I think the best portrayal of Mary is in 'Elizabeth R' because it shows Mary, not as a murdering fanatic but a missunderstood monarch whose childhood left her broken and scarred.

@kkandsims4612

3 жыл бұрын

@Classic Movies no she was not she was an abused beaten down woman who legit sought love think about it you have two loving parents then all you know is legit ripped away from you legit she could not see her mother she never saw her mother not even when Catharine was sick and Mary and queen cat where tight AF not to mention Anne threatened Mary’s life and Mary not to mention religious propaganda ruined Mary’s reign she 100% could have killed Elisabeth but did not

@harveyblackwood3563

3 жыл бұрын

@Classic Movies according to protestant heretics like you

@StormStar626

2 жыл бұрын

@Classic Movies history proves that her Father and Sister were no better they brutally murdered Catholics. Yet Henry is mainly remembered for his cruelty towards his wives and Elizabeth is remembered as bringing a Golden Age… yet Mary is known as “Bloody Mary” she was no more vile or cruel or murderous than many other monarchs and far less so than some

@redadmiralofvalyria867

2 жыл бұрын

@@kkandsims4612 should these things REALLY excuse such behavior though (don't get me wrong I DO pity her, but still the things she DID do are just so .....inexcusable)

@BLTKellys

Жыл бұрын

Daphne Slater was brilliant as Mary

Mary had a Hell of a hard life . She did the best she could under circumstances .She was a monarch of those times and they were very harsh unforgiving times

I agree. We need a Human Mary, not a villain one. The only thing I'm happy for is that the Tudors are showing who Mary truly was before she was queen.

@redadmiralofvalyria867

7 ай бұрын

Then, after she became queen, she started burning Protestants. Including pregnant women

When Mary was first Queen, she had refused to execute her cousin, Lady Jane Grey, because she was just a pawn in her family's game and she took pity her. However, her council saw that her father, Henry Grey, was leading the Wyatt's Rebellion to get her cousin back on the throne and Mary had no choice but to have her executed for it. However, she did permit Jane to have a private execution on Tower Green.

@AmethystEyes

3 жыл бұрын

@Nenethegreat W were you?

@harveyblackwood3563

3 жыл бұрын

@Nenethegreat W oh look a thesis defense panelist is speaking 🗣️

@nassauguy48

3 жыл бұрын

Let us be honest, the more pragmatic Elizabeth (in contrast to the emotional Mary) would not even have given Jane the ONE chance that Mary gave to her. She likely would have gone after the entire Dudley and Grey families.

@Luanna801

2 жыл бұрын

​@@nassauguy48 I find that unlikely. It's well documented that she was extremely reluctant to execute Mary Queen of Scots and kept delaying and delaying, even though MQoS was arguably more guilty than Jane. Elizabeth would probably have had to ultimately make the same decision Mary did with Jane, but I imagine she'd have shown the same reluctance (and, later, guilt) that she did with regards MQoS. Probably even more so, since Jane was so young and they had gotten along well back in the day.

@raumaanking

2 жыл бұрын

@@Luanna801 do you think Lady Jane Grey or Mary queen of Scots if neither of them were killed and they were both still alive in 1603 would one of them be queen of England or have a good chance

insecure childhoods and many stepmothers later...

@kkandsims4612

3 жыл бұрын

Can really fuck a person up tho not to mention her reign was built on propaganda

I think this depicted Mary well, it showed her good and bad points: Good as it showed she was initially going to spare Jane (which was true) and bad, which was her rather other-enthusiastic approach to Philip of Spain

@juanitarichards1074

4 жыл бұрын

She was an embittered woman who had missed her chance to marry young and have children, because of her fathers machinations. She had also been bastardized so no foreign prince or man of rank would marry her. Phillip of Spain was her last chance to marry. And it was a disaster - for her and for England. She had hoped for love and companionship - and children. But she got none of those. They lost Calais and bankrupted England paying for Phillips ongoing wars - something she promised the English people and her councilors would never happen.

@dendenne4856

Жыл бұрын

The threat of Spain cooled down the protestant faction from raising in riot and rebellion, but on the other hand her husband was rarely in England because he was a monarch himself, so it was hard for them to conceive a child, plus she was not so young anymore. But, I think maybe she should have married a catholic and English noblemen, he would remain in England, be fully accepted since he is English and their chance of conceiving would be higher. This child, if he lived, would keep Elizabeth and the protestants far away from the throne. She was 36 when she becomes queen, it was not that old

@adriannespring8598

Жыл бұрын

​@Denden Ne Except unfortunately she was ill and had a long history of physical issues from stress and malnutrition.

@raysand2557

11 ай бұрын

@@juanitarichards1074 Mary didn't bankrupt England, her father managed to do that very well, thank you. Mary inherited a poor country torn apart by sectarianism and by her father and brother's destruction of the infrastructure: monasteries that helped the poor. Spain was the most powerful country in Europe at the time, so it made sense for Mary to marry a Spanish king. Unfortunately, she was sterile, otherwise the history of England would have changed.

@juanitarichards1074

11 ай бұрын

Yes I know that but she also contributed by helping her husbands wars against France, which she had promised her people she would not do. They also lost Calais....their last French possession. Elizabeth inherited a @@raysand2557 bankrupt country and uil it up to a wealthy country......which her councillors and courtiers bankrupted again

The real tragedy was that if her family had not started an uprising, then Lady Jane would've very likely had her death sentence commuted to Detention at Her Majesty's Pleasure. In other words, Lady Jane would've just been held in the Tower until Queen Mary chose to release her. Those of royal blood were treated quite well; in locked rooms with at least 1 servant to attend them instead of chained up in a dungeon.

@dendenne4856

Жыл бұрын

Her father was dumb, unfortunately she had to pay for it

Well it would help if you didn't steal my throne again!

@jciutube724

5 жыл бұрын

Vivien Leigh That line was hilarious.

My gosh she was so young in that movie. Now she's a very successful international actress. Go Helena!!!!

THIS is one of the most underrated films ever made

Which is why I said that what Mary I did was NOTHING compared to what Elizabeth Bathory did. Elizabeth was crazy, Mary was misunderstood greatly. Mary was really akind hearted woman that history has done wrong by.

@dendenne4856

Жыл бұрын

She was a monarch of her time Her brother was as " ruthless " as she was, but with catholics, it was a time of great instability and division

@kimm.8800

11 ай бұрын

She did burn people alive at the stake for religious reasons, and she was not forced to do that. She choose to do so.

Hmm. Everyone is commenting on the historical aspects, and nobody seems to be looking at the quality of the film. I discovered this film recently. To me, it was a mere cinematic footnote - Helena Bonham's film debut, a rare cinematic outing for famed theatre director Trevor Nunn - and I was expecting it to be eminently forgettable. It was barely noticed at the time, and reviews of it seem to be universally poor. I was astounded, therefore, to discover a deeply moving tale of mediaeval machinations which also touches on universal themes like women's place in society, and the idealism of youth. The performance of HBC is quite mesmerising. She is an awkward, doll-like figure who is totally convincing (to me) as a wallflower/ bookworm type. She is repulsed, initially, by her seemingly loutish husband Guildford - but there is a great script-writing trick, in which we suddenly discover that Guildford's boorishness conceals his disappointment with the world in which he finds himself. The thing that emerges is that he and Jane are, in fact, soulmates. Jane then blossoms, and there are some bravura flourishes of romanticism from Nunn as the relationship between the two teenage lovers develops. As well as a charismatic turn from the young Cary Elwes as Guildford, we also have completely authentic performances from the commanding John Wood (Northumberland), whose self-righteousness collapses at the end; from Sara Kestelman as Jane's mother (the ultimate ruthless courtier survivor), and from Jane Lapotaire as a sympathetically rendered Mary I. The guy playing the dying King Edward (who seems to be a total unknown) is also well-cast. We also have great cinematography from the veteran Douglas Slocombe (especially the snowy sequences at the beginning), and a tremendously rousing and emotional score from Stephen Oliver. Yes, some of the historical veracity is questionable. As a piece of cinema, though, what seems important to me is that screenwriter David Edgar and his collaborators have constructed vivid characters and a believable, intimate world. Their vision of mediaeval England, and of how Jane might have thought and acted (all historical dramas are, to some extent, fantasies), has created a memorable film which deserves to be revisited and reassessed.

@juanitarichards1074

4 жыл бұрын

Except none of it is true and it is a highly romanticized version. A beautiful film yes, but highly inaccurate.

@catherinedacera

4 жыл бұрын

Juanita Richards -- what? the whole history isn’t true? Lady Jane Grey isn’t the “nine days Queen”? She was also called the forgotten queen. Queen Mary forgave Jane and was gonna spare her life until Jane’s father formed an army against Queen Mary’s husband Phillip. It’s really a sad and unruly. I hated Bloody Mary for that. She’s suppose to be very religious person but monarchy gets over their head too damn much forget the innocent people getting killed. And yes, I love the film. It’s very believable. The Romance part might have been a fantasy but the rest... I believe were facts.

justice for Queen Mary!

Actually. She did not kill people because they are Protestant. She killed people because she believe that they are from the Protestant church planning a 'mutiny' against her. She also believed her sister did it too because people looked to her sister as as the next queen. She had her reasons. The last Tudor members had a horrible competitive life thanks to their father. Not her fault.

@clare5one

3 жыл бұрын

@king dahomey m OK Tell us the "correct Protestant" version

@dendenne4856

Жыл бұрын

Yes, H8 torn up his kingdom with his break from Rome, the dissolution of monasteries and all the rest. He was so convinced he was the King, so he was right and people would follow and think the same

@MsJubjubbird

Жыл бұрын

yup and none of them could produce heirs to secure their reign. So they and the people around them became more and more desperate to hold onto power.

@kimm.8800

11 ай бұрын

No, actually. She burned them alive as heretics for their religion. That is a historical fact. She did so because she was a fanatic Catholic. Not uncommon for her time, but there we are.

I think that Mary was a kind hearted woman that history still misunderstands today.

@seansweeney8911

Жыл бұрын

It wasn’t kindhearted to burn 288 Protestants to death

@user-nd8no8yw7v

3 ай бұрын

​@@seansweeney8911Her father, Cromwell and even her sister were no better. Elizabeth just killed in a prolonged time. They were all murderers. The massacre in France was a terrible thing, too, but people still are trying to give the benefit of the doubt to the french royals. I think Mary deserves it, too, because she was a very abused and sad person. I don't think she was a sociopath. I face misunderstanding, too, it can be a nightmare.

I've discovered a love of Jane Lapotaire's acting abilities from having finished The Devil's Crown (1978) where she got to portray Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine throughout the entirety of her life. Curious I looked through her IMDb page to see what else I'd seen her in to find that I'd seen her in several other things (this included) but hadn't noticed her before. Glad to revisit her in this role, and I think I can understand why she was out shown considering how reserved she portrays Mary as here.

The lady playing Queen Mary, played prince phillips mother in the crown

@pauloneves9081

3 жыл бұрын

Jane Lapotaire, nice good actress!!

Poor Jane she was forced by her family to become Queen. You can tell Mary didn't really want her to be put to death she showed sympathy towards Jane, times where harsh back then the real villains of the story was her family they sentenced her to death my wanting power and to inherit the throne.

@dendenne4856

Жыл бұрын

She knew that a lady had little control over her life, she herself lived under Henry's thumbs

This is by far the best movie portrayal of Mary as queen that's out there--which is surprising in a film focused on Jane Grey, who's executed by Mary! As innaccurate as this movie was in other respects, I have to applaud the directors for not going the "let's make Mary Teh Ebil Exaggerated!Cartoon!Villain" route that some shoddy films *cough* Elizabeth! *cough* went to provide a more dramatic villain for the heroine. Anyway thanks for posting!

@xxcookiejord I absolutely agree with you that it's ridiculous how Mary is portrayed in all the Elizabeth movies and this one too. Lady Jane Grey wasn't executed for about a year after Mary was crowned, it was only after the Wyatt rebellion when Mary made that obviously difficult choice, this was also the same time Elizabeth came under suspicion, went to the tower etc. the Elizabeth movies make out to look like Elizabeth barely escaped execution just in time to become queen, TOTALLY inaccurate.

Poor Jane. Mary murdered her cousin.

I agree with you totally. Mary was not the monster that her moniker, "Bloody Mary" would imply. Jane Lapotaire's portrayal presents her as what she was a vulnerable and kind-hearted woman. The end of the movie is sad, when Mary has no choice but to order the execution of Jane and you can see how torn she is by what has just happened. It is a far cry from the ridiculous caricature Mary in "Elizabeth."

@KL-ki8db

4 ай бұрын

I would argue "Elizabeth" had some truth in Mary's mental decline in her last year as she has found out she had cancer and her husband was abandoning her.

Thank you so much!

Jane Lapotaire and Daphne Slater in Elizabeth R gave wonderfully sympathetic performances as Mary Tudor. Kathy Burke less so!

When you realize Lady jane Grey became so depressed that she decided to join voldemort and became a death eater 😮

Does anyone really think that Elizabeth (Tudor, not Bathory) would have given the Dudleys and Greys the second chance that Mary gave them? Please!

@rachelsunqvist6430

6 жыл бұрын

Most likely. She kept Mary queen of Scots alive for 18 years.

@alondraperez-ramirez8363

5 жыл бұрын

'Gloriana' locked up Mary Stuart without an explanation beyond 'plotting', Mary allowed Jane and all her family to go home without confiscating any lands, Lord Grey repaid that mercy by amassing an army against his anointed queen.

@juanitarichards1074

4 жыл бұрын

Not if she was queen at the time. She did not give second chances to her Catholic enemies, or Mary Queen of Scots. She could not have allowed civil war to break out again any more than Mary did.

@juanitarichards1074

4 жыл бұрын

@@caoimheoneill8199 Elizabeth was a protestant and was a focus for rebellion and civil war, which is why Queen Mary wanted to do away with her, but nothing could be proven against her during Wyatts rebellion.

@juanitarichards1074

4 жыл бұрын

@@rachelsunqvist6430 Elizabeth had many Catholics executed and she kept Mary Queen of Scots a ragged prisoner in increasingly miserable conditions. Then when she was a sick frail old woman, had her executed.

For the record, Mary at first pardoned Jane and all the conspirators except the actual instigator, Dudley. When the conspirators tried a second time under Wyatt, there would be no more reprieves. Jane had to go simply because she would continue to be a rallying point for the rebels. As for Elizabeth, she despised the conspirators just as much, as they sought to exclude her as well as Mary. And does anyone think that Elizabeth, cold and practical as she was, would have even given them ONE pardon?

@nassimboussaadia6720

2 жыл бұрын

Elizabeth I had Irishmen, priests, pregnant women massacred, introduced slavery in her kingdom and beheaded her cousin, she also left all the sailors who had fought against the Spanish armada to starve because she did not want to pay them, preferring to buy dresses and raise taxes. 30,000 persons died.

@AnastasiaSaenz

Жыл бұрын

​@@nassimboussaadia6720 ironic, isn't it - what you said, because she got the moniker "Virgin Queen"... what Mary Tudor did, was nothing compared to what "The Greatest Queen" had done.

Mary's biggest failure was her short life & not producing an heir. If she had produced an heir, she would not have been so vilified after death. Historians are finally beginning to reexamine her reign. Elizabeth was a great queen, but she, also, had a long reign and Mary's mistakes to learn from. Why do you think she never married? She saw how the Brits turned against Mary when she married Philip. The Brits were afraid of losing their sovereignty if their queen married a foreign prince.

I don't think Mary was an evil person to begin with. History condemns her as one, but she was a kind person with a sad life. Just for her to go from having an idyllic childhood fit for a princess to being declared illegitimate by her own father and being forbidden to even attend her own mother's funeral, had made her bitter over time.

@KL-ki8db

4 ай бұрын

She wasn't at the start, but as time went on during her reign, she really started losing it as she started having major deja vu when her husband was cheating on her like her father did her mother. It also didn't help she thought she was pregnant when in actuality she was having what is believed to be ovarian cancer.

It's to Mary's credit that she wanted to spare Jane. Dear old Dad wouldn't have given it a thought.

@dendenne4856

Жыл бұрын

Lol, her dad even killed peoples who were innocents, Jane would be dead a long time ago

2 of my fav actresses!

@Elisabetta611 It made sense for Mary to form an alliance with Spain, because at the time Spain was the most powerful country on earth and England was impoverished in part thanks to Henry. To her credit, the marriage contract between Phillip and herself stipulated that Phillip had no power. Phillip thought that he could just go to England and do as he liked, but he was mistaken. That's one of the reasons why he went back to Spain in the middle of their marriage.

@mm-gz3hq

4 жыл бұрын

Her mother was Spanish, so it may have held a soft spot in her heart.

I am not really a fan of Mary Queen of Scots, nor could I ever be a fan of any absolute monarch. People often accuse me of being an apologist for Mary I of England, but that is not the case. It is just that history need be told in its truest form. Elizabeth I claimed far more lives, and often in crueler fashion, than did Mary I, and yet, she is called Gloriana due to the Protestant historians. Peter the Great of Russia was far more cruel than Ivan the Terrible, but he also won wars for Russia.

@juanitarichards1074

4 жыл бұрын

As women rulers they had to prove they could be just as tough as the men, or lose it all. Mary Queen of Scots was a very compassionate woman and tried to allow freedom of religion in Scotland when she came from France. It was they who would not tolerate her Catholicism and used any excuse to topple her.

@jasminecrawford42

Жыл бұрын

@@juanitarichards1074 Bw the death of her father before her birth, the first husband's death, death of her mother the regent who did rule well, her being a foreign Catholic since she lived in France near her entire life, the murdered 2nd psycho husband who tried to usurp her power, the third marriage to the one rumored to have helped her murder the 2nd hubby, AND having an infant MALE heir who they could use as a puppet and raise Protestant. She was done for, just dealt a v shitty hand start to finish.

Mary may hot have been the best ruler, but she did NOT deserved to be lumped into the "Most Evil Women in History" catagory. I believe that Mary was a kindhearted person, that history still greatly misunderstands today.

As long as Jane lives she will be a pawn for protestants to overthrown Mary and make Jane queen, this is why she had to die. If the kingdom was not so prone to rebellions, Mary would be glad to let Jane lives

Mary's alliance with Spain plunged England into a miserable war against France which depleted her treasury. She broke her own marriage contract which clearly forbade Spain to drag England into its wars. She left horrible debts and a divided country.

I agree that Mary has been mistreated awfully. The History Channel even featured her in their "Most Evil Women in History" documentary which I thought was highly unfair. Mary in the same league with Elisabeth Bathory and Ilse Koch? NO WAY!

Amen...you said it all...!!!

No, my friend, that comparison just doesn't make sense. Elizabeth was shockingly tolerant for a monarch of her age. She always said that she "did not want to carve windows into men's souls" and as long as you were loyal to the crown you had nothing to fear. Why do you think her Catholics joined her when she was fighting the ARMADA? Because she was a just, beloved ruler. Yes, treason WAS punished severely and England WAS Protestant. But Elizabeth wasn't a murdering fanatic like Mary.

please post the whole movie, I dieing to see it !

Finally - someone shows a decent portrayal of Mary , poor woman , she was a good monarch despite her religious fervour

BINGO... The actress playing Queen Mary is Jane Lapotaire. She recently played the role of Princess Alice of Battenberg (Duke if Edinburgh's mother) in the show The Crown. I earlier suspected it was her, the clue were her eyes and smile. Wow... I admire them more now after loving their performances as Princess Alice and Princess Margaret.

i remember watching this in 1989 i couldn't figure what it was about! i was only young when i watch it!

I agree. Mary was a kind hearted woman. I was shocked to discover that she was lumped in with the "Most Evil Women in History" category. Mary's story is salient proof that the victor rewrites history whatever way he sees fit. If Mary had lived longer and produced an heir, we would today have a different view of her. Whatever atrocities she allowed the church to commit in her name, it pales in comparison to her brutal father who is seen in a more benign light.

@EmilyGloeggler7984

Жыл бұрын

Even if she had an heir, she still would be seen as a brainwashed and deluded bitter mass murderer.

@rayarena879

Жыл бұрын

@@EmilyGloeggler7984 No, she wouldn't because chances are England would today be Catholic if she had produced an heir.

@kimm.8800

11 ай бұрын

She did burn people alive at the stake for religious reasons, and she was not forced to do that. She choose to do so.

Jane Lapotaire - my beloved Rose in Upstairs-Douwnstairs- she is always great!💫🌼

@eamonndeane587

Жыл бұрын

Jean Marsh played Rose in Upstairs Downstairs.

If I was Jane, I would have stepped down as queen the moment I knew I was, purely based on the reason that I knew Mary wouldn't have been too happy. And I would have told Mary that I hadn't asked for any of this, that it was Edward for putting it in his barely confirmed will!

@MsJubjubbird

Жыл бұрын

she didn't get a choice though. She had to do as her husband and father commanded. THey were the ones in charge of the army and the Pricy Council. Not her

@Tekirai Marrying cousins was actually a common practice with royals even up until the present British monarchy, the current Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip are distant cousins through Queen Victoria.

Mary's rule was a failure, but remember, she only ruled for 5 years. What if she had lived longer, or had produced an heir? I'm sure that we would have a different view of her today. On another note, Mary showed her greatness in that-despite her justified dislike for Elizabeth [daughter of the dastardly Ann Boleyn]-she in essence left her sister the throne, instead of leaving it to her cousin who had a claim to the throne, Mary Queens of Scots. This guaranteed England a peaceful succession.

@rayarena879

7 ай бұрын

@@wengercleopatra2150 Anne was far from awesome. She was an ambitious, cruel woman who has no compassion for Queen Catherine or Mary. She was after all the “other woman.” Not saying she alone was guilty, the lion’s share goes to that whoremonger, Henry, but she was guilty too.

Mary says she plans to use the 'power of reprieve' which will get Jane off and just shift the blame to her family

0:30 it’s not your fault you are very young, so was Catherine Howard

Mary's rule was a failure. Most historians agree on that. However, compared to many other rules she was not as bloody. Nor does she deserve the title. Also, she had a MUCH harder life than her half-sister did. Everything she did as Queen was her trying to make up for the guilt she had for signing the Act of succession which denounced her mother's marriage and faith. She was driven crazy by the protestant fraction. When she got power she got back at them. Not saying that was good though

@dendenne4856

Жыл бұрын

Elizabeth's mother was beheaded when she was a baby, she was declared a bastard and ignored by his father for most of her childhood, then preyed on by her step-father who sexually assaulted her when she was 14, her mother figure died away from her, she was imprisoned and almost sentenced to death... Both of them had a hard life, this is not a competition. She was not " crazy " and didn't killed protestants because they were protestants, it was political and she had a catholics faction behind her , her brother Edward also executed catholics,

Is this movie on Netflix or where?

I kind of like this portrayal of Mary, it is very sympathetic to her and shows that it's true, she didn't want to execute Jane. Stupid Suffolk

Elizabeth had Hawkins, Drake and Frobisher to thank for her naval progress and power, not Mary I.

The actress who played Queen Mary reminds me of the one who played Princess Alice of Battenberg (Prince Philip's mother) from The Crown.

@andiilham6227

Жыл бұрын

well, because she is indeed the one who played both of them!

agreed hopefully someone will take the time to portray Mary in a more positive light

@andiilham6227

Жыл бұрын

and that time has come! in Becoming Elizabeth (2022), Queen Mary was played by Ramola Garai, and I believe it is the best portrayal of Mary *EVER*

That I agree with. Mary was NOT evil. And to put her in the same category as Bathory and Ilse Koch....it's SO wrong!

I like Helena as Jane better than Anne.

She looks like the wicked stepmother from Disney's Cinderella...Its just the veil thingy on her head that makes her face look heart-shaped. Ive been researching Mary I and starting to have more sympathy towards her, it seems as though she was just extremely devout and had a very difficult life.

@RH-td7vc

7 ай бұрын

The veil is accurate to how women dressed in this time period

While a foreign marriage was unpopular in England, the vow to 'love, honour and obey' her husband would have made it impossible for a pious women such as Mary to have married an Englishman. She could not vow to obey one of her subjects. Thus her husband had to be of equal rank to her. Mary was this countries first real female monarch, and only men were really thought qualified of ruling. Hence why Elizabeth choose not to marry. No monarch before them had been expected to share their power.

@dendenne4856

Жыл бұрын

She could, she had two choices in England I think, one of them was Reginald Pole, he had royal blood himself. But her mother was Spanish and an alliance with Spain (the most powerful kingdom at this time in Europe) would cool down the rebellious protestants, and help to refile the kingdom purse ( who were almost empty )

I agree, but how can we tell it in it´s truest form when it´s the winner who get´s to write history. There is always two sides to every coin.

Charles V, Philipp II and the Spanish ambassador urged her to be more lenient, not more aggressive. They feared for Philipp's (And to a degree for the ambassador's) life.

@Tekirai Lol no kidding!

Perfect Spanish

Elizabeth procrastinated for a long time wether or not to sign Mary's death warrant this is because she would be killing an anointed Queen and also risking the wrath of the Spanish Philip of Spain being a catholic also she had no wish to kill her cousin. i also think Elizabeth having been locked up in the Tower during Mary's reign not knowing if Mary was going to execute her or not she wold have let off Jane Grey as Mary did but im sure she would also have been forced to execute Jane in the end

i agree. i think she was a bit messed up because of what her father did to her and her mother

"she in essence left her sister the throne, instead of leaving it to her cousin who had a claim to the throne, Mary Queens of Scots." Thank you, I thought there 2 different Marys

That and the fact she was also a maniac helped. Like many catholics of the time, very closed in mind and thought. Secretly they loved to inflict suffering and death. Mary had many people, including women and children burnt at the stake or worse for refusing to renounce their faith.

Yes, that is true, wasn't thinking it through. I believe that Thomas Seymour was his favourite uncle, since he gave him pocket money! Yet, he did nothing to stop the execution. You are right. In a way, Edward was just as much a victim of his relative's ambitions as was Jane. I did read many years ago, that Edward though young did not really form any close relationships with anyone. I wonder why! His father's son, perhaps? Liked your remarks on Mary Queen of Scots. She had good PR!

@juanitarichards1074

4 жыл бұрын

He was a lonely serious little boy who never experienced a mothers love and who hardly ever saw his father. The heir to the throne was not allowed to be a child for long, but from the age of 6 breached from his nurses and nannies and brought up by men and educated in kingship. And he was a frail sickly boy.

I feel so sorry for Mary because everyone is always making her look like the villain in the films about Elizabeth and Lady Jane.

@EmilyGloeggler7984

4 жыл бұрын

Because in real life, she DID have the pardon to her cousin. She didn't.

Mary burned Thomas CRANMER;Archbishop of Canterbury...In the end, she died "UNPOPULAR & UNLOVED".we are not judging her;Her very own generation came to this conclusion based on their experiences & recorded them.She was labeled long before our generation. She crossed the thin line between religiousness & spirituality, defined by extremism. the 1st is all about convention/organized rituals; the 2nd is the true embodiment of true Godliness through humane practices; the latter is the 1st in excess.

@juanitarichards1074

4 жыл бұрын

She was an embittered woman who took her revenge on those who had facilitated her fathers marriage to Anne Boleyn.

@clare5one

3 жыл бұрын

@@juanitarichards1074 If you were in her shoes being of pure royal blood; how would you behave?

@moluscolikowski4899

3 жыл бұрын

Thomas Cranmer wasn't innocent

@nassimboussaadia6720

2 жыл бұрын

Thomas Cranmer was a fanatic who burned innocents catholics and anabaptists.

@dendenne4856

Жыл бұрын

Burning was not an uncommon method of execution. You view this period based on our modern standards of morality

True, but no matter what age, what person would actually come out in strong support of their relatives' murders as did Edward? Younger children instinctively wish to protect those around them whom they love, and Edward did not do this in any way, and even gave his blessing to both Edward and Thomas' executions. He also ordered Mary to be daily harassed for her religious beliefs, and eagerly consented to Elizabeth being interrogated and briefly held for her alleged ties to Thomas Seymour.

@juanitarichards1074

4 жыл бұрын

He did what a king was expected to do. Sentimentality doesn't come into it. And he had never experienced a mothers love. Like all male heirs to the throne he was ripped away from his nurses and nannies at age 6 and hurled into the world of men and tutors, to be prepared for kingship.

@dendenne4856

Жыл бұрын

Edward was a boy, he never fully ruled on his own. At the end, Dudley manipulate him into throwing both his sisters out of the succession, and Elizabeth was also a protestant like him.

yup. I think if Catherine was around to guide Mary, instead of being banished, she would've been a bit better off/

Mary is henry 8 dauter so de first born

Somebody below said that Mary didn't burn pregnant women at the stake. She actually did do so - Alison Weir describes a horrifying scenario in which a burning woman went into labour and gave birth in the flames at Smithfield. Sometimes it took people much longer to die because the wood was damp due to weather. I'm completely incredulous that posters can suggest Mary was "kind hearted." With respect to her religious policies, she certainly was not. I agree with people though who think she was badly damaged by her childhood.

@apefromthekitchen

5 жыл бұрын

Mary was a tyran and a follower of Philip who was a tyran x 10. Mary was not a leader.

@janel342

Ай бұрын

Alison Weir is a novelist not a historian. Never forget Mary 1 is Katharine of Aragon’s daughter and saw what her mother had suffered at the hands of Henry Viii. Mary and Katharine- devout Catholics .

What😧😦❓😢

@cumberlandgap In the 16th century, all monarchs formed alliances by marrying foreign princes. Mary's marriage to Phillip was a public relations disaster, but it wasn't a sign of her willingness to turn England into a puppet of Spain. Mary was desperate for an heir. Who would you have had her marry? A German Prince? A French Prince? A Scandinavian Prince? As a woman, this accusation would have been thrown at her regardless of whom she married. That's why Elizabeth never married.

@gidzmobug2323

6 жыл бұрын

Rayarena A French Prince would have been a Catholic Prince. As I remember, Mary was once betrothed to a French Prince.

@alondraperez-ramirez8363

5 жыл бұрын

Not necessarily, at this time France was involved in the thirty years war which had royalty at both Catholic and Huguenot (French Protestant branch) sides of the conflict.

No matter how many times I have watched this....I can only see Bellatrix Lestrange.

And Elizabeth Bathory was far more bloodier than Mary. I too think Blood Mary is a bit exaggerated. Elizabeth Bathory, though the two women lived in different time periods, and different countries, did things that were far worse than what Mary did. With Mary though, it was religious beliefs. With Elizabeth, well..dear ol Lkiz couldn'y stand the thought of losing her youthful looks (I think that's what happened).

Man I wish Mary had given Jane a chance to just be a child and live

@clare5one

3 жыл бұрын

She honestly wanted to do that.

@theduchess3

2 жыл бұрын

Mary did give them a second chance and even pardoned them, but then her father went on and rebelled again.

@dendenne4856

Жыл бұрын

She already gave her a second chance, but her father rebelled again against his Queen. As long as Jane lives she will be a pawn for protestants to overthrown her and make Jane queen, this is why she had to die. If the kingdom was not so prone to rebellions, Mary would be glad to let Jane lives

I blame the Duke of Somerset, Lady Jane's father in law he was the one who persuaded Edward to give her the throne. And then when Mary promises to spare Jane and her husband the duke of Somerset starts another rebellion! Mary had no choice from a political standpoint but to have Jane and her husband executed after this.

@rjddurhamnc

5 жыл бұрын

Jane's father-in-law was the Duke of Northumberland, not the Duke of Somerset. Edward Seymour was the Duke of Somerset at that time.

I know they even tried to exagurate it by saying Mary put pregnant women at the stake! SHE NEVER DID!!!

He entered England in disguise. The "Cuius regio, eius religio" principle forbade the Jesuit mission just as it forbade Lutherans to do the same in Spain and the Empire. Easy as that. Had he been but a Catholic (Like there were thousands content ones) who followed his beliefs without presenting a threat to the crown, he would have lived. Yes, Puritan fanaticism increased later in the reign because of many plots by Catholics, most prominently by Mary Stuart, who herself was a failure as a queen.

You are actually incorrect here. First and foremost, I am not defending ANY of Mary or Elizabeth or anyone else's actions when it came to punishing opponents. All of this was utterly barbaric, but the criticism needs to be more evenly distributed. Most victims burned at the stake died of smoke inhalation within two to four minutes before the flames even touched them. Hanging (so that the neck was NOT broken), drawing and quartering took 30 minutes to an hour! This was far worse.

@juanitarichards1074

4 жыл бұрын

No they did not die of smoke inhalation. They were wood fires that began at their feet. In some cases friends of the condemned bought a bag of gunpowder to hang around their necks so they would explode and die quicker, but this hardly ever worked either. It could take half an hour for someone to burn to death and they suffered terribly. This was not smoke caused by chemical and synthetic fibres which caused toxic smoke inhalation. There was a psychopath in NZ who burned his 12 week old baby daughter to death and witnesses said it took 20 minutes of her screaming in agony.

poor Mary indeed. Her bloodline was tainted with the inbred hapsburgs who exhibited both physical and mental deformaties . Henry her father was a good king untill his jousting accident. He became the tyrrant we remember. Mary was cruel and is remembered thus. She could have learned from her sister Elizabeth who tolarated Catholics and heralded the golden age.

@DarkSektori

9 жыл бұрын

Really? If you payed more attention you would see that the Protestants were just as guilty for all the turmoil going on at the time. They supported Henry VIII until he started executing protestants as well. As far as Mary is concerned, you need to see things from her perspective. Look what she endured, first the annulment of marriage of her mother and father the King, becoming a bastard and being removed from the succession and her right to the throne and being forced to attend to her sister Elizabeth (humiliation). Being forbidden to see her mother until her death

@DarkSektori

9 жыл бұрын

DarkSektori Also yeah um Elizabeth's Mother Anne Bolyen the woman who was responsible for the annulment of her parents, not to mention the cruelty shown by Anne towards Mary. She was also watching her religion being dragged through the mud and crushed by the reformers who you seem to be defending. Even after Anne's death she was forced to submit to her father's will(including renouncing her catholic faith) under threat of death. Even after her father's death the torment did not stop the. Her brother Edward who was a Protestant tried forcing Mary to renounce her faith to the point of reducing her to tears in front of the entire court. Everything was done to try and deny Mary the right to even privately practice her faith, it got so bad for Mary it took Spain threatening war to lift some of the danger. Even after Henry restored his daughters Mary and Elizabeth to the succession ( via the third succession act) Edward on his death bed under pressure from the reformers because they did Catholic Queen on the English throne, Edward in his will removed Mary's claim(which was legitimate) to the throne and gave it to his cousin Jane, forcing Mary to take up arms to claim what was rightfully hers. Even after that Mary was willing to spare Jane's life and at first was willing to tolerate the Protestant faith. It wasn't until the Protestants launched two rebellions to overthrow Mary and restore Jane or place Mary's sister Elizabeth the throne, did Mary finally have enough. After all of that I can understand why Mary would hate the protestants, thats why Mary executed them becouse in her eyes they were the enemy who up until that point made her life a miserable hell. In closing you might want to look at it from both sides before casting judgment.

@jacquelinefullwood346

9 жыл бұрын

DarkSektori Its you who is not looking at it from both sides. I am descended from the Greys through the Dudleys and your views although mostly correct skirt over the issues. Eliabeth joined Mary in overthrowing Jane. Mary was never tolerant of the protestant faith...ermm bloody Mary. The Catholic church was and is still fanatical and currupt.Stop making excuses for the sad inbred. She made herself miserable. Phillip abandoned her. He wanted Elizabeth to marry him and was eyeing her up whilst Mary was alive. England and Elizabeth dealt with the Spanish threat once and for all when they attempted to invade Britain. Heralding the golden age. Dont talk to me about Catholic tolerence you idiot...remember the st Bartholemews massacre in france. The inquisition. The Catharts. The crusades to mention but a few of the catholic churches handywork.

@DarkSektori

9 жыл бұрын

Jacqueline fullwood For starters I'm not Catholic, and for someone claiming to be an Atheist you seem to sympathize with the Protestants a great deal. Was it not the protestants who tried to prevent Mary from becoming Queen which contradicted Henry's wishes and the 3rd Succession Act. If you are aware of what Mary had to endure throughout her life and still not even have the slightest sympathy towards her then, well that's your own biased perspective. Plus Mary was unpopular not necessarily because she was Catholic but because she was also a woman. If you are so well educated with history then you would know that history is always written by the winners.

@DarkSektori

9 жыл бұрын

Jacqueline fullwood It's funny if you really are from that lineage, so essentially you hold some some sort grudge. Mary originally was going to spare Jane's life. Actually realistically she was willing to forgive your ancestors until they attempted 2 more rebellions to overthrow Mary to put Elizabeth on the throne. Mary really had no choice, almost any Monarch would try and remove any potential threats to their throne. Jane was a political casualty, innocent perhaps but during those times being an innocent wasn't necessarily enough to keep you alive.

Was Jane really had a Brown hair?

@b.j.thomas9754

6 ай бұрын

Red

Historians as well as anyone with some political knowledge knows which of the sisters was the greater monarch. The Pope himself (!) praised Elizabeth I. If that doesn't prove her glorious reign, I don't know what will. And I'm not even an Anglican, I'm a Catholic. But I recognize greatness when I see it. Mary I. is a (tragic) embarassment to me. I pity her for her miserable life and death but I also do not sugarcoat her violence. She was more violent than the Chambre Ardente and the Inquisition!

@ThePaganSun

3 жыл бұрын

Lol...since when did the Pope praise Elizabeth?! And just because Elizabeth’s reign might’ve been more beneficial for England doesn’t mean Elizabeth was any less brutal! She certainly did execute political rivals (Mary Queen of Scots just one famous example) as well as many Catholics who refused to swear the Oath because while they might’ve seen her as their legitimate monarch, she was not their Head of Church as swearing the Oath required her subjects to see her as both. So let’s not romanticize Elizabeth just because she was a more popular ruler. She still did some terrible things too.

@MarcusRashford-tw2fo

Жыл бұрын

@@ThePaganSun she also became interested in the slave trade of England because of all the profit

Bloody Mary!!

Elizabeth wasn't a heretical monarch, she was Henry VIII's last true heir and the greatest ruler England has ever known. THAT is a historical fact. Live with it. Mary's rule and fanaticism was an utter failure.

There is a part of me that somewhat feels compassion for Mary because of the terrible childhood she endured at the hands of her tyrannical father, but there is another part of me that says that she deserves the moniker "Bloody Mary" for her callous treatment of the Protestants, not to mention her execution order for her cousin's innocent teenage daughter, who was only a political pawn in her parents, as well as that of her in-laws, quest for the throne. At least Elizabeth was a little more tolerant of her subjects whatever their religious preference was, Bloody Mary was not. Misunderstood? I think not. In the end, the one who truly should have been punished was that heartless b---- mother of Lady Grey's. Bloody Mary truly does deserve to be categorized as "The Most Evil Woman in History." There is a part of me that wonders if Mary I even had a right to the throne. I understand, yes that when Henry the Monster as I like to call him, died in 1547 he had a will that stated that Edward VI was his heir after his death, and that should Edward die young without heirs, as the case ended up to be, then Mary and finally, Elizabeth would ascend his throne, but what what gets me or leaves confused/perplexed is that when Edward VI died in 1553 at the tender age of 16 years old, with no actual living heirs of his body, he made Lady Jane Grey his heir, therefore, wasn't she the rightful Queen of England? And therefore, trumping Henry's wishes of Mary and Elizabeth being the next successors?

@molarmama32

9 жыл бұрын

One would have to see how H8's will was written regarding the Act of Succession.

@theonlylampshade

9 жыл бұрын

In a word, no. No she certainly wasn't. An Act of Parliament, namely the Act of Succession 1543, named Edward VI heir, to be followed by his children, then any children by Henry and Catherine Parr, followed by Mary I, then by Elizabeth. The Treason Act 1547 made interrupting this succession High Treason. Edward defined Lady Jane Grey as his heir in what is known as his 'devise for the succession'. It was never passed into an Act of Parliament, and did not legally override the 1543 succession act. Thus the conspiracy to place Jane Grey on the throne was high treason, as it sought to interrupt the succession - and deprive Mary, the lawful heir, of her throne. Not only do _you_ misunderstand Mary, you've misrepresented her and that of her successors, and applied an astounding amount of double standards to your logic. Jane Grey, for example. Mary recognised that Jane was a "political pawn in her parents", as such she spared the life of not only Jane - but that of her husband, Guildford Dudley. Jane's family and supporters were not content with this however; they revolted - and it became clear that Jane was to dangerous to keep alive - as she was a focus of any wouldbe rebel seeking to depose Queen Mary. She was certainly not the only person to do this. Richard III killed his nephews the Princes in the Tower to secure the throne he already had. Edward IV murdered Henry VI. And Edward II, by Edward III. Oh - and to the place of double standards - Elizabeth ordered the execution of Mary Stuart. An anointed queen. All for the very same reason - to secure their throne. And it was a sensible course of action for their times. As for Elizabeth being tolerant of her subjects. No.. no she wasn't. Catholicism equated with High Treason under Elizabeth I. Are you aware of what she did to Catholics in northern Ireland? Are you aware what Edward did to the Catholics of Cornwall, after the prayer book rebellion. What Mary asked was what every medieval monarchs expected - their people to follow the religion of their monarch. Henry and Edward tore up the faith that the English by in large wanted. They saw no corruption in Rome, that they did not see in the advisors surrounding Henry VIII. You 'think not' because you are blind to the truth - clinging to the lies spun in anti-Catholic England. Did you no that Catholics are STILL discriminated in England. To this day, they can not - for example - serve as Prime Minister. Someone like you are happy to describe them as the 'most evil women in history' based on next to no logic. Why? She sought to return the country to Catholicism. She executed a rival who stole her throne. Please explain why Mary deserves a 'Bloody' moniker that she wasn't called, until well over a century after her death - and based of anti-catholic propaganda itself containing bare faced lies. You say that Mary can not be misunderstood - astounding given you give NO reason, and then prove your lack of impartial judgement by proceeding to call her 'Blood Mary'. Maybe you should invest in a history book - rather than taking yourself of a certain documentary that gets basic facts about Henry's wives mistaken. ("The Most Evil Woman in History" - biased crap).

@molarmama32

9 жыл бұрын

theonlylampshade Excellent, thank you!

@menerva4

9 жыл бұрын

You can't put modern sympathies on these people's lives because times are different now. You have to look at the lives of the royal family back then as a chess game. Everyone moving up the field, trying if they can, to capture your king before you check them or movie all the way up the field and capture theirs. Mary I was the first women ever to be crowned Queen of England in her own right so her reign was unprecedented in England, but she had the same worries as her father before her. The Tudor dynasty started with a rebellion in which Richard III was over thrown. Henry 8th's father's claim to the throne was dubious. He had a very faint claim to the throne on his mother, Margret Beaufort side. She was a member of a Bastard line of the Lancasterian family, who were not supposed to be in line for the throne. He had to marry Elizabeth of York to anchor his claim to the throne. Now in order to inherit his brothers throne, Richard III had his brothers marriage to Elizabeth Woodville declared illegal, or invalid, and the children from the marriage were declared bastards. So, to in order for the king to marry Elizabeth of York, her mothers marriage had to be declared valid. Elizabeth Woodvile had ten children by Edward IV (three boys, and seven girls) only five survived into adult hood. This presented a problem for Henry 8th and his heirs, because when his mother became a legitimate heir so did her surviving sisters and their children. So, with Mary and Elizabeth's mother it was the case that you can't look weak in front of your contemporaries, and you need male heirs to make protect you lineage and to preserve your families claim to the throne. It was thought that a women was too weak to rule When her brother died Marry inherited much of the same problems. Here she was a female King, but she was expected to perform the duties of a Queen Consort, a women had never been crowned. She followed through with her plans to turn England back to the Catholic church, however, her reason for wanting a male heir was so that England would stay catholic. Jane Grey was Henry 8th's grand niece, the same as Mary Queen of Scotts. It is likely that Jane and her heirs male would have been the next lawful heirs after Queen Elizabeth if this intrigue would not have transpired. This film took and incredible amount of historical license. The intent of the Wyatt rebellion was not to put Jane back on the throne, it was to put Elizabeth on the throne. Believing that she had Elizabeth ensnared in the treason with Wyatt, and would finally be able to be rid of her, Mary wasn't about to leave a Protestant runner up for her enemies who despise her faith, and her marriage to the Spanish king, to hang their hopes on

@DarkSektori

9 жыл бұрын

It also violated the 3rd Succession Act, the Protestants did not want a Catholic Queen on the English throne. Even after Mary was made Queen, she initially was spare Jane's life. Until 2 more rebellions were launched by the Protestants to restore Jane to the throne(even though Jane was not involved) did Mary finally have no other option.

Bloody Mary Tudor

@briandelaney9710

5 жыл бұрын

Potomacstud Good Queen Mary

I felt great sympathy for Lady Jane Grey - I really did . What a tragedy . But I do not condemn Queen Mary for this action of having Jane executed . Legally and morally , Queen Mary was right to do so. Lady Jane Grey committed High Treason . The illegal usurpation of the crown qualifies as High Treason , and the consequences are severe . Now I realize that Jane had absolutely no ambition to be queen. Mary understood this as well. But Jane did commit High Treason against the lawful majesty of Queen Mary . Illegal usurpation is tantamount to High Treason . And it was illegal . Henry the Eighth in 1543 , passed the Act of Succession . The proper order of the realm was Edward , (If Edward died without 'issue' , the throne would go to Mary ,(And if Mary died without ' issue' , the throne would devolve upon Elizabeth. ). That was the proper order . A dying Edward the Sixth who was not of age , tried to alter the proper order ,but it was not legal , nor valid . So it was High Treason. And people , please bear in mind , if Jane Grey ascended to the throne more successfully , what do you think would have happened to Mary and Elizabeth ? They would have been killed. There is no way Jane could have left the two sisters alive . That's sixteenth century politics . It was brutal !

PROPAGANDA! The BS that her French hood looked like horns. Were they kidding?

Someones just called Anne Boleyn darstardly.....have they been watching whacky races? The strength of Anne shows in her daughter Elizabeth. Are there still Catholics that can truly hold up their heads after searching their black souls. To me an atheist they are no better than Muslim fundementalists!

@arredoa1

8 жыл бұрын

+Jacqueline fullwood : Go to hell....

@jacquelinefullwood346

8 жыл бұрын

What are you talking about you silly little man. No such place!

@nassauguy48

7 жыл бұрын

Stop trolling, you disgustingly ugly woman.

@mango2005

2 жыл бұрын

Elizabeth was also a persecutor later in her reign.

Mary’s having deja vu, not this again