Mary 1st and the Limits of the Counter-Reformation

Christy Monroe

        Upon accession to the English throne, Henry VII worked to secure his legitimacy by establishing an understanding with the German Habsburgs.  The understanding had much to recommend it at the time because Habsburg power was growing to encompass Burgundy and soon Spain and its empire.  Indeed, the Habsburg connection became the cornerstone of Henry VII’s foreign policy.  Henry VII was successful in his own diplomacy, and the alliance withstood even the tumultuous reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI.  The marriage of Mary Tudor and Prince Philip of Spain would maintain this deteriorating alliance tenuously for a few more years.[i]

Henry VIII greatly imperiled relations with the ever-expanding Habsburg power.  His treatment of Catherine of Aragon, the aunt of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, was diplomatically imprudent.  He risked alienating the Emperor and destroying the alliance.  Cardinal Wolsey’s actions against Rome reversed much of the “Anglo-Habsburg entente.”  Henry VIII’s break with Rome also did much to replace the English hatred of France with a suspicion of Spain, as England feared a Franco-Habsburg union and a Catholic attack on England.[ii]  His son Edward VI would show more progress in establishing Protestantism in England.

Edward VI’s reign deepened the religious schism as legislation made England increasingly more Protestant.  The First Act of Uniformity was passed in 1549 and the Protestant Prayer Book became the only legal book for church services.  The Second Act of Uniformity, passed in 1552, totally abolished the Mass.  Edward issued the Forty-Two Articles in June of 1553 dealing with the Anabaptists, but primarily directed at the Eucharist and Justification.[iii]  Though Edwardian Protestantism was too harsh for much of the English population, they remained strongly anti-clerical and anti-papal in the fierce nationalism Henry VIII had exploited.[iv]  Henry VIII’s foreign policy gradually diminished England’s reputation on the continent, and during Edward’s reign England played little part on the continental stage.[v]

John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland dominated the young king throughout his reign.  Northumberland was the force behind nearly every proclamation Edward issued.  He directed his attention primarily at consolidating power for himself and schemed to continue his term in power by placing his fifteen-year-old daughter-in-law Jane Grey on the throne at Edward’s death.  However, Northumberland underestimated the force with which Mary Tudor, the rightful heir and eldest daughter of Henry VIII, would claim her place as monarch.

After the tumultuous nine-day reign of Lady Jane Grey, England welcomed the rightful Tudor heir to the throne, Mary I.  Upon her accession, Mary had an agenda that would surprise and disappoint her people.  Her sole objective was to return England to Rome.  Her means for achieving her aims did not reflect strong political judgement.  She chose to marry an unpopular man from a despised nation and bolstered her choice with a string of persecutions for which history remembers her as “Bloody Mary.” 

Mary’s objectives were thwarted by the very means she used to achieve them.  The persecutions certainly hindered English inclination to re-embrace Catholicism.  Prince Philip of Spain, Mary’s unfortunate choice for a husband, had his own objectives that would prove contrary to Mary’s aims.  His own failure in England delivered a disastrous blow to Mary’s reign.  Rather than a solution to the conflicting demands of Mary, Philip, and others, the marriage was a “fateful poison which threatened to destroy everyone whose lips it touched.”[vi]

The New Queen and Her Suitors

Mary resembled her father and siblings in many ways, especially in the single-minded pursuit of an objective.  The family resemblance ended, however, when it came to statesmanship.  While Henry, Edward, and Elizabeth all proved themselves to be capable statesmen, Mary’s temperament created substantial obstacles in establishing effective policies.  Unlike Henry, she was “personally gentle and inclined to mercy.”[vii]  The ambassador of the Holy Roman Empire, Simon Renard, described her as “politically naïve.”[viii]  Ruy Gómez de Silva, a favorite courtier of Philip II, acknowledged in his letters that, while she was a good woman, she was not an able statesman.[ix]  Mary’s limitations were evident at the time of her accession.  Though she enjoyed a warm reception to the throne, the enthusiasm was for her Tudor blood and did not extend to her Spanish and Catholic policies as she believed.[x]  She was, in fact, consumed by her mother’s religion and her Spanish heritage.[xi]  Her foreign policy was more a function of these two factors than of “English statecraft.”[xii]

Foreign policy during the early years of Mary’s reign was largely consumed by the question of her marriage.  The marriage of a ruler, often pivotal in political objectives and alliances, is always a matter of great concern to a nation.  In Mary’s view, marriage was not a simple matter of political expediency, but a move crucial to the national as well as personal nature of her religious cause.  Marriage, which became a dominant issue in her reign, had been a dominant issue throughout her life. 

Even as a child Mary looked on marriage as a priority.  Her first betrothal, at the age of two, was to the Dauphin of France, soon to be King Henri II of France.  The marriage was to take place early, when the infant Dauphin turned fourteen.  Such an alliance between France and England displeased Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, as it tipped the balance of power on the continent toward France.  Though engaged to a Portuguese Infanta, Charles hinted that he would marry his cousin, the English princess, “if need be.”  In a secret treaty with Henry, Charles promised to marry Mary when she turned twelve.  Henry and Charles completed the agreement on August 25, 1521 when Mary was but six years old. 

Charles, however, was not satisfied with Henry’s promise.  As Henry had broken the marriage treaty with France, Charles had no reason to think he would not do the same again if France countered with a better offer.  In an effort to gain as much as possible in any case, Charles demanded that Henry deliver the dowry to be used in an invasion of France.  Henry balked at this demand and would only agree if Charles delivered Francis I, king of France, and helped Henry gain the French crown. [xiii]  Charles ultimately broke the betrothal himself in 1525.  Both he and Henry had been negotiating secretly, Charles with the Portuguese Infanta and Henry with James V of Scotland.[xiv]

Upon Mary’s accession to the throne in 1553, the concern for a suitable match became all the more pressing.  She perceived that the “salvation and public peace seemed to depend on her bearing a child.”[xv]  For Mary, the alternative to producing an heir was to accept her half sister Elizabeth as her successor.  Elizabeth, next in line for the throne as designated by Henry VIII, was known to have Protestant leanings.  Mary’s strong Catholic prejudices led her to believe that England’s return to Catholicism would “bring salvation to thousands of souls.”  Hence, Elizabeth’s accession would destroy any redemption Mary had secured for them.[xvi]

The desire to keep any foreign power out of England was a driving force in the race for a royal husband.  Edward Courtenay, an Englishman of royal blood, emerged as a possible candidate for marriage.  The favorite of Lord Chancellor Stephen Gardiner, Courtenay had been imprisoned with his family in the tower at the age of twelve and, therefore, was politically inexperienced.  Mary rejected him not for his political inability, but because his childish ways irritated her.[xvii] 

A second English candidate was Reginald Pole.  Mary and Pole had been childhood friends, and Pole’s mother had been Mary’s governess.  The match was strengthened by Pole’s Plantagenet blood.  Though he was soon to be made a cardinal, a papal dispensation could have been secured.  Pole, however, had no desire to enter into marriage, nor would Mary have tolerated a reversal of his Holy Orders.[xviii]

Possible foreign suitors included Don Luis of Portugal, Emmanuel Philibert of Savoy, and Archduke Ferdinand of Austria.  Each of these men was significantly more

popular with the English than the fourth and strongest foreign candidate, Charles V’s son Philip.  Although all four were Habsburg adherents, Philip posed the greatest threat to English independence.  Mary, however, insisted that she would marry a Spaniard.  The Spanish alliance was necessary to the realization of her objectives and security of any religious progress she may achieve.

Historian Frederick Madden contends that Mary’s principal error was her deeply rooted faith.[xix]  Nearly every decision she made rested on her religious objectives.  Mary’s primary concern was not for any political or social ramifications her decision may have, but rather for the rapidity of England’s return to Catholicism.  When Renard first raised the possibility of marriage to Philip, Mary did question him regarding the impact such a union may have on England’s diplomatic relations.  The match could damage England’s already precarious relations with France by allying England with the Habsburg house, France’s enemy.  Mary must also have been aware that her own nation would object to the marriage for fear that England would fall to Spanish domination.  The marriage also had the potential to encourage the restoration of Catholicism, which would give many English lords cause to fear the loss of the lands they had bought from Henry VIII when he confiscated monastic lands to secure funds and support for his religious reforms.  Despite these concerns, Renard easily assuaged Mary’s fears by reminding her of the religious triumph she could achieve.  In no way did she disregard the good of her nation, but rather viewed the reestablishment of Catholicism as the greatest good.  Mary understood marriage as her “religious and patriotic duty.”  For the queen, religious zeal and patriotism were identical; she believed that a reinstatement of the old religion was best for her country.  She expected marriage to Philip, the pious prince of a strong Catholic nation, to bolster Catholicism in her own country.[xx]

Thus, of the foreign suitors, only Philip stood a real chance of winning Mary’s hand.  Mary had made it clear to her cousin, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, that she wished him to find her a suitable match, rather than leaving the task to her councilors.  Charles’s choice for Mary was crafted to serve best his own political designs.  He had to meet threats from France and to contend with Philip’s unpopularity in the Low Countries.  A union between Philip and Mary would check the French king Henri II’s ambitions in England.  Habsburg power in England would provide a good base from which to control the Low Countries and protect them from Valois aggression.  The match would strengthen the Spanish Habsburgs over the Austrian Habsburgs, giving Philip more hope for the imperial crown.  However, should he lose the imperial crown to his cousins, his place as King of England would be some compensation.[xxi]

For her part, Mary viewed marriage not as a simple alliance, but as a holy sacrament.  She perceived it as the path to the “resurrection of her country and the salvation of her people” and expected that it would bring her renown as the savior of England.[xxii]  Charles V cautioned her against such a radical view.  He warned her not to be too quick to pronounce overtly Catholic policies.  She should first sound out the public opinion, lest she lose her cause by alienating the people.[xxiii]  Charles feared that Mary would turn the tide of the people against her and his own designs in England would be lost. 

Mary, however, refused to heed Charles’ advice.  She was far too zealous to relax her agenda for cautionary measures.  In her first declaration on religion in 1553 Mary carefully outlined her expectations. She assured her subjects that she understood the problems that had arisen in England due to a “diversity of opinions in question of religion.”  Without stating that she intended to force the nation into Catholicism, she proclaimed that she would not hide her religion and “so doth her highness much desire, and would be glad, the same were of all her subjects quietly and charitably embraced.”  While Mary did not explicitly demand the conversion of the entire nation, she insisted that everyone “live together in quiet sort and Christian charity” and put a stop to the “new-found devilish terms of papist or heretic.”  She commanded that there be an end to men interpreting “the word of God after their own brain.”  Regarding the conspiracy of Northumberland, Mary forbade any individual to take punishment of the traitors into his own hands, but encouraged her subjects to provide the government with any information against them.  In closing she cautioned them to heed her commands vigilantly for “her highness shall be most sorry to have cause to put the same in execution.”[xxiv]

Spanish Objectives

The marriage between Mary and Philip was of the utmost importance to Charles.  His focus on winning Mary for Philip was so intense that he ordered his embassy not to mention the marriage directly to Mary for fear that she would become irritated and turn elsewhere for a husband.[xxv]  Charles’ reasons for arranging the marriage, however, were vastly different from Mary’s reasons for insisting upon the marriage.  While Mary was acting for what she believed was the good of England, Charles was acting for his own advancement, though he intended no harm to come to the English people along the way.  While he certainly understood the need to help Mary achieve her goals in any way possible, he had additional objectives in mind for the Habsburg cause.  A return to Catholicism was only one of many items on his agenda, and even so it was to serve as a tool in attaining his other objectives.  Catholicism certainly had a prominent place on the Habsburg agenda, but that place tended to be political.

For his part, Philip did not assent to the match eagerly, and his misgivings were well known throughout Spain.  He agreed only because he was an obedient son and understood the political good the alliance could mean for his realm.[xxvi]  He wrote to Charles, “I have no other will than that of your Majesty, and whatever you desire, that I will do.”  As a patriot and politician, Philip placed the political good of his nation and the Habsburg Empire before his personal interests.[xxvii]

Although Philip was concerned with the political impact of the match, he was not insensible to the religious good he had the opportunity to accomplish.  Devoted to his faith, Philip hoped that as he carried out a political agenda, he could assist the restoration of Catholicism in England.  He believed in the “identity of interests between himself and the Almighty.”  Though his first concern was for his political good, he also desired the religious good that would necessarily follow.[xxviii]  Throughout his life Philip would devote his energy to “the task of establishing the universal supremacy of Catholicism in the political interests of Spain.”[xxix]

Rumors circulated throughout England that Charles had arranged the marriage in order to help his situation on the continent.[xxx]  In 1553 Philip had been negotiating a marriage contract with the Portuguese Infanta Maria but called it off when Mary ascended the throne.[xxxi]  The Portuguese marriage would have provided Philip with the “sinews of war,” but England offered a better prospect.[xxxii]  For Philip, the marriage was a means to his wider ends.  When it became clear that his objectives were lost, Philip did not hesitate to abandon Mary and England to attend to his own kingdom.[xxxiii]

Charles and Philip saw the marriage as an opportunity to strengthen their position against France.  England would be a powerful Habsburg acquisition in northwest Europe, completing the “encirclement of France.”[xxxiv]  Philip complained to his father of the condition that English councilors placed on the marriage stipulating that he could not involve England in the war with France.  Since there was no request to overturn this condition, Charles and Renard were apparently convinced that they could sway Mary once the marriage was completed.  Insistence that Philip be allowed to involve England in the war was too likely to betray their intentions and turn Mary against the match. 

Charles’ interests led him to prevent Cardinal Reginald Pole, recently appointed papal legate to England, from leaving the continent.  Charles and Philip knew that the English would resist the religious upheaval Pole intended to institute.  The public was likely to associate Pole’s reforms with the recent marriage, which may damage Habsburg political interests if the religious reforms went badly.  Charles did not wish Pole to enter England until he had convinced him to tread softly about the issue of religion. Renard had to explain Pole’s absence as Charles’ concern that the marriage should be settled before any other issues could be considered.  After the marriage was completed Charles had no excuse for detaining Pole further without arousing suspicion.  Pole entered England in November of 1554.[xxxv]

Charles and Philip no doubt knew the good the marriage symbolized to Mary.  Renard was certainly aware of her hopes and made them clear in his correspondence to Charles.[xxxvi]  But the Emperor’s aims were not congruent with the Queen’s.  Should Mary ever discover his true objectives, Charles feared that she would turn on him and all would be lost.  Renard was, therefore, charged with presenting the Emperor’s aims in such a way that Mary would not become suspicious while negotiations for the marriage took place.  He disguised the emperor’s intents by giving them a religious slant.  At the same time, he had to insure that he did not create a commotion among the people, always a danger when dealing with religious subjects in England.[xxxvii]

Philip and his advisors had no part in the marriage negotiations.  Instead, Mary, her most prominent councilors, and even Antoine de Noailles, the French ambassador to England, contributed sections, while Renard was responsible for the final drafting.[xxxviii]  The drafters made an effort to assuage the fears of the English people by including sections regarding the power Philip would have and the relationship England would have with Spain and the Habsburg Empire.  According to the contract, Mary was to be the sole monarch and Philip was not to have any power.  He would certainly not retain the crown or title should Mary die.  His only hope for official power in England was as regent for any child Mary may bear.  To further insure that Spain would not exert any power over England, the treaty stipulated that no foreigner was to hold office.  By denying Philip the crown and Spaniards official positions, England’s autonomy appeared more secure.[xxxix]

The treaty also specified that Philip was not to involve England in the war with France.  It read, “the Realme of Englande, by occasion of this matrimonie, shall not dyrectlie or indirectlie be entangled with the warre that is now betwist [Charles] and [Henri].”[xl]  The English fear that Charles and Philip would involve them in war was one of the most serious and pressing objections to the alliance.  Gardiner hoped that this explicit provision would prevent Philip from exploiting English arms and funds.  Noailles no doubt hoped that it would prevent too much weight thrown to the Habsburg camp.  Many Englishmen, however, had little faith in imperial promises and thus little hope of any success in the union.[xli]

The prospects of the English alliance did not look so hopeful after Philip learned the conditions of the contract.[xlii]  The English council had done their duty well by negotiating a treaty that would “induce most of the political nation to accept the marriage.”[xliii]  Renard, for his part, had not accomplished so much for Philip in the treaty.  He could only give Charles and Philip hope that after the marriage they could pressure Mary to have the terms of the treaty nullified.[xliv]  Nonetheless, the treaty was signed January 12, 1554 and proclaimed three days later.

Opposition to the Marriage

Not only was Mary’s marriage a matter of great concern in England, but it also received wide international attention.  All of Europe recognized that her marriage to Philip could dramatically shift the balance of power on the continent.  France feared that this union promised added strength to the Burgundian house.  In the event of war with the Habsburgs, the marriage would insure English support of Spain.[xlv]  Noailles believed, no doubt as did Philip and Charles, that upon the marriage depended “the fate not only of England, but of all Europe as well.”[xlvi]

Though Spaniards recognized the strategic value of a union with England, their reaction to the treaty was rather unfavorable.  Their pride was wounded by the many concessions to the English and the exclusion of Philip’s advisors in drafting the treaty.  They perceived it as disinheriting Don Carlos, Philip’s son by a previous marriage.  They resented the qualification that Philip bring only “honest servants” to England, the implication being that there were dishonest Spaniards and that Philip would have them in his service even if there were.[xlvii] 

The English reaction was also unfavorable.  This opposition was rooted in Philip’s status as the queen’s husband.  Because Mary was England’s first queen in her own right, the role her husband would play was uncertain; there was no precedent to establish how much power Philip would have.[xlviii]  The possibility that Philip would rule both England and Spain led the English to consider the risk of becoming a mere Spanish colony.  The English fear was that Mary’s marriage to Philip would devastate the nation by dragging England into the war on the continent.  The fact that Philip was a foreigner especially disturbed Mary’s fiercely nationalistic subjects.  They looked to the Low Countries “whose liberty had been bartered away simply by marriage alliances.”[xlix]  The possibility of becoming a mere Spanish colony had precedent in the plight of the Low Countries.

The strongest opposition came from Mary’s own council.  The council was deeply divided with one faction surrounding Gardiner and one surrounding Paget.  Gardiner emerged as the leader of the Catholic faction due to his reputation as the “one man able to combat the influence of Pole and of Spain.”[l]  His faction wanted England to stand alone and, thus, opposed any foreigner.  Paget’s faction, composed mainly of nobles and civil servants, did not believe that England could survive independently.  They believed Spain to be the least dangerous ally and a better choice because it was England’s traditional friend.[li]

Gardiner objected to Philip on political grounds rather than religious grounds.[lii]  He recognized Charles’s objectives in the proposed match.  Though Renard had successfully disguised the Emperor’s intentions when discussing the matter with Mary, Gardiner was not so easily persuaded.  Nor was he convinced by rumors of “imminent peace on the continent” that had seemed temporarily to pacify the people.[liii]  He contended that the marriage would embroil England unnecessarily in war with France and “invite French intrigue with English heretics.”[liv]  As for the Emperor’s promise of aid in religious affairs, the decidedly nationalistic Gardiner was content to reestablish the old religion without external interference.  He was also keenly aware that the alliance would increase Habsburg dominion and French antagonism.  Thus far, England had derived its security from its “independent position as arbiter between France and Spain.”  This advantage would be destroyed by an alliance with either of the continental powers.[lv]  Gardiner ultimately accepted Philip, not because he approved, but because to continue his opposition would anger Mary and cost him the leadership of the council.[lvi]

Paget was no less patriotic than Gardiner.  His alliance with the Emperor was due largely to his own ambition.  If Charles should threaten English independence or Paget’s ambitions, he would no doubt abandon the Spanish camp.[lvii]  He had successfully served Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Mary, each reign requiring a shift in approach to remain in power.  Paget’s faction was concerned with England’s survival, not with reestablishing Catholicism or increasing Habsburg power.  Still, Paget, Charles, and Mary banded together to secure the Queen’s marriage to Philip.  Though they emerged successful from the marriage debate, they would soon find their causes to be at odds. 

The English population itself posed a serious threat to the marriage.  In their vying for power, it was clear to Renard and Noailles that the English government was not absolute.  The public was a “third entity,” alongside the Council and Parliament.  It is clear that the public had considerable power and acted as an “independent element in English politics.”[lviii]  Noailles resorted to stirring up discontent as his principal tactic.  Renard took pains to spread rumors that he believed would quell the fears of the general population.

The House of Commons officially protested the marriage.[lix]  Concerned for their liberty and the independence of their country, a party of twenty men met with Mary and begged her not to marry a foreigner.  Mary’s response was harsh:  “For your desire to see us married…we thank you.  Your desire to dictate to us the consort whom we will choose we consider somewhat superfluous.  The English Parliament has not been wont to use such language to its sovereigns…”[lx]

Wyatt’s Rebellion

Wyatt’s Rebellion was a manifestation of the opposition to Mary’s proposed marriage.  The conditions at the time were favorable for rebellion.  Northumberland’s domination of the young Edward VI had initiated a decline in respect for royal and conciliar authority as well as a heightened association between high political offices and “greed, religious radicalism, and subservience to a foreigner.”  Political factions increased as effective royal authority declined.  Religious tensions, introduced during the reign of Henry VIII and heightened under the reformations of Edward VI, augmented existing factions.[lxi] 

The rebels participating in Wyatt’s Rebellion, though representative of English opposition, were comprised of the handful of men who could afford to resist openly.  Catholic adversaries of the marriage were torn between a devotion to Mary and their faith and a deep-seated hatred of Spain.  These men did not want to resort to violence to combat a Spanish invasion because it could too easily become an attack on Mary and on Catholicism.  A number of powerful nobles who had bought lands that Henry VIII had confiscated from the monasteries feared that Spanish intervention in the religious issue would insure the loss of these lands.  Open rebellion, however, was a more immediate danger to their land and power.

The opponents of the marriage most inclined to rebellion were a handful of gentlemen who had associated with each other during Edward’s reign.  They did not have as much at stake as many nobles and were not devoted to Mary’s religion.  Though generally inclined to Protestantism, these men rebelled for political rather than religious reasons.  The conspiracy against the marriage found its roots in secular matters more than religious matters.[lxii]

The original plan included four popular uprisings led by prominent men from each area.  Sir Peter Carew was to take the lead in Devon, the Duke of Suffolk in Leicestershire, Sir James Croftes in Herefordshire, and Sir Thomas Wyatt in Kent.  Only Wyatt’s rebellion met with any success.  Carew lacked sufficient resources, Suffolk lacked support, and Croftes’ rising never came to be at all.[lxiii]

The aim of the rebellion was to depose Mary and place Elizabeth and Courtenay on the throne.  Although Elizabeth had not committed herself to the rebellion or to Courtenay, the conspirators presumed that upon their success Elizabeth would do her duty by assuming the throne and marrying Courtenay.[lxiv]

The rebellion had been scheduled to coincide with Philip’s arrival in England; the conspirators were to keep him from setting foot on English soil.  Wyatt gathered his forces at Allington, explaining to officials that they were assembled for “thimpeachment of the marriage.”  Mary sent messengers to press Wyatt for the true reason for the assembly.  The Queen’s message indicated that she would discuss the matter with Wyatt, though the message was not sincere but a device to force Wyatt’s plot into the open.  Wyatt, however, dismissed the messengers with no response.[lxv]

Wyatt did not share the true intentions of the conspiracy with the men he had gathered.  He led them “to believe that they were taking part in a spontaneous and nation-wide outburst to rescue the Queen from the consequences of evil counsel and her own folly.”  Wyatt claimed nothing more than patriotic resistance to Spain.[lxvi]  Aware of the threat the assembly posed, Mary again made a generous offer.  She offered a committee that would meet to discuss the rebels’ grievances and pardon for anyone who would return home within twenty-four hours.  In return Wyatt demanded “custody of the Tower and the Queen’s person as a hostage.”  Indignant at such a demand, Mary determined that the rebellion should be put down by military force.[lxvii] 

Wyatt planned to attack London by surprise on the north bank.  He hoped that his friends in the city would open the gates to him if he could approach undetected.  His hopes were probably well-founded.  The government’s greatest fear regarding the rebellion was its suspicion that Londoners were generally sympathetic to Wyatt’s cause.  Pole later suggested that Wyatt was repulsed because the people feared that he would sack the city, not because they despised his cause.[lxviii]

Wyatt did not succeed in arriving undetected.  The city was awakened in the early hours of the morning to find that Wyatt was almost upon them.  Mary’s advisors begged her to flee, but her resolution was so strong that “mayny thought she wolde have ben in felde in person.”[lxix]  The royal soldiers met Wyatt at Ludgate.  Rumors circulated at court throughout the day, some declaring that Wyatt was victorious and that the Queen’s forces had defected.  Soon, however, news of Wyatt’s retreat was confirmed.  The royal soldiers pursued the rebels and convinced Wyatt to surrender, taking him prisoner.[lxx]

Mary and Gardiner drew an important lesson from the incident, namely that “heresy, not patriotism, was the prime root of sedition in England.”[lxxi]  This was not, however, the point the conspirators had intended to make.  In fact, Wyatt received little support from Protestants rebelling for religious purposes.[lxxii]  After his capture, Sir Peter Carew, one of the rebellion’s leaders, said that he had wanted only “to serve his country and help his country from bondage.”[lxxiii] 

Because Mary understood the marriage in religious terms, she understood resistance to it in religious terms.  She saw the traitors as heretics who feared the prospect of being subject to a Catholic government rather than as Englishmen who feared the prospect of being subject to a foreign government.  The incident fed Mary and Gardiner’s desire to stamp out heresy by whatever means necessary.  Their understanding of Wyatt’s Rebellion and the general English resistance would impede their ability to scotch opposition to Philip.  Instead, they only drove it underground and intensified it.[lxxiv]  Mary’s failed understanding of English resistance would ultimately mean the collapse of Habsburg interests in England and of Mary’s own objectives. 

The Restoration of Catholic England and the Habsburg Alliance

Once marriage negotiations were completed, Renard and Charles presented Philip with the task of actualizing the Habsburg objectives in England.  The Anglo-Spanish alliance was still only a potential threat to France.  The Habsburg position could not advance unless Philip could persuade Mary to assist him against France. 

Based on Charles and Renard’s extensive negotiations with England, Philip had observed that the best course of action was slow and methodical.  Early in the marriage he tried to keep out of domestic politics.  He declined to interfere publicly, but devoted his attention to gaining the favor of several members of the council.[lxxv]

Although Philip’s intentions in England were those of his father, he realized that he would have to make himself acceptable to his wife and to her government.  His first goal had to be the restoration of Catholicism.  Once he had returned England to the “papal fold” Habsburg dominion would be complete, for the Church was under Habsburg influence.[lxxvi]  He would then have a double hold on England, one through Mary and one through the Church.

England officially returned to the papal fold on November 30, 1554.  The restoration, however, did not come without a struggle, nor was it neatly achieved by a ceremony.  Several sessions of Parliament were necessary to complete the reversal of Protestant reforms.  The Parliament of 1553 agreed to repeal only the reforms enacted during the reign of Edward VI.[lxxvii]  The following year Parliament again declined to repeal Henrican statutes until they had been assured that there would be no attempt to restore the monastic lands Henry VIII had confiscated from the Church and sold to the nobility.  On November 28, 1554 Cardinal Reginald Pole addressed the Houses of Lords and Commons, encouraging them to repeal laws and statutes adding to the break between the Catholic Church and England.  Though the motion carried “almost by acclamation,” the acts for dissolution of the monasteries were notably missing in the list of repealed acts.[lxxviii]  This session of Parliament reenacted heresy laws, passed new treason laws, and repealed anti-papal and anti-ecclesiastical laws passed since 1529.[lxxix]

 English nobles wanted the return to be a negotiation between Parliament and the papacy.  Ecclesiastical adherents wanted it to be by papal authority.  Though Charles was strongly in favor of returning England to Rome, he preferred to accomplish the restoration through negotiations.  He was keenly aware of the tensions surrounding a return to the Catholic Church.[lxxx]  Return by negotiation is evident in Parliament’s refusal to repeal Henrican reforms until the issue of monastic lands was settled.

The return to Catholicism engendered resistance from many nobles who had acquired monastic lands from Henry VIII.  By the Acts of Dissolution in 1536 and 1539, Henry VIII had confiscated church lands and distributed them among the nobility, thereby raising a large amount of money for the royal coffers and creating a constituency for his reforms.  The government realized the tensions in this subject.  To return the land to the church would confront organized opposition among some of the most powerful nobles who had considerable investments in the land.  To insure a smooth return to Catholicism and, hence, the success of the Tudor-Habsburg alliance, Mary would have to confirm the nobility’s possession of the land.[lxxxi]  Renard and Charles could not afford to risk open discontent.  Charles’s instructions to Renard had been that the marriage should occur only if it could be completed without threat of rebellion.  Renard knew that returning the lands would endanger the marriage, which he had worked so hard to secure.

Mary’s desire to return England to Catholicism led her to urge a total reversal of any action that had damaged relations with the papacy.  Out of bitterness towards Paget who had usurped Mary’s favor and in an effort to block the Habsburgs in England, Gardiner made many attempts to pass stringent religious bills in addition to repealing anti-Catholic statutes.  Renard supported Paget in blocking the bills that “might arouse popular opposition,” for he feared that they might endanger Philip and the Habsburg objectives.[lxxxii]  The general population, already suspicious of Philip, would be likely to

identify him with any unpopular religious bills.  The return of church lands was among the bills most likely to “arouse popular opposition.”  Pope Julius III, as well as others in the Catholic camp, did not want to allow the lay nobility to retain the land Henry had given them.  This would give the impression that they had gotten England back at a price.

Renard was aware that a complete reversal of the dissolution was a political impossibility. In order to secure a peaceful restoration of the old religion, he contended that, while the issue of the land was pressing, theological issues should be of more concern.[lxxxiii]  Charles managed to detain Pole in Brussels until he could be sure that the Pope would not support complete restoration of the lands.  He wanted the issue settled by Mary and her councilors before Pole crossed to England.  Pole was only to confirm agreements, not negotiate.[lxxxiv]  Charles’ dealings with Pole exhibit his desire to return England to Rome by negotiation in order to achieve a smooth transition.  To salvage the religious possibility, Philip and Charles dealt with the restoration in a political manner.

In London, rumors began to circulate that the monasteries were to regain their land and that the clergy planned to take advantage of their strengthened position to get their revenge.  The rumor continued to suggest that these vengeful clergymen would be “backed by Spanish steel,” thus reinforcing the negative association between Spain and Catholicism.[lxxxv]  Nobles became increasingly agitated over the possibility of losing their lands.  General discontent regarding Spanish presence continued.  As tensions heightened, it became increasingly evident that the return to Rome must be completed soon.  Much of the people’s edginess was perceived to be a result of the uncertainty of the matter.  Ultimately the pope relented and agreed that the lands could remain in the hands of the lay nobility.[lxxxvi]

Philip did not rely solely on the religious issue and diplomatic tactics to accomplish his goals.  He also hoped for an heir to the throne.  Three additional means of advancing his objectives would open if Mary produced an heir.  First, although the marriage treaty specifically forbade it, Philip stood a better chance of being coronated if there were an heir to the throne.  His coronation had been forbidden in the treaty because the English feared the prospect of a foreigner ascending the throne after Mary’s death.  If Mary produced an heir, there would be no chance of Philip ascending the throne after Mary’s death.  Secondly, an heir might enable the religious issue to be pushed through more easily.  One cause of the English resistance of Catholicism was that they identified it with foreign domination.  If the royal line appeared secure within England, the fear that either Rome or Spain would dominate England would be less prevalent.  The final advantage for Philip was that a child would calm English tensions.  The English would be more inclined to accept Philip if they were not continually afraid that he would try to convert England into a Spanish colony.  Any designs Philip may have for the throne would be easier to resist if there were a legitimate heir.  For his part, Philip was less concerned with seizing the throne for himself than with calming English tensions.[lxxxvii]  He hoped that by shifting popular opinion to his favor he could secure English cooperation in his endeavors in France.

Philip began more overt measures after some attempts to improve his position in England.  Planning on future English assistance against France, he questioned the council on the state of the English navy.  Upon learning that the fleet was not seaworthy, he warned the council of the need to have a seaworthy fleet that could be available at a moment’s notice.  He wrote to them, “England’s chief defense depends upon its navy always being in good order to serve for the defense of the kingdom against all invasion.  It should not only be fit for sea, but instantly available.”[lxxxviii]

On March 20, 1557 Philip began to press Mary for military support against France.  Mary, possessing a strong sense of duty, saw it as her obligation to support her husband against the judgement of her council.[lxxxix]  She was able to convince her council to permit that which was expressly forbidden in the marriage treaty.  Philip embroiled England into the Habsburg conflict with France.[xc]

England declared war on France June 7, 1557, and eight thousand troops prepared to join Philip in Flanders under the command of Emmanuel Philibert, Duke of Savoy. 

Savoy began false attacks on frontier fortresses in France with the intention of turning suddenly to St. Quentin, which he knew to be nearly defenseless.  Though the French discovered his design, reinforcements were unable to prepare a defense in time.  The

French troops were completely routed, and Savoy finally took St. Quentin on August 27.  Philip divided his army, which consisted of his own Spaniards, German mercenaries, and English soldiers, among the towns he had taken across France.  The English troops, grudging allies anyway, were appalled at the bloody devastation after the battle of St. Quentin and disgruntled with the Spanish complaints of English behavior.  They demanded leave to return home, thus depriving Philip of any further English military assistance.[xci]

English Reception of Spanish

When Philip had traveled in Flanders and Germany in1549, his demeanor had made him extraordinarily unpopular with the people.  He did not speak a word of German, nor did he make any attempt to learn.  He did not attempt to conceal his contempt for their proceedings, which he found undignified, or for their customs, which he found disgusting.[xcii]  Anxious to avoid a repeat of the situation, Charles ordered his son to behave better in England.  In an effort to insure that the Spanish reputation in England would not suffer, Charles asked Fernando Alvarez de Toledo, Duke of Alba, to act as a model Spaniard while he accompanied Philip in England.  Alba, however, was an extraordinarily poor choice as his brusque manner earned him the antipathy of everyone at the English court, just as it had in the Low Countries.  In fact, Philip was easily more popular than Alba and may have fared better without such a model.[xciii] 

Philip was not, however, suited to the role he would need to take on in England.  The situation demanded more charisma than Philip could command.  He was stiff and formal, and the language barrier hardly endeared him to the English-speaking people.[xciv]  Renard helped the prince tremendously in writing a guide instructing him in basic behavior.  He reminded Philip to be gracious, to learn at least a few words of English, and not to interfere in domestic affairs.[xcv]  Despite Renard’s advice and Philip’s efforts, he was still unable to satisfy the English court.

The English aversion to Philip was not of a personal nature; they did not want him in England him because he was the Spanish monarch.[xcvi]  Although Philip generally refrained from interfering in English policy as they had feared, Englishmen still refused to accept him.  He was “hateful to the simple and virulent nationalism of the English.”[xcvii]  It did not matter what he did, just that he was not English.

Spanish presence aroused English resentment.  The Venetian ambassador commented that Philip would have been more loved had he gotten rid of the Spaniards around him.[xcviii]  Ruy Gómez de Silva spoke freely of Philip’s unhappiness and his plans to leave the country.  Certainly the English resented that Philip would find their country so unpleasant.[xcix]  Mary relied heavily on Renard, a symbol of Spanish and Habsburg dominance in England, over Gardiner and Paget.  Members of the government began to resent Spanish domination of the Queen and council.[c] 

Many Englishmen cooked up plots to eradicate Spanish presence in England.  One scheme was to slaughter all Spaniards in the palace, and any Englishman hosting a Spaniard in his home was to kill him that same night.  Another plan was to kill all Spaniards at a royal contest.  Both plots were uncovered and prevented before any violence could break out.[ci]  Only Wyatt’s Rebellion, which occurred before Philip and his courtiers actually arrived in England, was actually carried out.  After the rebellion was put down, Mary lost no time in adding a fiery speech in which she assured the rebels that she would not marry Philip without Parliament’s consent.  If they would not approve it, she said, then she would simply not marry.  The English fear and hatred of Spain was temporarily overcome by a patriotic love for he Tudor blood.[cii]  If Mary did not marry, it was certain that she would not bear a child.  Such a threat was too reminiscent of the relatively recent War of the Roses.  Without an heir, England could potentially be thrown into a dynastic crisis.

Once Spaniards began to arrive in England, they were badly treated.  Brawls at court were frequent and brutal, often severely wounding or killing participants.[ciii]  Londoners attacked the Count of Egmont and his company in the street.[civ]  Ambassadors from Spain arrived to ratify the union of Mary and Charles but were “pelted in the streets, ‘so hateful was the sight.’”[cv]  On January 1, 1554, boys descended upon the forerunners of the imperial embassy with snowballs.[cvi]  For the whole period of the Spanish stay in England, Spanish priests would not go out in their clerical robes for fear of the treatment they would receive.  One Spaniard wrote that “the English are so bad and fear God so little that they handle the friars shamefully…[they] tried to tear the cloaks off the backs of Don Pedro de Cordova and Don Antonio…asking what they meant by wearing crosses and jeering at them.”[cvii]

Though in the first years of his marriage Philip did not attempt to entangle England in any Spanish or Habsburg politics, he further damaged his increasingly precarious position in 1557 when he requested English aid in Spain’s war with France.  Though the marriage treaty expressly forbade English involvement, Philip pressed Mary for assistance.  It had become clear that the council would not nullify the terms of the marriage contract, and Philip could not afford to put off his request any longer as his position grew more precarious by the day.  This request could not have helped Spanish unpopularity in England, but only increased the fear that Spain would exhaust English resources and force the nation into a colonial position.

Spanish Impressions of England

Renard summed up the Spanish perception of the English in a letter to Egmont in 1554.  He called them a “faithless and lawless folk, uncertain in religion, shifty and inconstant, of a jealous nature, haters of strangers, and old detesters of all authority, even that of English princes.”[cviii]  The Spanish were as miserable in England as the English were having them there.  Spanish ambassadors who had arrived ahead of Philip met on January 2, 1554 “with silence and gloom” after surviving the attack from boys with snowballs the day before.[cix] 

One courtier who arrived with Philip complained in a letter to a friend at Salamanca that the Englishmen were “certainly more like Frenchmen than Spaniards.”[cx]  Given the state of Franco-Spanish relations at the time, this sentiment was certainly intended to be derogatory.  In the same letter, the courtier, indignant at the lack of English loyalty to the emperor, lamented that the English did not care about Flanders and would not care “if the Low Countries were lost, and the emperor with them.”  In his own loyalty to Charles and Philip he failed to consider that the English nation had only artificial ties to the Habsburgs and therefore no inclination to loyalty.  He complained of extensive robberies and other crimes against Spaniards, accusing the councilors of knowing, yet doing nothing to stop such behavior.[cxi] 

Spanish resentment toward the English mounted when Philip arrived with his courtiers.  Most of the three thousand Castilians who accompanied Philip to England were not present at the wedding because they had been left along the way to London.  Many Spanish nobles “felt slighted” that some of Mary’s household “had usurped their customary duties at Philip’s side.”[cxii]  In addition, it was difficult for Spaniards to secure lodging.  “For the English are not satisfied with preventing them from serving the King,” wrote the Spanish courtier to his friend at Salamanca, “but must inflict other miseries upon them.  The English hate us Spaniards worse than they hate the Devil, and treat us accordingly.”[cxiii]

To Spanish complaints of poor treatment, Philip responded that they must not protest, but “put up in silence with all the provocations of the English.”[cxiv]  In an effort to prevent violent outbursts between Spaniards and Englishmen, Philip proclaimed that any Spaniard to use his weapon would lose his right hand and anyone to cry “Spain!” would be hanged.[cxv]  The need for such a declaration indicates that conflicts must have been a problem.  Philip’s means of ending such conflicts must only have served to further the Spanish sense of oppression.  Thus, the Spanish courtier complained that Englishmen, knowing of Philip’s proclamation, “ill-treat us without fear.”[cxvi]

The Spanish also complained of an English lack of faith.  They refer to the English as a “godless folk” who were not at all “firm in matters of faith.”  Their view of Mary, however, was more favorable.  They called her “a perfect saint” and praised her for “beginning to set matters right.”[cxvii]  There is little doubt that aside from her firmness in faith, the Spanish did not favor the marriage for any reasons other than political ones.[cxviii]  Though members of the court may have observed Philip and Mary to be the “happiest couple in the world,” the comment was far from true.  Both Englishmen and Spaniards generally understood that love was not a part of this marriage.[cxix]  Mary may have found Philip more attractive than he found her, but conscious of his behavior, Philip always acted as a gentleman, never hinting that he found Mary undesirable.[cxx]  The nature of Philip and Mary’s personal relationship is perhaps best indicated in the fact that they never produced a child even though Mary had used the need for an heir as a lever to gain English consent to the marriage.  Though the reason Mary never conceived may have been sterility, it is important to note that Philip stayed in England only as long as he deemed necessary for Mary to conceive.

Though Mary intended her marriage to Philip in part to foster Catholicism, she found that it only increased English xenophobia.  The Spanish presence taught them to view Spain, not France, as the national enemy.[cxxi]  They looked upon Philip’s entourage as invaders, rather than allies.  The marriage itself, however, did not cause the conflict between the two peoples.  Rather, it tended to “embitter feelings already widespread.”[cxxii]

Aside from Philip and his courtiers, there was little Spanish presence in England.  The Society of Jesus, Spanish in origin, was conspicuously excluded from the orders allowed to return to England, demonstrating the antipathy England harbored toward Spain.  Mary’s accession to the throne had piqued the interest of the founder, Ignatius, in establishing a mission in England.  Surely this strongly Catholic monarch would be eager to install Jesuits in England to assist in the re-Catholicization of England.  Mary’s betrothal to Philip also gave Ignatius hope since Philip had granted permission for the Jesuit college at Louvain.[cxxiii]  Much to Ignatius’ surprise, however, while Mary restored several religious orders in England, she did not permit the entrance of the newly founded Jesuits.  

For some time Ignatius had championed Pole as a “patron of the Society.”[cxxiv]  Pole had pressured Mary of Hungary to allow a Jesuit college at the University of Louvain, the same college that Philip later permitted.[cxxv]  Pole had once declared his belief that England needed preachers to secure reconversion, but he gradually became convinced of the need for strong leaders instead.  Pressure from Charles and Philip was certainly a dominant factor in Pole’s change of attitude toward the Society of Jesus.  Although the Jesuits would have provided England with strong preachers, they simply did not fit the need for strong leaders.[cxxvi]  Once “patron of the Society,” Pole began to advise Jesuits stationed in Ireland of possible danger to their persons and suggested that they leave at the first hint of trouble.[cxxvii]  He certainly realized that they would become likely targets for English demonstrations of hatred for Spanish and Catholic elements in their society.  Even during Pole’s service as papal legate to England, he extended no request for Jesuit assistance.

Mary’s exact reasons for excluding the Jesuits are unknown.  Since English Catholics could freely practice their religion under Mary, they had no “need to look toward Europe.”  Her efforts to restore Catholicism did not include any of the counter-Reformation reforms Pope Paul III had instituted.  She wished to restore the ancient order and the Society of Jesus, founded in 1540, was not a part of that rite.[cxxviii]  Cardinal Pole recognized England’s growing distaste for Spain and wished to lessen the association between Catholicism and Spain as much as possible.[cxxix]

Mary’s pro-Catholic policies, her marriage to Philip, and Pole’s assignment to England had given Ignatius such hope that he planned a new administrative unit and prepared Bernard Oliver for the assignment.[cxxx]  But the invitation never came.  Queen Mary simply did not want Jesuits in England.[cxxxi]  The English aversion to Spain disappointed Ignatius’ hopes for an English mission.

Mary’s Objectives Collapse

Mary managed to thwart her own objectives through the very means she intended to achieve them.  Her natural tendency towards clemency proved a major factor in her political failure.  She was the most merciful Tudor in matters of treason, crimes that were dangerous to the country and to herself.  She proved the most severe, however, in matters of heresy.  Renard and Charles advocated the policy “to deal strictly with the traitor and to spare the heretic.”  Mary preferred exactly the opposite.  She did not subject all conspirators to the harsh measures Renard advocated.  She spared all but two of Northumberland’s followers.  Such clemency initially gained her popularity.  Her popularity failed, however, when her mercy did not extend to Protestants.[cxxxii]

Mary began the persecutions with encouragement from Bonner and Gardiner.  She viewed Protestants, heretics in her eyes, to be more dangerous than traitors.  Mary perceived Protestants as a threat to the salvation of the nation.  Since the salvation of all English people was her sole intent, she viewed these “heretics” as a greater and more real threat than traitors who simply wished to depose her.  Threats to her life and reign were simply threats; threats to English conversion were an actual presence that would have to be eradicated before she could attain her purpose as queen.  The first execution in her process of eradication took place in February of 1555.  Three hundred more would occur before Mary’s death in 1558.

By executing Protestants, however, Mary managed to strengthen the English hatred of the Pope and Catholicism.  Rather than ridding the nation of “heretics” and alleviating the “poison” with which England had been injected, the persecutions set the England staunchly against any possibility of conversion.  This vigorous hatred of Catholicism and the papacy became “one of the most marked characteristics of the English people for some 350 years.”[cxxxiii]

Mary’s failure to produce an heir greatly damaged anything she may have accomplished during her reign.  She experienced hysterical pregnancies twice during her reign, in which she exhibited all the signs of pregnancy without ever having conceived a child.  Without an heir, Mary could be sure that England would revert to Protestantism at her death with the accession of her half sister Elizabeth.

The council on which Mary relied so heavily was but another source of weakness of her reign.  The fact that the council had considerable power over the queen proved to be an obstacle for Mary in achieving her objectives.  The council had been largely responsible for raising Mary to the throne by throwing popular support to her instead of to Lady Jane Grey.  Thus, the council had significant power over her.[cxxxiv]  Observing this point, a Spanish courtier wrote that “the King and queen have no more authority in this realm than if they were vassals, for the Councilors govern, and are lords of the kingdom, and even of the King and Queen.”[cxxxv]  The council’s power proved problematic due to its size and wide range of objectives among the councilors.  It became a stumbling block for both Mary and Philip.

The council was large and often deeply divided.  Renard wrote to Charles that the divisions only continued to grow, and Paget would not even attend meetings because of his “enmity for the chancellor and other councilors.”[cxxxvi]  Renard suggested to Mary that she reduce its size in order to eliminate some of the existing factions but was later forced to write to Charles that a reduction was impossible because “it created too much bad feeling between the old and recent members of the Privy Council.”[cxxxvii]  The historian Ann Weikel posits, however, that the conciliar factions have been exaggerated.  Division within the council has been based largely on Renard’s reports to Charles V.  Weikel suggests that Renard may have distorted factions to serve his own interests.  Perhaps Renard believed he could more easily control a smaller council, and thereby more easily control Mary.[cxxxviii]  Though the possibility exists that Renard exaggerated the state of the government, evidence for conciliar factions is stronger.

The third Parliament under Mary also reflected problems in her government.  Mary had requested that men of the “wise, grave, and Catholic sort” be sent to participate.  This effort to pack Parliament proved futile.  The third session reflected the middle class by restoring the relationship with the Papacy without restoring Church lands, by protecting the monarchy from feuds over the regency without crowning Philip, and by refusing (for a time) to be dragged into the war on the continent.  It was unconcerned with Mary’s desires to restore Church lands and to aid Philip in his requests.  The third Parliament proved that attempts to pack the House of Commons were useless “when Crown and Council had not one, but many conflicting objectives to pursue.”[cxxxix]

Mary had hoped that her marriage to Philip would assist her in achieving England’s return to Rome.  Philip was to be the king of the most powerful Catholic nation, and his father was the Holy Roman Emperor.  Both were faithful Catholics.  Mary hoped that such connections would reinforce Catholicism in England.  Her fatal miscalculation was not in choosing a Catholic husband, but in choosing a husband from such a powerful nation.  She underestimated the ferocity of her nation’s reaction to a foreign marriage, and to a Spanish marriage in particular.  In addition, Mary misunderstood Charles and Philip’s purposes.  She had believed that they would devote themselves entirely to advancing Catholicism, not realizing that they may have additional objectives.  Mary’s priorities and Habsburg priorities proved incompatible given the force of English opposition.

Although the marriage treaty expressly forbade it, Philip managed to acquire English military and financial support against France through Mary’s intercession.  This support drained England financially.  The English fear of becoming a Spanish colony proved true.  England was unwillingly embroiled in a financially devastating war in which they had no stake.[cxl]  The loss of Calais in January of 1558 “destroyed the last vestige of loyalty to [Mary],” as it had been the last English holding on the continent. [cxli]  Much of the blame fell to Mary, as she had convinced the council to permit English involvement.  The loss especially embittered the English, for it would never have been in danger without Philip’s intervention.  There was suspicion that Philip had purposely let France capture Calais with the intention of retaking it later for his own.  The Treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis, which settled the Franco-Spanish war on April 2, 1559, did not give any consideration to English interests; Philip did not even make an attempt to restore Calais to England, thus indicating to the English that he was utterly unconcerned for England.[cxlii]  Calais was proof that the English wariness of a foreign marriage had been justified.  Reservations regarding Philip and Charles’ intentions for England in respect to France had been accurate.  Against the will of the greater part of her nation, Mary had insisted on marrying Philip and, in so doing, had cost the English people finances, Calais, and their independence.

After the Protestant persecutions and the war in France, Mary could never hope to accomplish a return to Catholicism.  Any authority she may have once possessed was utterly lost.  Mary, so popular in 1553, became one of the most hated monarchs in English history, earning the title “Bloody Mary.” 

Spanish Objectives Collapse

The Habsburgs did not fare any better in achieving their objectives than Mary had.  Spaniards lamented Philip’s obvious loss in England.  A Spanish courtier wrote that he had been assured in Castille that “once his Highness was King of England we would lord it over France; and the very opposite has happened, for the French are stronger than ever.”[cxliii]  Persecutions were a large part of Habsburg failure, just as they had been a part of Mary’s failure.  Spanish presence in England grew more dangerous as Protestant executions began, for the English suspected Spaniards of instigating the persecutions.  Though the persecutions were initiated, or at least encouraged, by Bonner and Gardiner, it was all too tempting for Englishmen to associate the persecutions with Spain.[cxliv]

Spaniards, for their part, were horrified by the course of action Mary had chosen.  Philip and Charles objected to the persecution because it worked against their political objectives by inducing the people to detest Mary as well as the Spaniards and increasing the hatred of Imperial and Spanish presence.[cxlv]  They also objected to the persecutions out of a concern for the reinstatement of Catholicism.  They recognized that such harsh measures would greatly hinder restoration.  Renard wrote of the dangers in allowing the persecutions to continue.  It would, he warned Philip, prove dangerous to Mary and Philip and would mean the “cause of religion be again menaced.”  He advised Philip that if Mary would not consent to end the persecutions, then a less public means should be considered.[cxlvi]  After Philip spoke to Mary with these objections the persecutions ended, though only temporarily.  In the bloodless interval Renard wrote to Charles begging him to keep Philip from leaving England as they had planned.  He feared that persecutions would recommence as soon as Philip was gone.[cxlvii]  Spanish priests spoke out against Mary’s means of “conversion.”  Philip’s own confessor “denounced them at the pulpit” probably at Philip’s insistence, or at least with his approval.  By “active intercession” Philip saved many condemned men.[cxlviii] 

Despite Spanish resistance to the persecutions, their presence in England was even more dangerous than it had been at their arrival.  The persecutions, though strictly at the initiative and approval of Englishmen and denounced vigorously by Spaniards, reflected badly on the Spain since their arrival and the beginning of the persecutions had nearly coincided.  With so much working against them, Philip and Charles had little hope of succeeding in their mission.  Renard worked endlessly in attempts to salvage the efforts he had made in arranging the match.  As Mary executed more Protestants, Philip, Charles and Renard watched their prospects in England fade.

Though the persecutions were a large factor in the failure of Philip and Charles’ objectives, several other elements played a role.  Charles had accepted the marriage treaty with all its unfavorable terms because he had hoped that Philip would be able to persuade Mary and the council to nullify many of them.[cxlix]  He was successful in reversing certain elements of the treaty, such as acquiring English support in the war with France.  He was

not, however, able to persuade Parliament to grant him the crown.  He was not even able to obtain regency when Mary’s pregnancy was announced.[cl]  Perhaps if a child had been born Philip would have stood a better chance at retaining a foothold in England.  The lack of an heir damaged his prospects.  Such a failure to gain power in England was surely a blow to Habsburg aims. 

The few Spanish counselors who remained in England were unable to operate.  They possessed only a “shaky understanding of English politics” and suffered extraordinary unpopularity.  Only Renard and Philip had the queen’s ear, making her the “only effective instrument of Habsburg influence.”[cli]  In addition, Habsburg diplomacy began to crumble from within.  Tensions developed between Philip’s subjects and Charles’ subjects, damaging Habsburg unity.[clii]  Any political operations the Habsburgs attempted in England were futile and ineffective.

When Philip began to indicate his desire to leave England, Renard wrote letter upon letter to both Charles and Philip.  Besides his pleas regarding the persecutions, Renard insisted that the administration be settled and public peace restored before Philip left.  Without these measures, everything they had hoped for out of the marriage would be utterly lost.  If Philip would take steps to restore at least some of the damage that had been done, it was possible that Renard could salvage some political good from the union.[cliii]  In 1555, having lost all hope of an heir, Philip finally left England for Flanders.[cliv]

By 1557 Philip was concerned that his position in England was growing too shaky to put off his request for English assistance in France.  His only hope for English support was to convince Mary of her duty to help him.  Having left her in England, Philip ran the risk of losing any influence he may have retained.  His claim on her duties as his wife grew less plausible with every day he spent away from England.  The call for aid, of course, made him all the more unpopular with the English.  What little support he had received in England had come largely from the middle class.  As the religious issue had been settled, however, and the focus turned toward the continent, the middle class had begun to fear the effects war would have on trade, and Philip’s slim support waned dramatically.[clv]  When the English soldiers demanded leave to return home, Philip was far too unsure of his position to deny them permission.[clvi]  Having received unwilling assistance, suffered defeat after defeat in France, and lost Calais, every vestige of hope Philip had in England through Mary was destroyed.  He turned his hopes from his sterile wife to the promising Elizabeth who was sure to ascend the throne shortly.

Conclusion

By 1558 it had become clear that Mary’s fragile health was quickly failing her.  Political and personal pressures had taken their toll.  Overwhelmed by a second hysterical pregnancy and the burden of political and religious failure, Mary died on November 17 after a reign that “was, in every way, marked by a note of sterility.”[clvii]  Upon her death, Philip, who had not been in England in three years, did not return to pay respects to his wife.  Rather, he sent as his representative the Count of Feria whose first action was to “propitiate the coming queen,” Mary’s young half sister Elizabeth.[clviii]  Throughout his dealings with England, Philip had always been careful to pay special attention to Elizabeth.  He had hoped that he could arrange a marriage between Elizabeth and the Duke of Savoy to insure the continuation of the Spanish connection with England.[clix]  Philip’s actions at the time of Mary’s death further indicate the political nature of the marriage in his eyes.  Indeed he was never personally attached to Mary.  His interest in Elizabeth betrayed his political interests.

By the end of Mary’s reign, it was clear that opposition to the marriage had been justified.  It led directly to Wyatt’s Rebellion and indirectly to the loss of Calais.[clx]  Mary’s lack of statesmanship is clear in her inability to recognize the obvious consequences of the marriage alliance with Spain.  She did not perceive the danger to English independence.  Blinded by the force of her religious zeal and Spanish heritage, she trusted Renard and Charles implicitly, failing to see through their disguise of imperial objectives.  She did not foresee that Philip’s influence over her would be credited with the persecutions, with the result that “Catholicism and Spanish tyranny became all but synonymous.”[clxi]

Not only did the marriage play a major role in shaping the national character of England, but it also played a major role in the history of the rest of the continent.  The marriage alliance affected the course of the war between the Habsburg Empire and France.  Though its success could have meant a great victory for the Habsburgs and devastation for France, its failure brought hope to France and disappointment to the Habsburgs.  The poor state of Anglo-Spanish relations during the marriage impaired the Habsburg play for complete domination of Europe.  Though France had feared that the marriage would strengthen the Habsburg power, its political failure actually served to strengthen the French position. 

Although the English dreaded the potential effects of the marriage, many anticipated benefits should the union succeed.  Ambitious government officials seized the chance to advance their careers.  Catholic clergymen anticipated a full restoration of their previous powers and prerogatives.  The outcome, however, disappointed all and ruined many.  Mary died broken-hearted at having failed in the full restoration of Catholicism.  Philip witnessed a severe setback of his position on the continent.  Paget and Gardiner, among others, suffered serious blows to their careers.  The marriage, once full of promise, was not sufficient in itself.  Conflicting objectives insured failure for all.  Without unity of purpose, a simple marriage alliance could not fulfill so many agendas.

Endnotes

Bibliography

Primary Sources

  Primary sources available for this thesis are scarce.  Manuscripts and public records are, to the best of this author’s knowledge, unavailable through area libraries.  Numerous secondary sources provide excerpts from letters, manuscripts, and other documents found in the Public Records Office.  Most useful among these sources are G.R. Elton, The Tudor Constitution: Documents and Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962), and David C. Douglas, ed. English Historical Documents, vol. 5, 1485-1558, ed. by C.H. Williams (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967).  These sources have been used extensively throughout this work.  Many letters between Renard and Charles can be found in Calendar of State Papers, Spanish, 11 vols., (London, 1862).  Pertinent documents are also in A.F. Pollard, Tudor Tracts: 1532-1588. (New York: Cooper Square  Publishers, Inc., 1964), Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1547-1590, 2 vols., (London, 1956), and Calendar of State Papers, Foreign, Edward VI and Mary, 2 vols., (London, 1861).  Records from Parliament are found in Journals of the House of Commons, vol.1, (London, 1803).

Secondary Sources

    Basset, Bernard. The English Jesuits, from Campion to Martindale. New York: Herder                and Herder, 1967.

Boyden, James M. The Courtier and the King: Ruy Gómez de Avila, Philip II, and the

Court of Spain. Berkley: The University of California Press, 1955.

Cook, Thornton. Royal Marys: Princess Mary and her Predecessors. Freeport: Books for

Libraries Press, Inc., 1930.

Elton, G.R. England Under the Tudors, vol. 4. A History of England, ed. Charles Oman.

London: Methuen & Co. Ltd, 1955.

Harbison, E. Harris. Rival Ambassadors at the Court of Queen Mary. Freeport: Books for

Libraries Press, 1940.

Hinds, Allen B. The Making of the England of Elizabeth. London: Rivington, Percival &

Co., 1895.

Hume, Martin A.S. Philip II of Spain.  New York: A.L. Burt Company, Publishers, 1903.

Innes, Arthur D. England Under the Tudors. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1911.

Jones, Whitney R.D. The Mid-Tudor Crisis: 1539-1563. New York: Harper & Row

Publishers, Inc., 1973.

Kamen, Henry.  Philip of Spain.  London: Yale University Press, 1997.

Loades, David. Politics and Nation: England 1450-1660. 5 ed. Oxford: Blackwell

Publishers, 1999.

________. Tudor Government: Structures of Authority in the Sixteenth Century.

Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1997.

­­________.  Two Tudor Conspiracies.  Cambridge: The University Press, 1965.

Lockyer, Roger. Tudor and Stuart Britain: 1471-1714. 2d ed. London: Longman Group

Limited, 1985.

Lofts, Norah. Queens of England. Garden City: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1977.

Mackie, J.D. The Earlier Tudors: 1485-1558. The Oxford History of England, ed. Sir

George Clark, no.7. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1962.

Madden, Frederick. Privy Purse Expenses of the Princess Mary, Daughter of King Henry

the Eighth, Afterward Queen Mary: With A Memoir of the Princess Mary, and

Notes. London: William Pickering, 1831.

McCoog, Thomas M., ed. The Reckoned Expense, Edmund Campion and the Jesuits.

Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1996.

________. The Society of Jesus in Ireland, Scotland, and England, 1541-1588:

‘Our Way of Proceeding?’. Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought, ed.

Heiko A. Oberman, no.60. New York: E.J. Brill, 1996.

Merriman, John. A History of Modern Europe. Vol.1. New York: W.W. Norton &

Company, 1996.

Parker, Geoffrey.  The Grand Strategy of Philip II.  London: Yale University Press, 1998.

Powell, Ken and Chris Cook. English Historical Facts. Totowa: Rowman and Littlefield,

1977.

Prescott, H.F.M.  Mary Tudor. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1953.

Prescott, William H. History of the Reign of Philip the Second, King of Spain. Vol. 1.

London: George Routledge and Sons, n.d.

Stone, J.M. The History of Mary I, Queen of England. London: Sands & Co., 1901.

Tittler, Robert, and Jennifer Loach, eds. The Mid-Tudor Polity c. 1540-1560. Totowa:

Rowman and Littlefield, 1980.

Trease, Geoffrey. The Seven Queens of England. New York: Vanguard Press, Inc., 1953.

Weir, Alison. The Children of Henry VIII. New York: Ballantine Books, 1996.

Home| Index