The Myth of Bloody Mary

Apologies for the rather inflammatory headline but I do like to be controversial! I’ve purposely used the misleading nickname that history has given Mary I, daughter of Henry VIII and his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, a title that is still being used today in the new London Dungeon’s Exhibition “Bloody Mary: Killer Queen”.

On this day, 457 years after Mary was informed that the Privy Council had proclaimed her Queen Mary I, I’d like to challenge that nickname.

The Myth of Bloody Mary

This title really does get on my nerves. By nicknaming Mary I “Bloody Mary”, we are completely misunderstanding her, maligning her, perpetuating the myths about her and not giving her the credit she deserves for her reign and for paving the way for Elizabeth I’s Golden Age. When I went to the London Dungeon Bloody Mary exhibition webpage, my blood really began to boil as I read the following on Mary I:-

“History:-

Bloody Mary, the deadliest daughter of Henry VIII is ruthlessly ridding the country of heretics.

In her eyes there is only one faith and all those who believe otherwise must be punished. No one is safe from persecution – men, women and children are all suspect in the eyes of Bloody Mary.

Feel the force of her wrath, the heat of the flames and the intensity of Mary’s obsession!”

It goes on to describe what you’ll experience if you visit the exhibition:-

“What you’ll experience

  • Watch as Bloody Mary punishes non believers
  • Frightening fire
  • Punishment and persecution
  • Horrid smells
  • Hair raising silence”

Hmm…

(banned London Dungeon Bloody Mary advert)

Now, I do have a sense of humour (really I do!) and I’m all up for a bit of fun and for making history accessible and interesting, but I do feel that this gives a very misleading picture of Mary. I am not justifying what she did, she did order the executions of many heretics and it is clear that she was a very damaged woman, BUT compare her reign to her father’s and it is clear to see who really deserves the nickname “Bloody”.

Was Mary “Bloody”?

In an article on The Daily Telegraph website last week entitled Anti-Catholic junk history II: Mary I killed 284, Henry VIII up to 72,000 – but it’s ‘Bloody Mary’ and ‘Bluff King Hal’, Gerald Warner argued that Protestant propaganda has misrepresented history and that the London Dungeon’s promotion of “junk history” regarding Mary I stems from the blackening of Mary’s name in Protestant Elizabethan England. Very true. He goes on to say that according to John Foxe’s “Book of Martyrs”, a Protestant book, Mary I was responsible for the burning of 284 heretics during her reign whereas, according to Holinshed’s Chronicle, Henry VIII was responsible for 72,000 executions, two of them being his wives! Warner also points out that during Edward VI’s reign 5,500 Cornish Catholic rebels were massacred in the Prayer Book Rebellion. So, let’s do some calculations and divide those numbers of deaths by the number of years of their reigns:-

  • Henry VIII – 72,000 divided by 37 years (I’m being kind) = 1945.94
  • Edward VI – 5,500 divided by 6 years = 916.66
  • Mary I – 284 divided by 5 years = 56.8

Now, I know that this doesn’t give us a full picture because Mary’s and Edward’s figures don’t take into account other executions, but I think it is clear that Mary wasn’t quite as bloody as people make out.

Some of you may argue that Mary was “Bloody” because she killed for religious reasons instead of killing rebels, people who challenged her throne, but then you could argue that Mary saw Protestants as traitors, both to England and to God. To understand Mary I, we have to take into account the context of Tudor England, the religious divisions that existed, and Mary’s beliefs. Just like Thomas More before her, she believed that Protestants were heretics and that it was her job as a true believer to rid England of this evil. Linda Porter, in “Mary Tudor: The First Queen”, points out also that many members of the public were not executed on Mary’s orders but were rounded up and burned by their local authorities, a valid point. I’m not justifying what she did, I hate what she did in God’s name, I’m simply trying to understand the woman.

Historical Illiteracy

In Warner’s article, he accuses London Dungeon of  “perpetuating anti-Catholic mythology”,which I think is an unfair accusation as I can’t imagine that London Dungeon were aiming to be anti-Catholic in any way, but I do agree with Warner when he says that “the root problem is historical illiteracy”. By perpetuating myths about historical characters we are doing them an injustice and causing people to learn bad history. We have Elizabeth Woodville the witch or Melusina, Richard III the murdering hunchback, Anne Boleyn the six-fingered whore and witch, Catherine Howard the tart… the list goes on and it is time to challenge these labels and stereotypes and teach people proper history, the truth behind the stereotypes and myths.

The Real Mary I

For those of you who want to know more about the real Mary I, I would heartily recommend Linda Porter’s “Mary Tudor: The First Queen” which I reviewed at http://reviews.theanneboleynfiles.com/mary-tudor-the-first-queen-by-linda-porter/74. Porter’s Mary I is not “Bloody Mary”, but, as the blurb on the back of the book says, “a cultured Renaissance princess, strong-willed and courageous”. Remember, this woman was able to become monarch in a time when females were not meant to rule, she was able to rally troops, challenge Lady Jane Grey and win the crown, and she squashed rebellions successfully during her five year reign. Let’s stop calling her “Bloody Mary” and let’s not make the mistake of seeing her as a pathetic puppet of her husband, Philip of Spain, but instead we should give her credit for her achievements:-

“Her bravery put her on the throne and kept her there, so that when she died she was able to bequeath to Elizabeth a precious legacy that is often overlooked: she had demonstrated that a woman could rule in her own right.” Linda Porter, Mary Tudor: The First Queen.

In a BBC History Magazine article, David Loades lists Mary I’s achievements as:-

  • Mary I preserved the Tudor succession
  • She strengthened the position of Parliament by using it for her religious settlement
  • She established the “gender free” authority of the crown
  • She restored and strengthened the administrative structure of the church
  • She maintained the navy and reformed the militia

He concludes that “Parliament, the revenues, the navy, even the church benefited from her policies. But the big beneficiary was also the least grateful – Elizabeth. Without her sister’s enlightened legislation and sound administration she would have had a much harder time.”

Mary I’s Struggle for the Throne

You can find out more about Mary I’s struggle for the throne in July 1553 in a wonderful series of posts at littlemisssunnydale’s blog “Mary Tudor: Renaissance Queen”, starting with Monday 3 July 1553: Mary Must Act

Notes and Sources

  • Mary Tudor: The First Queen byLinda Porter
  • “Anti-Catholic junk history II: Mary I killed 284, Henry VIII up to 72,000 – but it’s ‘Bloody Mary’ and ‘Bluff King Hal'” by Gerald Warner
  • The Bloody Queen by David Loades – BBC History Magazine, March 2006
  • London Dungeon website

46 thoughts on “The Myth of Bloody Mary

  1. One thing to remember is that in Christianity, there is a separation of Church and State. Except in the Papal states, or now Vatican city. Where the Pope is the head of state and the head of a religion. The Pope did not order Mary to kill anyone. In fact, I believe that Mary was told to be lenient. Now in effect, Henry VIII FUSED church and State. (the American founding fathers were real clear that was a bad thing)

  2. I would like to re-state that Henry VIII had a major head injury during a jousting accident, and it was after that when he became even more irrational, had major mood swings, and started really executing many people. If you’re familiar with how a head injury can change a person, it’s obvious that this had to be what led to his mass murderer/psycho ruler stage. Now add the perilous situation of women of the time, the intolerance of different religions, and his abusive/murderous relationships with his wives, children, and friends. The product is two psycho daughters. How either Mary or Elizabeth could have come out smelling like roses after being so damaged is a mystery, yet some people are still extremely taken with the idea of Elizabeth. (Just look at how many Irish were murdered under her rule if you want to talk numbers.) IMHO they were both nuts and had everything going against them, but Elizabeth, with her long reign, was able to accomplish more that pleased the common people. She had Mary’s example to learn from so that her public persona was much more attractive to her people, and she set herself up to take the place of the Virgin Mary for those missing that part of Catholicism. What’s amazing to me is that she is STILL perceived by many people as this wonderful monarch today. I do admire her intelligence and what must have been charisma, but she and Mary were both clearly crazy, and who can blame them? The paranoia and plots against their lives alone would’ve driven them insane regardless of the the unfortunate circumstances of their parentage. What very difficult lives they must have led.

  3. I remember at school our history teacher telling us about the Protestants that were burnt and thinking what a horrific woman she was, that must be the most painful death of all, then some time ago I read how she even burnt pregnant women that’s always been a no go in English law, they wouldn’t hang a woman if she was found to be with child right upto the 20 th c, and there’s a particularly ghastly story of how one woman began to give birth to her child and the baby was thrown into the fire, what sort of people were they? She had all the fanacticsm of her mother combined with the cruelty of her father, I often think of her as Countess Dracula out for blood! I know the heresy laws were there but surely she could have just had the hangman instead, I think her unhappy childhood had a lot to do with the way she turned out you could see a lot of her father in her.

  4. Christine-Heresy laws required the offender be burnt at the stake, not hung. Mary didn’t decide on a whim to burn people alive because she was trying to be as monstrous as possible; the law explicitly dictated that heretics MUST be burned. I believe they thought death by burning would save them from the fires of hell or something like that.

    Then, as now, the government pushed out propaganda. Mary 1 was not any more evil than Elizabeth, yet she’s been treated harshly by history and time. Elizabeth killed many more people than Mary and she used the torturous method of hanging, drawing and quartering. That’s just as horrific a death as burning, but the winners write history and Elizabeth has been heralded as the “greatest monarch ever” and Mary 1 as “Bloody Mary”…neither of them deserves these names.

  5. Even as a young child (Protestant) I felt that Mary was persecuted by her sisterElizabeth and certainly by her fatherElizabeth was hopelessly jealous of her sister’ beauty and the wicked Ig Henry hated her because she was a girl and the offspring of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon.He blamed his wives for their inability toprovide him with a male heir. I guess when he got to the other side he found out the fault was all his. Both these women were the subjects of his cruelty and most likely mental health problems.

  6. Mary was treated so badly as a child, when Henry VIII went to visit Elizabeth, she was locked in her bedroom and forbidden to leave until Henry had left.
    She may have killed people, and if this means that she is bloody, then it’s safe to say that there are hundreds of ‘bloody’ people out there. Dead or alive.

    What is considered right and wrong has developed and changed overtime, Mary tried very hard to give herself a good image, but she has always been perceived as Henry’s daughter or Elizabeth’s sister.

    It’s fair to say she needed help, and she murdered innocent people, but bloody Mary killer queen is going too far!

  7. A good article. One thing to remember is that for many decades after the death of Mary I it would have been extremely dangerous to say or do anything implying a favourable or positive view of her and for centuries it remained unwise, at best, to do so in piublic. So, while we should be wary of the ‘history is written by the winners’ cliche, it is not surprising that the widely held view of her as an overwrought monster has taken hold. Neither of the Christian sects involved emerges with any credit from that period, they were both dominated by adherents driven mad to the point of murder by their religiosity. If we can learn anything from this period of history, it is that religion should nevr again be allowed to play any part in politics or law.

  8. Such a no brainer to answer. England that ended up Protestant wrote their history. Of course they would make Mary out to be evil,

    If one looks at the laws passed and the actual trials and deaths, during Mary Tudor’s reign compared to Elizabeth i’s reign, Elizabeth would not even allow the Catholic mass to be celebrated and hunted down and killed Catholic priests and anyone who helped them. None were allowed in the country under Elizabeth. Mary Tudor was much more tolerant and most often, it you look at the trials, only had killed those who attacked her. Which all Monarchs did. Protestant England would never want to admit the deaths of these thousands of Catholics killed. Just look at Protestant Martyr books and you will find Catholics they killed not mentioned. It’s like they pretend to not mention the thousands of peasants killed by Martin Luther’s writings, and his vile hatred of the Jews. It is all like the bias media today and their one sided news. Good men must look hard to find truth, and take into account what one’s agenda is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *