Authors: Anna Whitelock
Mary Tudor (26 page)
AS THE ACT OF
Uniformity made its way through Parliament in January 1549, making the Book of Common Prayer the only legal form of worship, confrontation between Mary and the Edwardian government seemed inevitable. While maintaining doctrinal conservatism, the book represented a significant break with the past. The number of saints’ days was reduced; only plain vestments were to be worn by the priest; and the Latin Mass was to be said in English and was now
described ambiguously as “the supper of the Lord and the holy communion commonly called the mass.”
15
The Elevation of the Host was abolished and the Catholic doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass omitted.
When van der Delft visited Mary in late March, she complained bitterly of the changes brought about in the kingdom and of her private distress, saying she would rather give up her life than her religion. Once again she looked to the emperor for protection against the law that was shortly to come into effect. She explained how “in these miserable times,” Charles was her “only refuge.”
16
Days later Mary addressed a letter directly to the emperor:
We have never been in so great necessity and I therefore entreat your Majesty, considering the changes that are taking place in the kingdom, to provide, as your affairs may best permit, that I may continue to live in the ancient faith and in peace with my conscience.
She feared that, except by way of his Majesty, the emperor, she would “not be permitted to do so, judging by what has been settled in Parliament,” and she reaffirmed her commitment “that in life and death I will not forsake the Catholic religion of the Church our mother.”
17
Charles was determined that he would “suffer no pressure to be put upon her [Mary], our close relative, or allow religious innovations to cause them to assume a different and less suitable manner towards her.”
18
He ordered his ambassador to obtain a written assurance,
in definite, suitable and permanent form, that notwithstanding all new laws and ordinances made upon religion, she may live in the observance of our ancient religion as she has done up to the present, so that neither the King nor Parliament may ever molest her, directly or indirectly by any means whatever.
19
His dispatch to his ambassador on June 8 underlined his position:
With regard to the Princess our cousin, the Protector and all other worthy people must understand that, her near kinship to
us and close affinity, the perfect friendship we have always felt and feel for her, make it impossible that we should ever desist from our endeavours to save her from molestation in the free practice and observance of her faith … the Protector’s answer that the Princess must obey the laws of the realm, is too bare and harsh to our cousin, the King’s own sister … neither we nor our brother, the King of the Romans, nor any of the relatives of the Princess could tolerate such attempts, as the Protector might well suppose.
20
Under instruction from the emperor, van der Delft went to Somerset to try to get a guarantee of Mary’s freedom of worship. Somerset made it clear that “it was not in his power to act against the laws passed by Parliament” and that the ambassador had “asked for something dangerous to the kingdom”:
If the King and his sister, to whom the whole kingdom was attached as heiress to the crown in the event of the King’s death, were to differ in matters of religion, dissension would certainly spring up. Such was the character of the nation … he [Somerset] hoped the Lady Mary would use her wisdom and conform with the King to avoid such an emergency and keep peace within the realm.
21
Keen to preserve his good relationship with the emperor, Somerset was conciliatory. Though he could not act against statute and would not grant a formal dispensation for Mary to be immune from the laws, he made it clear that he had no intention of inquiring into the worship of her household until the king came of age.
22
Many on the Privy Council, however, disagreed, and they demanded that Mary submit to the law.
Henry VIII by unknown artist
c. 1520:
THE YOUNG HENRY IN THE
EARLY YEARS OF HIS REIGN
.
(photo credit 1.1)
Portrait of Katherine of Aragon:
MARY’S MOTHER PICTURED C. 1525 WHEN HENRY’S AFFECTION WAS BEGINNING TO WANE AND SHE WAS CONSIDERED TO BE PAST THE AGE OF CHILDBEARING
.
(photo credit 1.2)
The Family of Henry VIII by Horenbolt:
THE PAINTING COMMEMORATES THE RESTORATION OF MARY AND ELIZABETH TO THE LINE OF SUCCESSION. MARY IS ON THE RIGHT, ELIZABETH ON THE LEFT, WHILE EDWARD AND JANE SEYMOUR STAND NEXT TO HENRY. KATHERINE PARR, HENRY’S WIFE AT THE TIME WHO WAS CHILDLESS, IS NOT PICTURED
.
(photo credit 1.3)
Lord Cromwell, Wearing the Order of St. George, by Hans Holbein:
THE KING’S CHIEF MINISTER, WHO BROKERED MARY’S RECONCILIATION WITH HER FATHER IN 1536
.
(photo credit 1.4)
Princess Mary:
THIS PORTRAIT MINIATURE WAS PAINTED AT THE TIME WHEN MARY WAS BETROTHED TO THE EMPEROR CHARLES V. THE LETTERS OF HER BROOCH SPELL OUT “THE EMPEROUR.” THE PORTRAIT WAS ALMOST CERTAINLY INTENDED AS A GIFT FOR CHARLES
.
(photo credit 1.5)
The Emperor Charles V on Horseback in Muhlberg by Titian:
MARY’S COUSIN, UPON WHOM SHE RELIED THROUGHOUT HER LIFE AS HER “SECOND FATHER.”
(photo credit 1.6)
Michaelmas Plea Roll (1553):
MARY AS A TRIUMPHANT QUEEN HAVING WON THE THRONE IN JULY 1553. SHE IS PICTURED IN THE FULL PANOPLY OF A QUEEN REGNANT
.
(photo credit 1.7)
Mary Tudor curing the King’s Evil:
MARY IS PICTURED HERE PERFORMING THE ROYAL TOUCH TO HEAL THOSE SUFFERING FROM THE “KING’S EVIL” (SCROFULA) AND DEMONSTRATING THAT SHE WAS INVESTED WITH THE TRADITIONAL QUASI-PRIESTLY POWER OF MALE MONARCHS
.
(photo credit 1.8)