I didn't really learn anything I didn't already know about Queen Mary Tudor but it was a good book none the less. It was written in 1977 though and there have been more discoveries about her since then but since English monarchy history is my passion I will read it all. ( )

Very interesting look into the life of Queen Mary I-she was an odd balance between a very charitable personality and heart-she made an issue of giving to the poor and even went in disguise among her peasants to be sure they were being treated fairly-and her ruthless burning of the protestants. In the end her mental instability was her true downfall. She is creature of pity and also fear for her brutal acts.
I am not a Christian and therefore do not believe in heaven or hell-but I often wonder if her heart had to be weighed by Anubis in Hall of the Dead against Ma'at's feather-whether she would be admitted to the afterlife? How much goodness outweighs that much brutality? ( )

It’s easy to see why Erickson’s books have become so popular. She clearly demonstrates the political dynamics in the context of the culture of the time, while being ultimately sympathetic to her subjects.

As the only early heir to the throne, Mary held a position of privilege and power during her childhood. Katherine,her mother, it seemed was unable to have a male issue, and was having difficulty delivering any live child. Henry, being King, could take any kind of mistress he wished, and had a bastard son by one of his ladies who was rewarded with a marriage to one of his nobles.

Her education was vigorous, if unenlightened. Her teacher Vives, the Spanish humanist designed a plan of study that included Greek, Latin, and for amusement, biographies of self-sacrificing women. Vives had written in his On the Instruction of a Christian Woman>/i> that girls needed to remember they were inherently “the devil’s instrument, and not Christ’s.” This idea that women were inherently sinful was to form the foundation of her training with protection of her virginity uppermost in their plans. (Erasmus at first believed educating women was a waste of time, then changed his mind to believe that education would provide them with the knowledge and importance of protecting such an “inestimable treasure.”)

One wonders if her training and preparation for betrothal to the Emperor Charles in all things Spanish, might have colored views and biased her so against Protestantism, but that’s merely speculative on my part. In the four first years of her betrothal (she was only seven and was to depart for marriage to Charles at twelve) she was schooled in everything necessary to make her a perfect Spanish lady. As with so many of these alliances, it didn’t last. Problem for Harry was that a woman’s property, titles, incomes, and dowry all passed to the husband with marriage. The ramifications became more than a little disconcerting. If Henry died without an heir and the crown passed to Mary, who had already been anointed the Princess of Wales, the first time that position had ever been given to a woman, would Charles also inherit the English title?

Given that Katherine would be unlikely to bear another child, and even though Henry was having his way with Thomas Boleyn’s married daughter, Mary Carey, it’s no wonder he began to scheme a way to dispense with Katherine. And who should join the picture but soon-to-be headless, Anne Boleyn.

But back to Mary after the execution of Anne, Mary was gradually restored to the good graces of the King (thanks also to Henry’s new wife, Jane Seymour, who was to bear him Edward. But Mary had to dissemble to worm her way back into court. She signed the certification of submission all the while writing elsewhere and to the Pope that her submission to the King with regard the church and succession was all balderdash. She constantly lied to Henry about it when asked claiming it was all for God, the end justifying the means.

The title is perhaps a bit misleading. The book really focuses little on her persecution of Protestants, although she did encourage their burning at the stake, often gruesomely. It all started to go badly following her marriage to Philip of Spain. The Spanish were generally despised by most of the English and even though Philip made every effort to be conciliatory and on his best behavior, following Mary's false pregnancy, he couldn't wait to move to Flanders where he was more at home as a King, something he wasn't really in England.

I couldn't help but wonder, if Mary, with her obsessive religiosity, wasn't in a bit over her head.

A marvelous read. ( )

Keeping track of Tudor history can be confusing, since it seems like every other woman was named “Mary” (and the ones that weren’t were “Katherine”, “Elizabeth” or “Anne”). The Marys are (and I hope I got the relationships right):


*Mary Tudor (1496-1533), the younger sister of Henry VIII (and Lady Jane Grey’s grandmother).


*Mary of Habsburg (1505-1558), aka Mary of Austria, Mary of Burgundy, Mary of Castile, and Mary of Hungary – this last is used for her in Bloody Mary. Granddaughter of Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella of Castile (her parents were Philip the Handsome and Joanna the Mad, who must have been an interesting couple); thus Katherine of Aragon’s niece.


*Mary of Guise (1515-1560), wife of James V of Scotland (thus niece of Henry VIII, whose sister Margaret was James V’s mother) and mother of Mary Queen of Scots.


*Mary Tudor (1516-1568), the daughter of Henry VIII by Katherine of Aragon and the subject of this book.


*Mary, Queen of Scots (1542-1587), daughter of Mary of Guise and James V (and grand-niece of Henry VIII through his sister Margaret, James V’s mother).


With the dramatis personae out of the way, we can get on with Bloody Mary. All the attention of historians and romance novelists focuses on her half-sister Elizabeth, which is a shame because Mary had an interesting life. I hadn’t realized that she and Elizabeth had such similar early lives; Mary was declared a bastard after her father’s divorce from Katherine of Aragon and was highly suspect as a devout Catholic; she was essentially kept under house arrest, forbidden to see her mother, and threatened with death unless she abjured her religion and admitted her illegitimacy. (Elizabeth had similar problems – she was also declared illegitimate after her mother, Anne Boleyn, was beheaded, and she was always in peril of her life during Mary’s reign. Many of Mary’s advisors suggested she have Elizabeth executed, but despite the fact that she had no obvious affection for Elizabeth, Mary didn’t – I wonder if knowledge of their similar conditions influenced her?)


Author Carolly Erickson devotes a lot of space to Mary’s life before her ascension to the throne (admittedly, that was most of it). Mary was not unhandsome as a princess, and was reportedly an excellent dancer and musician (the Tudors, despite their faults, tended to be pretty talented). When she reached the throne, she was acclaimed as the most popular monarch in English history. Unfortunately, by the time of her marriage to Philip II the exigencies of her life had told on her, and she was described by Philip’s Spanish courtiers as ugly and flabby. The marriage also affected her popularity; the English tended to be xenophobic and the Spanish didn’t help matters much (Philip was told by his father, Charles V, to keep his arrival in England for the wedding low-key, so as not to offend the English with ostentation; he therefore limited his entourage to 9000 people carried on 125 ships).


Mary’s “pregnancy” brought a brief resurge in her ratings; however, as the months went by and no baby arrived – and Mary herself only appeared briefly at her window – she fell in the polls again. Philip left to oversee his possessions in the Netherlands, and Mary’s second “pregnancy” turned out to be a uterine tumor, leading to her death after only five years on the throne.


Erickson is obviously sympathetic to her subject, and skates around the issue of how bloody Bloody Mary was. The execution of Lady Jane Grey isn’t mentioned except to mention that Jane and her husband Guilford Dudley were “attainted”. Erickson also suggests that Mary herself wanted a gradual reversion to Catholicism in England, but her advisors (especially Cardinal Reginald Pole) persuaded her otherwise, resulting in the burnings enthusiastically documented in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. Mary never witnessed a burning, but she insisted that at least one member of her Council attend every one – whether this was to ensure that things were done right or to force her advisors to see the consequences of their condemnations isn’t clear. Oddly, Erickson doesn’t give a lot a play to Mary’s refusal to have Elizabeth executed (possibly for the reason mentioned above), and she doesn’t make the argument that “Good Queen Bess” was responsible for at least as many, if not more, executions than “Bloody Mary” and although the details were different, burning alive is not obviously crueler than hanging, drawing and quartering. (You can make the subtle argument that Mary’s victims were executed for heresy – that is, for their thoughts – while Elizabeth’s were executed for treason – for their actions).


An interesting and sympathetic treatment of someone who’s suffered, perhaps unjustly, from a bad press. Even now Elizabeth and Mary of Scotland get all the movies and romance novels. ( )

Despite the sensationalist title, this is a reasoned, well pieced together biography of Henry VIII's eldest child. Most of the book is set during Henry's reign, and Erickson provides far too much detail therein. I don't really need to know the mechanics of battles fought by Mary's father, particularly when Mary's own reign takes up only ~100 pages. Erickson focuses on odd details (she documents pretty much every uprising ever, no matter how small) while ignoring others (Mary's presence in the famous dynastic tapestry, Catherine Parr's attempts to bring the family together, Francis Brandon's close relationship with Mary that led to her pardon and her daughter's execution). Erickson reminded me that Mary loved sumptuous fabrics and jewels (a character quirk often forgetten by dramatists, who love putting her in dour black), but passes over her relationship with Elizabeth and everything to do with religious prosecution on Mary's part. I didn't always agree with her choices, but Erickson's scholarship is good.
( )