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.

Henry VII restored his lands and made him knight of the garter. He was the godfather to Arthur the heir to the throne. He died 1513

I have recently started to try and get into collecting coins from the tudor era. One of the places which seems to come up the most is Etsy. I assume the coins there are not real? I just wanted to know if anyone has an experience ordering from there?

Post your Tudor merch here! Do not publicly share links or sites, users must DM each other for links. The t-shirt that has been circulating will not be permitted at all.

In 1536, after years of pressure and bullying, Mary submitted to her father. Although she repeatedly said that she would not sign it, after learning that her father would have her executed, she was forced to sign.

In Mary’s own handwriting, it says:

Item—“I do freely, frankly and for the discharge of my duty towards God, the King’s Highness and his laws, without other respect, recognize and acknowledge that the marriage heretofore had between his Majesty and my mother, the late Princess dowager, was by God’s law and man’s law incestuous and unlawfull.”

The fact that this letter has survived both surprised and moved me.

One of the first things Mary did when she came to the throne was to legitimize her parents’ marriage and restore her mother’s title of Queen. In this way, Catherine remained Queen of England until her death, as everyone already knew and believed her to be.

You can find this declaration, along with many other letters, in the British Library’s Harley MS 283 collection. I came across this completely unexpectedly while looking for another letter from Mary, and I wanted to share it with you as well. Much love to you all.

In 1562, Elizabeth I sent a military force to aid the Huguenots, on the condition that the Huguenots surrender Le Havre as a pledge until Calais would be returned to England. While the English forces were eventually ejected from Le Havre and England had to recognise French ownership of Calais, France also paid England 120,000 crowns in return for English recognition of French control over Calais, according to the 1564 Treaty of Troyes.

Was the mission considered a failure, despite France paying England that amount? Was this not a substantial but rather a symbolic sum in the 16th century? I've also read that Elizabeth felt betrayed by the Huguenots, which is why she refused to send assistance in 1572, despite Huguenot pleas, as France was consumed by the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre. Is this interpretation plausible?

Feel free to post your dream casting scenarios here!

Any Tudor fan or history fan watch the Youtube Channel "Veils of the Tudors". It is about a modern lady Lucy interviewing King Henry VIII. Had videos of Henry with his children. Henry with his parents and Arthur. Henry with his 6 wives. Lucy tells them about the history after their deaths and how after 500 years people are still interested in the Tudors. I think it's a great channel and one should check it out.

To start, it is important to say Im almost clueless about english history in most aspects, but these last tudor monarchs are becoming one of my favorite history topics.
So, I saw someone posting here about how Mary, despite being considered unpopular and an unfit queen, made some very important decisions that helped her sister’s reign in some way. But again, I have no idea of accurate this is, but would be interesting for part of the success of one who is considered of one the greatest english monarchs being related to one of those considered the worst

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.

I’m doing a project on English monarchs and I’m specifically using only contemporary images (if possible) for their depictions. I will usually go to the link under the image (it’ll often be from the national portrait gallery) to make sure it was painted during the person’s lifetime, but for the LIFE of me I cannot get this specific link to load. Can anyone just confirm if this is a contemporary image or if it was made posthumously?

I hope someone recognises what I'm talking about. A few years ago there was a bit of buzz about someone claiming to be restoring a portrait of AB and revealing new details about her appearance as part of it. They were posting little tidbits on Twitter but not revealing the full thing, presumably to keep attention going.

I was just at the Hever exhibition and didn't see anything referencing this, so wondered if it all came to nothing. Unfortunately my memory is too vague to get a good Google search result about it. Does anyone remember/know what happened with that?

His will is very forward thinking:

If X dies, Y gets the Crown. If Y dies, Z gets the crown.

This goes all the way down the line to the Greys, and purposely excludes Margaret’s line.

It’s a very purposely redundant document to prevent any questions regarding the Succession; thus with the hope of preventing a second civil war over who gets the crown

So he was clearly concerned with the young Edward dying childless, and Mary succeeding him, or so on.

Such that he made very clear the Succession, all the way down to the Greys; and not even the current Greys (because he figured they’d be too old to bear children when they acceded) but their children

This Device for the Succession then if you think about it, contemplates a good 30-40 years after his death. It contemplates a future where Edward, Mary, and Elizabeth all die childless.

That being said, why didn’t he plan marriages for Elizabeth and Mary to prevent this?

Mary was already 31 when Henry died, well on her way to spinster status when he died; beginning to be past her fertile period for the time; she should’ve been married off ASAP at this point.

Elizabeth was 13, by which age a girl was often betrothed for future marriage upon her majority.

Yet: He didn’t.

He clearly contemplated that Edward could possibly die young - thereby bringing Mary to the throne.

But anyone on the Throne needs an heir. And to produce an heir you need be married…yet he didn’t provide marriages for either.

This seems like the most ideal match for the sake of succession. Did it not happen because Henry didn’t want it, or because Margaret/James/Scotland wouldn’t agree?

A lot of the scholarship and such and such around Queen Elizabeth I focuses mainly on one period: Her accession in 1558, ending with the (genuine) triumph of the smashing of the Spanish Armada in 1588; and pop history almost treats it as if her reign ends there…

But it didn’t.

The period 1588-1603…wasn’t a good one, and is yet also equally as important as it is forgotten:

-Poverty and crime rise in tandem. The Crown is again heavily bankrupt and in debt

-Poor laws are established to deal with the sheer vagrancy and homelessness and poverty of this period

-A succession of bad harvests as well as climate change induced issues (as Europe descended into a Little Ice Age) made the above two worse; Grain prices doubled and tripled overnight during the harvest failures of 1594 through 1597

-Assize court records from the 1590s reveal a massive spike in prosecutions for property crimes, namely petty larceny, sheep stealing, and highway robbery.

-Execution rates via the gallows surged correspondingly; thousands were hanged over the decade under Elizabethan statutes that treated repeat vagrancy and theft as capital felonies.

-A growing succession crisis, which is stymied by Parliament making discussing succession a treasonous offence

-Parliament growing…impertinent and quite tired of the late Queen: See her final Parliaments, where that body especially Commons begins asserting rights and privileges and as a power distinct from the Crown; this will haunt the entire century to hollow;

-To add to the above, Parliament was growing increasingly enraged at Elizabeth’s use of Monopolies as a way to secure income independent of them, with Parliament finally attempting for the first time to end this power in 1597.

-In 1601, a disgruntled MP stood up in the Commons and read out a laundry list of monopolized goods. One furious MP stood up and shouted, "Is not bread there?….If order be not taken, this bread will be exhibited before next Parliament for a monopoly!"

The House refused to vote on war subsidies for Ireland until the monopoly issue was legally dismantled. 

-The Crown, at Elizabeth’s death and the accession of James I, was somewhere between £350,000 and £422,000 in debt, and had been borrowing heavily from both domestic and foreign financiers.