You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Few English monarchs have been more harshly judged by posterity than Mary I. For centuries she was "Bloody Mary" — the fanatical Catholic queen who burned nearly three hundred Protestants, married a Spaniard and subordinated England to his interests, lost Calais, and died childless and unloved, her Catholic restoration collapsing with her. The image was fixed largely by a single, brilliant, and deeply partisan book — John Foxe's Acts and Monuments, the Protestant "Book of Martyrs" — and it has proved extraordinarily durable. Yet it is, in important respects, a caricature, and one of the tasks of this lesson is to weigh it against the substantial revisionist reassessment that modern scholarship has produced. Mary's reign was short — just five and a half years, from July 1553 to November 1558 — and it ended in failure; but whether that failure was the fanatical sterility of the legend, or the misfortune of a competent and serious regime cut off by its queen's early death before it could bear fruit, is one of the genuinely open questions of the period.
Mary's reign matters for the period study on several counts. She was England's first crowned queen regnant — the first woman to rule in her own right — and her reign raised, for the first time, the unresolved problem of female monarchy in a patriarchal polity: could a woman rule as well as reign, and what happened to royal authority when the monarch married? She undertook the Catholic restoration, reversing the Edwardian Reformation, restoring papal obedience, and — through the returned exile Cardinal Reginald Pole — attempting to rebuild a Catholic Church in England; but she could not restore the monastic lands, and this failure demonstrates, more clearly than anything else in the century, the material irreversibility that the dissolution had built into the Reformation. Her Spanish marriage to Philip provoked Wyatt's Rebellion, the most dangerous rising of the mid-Tudor years, and dragged England into a war that cost it Calais, its last foothold in France. And her reign is the second half of the "mid-Tudor crisis" that this course treats as its set enquiry — so that judging Mary's government is inseparable from judging whether the mid-Tudor years were a genuine crisis of the state or a difficult interlude weathered by a resilient polity.
This lesson examines the succession crisis that brought Mary to the throne, the Catholic restoration and its limits, the Spanish marriage and the opposition it provoked, Wyatt's Rebellion, the Marian persecutions, and the loss of Calais — throughout weighing the traditional "Bloody Mary" verdict against the revisionist rehabilitation associated with historians such as David Loades, Robert Tittler, and, most strikingly, Eamon Duffy, who has argued that the Marian Church was a creative and forward-looking enterprise rather than a barren exercise in persecution.
The organising question is therefore whether Mary I's reign is best understood as a failure — of religion, of the marriage, of foreign policy, and of the succession — that vindicates the "Bloody Mary" tradition, or as a serious and substantially competent regime whose achievements have been obscured by Protestant propaganda and by the accident of the queen's early death. How one answers shapes not only the reading of Mary's reign but the verdict on the whole "mid-Tudor crisis," and it should be held in view throughout.
By the end of this lesson you will be able to:
This lesson belongs to OCR H505 Unit Y106 (British period study and enquiry): England 1485–1558 — The Early Tudors. Within our own teaching sequence it completes the mid-Tudor portion of the unit, carrying the story from the death of Edward VI through the reign of Mary I to the accession of Elizabeth, and it supplies essential context for the Section A set enquiry on the Mid-Tudor Crises of 1547–1558. We have chosen to treat Mary's reign as a single lesson organised around the themes of female monarchy, Catholic restoration, and the "Bloody Mary" question — rather than following any spec sub-strand order — because these are the analytical heart of the reign and are best examined together, and because the revisionist reassessment of Mary is one of the most important historiographical developments the unit contains. This is our arrangement, not a transcription of the specification's order. (Refer to the official OCR specification for exact wording.)
Because Y106 is a period study, examiners look for command of change over time and for judgements that reach across the reign rather than settling into narrow case-study description. Keep asking how each development altered the religious identity and the stability of the realm, and how far Mary's reign supports or undermines the "crisis" reading of the mid-Tudor years.
Mary came to the throne not by a smooth hereditary descent but through the defeat of an attempted usurpation — and the manner of her accession is itself an important argument in the wider debate about the mid-Tudor state. As the previous lesson described, the dying Edward VI had drafted a Devise for the Succession excluding his Catholic half-sister Mary (and, incidentally, the Protestant Elizabeth) as illegitimate, and settling the crown on his Protestant cousin Lady Jane Grey. Backed by the head of the government, the Duke of Northumberland, and by the machinery of state, Jane was proclaimed queen on 10 July 1553.
The attempt collapsed almost at once. Mary fled to East Anglia, proclaimed herself queen at Framlingham Castle, and — crucially — rallied overwhelming support across the country. The support came not only from Catholics who welcomed the prospect of a Catholic queen but, strikingly, from Protestants and from the political nation generally, who upheld the legitimate Tudor line against a manifest usurpation. The Privy Council, seeing which way the country had turned, promptly defected to Mary; Northumberland's support melted away; and within nine days the coup was over. Jane's brief "reign" ended, Northumberland was arrested and executed in August 1553, and Mary entered London in triumph as the rightful queen.
The significance of 1553 for the period study can hardly be overstated, and it is a point that cuts sharply against the older "mid-Tudor crisis" thesis. A usurping attempt, backed by the head of government and the resources of the state, was defeated in nine days and almost without bloodshed by the spontaneous rallying of the political nation to the legitimate heir. This is not the behaviour of a state in systemic breakdown; it is a demonstration of the strength of dynastic loyalty and the resilience of the Tudor succession. Most striking of all is that the support for Mary crossed the religious divide: Protestants who had every reason to fear a Catholic queen nonetheless upheld her legitimate title against the Protestant Jane, because the principle of legitimate hereditary succession was more deeply rooted than the religious anxieties of the moment. For the set enquiry on the mid-Tudor crises, 1553 is thus a crucial exhibit on the "no real crisis" side of the argument: beneath the religious turmoil, the fundamental loyalties that held the Tudor polity together remained intact, and they operated to secure an orderly, legitimate succession even in the face of a state-backed attempt to subvert it.
Mary's accession raised, for the first time in English history, the problem of a queen regnant — a woman ruling in her own right rather than as the consort of a king. This was genuinely unprecedented and genuinely problematic within the assumptions of a patriarchal society, and it shaped the two great controversies of the reign, the marriage and the succession.
The difficulty was not that a woman could not inherit the crown — Mary's legitimate title was widely accepted, as 1553 showed — but that contemporary assumptions about gender sat awkwardly with the exercise of royal authority. A ruler was expected to lead armies, to command obedience, to embody the majesty of the state; a woman was expected, by the conventions of the age, to be subordinate to her husband. What, then, would happen when a queen regnant married? Would her husband become king, and rule in her stead? Would England fall under the control of a foreign prince through the queen's marriage bed? These anxieties were not idle: they lay behind the fierce opposition to the Spanish marriage and behind Wyatt's Rebellion, and they would recur, in a different form, under Elizabeth, who resolved the problem by the radical expedient of not marrying at all.
Mary's own response to the problem was, in constitutional terms, more careful than her reputation suggests. The Act concerning Regal Power (1554) affirmed that a queen regnant held royal authority as fully as any king — a significant clarification that established the principle for Elizabeth after her. And the marriage treaty with Philip, as we shall see, was drafted with great care to protect England's independence and to bar Philip from actually governing. The problem of female monarchy was, in principle, soluble; but the perception that a married queen must fall under her husband's control — and, worse, under a foreign husband's — proved politically explosive, and it is essential context for the opposition that the Spanish marriage aroused.
Mary's overriding purpose as queen was the restoration of the Catholic religion and the reversal of the Edwardian Reformation. A devout Catholic who had clung to the Mass throughout her brother's reign at real personal risk, she regarded the return of England to the Roman obedience as her sacred duty. The restoration was accomplished in stages, and its limits are as important as its achievements.
| Measure | Date | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| First Statute of Repeal | 1553 | Undid the Edwardian religious legislation, restoring the doctrine and worship of the Church as it had stood at the death of Henry VIII — that is, the conservative, schismatic Catholicism of 1547, the Latin Mass and all |
| Second Statute of Repeal | 1554 | Restored full papal obedience, repealing the anti-Roman legislation of the 1530s and reconciling England with Rome; but it also confirmed the security of the monastic lands in their new owners' hands |
| Reconciliation with Rome | November 1554 | Cardinal Reginald Pole returned from long exile as papal legate and formally absolved the realm of its schism; Pole became Archbishop of Canterbury after Cranmer's deprivation and execution |
| Revival of the heresy laws | 1554–1555 | The medieval statutes against heresy (including De heretico comburendo) were restored, providing the legal machinery for the burnings that began in 1555 |
| Monastic lands NOT restored | — | Crucially, Mary accepted that the dissolved monastic lands could not be reclaimed; only token refoundations (such as Westminster) occurred |
The single most analytically important feature of the restoration is the failure — or rather the deliberate abandonment — of any attempt to restore the monastic lands. When the monasteries had been dissolved under Henry VIII, their vast estates had been sold off, chiefly to the gentry and the rising propertied classes, who now held them as the secure foundation of their wealth and status. Mary and Pole recognised, clearly and from the outset, that to demand the return of these lands would be politically catastrophic: it would turn the entire propertied class — Catholic and Protestant alike — against the restoration, for no gentleman who had bought an abbey's manor would willingly surrender it. The second Statute of Repeal therefore explicitly guaranteed the lands to their current owners, and only a handful of token refoundations were made. This concession demonstrates, more powerfully than any other single fact in the century, the material irreversibility that the dissolution had built into the Reformation. Even a Catholic queen restoring the Pope himself could not undo the material facts of the Henrician settlement, because the land had passed into too many hands with too strong an interest in keeping it. The point connects directly to the earlier lessons on the dissolution: it was the land sales, far more than any theological argument, that anchored the permanence of the break with Rome and that would, in time, secure the Elizabethan settlement.
The historiography of the restoration turns on the question of its quality and prospects. The traditional view held that the Marian Church was backward-looking, sterile, and doomed — a joyless attempt to turn the clock back, sustained only by persecution and destined to collapse with the queen. The major revisionist reassessment, associated above all with Eamon Duffy, contends the opposite: that the Marian Church under Pole was a serious, creative, and forward-looking enterprise, drawing on the reforming energies of the Catholic Counter-Reformation, rebuilding parish life, restoring the fabric and furniture of worship, and training a new Catholic clergy — an enterprise cut short not by any inherent failure but by the accident of Mary's and Pole's deaths within hours of each other in November 1558. On this reading, had Mary lived, or had she borne a Catholic heir, the restoration might well have succeeded, and the "doomed from the start" verdict is a retrospective illusion created by its failure. The debate is genuinely open, and a strong essay weighs the evidence of Pole's constructive reforms against the undoubted handicaps the restoration faced — the loss of the monastic lands, the hostility of the Protestant heartlands, the unpopularity of the marriage, and above all the queen's failure to secure the Catholic succession that alone could have made the restoration permanent.
The most controversial decision of Mary's reign was her choice of husband. Determined to marry and, above all, to secure a Catholic heir who would guarantee the permanence of the restoration, she chose Philip of Spain — the son of the Emperor Charles V and, from 1556, King Philip II — her Habsburg kinsman and the champion of Catholic Europe. The marriage, celebrated in July 1554, was from Mary's point of view a natural and even inspired choice: it allied England with the greatest Catholic power, promised a Catholic heir, and reflected her own strong Habsburg sympathies (her mother, Catherine of Aragon, had been Charles V's aunt). From the point of view of a great part of the political nation, however, it was alarming and unpopular in the extreme.
The opposition to the marriage rested chiefly on the fear of Spanish domination — the anxiety, rooted in the problem of female monarchy, that through the queen's marriage England would fall under the control of a foreign prince and be dragged into the orbit and the wars of the Habsburg empire. Religion was a secondary motive for most opponents; the primary fear was national and dynastic. The regime met the anxiety with a carefully drafted marriage treaty that went to great lengths to protect England's independence:
| Provision of the marriage treaty | Detail |
|---|---|
| Philip's title | Philip was to be styled king during the marriage, but the authority was titular; England was not to be governed in his name |
| Exclusion from government | Philip was barred from appointing foreigners to English offices and from involving England in Spain's wars without consent — provisions designed to keep the government in English hands |
| The succession | Any child of the marriage would inherit England (and Philip's Burgundian territories), but England would not pass to Philip's Spanish heirs by his previous marriage; if Mary died childless, Philip would have no claim to the English crown |
| Practical effect | The treaty was, on paper, a careful defence of English independence — but it did not allay the popular fear of Spanish influence, and it was overtaken by events when Mary drew England into Philip's French war regardless |
Despite these safeguards, the announcement of the marriage provoked the most dangerous rebellion of the mid-Tudor period.
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Cause | Opposition to the projected Spanish marriage and fear of Spanish domination; for most participants religion was a secondary motive, and the rising is best understood as political and patriotic rather than primarily religious |
| Leader | Sir Thomas Wyatt the Younger of Kent, son of the poet, who led the one arm of a wider planned rising that actually materialised |
| Scale | Around 3,000 Kentish rebels marched on London, reaching the walls of the city |
| Outcome | The rebellion failed when London held its bridges and gates against the rebels and Mary rallied the capital with a courageous personal address at the Guildhall, refusing to flee; Wyatt was captured and executed |
| Consequences | Lady Jane Grey and her husband Guildford Dudley, hitherto spared, were now executed as a continuing danger; Princess Elizabeth, suspected of complicity, was interrogated and briefly imprisoned in the Tower — a formative and perilous ordeal for the future queen |
Wyatt's Rebellion is significant on several counts. It was the most serious rising Mary faced, and its near-success — the rebels reached the gates of London — shows how deep and dangerous the hostility to the Spanish marriage ran. Its failure, however, is equally instructive: it collapsed because London held firm and because Mary displayed real personal courage, rallying the capital in person rather than fleeing, in a moment that recalls the resolve she had shown at Framlingham the year before. The consequences reached beyond the immediate crisis: the rebellion sealed the fate of the unfortunate Jane Grey, who now had to be removed as a focus for future risings, and it placed Elizabeth in mortal danger, since her implication in the plot — never proven — gave the regime a pretext to move against her that it ultimately, and fatefully, declined to use. For the period study, Wyatt's Rebellion belongs alongside the risings of 1549 in the analysis of mid-Tudor rebellion, but with a crucial difference of character: where the 1549 risings were religious and economic, Wyatt's was political and patriotic, a protest against a foreign marriage rather than against religious change or agrarian grievance. This diversity of causes across the mid-Tudor rebellions — religious, economic, political — is itself an important analytical point, and it cautions against any single explanation of "why the mid-Tudor years saw so much disorder."
The marriage's consequences for foreign policy were, for England, disastrous, and they culminated in the loss of Calais. Despite the treaty provision that England should not be drawn into Spain's wars without consent, Mary — moved by loyalty to her absent husband and by her own Habsburg sympathies — brought England into Philip's war against France in 1557.
| Impact | Detail |
|---|---|
| The loss of Calais | In January 1558 the French captured Calais, the last English possession in France, held since 1347; its loss was a national humiliation, and Mary reputedly said that when she died the word "Calais" would be found engraved on her heart |
| Philip's absence | Philip spent little time in England, found it uncongenial, and showed scant interest in its government; the marriage produced no child, despite two phantom pregnancies in which Mary believed herself with child, dooming the Catholic restoration to the queen's own lifetime |
| Perception of subordination | Mary was widely seen as having subordinated English interests to those of Spain — a charge that, fairly or not, fed the "Bloody Mary" legend and cemented the Protestant association of Catholicism with foreign tyranny and national humiliation |
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.