Fictional characterization of Mary I, England’s first Queen regnant

FACULTAD de FILOSOFÍA Y LETRAS DEPARTAMENTO de FILOLOGÍA INGLESA Grado en Estudios Ingleses TRABAJO DE FIN DE GRADO Fictional characterization of Mary I, England’s first Queen regnant Alicia García García Tutora: Berta Cano Echevarría 2020/2021 Abstract The image of Mary Tudor has been vilified throughout the years with the propagation of several defaming texts and illustrations overshadowing her royal status and forgetting the humiliations and miseries she experienced alongside her father and afterwards during her reign. For this reason, this dissertation is aimed at examining the history of Mary and her representation as a fictional character. To do this, I used two historical books which describe in detail the life of Mary Tudor: Mary Tudor: A Life by David Loades and María Tudor: La Gran Reina Desconocida by María Jesús Pérez. In addition, I used three audio-visual resources in order to study the way she is characterized: Elizabeth I by Shekhar Kapur, Carlos, Rey Emperador by Oriol Ferrer and The Tudors by Michael Hirst. The historical analysis showed that despite her fame, her rule had a reasonably good outcome for England, whose principal objective was to fulfil her mother’s religious duty by restoring Catholicism in England. She was ‘’bloody’’, but just as the rest of the monarchs, since violence was a power tool very frequented by them at that time. The fictional research shows that Mary is characterized in different ways, being more positively represented lately. Keywords: Mary I, Bloody Mary, Elizabeth I, audio-visual fiction, Black Legend, characterization. Resumen La imagen de María Tudor ha sido denigrada a lo largo de los años con la difusión de distintos textos y representaciones difamatorias que ensombrecieron su estatus real y se omitieron las humillaciones y desgracias que María vivió al lado de su padre y posteriormente durante su reinado. Por esta razón, el presente trabajo analiza la historia de María y su caracterización como personaje ficticio. Para ello, he empleado dos libros históricos que describen la de manera detallada la vida de María: Mary Tudor: A Life de David Loades y María Tudor: La Gran Reina Desconocida de María Jesús Pérez. Además, he usado tres fuentes audiovisuales para analizar el personaje de María Tudor: Elizabeth I de Shekhar Kapur, Carlos, Rey Emperador de Oriol Ferrer y Los Tudor de Michael Hirst. El análisis histórico muestra que, a pesar de su fama, su reinado fue razonablemente positivo para Inglaterra, y que el principal objetivo era cumplir los asuntos religiosos de su madre restableciendo el Catolicismo en Inglaterra. Fue ‘sanguinaria’, pero no más que otros monarcas contemporáneos, ya que la violencia era una herramienta de poder habitual en el siglo XVI. El análisis de las representaciones hechas de ella en la literatura o el cine nos muestra caracterizaciones diversas de María Tudor, con una aproximación a su figura más positiva en los últimos años. Palabras clave: María I, María la Sangrienta, Bloody Mary, Elizabeth I, ficción audiovisual, Leyenda Negra, caracterización. List of Contents Introduction 1 Part 1: Historical study of Mary I 3 Chapter I: Historic Background 4 1.1 Dynastic Precedence 4 1.2 Catherine’s and Mary’s separation from the court. 5 Chapter II: Mary I, a life of obstacles 8 2.1 Mary as a Princess 2.2 Mary as a bastard 2.3 Mary as a Queen 8 11 13 Part 2: Fictional analysis of Mary I Chapter III: Mary’s Characterization in Elizabeth I by Shekhar Kapur & its propagation of the ‘Black Legend’ 18 19 Chapter IV: The Character of Mary in The Tudors by Michael Hirst 25 Chapter V: Representation of Mary in Carlos, Rey Emperador by Oriol Ferrer & the character’s gender roles controversy 29 Conclusion 35 Reference list 36 1 Introduction Mary Tudor, England’s first-ever queen regnant, has recently been a figure of great interest for several historians who defend her position over the defamation campaign born around her character. Traditionally, Mary Tudor has been subscribed to the belief of being a sanguinary queen who felt no piety for heretics and brought misfortune to England. The promotion of texts degrading the image of Mary and depicting her as a vindictive tyrant have caused such an impact on history, that her view as an awful Queen has persisted to the present day. Her fame has been so vilified that people mostly refer to her as ‘Bloody Mary’ or ‘Mary Tudor’ instead of ‘Mary I’ (Hunt, pp. 1324). However, recent studies are analysing her case and trying to find why this ‘black legend’ was originated, demonstrating that Mary Tudor was not as horrible as they made us think she was. The specific objective of this study is to explore the representation of Mary Tudor in contemporary fiction, predominantly in series and movies. Regarding historical resources, there are two books I have focused on to investigate her background and history: Mary Tudor: A Life by David Loades and Maria Tudor, La Gran Reina Desconocida by Maria Jesús Pérez. Both books go deep into the history of England and the life of Mary Tudor, containing a lot of background information too. However, each book has an opposing understanding of Mary’s historiography, since Loades gives a more analytic and strict description while Pérez interprets Mary’s history in a more emotional way. Moreover, there exists plenty of texts addressing Mary’s life and providing the origin of the ‘Black Legend’ like The Book of Martyrs by John Foxe, whose defaming stories against Mary were considered ‘the most convicing, and certainly the most absorbing account of the Marian persecution to reach the English public’ (Hargrave 7). Thus, the negative impact on her image has endured over time. The causes of Mary’s bad reputation have been a controversial and lately disputed subject among historians. We need to take into consideration that most of the extant texts that were written about Mary are defamatory. According to Hunt, the work of Doran & Freeman relates quite well to this controversy (1325). Hunt describes Freeman’s volumes: The first one called Inventing Bloody Mary considers the negative perspectives of Mary, which sought to associate her reign with cruelty and tyranny. The second volume, Burning Zeal addresses issues, like the burnings of heretics, and tries to give a more reasonable view of what it was ‘natural’ at that time. Hunt states that Mary 2 deserves the judicious and careful attention she is now being given and suggests that the defamatory promulgation of her image should ‘demand scrutiny’. In this dissertation we will focus our analysis on some contemporary texts and resources where the fictional ‘’Bloody Mary’’ image has persisted. Nonetheless, there will be a number of resources to be analysed in which we will see a more positive characterization of Mary. There are a lot of references regarding the ‘’diabolic’’ representation of Mary: we can find her character in video games, for instance, as a playable Hunter in ‘Identity V’, a survival horror game. In addition, there was a recent attraction which contributes to the propagation of Mary’s killer queen stereotype in an exhibition in The London Dungeon, shown from 2010 to 2013 (Robert Stephen, Endymion page). The options I chose to examine Mary’s fictional character are: Elizabeth (1998), an intriguing movie which relates the first years of Queen Elizabeth I after Mary’s death; we also get to see the character of Mary in the series The Tudors (Showtime TV, 2007-2010) and in Carlos, Rey Emperador (Diagonal TV 2015-2016). The selection of sources is intended to provide a distinction between Mary’s characterizations in modern fiction. Structurally, the main aim is to display a detailed analysis of Mary as a fictional character. The work will be divided into two parts: the first part will describe the history of Mary and her ancestors and the second part will analyse the character of Mary in fiction. Each part will be subdivided into chapters. 3 PART 1 HISTORICAL STUDY OF MARY I 4 Chapter I: Historic Background. 1.1 Dynastic Precedence. The Tudors have constantly been chased by the spectres of infertility and dynastic failure (Loades 9). The accession of Henry VIII caused a general rejoice in England, as ‘for only the second time since 1327, there was no a lawful heir capable of assuming urgent responsibility’ (Loades 10). His marriage to Catherine of Aragon was not contemplated as a ‘good move’, considering the issue of Catherine’s first marriage to Henry’s elder brother Arthur. It can be argued that Henry did good things for his country, however, his treatment of his wives and his daughter Mary is considered an abomination. According to Pérez, Henry was never surrounded by the appropriate counsellors, who seemed to take advantage of the King’s trust in order to benefit their own interests. In the book La Gran Reina Desconocida, the author mentions a significant figure whose name is John Skelton, a poet and tutor to Henry VIII, who expressed his thoughts against Henry’s ambassadors, by publishing various poems full of metaphors and allegories denouncing their indifferent, self-interested behaviour (70). There is a passage in the book which exposes the malicious intentions of Cardinal Wolsey, the King’s chief adviser, who attempted to destroy and neutralise any other courtiers’ influence, adopting different strategies to win the favour of powerful characters. With respect to Mary I’s parents, Catherine of Aragon and Henry VIII, Catherine was a devote Catholic queen who always looked for the sake of her daughter, giving her an exquisite education surrounded by women. She was the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, the Catholic Monarchs, who sent her to England in search of an English alliance. Pérez states the awful experience Catherine lived in England (31). Her arrival to England caused a great enthusiasm and she was honourably welcomed. She married Arthur, first prince of the Tudor royal family, but he died at a young age, presumably not consummating their marriage. After that dreadful event, soon Catherine would be ignored and addressed in an indifferent, careless manner (Pérez 27). The tensions between Spain and England increased, Catherine was desperately willing to come back home alongside their family but Henry VII holds her ‘prisoner’ in the country, aspiring to marry Catherine to one of his children, so he would obtain the appealing Spanish dowry. Fortunately, her marriage with Henry VIII brought 11 2.2 Mary as a bastard. By 1528, it was publicly well-known Henry VIII’s intentions with Anne Boleyn. The worst is yet to come for Mary, as she would be illegitimated and retired all honours. As Pérez points out, the actual foe during these years was Anne Boleyn, who had great influence in Henry’s political, spiritual and parental decisions. Loades notes that perhaps her attitude towards Mary and Catherine was not ‘an act of malice, but a sensible move to protect her own interests’ (77). Anne, being well aware of how widely acclaimed Mary was, even by her father, who appeared to show affection for her, needed to destroy that connection (Pérez 165). Around 1529 Henry VIII starts his personal litigation against the Pope, arguing that his marriage to Catherine is a grave sin and it is necessary his future engagement with Anne, since it would bring fortune and what it was most essential, a male heir. It will not be until 1534, when the Pope emitted the verdict in favour of Catherine’s rights. However, Henry’s egotistic royal supremacy and the schism with Rome were being gradually consolidated over the kingdom (Pérez 178). In 1531, Mary gets to see her mother, being together for one month. After that, Mary falls ill, suffering from an indigestion which produced her sharp stomach aches. It was quite coincidental that her pains occurred just after her parents’ definitive separation (Pérez 186). A year later, Mary falls ill again, being also attributed to the humiliating situations she and her mother were going through. Catherine and Mary would never give up their royal rights; something which enraged Henry in a way, that he would not allow Mary to see her mother again. On mid-1533, it was already a rumour that Mary would be deprived from her Princess title, being called ‘Lady Mary’. However, Henry VIII would not take the plunge until the birth of Anne’s child (Pérez 191). On September 1533 Anne gives birth to Elizabeth. Henry felt deeply disappointed but it was time to resolve royal affairs between the two daughters. The title of Princess was now given to Elizabeth. Mary will never approve it and will confront her father several times (Pérez 193). As a consequence, after various retaliations, finally her household and rent will be reduced. On December 1533, Mary is given a decisive order: she must join the House of Elisabeth at Hatfield. Mary acceded, not before demanding she was forced to renounce her rights and accept against her will a possible disadvantageous marriage. All the close servants Mary was surrounded by were moved away. Only a few will 12 accompany her, having to say good bye to her dear second mother, the Countess of Salisbury (Pérez 193). When they arrived at Hatfield, Mary was asked if she would be pleased to show respects to the new Princess of Wales. The two and a half years Mary spent at Hatfield were one of the most offensive, dreadful and terrifying of her life. Loades writes: During her stay at Elisabeth’s household ‘Mary was an affliction to herself, and everyone with whom she had to deal’ (82). She would have to stand gross behaviours and resist floods of humiliations and harassments. In addition, she would not even be allowed to see her mother or to go out, as there were masses of people claiming her name and seeming to be quite in favour of her; so Anne could not permit that (Pérez 199). The main objective was to cripple Mary’s existence until she gave up her defiant behaviour and accept Anne as her Queen. The concern Mary and Catherine had about being poisoned increased. On autumn 1535, Catherine fell sick and a year after, on 7 January she died. Chapuys, the Emperor’s ambassador who supported Catherine and specially Mary during this period, will assure that Catherine was poisoned. Mary, shattered by pain and with her heart broken, desperately begged in vain to see her body (Pérez 252, 253). Related to the Succession Act, Mary’s denial in signing the document would be threatened by death. However, Henry’s ‘affectionate values and interests’ kept her alive (Loades 90). The fall of Anne becomes clearer after her miscarriage of a son and an adultery accusation, which ends up with her execution on 19 May 1536 (Loades 99). After her death, Mary thinks it is the moment to reconcile with her father. However, it will be a hard issue to achieve, because Henry will only accept the reconciliation if Mary obeys to all of his wishes. Mary would have to accept her father’s ecclesiastical supremacy and the nullity of her mother’s marriage. ‘The pressure was cruel, which gave Mary insomnia, toothache and neuralgia’. She finally signed on 22 June (Loades 102). As soon as Mary’s submission was known, relief and rejoice were followed: she received gracious messages from her father and Jane Seymour, the new King’s wife. After all the traumatic events Mary endured, the year 1536 ended quietly (Loades 107). It was October 1537 when Jane gave birth to the eagerly awaited son, Edward, who was declared heir to the throne. Nevertheless, Rome stated the illegitimacy of Edward, since he was born during a period of schism from the Church, but England will not take this objection seriously. Mary no longer was the immediate heir and many of her admirers lost interest on her. Jane died a few days after she gave birth, as she developed puerperal fever (Loades, 114). Meanwhile, in 1539 Cromwell and Cranmer will try to vanish 13 Mary’s catholicity by suggesting the king to marry his daughter to a Lutheran prince, Philipp of Bavaria. When Philipp visits England on December 1539, he pleased Mary somehow, except for one thing: he was Lutheran and therefore, enemy of her cousin Charles. Several months later, Henry brakes his negotiations with Philipp, although this latter will insist on marrying Mary (Pérez 333). Mary would be usually visiting the court during this time, but a dangerous illness made it impossible for her to attend the wedding of Henry and Anne of Cleves. Then, Henry married his fifth wife, Catherine Howard, a few days after Cleves’ marriage annulment. However, in 1541 Catherine Howard is arrested and beheaded three months later. In July 1543 Mary attended her father’s last wedding to Catherine Parr, with whom she maintained an affectionate relationship (Loades 116, 117). Since the death of her mother, Mary suffered of frequent emotional crises, boosted with the loss of many of her associates. After the execution of most Mary’s close friends, regarding the Exeter plot, Chapuys added: ‘It would seem that they want to leave her as few friends as possible’. From 1541 on, Mary will be experiencing depressive episodes depending on the situation she is presented. On 1542 she contracted a strange fever that almost took her life. She will recover from that, but never completely: she did not have her father’s entire trust and her unpredictable marriage was quite frustrating (Pérez 341). The uncertainty of Mary’s health during this period influenced directly to her scholarship. In 1543 she was reported to be ‘very ill due to a colic’ and on summer 1544, she would not be feeling quite well. The wars against France began in 1542, ended in 1544 but Henry continued alone until 1546, when the Treaty of Ardres was signed. By this time, Mary had acknowledged her position in the succession line: all her rights would go after Edward’s. However, the Catholic Europe could just see Mary as the only legitimate heir, although finally most of the European parliaments except Rome considered Edward legitimate (Pérez 371). According to Pérez, when Henry dies in January 1546, Mary must have felt an extraordinary sense of freedom; more independence and even got closer to her brother Edward (374). 2.3 Mary as a Queen. By the end of 1548, the council was developing a growing concern upon Mary’s ‘ostentatious devotions’, which were definitely opposed to their policy. Mary had no intention of changing her conscience, since she was ‘obeying her father’s laws’. In fact, 14 it was the council and not herself or Edward, which was breaking the settlement. In so doing, she became the unquestioned leader of the ‘Catholic party’ (Loades 142, 143). When the Act of Uniformity came into effect, it is revealed what a serious political threat Mary had become. However, the Emperor’s support will accompany her positively and as the summer of 1553 advanced, the prospect of her succession will cause intense unease (Loades 170). When Edward died on July 1553, the country was religiously divided between Catholics and Protestants. By the terms of Henry VIII, Mary was the heir and her accession by this time was generally expected. However, Edward would never let Mary to succeed him, as he began to see her as a possible threat due to her Catholic conservatism. It is believed the duke of Northumberland was the responsible for this agreement, since he had much influence in Edward’s political decisions (Loades 171). It was then pronounced that Jane Grey would succeed Edward instead of Mary or Elizabeth, whose hereditary claims were superior to those of Grey’s. Coincidentally, Jane’s husband was the duke of Northumberland’s fifth son, Guildford Dudley. Unfortunately for Jane, there was quite dislike of the Duke and his schemes in contrast with the increasing widespread support for Mary (Loades 177). Her reign lasted 9 days; and then Military campaigns started to be arranged in order to expel Jane from the throne. By the 19th July the Duke learned that the council in London had proclaimed Mary Queen. In August she would be arriving at London where she was honourably received. Finally, the Duke and his close associates were imprisoned and some of them, including the Duke himself and Jane Grey were later executed (Loades 180). It was time to proceed upon the vital issues of Religion, marriage and foreign policy. Mary first needed to consolidate her position, regarding how unstable her subjects were. She first had to win her subjects hearts by showing them ‘her dedication for the kingdom’s welfare’. Therefore, she would force no one to go to mass, only those who wished could do so. Thus, the restoration of Catholicism adopted a step-by-step policy. However, Mary finally ‘ruined’ it by pushing her policies along faster (Loades 323). In the meantime, it was necessary to find aid and protection for the queen, since her woman condition urged to marry her as soon as possible. Charles I would be pleased to suggest an advantageous marriage for her. Nevertheless, Loades notes that Mary declared ‘not to be interested in marrying, but she had to recognize it as a public responsibility’ (187). Therefore, Charles suggests his son Philip to leave the marriage negotiations with Portugal and to try luck in England instead. Philip accepts, and Mary would definitely follow the advice of his ‘second-father’ Charles to marry Philip. 15 However, there was a considerable repudiation against foreign monarchs and a conspiracy plot against their marriage was carried out (the Wyatt rebellion in 1554). As a consequence, over 100 rebels were executed. On the summer 1554 Philip arrived to England and had his first encounter with Mary. According to Loades, probably Mary was more impressed with this encounter than he was. On July, their nuptials were celebrated in Winchester cathedral (226). The terms of the marriage treaty would not let Philip intercede independently in English political affairs. That is, Philip would not have independent jurisdiction in England, and could only do what Mary asked or allowed him to do. Although Mary professed true affection and dutiful obedience towards her husband, she never granted Philip any effective authority. Mary never carried out Philip’s interests unless they corresponded with her own; thus ‘she supported him on the war against France in 1557 but she would never give him a coronation’ (Loades 318). Perhaps Mary was pretty much concerned about the public hostility against a foreign monarch. Spanish and Italian observers described Philip’s position as dishonourable and believed that Mary ‘enjoyed little real authority’ because all matters of importance were decided by the council (again, her woman condition could not take more than a moderate part in some issues). In addition, she would distrust of a great part of her subjects; and she had to come to the throne without almost any confidants. Mary’s council was more factious than most Tudors councils (Loades 320). Mary’s effectiveness in managing her own affairs varied considerably, which depended mostly on her mood and her state of health. Everything gets worse after the failure of her pregnancy in 1555 and later in 1556. Pérez states that Mary suffered of a false pregnancy whose symptoms were based on a stomach and period disorders. There was a lot of expectation waiting for Mary to give birth; there were even rumours that she would bear a son, and for a moment everyone believed it was true. Desperately, Mary would have to convince herself about her failure (Pérez 685). To make matters worse, a few days later Philip would have to move to Flanders, abandoning Mary from August 1555 until March 1557 (Pérez 697). These events made her suffer of a hysterical condition that put her in the verge of collapse. Moreover, once the papal jurisdiction was restored, there was big preoccupation as it could lead to conflict or even rebellion. Therefore, the Queen set down a number of priorities for the church: the Queen decided that heretics should be burned, ‘and lent the full weight of her royal authority to the process’. The punishment of heretics was a moral issue, rather than political for Mary (Loades 323). Nonetheless, there were Protestants who accused Gardiner of persuading 16 the Queen in the belief that as long as there remains a single heretic on the country, her son would never be born (Pérez 691). Loades points out that perhaps Mary was fulfilling a personal revenge, because not only heretics and the schism destroyed the peace of England but also destroyed Mary’s personal happiness, having to go through embarrassing humiliations, threats and much psychological pain (324). After theses punishments, people began to call her ‘Bloody Mary’. However, it may be that Mary was somehow reluctant to order executions, as she issued a number of pardons against the advice of her council: ‘Certainly many were pardoned who could hardly have expected clemency’ (Loades 335). Far from being ‘bloody’, Loades notes: ‘Mary was the most merciful of the Tudors and some people believed that if the case had been left only in her hands, it is possible the conspirators would not have suffered the extreme penalties’. In spite of Loades statements, he does not exculpate Mary of her total awareness regarding the burnings (335). Most of her clemency gestures were shown at the beginning of her reign, but as time went by, her government became harsher. Mary regarded heresy as the most repulsive crime, because it corrupted the spiritual values of individuals. But she did not only carry out persecutions and terrible policies; in many respects Mary also was an amiable soul: ‘piety was the most conspicuous feature of the image she represented to the world. Piety and courage […]’ (Loades 331). Numerous schools were founded during her reign: Mary directed her patronage to the development of education and universities, with grants to the university of Oxford and Trinity College and Cambridge (Loades 330). However, after her death in 1558, a ‘black legend’ of corruption, mismanagement and national betrayal was being fervently promoted. ‘Her veneration for Charles, Philip and the suspicious behaviour towards her council were reasons enough, but they could have been pardoned’ (Loades 338). Nevertheless, the execution of around 300 heretics and the loss of Calais, a very strategic place of English economic trade, were the most sounded protests against her reign. Mary could expect no mercy from the Government that succeeded her, since Elisabeth brought back the Anglican Church and by 1563 John Foxe already published ‘the most negative indictment of Mary and her policies’ (Loades 339). The ‘black legend’ promotes how cruel and disastrous she and her policies were. As Pérez notes, the defamatory work of John Foxe The Book of Martyrs was a piece of Protestant apology published in 1563, which became the third Protestant Gospel and will spread a sanguinary vision of Mary calling her ‘Bloody Mary’. In spite of that, Mary did not only fail because her policies were 17 wrong; she also had to deal with the worsts harvests and epidemics of the century and died before her restoring work had any chance to advance. To Foxe, these misfortunes were proof enough of how wrong she was doing, which laid the foundation of the ‘black legend’. If we take a rapid general look over the life of Mary, we might realize how miserable she was, not only during her childhood and adolescence but also during her last period of life. Nonetheless, recent studies such as the book Mary I: Gender, Power, and Ceremony in the Reign of England’s first Queen (2012) by Sarah Duncan have shown a rehabilitated image of Mary, demonstrating that she was a powerful Queen with a decisive and strong character to face her own father and to preserve her mother’s catholic legacy (Walton,The American Historical Review). Besides, Mary’s decision of marrying the man she considered the best (in spite of provoking acute public discomfort) and with whom she shared an ‘equal’ politic role should be seen as a progressive move, given the strict social thoughts at that time. We have acknowledged that Mary’s life was not easy, but she also enjoyed her privileges as the Princess and Queen of England, being exquisitely educated and quite acclaimed along her loyal subjects. 18 PART 2 FICTIONAL ANALYSIS OF MARY I 19 Chapter III: Mary’s Characterization in Elizabeth I by Shekhar Kapur & its propagation of the ‘Black Legend’ The film is a biographical drama based on the early years of Elizabeth I, after Mary I’s death (XVI). It was written and designed by Michael Hirst, an English screenwriter and producer, and directed by Shekhar Kapur, a director and actor born in Lahore, British India. The movie lasts 123 minutes and it was shot in the UK. It was released in about 94 countries, enjoying then a great audience. In addition, the film was quite successful; winning a total of 31 awards and being 55 times nominated: it won an Oscar for ‘The Best Makeup’ and the BAFTA award for ‘Best British Film’, International Movie Database (IMDb). A critic review in the Washington Post described the film as ‘stylistically fascinating’. Some users’ reviews in FilmAffinity say that Elizabeth (1998) should not be seen as a completely reliable historical recreation, but as a charming and entertaining period film with some documentary aspects. There were used 25 million dollars to make the film, which raised a total 82 million dollars after the release. The main character is Elizabeth, played by Cate Blanchett, an outstanding Australian actress born in 1969. She is one of the few actresses that has won the 3 most important film awards: 2 Oscars, 3 Golden Globes and 3 BAFTA awards. The actress who plays Mary is Kathy Burke, born in Camden, London in 1964. Burke attended the Maria Fidelis Secondary School in Euston and she was encouraged to enrol at the Anna Scher Theatre School. When she was 17, she was spotted by film director Mai Zetterling to appear in the film Scrubbers (1982). In 2002, she took a break from acting to concentrate on theatre directing. Since then, she has only acted occasionally. In contrast to Blanchett, Burke has not been granted with such honourable awards yet, but she won ‘Best Actress’ at the Cannes Film Festival and was nominated for a BAFTA for ‘Best Actress in a Leading Role’ (IMDb). It is quite shocking how the movie starts: In 1554 with the burnings of heretics. Mary and her council are imposing Catholicism by torturing Protestants till death. Scenes of death, misery and disgrace show how sanguinary and tyrannical Mary’s reign was being. Elizabeth, being suspicious of committing treason, is ordered to be taken into Mary’s castle in order to confess about her crimes. On the way to that place, the setting is totally scary and dark; it even looks like a terror attraction. 20 (1). A heretic asking for help while being burnt (00.03:58). (2). Heretics being burnt at the stake (00:04:20). (3). Decapitated head in Mary’s Castle (00:11:28). (4). Elizabeth about to be judged by Mary’s council (00:11:46). Mary wants Elizabeth to confess about her presumable crimes against her. Moreover, she will desperately beg Elizabeth to uphold the Catholic Church when she dies. We see a mad Mary who has recently been told about her false pregnancy, which is actually a tumour. Besides, Philipp has abandoned her already, which intensifies the pain. After a tense conversation, Mary decides to imprison Elizabeth, because the latter does not want to fulfil Mary’s religious wishes. Later, in 1558 Mary dies of a cancerous tumour in her womb and consequently, Elizabeth becomes Queen of England. Mary’s first and only appearances take place at the beginning of the film, and she is presented as an afflicted, sick, old aged Queen who hates heretics, for whom she already started a persecution in order to restore the Catholic faith in England. Mary’s mood shows a depressive, resentful, insane and paranoiac behaviour, regarding her gestures, temper and looks. Wearing dark colours and surrounded by a dark scenario, Mary looks quite ill both psychologically and physically. 27 maintain a good friendship with Mary, similar to that of Cleves’ and Seymour’s. Regarding the physical representation and personality of Mary, they seem to be quite positive: a beautiful, richly dressed young woman with an impressive serene, elegant mood. She might recall us to Ángela Cremonte, the woman who plays Mary in Carlos, Rey Emperador, as they both have blue eyes and blonde hair (although Mary Tudor’s eyes were brown actually). Besides, it is really interesting how malleable her character is, regarding the age of the actress. Sarah Bolger was 17 when she started on the series and 19 at the grand finale. Therefore, she is playing a character who is much older than her (especially in season 4), but we may perceive (perhaps thanks to makeup) certain evolution in her physic, supporting the actual physical decadence of Mary Tudor. Throughout the series, Mary shows a great variety of outfits which empowers her royal figure as Princess. She does not only wear dark colours as we see in Elizabeth. Although in Carlos, Rey Emperador Mary’s costumes are quite rich, they are not as embellished as in The Tudors. In every episode, Mary would be wearing a different look. In contrast to the film Elizabeth and Carlos, Rey Emperador Mary’s psychology appears to be quite stable and normal, not being represented as a mad woman with depressive disorders. (11). Mary Tudor is being courted by Philip of Baviera (Season 3, Ep. 8). (12). Mary Tudor chatting with Anne of Cleves (Season 3, Ep.8) 28 There are some evidences in the series that reveal Mary’s hatred against Heretics, thus manifesting her darker inner side: ‘I will do whatever it takes, I will burn however many heretics I have to’. However, she is more presented as a victim throughout the show, being separated from her mother and stripped from her princess title, as well as having to endure certain humiliations. Hirst wants to give a fresh view of Mary by showing her sensitive, kind side and by dressing her with brilliant clothes and jewels, but he does not forget to point out her problematic feelings. In fact, this positive portrayal has to do with her being characterized in the early years of her life, before she becomes queen and suffers her delusional pregnancy. Then, it is a more innocent Mary, mostly represented as a victim because she had no power. 29 Chapter V: Representation of Mary in Carlos, Rey Emperador by Oriol Ferrer & its Gender roles controversy Carlos, Rey Emperador, is a Spanish historical fiction television series which narrates the story of Charles V, one of the most powerful men of Europe in the 16th century and a great influential figure in Mary’s life. The series is the continuation of the Spanish historical fiction series Isabel, based upon the reign of Isabella I of Castile. Carlos, Rey Emperador was directed by Oriol Ferrer and produced by Diagonal TV. The series was shot in Spain and counts with 17 episodes. It was released in September 2015 and it was also released in countries like India, Mexico and Italy. The series was quite successful; it won 7 awards and was 4 times nominated: it won the International Film Music Critics Award (IFMCA) for ‘Best Original Score for a Television Series’, the ACE Awards for ‘TV- Best Director’. Some user’s reviews points that Carlos, Rey Emperador ‘recreates faithfully the historical facts about Charles V’ and is ‘so well written and well executed’ (IMDb). Vertele describes the series as a ‘dignísima sucesora de Isabel que a buen seguro emplazará a los fieles seguidores de las series históricas.’ (FilmAffinity). The actress who plays Mary Tudor is Ángela Cremonte, born in Madrid in 1985. She is known for her roles in Spanish series like Los hombres de Paco, Las chicas del cable and Amar es para siempre. Cremonte studied dramatic art in Réplika Teatro and humanities in the University of Carlos III, both settled in Madrid. Her first debut in the big screen was in 2000, in the film Más pena que Gloria by Victor García León. Cremonte also shows great interest on theatre, having participated in around 12 plays. In 2016, she was nominated for ‘Best Feminine Interpretation’ in Premios Teatro de Rojas. Currently, she had her debut as a writer, with the novel Todos mienten a la noche (El Español). In the series we get to see the character of Mary on various episodes. There are two of them with great relevance, since they are linked to the last stage of Mary’s life as well as of the main character, Charles V. Along the series, Mary appears in her three official roles: as heir to the throne, as Lady Mary and subsequently as Queen. Episode 16 puts us in the context when it is proposed that she marries Philip of Spain. There was urgency in finding a husband for Mary because if she did not have descendants, then her half-sister Elizabeth would be very likely to take the throne. Mary complains and asks 30 why this insistency in finding a husband for her, presenting absolutely no interest in marrying: - Mary: ‘Europa entera parece empeñada en casarme. La corona de Francia también me ha procurado un pretendiente’. - Fernando de Alba: ‘¿De tan alto rango como el heredero del César? ¿Y a quién se le alegarán las Españas, Las Indias, Nápoles y Sicilia?’ - Mary: ‘Un hombre, al fin y al cabo. Cuya compañía no sé si me será grata ¿Por qué la soledad es tenida como falta, si es regalo? But the moment she saw the portrait of Philip, her lips tenderly smiled as if she saw something really beautiful. Philip arrives to England and Mary looks really excited. But Philip does not want to sign their marriage covenant, because it was very dishonourable for him. In spite of being in distress, Mary will politely explain the reasons: the English feared that given the huge power of Philip, the kingdom would be subjected to his will. Finally, Philip agrees and Mary, with tears in her eyes, smiles with gratitude. On 25 July 1554 it will take place their marriage. After that, there is a scene where Mary and Phillip are standing in a room, about to consummate their marriage. The time for Philip to visit Flanders arrived, and it is just right before Philip’s departure when Mary confesses her pregnancy. Several days later, Philip arrives and Mary receives him with very bad news: she lost the baby. However, the duke of Alba informs Philip that her pregnancy never existed. Thus, he suggests Mary to consider Elizabeth the next successor, but Mary resentfully denies it. Mary expresses her hatred against Elizabeth, as her mother brought misery both to herself and her mother. Seeing that Philip did not like her reaction, she confesses her love towards him. Philip persuades her saying that love does not only mean to enjoy each other’s body but also to make sacrifices for that person you love. Here we might perceive some controversy regarding the gender roles of Philip and Mary, since Philip needs the Queen’s approval before taking any political or military decision, ‘degrading’ somehow his position as King of England. However, her weakness for Philip will determine her feminine role as the ‘poor woman who falls in love with a man who does not love her back’. Moreover, in episode 16 Philip refuses to sign the marriage contract, but Fernando de Alba informs 31 him about his possibility in persuading Mary to grant him the legislative power he deserves, as Mary seems already to be in love with him: - Fernando de Alba: ‘Veis un poder aunque no esté escrito. Desde que le mostré vuestro retrato, quedó prendada de vos.’ - Philip: ‘¿Me pedís que actúe como las hembras, que gane mi influencia en el lecho?’ - Fernando de alba: *Nods* Therefore, Philip is adopting the feminine role, using his beauty and attractiveness in order to fulfil his interests. That is why Mary would publicly give Philip the royal rights he asked for. By this time England would have already restored papacy. Meanwhile, England wants to sign a treaty of peace with France, but this latter will never accept, deciding to attack Naples. Along episode 17 Philip and Mary will have a loud argument debating upon her succession and the threats of Mary Stuart as a possible candidate to marry the Dauphin. However, Mary would never nominate Elizabeth her next successor, since she keeps on believing that one day, she would be pregnant. In regards to war against France, Mary and the council would grant their help to Philip’s troops. The results were not favourable at all; they lost the port of Calais, which was a heavy blow for the English trading system. Regarding Mary’s mood and feelings, most of her afflictions come from her love towards Philip: she loves him so much; she cannot deny any of his petitions except the idea of nominating Elizabeth as her successor. She would enrage if Philip dared to mention Elizabeth. Besides, Mary has to endure the fact that Philip does not love her back in the same way. In addition, during her argument with him in episode 17, Mary reproaches his absence questioning how she would get pregnant if he was not by her side: ‘¡¿Cómo engendrar de un marido ausente?!’ Despite for openly expressing her resentment against those whom humiliated her in the past, she would mostly show a submissive behaviour; being prudent and serene. Mónica Calderón, historical consultant from the series presents a historical review of Mary where it is revealed Philip’s actual indifference and sexual dislike for his wife. Calderón notes: ‘Philip’s associates described Mary as ‘ugly, aged, scrawny and quite sourpuss. Moreover, Calderón points: ‘Philip ordered Tiziano erotic paintings in order to overcome the lack of desire he felt 32 towards his wife’ (RTVE page). In the series, Philip has a persuading role. It might seem he likes Mary, but his indifferent attitude is too obvious, taking advantage of his sentimental influence to gain her favour in political and military issues. Furthermore, regarding the false pregnancy of Mary in the series, Philip will make an allusion to her mother, Catherine, as she also struggled during her pregnancies: ‘Su vientre estaba maldito’. ‘Hoy se la conoce como María ‘la sanguinaria’ y lo fue, aunque ni más ni menos que el resto de monarcas de su tiempoporque la violencia era una herramienta de poder, como lo era la diplomacia-, pero detrás de las leyendas e incluso de los hechos contrastados, hay siempre una historia mucho más grande que siempre, siempre merece ser contada.’ (Calderón, RTVE). There are some incongruities and historical inconsistencies in the series that should be commented upon, for instance when Philip travels to Flanders and Mary tells him about her pregnancy just the day of his departure. This is not what it actually happened as Philip knew since the beginning about Mary’s ‘pregnancy’: ‘Not only did she desperately want a child, but she was also well aware that Philip was waiting only for her condition to be resolved before departing to the Netherlands’ (Loades 251). In addition, it did not take days for Philip to arrive from Flanders, but a whole year. According to Perez, if Philip departed to the Netherlands in 1556, he would not arrived until March 1557 (785). Another aspect is that Mary looks quite younger, probably around 29 years, when by that time she was certainly 39- 40. In fact, Ángela Cremonte was 30 when she filmed the series. Furthermore, there is no evidence of the ‘black legend’ and the burnings of heretics during her reign in the series. Evenden points out that there may exist a ‘Bloody Mary’ nomenclature, since Mary is described as someone who (in next episodes) will fulfil her mother’s desires to become a legitimate Catholic queen of England. Mary is not presented as the frightening queen who intends to massacre any heretic she found on the way. In contrast, we mostly see a kind, loving woman who seemed to be caring for both her people and husband. Her physical representation might be related to Mary’s portrait by Master John in 1544. According to Parry, Mary still appears youthful, with an upright stance and relatively untroubled 33 expression. On the series, we see a young, beatiful Mary whose characteristics somehow coincide with John’s portrait. In spite of these incongruities, most of the facts on the series that really happened to Mary; for example the continuous suffering she endured regarding her succession, as she could not get pregnant and she would have to nominate Elizabeth as her successor: ‘The queen could never see her sister without relieving the insults and ignominy to which she had been subjected on account of Anne Boleyn’ (Loades 289). The series therefore presents a very different image of Mary away from the ‘Black Legend’. We do not get to see any burnings; her attitude is actually discreet, pretty, caring and tranquil although her feelings towards Philip and the succession might lead her character into a depressive, hysterical mood. We also see a strong, imperative Queen, though it is inevitable to think about Mary’s submissive weakness towards Philip. Regarding the King’s legal authority in England, we might believe that he is in command of every situation, although at some points he reprimands Mary his little authority in the country. So their relationship may reflect a type of equality, except for the fact that Philip never loved Mary in the same way she did. Her duty as a woman is to bear children and attend her husband’s requests. However, she fails in bearing a child (12). Mary I in Carlos, Rey Emperador (00:17:15). (11). ‘Lady Mary’ by Master John (1544), at the National Portrait Gallery. 34 to the throne and also neglects Philip’s suggestion about Elizabeth (though, she supported him in the war against France). 35 Conclusion The present dissertation has aimed to study Queen Mary I’s life and her characterization in recent fiction, exploring the ‘Black Legend’ and some gender issues around her character. It was first necessary a detailed biographical analysis about Mary I before moving to the fiction part. I considered historical facts as important as the fictional characteristics. For that reason, Part 1 described Mary’s history extensively in order to make an easy understanding of Part 2. For this, I was provided with different historical and fictional resources to sustain my discussion. Three sources of fiction were examined and after going through the detailed results, different characterizations of Mary have been showed. I have found that Elizabeth contributes to perpetuate the ‘bloody’ side of Mary by presenting and aged, mad and moribund woman with mental disorders. On the other hand, Carlos, Rey Emperador and The Tudors show a more positive view: the character in both series is a younger woman with better attributes, mood and personality. These findings make several contributions to the current image of Mary, since both series intend to rehabilitate Mary’s integrity by ignoring the ‘Black Legend’ rumours. Nonetheless, it may have been easier for Hirst to show a good view of Mary, since her Princess stage was not that controversial; whereas Ferrer addresses her life as Queen but he does not go deep into the ‘Black Legend’ myth. The fact that it is a Spanish production may have influenced in the way of portraying Mary’s character. Taken together, these results suggest that current historiography which describes more fairly Mary’s life is finally being reflected in modern fiction. It is undeniable that Mary sentenced hundreds of people to death, but we should bear in mind that violence was a royal tool quite frequented by monarchs in the XVI century. Unfortunately, Mary’s defamatory propaganda echoed rapidly due to her Protestant contraries. In addition, the fact of being a woman always was an obstacle for her, both in moral and social ways of judging her. Moreover, it has been found that Mary did not have an easy life. Not being enough the hardships she had to go through, a ‘Black Legend’ was promoted to degrade her image in history. Perhaps Mary’s historic legacy is not fair, but the research demonstrated that contemporary historiography and the most recent fictional series introduce us to a renewed image of Mary which invites us to think of her in a totally different way. 36 Reference List -Principal sources Carlos, Rey Emperador series(2015-2016). Directed by Oriol Ferrer. Diagonal TV. Elizabeth (1998). Directed by Shekhar Kapur. PolyGram Filmed Entertainment. Loades, D. M. (1992). Mary Tudor : a life (1rst pub. in paperback). Blackwell. Pérez Martín, M. J. (2008). Mara Tudor : La gran reina desconocida . Rialp. The Tudors series (2007-2010). Created by Michael Hirst. Peace Arch Entertainment. -Secondary sources Calderon, M. (2016): La simpática, la enamorada y la puta: Las mujeres de Felipe II. Asesoría histórica de Carlos, Rey Emperador. RTVE. https://www.rtve.es/television/20160125/mujeres-felipe-ii-maria-tudor-maria-manuela- portugal-isabel-osorio-puta-del-rey/1288004.shtml. El Español, (2021): Quién es Ángela Cremonte, la actriz invitada de ‘Pasapalabra’. https://www.elespanol.com/bluper/20210421/angela-cremonte-actriz-invitada- pasapalabra/575443730_0.html. Erickson, Carolly. Great Harry: A Biography of Henry VIII. St. Martin's Publishing Group, 2007. Print. Evenden-Kenyon, E., 2021. Mary Tudor – From the Page to the Screen: The Visual Transposition and Transformation of Queen Mary I of England in Carlos, Rey Emperador. VIEW Journal of European Television History and Culture, 10(19), pp.16– 27. DOI: http://doi.org/10.18146/view.256. Foxe, J (1563). Book of Martyrs. English. Print. Fraser, Antonia. The Six Wives Of Henry VIII. Hachette UK, 2011. Phoenix Press. Print. Goodman, T. (2007): Henry VIII: portrait of a serial schemer. Critic review. SFGATE. https://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Henry-VIII-portrait-of-a-serial-schemer- 2606213.php. Hargrave, O. T. “Bloody Mary's Victims: The Iconography of John Foxe's Book of Martyrs.” Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, vol. 51, no. 1, 1982, pp. 7–21. JSTOR. Hunt, Alice. Reviewed Work: Mary Tudor: Old and New Perspectives by Susan Doran, Thomas S. Freeman. Renaissance Quarterly, vol. 65, no. 4, 2012, pp. 1324–1325. JSTOR.