Read Tudor Queenship: The Reigns of Mary and Elizabeth Online
Authors: Alice Hunt,Anna Whitelock
Tags: #Royalty, #Tudors, #England/Great Britain, #Nonfiction, #Biography & Autobiography
Thus, it is not surprising that Mary and the Tudors in general play a far smaller role in these texts. Quite conventionally, Mary is lauded for her noble descent and, mostly without any further specifications, for her virtues.
27
Some texts also link these virtues directly to what was generally perceived as the “miracle of her accession,” due to divine intervention on her behalf.
28
Furthermore, she is presented as God’s instrument, his
ancilla
(handmaiden), and likened to Judith in her role in saving her people.
29
Piety and constancy are mentioned as her most striking characteristics, through which “she remained the one hope and refuge of the Faith in this realm” under her predecessors, preserved by God through all trials.
30
Mary’s thankfulness and belief in God’s intervention in her favor are also employed in a fictitious speech in which Mary expresses her joy that God had “prescribed” her to the “House of Austria,” the most eminent dynasty of its time.
31
This leads directly to the main focus of all the eulogistic texts examined with regard to the wedding: a praise of Habsburg glory. The occasion of Philip’s wedding was obviously grasped as an opportunity to remind Tudor and Habsburg subjects alike of the greatness of his ancestors’ deeds, especially those that were similar to his perceived task in England: fighting the infidel. Thus, there are references to his great-grandmother Isabel of Castile, who defeated the Moors in Spain, as well as to Philip’s father, the Emperor Charles V, and his military successes in Tunis and against the Turks in Hungary.
32
Philip, however, is lauded in a rather conventional and less specific way as virtuous, pious, scholarly, and faithful as well as generous and merciful. The description of his virtues led Christopherson to the conclusion that “as [the] Spaniardes have good cause to lament for hys departing, so we Englishmen have juste occasion to rejoyse for his comming.”
33
There are also references to other rulers who share his name, such as Philip of Macedonia, the Roman Emperor Philip, and two Dukes of Burgundy, conveying the impression of a tradition of good rule by persons of that name.
34
However, being the son of Charles V is presented as Philip’s most outstanding quality and could even be included as part of his title.
35
As Leonard Gorecki acknowledged, Philip had already shown the same signs of greatness as his father, who was meant to be the most outstanding role model for his son.
36
Stressing that bride and groom were not only virtuous themselves but also descendants of noble and virtuous families was a common feature of positive accounts of unions, raising hopes for a bright future.
37
In the case of Mary and Philip, there was a long tradition of unions between England and Spain, from the marriage of King Henry II’s daughter Eleanor to the King of Castile in the twelfth century to the most recent union of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon, Mary’s parents. Since precedents were always considered to be a good argument for a political move, these examples were employed by Mameranus, although with some genealogical mistakes.
38
More important than the fact that this was already the fifth union between England and Spain was the conclusion that Philip and Mary had common ancestry and, furthermore, that Philip was of English royal blood. His descent from Edward III was the theme of one pageant displayed at the couple’s first entry to London, one of the few occasions where we have evidence of genuinely English propaganda in favor of this union.
39
When one Italian author wrote in late September 1554 that “thanks to God’s grace the kingdom was peaceful...and everyone was very satisfied, even more by having realised...that his Majesty [i.e., Philip] was of English royal blood, as it had been publicly demonstrated to everyone,” he grasped not only the intention behind publicizing this fact but also the main aim of this union from the English point of view: to restore peace and unity in their troubled country.
40
With these expectations in mind, the marriage between Mary and Philip was presented as “most noble news” and “the greatest hope for our realm.”
41
Gorecki directly addresses the English people in telling them that Philip would be useful for them, and a Spanish text states that Mary had chosen her husband solely for her country’s benefit, a statement she had made herself when she had announced her decision to marry.
42
The publication of the very favorable marriage treaty not only in English but also in Italian (by a Roman printer) underlined this view.
43
Philip, of course, also played a very important role in this context. His first encounters with his new people were closely observed and authors unanimously proclaimed their verdict that he did very well in winning the hearts of his new subjects. The author of the
Narratione assai piu particolare
summed it up best when he wrote that the English
stayed most satisfied with this tall and benign prince whose prudence and seriousness is demonstrated in his reasoning full of importance and [good] counsel, in the courtesy and gentility of speaking, the reception and general treatment of every person after his rank. In the zeal and affection he carries towards the Christian and Catholic religion; the inclination towards all good order, and government of justice...with their great satisfaction asking them to give them good and true performance [and to follow every contract agreed on and ratified in advance].
44
Furthermore, it was observed that Philip not only followed the prescriptions of the marriage treaty but also behaved in line with English customs—a fact very important in sixteenth-century culture with its great emphasis on custom and precedent.
45
The English fear that their queen would be dominated by her Habsburg husband was tackled by a subtle change in ceremonial: Mary stood on the honorific right side and the Mayor of London delivered a mace signifying his power and authority to the queen alone. Mary also lived in the king’s quarters in Whitehall.
46
However, it was only Elder who mentioned this; the reports printed in foreign languages are silent about what could have been perceived as a snub for the Habsburgs.
47
Instead, they look forward to Philip’s coronation in the near future, which, of course, never took place.
48
All the reports do stress, however, that the couple seemed to like each other, a positive omen for the much-desired male heir Mary was supposed to conceive as soon as possible. As one Spanish observer put it while commenting on the wedding, “if they give us a son our joy will be complete.”
49
When Mary was (falsely) thought to be pregnant in early autumn 1554, Philip seemed to have fulfilled one major expectation of the marriage.
50
His popularity was on the rise and even after Mary’s death, when all hopes were proved false, it was still stated that he had managed to convince the English that they did not need to fear foreign domination.
51
Though this was probably a rather optimistic assessment, in the autumn of 1554 the future looked bright for those in favor of a Habsburg union, which promised to secure the country’s possession of Calais and to restore peace, unity, and tranquility in mainland England—as Gorecki and Mameranus similarly and repeatedly put it.
52
The main aim of the marriage, at least in the words of these two authors, was to continue the project Mary had started with her “victory over Lutheran tyranny:” to free England from “heresy.” How desirable this had to be for everyone could be inferred from both authors’ lengthy description of the horrible state of affairs before Mary’s accession.
53
In the minds of those Catholic authors, peace and unity could come true only by overcoming what, for them, had been the most fatal mistake of English policy in the past: the break from papal authority. This had to be overcome by all means. “Restoring this kingdom to the place it held in Christendom as an obedient daughter of the Catholic Church,” however, was a goal that had implications far beyond England herself.
54
The marriage of Mary and Philip was, therefore, presented as “not only for the comfort and benefit of this entire realm, but universally of the entire Christendom.”
55
The European dimension of this powerful union between the Tudors and the Habsburgs was underlined by the repeated announcement of the couple’s new titles in Latin, French, and English as
Philip and Marie by the grace of god king and Quene of England, Frau[n]ce, Naples, Hierusale[m], & Ireland, defenders of the faith, Princes of Spain and Secyll Archdukes of Austria, Dukes of Milla[n], Burgu[n]dy, and Braba[n]t, Counties of Haspurge, Flau[n]ders and Tirol.
56
Mary and Philip were “defenders of the faith”—and, in some of our texts, defending is understood in a very “active” way. Gorecki begs God to save the couple “to propagate the name of his son, our Lord Jesus Christ.”
57
What he and the author of
La solenne et felice intrata
meant hereby was actively fighting the enemies of the Christian faith, namely “Turks, daemons, heretics.”
58
Gorecki, looking at problems from a Polish perspective, dwelt extensively on the past and future threat that Protestants and especially Turks posed to Christian Europe. To him, as well as to Mameranus, uniting against the latter had to be the main aim of Christian rulers all over Europe.
59
The author of the
Kurtze anzeigung
followed this line by a general exhortation to free Jerusalem from the Turks, “not out of selfishness but for the protection of the poor Christians.”
60
All in all, these authors put the marriage in the broader context of European-wide problems. And thus, the union between England and the Habsburg dominions was presented as an important tool in achieving the ultimate goal: temporal and spiritual peace and unity among Europeans.
V
The aims of publications related to the Tudor–Habsburg union can thus be easily identified: they were meant to celebrate Habsburg glory and to prove that Philip was the ideal husband for Mary, who could ensure that England as well as Catholicism would benefit from this union. They were equally addressing English fears and hopes nurtured in the Habsburg dominions whose inhabitants were meant to perceive this marriage as another example of their rulers’ greatness. The next crucial step was also clearly outlined: England had to be reconciled with Rome—and with the help of these publications it was hoped that no one would fail to perceive the link between the marriage and this victory for Catholicism.
It was probably these great expectations that led to such a wide range of publications related to this particular marriage. The Stuart–Valois marriage, however, was just a standard political union against the English and the Habsburgs, to be celebrated by the French; it was not seen in any greater scheme of strengthening Catholicism. The marriage of Philip II and Elizabeth Valois in 1559 took place after peace between the Habsburgs and the French had been achieved at Cateau-Cambrésis and was perhaps overshadowed by it. In the Habsburg territories, at least, there seems to have been less interest in publicizing this marriage.
But how successful was the publicity surrounding these marriages? One hint is provided by sixteenth-century chronicles, which seem to have used exactly the reports and newsletters analyzed above.
61
Although the chronicles fail to give us an idea of the general reception of the propaganda, they are vital indicators of the dissemination and assumed reliability of these publications. And, in this respect, the texts related to the marriage of Mary I and Philip of Spain in particular and to the general “Habsburg approach” of focusing on factual reports and addressing political difficulties and hopes seem to have been more successful. Even some French chronicles declare that the initial difficulties of the Tudor–Habsburg union were overcome by the marriage treaty, whereas the marriage of Mary Stuart and the French Dauphin is not even mentioned in two of the most widely disseminated historical works of the time.
62
However, in works published well after Mary I’s death in 1558, all the three marriages were overshadowed by the importance of the peace treaty of 1559, which seemed to have fulfilled what the Tudor–Habsburg union had failed to provide in the end: Catholic unity.
What remains of the “propaganda value” of Mary and Philip’s marriage? It was clearly publicized in an unusually sensitive way with regard to English fears and in an effective way with regard to placing it well into the greater scheme of Habsburg ambitions, acknowledged even by French chroniclers. That this marriage lost its attraction with time cannot be blamed on unsuccessful propaganda but on the course of history. Analyzing these texts gives a clear idea of the great expectations and the European-wide importance of that union in 1554–55 that should not be neglected if we want to truly understand the reign of Mary. Although these expectations were disappointed in the end, at the time of the actual wedding everything still seemed to be possible—even a lasting victory over Protestantism. As undesirable as this might have been for the majority of later Marian historians, it was certainly the greatest hope for Catholics of that time.
Notes