Abstract
During the course of their marriage, Mary and Philip strove to define their roles as ruling queen and king consort. The complexities inherent in their positions led to the creation of confusing—and at times conflicting—images. The ways in which the two rulers shared or divided the role of sovereign, which had traditionally been held by a male monarch, did not dispel the ambiguity of regnant queenship—in fact, their subjects’ ambivalence about female rulers may have increased. Yet in spite of the difficulties they faced, both Mary and Philip were successful in various ways in carving out their respective positions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
A. N. McLaren, Political Culture in the Reign of Elizabeth I: Queen and Commonwealth, 1558–1585 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 97–98.
John Heywood, The Spider and the Flie: Reprinted from the Ed. of 1556 (New York: Franklin, 1967), 455.
Judith M. Richards, “Mary Tudor as ‘Sole Quene’? Gendering Tudor Monarchy,” Historical Journal 40, no. 4 (December 1997): 917.
See also Alexander Samson, “Changing Places: The Marriage and Royal Entry of Philip, Prince of Austria, and Mary Tudor, July–August 1554,” Sixteenth Century Journal 36, no. 3 (2005): 761–84, who has commented, “As the reign progressed Philip edged his way into the symbolically superior position” (782).
See Public Record Office (P. R. O.), King’s Bench 27/1182/2, 27/1185/2. See also Erna Auerbach, Tudor Artists: A Study of Painters in the Royal Service and of Portraiture on Illuminated Documents from the Accession of Henry VIII to the Death of Elizabeth I (London: University of London Athlone Press, 1954).
See Peggy K. Liss, Isabel the Queen: Life and Times (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 106–7.
For Mary’s letters to the emperor urging Philip’s return, see Calendar of Letters, Despatches, and State Papers Relating to the Negotiations between England and Spain Preserved in the Archives at Simancas and Elsewhere, ed. Royall Tyler et al., 13 vols. (London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1862–1954), 13:259–60, 267, 271, 276. [Series hereafter cited as CalStP-Spanish.]
See also Barrett Beer and Sybil M. Jack, eds., The Letters of William, Lord Paget of Beaudesert, 1547–1563 (London: Offices of the Royal Historical Society, 1974), 115–17.
For Philip’s unwillingness to return without a coronation, see Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts Relating to English Affairs, Existing in the Archives and Collections of Venice, And in Other Libraries of Northern Italy, ed. Rawdon Brown et al., 39 vols. (London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1864–1890), 6:212, 227, 299–300. [Series hereafter cited as CalStP-Venetian.]
Elizabeth Russell, “Mary Tudor and Mr. Jorkins,” Historical Research 63 (October 1990): 262–76, esp. 264; CalStP-Venetian, 6:283.
David M. Loades, Mary Tudor: A Life (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989), 259.
Philip understood the English desire to have a resident king. When deciding whether or not to commence marriage negotiations with Elizabeth I, Philip acknowledged that “it is difficult for me to reconcile my conscience to it as I am obliged to reside in my other dominions and consequently could not be much in England, which apparently is what they fear,” as well as “the urgent need for my presence in Spain, which is greater than I can say here, and the heavy expense I should be put to in England by reason of the costly entertainment necessary to the people there.” See Philip to Count de Feria, January 10, 1559, Calendar of Letters and State Papers, Relating to English Affairs, Preserved Principally in the Archives of Simancas, ed. Martin A. S. Hume (London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1892), 1:22.
Henry VIII’s funeral, as well as the traditional nature of Tudor funerals, has been described and analyzed in great detail by Jennifer Loach. See Loach, “The Function of Ceremonial in the Reign of Henry VIII,” Past and Present 142 (February 1994): 43–68, esp. 62.
“The Entierment of the Most Highe, most Puysant, and most Excellente Princess Mary the first of that Name,” in John Leland, Joannis Lelandi Antiquarii De Rebus Britannicis Collectanea, ed. Thomas Hearne, 6 vols. (London: J. Richardson, 1770), 5:307–23, esp. 308. Another printed account of Mary’s funeral can be found in the “Appendix to Preface,” Calendar of State Papers, Foreign Series, of the Reign of Elizabeth, Preserved in the State Paper Department of Her Majesty’s Public Record Office, vol. 2, 1559–1560, ed. Joseph Stevenson (London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1865), CXV–CXXIX.
Henry Machyn, The Diary of Henry Machyn: Citizen and Merchant-Taylor of London, from A.D. 1550–1563, ed. John Gough Nichols (London: Printed for the Camden Society, 1848), 183.
Dale Hoak, “The Iconography of the Crown Imperial,” in Tudor Political Culture, ed. Dale Hoak (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 99;
Judith M. Richards, “Mary Tudor: Renaissance Queen of England,” in “High and Mighty Queens” of Early Modern England: Realities and Representations, ed. Carole Levin, Jo Eldridge Carney, and Debra Barrett-Graves (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), 27–44, esp. 37.
Ernst Hartwig Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957), 420–21.
Ibid., 145. Apparently an effigywas not made for Anne of Cleves’s funeral; one was constructed, however, for Jane Seymour after her death. See A. E. Harvey and Richard Mortimer, The Funeral Effigies of Westminster Abbey (Woodbridge, UK: Boydell, 2003), 8.
Jennifer Woodward, The Theatre of Death: The Ritual Management of Royal Funerals in Renaissance England, 1570–1625 (Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press, 1997), 80. Woodward estimates the costs at £321 14s. 6d., while Peter Sherlock asserts the entire funeral costs totaled £1,371 5s. 8d.
See Sherlock, “The Monuments of Elizabeth Tudor and Mary Stuart: King James and the Manipulation of Memory,” Journal of British Studies 46, no. 2 (April 2007): 263–89, esp. 268. In contrast, the cost for Mary I’s funeral in 1558 was £7,763. For Mary I’s funeral expenditures, see SP 12/1/32–33, Loades, Mary Tudor, 313.
Marjorie Chibnall, The Empress Matilda: Queen Consort, Queen Mother, and Lady of the English (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992), 191.
See D. R. Woolf, “The Power of the Past: History, Ritual and Political Authority in Tudor England,” in Political Thought and the Tudor Commonwealth: Deep Structure, Discourse and Disguise, ed. Paul A. Fideler and T. F. Mayer (London: Routledge, 1992), 19–49, esp. 21–22. Woolfgives the example of Polydore Vergil, “whose Anglica Historia was almost certainly commissioned by Henry VII about 1506 to provide an account of national history which would lead up to the accession of his own line and, by making that accession seem inevitable and providential, enhance its legitimacy” (22). One of the pageants in Elizabeth I’s coronation procession used language to legitimize her position as true heir to the throne by referring to her direct descent from Henry VII and Elizabeth of York with these lines: “Both heires to both their bloodes, to Lancastre the king / The Queene to Yorke, in one the two houses did knit, / Of whom as heire to both, henry the eyght did spring, / In whose seat his true heire thou quene Elsabeth dost sit.”
See J. M. Osborn, ed., The Quenes Maiesties Passage through the Citie of London to Westminster the Day before her Coronacion, Anno 1558 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1960), sig. Bi(v).
M. L. Metzger, “Controversy and ‘Correctness’: English Chronicles and the Chroniclers, 1553–1568” Sixteenth Century Journal 27, no. 2 (1996): 442.
Frances A. Yates, “Foxe as Propagandist,” in Ideas and Ideals in the North European Renaissance: Collected Essays (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1984), 30.
Christopher Haigh, English Reformations: Religion, Politics, and Society under the Tudors (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 233–34.
Judith M. Richards, Mary Tudor (London and New York: Routledge, 2008), 201.
From Edward Rishton’s Continuation of Nicolas Sanders, Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism, quoted in Richard L. Greaves, Elizabeth I, Queen of England (Lexington, MA, and London: D. C. Heath and Co., 1974.), 26.
I have explored this question in more detail elsewhere: see Sarah Duncan, “‘Most Godly Heart Fraight with Al Mercie’: Queens’ Mercy during the Reigns of Mary I and Elizabeth I,” in Queens and Power in Medieval and Early Modern England, ed. Carole Levin and Robert Bucholz (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2009), 31–50.
Leah Marcus, “Shakespeare’s Comic Heroines, Elizabeth I, and the Political Uses of Androgyny,” in Women in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance: Literary and Historical Perspectives, ed. Mary Beth Rose (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1986), 147.
Copyright information
© 2012 Sarah Duncan
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Duncan, S. (2012). Conclusion. In: Mary I. Queenship and Power. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137047908_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137047908_9
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-34384-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-04790-8
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)