Monica Donner
HI 480 Seminar
Dr. Thomas Mayer
11.09.00
Queen and Cardinal
This discourse examines why the gender of Mary I, despite her monarchical status,
determined her initial deference to her cousin, Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor, and her husband, Philip II .
Letters from Cardinal Reginald Pole’s appointed legations, the
Reconciliation of England (1553-1558) and the Peace of France and the Holy Roman
Empire, indirectly provide context to the patriarchal relationships between Charles V,
Philip II, and Mary I.
Her deference can be seen in matters such as her marriage to Philip, ordering her husband’s access to governmental powers, and whether to return England to
Catholicism under the control of the supreme pontiff. Once Cardinal Pole arrived in
England, Mary followed his advice in matters of religion until her death in September of
1558.
The view of gender in the sixteenth century allowed Mary I, Queen of England
(1553-1558) to be guided by the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V (1553-1556), and then her husband, Philip King of Spain (later Philip II of England) (1554-1558) because women were viewed as socially, intellectually, and morally disadvantaged from birth.
With the exception of Mary's accession to the throne, both men advised or directed her decision on various matters of religion, government, and marriage. However, Pole’s legation letters also show the lack of guidance Pole, as a sixteenth century cardinal, could

give Mary I as a queen. This discourse does not examine Mary’s relationship with
Cardinal Pole after he came to England at the end of November 1554. After Cardinal
Pole’s arrival in England, Mary as a devout Catholic took the advice of Cardinal Pole in matters of religion as befitting a female in the early modern era.
Mary was a product of a sixteenth century society that did not regard women as equals. Two of the most established authorities in England described and defined how women were subordinate to men, the church and the law. The church used what was regarded as the ‘social and political blueprint' 1 of this patriarchal society, the Bible. The
Bible confirmed this belief as cited in scripture, Genesis chapter two. First, Eve was created from Adam’s rib thereby created for man. Secondly, ‘Eve’s moral and intellectual weakness as the primary cause of the Fall’ was a precedent that was used as a reason for why women’s loss of power and independence in the secular world.
2 Thus, contemporaries did not strongly dispute this belief. Described by contemporary male authors, who believed that women were morally, intellectually, and physically deficient when compared to men 3 . For example, John Foxe, a leading contemporary writer, claimed it was the ‘will of God’ that it was so 4 . Other authorities on women that
1
Eales, Jacqueline, Women in early modern England, 1500-1700 , UCL Press Limited, London, 1998, 5.
2
Mendelson, Sara and Crawford, Patricia, Women in Early Modern England, 1550-1720 , Clarendon Press,
Oxford, 1998, 32.
3
Eales, op. cit., 3.
4
The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, rev. ed., s.v. “Mary Tudor”.

supported this view were Aristotle, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas 5 . The law borrowed from theology to rationalize why women were excluded from the political realm.
6 Consequently, politics and landed property went hand in hand. In most English counties landed property was inherited by the male heir through the rule of primogeniture.
Wives were to bear sons to ensure that land and titles stayed within the family. Mary I was raised in this society.
Regardless of Mary’s humanist education 7
, which reinforced the conventional teaching about patriarchal authority, her status as queen did not negate the social reality of her position as a woman and a future wife. Mary was an example of how even women of status worked within the social dynamics of the sixteenth century deferring to a man’s judgement in matters of importance. Mary cannot be compared to the rare exceptions of women who appeared to command their lives and those that lived around them, such as
Catherine de Medici or Mary’s successor and half-sister, Elizabeth I. Even Elizabeth lived under the social constraints of the sixteenth century seeking a husband until her late forties.
5
Eales, op. cit., 23.
6
Mendelson, op. cit., 33.
focus.
7
Eales, op. cit., 12. Humanist scholars advocated improved education for women, but still with a domestic

Unlike Elizabeth, Mary was in an unusual position for an English woman. She was the first acknowledged queen in England. In the twelfth century, Matilda asserted her claim to the throne as Henry I sole heir. However, her ‘reign’ was never recognized.
When she bore a son, Henry of Anjou, he received the crown and reigned during her lifetime. After Matilda’s failed attempt to govern England, most royal women asserted not their right to rule, but that of their son’s, such as Margaret, dowager of Richmond.
She aided her son’s claim to the crown of England, Mary’s grandfather, Henry VII. Men feared a female successor because of the civil war that occurred from Matilda’s claim.
8
Even so in 1537, when her brother Edward was born Mary, at the age of twenty-one, was made the second heir apparent solidified by her father’s will.
After the death of King Edward VI of England on 6 th of July, 1553, princess
Mary’s position became precarious, at best.
9 By the 10 th of July, 1553, Mary heard of
Edward’s death, unofficially, and proclaimed herself queen of England.
10 She seized power of the realm from Queen Jane Grey with the aid of her chief household officers,
Rochester, Jerningham, and Waldegrave.
11
8
Mendelson, op. cit., 350.
9
Loades, D. M., Mary Tudor: A Life (1989), 171 and 172. Edward VI’s will stated his disapproval of his sister, Mary, to succeed him on the throne primarily because she practiced Catholicism. There is some controversy because Edward VI did not write his will until he became quite ill, shedding light on the control the Duke of
Northumberland had on the young king.
10
Loades, op. cit., 175.
11
Loades, op. cit.,177.

Mary had written to her cousin the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, for advice and assistance. However, imperial assistance and advice 12 was not forthcoming for the emperor was awaiting the outcome of which queen, Jane or Mary, would retain the throne.
13 Nevertheless, on the 19 th of July, 1553 the council in London proclaimed Mary queen.
14
Mary I was left without a male relative to guide her through important events of her life, such as marriage. There was no relative in England for which Mary could seek guidance in such important matters of government or marriage. Mary’s education, structured by humanist scholars, such as Juan Luis Vives 15 , gave her intellectual knowledge in which she could theoretically grasp matters of government. Nevertheless,
‘practically speaking she would refer to a man’s judgement’ 16 . One might ask why Mary did not look towards her Privy Council for guidance? After all, they were learned men experienced in government. They could have guided her in making just decisions.
However, the social position of a woman mattered. The queen needed a man of similar or higher status to guide her.
12
Loades, op. cit., Charles V advice about the accession issue was received after Mary I needed the information. The advice was to take any offer even if it is conditional from Northumberland and the council.
Northumberland had entreated the French ambassador Antoine de Noailles to his cause believing the emperor would intervene on Mary’s behalf.
13
Loades, op. cit, 178.
14 ibid., 178.
15
Eales, op. cit., 42.
16
Loades, op. cit, 6.

Mary had a powerful male relative in Europe, her cousin, Charles V, Holy Roman
Emperor. Charles V was fortuitous to intercede in the role of counselor to his cousin
Mary for she ‘accepted that sovereignty was designed for men, with no regrets, for it was willed by God’ 17 . Consequently, Mary’s single status was very beneficial to him. The emperor’s familial ambitions could be realized through the marriage of England and his son, Philip. Also, Charles V desired the marriage between his son Philip and Mary to improve Philip’s self-tarnished reputation in the Netherlands 18
. The Netherlands and
England saw the Spanish in a negative light 19 . Lord Privy Seal William Paget, was the only member of Mary’s council that initially supported Philip as a marriage candidate 20 .
17
Loades, op. cit., 8.
18
Loades, D. M., The Reign of Mary Tudor: Politics, government, and religion in England, 1553-1558 , St.
Martin’s Press, New York, 1979, 114.
19
Maltby, William S., The Black Legend in England : The development of anti-Spanish sentiment, 1558-
1660, Duke University Press, Durham North Carolina, 1971, 15. The English and Netherlands were xenophobic thereby not desiring any foreign rule. However, Bartolomeo de Las Casas, a Spaniard, wrote nine treatises describing the cruelty and avarice of Spain..The fact that a Spaniard wrote of Spanish cruelty meant it had to be true. These treatises were eventually translated.
20
Loades, op. cit., 76.

Most of Mary’s council, led by Lord Chancellor Stephen Gardiner, put forth an
English candidate, Edward Courtenay. He was a Catholic from the family of York.
Courtenay had been placed in the Tower for several years under Edward VI reign. The council thought his intelligence would be an asset for their queen. At the age of thirtyseven, Mary would not have considered marriage as an option, but believed it to be her responsibility as a monarch. On July 29, imperial ambassador, Simon Renard, well aware of the emperor’s intentions began persuading the queen that if she were to marry, the emperor’s son, Philip, should be her choice 21 . It was almost a forgone conclusion that
Mary would agree with her cousin. She believed ‘England’s true interests’ were held by the Habsburgs, therefore their guidance and protection was sought after 22 . Likewise, she saw her cousin as a fatherly figure telling Renard ‘after God she would obey the emperor and would marry whomsoever he chose’ 23 . Eventually, Mary persuaded her own Council that there were no other candidates for her and no objections were heard thereafter.
21
Loades, op. cit., 110.
22
Loades, op. cit., 76.
23
Loades, Mary Tudor: A Life , 187.

Charles’ and the English negotiated the terms of the marriage contract between the two princes. The emperor and his advisers conceded extraordinarily generous terms to the
English while negotiating the marriage treaty to ensure that Philip would be accepted 24 .
Theoretically, the marriage treaty, stated below, nullified Philip’s role as a sixteenth century husband. Even, Philip’s Spanish council members and courtiers stated it was a humiliating marriage contract for a man of his stature. The treaty stated things such as he was not allowed to take his wife or his future children out of the country without the queen’s expressed consent. Philip was denied control over Mary’s appointments. ‘All benefits and offices, lands, revenues, and fruits’ of the realm remained in Mary’s control and given only to Englishmen. Finally, Philip was barred against bringing England into the war between the emperor and Henry II of France 25 . Mary’s council knew the importance of expressly stipulating and publicly stating the terms of the marriage treaty. It was accepted that husbands were the masters of their wives. It would be a hard pill for the
English to swallow if these terms were not expressly stipulated. Mary and Philip were wedded on July, 25, 1554. In spite of these terms, two days after the wedding, the Privy
Council stated that ‘a note of all such matters be made in Latin or Spanish from henceforth’ 26 provided for the king. Likewise, Mary ordered the Lord Privy Seal first, to
24
Starkey, David, The English Court: from the Wars of the Roses to the Civil War , Longman Group
Limited, United Kingdom, 1987, 142.
25 Redworth, Glyn, “Matters Impertinent to Women: Male and Female Monarchy under Philip and Mary,”
The English Historical Review VCXII, no. 447 (1997): 598-99.
26
Redworth, op. cit., 600.

tell the king all matters of the realm; second, to obey his commandments in all things; and lastly, if king asked his opinion on matters give it to him 27 .
Charles knew that once the marriage had been completed Philip would be able to persuade Mary on the issues that the English had contested. Mary’s concepts of how women in the sixteenth century interacted with men would not have been erased now that she was queen. Even though she competently ruled the English realm prior to her marriage, her husband had experience as regent of Spain since 1551. Therefore, Mary was glad to concede her queenly duties to her husband as seen in a letter Renard wrote to the emperor. Renard quoted the queen as saying ‘she wished [Philip] was here to take matters in hand’ 28 . The actions of Charles, Philip, and the Privy Council were normal in this contemporary era.
27
Redworth, op. cit., 601.
28
Loades, The Reign of Mary Tudor , 203.

In matters of religion, Mary’s actions once again show her conciliatory behavior to the emperor and now to her husband Philip. Being a fervent Catholic, Mary believed the souls of her subjects had to be saved and that meant England had to return to the Catholic faith under the direction of the pope in Rome 29 . Without apparent council, on 18 August
1553, Mary proclaimed that certain aspects of religion were to change henceforth. The changes concerned certain types of preaching that were to be inhibited and terms such as papists were now prohibited. Mary proclaimed to her counselors that she had every intention to restore papal jurisdiction to England 30 .Again in September of 1553, Mary expressed her desire to return the churches of England and Ireland back to the apostolic see, as it were before her father’s interventions 31 . She sent correspondence to Pope Julius
III and Cardinal Pole via papal envoys discussing this issue. Cardinal Pole wrote Mary congratulating her on her success of restoration, ‘you devoid of all human aid’ 32 . Cardinal
Pole’s implication to Mary was that her success thus far is due not to man, like her cousin
Charles V, but to God himself. However, until Cardinal Pole arrived in England Mary would listen to God, cousin, and husband.
29 Pogson, R. H. “Revival and Reform in Mary Tudor’s Church.” In The English Reformation, Revised, edited by C. Haigh, 139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
30
Loades, op. cit., 155.
31
Loades, Mary Tudor: A Life , 196.
32
The Correspondence of Reginald Pole , ed. Thomas F. Mayer (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, to appear beginning in 2002, 664.

Charles V, as well as her Privy Council, were taken aback by Mary’s primary desire to return England to the obedience of the Holy See in Rome. What this meant for
England was reverting control back to the pope as it was in pre-Henrician times. Renard, unsettled by the proclamation and the adverse effects it could have on Charles’ plans, understood that the reversal was not so simple. Many Englishmen owned former church lands. These lands were legitimately purchased through a normal real-estate market under the jurisdiction of common law
33
under the reign of Henry VIII. By 28 October, Mary wrote Pole that his newly appointed legation to restore obedience to England was ‘hateful to our subjects’ and must be delayed 34 . This letter, sent via Brussels, received the emperor’s approval before reaching Pole.
The change in Mary’s religious course of action must be noted. She began implementing religious change full force within England upon her ascendancy to the throne in July. Yet, by 6 September 1553, a letter written to Pole by Granvelle explained
Mary’s change of direction. ‘Emperor thinks it is the wrong time for a ‘a papal dependent’. Queen going to fast and forced to back down. English people need time to be reintroduced to the pope 35 ’. Every subsequent letter Mary sent to Cardinal Pole described the cautious nature she had now adopted and at times even mentioning her concern for her subjects keeping former church property.
33
Loades, The Reign of Mary Tudor , 45.
34
CRP, no. 747.
35
CRP, no. 677.

This instant change does not coincide with her past. During her brother’s reign she disobeyed parliamentary statutes and openly practiced Catholicism at her home. Her religious conviction never wavered when she could have been prosecuted for treason and executed. The religious change in England, through parliamentary statutes, can primarily be attributed to the involvement of Charles V. The hasty return of England to the Catholic fold in Rome could have disrupted the emperor’s marriage plans between Mary and
Philip. Likewise, too many disruptions at once could destabilize Mary’s throne.
By mid September, the consistory in Rome was made aware that England had more schismatics than the number of heretics and enemies of Rome. With this information, Pope Julius III postponed Pole’s legation to England to deal with a more immediate goal, the Franco-Habsburg peace 36 . Cardinal Pole was kept out of England until November of 1554.
In a series of legation letters the emperor’s influence can be seen on the queen. Mary responded to the pope that she was always ‘obedient and affectionate to apostolic see’. She did hope she and her bishop would be absolved before her coronation, but on the matter of dissolving the laws instituted by her brother that would have to wait 37 . Unlike Pole, Charles had his imperial ambassador, Renard, by the queen’s side relaying the emperor’s advice on a regular basis.
Pole was fit to be tied at this lack of progression concerning the legation to
England. He believed the delay dishonored the pope, himself, and Mary for him to be kept
36
Loades, Mary Tudor: A Life , 198.
37
CRP, no. 742.

in Germany. Pole stressed that the restoration of obedience was very important to Mary’s title as queen for without the pope’s role in legitimizing her mother’s marriage her title was precarious 38 . However, that was not the case in England. Mary’s legitimization was solid because of her father’s will.
38
CRP, no. 748.

A letter by Charles V to Pole on the eighth of November, stated Mary and the pope agreed that Pole should stop his trip to England 39 . Mary expressed similar sentiments in a letter dated 15 November 1553. Mary told Pole that he should delay his arrival to England for she feared for his safety. She reassured him that his legation was useful, but that things were going well on the religious front. Parliament had annulled all of Edward’s statutes concerning religion. Likewise, her mother’s marriage was declared legitimate
‘which gives the church a tacit approval because of the papal dispensation behind that marriage’ 40 . Mary used the parliament to rid England of her brother’s religious statutes and to reaffirm the legitimacy of her mother’s marriage to Henry VIII, not the Holy See and not Cardinal Pole.
Pole’s frustration with Mary was evident in late November 1553. He wrote that
‘other matters could not be dealt with concerning while the root of all problems was left untouched’ 41 . Further, her councilors did not heed the Gospel, God attended to all matters, however small 42 . Later in the same letter, Pole continued to berate the queen of England as if she was an insignificant, powerless nun in a convent.
39
CRP, no. 752.
40
CRP, no. 758.
41
CRP, no. 761.
42
CRP, no. 761.

A subsequent letter, dated 1 December 1553, showed Pole’s gender biased view of
Mary. Pole wrote Morone that ‘Mary is deluded if she thinks the parliamentary acts of legitimization and about the sacraments will ensure her ragione della corone or satisfy her conscience. She has not followed my advice’ 43 . However, Cardinal Pole’s view was common in the sixteenth century among clerics. At that time, women did not function in ministerial positions within the church, therefore, clerics supported a ‘separation of the domestic functions of women and the public duties of men’ 44 . The larger community would not share this view. Whatever Pole’s view, Mary proved that she was astute enough to realize that the advice of the emperor, who had ruled the empire since she was born, was more credible in governmental matters than the advice of a cardinal.
Mary’s lack of obedience must have frustrated Pole. Pole obviously believed Mary thought as he did concerning the reconciliation as recent as 2 October 1553. Per Pole’s letter to Mary, the queen believed that the obedience issue was not a civil matter and it was important to bring it up in the first Parliament 45 . However, by 28th of October 1553
Mary made it clear that Pole should delay his legation 46 .
43
CRP, no. 765.
44
Eales, 111.
45
CRP, no. 720.
46
CRP, no. 747.

Pole rightly attributed this apparent contradiction by Mary to Charles and Philip.
Pole addressed his letters to either Charles V or Philip to obtain admittance in England
47
. For example, Pole wrote Philip asking why he has not been allowed to return to England. It was up to
[Philip] to remove any fears Mary had about this legation
48
. Theoretically, Mary, as queen, was in control of England not Charles or Philip. Realistically, even Cardinal Pole knew that Charles and Philip had the power to decide if and when he was to return to England, as Mary’s most senior male relative and husband, respectively.
Loades contention that the imperial ambassadors, such as Simon Renard, abused the relationship between Mary and Charles V because she ignored the advice of her
English counsel does not ring true 49 . It was not the abuse of the imperial advisors for they were only relaying the emperor’s intentions. Mary saw the emperor as a fatherly figure.
He had effectively ran the Holy Roman Empire since 1519 50 . After her marriage to Philip, the queen and the Privy Council looked towards Philip, foreign or not, for advice on governmental concerns because he had experience as regent of Spain 51 .
Mary’s contemporary view of gender in the sixteenth century has to be weighed when explaining why she chose to listen to the emperor and her husband. What other reason can be given to answer, why Mary would not consult her Privy Council first and
47
CRP, no. 943, 939.
48
CRP, no. 939.
49
Loades, Mary Tudor: A Life, 195.
50
The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, rev. ed., s.v. “Charles V”
.
51
Redworth, 601/604.

foremost on serious governmental matters such as marriage or change of religion? If the answer is she was naive, innocent, or weak; it is not sufficient. The basis for that thought is to characterize Mary as an individual unlike other women of her time. Or conversely, she was weak, innocent, and naive because she was like the women of her time.
That characterization does not provide the answer to why Mary was influenced by her senior male relative, Charles V, or her husband, Philip instead of any English man in her council. I would argue that Mary’s change of religious direction, due to the emperor’s ambition of marriage, and her concession to her husband’s advice and decisions were due to her social perceptions of women. This perception that women were intellectually and morally disadvantaged was instilled through her education and reaffirmed by the Bible.
Initially, without the aid of her cousin, Mary resourcefully directed her chief household officers to gather support for her rightful claim to the crown of England.
Likewise, after her accession Mary made sound judgements in choosing her principal officers and appointing former Edwardian council members to her own council 52 . How can Mary be politically astute enough to pick her council yet be naive, innocent, and weak at the same time? Initially, why did Mary not listen to an eminent cardinal with extensive powers, given to him by the pope, on the most pressing religious matter in England?
She was intelligent enough to realize that the advice of her cousin and husband were more credible than a cardinal when governing a country. She chose the advice of the emperor and her husband because she was socially trained through religious teachings and
52
Loades, The Reign of Mary Tudor, 72 and 73.

reaffirmed through the law to concede and accept their advice.
Considering the choices she could have made her cousin and husband were experienced politicians that guided her decisions which effectively reduce the debt incurred by her brother Edward VI 53 . She married someone who could aid her country financially, and perhaps even politically since Philip had practical experience in government. Even though she was a fervent Catholic she brought about religious change through parliament and not the apostolic see, with the strong persuasion of the emperor and her husband.
Mary’s good listening habits did not always work out for the best, but her actions were predictable. She allowed her husband to use England to fight the French thereby losing the last English stronghold of Calais. The emperor was using Mary to ‘advance
Habsburg interest against the French’ thereby keeping England out of French hands 54 .
The fact that her cousin and husband utilized her new status of queen ship to further their diplomatic ambitions was not unexpected. This only reaffirms the role that gender played directly and indirectly in Mary’s life.
53
The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, rev. ed., s.v. “Mary Tudor.”
54
Loades, op. cit., 111.