumption, to the plain bazzarr that he was actually accused himself of witchcraft and burnt at the stake.
Things like this are ultimately called chinese whispers and to be honest that is how a lot of trouble got started and is still started today..
The Cup issue with Peromine Massey, was one that was alledged to used against Thomas More too. He was offered a bribe of a silver cup to make sure that a case went in favour of the woman whose cup it was I think however Thomas refused to except the bribe so the woman said that he had said something like I’ll need more than a stolen silver cup etc.. Chinese whispers were lethal back then, at least most of us now have the good sence to see beyond the top layers of rubbish and get to the real crux of the matter without the need for bloodshed.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

March 25, 2012
7:08 am
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn, I’ve actually ordered Jasper Ridley’s Bloody Mary’s Martyrs actually, I’m glad you mentioned it
I read about Perotine in Alison Weir’s Children of England, I think it was just a brief mention. But I’m sceptical Mary would have had anything to do with it directly, as Anyanka pointed out she had lady Jane examined for pregnancy before her execution. I haven’t read a lot about Mary so far butI do not believe for one moment that Mary would have had anything to do with the murder of an unborn child.

March 25, 2012
10:18 am
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn, Thank you. I had not heard about Perotine Massey before this. As with the witch burnings and the treatment of African Americans here, these types of acts get out of hand when carried out by zealots. I’m sorry Mary put so much trust in these people; but I don’t believe had she known about this case, she would have allowed that child to be thrown in the fire.
I agree with your entire article, and thanks again for taking the time to give a complete history of the situation.
I think I’m going to have to get copies of Foxe’s and Ridley’s books.

March 25, 2012
1:44 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I rather think that Mary Tudor, although given the well known moniker of bloody Mary, and was responsible for a lot of deaths in her reign I’m actually willing to except that there were perhaps a number of executions that were carried out in her name, which she actually had no knowledge of. Certainly I think that Bishop Gardiner was one of the people who tried to execute Elizabeth without due process, and signed the execution himself, but without the rubber stamp it was of course useless when Mary was ill. Which thankfully Elizabeth had the brain to see through. After Gardiner died Bishop Bonner took over Gardiner’s position and in some ways was worse than Gardiner ever was, and I rather think it was possible that he himself was responsible for a number of these so called Heretical burnings which of course were blamed on Mary although surely Mary would have had to have read these documents before signing them? or is just entirely possible that Mary’s signiture was forged?
I really can’t see Mary Tudor being party to the murder of an innocent child, especially as she was so desperate herself to become a mother.
Mary was really desperate to actually save Lady Jane Grey’s life, and perhaps would have done if her father hadn’t of made some damn fool attempt at rescuing her by being involved in the Wyatt plot, although I’m led to believe it wasn’t just that that led Mary into executing Jane. I believe Philip and the Spanish toadies would only agree in Philip coming to England and marrying Mary on the condition she executed Lady Jane. That in itself seems a very strange thing to insist upon, as to me Elizabeth was the bigger threat as Mary and her were half sisters, unlike Jane who was only a second cousin.
I wonder what would have happened if Mary had told Philip to get stuffed? Who would she have married instead? and more to the point why was she so insistant on marrying Philip? Was it perhaps an attempt to keep the connection going with her mother’s family perhaps?

Either way I don’t think the marriage was a partically happy one, from Philip’s point of view anyway. Mary we know was besotted with Philip, again I have to ask why?
I think Mary is again one of those Tudor enigmas that keep cropping up from time to time and biting us in the bum.
My impression of her is that she was a very lonely lovelorn woman who perhaps believed that by burning heretics God would be pleased with her etc. I’m given to believe that even the Pope was appauled by her actions at some point in her reign and threatened her with excommunication Don’t quote me, please. Philip I think perhaps made her very misable although she did love him, ‘m inclined to think he didn’t treat her with all due respect and was perhaps a little abusive to her, where as he charmed Elizabeth or so he thought and maybe thought, that with the old bag out the way I can get into Elizabeth’s knicker drawer and bank balance and again maybe that was something she perhaps saw whenever Elizabeth was at court which is why she shut Elizabeth away out of sight and mind but perhaps also to protect to from Philip’s evil intentions too.
Mary just needed to be loved, and sadly she never got it.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

March 26, 2012
3:07 am
Avatar
Maggyann
Nottingham
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 238
Member Since:
May 7, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I agree that Mary would not always have had any personal knowledge of executions carried out in her name. I rather think that her ‘reputation’ for burning heretics was a bit like a blank cheque for some of those in positions of power around the land. The Massey one being a case in point as it occurred in the Channel Islands.
As to the execution of Jane I don’t think Mary wanted or ever really considered killing this young girl. I would have thought in many ways that Mary could empathise with Jane, manipulated by others and forced into things against personal inclination. It had after all been the way of her life for many years. The Spanish insisted on Jane being executed I believe and poor Mary who was so desperate to have a ‘normal’ life with a husband and children bent to their will. Poor woman still being manipulated even when Queen. Ultimately I suppose no matter how high a person may have risen there was and probably still is a group of ‘them’ in the background wheeling and dealing with more thought to their own desires than those of their ‘leader’ or the future of the realm.
Mary had been warped by her upbringing. She never really had a chance of ‘normality’ did she? Her devotion to her religion I have always thought may not have been so incredibly fierce if she had not gone through all those years in the wilderness being constantly bombarded with letters from her mother and visits from the ambassador reminding her of her ‘duty to God’ and suchlike. I honestly think if she had not been under her mother’s and by default Spanish thumbs to that extent she may well have ended up more like Elizabeth in her religious leanings. Change was in the air in most countries, her brother was not Catholic in any way, her sister was as flexible as straw in the wind and so might she have been if it had not all come down to God’s will and the rights of her frantic mother.
Her father deprived her of the chance of a reasonably happy marriage and the children she so wanted when she was of an age that these things were possible. Her mother browbeat her continually to defy her father and stick unwaveringly to the tenets of her own religious beliefs. Mary never really had the chance to make up her own mind, hurt mum or dad was her only choice really and as dad practically ignored her for years she only really had contact and therefore the influence of mum and her adherents. I think religion to Mary was the only thing which did not cause her pain, it was at least unchanging in its requirements from her and therefore almost a sort of lifebelt in the stormy seas of her life. The one true constant she dare not allow the luxury of change in her mind or she would be lost.
I feel very sad for Mary the young girl, the woman and the Queen.
Her taking to executions like a duck to water was a throwback to the Spanish influence and the total intolerance for change which had been tempered like steel in her bones.
Yes, Mary did actually sign the death warrants of many people during her reign but not all of those who actually died and I would stake every penny on it that she never sent a baby to its death in this way. She did delegate however and those who ‘rubberstamped’ in her name carry more guilt than she in this sort of case.
The marriage to Philip was all that was on offer really so she grabbed it with both hands. I think it was probably her only truly selfish action. She so wanted to have a husband and a chance of at least one child. She did what was asked of her to make that come about and ‘loved’ her husband as a good wife should at least on the surface. I think her tears when he left her or treated her badly were more a case of knowing it was all a farce than anything to do with him personally. She loved the idea of being a wife and mother, it had been her dream for decades but when it came down to it she knew it was all unreal. Such a sad life for a much loved and adored little girl who was daughter to two such forceful personalities as her parents had been.
There were a lot of executions but I personally do not hold them all against Mary, she was a product of the age, her upbringing and the nasty people who manipulated her all through her reign.

***
EDIT I have just read through that and it is a bit of a muddle, sorry haha.
As for the whole religion question and being executed. I would have surely been given the full rigours of the law back then as I am neither one thing nor the other. I am with God on the subject of religion – it is the pig’s ear that man has made of the silk purse.

Let us show them that they are hares and foxes trying to rule over dogs and wolves - Boudica addressing the tribes Circa AD60

March 26, 2012
7:09 am
Avatar
Janet
ON Canada
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 153
Member Since:
February 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Mary grew up in a VERY dysfunctional family. I think the way she ‘grabbed onto’ Philip was influenced by the way her father treated her. She wanted to be loved and have a family. I think Maggyann has a good point. Mary’s Catholicism was the only constant in her life and is what got her through some very lonely times and it made her faith even stronger. I think her attack on Protestants was partly due to this (she truly believed she was doing the right thing), but I think that Philip had a huge influence on her. Even though Mary wouldn’t have known all that was going on with the purging of Protestants, she is the one that got the ball rolling and because she was at the ‘top of the ladder’, it was up to her to keep control of the situation. She may not have personally signed those warrants for executions all over the country, but I’m sure she would have had reports. If she believed that things were getting out of hand, she could have done something about it. She didn’t because she believed what was happening was not only right, but necessary. I feel sorry for the younger Mary, growing up lonely and ignored by her father, but I don’t feel sorry for Mary the Queen. She and Philip both were fanatical.

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 214

Currently Online:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Anyanka: 2337

Boleyn: 2285

Sharon: 2115

Bella44: 933

DuchessofBrittany: 846

Mya Elise: 781

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 427586

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 13

Topics: 1711

Posts: 23075

Newest Members:

Goldyy, klftault, Opilacetault, 415berna, modwynVom, Thelmaaledo

Administrators: Claire: 959