Edith Cowan University
Research Online
Theses : Honours
Theses
2013
The masquerade of Mary Tudor : performance and
power in sixteenth century England
Alicia Knaggs
Edith Cowan University
Recommended Citation
Knaggs, A. (2013). The masquerade of Mary Tudor : performance and power in sixteenth century England. Retrieved from
http://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses_hons/88
This Thesis is posted at Research Online.
http://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses_hons/88
Edith Cowan University
Copyright Warning
You may print or download ONE copy of this document for the purpose
of your own research or study.
The University does not authorize you to copy, communicate or
otherwise make available electronically to any other person any
copyright material contained on this site.
You are reminded of the following:
 Copyright owners are entitled to take legal action against persons
who infringe their copyright.
 A reproduction of material that is protected by copyright may be a
copyright infringement.
 A court may impose penalties and award damages in relation to
offences and infringements relating to copyright material. Higher
penalties may apply, and higher damages may be awarded, for
offences and infringements involving the conversion of material
into digital or electronic form.
Copyright and access declaration
Use of Thesis
This copy is the property of Edith Cowan University. However, the literary rights of the
author must also be respected. If any passage of this thesis is quoted or closely
paraphrased in a paper or written work prepared by the user, the source of the passage
must be acknowledged in the work. If the user desires to publish a paper or written
work containing passages copied or closely paraphrased from this thesis, which
passages would in total constitute an infringing copy for the purposes of the Copyright
Act, he or she must first obtain the written permission of the author to do so. I grant
permission for the Library at Edith Cowan University to make duplicate copies of my
thesis as required.
THESIS TTILE:
The masquerade of Mary Tudor: Performance and
power in sixteenth century England.
SUBMITTED BY:
Alicia Knaggs
(Bachelor of Arts)
FACULTY:
Education and Arts
DATE OF SUBMISSION:
23 October 2013
i
Abstract
England, before 1553, had been a country ruled solely by men. Mary Tudor, the eldest
surviving child of Henry VIII, would break that tradition by becoming the first woman
to reign over England in her own right and not through the power of her husband.
Mary‟s reign would transform the power of the monarch, previously masculine, into a
power that she, and the female rulers that followed her, could wield. Despite the
significance of this reign in English history, Mary has long been considered one of the
most ineffective rulers of England because of claims that she persecuted the Protestants
and put Spanish affairs before the affairs of her own country. Recent reassessments of
Mary‟s reign have presented her in more positive light mentioning in passing Mary‟s
use of performance and gender to her advantage. Despite these recent reassessments of
Mary her use of performative behavior remains a largely neglected area of historical
scholarship on her life. This thesis provides a detailed study of Mary‟s use of
performative behaviour throughout her life and reign in order to fill the gap in the
understanding of Mary‟s character.
In order to conduct an examination of Mary, through the lens of performance, this
thesis employs a theoretical framework that combines Joan Riviere‟s theory of
masquerade and Erving Goffman‟s theory of performance in daily life. These theories,
applied to this thesis, work together to explain how Mary put on performances of either
masculinity or femininity which worked to her advantage. Examining Mary‟s life in
this way has revealed that Mary‟s ability to act as a weak woman commenced during
her youth as a response to her parent‟s divorce. Mary‟s ability to perform further
developed as she learned how to alternate displays of womanly weakness with
masculine authority as she continued to face challenges throughout her lifetime.
Performance would assist Mary with her dealings with her father, Charles V of Spain,
Edward VI, the Spanish and Venetian ambassadors and even her own husband, Philip.
Using a framework of performance to examine Mary, and considering the sixteenthcentury society that she lived in, this thesis depicts Mary Tudor as a calculating actor
who had the ability to perform in both masculine and feminine roles to benefit her
personally and politically. As a reassessment of Mary Tudor this thesis contributes to
the field of Tudor history and shows how a framework of performance can be used to
reveal insights into a person‟s character and actions.
ii
Declaration
I certify that this thesis does not, to the best of my knowledge and belief:
i. incorporate without acknowledgment any material previously submitted for a degree
or diploma in any institution of higher education;
ii. contain any material previously published or written by another person except where
due reference is made in the text; or
iii. contain any defamatory material.
Signature of candidate: Alicia Knaggs
Date: 23 October 2013
iii
Contents
Title page
i
Abstract
ii
Declaration
iii
Introduction
v
Chapter One
Masquerade of femininity:
Mary under patriarchal control
1
Chapter Two
Mary in times of crisis: the seasoned actor
9
Chapter Three
Mary as queen: transitioning masculine power through performance
15
Chapter Four
Mary as monarch and as wife: the balancing act
22
Conclusion
29
References
34
iv
Introduction
Mary Tudor, the eldest daughter of Henry VIII, was England‟s first queen regnant: a
queen who reigned in her own right and not through the power obtained through her
marriage to a king (Richards, 2008, p. 2). Mary‟s reign over England was brief, lasting
only from 1553 until 1558, but the period was defined by the divides and tensions
between two competing religious ideals within the country. Because of the significance
of the religious divide in England, Mary‟s life and reign has been examined and
discussed countless times by many different historians (Edwards, 2011; Weir, 2008;
Porter, 2007; Prescott, 2003; Elton, 1991; Guy, 1988; Loach, 1986; Erickson, 1978).
Despite the numerous examinations conducted regarding Mary‟s reign, historians
continue to vary widely in their opinions regarding her success as a ruler. Many
historical accounts of Mary‟s life conclude that she was „bloody Mary‟, the persecutor
of Protestants, which was an image of Mary created largely by the works of John Foxe
after her death (Porter, 2007, p. 418). Other authors assert that Mary was an inefficient
ruler because she focused on Spanish issues over what was best for England (Prescott
2003; Guy, 1988; Elton, 1991). More recent reassessments of Mary‟s reign conducted
by Richards (2008), Castor (2012) and Duncan (2012) present a more positive picture
of Mary Tudor and add a key concept to the debate, arguing that Mary was an effective
ruler who used her femininity to her advantage. An examination of this literature,
however, has made it apparent that there is a gap in the understanding we have of
Mary‟s personality that needs to be filled in order to continue the reassessment of both
her character and reign. Analysis of the literature written on Mary Tudor also reveals
that while some historians have mentioned in passing Mary‟s use of performance and
gender to her advantage, a detailed analysis of performative behaviour has not yet been
undertaken.
The gap in our understanding of Mary‟s Tudor‟s reign and personality can therefore be
filled by a detailed analysis of Mary‟s use of performative behaviour throughout her
youth and reign and answering the question: What does an interpretation of Mary
Tudor‟s behaviour, using a frame work of performance and masquerade theories, reveal
about the way she operated in a male-dominated sixteenth-century England? To answer
this question and fill the gap in knowledge, this thesis argues that Mary used her
femininity to her advantage. This is done by applying a theoretical framework to the
examination of Mary‟s life which has not yet been applied in other historical
v
examinations of her. This framework combines masquerade and performance in daily
life theories to explain how Mary used performance behaviour to successfully operate
within sixteenth century England. This analysis of Mary‟s behaviour is informed by
two main theories which work together: Joan Riviere‟s (2008) theory of masquerade
and Erving Goffman‟s (1959) theory of performance in daily life. Riviere, a
psychoanalyst, drew on the works of other psychoanalysts such as Ernest Jones and
Sigmund Freud to create the theory of masquerade (Heath, 1986, p. 47). Riviere‟s
(2008, p. 28) masquerade is the concept that womanliness is something that can be used
by women who want or have power, like a mask, to avoid conflict with men. For
Riviere femininity is not an inherent trait of women but a superficial behaviour that can
be used by women to their advantage (Atkinson, 2005, p. 10). While this concept alone
can be applied to the life and times of Mary Tudor, Riviere‟s concept of masquerade is
predominantly anchored in its psychoanalytical origins, making the concept complex.
To extend the concept of masquerade away from its origins in psychoanalysis, Tseelon
(1995, pp. 37-38) makes the links between masking and disguise, and masking and
acting (1995, p. 40) in her works. Understanding these links allows the theory of
masquerade to incorporate theories of performance in daily life, such as those created
by Goffman (1959, p. 74) who suggests that people perform in order to conceal some
things and accentuate others. Also incorporated into this is Victor Turner‟s theory that
rituals are also performances used to influence (Turner, 1982, p. 113). Combining the
theory of masquerade with these concepts allows, as asserted by Tseelon (2001, pp. 23), for masquerade to become a metaphor for hiding one‟s identity and a valuable tool
in assessing why people feel the need to do this. By comparing the concept of
performance in daily life to the concept of masquerade it is clear that they are both
similar in their attempts to control and conceal situations and can therefore be used
together. Using the theories together extends the theory of masquerade away from its
psychoanalytical roots allowing it to be used to analyse identity and behaviour. An
examination of Mary Tudor, using this concept, creates the idea that Mary was a
calculated actor who used performances of both masculinity and femininity, to her
advantage, throughout her life in order to successfully operate in male-dominated
sixteenth-century England.
To draw this conclusion, it is important to note that England, during the sixteenthcentury was informed largely by the rules of patriarchy. For the women of the time this
vi
meant that the father or the eldest brother controlled their lives until they married and
the husband would then take over this responsibility (Jordan, 1990, p. 3). Ideology
informed sixteenth-century society that gender roles defined women as ideally chaste,
obedient and submissive to their male authority (Richards, 2008, p. 174). Once married
women, were defined by their roles as wives, mothers and then widows (Fletcher, 1995,
pp. 173-174). Confined to the home and to these roles, women had limited participation
in the social, economic and political arenas of England (Kimmel, 2004, p. 58). As
women were confined to their homes during a period in history where the running of
the household estates became more important, and husbands were often absent, women
began to create their own powerbases, operating in the dual role of effective business
woman and submissive wife (Fletcher, 1995, p. 174). Jordan (1990, p. 3) argues that
within the English nobility, life was similar to that of regular women with the running
of households but as noble women were involved in the political arena of England, they
could and did influence the men around them while lacking any real authority.
Characterisations of women as obedient and submissive also labelled them as weak and
therefore unfit to rule (Castor, 2012, p. 454). Within the monarchy, the most powerful
woman of the country, the queen, as wife of a king, obtained her power through her
relationship to the king (Richards, 2008, p. 124) and did not hold any power in her own
right. Understanding sixteenth-century views on the accepted place of women provided
a framework for understanding Mary‟s actions and theories of masquerade and
performance.
To understand the significance of Mary reign as England‟s first regnant queen it must
be understood that prior to her reign the English monarchy was solely a masculine
institution. The only precedent for female power occurred during the twelfth century
when Matilda, the daughter of Henry I, attempted and failed to claim the English throne
(Hopkins, 1991, p. 105). The political situation in England was not always stable but
what was constant was the fact that while powerful women existed to influence behind
the scenes, they did not rule in their own right (Jordan, 1990, p. 4). The monarch in
England had always been male right up until the succession crisis of 1553. The Tudor
dynasty, which Mary was part of, came to power in 1485 when Henry Tudor won the
battle of Bosworth against Richard III, effectively ending the thirty year conflict known
as the Wars of the Roses (Guy, 1988, p. 55). Henry Tudor was never completely stable
on his throne and much of his foreign policy throughout his reign was in defence of his
position and reactions to external threats to his dynasty and crown (1988, p. 74). Henry
vii
VIII, Mary‟s father, was the second son of Henry VII, who no one expected to take the
throne (Lacey, 1992, p. 12). Due to his older brother Arthur‟s early death, however,
Henry VIII succeeded his father on 22 April 1509 and on acceding to the throne
quickly married the Spanish infanta, Katherine of Aragon, who was also the widow of
his late brother (Guy, 1988, p. 80). When discussing Katherine, Prescott (2003, p. 73)
notes that she was a gentle, brave, yet stubborn woman who remained loyal to her
beliefs to a fault and passed on these behaviours to her daughter.
Mary, who was born in 1516, was the only surviving child of the marriage between
Katherine and Henry (Guy, 1988, p. 116) and her birth was much celebrated at the time
as it gave the couple hope of further children. From around 1524 it became clear,
however, that there would be no further children from the marriage with Katherine
(Weir, 1991, p. 137) and Henry, with only a daughter to succeed him, believed the
Tudor dynasty was at risk. The need of a son to secure the dynasty resulted in the
„king‟s great matter‟, the divorce of Katherine, many other marriages for Henry, and
the break with Rome (Cheshire, 2006, p. 205). The break with Rome in particular
resulted in much religious turmoil for England after the death of Henry in 1547. The
period from Henry‟s death until 1558 was considered so tumultuous that it has been
deemed by some historians the „mid-Tudor crisis‟ (Williams, 1998, p. 123). No one
was more affected by the events of this crisis period and break with Rome than Mary
Tudor, Henry‟s daughter, who was bastardized due to the divorce of her parents and
went from a princess to plain old lady Mary. This thesis will explore how Mary coped
with these changes and the other events she had to deal with during the period roughly
from 1532 until 1558.
As an historical examination, this thesis employs historical methodology throughout
both the research and writing processes. Within historical methodology, interpretation
and analysis are the key tools that are applied when examining a historical event (Black
& MacRaild, 2007, p. 96). The analysis and interpretation of historical works are
deeply focused on works previously written on a subject (secondary sources) and
primary source documents written during the period being studied (Berg, 2001, p. 219).
This thesis draws its research from both secondary sources, namely biographies and
essays written about Mary Tudor, as well as primary source data, mainly eye-witness
accounts of Mary‟s youth and reign which are found in the State Calendar rolls from
England, Spain and Venice during the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI and Mary
viii
herself. In writing history, historians use their own interpretations of sources to create
new insights into old issues and thereby build upon the works previously written on the
subject they are exploring (Marwick, 2001, p. 40). The analysis of sources using the
historical method enables facts to be linked together to support the historian‟s overall
interpretation of an event or instance (Brown & Daniels, 1986, p. 89). Historians
continue to restudy old issues by imposing new frameworks and methods upon events
previously studied, and in turn, reinterpret the source data (Krathwohl, 1993, p. 505).
As a work of history this thesis follows these patterns. By applying the framework of
masquerade and performance to life of Mary Tudor, it allows for a reinterpretation and
re-analysis of the primary and secondary source data to support the contention that
Mary was calculating actor.
The collection of the primary source data for this thesis is informed by document
analysis which Sprouil (1988, p.168) suggests is the only option for researchers of
history. The search for these documents was previously done through physical archives
but there is an increasing availability of digital archives which are breaking down
access issues (King, 2012, p. 23). Bagley (1965, p. 245) also asserts the usefulness of
printed collections of historical documents, such as state calendars, which are vitally
important in historical research. The research for this thesis has focused on both printed
collections and digital archives. To examine this information the systematic process, of
content analysis has been used as it creates an objective analysis of content within a
document or communication (Sprouil, 1988, p. 243). Content analysis is a useful
method in historical research as it enables the researcher to identify patterns within the
sources and sort it into categories or topics (Berg, 2001, p. 219). The history method
process allows the interpretation of data from historical sources through the use of
content analysis which identifies patterns of performative behaviour in the life of Mary
Tudor.
Like all historical works, this thesis has its limitations. The discipline of history in
particular is constrained by the fact that historical events and situations cannot often be
verified. Therefore, historians can only attempt, through interpretation and analysis, to
offer feasible explanations (Brown & Daniels, 1986, p. 31). The nature of historical
methodology also places limitations on any historical research project due to historical
works drawing the required information from sources written during the era being
ix
studied. Historians are therefore limited to analysing what was recorded and often have
issues locating and accessing these documents. This thesis is an analysis of Mary‟s use
of performative behaviour and is therefore not a traditional biography and will not
attempt to compare Mary‟s reign with that of her successor, Elizabeth I, as other
authors have done in past examinations of Mary.
As an analysis of Mary Tudor‟s performative behaviour, this thesis is structured to
covey the development of this behaviour across Mary‟s life identities. Chapter One
focuses on Mary‟s behaviour during the reigns of her father, Henry VIII, and her
brother, Edward VI, to show the development of Mary‟s ability to use performative
behaviour to her advantage due to the constrictions of patriarchal authority. Chapter
Two examines Mary‟s use of both femininity and masculinity during times of crisis.
Chapter Three discusses Mary‟s transformation of traditional masculine power into
something she could wield and the influences of other women she drew on in order to
achieve this. The final chapter explores Mary‟s achievement of balancing the dual roles
of wife and ruler that she had to undertake and also looks at Mary‟s role in organising
her marriage. Interpreting human behaviour as performance takes into account not only
the person being studied but the social context of the time period (Gunn, 2012, p. 184).
When applying this theoretical framework to the life of Mary Tudor, this is clearly the
case as it has allowed both the existing historical data and historiography that exists
regarding Mary to be utilised through reinterpretation while taking into consideration
the ideology of the time in which she lived. Reinterpretation of this information
transforms the way in which the actions and character of England‟s first queen are
understood, making this thesis a significant contribution to the field of Tudor history.
Performative analysis is however, not limited to an examination of the life of Mary
Tudor. The concept can be utilised to examine other female rulers and politicians in an
effort to understand the influence of performance and masquerade. Therefore, while
this thesis contributes to Tudor history it can also be used as a template for other
historians researching in the field of female political power.
x
Chapter One
Masquerade of femininity: Mary under patriarchal control
In 1929 Joan Riviere, informed by the rules of patriarchy, created her theory of
masquerade by suggesting “that women who wish for masculinity may put on a mask
of womanliness to avert anxiety and retribution feared from men” (Riviere, 2008, p. 25)
Despite this theory being relatively recent there is evidence to suggest that Mary Tudor
would employ the tactic of masquerade throughout her life as she, at times, needed to
act in a feminine manner. In particular, Mary would use the perception of womanly
weakness when dealing with her powerful father Henry VIII. To understand the
importance behind Mary defying her father through performative behaviour we must
understand the influence that the concept of patriarchy had over the women of the
sixteenth century. Jordan (1990, p. 3) argues that patriarchy informed all relations that
women had with men during this period and the father or brother, as head of the family,
had almost complete control of the women living in their household until they were
married. Therefore, within the rules of patriarchy, Mary, and all women of the period,
were expected to be obedient and submissive to the head of the household. Mary, as the
daughter of a king, had a second layer of control over her as her father, the king, used
the established power of patriarchy to control all royal affairs and the lives of everyone
within his family (Richards, 2008, p.124). The power that the father of a family could
exert over a daughter, especially in the case of Henry‟s power over Mary, was
expressed by the Spanish Imperial ambassador Chapuys in writing to the Emperor
Charles V on 11 July 1533. Chapuys suggested that “as to the princess, the king, being
her father, could do what he pleased” (Gairdner, 1533/1882, p.356). Understanding the
power that the father of a family had over the women during this period makes Mary‟s
ability to defy her father extraordinary.
When examining Mary and her ability to perform it is impossible to ignore her
education as this surely should have had an impact on the personality that Mary
developed. Mary‟s formal education was largely carried out prior to 1527 when Henry
VIII began to question his marriage to Katherine of Aragon, and therefore Mary‟s
legitimacy (Prescott, 2003, p. 42). Mary‟s extensive education was in the main part
conducted by the Venetian humanist Juan Luis Vives (Jansen, 2008, p. 94). Vives was
progressive in his belief in the education of women but conservative in his approach,
1
believing that women needed to learn manners instead of political skills such as how to
rule a country. This education therefore denied Mary the skills she would need as
England‟s first queen regnant later in her life (2008, p. 95). Mary‟s education instead
acted to reinforce the ideology of the time which was that women were expected to be
submissive in both their roles as daughters and as wives (Attreed & Winkler, 2005, p.
977). Religion was also an important part of this education as religion was, during the
sixteenth century, an essential part of daily life and therefore an irremovable element of
education (Porter, 2007, p. 145). Religion would, therefore, become a major part of
both Mary‟s life and her personality. The public records preserved during the period of
1527 until 1532, which was the main period of conflict between Mary‟s parents, rarely
mention her (Erickson, 1978, p. 88). Information regarding Mary during this period is
lacking but what is known about her is that her education did not teach her the political
skill of performance or how to use her gender to her advantage. To get an insight into
Mary‟s use of performance we must therefore look at how Mary reacted to the changes
that occurred in her life from 1533 onwards.
While Mary had very little involvement in the early part of the divorce of her parents,
(Prescott, 2003, p. 42), it was the birth of her half sister, Elizabeth, on 7 September
1533 that changed her fortunes completely as Mary was classed as illegitimate and
therefore denied the title of princess (Erickson, 1978, p. 102). While Mary strongly
protested her illegitimate status and her father‟s treatment of her, to external and
internal parties, (Gairdner, 1534/1883, pp. 308-309) Mary was also a casualty of the
actions of her father and from then on clearly involved and affected by the divorce.
These changes in Mary‟s circumstances would also have great influence on how
Mary‟s personality would develop and it is no wonder, then, as Prescott (2003, p.42)
claims, that as a response to these events she developed a policy of stubborn resistance
to her father‟s will. It can also be argued that part of Mary‟s stubbornness was her
ability to perform and use masquerades of feminine weakness in her attempts to avoid
bowing to her father‟s wishes. An early indicator of Mary‟s ability to act can be seen in
a letter she herself wrote to Henry regarding being addressed as
„The lady Mary, the King‟s daughter‟ leaving out the name of princess.
Marvelled at this, thinking your Grace was not privy to it, not doubting but you
take me for your lawful daughter, barn in true matrimony. If I agreed to the
contrary I should offend God; in all other things you shall find me an obedient
daughter (as cited in Gairdner, 1533/1882, p. 500).
2
This letter shows how Mary managed to reject her father‟s wish that she accept her
illegitimacy by her suggestion that he was not aware of the slight and thereby claiming
that she remained a typical obedient daughter. This is the first sign that Mary was
learning to put on the masquerade of the obedient female.
Mary‟s actions during the period of 1533 until 1536 show that maintaining the guise of
the obedient daughter allowed Mary to continue to defy her father. Support for this can
be seen from a letter written by the Spanish ambassador Chapuys to Charles V in June
1534 stating that Mary had signed a protestation rejecting her father‟s claim that she
was illegitimate and asserting that she would “not marry, enter a monastery or take any
such step at the will of her father without the consent of her mother” (as cited in
Gairdner, 1534/1883, pp. 308-309). By stating this claim, Mary was in effect rejecting
Henry‟s patriarchal authority over her. While Mary had no real chance of defying her
father‟s wishes in this way, due to the rules of patriarchy, this letter is another early
sign, however, of Mary‟s ability to maintain a guise of female obedience while at the
same time acting towards her own interests. Mary would continue to reject the king‟s
wishes that she accept her illegitimacy. Evidence of this continued rejection comes
from a written to Mary by Thomas Cromwell on 10 June 1536 where he admonishes
her for her refusal to submit to the king‟s will by stating that “I think you the most
obstinate woman that ever was” (as cited in Gardiner, 1536/1887, p. 467).
Understanding that Mary was using masquerades to defy her father‟s will allows for the
reconsideration of claims by authors such as Weir (2008, p. 5) who argue that while
Mary was kind and truthful she was without the abilities needed by rulers of England.
As her actions during the period from 1533 until 1536 demonstrate Mary had some
political skills as she had the ability to put on the guise of a weak woman when it was
to her advantage to do so.
Historians examining Mary‟s reign have argued that there is strong evidence that she
often feigned illness for political reasons (Richards, 2011, p. 214). By examining
Mary‟s actions during the period of conflict with her father, it becomes clear that this
trait was something that developed in her youth as part of her masquerade of womanly
weakness. During this period there were conflicting reports about the gravity of Mary‟s
illnesses with Henry‟s physician, Dr Butts, arguing that to cure Mary would be as
simple as to remove her from the “climate of anxiety and persecution in which Henry
kept her” (as cited in Erickson, 1978, p. 120). Letters written during this period give us
3
an insight into the nature of Mary‟s illnesses and indicate that at least some of those
illnesses were part of Mary‟s masquerade of womanly weakness. A letter written by Dr
Ortiz to the Empress on 21 May 1534 reported that Mary had been ill and the illness
came from grief (Gairdner, 1535/1885, p. 279). Illness caused by grief is questionable
to us today and even back in the sixteenth century, as Erickson (1978, p. 123) argues
that Henry himself questioned Mary‟s illness, stating that Dr Butts exaggerated the
gravity of her illness. Further evidence that Mary was calculating in her ability to use
illness is apparent from a letter Mary wrote to Thomas Cromwell on 13 June 1536. In
the letter Mary, in an attempt to avoid writing to the king argues that “I cannot endure
to write another copy. For the pain in my head and teeth hath troubled me so sore these
two or three days” (as cited in Gairdner, 1536/1887, p. 474). There is clear evidence to
suggest that it was due to the conflict between Henry and Mary that Mary developed
her masquerade of womanly weakness and a major part of that masquerade was the
playing up of illnesses.
Mary‟s ability to perform is also apparent when examining her actions in relation to
Anne Boleyn, the king‟s second wife and her new step mother. Chapuys reported to
Charles on 27 April 1533 that when informed of the king‟s marriage to Anne, Mary
“was a little sad, and then, like a wise woman as she is, she dissembled the matter,
showing herself glad” (as cited in Gairdner, 1533/1882, p. 179). When discussing this
event Prescott (2003, p. 50) suggests Mary‟s reaction to the marriage is an example of
Mary having “self-control beyond her years.” It is also an example of the extent to
which Mary could act to hide her true feelings in difficult situations. Almost
indisputable evidence that Mary used masquerade and performance in her dealings with
her father, and in response to his new wife, can be seen in Mary‟s reaction to Henry‟s
demand that she swear loyalty to Queen Anne. This occurred soon after Mary‟s
mother‟s death and Mary wrote to Chapuys to ask his advice on how to respond to
Henry‟s demands. Chapuys would reply telling Mary to maintain her usual modesty,
dignity and courage but also
To use every effort to avoid discussion with the king‟s deputies, beseeching
them to leave her in peace that she might pray to God for the soul of the Queen
her mother, and also for his aid, or counsel. That she was a poor and simple
orphan without experience, aid or counsel, that she did not understand laws or
canons, and did not know how to answer them; that she should beseech them to
intercede with the king, her father, to have pity on her weakness and ignorance
(as cited in Gairdner, 1536/1887, p. 48).
4
It is clear from this that Chapuys is telling Mary to use the perception that women are
weak to her advantage, which was something that she was by this stage getting
comfortable with doing. As Chapuys was aware that Mary had the ability to put on the
masquerade of womanly weakness, his reports are valuable sources of evidence to
support the argument that Mary developed the skill to act during her young adulthood.
While many historians, such as Porter (2007, p. 122), have argued that Mary was brave
in her defiance of Henry‟s wishes they would also claim that she would end up giving
in to his wishes to gain his acceptance. From Chapuys‟ report to Charles on 1 July
1536, however, another reason for Mary‟s acceptance becomes apparent. In this report,
Chapuys suggested that Mary was being threatened with violence and to save her,
Chapuys himself advised Mary to accept her father‟s wishes (Gairdner, 1536/1888, p.
7). Therefore Mary‟s acceptance of her father‟s will should not be seen as a weakness
of her character. Mary‟s submission to Henry was instead another performance, as on
the exterior Mary maintained the guise of acceptance of her father‟s will but internally,
and to her Spanish supporters, Mary clearly maintained her own beliefs (Erickson,
1978, p. 178). After Mary signed the confession accepting her father‟s wishes, Henry
made Mary write to Charles advising him that she willingly accepted parliament‟s
decrees that her parents‟ marriage was unlawful, that she was illegitimate and that
Henry was head of the church. Mary did as her father asked but, without his
knowledge, Mary requested that Chapuys advise Charles that she was being force write
the letter to him and requested that Charles show displeasure in her actions to keep up
appearances with Henry (Gairdner, 1536/1888, p. 229). It is in the perceived weakness
of Mary‟s character for giving into her father that we can actually see clearly her ability
to perform and how the perception that women were submissive worked to Mary‟s
advantage. This would continue to be the case during the reign of her brother Edward
VI.
Henry VIII‟s death in 1547 left Mary the first lady of England as sister and heir to her
brother Edward. Mary‟s position as heir was relatively secure at that time as all the
heirs to the English throne were women (Prescott, 2003, p. 256) and as the eldest
daughter of Henry Mary‟s claim was the strongest. Despite this, Mary‟s position as heir
had its advantages and disadvantages. Weir (2008, p. 18) argues that socially Mary was
at a disadvantage as she was legally a bastard and unmarried. However, she also had
the major advantages of a certain level of freedom from patriarchal control as well as
5
being independently wealthy and having the support of her Spanish relatives. These
elements also enabled Mary to gain influence in the territories of England in which she
held properties which would assist her later to gain support in her bid to gain the
English throne. While the death of Henry removed the fatherly control over Mary‟s life,
tradition held that she was still to remain submissive, obedient and subject to the
authority of her brother until she was married (Richards, 2008, p. 124). Despite the
tradition of patriarchal authority, Mary would use the uniqueness of her position and
her brother‟s youth to defy his laws in ways she never managed to do when dealing
with her father. Mary would also during this period maintain the masquerade of a weak
and innocent woman when dealing with her Spanish protector Charles V.
Edward‟s reign, which lasted from 1547 until 1553, would herald in a new period of
Mary clashing with patriarchal authority, particularly because of her rejection of
Edward‟s changes to religion and his demand that she adopt them, which put Mary at
odds with the new regime (Castor, 2012, p. 8). In dealing with this new issue Mary
used both open defiance of Edward‟s laws and the tactic of feigning illness which she
developed as part of her masquerade of womanly weakness. Edward and Mary‟s
relationship was tumultuous during this time, which is apparent from a letter Edward
wrote to Mary in which he stated that she wished “to break our laws and set them aside
deliberately and of your own free will and moreover sustain and encourage others to
commit a like offence” (as cited in Richards, 2008, p.99). While Mary was in a
dangerous position here, the letter from the king did not prevent her actions as she
refused to believe that Edward was truly behind the religious changes and demands on
her because of his youth (Erickson, 1978, p. 278). Confirmation of Mary‟s suspicions
may have come from a letter she received from Edward‟s council in 1549, suggesting
that she continued to openly defy Edward‟s laws as one of “her retainers [was]
attending seditious assemblies, particularly a chaplain at Standford Courtenay in
Devon, and one Pooley, a leader of the worst sort of the rebels in Suffolk” (as cited in
Lemon, 1547-1580/1856, p. 20). Erickson (1978, p. 249) notes how during this same
period Mary also feigned ill health in order to avoid the 1549 Christmas at court
without the Catholic mass. Mary and Edward‟s relationship was complex and the act of
womanly weakness was much more effective and apparent from examining Mary‟s
relations with Charles V of Spain.
6
Mary‟s defiance of Edward‟s laws had been until 1551 largely private but this would
change when Mary rode into London with her ladies and gentlemen openly displaying
the now banned rosary beads in a public display of defiance (Richards, 2008, p. 100).
This action by Mary was in response to a letter she had received from the king and
counsel demanding that she conform to the religious changes, as leniency shown to her
past defiant behaviour would no longer be granted (Erickson, 1978, p. 275). Carrying
the rosary in public shows the bravery of Mary to maintain her beliefs in the face of
danger but also the confidence that she had in the support for her cause given by her
foreign protector Charles V. Porter (2007, p. 11) suggests that while many historians
have disparaged Mary for her half-Spanish background, during the sixteenth century
this background was considered an asset. For Mary, in open conflict with her brother
and the English Council, this was certainly the case. Mary refused to give up her
Catholic faith and conform to Edward‟s religious changes and by gaining Charles‟
support for her cause Mary prevented Edward and his Council from forcing her to
conform. In his support for Mary, Charles would have his ambassador in England, Van
der Delft, constantly demand that the council allow Mary to continue her faith based on
the tradition of patriarchy that he as her eldest relative personally would not allow her
to change her religion (Prescott, 2003, p. 152). While patriarchy had in the past
controlled Mary, this time she could and did utilise those rules to her personal
advantage.
Mary was calculating in obtaining the support of Charles for her cause because she was
fully aware that Charles expected her to be a weak and helpless woman as her father
before him had expected, and she therefore exaggerated her womanly weakness and
desperation accordingly (Erickson, 1978, p. 241). Supporting evidence of Mary‟s
ability to masquerade as a weak woman comes from the language that Mary used in her
letters to Charles. In one letter written on 13 March 1553 Mary wrote “I beseech you,
as you have shown yourself in the past and even unto this day to be my help and refuge,
nay, my second spiritual father” (as cited in Tyler, 1553/1916a, p. 14). After flattering
Charles, Mary goes on to say “I now make so bold as to ask your majesty once more,
with all humility, that you may be please to give fresh orders to you ambassador to
repeat his requests to the same effect” (as cited in Tyler, 1553/1916a, p. 15). Charles‟
involvement in this issue resulted in positive outcomes for Mary as when Charles
threatened war on England, if the council denied Mary the Catholic mass, the council
was quick to back down (Erickson, 1978, pp. 274-275). Edwards (2011, p. 70) suggests
7
that the Council only ever perceived Charles‟ involvement in the argument regarding
Mary‟s religion as a way for him to interfere in English affairs. It is clear from this,
then, that Mary‟s aim to gain Charles‟ support for her cause was successful as she
managed to maintain her faith and create relations with Charles through using the
masquerade of womanliness. Mary‟s ability to use the guise of womanly weakness in
her dealings with Charles and the council meant that the council failed to realise it was
Mary who was instigating Charles‟ involvement in English affairs. This enabled Mary
to develop her masquerade of womanly weakness which would continue to serve her
well throughout her life.
This chapter has detailed the development of Mary‟s ability to utilise the skill of
masquerading as a weak woman to her advantage while she was under the patriarchal
control of her father and brother. This was shown to be the case despite Mary‟s
education having been a traditional one that reinforced the patriarchal notion that
women were to be submissive and obedient to men. By examining Mary‟s dealings
with her father, the English Council, Charles V and Edward VI, during the period from
1533 until 1553, it became clear that Mary developed the skill to act as a weak woman
and those she dealt with perceived her as such. This act was reinforced with displays of
obedience, the use of submissive language in letters and using strategic illnesses. For
the main part, Mary‟s performances brought her favourable results, with many she dealt
with failing to realise that she was acting. In particular, Mary‟s performances in
response to her father, Henry, enabled her to delay accepting his decree that she was
illegitimate for a long period of time. Later in her life, acting as a submissive woman
with Charles V had him perform the role of the protector and supporter in her bid to
maintain her choice of religion during the reign of her brother Edward. Charles‟
support for Mary enabled her to be openly defiant of her brother‟s religious changes
and maintain her own beliefs. Mary‟s ability to masquerade as a weak woman would
continue to benefit her throughout her reign and especially during times of crisis, which
the next chapter shall examine in detail.
8
Chapter Two
Mary in times of crisis: the seasoned actor
In his discussion of performance behaviour Goffman (1959, p. 74) noted that people
perform to conceal some things and accentuate others. Mary exhibited this skill as part
of her performance behaviour particularly during two major conflicts, the 1553
succession crisis and, the Wyatt rebellion. The succession crisis occurred from 6 July
1553 when, on Edward‟s death, Jane Grey was installed as queen instead of Mary who
was the rightful heir. This conflict was short lived and by 3 August of the same year
Mary had been proclaimed queen and had taken control of the country (Guy, 1988, p.
226). The Wyatt rebellion, which occurred from late 1553 until early 1554, was led by
Thomas Wyatt who attempted to forcefully prevent Mary from entering into marriage
with Philip of Spain (Weir, 2008, p. 227). During these conflicts Mary would use
Goffman‟s version of performance behaviour in order to obtain and maintain her hold
on the English throne. She did this by at times playing up the image of womanly
weakness and using the perception of being weak to her advantage. Mary would also, at
other times, conceal womanly weakness and instead put on performances of masculine
power and majesty in her new role as ruler. This shows that the constant crisis in
Mary‟s life assisted her to become a seasoned actor who effectively used performance
to her advantage.
When examining the July 1553 succession crisis historians have argued that Mary was
particularly limited by her gender because, as a woman, she was unable to lead an army
into battle (Richards, 2008, p. 242). Mary‟s actions during the succession crisis shows
that this was not the case as she was willing and able to undertake the traditionally
masculine role of military leader in order to “forcefully establish her sovereignty”
(Duncan, 2012, p. 12). Despite the odds against her, reports of Mary‟s actions during
early July 1553 note her gathering and consolidating her growing support base
(Whitelock & Macculloch, 2007, p. 266). Further evidence that Mary was confident in
this new role comes from reports that Mary spent three hours on the 20 July reviewing
her troops for a battle as she believed she would need to fight John Dudley the Duke of
Northumberland to obtain the throne (Edwards, 2011, p. 100). Mary‟s ability and
willingness to undertake the masculine role of military leader shows she also had the
skill to put on a guise of masculine power when required which was in complete
9
opposition to the picture of the weak woman Mary had previously presented to the
world. In undertaking the masculine role of military commander Mary was also acting
in complete opposition to what we have seen was the acceptable role of women in the
sixteenth century but she had little choice. Cardinal Pole would write to Mary in
August 1553 at the end of the conflict to suggest that it was marvellous that “without
any external forces, and not many soldiers with the heart to declare themselves for her,
[she] could have recovered her crown” (as cited in Brown, 1534-1554/1873, p. 384).
Mary‟s ability to use the guise of the weak woman and then use displays of masculine
power in order to gain the throne shows that she was utilising performance to her
advantage during succession crisis.
The fact that Mary managed to stand in opposition to the most powerful men in
England is even more extraordinary because she was a woman who acted alone
(Castor, 2012, p. 429). Richards (2008, p. 116) notes how Charles and his ambassadors,
who had previously provided much support to Mary during the reign of Edward, failed
to help Mary during her bid for the throne and that Mary alone acted quickly and
decisively against the new regime. Reports from the Spanish ambassadors on the 7 July
1553 suggest that without their advice Mary decided to declare herself queen, on
hearing of Edward‟s death, in order to gain support for her cause from the English
people (Tyler, 1553/1916a, p. 73). A further report from the ambassadors on the 11
July suggests that they attempted to persuade Mary against taking that particular course
of action but that Mary had ignored their advice (1553/1916a, p. 82). Historians have
used Mary‟s previous submissiveness to Charles as evidence to suggest that she was
incapable of making political judgements without Spanish advice. Richards (2008, pp.
114-115) however asserts that Mary‟s dealings with Charles were only a guise used to
gain his support as we previously seen. Therefore, Mary‟s ability to act without the
assistance of her Spanish protectors during the July 1553 succession crisis shows that
she was perfectly capable of undertaking and operating in the masculine role of ruler by
taking the initiative.
Despite Mary‟s ability to act in the masculine role of military commander, the
masquerade of femininity that she had previously employed so well continued to work
to her advantage during this period. This is apparent from the fact that the powerful
men in charge of London after Edward‟s death, wrote Mary off as a threat because she
was a woman (Castor, 2012, p. 423). Mary was considered so non-threatening to the
10
new regime of Queen Jane that Northumberland failed to capture her which was a fatal
mistake as Mary held firm in her attempts to gain the throne (Porter, 2007, p. 203).
Loades (2010, p. 8) suggests that abroad, in Europe, the perception that Mary was a
weak and helpless woman was spreading with Mary‟s triumph in England seen as the
story of “a helpless virgin triumphing over the strong man armed.” By taking control of
England, by using what Duncan (2012, p. 37) argues was masculine kingly fortitude,
while also maintaining the image of the weak woman, Mary impressed her subjects
with her leadership skills and courage during this period of turmoil (Weir, 2008, pp.
196-197). Authors such as Willamson (1964, p. 223) argue that there are many other
factors, such as loyalty to the Tudor dynasty and religious affiliations of the people of
England (Richards, 2008, p. 116) that factor in to understanding Mary‟s success in
gaining the English throne. These elements have, however, already been discussed in
much detail in other works while little attention has been given to the impact of Mary‟s
ability to perform in both masculine and feminine roles during this crisis. It is apparent
from this examination that the image of the weak woman Mary had previously created
for herself assisted Mary‟s cause during the July 1553 succession crisis.
Mary‟s ability to act becomes even more apparent when examining her stance on
religion during this brief period of conflict. Mary would use her Catholic beliefs to call
people to her cause as she did with the lay people and noble families of East Anglia
(Porter, 2007, p. 203). Mary at the same time downplayed her religious beliefs by
making it known that she would maintain the religion her brother had established in
England. This move by Mary was a popular one which had many Protestants
supporting her bid for the English throne (Weir, 2008, p. 162). As Mary was, and had
always been as the reign of Edward showed, a defiant Catholic in a Protestant country,
there is no doubt she had no intention of keeping this promise. This statement was
instead a brilliant political move and an example of Mary‟s ability to be politically
pragmatic (Whitelock & MacCulloch, 2007, pp. 284-285). Authors such as Prescott
(2003, p. 229), examining Mary argues that she lacked any political skills that were
required of queens during the period. We have seen from Mary‟s formal education that
this may have been the case but her actions during the conflict with her father, brother
and the English council have shown that due to the constant crisis in her life Mary
received an informal education in the political dealings of England. This education
taught Mary to use alternating performances of masculinity majesty and feminine
weakness to her advantage making Mary by this point a talented actor.
11
While Mary‟s achievement in gaining the English throne was impressive her position
upon it was not automatically secure which is apparent from the Wyatt rebellion which
developed in late 1553 to early 1554 (Sharpe, 2009, p. 253). This rebellion was caused
by religious tensions in regards to Mary‟s decision to marry the foreign prince Philip of
Spain (Cheshire, 2006, p. 226). Just as she had during the succession crisis of July
1553, during this rebellion, Mary would show that she was a capable leader by her
alternating her use of masculine majesty and the perception of feminine weakness.
Mary would also prove during this new crisis that she did not need to rely on external
assistance from Spain in order to successfully rule her country. Mary would instead put
her faith in her English subjects and her ability to rule (Meyer, 2010, p. 402). A letter
written during the rebellion by Cardinal Pole to Cardinal Di Monte on 8 February 1554
supports the idea that Mary had, early on, decided against foreign support in this crisis
as it stated that while Mary believed the Emperor would help her with crisis if she
required it she preferred to put her faith in God (Brown, 1534-1554/1873, p. 460). An
earlier letter written by Count d‟Egmont to the Emperor on the 3 February continues
Mary‟s earlier submissiveness to Charles as d‟Egmont wrote “Your majesty she
considered to be her father, who would not abandon her in her day of need” (as cited in
Tyler, 1554/1949, pp. 66-82). These letters show two things. One, Mary had made the
decision to keep Spanish influence out of England during this crisis deciding to deal
with it internally. Secondly it shows Mary maintaining her masquerade of womanly
weakness with Charles in order to maintain good relations with him while at the same
time asserting her masculine monarchical authority within England.
Many historians examining this period of crisis in Mary‟s reign agree that it was her
Guildhall speech which acted as a powerful act of defiance which rallied the people to
her cause and overall crushed the rebellion (Starkey, 2006, p.69). When concluding
examinations of Mary‟s reign however it has been suggested that Mary lacked the
political ability and pragmatism of the other Tudor monarchs (Weir, 2008, p. 5). Others
discussing this period have made reference to Mary‟s ability to wield the masculine
monarchical power by comparing her to her father Henry VIII. Porter (2007, p. 299) in
particular argues that during this period of turmoil Mary remained calm in the face of
danger and understanding the need for a defiant gesture showed the rebels and the
people that she had the ability to wield the masculine monarchical power as well as her
father before her. Edwards (2011, p. 173) notes that Mary‟s speech was powerful,
passionate and had the effect of rallying the people to support her cause and done in the
12
way of her father before her. Prescott (2003, p. 306) suggest instead that the
effectiveness of Mary‟s speech should be attributed to the love that the people had
previously held for her father Henry VIII. Reports of Mary‟s speech by Simon Renard,
the Spanish ambassador, at the time however note the power of Mary‟s speech and that
in response to it “the people cried out loudly that they would live and die in her
service” (as cited in Tyler, 1554/1949, pp. 66-82). It is clear that concluding that Mary
did not have the political skills that the rest of her family had is not entirely correct as
we have previously seen Mary‟s ability to act feminine to her advantage and during the
Wyatt rebellion Mary‟s ability to act and wield the masculine monarchical power.
While Mary‟s speech to the people was a performance to show the power and majesty
of the monarch it also contained elements of the masquerade of femininity which by
now were second nature to Mary. Mary masterfully used the metaphor of motherhood
in her Guildhall speech which created an even closer relationship between her and her
people than that of just monarch and those ruled over (Samson, 2005, p. 780). In the
speech Mary asserted that:
I cannot tell how naturally the mother loves the child, for I was never the
mother of any. But certainly, if a prince and governor may as naturally and
earnestly love her subjects as the mother does love the child, then assure
yourselves that I, being your lady and mistress, do as earnestly and tenderly love
and favour you (as cited in Castor, 2012, p. 444).
This speech shows that Mary could lead the people as well as reconcile the two roles
she had to play, Mary the monarch and Mary the woman (Castor, 2012, pp. 443-444).
Despite this evidence authors such as Loades (1989a, p. 8) examining Mary‟s reign
would continue to argue that Mary allowed herself to be limited by her gender and
therefore failed to reconcile these conflicting roles (2003, p. 89). Mary‟s speech is
powerful evidence to contradict this assumption and it becomes apparent instead that as
in previous instances Mary again used the masquerade of femininity to her advantage.
This chapter has explored how performance continued to assist Mary to operate
successfully during the sixteenth-century times of crisis focussing on the case studies of
the July 1553 succession crisis and the Wyatt rebellion which occurred during late 1553
and early 1554. During both of these conflicts Mary acted in alternating masculine and
feminine ways in order to benefit herself politically. Mary managed to maintain to
external parties such as Charles V in Spain the guise of the weak woman while at the
13
same time within England wielding the masculine monarchical authority. Mary did this
by taking on the masculine role of military leader and undertaking the powerful public
speech in the Guildhall that acted to combine masculine power and with feminine
submissiveness. During this period it was also clear that Mary had the ability to
perform when she downplayed her stance on religion. Mary‟s ability to alternate
performances of masculinity and femininity assisted her greatly to both gain and
maintain her power within England. Also, because Mary continued to maintain the
guise of the weak submissive woman to external parties it enabled her to combine
expectations of both gender roles despite societal expectations that as a woman Mary
was weak and submissive. From the previous chapter it was clear that Mary used her
femininity to her advantage during her youth. During this period of crisis, however, she
was living Goffman‟s (1959, p. 74) concept of performance which was to accentuate
some things and conceal others by combining the expectations of both genders roles
and using both. This ability of Mary to perform in both roles would continue to assist
her greatly during her reign outside of times of crisis.
14
Chapter Three
Mary as queen: Transitioning masculine power through performance
The theme of performance and masquerade continued throughout Mary‟s life and
especially during her reign as England‟s first queen regnant. Evidence to support
Mary‟s continued use of performative behaviour during this period can be seen in
Mary‟s actions, rather than her words, by understanding that Mary knew the
importance of maintaining the guise of femininity and the use of masculine majesty. As
England‟s first regnant queen the first major issue that Mary faced was that the
monarch‟s authority, which was granted by god, was inherently masculine in nature
(Castor, 2012, p. 27). England had long been a country ruled by a small group of men
(Richard, 2008, p. 238) and while the right to rule the country had been transmitted
through women in the past there was no precedent for a female ruler and therefore no
rules for Mary to follow as she established her power (2008, p. 14). Castor (2012, p.
454) argues that at the time powerful women were seen as monstrous and an example
of this contemporary to Mary was Maria of Austria whose successes made her so
masculinised in the eyes of her contemporaries that they believed through power she
had lost her femininity (Richards,1997, p. 121). Historical examples of female power
also confirmed the weaknesses of female rulers with the stories of rulers such as
Boadicea and Cleopatra being well known by the sixteenth century (Hopkins, 1991, p.
1). Despite the courage and leadership that Mary had shown during the July 1553
succession crisis, the history of female rulers had many believing that because Mary
was a woman she would be unable to govern England. Performance would assist Mary
as it had in the past to enable her to prove herself in this new role.
When examining women in power during this period, and the prior fifteenth century,
Jordan (1990, p. 4) notes that the major issue faced by women connected to European
politics was their lack of authority. Women had powers of persuasion over the men in
their lives but could not rule over them. Women who did rule as previously noted by
Richards (1997, p. 121) were often thought to have lost their femininity. There was
however two women connected to Mary who managed to balance gender with power in
establishing and operating their own power bases. These women were Mary‟s greatgrandmother Margaret Beaufort and her grandmother Isabella of Castile. Examining
these women shows that they too, like Mary, used masquerades of femininity and
15
masculinity to their advantages. Margaret Beaufort in particular was a unique woman
of the fifteenth-century as she was the first noble women to be declared femme sole
which allowed her, despite being married, to legally operate separately from her
husband. This unprecedented action allowed Margaret freedoms unknown to noble
women during the fifteenth century (Seward, 2013, p. 555) and granted her much
personal power. Part of the power Margaret wielded was through her son, Henry VII, in
overseeing her own court establishment in the Midlands (Gristwood, 2012, p. 296).
Attreed and Winkler (2005, p. 972) note that English humanist Henry Parker actually
used Margaret Beaufort, in his instructions to Mary, as an example of a powerful
woman who wielded political power but also managed to combine power with personal
piety thereby maintaining her femininity. While a detailed examination of Margaret
Beaufort‟s is beyond the scope of this dissertation, from this brief examination it is
apparent that Margaret was an atypical woman of her time and the power and influence
she wielded made her a perfect example for Mary of how femininity could be used in
political arena of England.
In creating her position of female king Mary also had to address the issue of holding
sovereign power while being married (Attreed & Winkler, 2005, p. 976). This was an
important issue for Mary as marriage during the sixteenth century meant for women a
loss of legal rights to their own property due to the doctrine of coverture (Harris, 2002,
p. 18). Mary, as queen regnant, had much more to lose that just property rights. While
Margaret Beaufort had countered this issue during the reign of Henry VII by being
declared femme sole (Seward, 2013, p. 555) she was not a regnant queen and a greater
example of how this issue could be resolved came from Mary‟s grandmother Isabella of
Castile. Porter (2007, p. 269) notes that despite being married Isabella maintained
control over her own domains in Spain maintaining the role of female king. Isabella
managed to operate as a wife and as female king, reconciling the two roles she needed
to play in the arena of Spanish politics (Richards, 1997, p. 121). Isabella‟ ability to
maintain two separate guises is evidence for her use of masquerade and performance in
her dual roles, acting both as ruler and as submissive wife. Therefore it is safe to argue
that in her development of queen regnant as female king Mary took the examples of
these two powerful women that had shown, like Mary herself, that they were capable of
performing in both masculine and feminine ways. Mary could also draw from these two
women instruction on how they managed to balance being a wife and being a political
figure which is something that will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter.
16
The belief surrounding feminine weakness as we have seen had its origins in history
and in the sixteenth century rules of patriarchy which held that women should be
subordinate to men. These rules were only reinforced by the church scripture (DunnHensley, 2003, p. 103). It is apparent that preconceived notions of gender were major
issues that Mary faced in establishing her position as England‟s first queen regnant.
When examining this issue Loades (2010, p. 208) would conclude that Mary‟s reign
was a failure as she failed to combine the power of the monarch with her femininity.
Richards (2008, p. 10) argues however that despite the history of failed female rulers
Mary‟s greatest achievement, and strongest evidence that she did not allow herself to
be limited her gender, was that she managed to establish in English law that there was
no difference between the powers of a queen regnant and that of a king. In doing this
Mary drew on the examples of her grandmothers and therefore challenged the
traditional views on gender roles (Duncan, 2012, p. 11). Unlike Maria of Austria, and
like Margaret Beaufort and Isabella of Castile, Mary managed to wield masculine
authority while maintaining her femininity. Part of this was the English parliament
confirming that Mary‟s powers as queen regnant were equal to that of a king which
made her, in the political sense, masculine (Jordan, 1987, p. 428). Duncan (2012, p.
178) argues that Mary‟s masculinisation in the political sense did not take away from
her gender as Mary reconciled masculine and feminine attributes in her role of queen
regnant by depicting herself embodying masculine powers but still maintaining
feminine qualities such as being motherly, wifely and chastely. Mary‟s ability to do this
is clear evidence that she was using her ability to masquerade to the full extent early in
her reign but masquerade was not the only performance Mary would use during this
period of her life.
When discussing performance behaviour Victor Turner (1982, p. 115) argued that
acting was part of daily life for many in pre industrial societies because of the need to
exemplify status in certain roles. He also suggested that rituals are re-enactments and
therefore also performances as they seek to influence (Tseelon, 2001, p. 9). The
examination of Mary Tudor‟s life so far has shown that she was personally, through her
words and actions, utilising her ability to perform. In this new stage of her life as queen
Mary would also begin to use Turner‟s concept of performance behaviour by allowing
ritual and ceremony to convey messages to the public. Performance through ritual and
spectacle allowed Mary to create an even stronger bond between herself and her people
(Porter, 2007, pp. 363-364). Mary also understood and therefore utilised displays of
17
magnificence to reconfirm her power to the people (Richards, 2008, p. 128). While it is
clear that Mary had used performance to confirm her authority during the Wyatt
rebellion, other ceremonies during her reign acted to communicate the message that she
was able to wield the monarchical authority despite her gender (Duncan, 2012, p. 12).
Mary‟s entrance into London in August 1553 was one of those ceremonies in which
Duncan (2012, p. 19) notes that as a part of this important traditional ceremony the men
in charge of the city offered the allegiance on behalf of the city to her as the monarch.
When recalling this event the Spanish ambassadors noted that Mary presented herself
as a demur, kind and modest woman and as a ruler inclined towards mercy. The result
of this performance was that the people were so joyous that “the public demonstrations
made at the entry have never had their equal in this kingdom” (as cited in Tyler,
1553/1916c, pp. 150-162). Mary would continue the use of ceremony as part of her
performance repertoire throughout her reign.
Another important ceremony that Turner‟s concept of performance came into play was
Mary‟s coronation on 1 October 1553 as this ceremony defined Mary‟s status and
power as England‟s first queen regnant (Duncan, 2012, p. 17). While it was Mary‟s
wish to be crowned due to the old custom (Porter, 2007, p. 259) her unique status as
regnant queen posed an issue. Duncan (2012, p. 21) notes that to overcome this issue
Mary‟s coronation ceremony demonstrated her gender as well as her sovereign power
by incorporating elements of the coronation ceremonies traditionally used to crown the
king and the queen consort. In doing this the ceremony made it clear to the people of
England that while monarchical power was masculine in nature Mary as a female king
was able to wield it as her ancestors had done before her (2012, p. 34). Renard‟s report
to Prince Philip on 3 October 1553 suggests the grandness of Mary‟s coronation by
suggesting that “she was crowned on the first day of this month, with the pomp and
ceremonies customary here, which are far grander than elsewhere” (as cited in Tyler,
1553/1916f, pp. 261-272). Renard also noted that in the parts of the ceremony that the
queen could not undertake, such as the plunging of the Knights of Bath, the Earl of
Arundel stood in as the queen‟s proxy. It is apparent from Mary‟s coronation ceremony
that she did not allow her gender to limit her but found ways to combine the masculine
authority of the monarchical power with her own femininity. Using her coronation
ceremony to confirm the power she held as regnant queen shows that Mary was highly
aware of how performance could be used to her advantage.
18
Tudor historian Geoffrey Elton (1991, p. 214) concluded of Mary‟s reign that she failed
to achieve anything positive. Other examinations of Mary as a ruler have stated that she
had little idea of how to rule and when she did rule she was like a puppet to the will of
Charles V (Porter, 2007, p. 231). Evidence to support this has been taken from the
submissive language Mary used in her letters to Charles V (Richards, 2008, pp. 114115) and a letter that the Spanish ambassador Simon Renard wrote to the Bishop of
Arras on 9 September 1553 where he stated that “I know the Queen to be good, easily
influenced, inexpert in worldly matters and a novice all round” (as cited in Tyler,
1553/1916e, pp. 211-229). This comment on Mary‟s character by Renard is however
flawed as we have already seen when it came to political dealings Mary was not a
novice but well versed in using masquerades of femininity to her advantage. In
particular in her dealings with Charles V through the Spanish ambassadors Mary was
calculated in her a portrayal of a weak woman in need of his support. When addressing
Renard‟s comments on Mary‟s ability to rule the country Whitelock (2007, p. 326)
states that Mary was not weak willed but a determined monarch who created a personal
monarchy which kept her involved in the daily dealings of Parliament (2007, p. 332).
Williams (1998, p. 123) also argues that Mary‟s reign as a whole shows that she
managed to maintain a stable government despite the religious divides and other crises
that occurred during her time on the throne. Understanding that Mary‟s dealings with
external parties and Spain in particular were undertaken using the guise of masquerade
we must now look to Mary‟s dealings with her parliament to get further insight to her
character.
Much of Mary‟s involvement with her Parliament has to do with the restoration of the
Catholic faith as this was an issue close to Mary‟s heart which was apparent from her
proclamation on religion on 8 August 1553 (Tyler, 1553/1916c, p. 150-162). Evidence
of Mary‟s using performance to operate politically can therefore be seen when
examining her involvement in this issue. Mary‟s unwavering focus on this policy also
supports the argument that Mary was not easily influenced and instead had a firm grasp
of English politics (Porter, 2007, p. 231) with a clear focus on reinstating Catholicism
into England and making positive changes to it at the same time (2007, p. 365). While
this was Mary‟s policy a report by Simon Renard to the Emperor on 17 January 1555
details the pressure that Cardinal Pole, the papal legate and Mary‟s cousin, was placing
on her to increase the changes by releasing Church property held by the crown. Renard
notes that while Mary had already given up some revenue “as to the rest she has not
19
made up her mind” (as cited in Tyler, 1554-1558/1954b, pp. 131-137). Another report
that discussed religion in December of the same year, this time by the Venetian
Ambassador Giovanni Michiel, noted that “after the passing of the bill for cession of
the church property, the motion for the recall of the absentees was made… the lower
house threw out the bill. This rejection may be supposed to have troubled the Queen on
the score of repute, yet she prudently dissembled, and displayed indifference” (as cited
in Brown, 1555-1556/1877, p. 275). From examining the reports from the ambassadors
in regards to the issue of religion there is both clear evidence against the ease in which
Mary could in influenced as well as support for the claim that she using her ability to
perform when dealing with her parliament.
Further evidence of Mary‟s use of her acting ability comes from the image she
projected and the way in which others perceived her during her reign. Taylor (2011, p.
116) argues that Mary actively projected a pious, traditional image of herself for the
English public‟s consumption. Contemporaries to Mary such as Nicholas Udall and
William Forrest, who wrote during the time of Mary‟s reign in order to support her,
used female imagery to celebrate her rule (Betteridge, 2011, p. 142). Other defenders of
Mary‟s right and ability to reign argued “there is no secret heretical agenda hidden
behind a public face of orthodoxy and good government – with Mary what you see is
what you get” (2011, p. 141). This comment shows that Mary‟s acts of femininity and
masculinity were often successful as many failed to see through them. Other
contemporary opinions of Mary show a tendency to describe her in both masculine and
feminine ways. An example of this comes from a report made by the Venetian
ambassador Giovanni Michiel in 1557 who described Mary as “like other women,
being sudden and passionate, and close to miserly” (as cited in Brown, 15561557/1881, pp. 1054-1055) but in the same letter describes Mary in a completely
different way noting that:
In certain things she is singular and without equal, for not only is she brave and
valiant, unlike other timid and spiritless women, but so courageous and resolute
that neither in adversity nor peril did she even display or commit any act of
cowardice... maintaining always, on the contrary, a wonderful grandeur and
dignity, knowing what became the dignity of a sovereign as well as any of the
most consummate statesmen (as cited in Brown, 1556-1557/1881, p. 1055).
20
From the descriptions of Mary it is clear that she was using her ability to present to the
public different faces in her political dealings which means that masquerade and
performance were tools that she continued to use throughout her life.
This chapter has focused its examination on the early part of Mary‟s reign as she
established her role of female king prior to her marriage. It was shown that the key to
creating the role of queen regnant was finding a balance between being perceived as a
weak female while at the same time having the ability to wield masculine authority.
Mary managed to achieve this balance despite a lack of precedent for the role in
England and a history of failed female rule. In creating her new position Mary drew on
the examples of powerful women within her own family. The first example Mary had
was that of her great-grandmother Margaret Beaufort who despite being just a woman
of noble birth she managed to wield significant power through her son Henry VII while
at the same time promoting an image of feminine piety in order to maintain her
femininity. Mary‟s second example was her grandmother Isabella of Castile who
managed to maintain her role of female king and combine it with being the submissive
wife expected of her. Mary used these examples to create the image of queen regnant as
a ruler politically masculine with powers of a king while being a figure who was
motherly and chastely. To reinforce this image and her position, Mary utilised Turner‟s
(1982, p. 115) concept of using rituals and ceremonies to impart subliminal messages to
her people. This concept of performance allowed both Mary‟s entrance into London
and her coronation ceremony to reinforce the fact that while she was a woman she
could hold and wield the masculine monarchical powers because queen regnant was a
dual gendered role. A large factor in Mary‟s success in creating this role was her
continued use of masquerade and performance which had served her well during her
youth, during times of crisis, when establishing her power and during her marriage, as
the next chapter will explore.
21
Chapter Four
Mary as monarch and as wife: the balancing act
The traditional view of historians discussing Mary‟s marriage to Philip of Spain has
been that the match did little to help Mary as a ruler or worse that the match
undermined Mary‟s queen regnant powers (Loades, 1989b, p. 556) because she failed
to reconcile the roles of wife and monarch (2003, p. 39). Mary‟s decision to marry
Philip has long been considered a short-sighted one because of the disruption it caused
in England (Prescott, 2003, p. 316). Many have also thought the choice of Philip a
decision made by an inexperienced and naive woman controlled by Spain (Castor,
2012, p. 438). Primary sources at a first glance would seem to support this theory with
a report from the Spanish ambassadors on 2 August 1553 suggesting to Charles V that
Mary “would submit herself to your Majesty's decision as to her marriage and in all
other matters” (as cited in Tyler, 1553/1916b, pp. 127-150). There is another way to
read this however, which is through Mary‟s use of masquerades of feminine weakness.
This submission by Mary to Charles in relation to her marriage can therefore be
considered yet another performance by Mary to obtain something she wanted. Here
Mary was continuing, as she had done in her youth, to respond to issues using
alternating performances of masculinity and femininity. Understanding this, more
recent reassessments of Mary‟s marriage, such as the one conducted by Richards (2003,
p. 36), have argued that the marriage was a calculated political decision which acted in
Mary‟s favour. Mary‟s use of masquerades and performances therefore suggests that
Mary was involved in the decision of her marriage partner and that her ability to
perform was assisting her to maintain the guise that the decision was being made on her
behalf by her patriarchal authority.
Evidence that Mary continued to use masquerades of womanly weakness to her
advantage during her reign can be seen in her ability to feign illness during the
negotiations regarding her marriage. Authors such as Loades (1979, p. 32), examining
Mary‟s illnesses, argue that they were brought on because the pressures of being the
monarch were too much for Mary to handle. Supporting this stance is a letter to Philip
from Cardinal Pole in 1558 which stated that the pressures of parliamentary business
along with reports of Philip‟s ill health could cause Mary‟s health to suffer (Brown,
1557-1558/1884, p. 1465). However, more recent examinations of Mary‟s reign such as
those conducted by Richards (2011, p. 214), suggest that there is strong evidence to
22
show that Mary practiced strategic illnesses for her political advantage. As previously
discussed Mary used illnesses to her advantage as part of her masquerade of womanly
weakness during the reign of Henry VIII. Continuation of this behaviour becomes
apparent when exploring Mary‟s involvement in organising her marriage with Philip.
Loach (1986, p. 79) notes that while Parliament was attempting to pressure Mary into
an English match Mary, who had already decided to marry Philip of Spain, feigned
illness to delay revealing or discussing her decision for three weeks. In doing this Mary
calculatingly used the perception of feminine weakness to her advantage by avoiding
an issue she did not wish to discuss (Castor, 2012, p. 447). Mary alternated these
performances with displays of confidence which only acted to create an impression that
Mary was really weak and helpless in the eyes of the English Parliament (Erickson,
1978, p. 305). This perception allowed Mary to operate in the main part without
Parliament‟s knowledge enabling her to organise the match between herself and Philip
with the Spanish ambassadors.
Mary was therefore, during this period, using performance behaviour to engineer a
marriage that worked to her political advantage. This becomes clear when exploring
Mary‟s dealings with both the Spanish ambassadors and her own council. The
ambassadors would in a report to the Emperor dated 16 August 1553 state that Mary
“thought you [Charles] might with greater propriety ask the Council their intentions in
the matter than she, as it did not behove a lady to be the first to make overtures of
marriage” (as cited in Tyler, 1553/1916d, pp. 162-176). Mary is here continuing the
masquerade of feminine submissiveness as she understood that it was not accepted
during the sixteenth century for a woman to organise her own marriage with marriages
traditionally organised on the behalf of women by their patriarchal authority (Jordan,
1990, p. 3). By placing herself under the guidance of Charles, Mary knew that he would
suggest his son Philip as a match for her. Mary was therefore calculated in playing her
councillors and the Spanish ambassadors against each other (Duncan, 2012, p. 46) by
performing as a weak woman under patriarchal control and therefore obtaining the
match with Philip. This match worked to Mary‟s benefit as the councillors, fearing
foreign control of England, limited the powers of Philip which placed Mary in an
unprecedented political position. Mary, therefore, used the masquerade of the
vulnerable woman to her greatest advantage as fear of Spanish control confirmed
Mary‟s queen regnant powers were equal to those of a king in law (Castor, 2012, pp.
439-440). Masquerades of feminine weakness had become the ultimate political tool
23
that Mary perfected during her reign as queen regnant to maintain the powers of that
position.
While it is apparent that during the marriage negotiations Mary used masquerades of
feminine weakness in order to obtain the match that politically benefited her, she also at
times put on performances of masculine power that were the prerogative of the
monarch of England. Weir (2008, p. 225) notes that when the issue of marriage was
raised with Mary by Parliament she angrily reminded them that as king of England
marriage was her own choice to make and not theirs. This contradicts the report from
the Spanish ambassadors on 16 August 1553 who noted that Mary had requested
Charles to question her Council on their intentions regarding her marriage plans (Tyler,
1553/1916d, pp. 162-176). This is further evidence to suggest that Mary was telling the
Spanish ambassadors one thing and acting in a completely different way when faced
with interference of her kingly prerogative by her Parliament. The perception of
Parliament from this was that Mary had made the decision to marry Philip on her own
with little consultation with them. This action by Mary also acts as evidence that by this
time she was comfortable acting in a masculine fashion (Loades, 2010, p. 9). It has
been suggested that the lack of consultation with Parliament showed Mary‟s
weaknesses as a monarch but Porter (2007, pp. 267-268) argues that it instead showed
the confidence she had in her ability to perform her role as monarch believing that the
marriage would protect and raise the profile of England throughout Europe. Mary took
control as other kings had before her and asserted her authority to marry Philip. It was
Mary‟s ability to alternate masculine authority with feminine weakness which allowed
her to achieve this goal.
From Mary‟s entrance into London and her coronation ceremony it was apparent that
she utilised Victor Turner‟s concept of performance, the use of ritual and ceremony, by
allowing those public performances to convey to the people important messages
(Tseelon, 2001, p. 9) and reconfirm Mary‟s powers as queen. This concept of
performance behaviour was employed yet again in another important ceremony of
Mary‟s reign, the marriage ceremony between herself and Philip of Spain, on 25 July
1554. Samson (2005, p. 763) notes that during the ceremony Mary stood in the position
reserved for the king to reinforce that she, despite being the wife and traditionally the
subordinate partner in the marriage, would retain precedence over her husband because
of her position as queen regnant. The ceremony was therefore a subliminal message to
24
those in England who opposed the marriage due to a tradition in England of feminine
subordination. While the ceremony acted to reconfirm that the overall power of
monarchy was held by Mary alone the ceremony at the same time showed that Mary
was sharing parts of her power with Philip by dividing the role of king between them
(Duncan, 2012, p. 89). In doing this Mary was again challenging and changing the way
in which the role of monarch was understood in England. To reinforce this message
Mary and Philip dressed identically during the wedding ceremony which sent the
message to the public that the couple were united in marriage as well as being a
political unit (Samson, 2005, p. 764). The Venetian ambassador Marc Antonio Damula
would report to the Venetian Senate that the ceremony was a success stating that “on
the 25th the espousal was celebrated with great pomp and rejoicing in the said church,
with marvellous signs of great joy and satisfaction on the part of all the spectators” (as
cited in Brown, 1534-1554/1873, p. 524). This report acts to confirm that the ceremony
was yet another successful public performance by Mary.
With Mary and Philip now married the uniqueness of Mary‟s position as female ruler
and the sixteenth-century tradition of female subordinance had many people
questioning what Philip‟s role and powers would be within England (Porter, 2007, p.
269). Mary was by this time no stranger to balancing roles, previously using
masquerades to reconcile the expectations that she be a traditional submissive woman
as well as a powerful monarch (Duncan, 2012, p. 11). With this new issue performance
would continue to assist Mary to balance yet another dual role she would be required to
play this time between private wife and public monarch. Richards (2008, p. 145) argues
that in marrying Philip, and defining her powers as queen regnant, Mary drew a clear
distinction between these two roles. Submissive wife was a role similar to that of
submissive daughter that Mary had been playing all along with Charles V. Also, as
previously discussed, Mary drew instruction on how to perform this dual role from her
grandmother Isabella of Castile who balanced being a female king with being a
submissive wife (Porter, 2007, p. 269). While authors such as Guy (1988, p. 239)
would argue that Mary failed to find this balance because she allowed English interests
to be sacrificed to the will of Philip it is in Mary‟s maintenance of her powers that this
is proved incorrect. Weir (2008, p. 325) argues that Mary was not always willing to be
submissive to Philip and her refusal to crown him, despite his demands, is clear
evidence of this. To combat Spanish demands to crown Philip, Mary used performance
behaviour arguing that the English people would not allow it (Richards, 2008, p.11).
25
Mary‟s ability to maintain her power in her relationship with Philip is clear evidence
that Mary was using performative behaviour to maintain and develop the dominate
position of queen regnant in English politics.
Many historians have concluded that Mary‟s relationship with Philip was one of wifely
subordinate to a husband with Mary deferring to Philip‟s authority (Loades, 1989a, p.
318). A closer examination of this relationship shows that Philip was often absent from
the country and that masquerade and performance here too played a big role in the way
in Mary‟s dealt with these absences. There is evidence to suggest that during Philip‟s
absences from England Mary was desperate for him to return with English sources
reporting in March 1556 that Mary was in a rage hearing that Philip would not be
returning to England in the near future (Lemon, 1547-1580/1856, p. 77). Mary‟s letter
to Charles in May of the same year suggests the loneliness she felt while Philip was
gone from the country (Tyler, 1554-1558/1954c, p. 267). Mary would also in these
letters use the perception of womanly weakness with Charles in attempts to have him
return Philip to stabilise England by writing to Charles again in September of the same
year stating that “unless he [Philip] comes to remedy matters, not I only but also wiser
persons than I fear that great danger will ensue for lack of a firm hand” (as cited in
Tyler, 1554-1558/1954d, pp. 275-280). These letters have been used by historians as
supporting evidence that without Philip Mary was incapable of operating politically
(Jordan, 1987, p. 429). However, Porter (2007, p. 380) argues that this statement was a
projection of Mary‟s own feelings as she and her council continued to govern England
effectively during Philip‟s absence. From our understanding of Mary‟s ability to project
the image of the weak woman in order to obtain what she wanted it is apparent then
that Mary was using the usual masquerade of female weakness in her attempts to get
Philip to return to England.
While authors such as Loach (1986, p. 11) would argue that Mary relied on Philip‟s
political expertise reports written by the English council to Philip in May 1556 (Lemon,
1547-1580/1856, p. 82) and a report from the Spanish ambassador to the Emperor in
August 1557 both suggest that Philip‟s presence in England was not actually required
for country to continue running smoothly and that all was calm in England the majority
of the time Philip was absent (Tyler, 1554-1558/1954e, pp. 308-318). While it is clear
that Mary was saddened by Philip‟s absence it has already been show that that she
could effectively operate politically without him. Further evidence of Mary‟s political
26
ability comes from a letter that Philip himself wrote to the deputy of Calais on 2
January 1558 asking the deputy to write to Mary and request assistance from her
directly (1554-1558/1954f, pp. 321-333). This request by Philip shows that he had
much faith in Mary‟s ability to rule the country alone. As Spanish sources do not
contain any correspondence between Philip and Mary during Philip‟s absence, and the
correspondence preserved in the English archives concerns the business relationship
between the two, it is impossible to know for sure if the balancing act of submissive
wife and powerful monarch worked within the couple‟s personal relationship. From the
way that relationship was portrayed to the public however, this seems to have been the
case. In writing to Charles Mary acted as the submissive wife who wanted her husband
returned during his absence. When Philip was with her Mary would, as a submissive
wife should, defer to him by beginning her letters with the king and I (15541558/1954a, pp. 71-76). When Philip was absent from England Mary would continue to
perform the role of the powerful monarch, running the country during his absences.
From these indicators it is safe to conclude that Mary was largely successful in her use
of performance to balance the roles of submissive wife and powerful monarch.
Part of the evidence used to argue that Mary continued to use her ability to perform
throughout her reign and marriage is that through her creation of the role of queen
regnant she challenged traditional gender roles. This can be seen from an examination
of Philip‟s role in the political arena of England. Loades (1989a, p. 318) suggests that
Mary deferred to Philip allowing him to take control in the political arena due to his
expertise. In a later publication however Loades (2010, p. 201) seems to contradict the
first statement by suggesting that Mary was careful not to give Philip any of her
authority. Mary‟s refusal to crown Philip has already been seen as evidence to this.
Mary managed to maintain her sovereign powers despite the usual rule that the wife
was to be subordinate to her husband. Richards (2008, p. 148) notes that Philip found it
difficult to adapt to the fact that he was the subordinate partner in the marriage at least
when it came to English politics. Mary‟s position limited Philip‟s powers to those of
influencing Mary‟s decisions and interceding with her on behalf of others (Duncan,
2009, p. 38). Philip‟s role of King Consort therefore took on the traditionally feminine
role of intercessor and the face of kingship in England changed with the role of queen
regnant. A report from the Spanish ambassador Simon Renard in February 1555 shows
this development in the role of King Consort when he noted that “Paget, seeing that he
27
is out of favor with the Queen and most of the council is often in the king‟s apartments”
(as cited in Tyler, 1554-1558/1954b, pp. 131-137). Many of the letters between the
couple that have been preserved are from Philip recommending people to Mary
(Lemon, 1547-1580/1856, p.85). It is therefore clear that Mary did not defer power to
Philip but he instead took on the more of the traditional feminine roles as she developed
the powers of the female king by taking on masculine roles.
Mary‟s use of masquerades of femininity and performances of masculinity to her
personal and political advantage are evident during her marriage negotiations and
during the marriage itself. During negotiations of the marriage between Mary and
Philip it was apparent that Mary skilfully used the masquerade of the weak woman with
both the Spanish ambassadors and her own councillors in order to obtain the marriage
with Philip that worked to her political advantage. Within this Mary continued, as she
had done in her youth, to utilise the feigning of illnesses enabling her to avoid
discussions regarding her marriage plans. Mary would alternate masquerades of
femininity with performances of masculine authority, refusing to back down from her
decision to marry Philip, believing the choice was best for both her and England. One
of the most important performances of Mary‟s life occurred during this period, the
marriage ceremony between her and Philip, which acted to subliminally reinforce the
message that Mary would retain her monarchical powers despite being married. In
examining Mary‟s relationship with Philip it is also clear that performance and
masquerades played a large part in the balancing act between wife and monarch that
Mary managed to achieve as Mary both maintained her queen regnant powers and
played the submissive wife. Philip‟s role in England showed that because he was
largely absent from the country Mary retained all the actual political power. When he
was in England Philip was limited to the role of advisor and intercessor on behalf of
others that was traditionally the role of the queen consort. While is it impossible to
know how the personal relationship between the pair worked as much of their personal
communications have not been preserved from the outside it seems that Mary found a
workable balance between submissive wife and female ruler. Mary successfully used
masquerades and performances to develop the position of queen regnant as one that
combined submissive femininity with powerful masculinity.
28
Conclusion
Mary Tudor, the eldest daughter of Henry VIII, was the first woman to rule England in
her own right. Because of this Mary‟s reign was a unique event in English history and
becomes even more significant when considering the sixteenth-century tradition of
patriarchy which informed all women that they were expected to be submissive and
obedient to the men around them. This tradition limited the participation that women
had in the social, economic and political arenas of England (Kimmel, 2004, p. 58) and
while women could and did influence the men around them no woman had managed,
before Mary, to rule England in their own right. It was Mary who first managed to both
claim the English throne and maintain her monarchical powers during her brief reign
even though history and tradition informed her that women were incapable of doing so.
Despite the importance of Mary‟s reign she has long been considered by historians to
have been „bloody Mary‟ the persecutor of Protestants (Porter, 2007, p. 418) or an
ineffective ruler who focused on Spanish affairs over English affairs (Prescott, 2003, p.
2). While there have been recent reassessments of Mary‟s reign that have presented a
more positive picture of Mary Tudor (Richards, 2008; Castor, 2012; Duncan, 2012)
further reassessment of her reign and character is possible.
This thesis has presented a reassessment of Mary Tudor by utilising a theoretical
framework that combines Joan Riviere‟s (2008) theory of masquerade and Erving
Goffman‟s (1959) theory of performance in daily life. This framework acts to explain
how people can perform in order to influence the way in which they are perceived by
others. This particular framework was selected as Mary‟s ability to perform has only
been mentioned in passing in some of the literature that has been written about her over
the past thirty years (Richards, 2008; Duncan, 2012; Castor, 2012; Loach, 1986).
Performance has yet to be the focus point of that literature. Using a framework which
has not yet been applied to an historical study of Mary enables another reassessment to
be created of Mary Tudor‟s reign and personality. This performance framework creates
a picture of Mary as a calculating actor, a woman who used alternating performances of
femininity and masculinity in order to successfully operate in a male-dominated
sixteenth-century England. Part of Mary‟s success was that she managed to both create
and operate in the unique role, within England, as the country‟s first female king.
29
In order to support the theory that Mary was a calculating actor there was a need to
examine her life for instances of performative behaviour and situations that would have
required Mary to act. This was achieved in this thesis by breaking Mary‟s life down
into four life stages.
Mary‟s ability to utilise the skill of masquerading as a weak woman to her advantage
first developed during her youth and young adulthood while she was under the
patriarchal control of her father and brother. Mary‟s education reinforced the
patriarchal ideology that women were to be submissive and obedient to men which
suggests that Mary was not educated to use her femininity to her advantage. Henry
VIII, as Mary‟s father, held significant control over Mary‟s life and as he was also king
of England his power was increased. The period from 1533 until 1553 was one of great
turmoil for Mary due to the divorce of her parents. By examining Mary‟s dealings with
her father, the English council, Charles V and her brother Edward over the course of
this period it is clear that in response to the conflicts surrounding her Mary developed
the skill to act as a weak woman. This act was reinforced with the displays of
obedience, the use of submissive language in her letters, and the deployment of
strategic illnesses. These performances often brought Mary favourable results, with
many of her contemporaries failing to realise that she was acting at all. In particular
Mary‟s performances in response to her father, Henry, enabled her to delay accepting
his decree that she was illegitimate for a long period of time. When she finally had to
submit to her father Mary accepted his wishes on the surface but wrote to Charles in
Spain rejecting them and acting as the submissive woman. This act by Mary had
Charles take on the role of her patriarchal authority and he was a strong supporter in
her cause to maintain her religion during the reign of Edward. Charles‟ support for
Mary enabled her to be openly defiant of her brother‟s religious changes and maintain
her own beliefs. It is clear that while under the patriarchal control of her father, and
brother, Mary used the masquerade of the weak woman to her personal advantage.
In times of crisis, Mary became the seasoned actor as performance continued to assist
her to successfully operate within the male-dominated sixteenth-century. Mary‟s ability
to perform was particularly apparent during the July 1553 succession crisis and the
Wyatt rebellion, which occurred from late 1553 to early 1554. During these conflicts
Mary managed to maintain, in her dealings with external parties such as Charles V of
Spain, the guise of the weak woman while at the same time, within England, wielding
30
the masculine monarchical authority. As part of her performance within England Mary
took on the masculine role of military leader and delivered a powerful public speech in
the Guildhall which acted to combine masculine power with feminine submissiveness.
Mary further extended her ability to perform during times of crisis by downplaying her
stance on religion. Alternating performances of masculinity and femininity during the
succession crisis enabled Mary to gain the English throne and maintain her power.
Mary‟s maintenance of the weak submissive woman guise to external parties assisted
her to combine expectations of both genders despite social expectations that as a
woman Mary was weak and submissive. From Mary‟s youth it was clear that she used
her femininity to her advantage. During periods of crisis however she was living
Goffman‟s (1959, p. 74) concept of performance, which was to accentuate some things
and conceal others. Mary achieved this by alternating displays of masculinity and
femininity which often combined expectations of both gender roles which benefited her
politically. These periods of crisis enabled Mary‟s ability to perform as a weak woman
to develop to incorporate displays of masculine power.
As queen, Mary transitioned the masculine power of the monarch through her use of
performance. This is evident in the early part of her reign as she established her role of
female king prior to her marriage. The key to creating this role was finding a balance
between being a weak female and having the ability to wield masculine authority. To
achieve this balance Mary drew on the examples of powerful women within her own
family. The first of these women was Mary‟s great-grandmother, Margaret Beaufort,
who despite being only a woman of noble birth managed to wield significant political
power through her son Henry VII. Margaret was a good example for Mary to draw on
as while wielding power Margaret also promoted an image of feminine piety in order to
maintain her femininity. The second example Mary drew on was her grandmother,
Isabella of Castile, who managed to maintain her role of female king and combine it
with being the submissive wife. Using the examples of these women, Mary created the
role of queen regnant to be politically masculine with powers of a king but at the same
time to have feminine attributes such as being motherly, chastely, and at times,
submissive. Mary also embodied Turner‟s (1982, p. 115) concept of performance by
using rituals and ceremonies to impart subliminal messages to the English people. Both
Mary‟s entrance into London and her coronation ceremony worked to her political and
personal advantage to reinforce the image of queen regnant that she had created. The
ceremonies reinforced that Mary could wield masculine monarchical powers because
31
queen regnant was a dual gendered role. Early in her reign, Mary‟s use of performance
allowed her to confirm and reinforce her queen regnant position and powers.
Established in her role as ruler of England, by late 1553, Mary decided to marry which
meant she needed to balance two roles, the powerful monarch and the submissive wife.
Masquerades of femininity and performances of masculinity would continue to assist
Mary in finding the balance between these roles both during her marriage negotiations
and the marriage itself. During negotiations of the marriage between her and Philip it
was apparent that Mary skilfully used the masquerade of the weak woman with both
the Spanish ambassadors and her own councillors in order to engineer a marriage that
worked to her political advantage. Mary continued, as she had done in her youth, to
utilise as part of her masquerade, the feigning of illnesses which enabled her to avoid
discussions regarding her marriage plans. These masquerades of femininity alternated
with performances of masculine authority as Mary refused to back down from her
decision to marry Philip, believing the choice was best for both her and England. One
of the most important performances of Mary‟s life occurred during this time, her
marriage ceremony, which acted to subliminally reinforce the message that she would
retain her royal powers despite the marriage. An examination of Mary‟s relationship
with Philip shows that performance and masquerades played a large part in the
balancing act between wife and monarch that Mary managed to perform by both
maintaining her queen regnant powers and playing the submissive wife. From
exploring the role that Philip played in English politics it was clear that he was largely
absent from the country and Mary maintained and exerted all the actual power. Philip‟s
role was limited to that of an advisor and intercessor on behalf of others which was
traditionally the role of the queen consort. Mary managed to successfully use
masquerades and performances to develop the position of queen regnant as a workable
balance between submissive wife and female king.
The examination of Mary Tudor through the lens of masquerade and performance has
revealed a picture of a woman who used performance to her advantage allowing her to
transcend the sixteenth century limitations placed on women due to a tradition of
patriarchy. Using masquerades and performances to her advantage was a large factor in
Mary becoming England‟s first regnant queen. In her role as queen regnant,
masquerades and performances assisted Mary to successfully transition the masculine
power of the monarch into a power that she, and the female rulers who followed her,
32
could wield. This examination of the life of Mary Tudor has focused on masquerade
and performance in an effort to provide new insights into Mary‟s personality and
actions. Mary Tudor was not a weak and ineffective monarch but instead a calculating
actor who used masquerades and performances to her political and personal advantage
throughout her life. This thesis, therefore, assists the on-going reassessment of Mary‟s
reign that has been previously conducted by authors such as Porter (2007), Duncan
(2012), Castor (2012), Richards (2008) and in doing so contributes to the field of Tudor
history. The theoretical framework of performance applied to the life of Mary Tudor,
also has wider implications for historical research. The concept of masquerade and
performance could also be utilised to examine other female rulers and politicians in an
effort to gain unique insights into their personalities.
33
REFERENCES
Primary Sources
Brown, R. (Ed.). (1534-1554/1873). Calendar of State Papers, Venice and Northern
Italy, Volume V. London, England: Great Britain Public Records Office.
Brown, R. (Ed.). (1555-1556/1877). Calendar of State Papers, Venice and Northern
Italy, Volume VI, part I. London, England: Great Britain Public Records Office.
Brown, R. (Ed.). (1556-1557/1881). Calendar of State Papers, Venice and Northern
Italy, Volume VI, part II. London, England: Great Britain Public Records
Office.
Brown, R. (Ed.). (1557-1558/1884). Calendar of State Papers, Venice and Northern
Italy, Volume VI, part III. London, England: Great Britain Public Records
Office.
Gairdner, J. (Ed.). (1533/1882). Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic of the reign
of Henry VIII, Volume VI. London, England: Great Britain Public Records
Office.
Gairdner, J. (Ed.). (1534/1883). Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic of the reign
of Henry VIII, Volume VII. London, England: Great Britain Public Records
Office.
Gairdner, J. (Ed.). (1535/1885). Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic of the reign
of Henry VIII, Volume VIII. London, England: Great Britain Public Records
Office.
Gairdner, J. (Ed.). (1536/1887). Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic of the reign
of Henry VIII, Volume X. London, England: Great Britain Public Records
Office.
Gairdner, J. (Ed.). (1536/1888). Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic of the reign
of Henry VIII, Volume XI, part II. London, England: Great Britain Public
Records Office.
Lemon, R. (Ed.). (1547-1580/1856). Calendar of State papers: Domestic Series:
Edward VI, Mary, Elizabeth I, James I, Volume I. London, England: Great
Britain Public Records Office.
Tyler, R. (Ed.). (1553/1916a). Calendar of letters, dispatches, and state papers relating
to the negotiations between England and Spain, Edward VI and Mary, Volume
XI. London, England: Great Britain Public Records Office.
Tyler, R. (Ed.). (1553/1916b). Spain: August 1553, 1-5. Calendar of State Papers,
Spain, 11, 127-150. Retrieved from
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=88487
34
Tyler, R. (Ed.). (1553/1916c). Spain: August 1553, 6-10. Calendar of State Papers,
Spain, 11, 150-162 Retrieved from
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=88488
Tyler, R. (Ed.). (1553/1916d). Spain: August 1553, 11-20. Calendar of State Papers,
Spain, 11, 162-176. Retrieved from
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=88489
Tyler, R. (Ed.). (1553/1916e). Spain: September 1553, 6-10. Calendar of State Papers,
Spain, 11, 211-229. Retrieved from
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=88493
Tyler, R. (Ed.). (1553/1916f). Spain: October 1553, 1-5. Calendar of State Papers,
Spain, 11, 261-272. Retrieved from
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=88497
Tyler, R. (Ed.). (1554/1949). Spain: February 1554, 1-5. Calendar of State Papers,
Spain, 12, 66-82. Retrieved from
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=88538
Tyler, R. (Ed.). (1554-1558/1954a). Spain: October 1554, 16-31. Calendar of State
Papers, Spain, 13, 71-76. Retrieved from
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=88582
Tyler, R. (Ed.). (1554-1558/1954b). Spain: January 1555. Calendar of state papers,
Spain, 13, 131-137. Retrieved from
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=88587
Tyler, R. (Ed.). (1554-1558/1954c). Spain: May 1556. Calendar of State papers, Spain,
13, 267. Retrieved from
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=88605
Tyler, R. (Ed.). (1554-1558/1954d). Spain: September 1556. Calendar of State Papers,
Spain, 13, 275-280. Retrieved from
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=88609
Tyler, R. (Ed.). (1554-1558/1954e). Spain: August 1557. Calendar of State Papers,
Spain, 13, 308-318. Retrieved from
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=88619
Tyler, R. (Ed.). (1554-1558/1954f). Spain: January 1558. Calendar of State Papers,
Spain, 13, 321-333. Retrieved from
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=88623
Secondary Sources
Books
Atkinson, T. (2005). Introduction. In T. Atkinson (Ed.), The body: Readers in cultural
criticism (pp. 1-11). London, England and New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
35
Bagley, J.J. (1965). Historical interpretation: Sources of English medieval history
1066-1540. Newton Abbott, England: David and Charles.
Berg, B. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (4th ed.).
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Betteridge, T. (2011). Maids and wives: Representing female rule during the reign of
Mary Tudor. In S. Doran and T. Freeman (eds.), Mary Tudor: Old and new
perspectives (pp.138-152). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Black, J., & MacRaild, D.M. (2007). Palgrave study skills: Studying history (3rd ed.).
Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brown, R., & Daniels, C.W. (1986). Learning history: A guide to advanced study.
Basingstoke, England: Macmillan Press Ltd.
Castor, H. (2012). She-wolves: The women who ruled England before Elizabeth. New
York, NY: Harper Perennial.
Cheshire, P. (2006). Kings, queens, chiefs & rulers (2nd ed.). London, England: Flame
Tree Publishing.
Duncan, S. (2009). “Most Godly heart fraught with al mercie.” Queen‟s mercy during
the reigns of Mary I and Elizabeth I. In C. Levin and R. Bucholz (eds.), Queens
& power in medieval and early modern England (pp. 31-50). Lincoln, NE:
University of Nebraska Press.
Duncan, S. (2012). Mary I: Gender, power, and ceremony in the reign of England’s
first queen. Basingstoke, England and New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dunn-Hensley, S. (2003). Whore queens: The sexualized female body and the state. In.
C. Levin, J. Eldridge Carney and D. Barrett-Graves (eds.), “High and mighty
queens” of early modern England: Realities and representations (pp. 101-116).
Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Edwards, J. (2011). Mary I: England’s Catholic queen. New Haven, CT and London,
England: Yale University Press.
Elton, G.R. (1991). England under the Tudors (3rded.). Hoboken, NJ: Taylor and
Francis.
Erickson, C. (1978). Bloody Mary. Garden City, NY: Double Day & Company Inc.
Fletcher, A. (1995). Gender, sex & subordination in England 1500-1800. New Haven,
CT and London, England: Yale University Press.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: Penguin
Books.
Gristwood, S. (2012). Blood sisters: The women behind the Wars of the Roses.
Hammersmith, England: Harper Press.
36
Gunn, S. (2012).Analysing behaviour as performance. In S. Gunn & L. Faire (Eds.),
Research methods for history (pp. 184-200). Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh
University Press.
Guy, J. (1988). Tudor England. Oxford, England and New York, NY: Oxford
University.
Harris, B. (2002). English aristocratic women, 1450-1550: Marriage and family,
property and careers. Cary, NC: Oxford University Press.
Heath, S. (1986). Joan Riviere and the masquerade. In V. Burgin, J. Donald & C.
Kaplan (Eds.), Formations of fantasy (pp. 45-58). London, England: Methuen &
Co Ltd.
Hopkins, L. (1991). Women who would be kings: Female rulers of the sixteenth
century. London, England: Vision Press.
Jansen, S. (2008). Debating women, politics, and power in early modern Europe.
New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jordan, C. (1990). Renaissance feminism: Literary texts and political models. Ithaca,
NY and London, England: Cornell University Press.
Kimmel, M. (2004). The gendered society (2nd ed.). Oxford, England and New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
King, M.T. (2012). Working with the archives. In S. Gunn & L. Faire (Eds.), Research
methods for history (pp. 14-29). Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University
Press.
Krathwohl, D.R. (1993). Methods of educational and social science research: An
integrated approach. London, England and New York, NY: Longman
Publishing Group.
Lacey, R. (1992). The life and times of Henry VIII. (A. Fraser, Ed.). London, England:
Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Loach, J. (1986). Parliament and crown in the reign of Mary Tudor. Oxford, England:
Clarendon Press.
Loades, D. (1979). The reign of Mary Tudor: Politics, government and religion in
England 1553-1558. London and Kent, England: Ernest Benn Limited.
Loades, D. (1989a). Mary Tudor: A life. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Loades, D. (2003). Elizabeth I: The golden reign of Gloriana. Kew, Richmond and
Surrey, England: The National Archives Kew.
Loades, D. (2010). Tudor queens of England. London, England: Continuum
International Publishing.
37
Marwick, A. (2001). The new nature of history: Knowledge, evidence, language.
Basingstoke, England: Palgrave.
Meyer, G.J. (2010). The Tudors: The complete story of England’s most notorious
dynasty. New York, NY: Delacorte Press.
Porter, L. (2007). Mary Tudor, the first queen: The myth of “Bloody Mary”. London,
England: Portrait.
Prescott, H. F. M. (2003). Mary Tudor: The Spanish Tudor. London, England: Phoenix.
Richards, J.M. (2003). Mary Tudor: Renaissance queen of England. In. C. Levin, J.
Carney and D. Barrett-Graves (Eds.), “High and mighty queens of early modern
England: Realities and representations (pp. 27-44). Basingstoke, England:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Richards, J.M. (2008). Mary Tudor. London, England and New York, NY: Routledge.
Richards, J. M. (2011). Reassessing Mary Tudor: Some concluding points. In S. Doran
and T. Freeman (Eds.), Mary Tudor: Old and new perspectives (pp. 206-238).
Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Riviere, J. (2008). Womanliness as a masquerade. In N. Badmington & J. Thomas
(Eds.), The Routledge critical and cultural theory reader (pp. 25-33). London
and New York, NY: Routledge.
Seward, D. (2013). A brief history of the Wars of the Roses. London, England:
Constable & Robinson.
Sharpe, K. (2009). Selling the Tudor monarchy: Authority and image in sixteenth
century England. London, England and New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Sprouil, N. (1988). Handbook of research methods: A guide for practitioners and
students in the social sciences. London, England and Metuchen, NJ: The
Scarecrow Press Inc.
Starkey, D. (2006). Monarchy: From the Middle Ages to modernity. Hammersmith,
England: Harper Perennial.
Taylor, A. (2011). „Adomme Virtutum Genus? Mary between piety, pedagogy and
praise in early Tudor humanism. In S. Doran and T. Freeman (eds.), Mary
Tudor: Old and new perspectives (pp.103-122). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Tseelon, E. (1995). The masque of femininity. London, England: Sage Publications.
Tseelon, E. (2001). Introduction: Masquerade and identities. In E. Tseelon (Ed.),
Masquerade and identities: Essays on gender, sexuality and marginality (pp. 117). London, England and New York, NY: Routledge.
Turner, V. (1982). From ritual to theatre: The human seriousness of play. New York,
NY: Performing Arts Journal Publications.
38
Weir, A. (1991). The six wives of Henry VIII. New York, NY: Grove Press.
Weir, A. (2008).The children of Henry VIII. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
Williams, P. (1998). The later Tudors: England 1547-1603. Oxford, NY and England:
Oxford University Press.
Williamson, J. (1964). The Tudor Age (3rd ed). London, England: Longman Group
Limited.
Journal articles
Attreed, L., & Winkler, A. (2005). Faith and forgiveness: Lessons in statecraft for
Queen Mary Tudor. The Sixteenth Century Journal, 36(4), 971-989.
Jordan, C. (1987). Woman‟s rule in sixteenth-century British political thought.
Renaissance Quarterly, 40(3), 421-451.
Loades, D. (1989b). The reign of Mary Tudor: historiography and research. A
Quarterly Journal concerned with British Studies, 21(4), 547-558.
Richards, J.M. (1997). Mary Tudor as 'Sole Quene'?: Gendering Tudor Monarchy. The
Historical Journal, 40(4), 895-924.
Samson, A. (2005). Changing places, the marriage and royal entry of Philip, Prince of
Austria and Mary Tudor, July-August 1554.The Sixteenth Century Journal,
36(3), 761-784.
Whitelock, A. (2007). A woman in a man‟s world: Mary I and political intimacy, 15531558. Women’s History Review, 16(3), 323-334.
doi: 10.1080/09612020601022105.
Whitelock, A., & MacCulloch, D. (2007). Princess Mary‟s household and the
succession crisis. The Historical Journal, 50(2), 265-287.
39