Would you have attended an execution? | Page 3 | 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 26, 2012
2:28 pm
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I don’t think Phillip was influencing her about the burning of heretics Janet, as far as I know he had tried to publicly distance himself and Spain from it in the beginning. In fact I don’t think he cared much about England at all after he left other than draining it’s finances to fund his war. He spent the last two years of their marriage abroad, and I think the failure of her marriage and inability to conceive influenced Mary more than anything. I have recently read Pole and Gardiner objected to the burnings after it proved it wasn’t working yet Mary kept at it as she thought God was punishing her for not having successfully restored the “true faith”. I’m not sure if it’s 100% accurate but I can see Pole objecting to it at least. Gardiner is always made out as a terrible villain so I was very curious to read that. I also read that the Pope himself advised her not to marry at all so I get the feeling Mary let no man influence her entirely, I am quite sure she made up her own mind.
And tyrant that she was, I feel horribly sorry for Mary as a young woman and as Queen. She had a wretched life, and only knew a brief time of happiness before Philip ruined her entirely.

Here’s an interesting titbit, I was looking for this last night, it’s in Children of England by Alison Weir. Here’s an apparent record of how many people were burned for heresy under each Tudor’s reign

Henry VII: 24 in ten years
Henry VIII: 81 in 38 years
Mary I: approx. 300 in four years
Elizabeth I: 5 in 45 years

March 26, 2012
3:14 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Janet makes a good point about mary’s somewhat difficult childhood, and it does seem to me that Mary was used by both Henry and KOA to beat each other over the head with.
Mary didn’t know what to do for the best, so in short because of the tension between her parents, she couldn’t live with either of them through fear of what her parents would do to her. Poor Mary’s heart was broken, because of the stubborn pride called mum and dad.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

March 26, 2012
4:54 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said

Mary just needed to be loved, and sadly she never got it.

You do have to feel sorry for Mary at times. Her early childhood was as a much wanted child who had everything. Suddenly at the brink of womanhood, everything changed. Her father rejected her mother and by extension, Mary.

She was then subjected to a cruel regime devoted to breaking her spirit. Then , her mother died followed by the execution of the woman Mary believed was the author of her miseries only to realise that all the petty spite was from her much-loved father.

She then became close to her 2nd and 3rd stepmothers

eta

who left her as well. And she saw her 4th stepmother was found guilty of the same crimes as her cousin. A 5th stepmother gave her a sense of belonging again. She saw how her father and stepmother interacted and must have been heart sore about how badly her mother was treated and acted in return.

How horrified Mary must have been when her adored stepmother rushed in matrimony with Thomas Seymour barely before her father was cold.

She saw again how women were treated by their husbands especially as she would have heard the rumours about TS and Elizabeth.

No wonder when she was offered a young, good looking man who already hgad a child to be her husband, she jumped at her last chance of being a wife and the joy of motherhood which had long been denied to her.

eta onwards…I had to save as DH phoned me.

It's always bunnies.

March 26, 2012
4:59 pm
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Yeah I agree with that 100% and I think it contributed more than it’s share to Mary’s mental state. I also cannot bring myself to feel any sympathy to KOA because of the choices she made to put her pride over the safety of her own child. I know it sounds judgemental *shrug* but I just can’t feel any differently at present.

March 27, 2012
2:30 pm
Avatar
Mya Elise
Ohio,US
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 781
Member Since:
May 16, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Mary was affected by all of this in a bad bad way. She was living a great life and her mother was happy, everyone was happy then all of a sudden she had to witness the treatment her father bestoed on her mother. and etc etc with all 6 six wives. She did want love more than anything and it’s sad she never really got it except from her mother.

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

March 28, 2012
7:40 am
Avatar
Sophie1536
Lincolnshire UK
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 306
Member Since:
January 17, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Olga said

I don’t think Phillip was influencing her about the burning of heretics Janet, as far as I know he had tried to publicly distance himself and Spain from it in the beginning. In fact I don’t think he cared much about England at all after he left other than draining it’s finances to fund his war. He spent the last two years of their marriage abroad, and I think the failure of her marriage and inability to conceive influenced Mary more than anything. I have recently read Pole and Gardiner objected to the burnings after it proved it wasn’t working yet Mary kept at it as she thought God was punishing her for not having successfully restored the “true faith”. I’m not sure if it’s 100% accurate but I can see Pole objecting to it at least. Gardiner is always made out as a terrible villain so I was very curious to read that. I also read that the Pope himself advised her not to marry at all so I get the feeling Mary let no man influence her entirely, I am quite sure she made up her own mind.
And tyrant that she was, I feel horribly sorry for Mary as a young woman and as Queen. She had a wretched life, and only knew a brief time of happiness before Philip ruined her entirely.

Here’s an interesting titbit, I was looking for this last night, it’s in Children of England by Alison Weir. Here’s an apparent record of how many people were burned for heresy under each Tudor’s reign

Henry VII: 24 in ten years
Henry VIII: 81 in 38 years
Mary I: approx. 300 in four years
Elizabeth I: 5 in 45 years

When you see the figures written down it’s pretty shocking to think that these were REAL people, real lives….so sad Cry

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

March 28, 2012
10:38 am
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Mary and Phillip agreed to the burnings before Phillip left England in ’55. I don’t think Phillip had much say in the matter. Simon Renard and Alfonso deCastro both thought it was a bad idea. Phillip was anxious to leave England even at this time when Mary was pregnant, and he wanted to leave it in peace; but that doesn’t mean he didn’t agree with his wife’s moral stand. If he disagreed, he kept quiet.

The first to go was John Rogers Feb of ’55. Then Bishop’s Latimer and Ridley in October of ’55. Cranmer followed in Mar. of ’56. Gardiner defrocked some preachers and they were later turned over for secular trial. However, Gardiner died in December of ’55. He was supposedly a humane man but he did preside as Chancellor of the House of Lords when the vote came up about the heresy laws. I believe had he lived, he would not have been happy with all the burnings.
Pole was at Mary’s side from ’54 to ’57. At first he did favor the persecutions. Later he changed his mind and he even saved some people from the stake.

Although Mary and her religious advisors made policy, it was left up to the local authorities to implement the law. They did this, and it got ugly. Mary gave the order to burn ‘heretics’ but she wasn’t involved in carrying out the sentences. Unless the heretic was right under her nose, she didn’t sign death warrants. She did sign them for the above named men. Cranmer’s death was deeply personal. She never forgot that he was responsible for the divorce of her mother and father. This one was purely for revenge.

March 28, 2012
11:37 am
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Olga said

Yeah I agree with that 100% and I think it contributed more than it’s share to Mary’s mental state. I also cannot bring myself to feel any sympathy to KOA because of the choices she made to put her pride over the safety of her own child. I know it sounds judgemental *shrug* but I just can’t feel any differently at present.

Hi Olga,
I’m not sure if it was KOA”S pride so much as it was her very deep religious convictions. She was Catholic to her core. Many people would have buckled and said, okay you can have your divorce; but she believed that once two people were married, that marriage could never be undone. Only death, could end a marriage in her eyes. Everything she did, was with that belief. As far as Mary was concerned, Katherine felt she was teaching her how to be a good Catholic. If Katherine had too much pride, it was her pride in her religion.

I don’t like what it did to Mary either, but Katherine would have thought that God would guide Mary. She never waivered in her belief that her God would take care of Mary. She believed in God’s plan for her and Mary and everyone else. She would have had to turn her back on her beliefs, and she never came close to doing that. I don’t think she thought she was doing anything wrong with Mary. She was following the edicts of her faith. For Katherine, it was Henry who was the one doing wrong to her, to Mary and to God.

I don’t agree that she was right to do what she did, but that is how I see Katherine. For her, there was no free will. There was only her belief in God’s will.

March 28, 2012
4:24 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Olga said

Henry VII: 24 in ten years
Henry VIII: 81 in 38 years
Mary I: approx. 300 in four years
Elizabeth I: 5 in 45 years

There were a couple of people burned for herasy in Edward’s reign too….

It's always bunnies.

March 28, 2012
10:55 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Sharon said

Mary and Phillip agreed to the burnings before Phillip left England in ’55. I don’t think Phillip had much say in the matter. Simon Renard and Alfonso deCastro both thought it was a bad idea. Phillip was anxious to leave England even at this time when Mary was pregnant, and he wanted to leave it in peace; but that doesn’t mean he didn’t agree with his wife’s moral stand. If he disagreed, he kept quiet.

The first to go was John Rogers Feb of ’55. Then Bishop’s Latimer and Ridley in October of ’55. Cranmer followed in Mar. of ’56. Gardiner defrocked some preachers and they were later turned over for secular trial. However, Gardiner died in December of ’55. He was supposedly a humane man but he did preside as Chancellor of the House of Lords when the vote came up about the heresy laws. I believe had he lived, he would not have been happy with all the burnings.
Pole was at Mary’s side from ’54 to ’57. At first he did favor the persecutions. Later he changed his mind and he even saved some people from the stake.

Although Mary and her religious advisors made policy, it was left up to the local authorities to implement the law. They did this, and it got ugly. Mary gave the order to burn ‘heretics’ but she wasn’t involved in carrying out the sentences. Unless the heretic was right under her nose, she didn’t sign death warrants. She did sign them for the above named men. Cranmer’s death was deeply personal. She never forgot that he was responsible for the divorce of her mother and father. This one was purely for revenge.

Yep I agrre with you there, where Cramner was concerned. I wouldn’t say Mary was spiteful except in this one instance where Cramner was involved. She hated him.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

March 29, 2012
5:45 am
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Definately a grudge due to Cramner’s annuling her parent’s marriage and making her illegitimate.

It's always bunnies.

March 29, 2012
8:00 am
Avatar
Claire-Louise
UK
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 256
Member Since:
March 26, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I couldn’t go unless I ‘had to’….but then again I can’t even stomach the execution scenes on ‘The Tudors’. It must have been a terrible thing to be forced to go to Cry

March 29, 2012
8:45 am
Avatar
Janet
ON Canada
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 153
Member Since:
February 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

It’s really hard to put myself in a Tudor England “executions are entertainment” frame of mind. If you had grown up going to executions, I don’t think it would be the horror that we see it as. It’s like the child mortality rate back then. To our modern minds, it’s very sad, but back then it was normal. Giving two sons the same name in case one of them died is unthinkable to us.

March 29, 2012
9:22 am
Avatar
Mya Elise
Ohio,US
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 781
Member Since:
May 16, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I think i’d look away when they do the actual head cutting off part because all that blood would make me woozy. Remember Cromwell’s execution on The Tudor’s? With the drunken executioner? Now that’s something I definately couldn’t stomach, that man chopped the hell out of his back, neck, and head and he probably felt the whole entire thing. I wish that man who finished Cromwell off would of came up earlier like when the executioner missed the first or second time not wait until Cromwell looked like gratted (?spelling) cheese. And although Cromwell wasn’t someone I liked at all I don’t think that was exactly fair to get the executioner drunk and hungover the night before.

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

March 29, 2012
10:52 am
Avatar
Janet
ON Canada
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 153
Member Since:
February 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I agree with you Mya Elise. It seems that many times it took several strokes to get the job done. The guillotine was much more humane. It’s too bad it wasn’t invented until much later.

March 29, 2012
12:10 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Anyanka said

Definately a grudge due to Cramner’s annuling her parent’s marriage and making her illegitimate.

Annulled! Yes, annulled. Not divorced. I’ll get that right someday.

Cromwell’s execution was botched. Margaret Pole’s was even worse if it can be believed. She took 11 hits of the axe.

March 29, 2012
1:46 pm
Avatar
Sophie1536
Lincolnshire UK
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 306
Member Since:
January 17, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I suppose an execution was just daily life in Tudor England, you went enjoyed the spectacle then came away and got on with your everyday life. In some way it was entertainment and no different from the Roman gladiators.
Yes the Tudors knew how to torture and execute people but had we lived in Roman times a beheading would seem nothing to the utter cruelty of the Romans Surprised

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

March 29, 2012
8:30 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Janet said

It’s really hard to put myself in a Tudor England “executions are entertainment” frame of mind. If you had grown up going to executions, I don’t think it would be the horror that we see it as. It’s like the child mortality rate back then. To our modern minds, it’s very sad, but back then it was normal. Giving two sons the same name in case one of them died is unthinkable to us.

One set of my great grandparents( late 1800’s …say 1880-1900) had 2 Rachels, 3 Sarahs and 3 Martins and only 1 Sarah lived to be an adult…the other7 died as infants or children..and they still managed to raise 9 children to adulthood….

It's always bunnies.

March 29, 2012
8:31 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Sharon said

Anyanka said

Definately a grudge due to Cramner’s annuling her parent’s marriage and making her illegitimate.

Annulled! Yes, annulled. Not divorced. I’ll get that right someday.

Cromwell’s execution was botched. Margaret Pole’s was even worse if it can be believed. She took 11 hits of the axe.

Sowwy…

It's always bunnies.

March 29, 2012
9:20 pm
Avatar
Anne-fan
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 37
Member Since:
March 30, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

No. How anyone could stand and watch is beyond me. According to history, some families used to pack a picnic lunch to ‘add to the entertainment’ of seeing an execution.Frown

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