Mary Tudor fails to be Queen

So, another thought into the heirs of Edward VI....

It's said that as Edward was dying his sister Mary was summoned to his side, however this was a ruse by John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland, to capture her and help Jane Grey become Queen. But Mary was forewarned, fled to East Anglia, and built up a successful momentum to become Queen herself.

What if she isn't warned and is captured.
Is she executed or merely imprisoned? Does she become a nun?
What happens to Elisabeth?
What would a successful Jane Grey as Queen be? By all accounts she was similar to Elisabeth in intelligence and temperament.
Will Dudley push his luck?
Will the Reformation go more strongly in England?
 
I can't imagine the kind of reaction her death would get. I don't think Dudley would dare absent some overarching crisis. At the start of her reign she was rather popular (though she blew through the goodwill pretty fast).
 
I can't imagine the kind of reaction her death would get. I don't think Dudley would dare absent some overarching crisis. At the start of her reign she was rather popular (though she blew through the goodwill pretty fast).

They definitely wouldn't execute her without some sort of reason, good or not. It'd have to be treasonous; if Jane kept her throne, the first rebellion would certainly marr Mary's name, especially if it was lead by Catholics who wanted to put her on the throne: Elizabeth nearly was executed because of Wyatt's rebellion. But I doubt the English would kill her; it's certainly provoke an intense reaction of Charles V, who was her cousin. They'd probably just lock her up in the Tower.
 
They definitely wouldn't execute her without some sort of reason, good or not. It'd have to be treasonous; if Jane kept her throne, the first rebellion would certainly marr Mary's name, especially if it was lead by Catholics who wanted to put her on the throne: Elizabeth nearly was executed because of Wyatt's rebellion. But I doubt the English would kill her; it's certainly provoke an intense reaction of Charles V, who was her cousin. They'd probably just lock her up in the Tower.
The only way that I would even consider it possible would be unless some sort of Spanish invasion to forcibly put Catholic Mary on the throne was imminent and would be supported by a native rebellion.

BTW, let me just take this time to state that I think Sarah Bolger did great as Mary Tudor and I thought she totally could have carried a season/series 5 of the Tudors culminating in taking the throne despite her age v. historical Mary.
 
The only way that I would even consider it possible would be unless some sort of Spanish invasion to forcibly put Catholic Mary on the throne was imminent and would be supported by a native rebellion.

BTW, let me just take this time to state that I think Sarah Bolger did great as Mary Tudor and I thought she totally could have carried a season/series 5 of the Tudors culminating in taking the throne despite her age v. historical Mary.

I don't know, a native rebellion would be enough: the Wyatt rebellion had absolutely no foreign support and Elizabeth nearly lost her head simply because Wyatt was going around saying he wanted to put Elizabeth on the throne. Even when it was clear that Wyatt and Elizabeth had absolutely no communication and Elizabeth had not been privy to plot, including Wyatt saying several times under torture that he had not included Elizabeth in his plot, several of Mary's councilors such as Gardinier were still urging that Elizabeth be executed. Her death warrant had even been drawn up IIRC. So it isn't terribly unlikely for Mary to offed for the most flimsy of excuses, if it's going to secure Lady Jane's rule. In this period, England was much different from continental Europe. Regicide was of little consequence, given Henry's martial track record, and the later execution of Mary Stuart.
 
Lady Jane Grey was very intelligent and scholarly, so like Elizabeth in that respect, but quite fanatically Protestant. Elizabeth had sincere Protestant convictions, but was willing to dissimulate and pretend Catholicism in order to save her life; Jane was not, which cost her hers. I don't think Jane's rule had that ever been established would have been at all like Elizabeth's; more like Edward VI mk II.

Mary was indeed popular, though as commented that didn't last long, and universally seen as the proper heiress, which she was of course. Those two factors protected Elizabeth during Mary's reign, and I don't see why they wouldn't have protected Mary during Jane's, plus her already-mentioned powerful maternal relatives.

Mary Queen of Scots was something of a different matter; she had long been deposed and was entirely unwanted in her own country, she was widely and probably rightly suspected of having murdered her second husband, and she had spent many years plotting the murder and overthrow of Elizabeth, of which there was unimpeachable evidence. Even so Elizabeth was brought to sign the death warrant only with utmost reluctance and after many delays, and then it had to be put into effect behind her back, as it were. I would say the Scottish Mary, where there were so many powerful reasons to execute her and no popular outrage to be anticipated but still the executioner's hand was stayed for so long, is more an argument that the English Mary would have been spared than slain.
 
Lady Jane Grey was very intelligent and scholarly, so like Elizabeth in that respect, but quite fanatically Protestant. Elizabeth had sincere Protestant convictions, but was willing to dissimulate and pretend Catholicism in order to save her life; Jane was not, which cost her hers. I don't think Jane's rule had that ever been established would have been at all like Elizabeth's; more like Edward VI mk II.

Mary was indeed popular, though as commented that didn't last long, and universally seen as the proper heiress, which she was of course. Those two factors protected Elizabeth during Mary's reign, and I don't see why they wouldn't have protected Mary during Jane's, plus her already-mentioned powerful maternal relatives.

Mary Queen of Scots was something of a different matter; she had long been deposed and was entirely unwanted in her own country, she was widely and probably rightly suspected of having murdered her second husband, and she had spent many years plotting the murder and overthrow of Elizabeth, of which there was unimpeachable evidence. Even so Elizabeth was brought to sign the death warrant only with utmost reluctance and after many delays, and then it had to be put into effect behind her back, as it were. I would say the Scottish Mary, where there were so many powerful reasons to execute her and no popular outrage to be anticipated but still the executioner's hand was stayed for so long, is more an argument that the English Mary would have been spared than slain.

There is still the argument that English courts had no right to try Mary Stuart. After all, she was a sovereign, albeit a deposed one, and had never been an English subject. While I suppose she could be tried and executed on the ground she was a subject as a potential heir of Elizabeth, that is flimsy at best. Elizabeth never named her as her heir and had no intention to do so. Naming Mary Stuart as her heir would simply recreate the days of her sister's reign, where Protestant plots sought to place Elizabeth on the crown. If Mary's rights were formally recognized, we'd see the opposite occur. Elizabeth deferred for so long because whatever her convictions, Elizabeth was a firm believer in the rights of sovereigns and believed they could only be tried by God, not by mere men. Putting Mary on trial and executing her went against Elizabeth believed.

I don't think Mary Tudor would be so lucky. As she has such a powerful claim to the throne, if Northumberland succeeded in keeping her from it, he'd want her done away with as soon as possible. The longer she remains alive, the more likely it is that Jane will be overthrown. Despite Jane's Protestantism, it did nothing to save her. Whatever religious convictions they had, at least following the death of Edward VI, the English people wanted Henry VIII's will upheld. Hence Mary's initial popularity, completely dissipated when she chose to marry Philip of Spain. The two situations, Mary Tudor and Mary Stuart are quite different.
 
I don't know, a native rebellion would be enough: the Wyatt rebellion had absolutely no foreign support and Elizabeth nearly lost her head simply because Wyatt was going around saying he wanted to put Elizabeth on the throne. Even when it was clear that Wyatt and Elizabeth had absolutely no communication and Elizabeth had not been privy to plot, including Wyatt saying several times under torture that he had not included Elizabeth in his plot, several of Mary's councilors such as Gardinier were still urging that Elizabeth be executed. Her death warrant had even been drawn up IIRC. So it isn't terribly unlikely for Mary to offed for the most flimsy of excuses, if it's going to secure Lady Jane's rule. In this period, England was much different from continental Europe. Regicide was of little consequence, given Henry's martial track record, and the later execution of Mary Stuart.

Yes. Mary Tudor is going to be quite the plot magnet if she isn't. Though Jane might need a scapegoat if her reign is tainted by it. Northumberland is bound to offend her at some point ;).

Lady Jane Grey was very intelligent and scholarly, so like Elizabeth in that respect, but quite fanatically Protestant. Elizabeth had sincere Protestant convictions, but was willing to dissimulate and pretend Catholicism in order to save her life; Jane was not, which cost her hers. I don't think Jane's rule had that ever been established would have been at all like Elizabeth's; more like Edward VI mk II.

Hmmm *peeks at Finns Thread* England may go quite Calvinist then

Mary was indeed popular, though as commented that didn't last long, and universally seen as the proper heiress, which she was of course. Those two factors protected Elizabeth during Mary's reign, and I don't see why they wouldn't have protected Mary during Jane's, plus her already-mentioned powerful maternal relatives.

Mary Queen of Scots was something of a different matter; she had long been deposed and was entirely unwanted in her own country, she was widely and probably rightly suspected of having murdered her second husband, and she had spent many years plotting the murder and overthrow of Elizabeth, of which there was unimpeachable evidence. Even so Elizabeth was brought to sign the death warrant only with utmost reluctance and after many delays, and then it had to be put into effect behind her back, as it were. I would say the Scottish Mary, where there were so many powerful reasons to execute her and no popular outrage to be anticipated but still the executioner's hand was stayed for so long, is more an argument that the English Mary would have been spared than slain.

There is still the argument that English courts had no right to try Mary Stuart. After all, she was a sovereign, albeit a deposed one, and had never been an English subject. While I suppose she could be tried and executed on the ground she was a subject as a potential heir of Elizabeth, that is flimsy at best. Elizabeth never named her as her heir and had no intention to do so. Naming Mary Stuart as her heir would simply recreate the days of her sister's reign, where Protestant plots sought to place Elizabeth on the crown. If Mary's rights were formally recognized, we'd see the opposite occur. Elizabeth deferred for so long because whatever her convictions, Elizabeth was a firm believer in the rights of sovereigns and believed they could only be tried by God, not by mere men. Putting Mary on trial and executing her went against Elizabeth believed.

I don't think Mary Tudor would be so lucky. As she has such a powerful claim to the throne, if Northumberland succeeded in keeping her from it, he'd want her done away with as soon as possible. The longer she remains alive, the more likely it is that Jane will be overthrown. Despite Jane's Protestantism, it did nothing to save her. Whatever religious convictions they had, at least following the death of Edward VI, the English people wanted Henry VIII's will upheld. Hence Mary's initial popularity, completely dissipated when she chose to marry Philip of Spain. The two situations, Mary Tudor and Mary Stuart are quite different.

I agree. Would Jane treat Mary of Scots the same as Elisabeth did?


What role will Elisabeth play in Jane's court?
Being more moderately Protestant (and possibly more politically astute) could she provide an ameliorating influence?
 
What role will Elisabeth play in Jane's court?
Being more moderately Protestant (and possibly more politically astute) could she provide an ameliorating influence?

I don't think Jane would accept it very much. She was very vehemently Protestant, from what I know - Mary repeatedly offered Jane her life should she convert to Roman Catholicism, but she refused. (Incidentally, that's why the Anglican Church considers Jane a martyr.) The problem, though, was she was also under the thumb of her father-in-law the Duke of Northumberland. How long do you think it'd take for her to assert her independence?
 
I continue to disagree that Mary's life would be lightly taken. She in contrast to the later Mary had done nothing wrong, and in further contrast was rightful Queen in the minds of the majority, as opposed to a small minority which did not even include most Catholics. Mary in captivity would be some sort of shield; Mary in two pieces would be the end of that, would be an outrageous provocation, and would make Elizabeth, not Jane, rightful Queen instead. Is she next for the chop? On what grounds?

Leaving Mary aside, how matters would play out with Elizabeth in the event of a prolonged rule for Jane is hard to say. There is little direct clue from actual history: she was away in the country while it was all happening, and true to her prudent nature kept her head down and played no part in events that were anyway half over before she could have been aware of them. It may be considered certain however that she would not have remained forever passive, and it is not at all unlikely that she would have acted in her sister's interest rather than her own.

The chief reason Mary could never convict Elizabeth of conspiracy against her is probably because she didn't, in fact, engage in it. Mary gave Elizabeth no reasons for fondness, rather the reverse, but the younger sister always acknowledged the elder's right to the throne, and as noted before these things were important to Elizabeth; she was always reluctant even to help the Dutch, because in her heart she considered Philip II, sworn enemy though he was of hers, their rightful sovereign.

Jane and Northumberland, her father-in-law and benefactor in raising her to the throne, though by all accounts she had wished neither to marry his son Guilford nor to be Queen, is as hard a situation to predict. Jane seems too strong-willed to have remained forever under his thumb, and it is clear that there was less than total amity between them. Again, the course of events between Jane's proclamation and Northumberland's fall was so brief and hectic that there is little that can be deduced, especially bearing in mind Jane's youth; just 16 or so, she was little older than the just-deceased Edward VI. No doubt her character was largely formed, but she probably still had some maturing to do. However, her defiance in the face of the demand that she should make Guilford King Consort is notable, and probably a sign that Northumberland's rule would not have lasted, even if Jane's did.
 
I continue to disagree that Mary's life would be lightly taken. She in contrast to the later Mary had done nothing wrong, and in further contrast was rightful Queen in the minds of the majority, as opposed to a small minority which did not even include most Catholics. Mary in captivity would be some sort of shield; Mary in two pieces would be the end of that, would be an outrageous provocation, and would make Elizabeth, not Jane, rightful Queen instead. Is she next for the chop? On what grounds?

None of us have suggested Mary's life would be taken lightly.
What we are saying is that she would initially be imprisoned.
Then once the inevitable plots arose to place her on the throne she would be executed for treason.
As for her eligibility for the throne: it depends how legal you consider Edward's "Devise for the Succession" - where Mary and Elisabeth are both excluded from the Succession on basis of bastardry - and if it supersedes his predecessor's Third Succession Act.

Leaving Mary aside, how matters would play out with Elizabeth in the event of a prolonged rule for Jane is hard to say. There is little direct clue from actual history: she was away in the country while it was all happening, and true to her prudent nature kept her head down and played no part in events that were anyway half over before she could have been aware of them. It may be considered certain however that she would not have remained forever passive, and it is not at all unlikely that she would have acted in her sister's interest rather than her own.
Or rather in her sister's and her own, since restoring Mary to the succession also restores herself.
Once Mary has been confirmed outside the Succession (whether alive or dead) I could perhaps see Jane buying Elisabeth off with a title to somewhere, Countess of Leicester perhaps.
Though perhaps continued religious dissent (if Jane pursues Calvinism) could see Elisabeth "restored" to the throne (following Mary's death of course) as a moderate Protestant.
The chief reason Mary could never convict Elizabeth of conspiracy against her is probably because she didn't, in fact, engage in it. Mary gave Elizabeth no reasons for fondness, rather the reverse, but the younger sister always acknowledged the elder's right to the throne, and as noted before these things were important to Elizabeth; she was always reluctant even to help the Dutch, because in her heart she considered Philip II, sworn enemy though he was of hers, their rightful sovereign.
Plus, supporting Mary's right to succession also supported her own following Mary...
Jane and Northumberland, her father-in-law and benefactor in raising her to the throne, though by all accounts she had wished neither to marry his son Guilford nor to be Queen, is as hard a situation to predict. Jane seems too strong-willed to have remained forever under his thumb, and it is clear that there was less than total amity between them. Again, the course of events between Jane's proclamation and Northumberland's fall was so brief and hectic that there is little that can be deduced, especially bearing in mind Jane's youth; just 16 or so, she was little older than the just-deceased Edward VI. No doubt her character was largely formed, but she probably still had some maturing to do. However, her defiance in the face of the demand that she should make Guilford King Consort is notable, and probably a sign that Northumberland's rule would not have lasted, even if Jane's did.
That was my impression.
I've got this image of Jane convicting him for the treason of trying to place Guildford on the throne ;)
 
The suggestion was in fact made that Mary's life could be lightly taken, but let's not quarrel about it. It is true that securing Mary's succession would secure Elizabeth's, if Mary had no children, and if Elizabeth survived her sister's reign. Which she might not have, and wouldn't if Mary had had her way. As Mary's hatred of Elizabeth had already set in by this time, the latter might well have been uneasy on the point; I still believe she would have been loyal, rather than risk all on advancing her own place in line. Risk was in any case foreign to her nature.

Edward's 'device for the succession' had no legal basis at all. His father had been authorised by Parliament to settle the succession by will, but that was for him alone and did not extend to Edward, a minor in any case. Without Parliamentary authorisation, most unlikely to have been forthcoming even if asked for, the document was entirely invalid. The illegitimacy of his sisters was technically a fact but irrelevant at the time of Edward's death, since they were specifically named in the succession despite it.
 
Top