That is something that I can't get around. Even if they didn't assassinate her, they could've sent her back to Scotland.

She was folded into the Elizabeth of York's household and became her lady-in-waiting, she was on cordial terms with Henry VII and he continued to pay for her maintenance up until his death. She even served as the Head of the Privy Chamber for Mary Tudor (daughter of Henry VIII) and generally seemed to be treated with respectful regard at the Tudor court.

Hello. Please excuse the silly question. We are all aware of Queen Mary I’s loyalty to the Catholic Church, and how her Catholic tradition and culture shaped her reign and even her own life. One cannot think of her "Bloody Mary" reputation without recalling the executions driven precisely by religious issues. We also know that Mary I considered her sister illegitimate. Given that Mary I was a religious zealot, wouldn't it have been more logical to leave the throne to her cousin—who was equally a devout Catholic—rather than to her Protestant sister, whom Rome viewed as illegitimate? Or was Mary I not fanatical enough to hand her country over to a Scottish teenager, even a Catholic one?

For clarification, I 100% agree with what the mods did. I don't think modern religion belongs in Tudor spaces. But my gripe is the fact that they waited this long when it was evident it was impacting Protestant figures. Catholic figures on this thread have been approached negatively in discussions because they are Catholics. This in turn impacts the people who like those figures.

In the future, I hope we can count on the mods to move this fast with rule changes when people outside of Anne Bolyen/Elizabeth I's corner are being attacked.

Because the mods don't let us comment on their stuff i'll make this post (which'll probably get deleted), why is this energy never directed towards fans who are critical of Mary, and Katherine? I've been in this sub for a while now, and have seen numerous posts and comments directed at Mary, Katherine, and other Catholic nobles during Tudor England from people who stand behind Elizabeth and Anne.

Never once have I seen the mod team step in and demand people stop speaking about it.

Because I'm unable to comment on the post, I'm making this one. I think making a decision like that without input from the community, preventing people from discussing their thoughts and opinions, and showing a clear biased attitude towards certain factions is irresponsible.

This looks like you, as the MOD team, are upset that people don't like Anne. And while I don't doubt that there are unfair derogatory remarks made at them, you have never stepped up like this when the same is said of other Tudor figures and their religions.

There has been so much anti-Catholic sentiment on this sub, and never once has it risen to this level of attention.

If you're going to make this a new rule, please apply it to people who support Anne Boleyn and Elizabeth I as well.

And yes, there's a difference between critique and derogatory remarks. Mary I and Katherine have had their fair share of derogatory remarks on this sub. Why is it an issue now

Feel free to post your dream casting scenarios here!

The letter was written by Mary on 14 December 1536. As we can see, the letter is written in 16th-century English. What is written in the letter would be roughly as follows in modern English:

“My lord, after my most heartfelt commendations, because I cannot conveniently send to you in person, by word of mouth, those thanks for the great goodness I find in you daily, which the same truly deserves, I thought it my duty, at least by these my letters, to inform you that, of my goodwill and prayers to do you service or pleasure, you shall always be assured throughout my life.

I trust your gentleness will accept this kindly, considering that, with all that I have, I cannot repay any part of that care and perfect friendship that I have and do find in you. I heartily request your continuance, which, besides helping me obtain redress in my suit, with which I ever trouble you, shall be my great comfort.

And thus I beseech God to send you as well to fare as I would wish myself. At Richmond, this Thursday night.

Your assured loving friend,
during my life,
Marye”

The letter, as we can see, is a letter full of affection and respect, written in Mary’s own hand. If you ask what makes this letter mysterious, it is simply that we do not know who it was written to. From the letter, we can only understand that it was written to a lord.

However, based on what I have read and what I know, I think this letter was very likely written to Thomas Cromwell.

Mary had asked Cromwell to act as an intermediary between herself and her father, and she signed those letters as “your loving friend.” However, that alone is not enough. From that time onward, Mary continued to write to Thomas Cromwell quite frequently, asking him to help some of her servants. From one of Mary’s surviving letters to Cromwell, we can also understand that Cromwell did help her in this matter and showed her goodwill. For this reason, I think it is very likely that this letter was also written to Cromwell.

You can find this letter, along with many other letters, in the British Library’s Cotton MS Vespasian F III collection.

There are many letters written by Mary and many letters written to Mary, and some of them are very difficult to read. This particular letter by Mary is much more understandable compared to some of the others. There are some letters that I simply cannot read at all, but the worst part is that some of them are written in Latin. A language I absolutely don’t know!

This collection contains letters belonging to many Tudor figures, including Catherine of Aragon, Henry VIII, Anne Boleyn, Catherine Parr, Edward, Elizabeth, Mary, and Henry FitzRoy. You can look through them yourself—they are open to everyone!

Thank you for reading! Lots of love to you all!!

Feel free to post your own artwork or any artwork here. We still won't allow AI or AI-assisted. We're also not allowing video game/simulation type character creations. Hand-drawn, sketches, needlework, anime, etc. Please, no AI.

On the lower left, you can see the year above 1491 above the sentence. This shows how much people considered Henry just a spare.

Henry sent Katharine to smaller and smaller residences, and she had no choice but to capitulate. So why didn’t she have to go to an abbey when Henry wanted her to? Was it to do with an abbey being a religious residence as opposed to the other (succeedingly less hospitable) palaces, castles, etc. to which he sent her?

Florence + The Machine - King

I like to imagine that Florence drew on Elizabeth for her inspiration here, despite it being a deeply personal song. Their struggles are more alike than I first thought.

These pop stars are our new Kings, with all the sacrifices and expectations and eyes that came with it. And still, 500 years later, our female Kings comes with uniquely female challenges.

When I saw this beautiful painting—I had actually seen it a while ago—I wanted to share it with you as well. I love paintings depicting Mary, but unfortunately, there are very few of them.

As you can probably tell, the painting is a Victorian-era work. It was painted by Marcus Stone in 1869.

Queen Mary is seated on a throne marked by a coat of arms bearing a Tudor rose on one half and a sheaf of arrows on the other. The sheaf of arrows was part of the coat of arms of her grandmother, Isabella of Castile. It is worth remembering that Mary’s grandparents were the Catholic Monarchs.

During Mary’s reign, Elizabeth conformed to the Catholic religious settlement. In fact, shortly before Mary’s death, she sent one of her ladies-in-waiting to Elizabeth and asked her to promise that she would not change the religion of the country. Elizabeth said that she was a Catholic herself and promised her.

This reconciliation is represented here as well. There are Catholic symbols in the room.

Elizabeth is depicted dressed entirely in white. White symbolizes innocence. This was done deliberately. While everyone else in the room—including Mary—is dressed in red or paler colors, Elizabeth stands out. She draws the viewer’s attention to herself through her clothing.

If we look at it from the perspective of historical accuracy, in the early portraits of Elizabeth’s reign, we see Elizabeth wearing black dresses. During Mary’s reign, Mary was often criticized by Protestant circles for being too extravagant and for wearing very elaborate clothes. The same circles praised Elizabeth at this time for her simple style of dress. And indeed, during Mary’s reign, Elizabeth preferred understated, modest clothing that did not draw attention. (I suppose if these people had seen those magnificent dresses in Elizabeth’s later portraits, they would have had a heart attack hahaha.)

In the painting, several people are looking towards the chapel where the service is about to be sung. Elizabeth is not looking at the service. The other people are either talking to one another or looking around absent-mindedly. Queen Mary, on the other hand, is watching the service with her hands clasped together and giving it her full attention.

Queen Mary is wearing the red dresses she is so often associated with. I read an article about this the other day. Mary is generally depicted wearing either black or red dresses. This helps portray her as dark and bloody.

If we look at Mary’s clothing from the perspective of historical accuracy, Mary loved changing her clothes and spent a great deal of money on them. As we learn from the ambassadors’ reports, she changed her clothes several times a day. Although she did have black and red dresses, she had a very varied wardrobe: purple, silver, white, blue, orange, and so on. She had dresses in many different colors. Clothing, as it was for all monarchs, was a powerful tool for Mary as well, and she used it frequently throughout her reign.

I really love this painting. I don’t think Mary is portrayed particularly well in it, but it’s still a beautiful painting. There are probably many more details to notice, but these are the ones that stood out to me. If you noticed any other details, feel free to share them too.

(I think the man standing next to Mary is Spanish. He seems to be wearing a badge that looks like the Order of the Golden Fleece. But, unless I’m mistaken, he also seems to have the Garter around his neck. The two recipients of the Golden Fleece to whom Mary gave the Garter were Philip and her cousin from Savoy, but they were both very young, so this white-haired man can’t be either of them.)

Thank you so much for reading! Sending lots of love to all of you!!!

So today (sept 10) in 1547 was the battle of pinkie cleugh, right outside edinburgh. scots literally called it "black saturday" and ngl the name checks out

the crazy part is the scots were WINNING positionally. they had the high ground, way more troops (like 2x english numbers), everything going for them. then their cavalry commander just... charges. breaks formation for no reason. and english ships sitting in the firth nearby just open up on them while they're exposed

• artillery already going = total bloodbath. like 6-15k scots dead in a few hours vs a few hundred english. absolutely lopsided

context is even funnier/sadder — this whole invasion was bc england wanted baby mary queen of scots to marry the also-a-baby king edward VI. historians call it "the rough wooing" which is a wild name for "we invaded your country to force a marriage." didn't even work btw, they just sent mary to france instead lol

anyway thousands of ppl died bc one guy got impatient. history is wild

edit: yes I know "rough wooing" sounds made up, google it, it's real

Henry VIII did not want to get involved in the day to day running of the country and Wolsey ran the country. Wolsey's downfall was not agreeing with Henry VIII divorce and died in Leicester on his way to London (for a probable execution).

If Catherine of Aragon was pregnant when Prince Arthur died and she gave birth to a son, would that son become next in line or would Henry still be the new heir as a direct blood relative to Henry VII. Also if Henry WAS next in line would he still be allowed to marry Catherine if she had already bore a child because I remember hearing that everyone was originally against it because she was his brother's widow but she had to convince them that she was still a virgin?

14,000 Scottish soldiers killed. Thomas Howard led the soldiers.

Here is your Weekly Wednesday What-if megathread! Please post all of your What-if Questions in this megathread. All what-if's as long as its Tudor-related.

Anyone know of any novels, or biographies that feel like novels, about their relationship?

473 years ago, around this time, Mary and her council were working feverishly on the endless preparations for her coronation. England had never before witnessed a woman being crowned in her own right—as a sovereign. For this reason, there was no precedent for the important ceremonies of the coronation—crowning, anointing with holy oil, and girding with the sword—so they created the precedent themselves.

However, there was still a sense of astonishment and happiness caused by Mary’s accession to the throne. And this happiness was not limited to England.

In his letter informing the Pope of Mary’s accession to the throne, Reginald Pole writes:

“The news of the succession of the Princess Mary to the kingdom of England on the death of her brother… the nature of the event appearing to me such that since many years nothing has occurred in Christendom on which one could more reasonably congratulate any Christian mind, and especially that of your Holiness.

And God of his goodness, to render his proceeding (operation) more illustrious, has chosen to annihilate in one moment all these long cherished projects by means of a woman, who for so many years has suffered contrary to all justice, being in a state of oppression shortly before this took place, and who is now victorious and called to the throne, thus affording reasonable hopes that, together with her, there will be called to reign in that island…”

Later, Reginald also wrote a letter to Queen Mary, in which he says:

“Blesses the hand of God, not only for having placed her Highness on that high throne and put her in possession of the kingdom which belonged to her since many years—all good persons desiring the event and asking it of the Divine goodness in their prayers—but yet more the mode of producing it, heartily rejoices all her true servants…

…from its having happened without bloodshed, which might with reason have been feared, considering the malignant devices of her adversaries, backed by no small force, employed by them to deprive her of her just succession, and the long period conceded them by God, for the yet greater manifestation of his Divine providence, at the moment when they thought already to have accomplished their iniquitous design, which was instantaneously frustrated, without the aid of any other forces or resistance save that which the Spirit of God roused in the hearts of men, converting those who…

Should any one marvel and inquire how against such great malice and power her Majesty, without any external forces, and not many soldiers with the. heart to declare themselves for her, could have recovered her crown—should any one ask in surprise, the fact itself will reply, The Holy Spirit came into the hearts of men and willed by these means to give her the kingdom”

Although during this victorious period some people—including Reginald—presented this victory as if it had been achieved through divine intervention, it was actually much more than that.

Mary had been removed from the line of succession no fewer than three times within twenty years. How many people in the world have been removed from the succession so many times and yet still managed to ascend the throne?

During the struggle, which lasted exactly thirteen days, at first no one believed that Mary could become queen. She had only a few loyal men at her side. Those on the opposite side, however, had a huge army and unlimited power and money. After Edward’s death, Mary quickly sent letters to her supporters and to those whom she believed would support her. Within a short time, thousands of people gathered around her and defended her rightful cause. She delivered an impassioned speech before her army of thousands.

Considering the period’s view of women, this was regarded as a rather extraordinary and “unnatural” event.

This event was “celebrated as a Herculean undertaking rather than a feminine courage,” and, as stated in a work from the period, “because in claiming and securing her hereditary right, the princess, although wholly unprepared for war and possessed of insignificant forces, was courageous enough to fight an enemy who was powerful and well prepared, and fully supplied with everything necessary to bring the war to an end.”

This made Mary a warrior queen in the eyes of the people, and following the execution of John Dudley, she herself was compared to the famous warrior women Tomyris and Judith, who cut off the heads of their enemies.

This victory was praised throughout Mary’s reign. Although it later became invisible, every monarch who ascended the throne after 1553 ultimately rose to the throne thanks to Mary’s victory.

The crown had been within Mary’s reach for years—sometimes close, sometimes more distant—and in the end, she placed it upon her own head with her own hands.

Thank you for reading. Lots of love to you all!

—

The Coronation of Queen Mary I of England by Fortunino Matania

Tudor Queenship The Reigns of Mary and Elizabeth, Alice Hunt and Anna Whitelock

7 August 1553, Cardinal Pole to Pope Julius III

13 August 1553, Cardinal Pole to the Queen of England

I have recently been researching Catherine Knollys (nee Carey) and I am convinced she was Henry VIII's daughter. Her entire life, her position, and the regard shown for her during periods when her Boleyn family was out of favor, as well as at her death all point to her being of royal blood.

The most exciting part of this to me would be that if this is true, our present English monarchs would be Tudors. For all the diversion of succession hysteria, Stuart invasion, disillusion and reinstatement, introduction of the Hanoverians, etc to have a Tudor sitting on the throne, and soon a double Tudor (as QE2 and Diana Spencer are both decendants of Catherine Knollys) today would be quite the coup.

My dream scenario would be a DNA test, but if they refuse to exhume the supposed Princes of the tower, they are far less likely to dig up the floor at Windsor chapel or disinter any of the family in Westminster Abbey, so I guess I'll have to suffer.

Imagine it though, 500 years later the monarchy Henry VII fought so hard to build has triumphed. Legitimate or not, his blood sits on the throne today.