She Wolves (35 page)

Mary waited through the whole of May for a birth that did not occur and her doctors hurriedly began to recalculate, first saying June and then July. By late May, however, Mary’s stomach had begun to decrease in size and it began to dawn on those around her that there would be no child.
⁴⁸
Only Mary refused to believe that she had been mistaken and she spent her time weeping and praying whilst she continued to wait. Philip was impatient to leave for the continent, having stayed in England only to await the birth of his child. Finally in early August, the court abruptly moved to Oatlands, signalling to the world that Mary’s confinement had ended.
⁴⁹
Mary must have been devastated by the failure of her ‘pregnancy’ and her grief was confounded on 29 August when Philip sailed to Flanders. Mary wrote to him fondly every day but Philip’s replies quickly became fewer and fewer and Mary realised that he had deserted her.

With the failure of her marriage and dashed hopes of a child, Mary threw herself into her religion. She came to believe that she had earned God’s displeasure with her failure to punish Protestants enough and that this was why He had not given her a child. Mary had begun to burn Protestants in February 1555 but these dramatically increased following Philip’s departure, in Mary’s bid to please God and so earn His favour again. Thousands of Protestants were burned during Mary’s reign and she earned the nickname, ‘Bloody Mary’ for this policy. Mary burned a number of high profile Protestants as well as many ordinary men and women. Bishops Ridley and Latimer were burned at Oxford on 16 October 1555.
⁵⁰
Mary probably also gained some personal satisfaction from the burning of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury. Mary refused to pardon Cranmer even after he recanted of his heresy and returned to the Roman Catholic Church and it is likely that this was at least in part due to the old grudge she bore against him for the divorce of her mother.
⁵¹
It was Cranmer who had pronounced Henry VIII’s headship of the Church of England and the divorce of Catherine of Aragon and Mary probably always held him to be one of the men to blame for her mother’s unhappiness. Heretics were burnt during the reigns of Mary’s brother and her father but it is Mary who is remembered as the most cruel. This is to a large extent due to the fact that Protestantism ultimately triumphed. It is John Foxe’s view of Mary that endures to this day:

Mary’s burnings damaged both her reputation and what remained of her popularity within England.

Charles V abdicated in early 1556 and Philip wrote to Mary informing her that she was now Queen of Spain.
⁵³
As King of Spain, Philip found himself quickly embroiled in a war with France and he wanted English support. Mary refused to cooperate without seeing Philip in person and so Philip, realising reconciliation was necessary, sailed to England, landing at Dover on 18 March 1557.
⁵⁴
Mary was overjoyed that her husband had returned to her and quickly forgave him his neglect of her. She agreed to Philip’s demands that England declare war on France and was devastated when he left to fight his wars on 6 July 1557. Mary travelled with him to Dover and saw him onto his ship. She never saw him again. The war proved a disaster to England and, once again, Mary’s Spanish marriage was blamed for English troubles. On 7 January 1558 Calais, the last English possession in France fell to the French. Mary is remembered as the monarch who lost the last vestige of the great Angevin empire. Mary fully understood the significance of this loss, reportedly saying ‘when I am dead and opened, you shall find Calais lying in my heart’.
⁵⁵
It was almost the last failure of her reign.

Soon after Philip left England for the last time, Mary came to believe that she was pregnant once again.
⁵⁶
Mary, remembering her previous humiliation, delayed announcing her pregnancy until she was certain, although Philip and most of the people of England remained sceptical. Mary was as convinced by this pregnancy as she was by the last. In March 1558 she made a will leaving everything to the child she would bear. Once again, she was disappointed and by late May, well over nine months since Philip’s departure, even Mary had to admit that she was mistaken. It is probable that Mary’s second ‘pregnancy’ was in fact a symptom of cancer. After the failure of her second ‘pregnancy’, Mary retreated into her ill health and disappointment. In November 1558 Philip’s ambassador, the Count of Feria found Mary dying when he arrived in England. According to his dispatch to Philip, ‘she was happy to see me, since I brought her news of your majesty, and to receive the letter, although she was unable to read it’.
⁵⁷
Even to the last, Mary deluded herself that her husband loved her and Feria reported to Philip that she had kept all the letters that Philip had sent her.
⁵⁸
Mary had been reluctant to name her hated sister Elizabeth as her successor but under pressure from both Philip and her council she relented, agreeing to accept her as her heir.
⁵⁹
As she lay dying, members of Mary’s court flocked to her successor at Hatfield. Mary died on 17 November 1558 aged forty-two. She died a disappointed and unhappy woman and bonfires were lit and church bells rung in London to celebrate her death and the accession of Elizabeth.
⁶⁰

Mary Tudor’s reign is remembered as an dark time for England and her reign is overshadowed by the glory of Elizabeth’s. Although a good woman, Mary was a failure as a queen and she lost her reputation and popularity in her misguided policies and marriage. As the first effective queen regnant of England, Mary Tudor was a novelty and she did not have the imagination to invent a new role for herself, instead relying on medieval ideas of what a queen should be. It was only with the reign of Elizabeth that queenship was able to move in a different direction, something which Mary had failed to achieve. Mary Tudor will always be remembered as Bloody Mary. Although personally she appears to have been kindly and humane, she was also fanatical in her beliefs and she allowed great cruelty to be carried out in order to further these policies. There is no doubt that Mary thought she was fulfilling God’s will and that the burnings were for the country’s own good, but this viewpoint was not shared with most of her contemporaries or posterity. Mary’s accession to the throne was one of the most popular in English history and the English wanted to love her. Nevertheless by the end she was universally despised. Even Mary’s beloved husband, Philip, professed himself only mildly regretful at his wife’s death and Mary Tudor died as she had lived, unloved and ultimately a failure.

Medieval and Tudor England had many queens, whose numbers far exceeded that of kings. The fact that there were over fifty in all makes it unsurprising that many are remembered in stereotypical ways. Some are remembered as good queens, some remain in obscurity and others are notorious. As the stories of their lives show, the bad queens were numerous and diverse but they all failed to live up to the requirements of what a good queen should be which damned them to failure. As these examples demonstrate, higher standards were often expected of queens simply because they were women and many were censured for acts that would not even have been criticised in kings. As women, they were also often seen as a threat to the male elite. Male chroniclers and churchmen recorded events but often drew negative conclusions. Women were simply not expected to lead political lives during the medieval period and, even today, political queens, such as Margaret of Anjou or Emma of Normandy, are remembered unfavourably compared to their political male contemporaries. In the medieval period, a man could carry out damning acts and still not be damned for it. However for a woman even insignificant acts could be seen as blameworthy. Once a medieval queen lost her reputation, it was gone forever.

Although the women described here all fall into one category of notorious queens, the actual facts behind their notoriety were very varied and, throughout the period, a number of patterns can be seen. This demonstrates clearly the stereotypical way in which many of the women are remembered; the idea of a notorious queen, for all its apparent diversity, is as stereotyped as that of a good queen.

Eadburh’s life is remembered as a cautionary tale about just what made a truly bad queen. According to the stories, Eadburh acted politically for her own benefit and was also unfaithful and greedy. Worst of all, she is remembered as a woman who murdered her husband. Few queens in the medieval period even came close to Eadburh’s alleged wickedness, although Aelfthryth and Isabella of France are arguably as notorious. These three women represent the very worst category of medieval queens and few chronicles have a good word to say about them. According to the sources, all three were apparently happy to resort to murder for their own political benefit and are still remembered as She-Wolves today. Each woman is reputed to have murdered her husband, a major sin in anyone’s eyes. Whether they were guilty of these crimes or not (and the evidence is particularly dubious in the case of Eadburh) all three women are recorded as murderers and adulterers. This record survived to make them notorious to the present day. It is not taken into account that none of these women had a voice to tell their own story and that all that survives is the judgement of men plainly hostile to them. Once criticised in this way it was nearly impossible for the women to redeem themselves.

The next category of notorious queens that can be identified are the women who took on a man’s role and who can be said to have been politically active for their own benefit. This category includes Emma of Normandy, Aelfgifu of Northampton, Empress Matilda, Margaret of Anjou and Mary I. Some of these women nominally acted for their sons and other male kinsmen and queens such as Emma of Normandy and Aelfgifu of Northampton upheld the pretence of acting on behalf of their sons. Not all of these women had a male kinsman behind which to hide their actions. The Empress Matilda and Mary I both encountered difficulties in ruling as a queen regnant in medieval England. All the political queens mentioned above are remembered in a negative light. Their actions are seen as unwomanly and very far from what a good queen should be. However most of them had little choice. Once again, this is an example of the negative way that female political power was perceived, even when, in actual fact, the women’s actions were entirely justified.

The next category of notorious queens must be those who committed adultery. Queens were expected to be fertile and provide their husbands with an heir. Consequently faithlessness in a queen was heavily punished, in spite of the double standard which allowed kings to openly keep mistresses. Queens accused of this crime include the highly notorious queens, Eadburh, Aelfthryth, Isabella of France and Margaret of Anjou. However others such as Eleanor of Aquitaine, Isabella of Angouleme, Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard are more specifically remembered as adulteresses and it is this act of betrayal (or, in the case of some, supposed betrayal) which has seen the queens remembered, over the centuries, as notorious. Not all of these women were guilty of adultery – Anne Boleyn and Margaret of Anjou certainly were not. However, infidelity was a much more serious crime for a woman than a man and the suggestion of it could destroy a reputation. Even Catherine Howard, who was certainly guilty of cuckoldry does not appear entirely blameworthy but rather as a woman entirely unsuited for the position in which she found herself. To accuse a queen of adultery was to ruin her and the case of Anne Boleyn shows just how clearly the enemies of particular queens realised this.

Incest in queens was seen in a similar way, being taken as a manifestation of the sexual immorality of many of England’s wicked queens. Judith of France, Aelfgifu of the House of Wessex, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Anne Boleyn were all accused of this crime. Their actions were also strongly associated with ambition and greed, major sins for queens to commit – Edith Godwine, Eleanor of Provence, Eleanor of Castile, Joan of Navarre and Lady Jane Grey all experienced misfortune as a result of allegations of avariciousness. Again, however, ambition was something that was entirely acceptable in a man. In a woman however it was a vice and something to be criticised. This was particularly the case when the queen so accused also had the misfortune to be of foreign birth. Foreign queens received extra criticism, in spite of the fact that their marriages were generally arranged for them.

By breaking down the notorious queens into categories, it is possible to demonstrate some of the vices which were taken to denote a delinquent queen and then used as a means of attack. A bad queen was a woman willing to commit murder or was at least associated with rumours of murder. A bad queen was also one who acted politically for her own benefit, often at the cost of the best interests of her own husband or son. A bad queen might also be an adulteress, or commit incest to further her ambitions and a bad queen was also greedy and ambitious. These vices make up the definition of just what was considered an unpricipled queen and can be opposed to ideas of a good queen. A good queen was chaste, passive and devoted to her family, with no political will save that of her husband. These ideals had developed even by the reign of Eadburh in the late eighth century.

The queens discussed here were all, for a variety of reasons, portrayed as She-Wolves. It would be naïve to assert that all the queens were innocent of the crimes of which they are accused. There is no doubt that some were, indeed, guilty as charged. Judith of France, for example, did marry her stepson. Aelfthryth murdered her stepson. The Empress Matilda was the leader of a faction in a civil war and sought power in her own right. Eleanor of Aquitane rebelled against her husband. Isabella of France deposed and murdered her husband. Catherine Howard committed adultery and Mary I burned heretics at the stake. That all of these women carried out these actions is not in doubt. However, when the facts of their lives are discussed it is difficult to see how they can always be considered entirely blameworthy. Empress Matilda, for example, was the leader of a civil war faction because her crown was usurped. The action she took would be expected of a king but, as she found, it was a very different position for a queen. Eleanor of Aquitaine’s husband was repeatedly unfaithful and a king would certainly be expected to imprison, or even kill an unfaithful wife, as Henry VIII did to Catherine Howard. Again, why should it be so different for a woman? Finally, Isabella of France endured years of harsh treatment from her indifferent and, ultimately, cruel husband. Again she cannot be blamed for wanting to improve her life.