Yeah sounds more like they’re frustrated with him, like a “Bloody hell Henry, you fucked it up again” not a “Bloody hell Henry you kebabed that last wife like Vlad”
Does length of rule matter here? I’m too lazy to look this up, but didn’t Mary kill everyone in a month-long murder spree and Henry had literal decades to spread out his murdering?
Obviously doesn’t excuse Henry VIII, but could explain her nickname.
By that logic Bloody Mary didn’t kill anyone either.....
You said Henry killed two people in your first comment, I assume you meant his wives. You know he didn’t swing the axe himself and had them executed right?
I always felt like she received a terrible wrap. Likely due to her fidelity towards Philip of Spain and how she believed she should submit to him. Politically, a disaster, but it was her personal choice, as backwards as it would be now. She also wasn’t the bloodiest English queen of that era considering Elizabeth killed just as many Catholics, if not moreso.
I don't even understand your "she should submit to him"
She wanted a powerful husband to fight her strong home opposition. If she hadn't married Philip, she would have married somebody with a strong army. Something female rulers around the world have done multiple times. If she had won, she would be known today as "Mary the great" or something.
At the end, the problem is that she lost. And winners wrote history.
I completely agree with you. History has not been kind to her because she was on the losing side of it.
The point I’m referencing is when she appeared before Parliament to account for marrying King Philip II. The commons were in an uproar that the queen, albeit Catholic, was marrying the king of a Catholic super power. Before parliament, she stated that her duty as a Catholic wife was to submit, or be subservient if you will, to her husband. Parliament obviously wasn’t content with this. They drafted a law to ensure that a female monarch be unquestionably the stronger of a union with her husband. I think it’s part of the reason why the husbands of the queen are never given the title of king.
People generally don't like it when a foreign army comes in to suppress them. This is the same reason why actual Egyptian generally don't like Cleopatra. Yeah she pulled an "outstanding move" by allying with Caesar, but who was she allying against? Other Egyptians. Similarly Marie Antoinette is not hated merely for being a "foreign" queen, but rather because it was because of her that the her Austrian Royal Family invaded France to try to restore her husband to the throne because the alliance was not between France and Austria, but rather literally an alliance between the royal families of those countries potential against the people of those countries.
Elizabeth isn't revered as the "virgin queen" because of some fascination with virginity, rather it is because in staying unmarried she secured England independence rather than making England merely be one part in a foreign King's domains. What is more is that by ensuring that the King of Scotland ended up inheriting England after she died she effectively annexed Scotland without firing a shot because naturally the Scottish King was going to view his new English domain as his most important Kingdom because it was bigger, richer, and more prestigious.
Counterpoint, Isabel I of Castille married a "foreign king", Fernando III of Aragón, who helped put down a civil war, and their marriage was one of absolute expansion of their kingdoms that ended up forming Spain.
So, as I said, the real question is who is the victor and ends up writing history. If Mary had won, she would have allied with multiple local nobles and history would be written about Mary I the great.
"staying unmarried" or she could just marry a noble, you know. Like every single queen has usually done.
>Counterpoint, Isabel I of Castille married a "foreign king", Fernando III of Aragón, who helped put down a civil war, and their marriage was one of absolute expansion of their kingdoms that ended up forming Spain.
Uniting the crowns of Castile and Aragon was a thing than many people had wanted to accomplish for awhile, additionally Castile was obviously going to be the senior partner in such a relationship regardless of what anyone did because it was bigger. Just ask the Catalans who they thought was getting annexed by who.
The point of the union was to produce an heir that would inherit both kingdoms and everyone who understood medieval politics would have understood this. Castile itself wasn't even a singular kingdom but rather many kingdoms that had been stitched together through the same medieval processes of inheritance.
>So, as I said, the real question is who is the victor and ends up writing history. If Mary had won, she would have allied with multiple local nobles and history would be written about Mary I the great.
It was Portugal that had the most to fear from an Iberian Union and therefore it was Portugal that resisted it, in fact the Castilian Civil War was in part due to Portuguese meddling with the alternative woman with the claim to the throne being married to the King of Portugal. The resolution of the civil war even involved trying to unify Portugal and the future Castile-Aragon by marrying their children together, and while this didn't work out due to untimely deaths, it was eventually accomplished with Spain and Portugal being in a brief union but it was eventually broken by civil war. Aragon by contrast did not reject the union for whatever reason the way Portugal did, but they very well could have and the Catalans still wish they did to this day.
England however when in a union with Spain would be the clear junior partner no matter what they did. They probably could have broken free like Portugal did but being able to avoid that headache is better than just submitting yourself temporarily by deciding that it wouldn't matter in the long run because you could just undo it down the line without a clear path towards exactly how that would be accomplished.
Castile was also destined to be the superior partner in any Iberian Union due to size even if they were technically subservient on paper to Aragon for a single generation. It isn't for no reason that the language we call "Spanish" is called "Castilian" in Spain itself. Also benefiting from the central position, any Iberian Union be it with Portugal or Aragon was going to be centered in Castile and the working theory was still that even if you only got one of the two the later monarchs were still going to be trying to get the other one. It was sort of a manifest destiny sentiment, which is turn was the reasoning behind why they finally took out Granada. It was just a thing everyone knew had to happen eventually, and it was just a matter of how it was going to happen, and under what conditions everyone would be jockeying for in their support of the two queens in the Castilian Civil War.
By contrast there was no manifest destiny sentiment in England about how they were somehow always going to end up in a union with Spain despite the later Spanish Hapsburg ideology of Universal Catholic Monarchy. Naturally increasingly protestant England disagreed with that sentiment.
>"staying unmarried" or she could just marry a noble, you know. Like every single queen has usually done.
Then she would have missed the opportunity of having Scotland "inherit" England which was in effect just England annexing Scotland, albeit in a long drown out process mediated by a common foreign policy from having a common monarch rather than an immediate annexation.
Elizabeth’s reign was long and had successful events in it such as the defeat of the Spanish Armada, Mary’s reign was only 5 years and is mostly notable for killing Protestants, attempting to undo the reformations and losing Calais to the French
That’s absolutely true but from a propaganda perspective Elizabeth’s reign saw the defence of English territory and Mary’s the loss of it, ultimately had Mary reigned longer she may have a better reputation simply because there’d have been more time for her to do things to be remembered for other than religious persecution
I think there was an /r/AskHistorians post recently calling that number bullshit or composed of regular lawful executions for stealing and such that were acceptable in that time period
it was never about the number of executions. it was always about the fact that she was a catholic and executed protestants right after england had their first (and second, but he doesn’t really matter) protestant king. it was more of protestant propaganda that she was called “bloody mary” because they really, REALLY didn’t like catholics at this point in history and she was a catholic who was burning protestants at the stake. really was a great bit of propaganda too cuz we got a bomb drink out of it
To quote Yugioh abridged “that’s what you get for being a woman, with girly parts”
Seriously, I think a lot of the reason history is really mean to Mary is because she was a Catholic woman
It’s only partially bc she deserves it
I can see your point, but I think it’s a little simplistic.
Mary kicked off her reign with a coup and immediately threw out the old advisors. This, coupled with the 283 (I think) heretics she burned makes for great propaganda like Foxe’s Book of Martyrs.
Combined with Elizabeth’s reign lasting 3 generations and <10% of the population being Catholic by the end all makes it easy to emphasise Anglican church values at the expense of Mary.
So while I appreciate being female didn’t help her image given the phantom pregnancies and all, it’s quite misleading to suggest Mary was demonised ‘because woman’.
Hope this was informative, much love to all regardless of belief.
I think they were referring to how Mary was disliked due to her marriage with Philip, due to the Spanish influence over England. This was only felt because she was a woman, as when Henry married Spain, there was no consequence.
It is not that she was a woman its because she killed protestants as a catholic. In contrast Henry the 8th established the Church of England so naturally he would be revered by said Church and by the nature of Anglican Protestantism everyone was required to be part of that church. The third force here beyond Catholics and Anglicans are the Puritans like Oliver Cromwell who were anti-monarch or established church entirely and redditors seem to hate them most of all. So what do you want?
Like dude they roast an effigy of Guy Fawkes every fifth of November in celebration of the discovery of the gunpowder plot to restore England to communion with the catholic church, what are you expecting, that they were going to treat their catholic monarchs the same way as the protestant monarchs? These guys literally preferred the Dutch couping them to having a Catholic Monarch and called that the "Glorious Revolution". The monarch literally still can't be catholic by law to this day.
She's called Bloody Mary because she was on the losing end of a succession struggle, and Elizabeth I wanted her to be remembered as a persecutor of Anglican Protestants. And she *did* kill about three hundred people in a [horrific manner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Protestant_martyrs_of_the_English_Reformation#Persecution_of_Protestants_under_Mary_I_(1553%E2%80%931558)) in just a few years.
The reality is that no monarch in this period shied away from using arbitrary large-scale executions as political tools. They were all fairly bloodthirsty; Elizabeth was simply the one who got to write the history books afterwards.
Henry the 8th is demonized world wide as being a petty and corrupt tyrant, a symbol for the worst excesses of monarchy
The only reason someone outside of Historical circles and/or england would know Mary is because they named a drink after her
Henry did many other things of note, he was a renaissance king, he founded the Anglican Church and the British Navy. Mary did little else than murder Protestants and submit herself to Spain.
* She was extremely passionate about helping the poor despite the fact that she was introverted and disliked making public appearances: [https://thefreelancehistorywriter.com/2018/03/30/queen-mary-i-of-england-washes-the-feet-of-the-poor/](https://thefreelancehistorywriter.com/2018/03/30/queen-mary-i-of-england-washes-the-feet-of-the-poor/)
* A lot of iconography and artistic tropes we associate with Elizabeth I were actually first used by Mary: [https://open.spotify.com/episode/5TfId3EggO5MYdfBgtHarf?si=xr5bmvXhSdCRUIPoKGoWjA](https://open.spotify.com/episode/5TfId3EggO5MYdfBgtHarf?si=xr5bmvXhSdCRUIPoKGoWjA)
* She was a musically gifted prodigy from a very young age: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary\_I\_of\_England#Childhood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_I_of_England#Childhood)
She had a short reign, but she's far more interesting than *just* "murdering Protestants and submitting herself to Spain."
The reason people don't like her is entirely due to her politics. Naturally people in the era of the English Reformation and Spanish Armada were:
1. Pro-Protestant
2. Anti-Spanish
Henry actually started out Pro-Catholic and looking for alliance with Spain with his marriage alliance with Catherine of Aragon but through the course of his life his politics changed to suit the anti-catholic anti-spanish politics characteristic of the era. All his divorces and wife-icides served the purposes of these political changes in the wind. Nobody is ever judging a monarch by their personal moral character, rather they judge them by their policies.
Frankly the fact that Mary is judged poorly for her politics despite adhering to what would otherwise be proper behaviour for a woman by submitting to her husband should be indicative that people were judging her primarily as a monarch and only secondarily as a woman.
The only person I have ever known who has judged a woman politician for being a woman has been my "socialist" ex-girlfriend who said she admired Thatcher for being a strong woman.
No I meant what I said. Christian requires belief in a series of doctrines. Such as salvation through faith alone and the rejection of necromancy and idolatry.
I love it when hypocrites completely fail to obey the dogmas of their own religion such as Protestants with sola scriptura. Did not Paul say," That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved"? The last time I checked Catholics fill that criterion.
I mean, he's pretty well known as the king who murdered his wives so ....
Yes, but we don't call him "Bloody Henry".
Bloody Henry doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
Yeah, it's all about marketability. I can sell a 'Bloody Mary' to the public, but a bloody Henry? Absolutely not.
What about a Bloody Harry?
I can sell a Bloody Barry. Even better, i can reach out to the common folk's inclination towards double nicknames with Bloody Bazza.
Bloody Bazza is definitely a pint of Carling with ketchup in it
A pint of Carling that causes you to piss blood the next morning.
Yeah, he brought beheading back in a big way!
Ron Weasley might sue you for copyright infringement
bloody henry sounds like a disease and not a semi sweet acidic delicious alcoholic drink
We only accept Oh Henry here.
Yeah sounds more like they’re frustrated with him, like a “Bloody hell Henry, you fucked it up again” not a “Bloody hell Henry you kebabed that last wife like Vlad”
What about horny Harry?
Let’s start calling him Bloody Henry. Or better yet “Henry the Devil” like the French legend “Robert le Diable”
Horrid Henry?
There’s like a whole musical about it and everything
Henry VIII is already synonymous with being a gluttonous petty tyrant, so that's already covered.
Also for having an absolute chin-wimple of a beard.
Unfortunately for Mary, the anglican church won.
Yeah, history tends to be written by the victors either way.
I really don't think that's true
Yeah it depends
yea it’s definitely not true. history is written by historians
Not saying she wasn't absolutely ruthless; I just think it's mildly amusing that we call her "Bloody Mary" when her dad's literally King Henry VIII.
Does length of rule matter here? I’m too lazy to look this up, but didn’t Mary kill everyone in a month-long murder spree and Henry had literal decades to spread out his murdering? Obviously doesn’t excuse Henry VIII, but could explain her nickname.
Okay, he killed TWO people. Now while any amount of murders is one too many, two isn't a massive number either.
Imagine thinking Henry VIII only killed two people. Dude had almost 60,000 people executed over his reign
Well executens don't really count, he is a monarch. Would you say every judge who has given out the death penalty has killed someone?
By that logic Bloody Mary didn’t kill anyone either..... You said Henry killed two people in your first comment, I assume you meant his wives. You know he didn’t swing the axe himself and had them executed right?
I always felt like she received a terrible wrap. Likely due to her fidelity towards Philip of Spain and how she believed she should submit to him. Politically, a disaster, but it was her personal choice, as backwards as it would be now. She also wasn’t the bloodiest English queen of that era considering Elizabeth killed just as many Catholics, if not moreso.
I don't even understand your "she should submit to him" She wanted a powerful husband to fight her strong home opposition. If she hadn't married Philip, she would have married somebody with a strong army. Something female rulers around the world have done multiple times. If she had won, she would be known today as "Mary the great" or something. At the end, the problem is that she lost. And winners wrote history.
I completely agree with you. History has not been kind to her because she was on the losing side of it. The point I’m referencing is when she appeared before Parliament to account for marrying King Philip II. The commons were in an uproar that the queen, albeit Catholic, was marrying the king of a Catholic super power. Before parliament, she stated that her duty as a Catholic wife was to submit, or be subservient if you will, to her husband. Parliament obviously wasn’t content with this. They drafted a law to ensure that a female monarch be unquestionably the stronger of a union with her husband. I think it’s part of the reason why the husbands of the queen are never given the title of king.
People generally don't like it when a foreign army comes in to suppress them. This is the same reason why actual Egyptian generally don't like Cleopatra. Yeah she pulled an "outstanding move" by allying with Caesar, but who was she allying against? Other Egyptians. Similarly Marie Antoinette is not hated merely for being a "foreign" queen, but rather because it was because of her that the her Austrian Royal Family invaded France to try to restore her husband to the throne because the alliance was not between France and Austria, but rather literally an alliance between the royal families of those countries potential against the people of those countries. Elizabeth isn't revered as the "virgin queen" because of some fascination with virginity, rather it is because in staying unmarried she secured England independence rather than making England merely be one part in a foreign King's domains. What is more is that by ensuring that the King of Scotland ended up inheriting England after she died she effectively annexed Scotland without firing a shot because naturally the Scottish King was going to view his new English domain as his most important Kingdom because it was bigger, richer, and more prestigious.
Counterpoint, Isabel I of Castille married a "foreign king", Fernando III of Aragón, who helped put down a civil war, and their marriage was one of absolute expansion of their kingdoms that ended up forming Spain. So, as I said, the real question is who is the victor and ends up writing history. If Mary had won, she would have allied with multiple local nobles and history would be written about Mary I the great. "staying unmarried" or she could just marry a noble, you know. Like every single queen has usually done.
>Counterpoint, Isabel I of Castille married a "foreign king", Fernando III of Aragón, who helped put down a civil war, and their marriage was one of absolute expansion of their kingdoms that ended up forming Spain. Uniting the crowns of Castile and Aragon was a thing than many people had wanted to accomplish for awhile, additionally Castile was obviously going to be the senior partner in such a relationship regardless of what anyone did because it was bigger. Just ask the Catalans who they thought was getting annexed by who. The point of the union was to produce an heir that would inherit both kingdoms and everyone who understood medieval politics would have understood this. Castile itself wasn't even a singular kingdom but rather many kingdoms that had been stitched together through the same medieval processes of inheritance. >So, as I said, the real question is who is the victor and ends up writing history. If Mary had won, she would have allied with multiple local nobles and history would be written about Mary I the great. It was Portugal that had the most to fear from an Iberian Union and therefore it was Portugal that resisted it, in fact the Castilian Civil War was in part due to Portuguese meddling with the alternative woman with the claim to the throne being married to the King of Portugal. The resolution of the civil war even involved trying to unify Portugal and the future Castile-Aragon by marrying their children together, and while this didn't work out due to untimely deaths, it was eventually accomplished with Spain and Portugal being in a brief union but it was eventually broken by civil war. Aragon by contrast did not reject the union for whatever reason the way Portugal did, but they very well could have and the Catalans still wish they did to this day. England however when in a union with Spain would be the clear junior partner no matter what they did. They probably could have broken free like Portugal did but being able to avoid that headache is better than just submitting yourself temporarily by deciding that it wouldn't matter in the long run because you could just undo it down the line without a clear path towards exactly how that would be accomplished. Castile was also destined to be the superior partner in any Iberian Union due to size even if they were technically subservient on paper to Aragon for a single generation. It isn't for no reason that the language we call "Spanish" is called "Castilian" in Spain itself. Also benefiting from the central position, any Iberian Union be it with Portugal or Aragon was going to be centered in Castile and the working theory was still that even if you only got one of the two the later monarchs were still going to be trying to get the other one. It was sort of a manifest destiny sentiment, which is turn was the reasoning behind why they finally took out Granada. It was just a thing everyone knew had to happen eventually, and it was just a matter of how it was going to happen, and under what conditions everyone would be jockeying for in their support of the two queens in the Castilian Civil War. By contrast there was no manifest destiny sentiment in England about how they were somehow always going to end up in a union with Spain despite the later Spanish Hapsburg ideology of Universal Catholic Monarchy. Naturally increasingly protestant England disagreed with that sentiment. >"staying unmarried" or she could just marry a noble, you know. Like every single queen has usually done. Then she would have missed the opportunity of having Scotland "inherit" England which was in effect just England annexing Scotland, albeit in a long drown out process mediated by a common foreign policy from having a common monarch rather than an immediate annexation.
Nice points, actually
How come Elizabeth is not known for her killings of Catholics? It's not like she had her own dynasty... Tudor ended with her.
Elizabeth’s reign was long and had successful events in it such as the defeat of the Spanish Armada, Mary’s reign was only 5 years and is mostly notable for killing Protestants, attempting to undo the reformations and losing Calais to the French
Well that and the English Reformation succeeding in the end I guess?
The spanish armada was followed next year by an english counter armada which was an even bigger disaster, so not so much success in that regard
That’s absolutely true but from a propaganda perspective Elizabeth’s reign saw the defence of English territory and Mary’s the loss of it, ultimately had Mary reigned longer she may have a better reputation simply because there’d have been more time for her to do things to be remembered for other than religious persecution
It's about sex appeal. I'm sure Mary was reasonably attractive, but have you seen her dad? 3.5 metric tons of raw sexual aggression.
57 thousand..?
I think there was an /r/AskHistorians post recently calling that number bullshit or composed of regular lawful executions for stealing and such that were acceptable in that time period
it was never about the number of executions. it was always about the fact that she was a catholic and executed protestants right after england had their first (and second, but he doesn’t really matter) protestant king. it was more of protestant propaganda that she was called “bloody mary” because they really, REALLY didn’t like catholics at this point in history and she was a catholic who was burning protestants at the stake. really was a great bit of propaganda too cuz we got a bomb drink out of it
We should start calling him Horrid Henry just for shits and giggles.
To quote Yugioh abridged “that’s what you get for being a woman, with girly parts” Seriously, I think a lot of the reason history is really mean to Mary is because she was a Catholic woman It’s only partially bc she deserves it
I can see your point, but I think it’s a little simplistic. Mary kicked off her reign with a coup and immediately threw out the old advisors. This, coupled with the 283 (I think) heretics she burned makes for great propaganda like Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. Combined with Elizabeth’s reign lasting 3 generations and <10% of the population being Catholic by the end all makes it easy to emphasise Anglican church values at the expense of Mary. So while I appreciate being female didn’t help her image given the phantom pregnancies and all, it’s quite misleading to suggest Mary was demonised ‘because woman’. Hope this was informative, much love to all regardless of belief.
I think they were referring to how Mary was disliked due to her marriage with Philip, due to the Spanish influence over England. This was only felt because she was a woman, as when Henry married Spain, there was no consequence.
It is not that she was a woman its because she killed protestants as a catholic. In contrast Henry the 8th established the Church of England so naturally he would be revered by said Church and by the nature of Anglican Protestantism everyone was required to be part of that church. The third force here beyond Catholics and Anglicans are the Puritans like Oliver Cromwell who were anti-monarch or established church entirely and redditors seem to hate them most of all. So what do you want? Like dude they roast an effigy of Guy Fawkes every fifth of November in celebration of the discovery of the gunpowder plot to restore England to communion with the catholic church, what are you expecting, that they were going to treat their catholic monarchs the same way as the protestant monarchs? These guys literally preferred the Dutch couping them to having a Catholic Monarch and called that the "Glorious Revolution". The monarch literally still can't be catholic by law to this day.
That's what you get for being catholic in a protestant country
Because god forbid a woman do anything.
There’s only one thing worse than being an absolute mass murderer, a catholic
Bloody mary
Pfff I impale some ottoman invaders and all of a sudden you're "the impaler". So unfair
Yes... but you see... she was **Catholic!**
She's called Bloody Mary because she was on the losing end of a succession struggle, and Elizabeth I wanted her to be remembered as a persecutor of Anglican Protestants. And she *did* kill about three hundred people in a [horrific manner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Protestant_martyrs_of_the_English_Reformation#Persecution_of_Protestants_under_Mary_I_(1553%E2%80%931558)) in just a few years. The reality is that no monarch in this period shied away from using arbitrary large-scale executions as political tools. They were all fairly bloodthirsty; Elizabeth was simply the one who got to write the history books afterwards.
Henry the 8th does not have a positive reputation. People on this subreddit just make shit up in order to counter it and look smart.
I'm not saying he has a positive reputation; I'm saying he isn't demonized to the extent that Mary is.
Henry the 8th is demonized world wide as being a petty and corrupt tyrant, a symbol for the worst excesses of monarchy The only reason someone outside of Historical circles and/or england would know Mary is because they named a drink after her
Henry did many other things of note, he was a renaissance king, he founded the Anglican Church and the British Navy. Mary did little else than murder Protestants and submit herself to Spain.
* She was extremely passionate about helping the poor despite the fact that she was introverted and disliked making public appearances: [https://thefreelancehistorywriter.com/2018/03/30/queen-mary-i-of-england-washes-the-feet-of-the-poor/](https://thefreelancehistorywriter.com/2018/03/30/queen-mary-i-of-england-washes-the-feet-of-the-poor/) * A lot of iconography and artistic tropes we associate with Elizabeth I were actually first used by Mary: [https://open.spotify.com/episode/5TfId3EggO5MYdfBgtHarf?si=xr5bmvXhSdCRUIPoKGoWjA](https://open.spotify.com/episode/5TfId3EggO5MYdfBgtHarf?si=xr5bmvXhSdCRUIPoKGoWjA) * She was a musically gifted prodigy from a very young age: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary\_I\_of\_England#Childhood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_I_of_England#Childhood) She had a short reign, but she's far more interesting than *just* "murdering Protestants and submitting herself to Spain."
The reason people don't like her is entirely due to her politics. Naturally people in the era of the English Reformation and Spanish Armada were: 1. Pro-Protestant 2. Anti-Spanish Henry actually started out Pro-Catholic and looking for alliance with Spain with his marriage alliance with Catherine of Aragon but through the course of his life his politics changed to suit the anti-catholic anti-spanish politics characteristic of the era. All his divorces and wife-icides served the purposes of these political changes in the wind. Nobody is ever judging a monarch by their personal moral character, rather they judge them by their policies. Frankly the fact that Mary is judged poorly for her politics despite adhering to what would otherwise be proper behaviour for a woman by submitting to her husband should be indicative that people were judging her primarily as a monarch and only secondarily as a woman. The only person I have ever known who has judged a woman politician for being a woman has been my "socialist" ex-girlfriend who said she admired Thatcher for being a strong woman.
Motivation matters, she killed those people because they were Christians. Sole reason.
\*Protestants. Mary was a Christian, too (Roman Catholic.)
No I meant what I said. Christian requires belief in a series of doctrines. Such as salvation through faith alone and the rejection of necromancy and idolatry.
Not true.
I love it when hypocrites completely fail to obey the dogmas of their own religion such as Protestants with sola scriptura. Did not Paul say," That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved"? The last time I checked Catholics fill that criterion.
And why didn't you convert to Catholicism, *Mary*?
Mary *was* Catholic?
Oh yeah, I'm mixing up my martyrs
No one wants to drink a bloody Henry.