Why Do Mary Tudors Actions Reflect Self-Preservation in Light of Her Political and Religious Decisions - Essay Example

: Mary Tudor Mary Tudor, daughter of King Henry the VIII, represents a bitter sweet period in the history of British monarchs. Like Shakespearean tragedies, Mary’s personal life provides a similar script (if one were to make a play). The theme of lose is prominent all through her life from the time she was a teenager. She loses her parents to a marriage annulment, her mother to death, her religion to Edwards’s reforms and her trust to the betrayal of her subjects. During all these difficult times, Mary made decisions that appealed to and appalled society. Why do Mary’s actions reflect self-preservation even in light of her political and religious decisions? Ann Boleyn previously painted as the innocent victim of circumstances is not such. For instance, Anne Whitelock in her book Mary Tudor: England's First Queen describes Anne Boleyn as a conniving woman hiding under the facade of innocence. Boleyn was afraid of Mary’s influence on her father and spied on them during visits. Whitelock further revokes her innocence when she declares her standing on the Spaniards, wishing all the Spaniards drowned (46). This made boldly to a relative of Spaniards was extreme. Mary’s mother died a painful death caused not only by disease but also heartache. The death of Katharine is somewhat a mystery as doctors said she succumbed to slow poisoning. King Henry is aware that his marriage to Anne may lead to war between England and Spain and this further instigated the rebellious actions of Mary; she refused to renounce her title as princess. However, at her tender age, her rage is insurmountable and her rebellious actions, though futile, may reflect her desire to preserve her dignity in the face of the hurtful changes. It is not clear whether Mary viewed her mother’s death with suspicion, or she was aware of Boleyn’s spying activities. She was, however, a suspicious person herself and highly intuitive in regard to danger (Whitelock 64). She suspects, for instance, that there is a plot against her at the time of Edwards’s death. In reviving the heresy laws, Mary managed to persecute close to 300 protestants by burning them in public (Wagner 743), hence the name bloody Mary. Most historians see these actions as a way of conforming to religious beliefs and, in turn, imposing them on the people. While the Pope rejected the annulment of her parent’s marriage, Archbishop Thomas Crammer agreed to nullify this marriage. The contradictory state of his decision is apparent. For instance, it is clear that the King Henry VIII was in favor of the protestant religion (Wagner 731). The bishop might have granted the annulment to perpetuate this favor. The name of bloody Mary reflects her cruelty to the Protestants. However, one can look at this from a different perspective in which case Thomas Cranmer was executed not for his religious beliefs but his role in disclaiming her mother’s marriage (Duffy 54). However, the execution of others, apart from the Archbishop, may reflect her bottled rage directed towards the unpleasant events in her life. Her mother had Spanish roots, and she sought out a man of Spanish origin. This is perhaps because she thought a Spanish man would be as agreeable to her as her mother. In this light, the union between her and Philip is from a perspective that is personal rather than political. Her love for Phillip was profoundly strong. Some argue that her marriage was purely political, citing that she sacrificed her personal happiness to be with Philip (Time 107). Other analysts such as Wagner claim that Mary was extremely in love with Philip, so she fell ill when he was away in Spain (756). Whitelock attributes the phantom pregnancies to Mary’s desire to impress Philip and make him stay rather than fulfil her will to have a catholic heir. In the Life magazine, the author views the death of Mary as a disappointment to Philip who viewed the union as politically barren (123). It is clear that Philip had clear goals in the union that did not involve love. Wagner alludes to the possibility of Mary dying due to heartache like her mother who had faced rejection from King Henry. Both Wagner and Whitelock concur that Mary’s actions reflect her possessive nature. Perhaps her possessiveness led her to be unforgiving towards the Archbishop and her father. Her subjects also feel that she betrays them. On the one hand, there are Protestants who feel betrayed because of persecution and on the other hand, politicians feel that her marriage to the Spaniard Philip puts the United Kingdom in jeopardy. Mary is a kind, caring person on matters that were not religious (Time 101). Upon her death, a large portion of her wealth went to poor prisoners and the Savoy hospital (Duffy 24). One should note that the donations did not specify the religion of the beneficiaries. This further emphasizes the point that her religiously fanatic nature is a pretext under which her personal endeavours thrived. Mary was also sympathetic to submissive subjects and rewarded those who were obedient, for instance the archbishop Gardiner (Time 102). Establishing that Mary is a kind, caring person is essential in two main ways. The first reason is that her cruel actions result from other factors other than her persona. The second is that her actions in most cases aim at a premeditated result. However strong her political and religious motives are, Mary’s feelings thrive in her decisions. In light of this, an analysis of her psychological motivations is crucial. From the available evidence, it is clear that Mary faces rejection from all fronts, and has only herself to depend on from the tender age of 15. In modern times, scientists have made advances on the study of rejection on the psychology of an individual and, therefore, the effect on the conscious and the subconscious. Renowned psychoanalyst, Freud, postulated the effects of rejection, among others, to be aggression and anxiety directed to future rejection. A phenomenon Mary Tudor may have struggled with was seeing her aggression against people and ideologies that led to her rejection and her constant need to rid the kingdom of possible “threats.” The above analysis further emphasizes what ifs advanced by scholars such as Wagner and Whitelock. Wagner claims that in the event that Mary was male, events in history would have been different but not as exciting. Her persistence and stubbornness in regard to matters of religion only sometimes is attributed to her bloodline, the Tudor Bloodline (Time 103). On the other hand, Duffy speculates that the King’s persistence to have a male heir was not only to preserve the male legacy but also reflected his view of women’s inability to rule (34). Mary was an educated person, in which case there is no doubt that she understood the inevitability and the need for change, which was the reason why her father adopted the Protestant legacy (though self-serving). There is no doubt that Mary’s actions are self-serving both politically and religiously. However, her past endeavours and her status as a female in a world ridden with male dominance pre-empted her actions to be as such, very personal. She was trying to protect herself. Works Cited Duffy, Eamon. The Church of Mary Tudor. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 2006. Print. Time Inc. "Mary Tudor." LIFE Magazine 29 Oct 1956: 144. Print. Wagner, John. Encyclopedia of Tudor England. London: ABC-CLIO, 2011. Print. Whitelock, Anna. Mary Tudor: England's First Queen. Bloomsbury: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2010. Print. Read More