Proceedings of the National Conference
On Undergraduate Research (NCUR) 2012
Weber State University, Ogden, UT
March 29-31, 2012
Mary I in The Famous History of Sir Thomas Wyat: An Exploration of Power
and Supremacy
Averyl Dietering
English Department
Brigham Young University
150 East Bulldog Boulevard
Provo, UT
Faculty Advisor: Brandie Siegfried
Abstract
The ultra-Catholic monarch, Mary I, is typically portrayed in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century literature as a onedimensional antagonist, stereotypically bent on destroying the lives of her more righteous Protestant counterparts.
This negative characterization is replayed and overplayed in many books, plays, treatises, and sermons of the
Elizabethan and Jacobean periods, regardless of its historical inaccuracy. However, "The Famous Historie of Sir
Thomas VVyat," by John Webster and Thomas Dekker, provides quite a different portrayal. On the surface, this
early Jacobean play may appear to demonize Mary, but after analysis of religious parallelism, symbols, and themes
developed throughout the play, it seems Dekker and Webster support Mary’s authority. Drawing upon primary and
secondary research which I conducted in libraries, museums, and various historical sites while studying in London,
England, I intend to show through careful literary analysis that though "The Famous Historie of Sir Thomas VVyat"
is on the surface, quite anti-Marian, Webster and Dekker consistently make subtle yet powerful hints at a nontraditional interpretation of Mary and her effect on English history. Indeed, the underlying metaphors of power,
hierarchy, and religion within the play suggest that even though Mary may have not been a popular monarch, her
literary legacy as a historical figure was not wholly negative. Though her reign had its critics, the medieval and
Early Modern theories of monarchy, hierarchy, and religion add complex and deepening layers to the process of
understanding her reign, her downfall, and her legacy as England’s first queen regnant.
Keywords: Mary I, Sir Thomas Wyat, Exploration
1. Body of Paper
Analyzing the character of Mary I in Thomas Dekker’s and John Webster’s The Famous History of Sir Thomas
Wyat is at the same time problematic and edifying. Since Mary is a supporting character instead of a main character,
she does not have as many lines or stage time as Sir Thomas Wyat, Lady Jane Grey, or Lord Guildford Dudley.
Furthermore, she doesn’t even appear onstage for the latter half of the play, which is dedicated to Wyat’s rebellion
and the executions of Wyat, Lady Jane Grey and Dudley. In fact, Mary has a scant eighty-one lines of dialogue in
comparison to Wyat’s nearly three-hundred lines. However, while Mary’s lack of face time makes it difficult to
perform an in-depth literary analysis of Mary’s character, in many other respects, Sir Thomas Wyat is an ideal play
for unpacking the layers of myth and interpretation surrounding Mary.
The character of Mary I appears or is mentioned in many other seventeenth-century plays, such as Samuel
Rowley’s When You See Me, You Know Me (1605), Thomas Heywood’s If You Know Not Me, You Know Nobody
(1605), John Banks’s The Innocent Usurper (1694), and William Shakespeare’s All is True (Henry VIII) (1623).
But Sir Thomas Wyat is the only seventeenth-century play which goes far enough to give Mary’s character
dimensionality. In the previously mentioned plays, Mary appears as a side note or popish villain at the least, and a
foil for the main character (usually Elizabeth I or Lady Jane Grey) at the most. Yet in Dekker’s and Webster’s play,
we see Mary progress from her nun-like state under Edward VI’s reign, to a battling queen-apparent, then a Catholic
sovereign, and finally a wooing monarch. And though Mary definitely does not receive the accolades and pity
which Elizabeth in If You Know Not Me and Lady Jane in The Innocent Usurper receive, Dekker’s and Webster’s
reasonably evenhanded treatment of Mary allows the audience a fairer view of one of England’s most historically
unloved monarchs.
As a whole, The Famous History of Sir Thomas Wyat is a fascinating dialogue about the nature of political power
and its forms. As the Act of Succession is destroyed, the English throne usurped, and rebellions and counterrebellions formed, the very essence and purpose of the English monarchy is questioned. Is the throne a political
weapon, or Deity’s gift to bestow upon whom He will? Does power come from popular support of the people or a
ceremonial, religious bestowal? And most importantly to the plot of Sir Thomas Wyat, is it ever possible for a
monarch to go so far astray that rebellion against them is not only justified, but the right decision for the good of the
country?
Dekker’s and Webster’s play begins with England in the midst of political turmoil, as Edward VI is on his
deathbed and Suffolk and Northumberland, portrayed as power-hungry kingmakers, plan to disinherit Mary. From
the beginning, the real power behind the English throne is in question, as Northumberland asks, “What though the
King hath left behind,/ Two sisters, lawful and immediate heirs,/ To succeed him in his Throne Lies it not/ In our
powers to contradict it?” (Dekker and Webster 1, italics mine). On the other hand, Wyat asks a rhetorical question
of Northumberland and Suffolk, “Who named Queen Jane in noble Henry’s days,/ Which of you all durst once
displace his issue?” (Dekker and Webster 2). While Wyat defends the sanctity and magnitude of the throne,
Northumberland and Suffolk are further cast as villains for showing no remorse at Edward VI’s death, and then for
forcing Lady Jane into accepting the monarchy in order to increase their own power. In comparison to such greedy
antagonists, Sir Wyat is quickly and clearly established as the hero for defending the divinity of kingship. Mary, as
the representative of the true monarchy, enters the play as a heroine in her own right—quite the turnaround for a
character who usually plays villain or pawn.
Mary’s opening speech further attests to her role as a heroine, as she advertises her royal birth, yet also expounds
her humility and piety:
Thus like a Nun, not like a Princess born,
Descended from the Royal Henry’s loins;
Live I environed in a house of stone,
My Brother Edward lives in pomp and state,
I in a mansion here all ruinate.
Their rich attire, delicious banqueting;
Their several pleasures; all their pride and honor,
I have forsaken for a rich prayer Book. (Dekker and Webster 5-6)
In only a few lines, it seems Mary has established herself as the perfect candidate for the throne. Of course, she
fulfills the vital requirement of being the heir apparent (according to her royal birth and Henry VIII’s Act), but her
faith, modesty, and prudence show she is also a generally virtuous and respectable human being and worthy of the
crown, which is key in gaining the audience’s sympathy. And though Mary’s references towards her brother’s
“pomp and state” and her own comparative poverty may at first hint of jealously (and during the Stuart era, may
have also been a veiled jab at the pageantry and excesses at court), she finishes out her monologue by praising her
prayer book as richer than all their “pleasures,” “pride and honor.”
At first, it may seem a little problematic and even naïve for the Dekker and Webster to feature Mary’s Catholicism
so prominently, especially considering the hatred for Catholics and “popery” which was so strong in early
seventeenth-century England. However, Mary’s continuation of her monologue reveals another layer of meaning:
The Golden Mines of wealthy India,
Is all as dross compared to thy [the prayer book’s] sweetness.
Thou are the joy, and comfort of the poor,
The everlasting bliss in thee we find.
This little volume enclosed in this hand,
Is richer than the Empire of this land. (Dekker and Webster 5)
137
The change in Mary’s monologue to holier matters, and especially praise of holy writ, almost perfectly mirrors
Elizabeth’s final monologue in Thomas Heywood’s If You Know Not Me, You Know Nobody, Part I. Elizabeth, at
her coronation, commends the English Bible to her people as the “jewel the we still love best,” the “true food for
rich men, and for poor,” and “the fountain clear immaculate.” Likewise, Mary praises her prayer book as rich and
precious, right before Sir Henry Beningfield enters to proclaim her as queen. This parallelism points towards Sir
Thomas Wyat’s assertion that the English throne is a matter of “God’s will” (Dekker and Webster 2), and thus it is a
fitting literary symbol for both Mary and Elizabeth show their spiritual worthiness in the moments of receiving their
offices as sovereign. Furthermore, since Dekker, Webster, and Heywood were all contemporaries in a time in which
playwright collaboration was commonplace, it is quite possible Mary’s monologue was modeled after Elizabeth’s
monologue (If You Know Not Me, You Know Nobody was published in 1605, and Sir Thomas Wyat soon after in
1607). Thus, Mary’s monologue could also be interpreted as an attempt at rehabilitating her public image by
comparing her to a public representation of Elizabeth. Either way, unlike other seventeenth-century plays featuring
Mary as a character, in Sir Thomas Wyat, Mary’s religious strength and faith is an asset rather than a flaw.
In general, Dekker and Webster create a Mary who is much more respectable, and respected, than any theatrical
representation of Mary in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Not only is Mary’s religion, typically portrayed
as a defect, a strength in Sir Thomas Wyat, but Mary is also depicted as popular with the common people.
Historically, Mary was a very popular monarch during the beginning of her reign. This popularity was put to the
test from the beginning, when Lady Jane Grey took the throne, and it was this same popularity which enabled Mary
to raise an army and eventually defeat her enemies with little bloodshed—“the hearts of the people are with Mary,
the Spanish queen’s daughter” (Waller 51). But unlike many other playwrights who used Mary as an antagonist,
Dekker and Webster are much more historically accurate. For example, when Northumberland orders Queen Jane to
be proclaimed in the streets of London, the stage action directs, “A Trumpet sounds, and no answer. The Herald
sounds a parlee, and none answers” (Dekker and Webster 14). Again, when a commoner is ordered to “cry God
save Queen Jane,” he responds, “Is the right Queen called Jane? Alack for woe,/ at the first she was not christened
so” (Dekker and Webster 14). Wyat sums up the situation aptly when he explains why so many people are deserting
Northumberland and Lady Jane Grey, “In brief they all incline to Queen Mary” (Dekker and Webster 14). Finally,
Northumberland realizes he has lost, and when the Herald is ordered to announce, “Mary by the grace of God,
Queen of England./ France and Ireland, defendress of the Faith. Amen,” the stage direction reads, “Within a shout
and flourish,” clearly showing popular support (Dekker and Webster 16).
Yet for Wyat, the quintessential loyal English subject, the honeymoon with Mary does not last long. Once Mary is
safely established as queen and important decisions about ruling the kingdom arise, Wyat and Mary suddenly have
nothing in common and cannot see eye to eye. No longer are the characters easily divided between evil rebels and
loyal subjects, and it is at this point in which Dekker and Webster pose the most difficult questions that get at the
heart of defining the role and power of the English monarchy.
As soon as her kingdom is secure, Mary does not hesitate to make known her own views on monarchy, “By Gods
assistance, and the power of heaven,/ after our Troubles we are safely set,/ In our inheritance, for which we do
subscribe/ The praise and benefit to God, next thanks/ To you my Lords” (Dekker and Webster 21). Mary mentions
the three factors leading to her reign, but she makes sure to order them in a hierarchy: heavenly assistance is at the
top, with her royal birth second, and the lords’ support below the two. Thus, while Mary definitely appreciates and
acknowledges the lords’ interventions to establish her on the throne, she is also informing them unmistakably that
her queenship is still God-given, and she is not to be treated as an elected monarch simply because she had to rely on
her people in order to win back her throne.1 Her next actions show how truly she believes in her own divine debt as
queen of England,
…Now shall the sanctuary,
And the house of the most high be newly built…
To build large houses pull no churches down,/
Rather in enrich the Temple with our crown./
Better a poor Queen, than the Subjects poor. (Dekker and Webster 21)
Since Deity (who, as far as Mary was concerned, was Catholic) was the instigator of Mary’s queenship, it was only
right for her to rebuild Catholic churches, to release arrested Catholic bishops, and to do other such actions which
would alienate her Protestant subjects.
In fact, according to Dekker and Webster, the same Mary who was a heroine for the first acts of the play is now
teetering between munificent monarch and tyrant. When Arundel attempts to remind Mary of “the late Oath you
took” to let her Protestant supporters freely practice their religion after her coronation, Mary fires back with, “we
138
remember that,/But shall a Subject force his Prince to swear/ Contrary to her conscience and the Law?” therefore
effectively abusing her power to break the promise to her people (Dekker and Webster 21-22). However, a few lines
later, Mary exercises benevolence by revoking a common tax of the English people:
We here release unto our faithful people,
One entire Subsidy,
Due unto the Crown in our dead Brother’s days.
The Commonalty shall not be overburdened
In our reign, let them be liberal in Religion,
and we will spare their treasure to themselves:
Better a poor Prince than the Nation poor,
The Subjects’ Treasure, in the Sovereign’s store. (Dekker and Webster 22)
But just as the audience begins to see Mary as a gracious, if not religiously overzealous, monarch, she agrees with
her councilor, Winchester, that Lady Jane Grey and Guildford Dudley must receive the death penalty, even though
they are relatively innocent youth, “misled by their ambitious Fathers” and only took the throne reluctantly, after
aggressive persuasion (Dekker and Webster 22).
The line which Mary toes between monarch and tyrant is thin, yet blurred. On one hand, a sixteenth-century
English monarch had more than enough right to decree changes in the state religion (just as Henry VIII and Edward
VI did) and to execute anyone who showed themselves a threat to the monarch. On the other hand, Mary was
breaking a promise to her people and had used them for her own advancement, and killing Lady Jane Grey—an
innocent pawn and a relation to Mary—was unnecessarily cruel.
Mary’s next action, to arrange a marriage with Philip of Spain, is just as controversial. Again, from one
viewpoint, it is Mary’s duty as a queen to marry a worthy suitor of high birth so that England can have a rightful
king.2 Furthermore, the marriage was extremely beneficial to England, because it would increase its territory, and
Philip’s and Mary’s children would inherit vast amounts of land, making England part of one of the most powerful
empires in the world. Yet from another viewpoint—the viewpoint of Sir Thomas Wyat, and historically, the
majority of the English people—the marriage would bring England under foreign domination to a hated religion and
a most hated people: the Spaniards.
In any other English play, at this point, Mary would be simply and undoubtedly cast as the offending party. For
this reason, it is interesting that Dekker and Webster fashion the dialogue and plot so carefully as to legitimize both
Wyat’s and Mary’s decisions. In fact, it could be argued that the playwrights even show a bit of preference to Mary,
though Wyat, as a Protestant martyr, should naturally receive their favoritism. But certain scene concerning the
duke of Suffolk and the loyalty/disloyalty of his servant Ned Homes, seems to support the preference shown to
Mary. At first, this scene appears rather unrelated to the rest of the narrative. However, when viewed side-by-side
with the relationship between Mary and Wyat throughout the play, this scene not only supports Mary’s actions, but
severely condemns Wyat’s rebellion as dangerous and selfish rather than necessary and patriotic.
The scene begins with Suffolk hiding from the sheriff and his officers, who have been ordered to arrest him for
treason. After Homes arrives with provisions, he tells Suffolk of the many dangers he’s faced as a result of
harboring him. As Suffolk begins to doubt Homes’s loyalty to him, especially in the face of so many perils, Homes
fervently reassures him, “…betray you? O no!/ First would I see my loved wife and Children/ Murdered, and tossed
on spears, before I would/ Deliver your grace unto their hands, for they intend you death” (Dekker and Webster 19).
Of course, the dramatic irony is Homes already has betrayed him: in a few lines, the sheriff and his officers arrive
onstage, apparently tipped off by Homes. As Homes informs Suffolk of the “thousand Crowns” which have been
offered for Suffolk’s head, the sheriff and his men look for the sign which Homes will give them: kissing Suffolk’s
hand. The symbolism is unquestionably not lost on the audience nor on the sheriff, who comments, “So Judas
kissed his Master: seize the Duke” (Dekker and Webster 19). The religious symbolism continues as Suffolk asks
God to pardon Homes, Homes receives his monetary reward, and then horrified by his own actions, strangles
himself to death. The episode ends with an onlooker providing commentary, “So, so, a very good ending, would all
false Servants/ might drink of the same sauce” (Dekker and Webster 21).
Fittingly, this scene happens immediately before Wyat learns of Mary’s plans to wed Philip, and decides to foment
a revolt. It is easy to see the parallels between Homes, Wyat, and Judas: they are “false Servants” who protect their
master for a time and then turn traitor, and both will receive the ultimate penalty which, according to the onlooker, is
the correct “good ending” for all traitors. However, the parallels between the masters are more difficult to decipher.
Though Suffolk, Mary, and Christ have little in common other than being masters, that is exactly the message being
139
conveyed: whether a master is as faultless as Christ, as corrupt as Suffolk, or like Mary, somewhere in between, it is
the duty of their servants to obey them.
With the parallels between Homes, Wyat, and Judas, and Suffolk, Mary, and Christ, Dekker and Webster subtly
yet powerfully restore some of Mary’s status and character which had been lost over years of Gloriana and reading
Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. Although they do not go as far as absolving Mary of all accusations against her, Mary does
receive remarkably fair treatment at the hands of these two playwrights. And though Mary is far overshadowed by
the characters of Wyat, Jane, and Dudley, in Sir Thomas Wyat, she is able to break out of her stereotypically
villainous roles and become a three-dimensional character with unique and valuable significance to the rhetoric of
power and religion.
2. Works Cited
1. Dekker, Thomas, and John Webster. The Famous History of Sir Thomas VVyat. London: Thomas Archer, 1607.
Print.
2. Waller, Maureen. Sovereign Ladies: Sex, Sacrifice, and Power—The Six Reigning Queens of England. New
York: St. Martin’s Press, 2006. Print.
3. Endnotes
1 Furthermore, according to the providential view of Renaissance history and the Tudor Myth, not only were
Mary’s loyal subjects supported by heaven as they fought against Northumberland’s rebels, but their devotion to
Mary was inspired by Deity in the first place. This created a two-fold advantage for Mary: first, she could rewrite
history by claiming Deity’s support during her truly miraculous counter-rebellion; and second, since her coronation
was primarily Heaven’s doing, she need not feel any unnecessary responsibility or debt to her people.
2 Previous to Elizabeth’s reign, and even for years after, it was automatically assumed that a queen regnant
would marry as soon as possible in order to protect the kingdom from the disastrous results of female rule. The
language of the English throne was a language of masculinity, and it was assumed that a female ruler would either
destroy England from top down as a result of her inefficiencies, or would be so easily controlled by councilors that
the kingdom would be divided by the petty struggles of nobles seeking advancement.
140