Comments on: Review of Mary and Phillip: The Marriage of Tudor England and Hapsburg Spain by Ed Kirsch

By: emeyers

emeyers — Thu, 17 Feb 2022 15:33:45 +0000

Little late to the party here, but I agree with the general consensus here. I feel that this book works to connect all the dots but assumes the reader is just as well versed in Mary’s childhood and the questions involved in a female precession of the family line. I do think that Samson covers, in great detail, what the marriage meant politically at the time, the historical meaning, and how it affected Mary. I agree with with the idea that Sampson proved Mary was able to manage holding her own despite questions on gender expectations. I also appreciate the art and images in the book. I think the maps help the reader have a better understand of the space and time of Mary and Phillip

By: Logan Skorupa

Logan Skorupa — Thu, 17 Feb 2022 01:18:31 +0000

I 100% agree that this book is in no way a history of Mary’s reign and is more of a counterargument to the prevalent narrative that Mary’s reign was an aberration in England’s ‘Protestant destiny’ as it is commonly depicted. It seems to me that Samson pokes holes in this narrative mainly by focusing on the motivations and goals of her detractors and highlighting Mary’s ability to mobilize support for her position as Queen without directly addressing the more violent aspects of her rule aside from mentioning similar numbers of Heretic-burnings in the Low Countries. As for King Philip, the ‘foreign monarch’, I believe Samson effectively highlights the cosmopolitan nature of Spain’s imperial court and the by-and-large successful attempts by Philip to ingratiate himself with local English authorities during his visits to the country. As with Mary’s detractors, Samson highlights the motivations of those who demonized the ‘Spanish king’ and goes on to trace the xenophobia associated with the English people back to the English nobility who feared losing (or had already lost) their influence and positions to individuals more loyal to the royal couple.

By: William/Bill

William/Bill — Wed, 16 Feb 2022 18:25:15 +0000

This is a hard book to review because the author assumes so much knowledge of the period, and because he uses so many sources. His stated aim is to “open up a space for alternative interpretations of the Spanish marriage.” Samson challenges a number of assertions about Mary, her reign, and her marriage by finding and quoting counter evidence from a variety of sources. The main weakness of the book, for non-specialists at least, is that the significance of the sources and anecdotes provided is unclear. Is the evidence Samson offers enough to refute the allegedly incorrect conventional wisdom? He doesn’t provide tidy conclusions; but he certainly succeeds in his stated aim. Collectively, our reviewers have captured Samson’s project quite well. I don’t know how one review could be as comprehensive as the three taken together.

By: Matthew Inman

Matthew Inman — Tue, 15 Feb 2022 21:43:05 +0000

Ed – a particular strength of this organized and well-written review is your explanation that this is not a biography of Mary I, but rather an effort to reassess and rehabilitate what was, in the author’s opinion, a reign that realized a number of positive achievements from a ‘determined and resolute monarch’. It’s an important point, and I consider it a strength of Samson’s book, that he has an argument to make and he focuses on making that argument confidently and convincingly. Samson does a good job of tackling the big issues (and your review does a good job of summarizing), such as gender issues, xenophobia, and all the symbolism of their entry into London, which was new to me and quite fascinating.
My one critique of Samson is that if a reader came to this book without any background knowledge on Mary, they would have no notion of the real and mortal religious persecution that occurred during her reign. I mention this with the full realization that Samson has clearly written this for readers who have knowledge of the history of Mary and this time period, and he is blatant in stating that he is highlighting the positive aspects of Mary’s reign. That said, I feel like that facet of her reign warranted at least a bit more mention than Samson gave it.