In Mary and Philip: The Marriage of Tudor England and Hapsburg Spain by Alexander Samson tries to explain a lot about the relationship between Mary and Prince Philip of Spain, how the commoners felt about having a foreign ruler, how the English adapted to having a queen for the first time, and how England handled the growing divide between Catholics and Protestants This book contributes to the existing historiography that we’re studying in this class by showing the divide that exists amongst historians on the marriage. Samson’s studies and focus are not on Early Modern England which would usually lead me to take what they say with a grain of salt, but I believe that Samson provides strong analysis of the relationship of the two monarchs and how it affected those around them.
In modern interpretations of Mary I, we how historians have depicted her. In Lady Jane (1985) A reviewer called Mary ‘Edward’s half-wit sister’ which is based on Geoffrey Elton’s of the first Tudor queen statement that she was stupid. Another depiction was Kathy Burke who played Mary opposite Cate Blanchett’s Elizabeth, Mary was portrayed here as hysterical and neurotic as she moved around the dark world with her consort who was brooding and wanted nothing to do with her, this is based off the claims by Sir Francis Hastings in 1598 who said that the marriage “could not drawe the least sparke of true loue from him to his noble Queene, who so louingly made choice of him to be her husband.” and this was because Philip was unenthusiastic about their marriage.1 These are just two examples of Mary I and her husband Philip that have been played on the big screen and the performance is based off a historical source that described the character like that. The official view of Britian’s past is built around the Reformation, that the Tudors ‘rode on the back of anti-clericalism’ and turning their back on the church for encroaching on the liberties of the English Church and that the concept of the Reformation as a national liberation which restored England’s independence which would lead to England and its establishment of colonies, which would exist if not for Mary who helped Elizabeth by paving the way.
What I gathered from the book was that the English and the Spanish were close, the two countries were tied together not only economically but also socially. There was a series of treaties between the two countries that went as far back as 1252 which was an agreement between Henry III and Castile that preceded the marriage between Edward I and Eleanor of Castile. Merchants from both countries traveled and traded in the other, showing how close the two powers were to each other. The relationship between the two started to become frayed when Henry VIII married Boleyn but a treaty in June 1542 that halted the deterioration of relations between the two countries, the Spanish responded to the despoliation of the San Salvador by Robert Reneger in 1545 by seizing English merchants’ goods in Andalusia which violated the terms of Medina Del Campo. The treaty of the Low Countries would serve as a template for the later marital agreement under Mary and Philip.
With the death of Henry VIII, England’s new monarch was Henry’s only son Edward, but his reign only lasted until 1553 when he died of TB. After Edward, England gained its first female monarch in Mary. England had never had a female ruler, so there was anxiety surrounding her rule. The Spainards though were familiar with having a female monarch so the treaty between England and Spain surrounding foreign succession handled the gender transition. With Mary’s succession to the throne and her marriage to Philip I of Spain, the Catholic Church returned to England and those that had fled European countries to escape Catholicism under Mary’s father Henry VIII were now homeless once again, they were immediately associated with heresy and sedition under Mary. The emperor wrote in a letter that “[it] is clear that the foreign refugees with oppose her as much as any other class of people, in their fear of a change of religion.”2 At the end of the paragraph, it is noted that relations between Protestants and Catholics were not as divided as they would become later in the century.
The marriage between Mary and Philip was met with skepticism by the English people, they did not like foreigners are they believed that they [the foreigners] only cared about themselves and not the country that they were in. Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle, bishop of Arras admitted to the Cardinal of Jaen that “the English may come with the greatest difficulty to consent to the marriage and so much more as they naturally detest foreigners.”3 The people of England did not want a foreign ruler, and that sentiment and belief led to Wyatt’s revolt where the people revolted against a Spanish ruler. Another factor that played into the English people’s distrust was that the Philip and his court did not speak English and that there would be confusion.
Something that I like about this book is that the author tells you the truth and the sources they have at their disposal, a great example of this is in the Wyatt revolt chapter where it is stated that the verdict of historians on the cause of Wyatt’s revolt is divided. For example, David Loades argues that the reason is political and that the main concern of the English was Spanish domination. Others point to the fact that the areas where it achieved its greatest success were areas that the Reformation had its greatest effect. While the Tonbridge schoolmaster John Proctor compared the revolt to the religious wars that had desolated Germany.
Samson went on in the later chapters by showing us the power dynamic of the relationship between Mary and Philip. What surprised me about their relationship and challenged what I knew prior to reading this book was that when they got married, both were outfits that were similar in style and Mary sat on the right of Philip which is usually reserved for the King. Prior to this book, my thought was that Philip was just using Mary for England and that he went out of his way to show people that England now belonged to Spain. Samson also in chapter seven tackled what I believe was one of the central points of the book, people in England did not believe that Mary could be a successful monarch, that she would lead England to ruin.
Like every book that we read, there are strengths and weaknesses that we identify as we read. A strength that I noticed as I was reading was that Samson always had an example and backed up a point that he made, he never left me confused because he had a source for all the points that he was arguing in his book. A weakness that I identified almost immediately was that Samson lacked a strong opening/introduction. Instead of giving us a small summary or introduction to what he would be arguing in his book, he jumped straight to the point and left the reader in the dust. Also, there were points in the chapters that Samson lost the point, he was providing us with so much information and evidence that he could not bring it all together in the end. I believe that if Alexander Samson had given us a better introduction and wrapped all the evidence that he provided us with in the chapters and related it to his thesis/main point, that this book would be more coherent and readable.
Reviewed By Vincent Cervone, George Mason Graduate Student.
