• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Did Mary Tudor deserve the title 'Bloody Mary'

Extracts from this document...


Tuesday 14th November 2006 Do you think that Mary Tudor deserved her title "Bloody Mary" or was she simply misunderstood? Historians still disagree about Mary. Some think she is bloody while others think she was just misunderstood. In this C.H.A.T. I will discuss whether Mary was bloody or misunderstood. In my conclusion I will give my opinion about Mary. In 1533 Mary started to burn innocent Protestants alive. Mary killed 283 victims including Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury and Ridley. Mary was only on the throne for 5 years and managed to burn alive 283 heretics. While Henry VIIII was on the throne for 38 years and burned alive 81 people. Edward VI was on the throne for 6 years and burned alive 2 people and Elizabeth was on the throne for 45 years and burned alive 5 people. Source E page 23 - worksheet. "...but it was Mary who insisted on continuing..." Even though Mary had a chance of saying no to the executions but she wanted to execute them without thought. ...read more.


Source B worksheet page 23, "neither man, women nor child were spared...all went to the fire" All heretics would have been burned alive. John Foxe wrote this in 1559. This is not reliable as he was a Protestant and wanted Mary to look bloody, however there are some true facts e.g. Mary did kill Ridely etc. John Foxe wrote a book in exile called Foxes book of Martyrs, which included all the killings that happened and showed illustration of the Protestants who were burned alive and published it after Mary died so he wouldn't be burned alive (1563). It was the best seller after the Bible in England. That was why Mary was known as "Bloody Mary". Mary encouraged protestant clergy (priests) to go to exile. 800 Protestants clergy went to exile. Source A page 24 - worksheet, "...we think it ought to be done without rashness.. people...treated fairly" Mary is saying that we shouldn't just kill Protestants, we have to have a reason to kill them. ...read more.


A historian wrote this in 1976. He is trying to put what Mary did into context, because she was not the only monarch who killed Protestants. The parliament, hang robbers alive and killed many other kinds of people. All Mary had to do to kill Elizabeth was sign a bunch of papers but she chose not to even though her advisers did the best they could to make her sign, she only put her under house arrest for 2 months at Woodstock Palace. The Mass and other Catholic rituals were re-established. Instead of burning all the Protestant Clergymen she just arrested them and replaced them with Catholics. Marry didn't have a very good childhood, her father Henry VIII neglected her and she didn't really live in the courts (royalty). Her own mother Catherine of Aragon wasn't permitted (allowed) to see Mary, so she married Philip heir to the throne of Spain, which is the mightiest Catholic nation so that she could make England a very powerful and strong country and in hope to see her mother again and her mother was Queen of Spain. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE History Projects section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE History Projects essays

  1. did 'Bloody Mary' deserve her title?

    by Archbishop Cranmer was issued that set out the service that all churches had to follow and included the instruction that priests should wear plain clothes. The main differences were that the services were in English. The king, as God's representative could have headship of the church.

  2. Does General Douglas Haig deserve to be remembered as the butcher of the Somme(TM)?

    This source is talking positively about Haig. Lastly another example of Haig doing his job is shown in source 15. It was written be S.Warburton in a magazine article called 'Hindsight' in 1998.He stated that putting all the blame on Haig was not fair because trench warfare was a new type of war and not many generals

  1. How useful is a visit to the Tudor parts of Hampton Court to find ...

    Although Hampton Court was built ten years earlier than St James' in 1536 you can see the similarities in the building. The West Front at Hampton Court (as seen on the right)

  2. Did Haig deserve his reputation

    Haig was very realistic. He considered the loss of life and sent out a fair warning in the UK and across the trenches in France, saying that there would be an extreme loss of life. He didn't ignore this fact and give false impressions to the soldiers as some other leaders would have done.

  1. Does Haig deserve his title as "butcher of Somme"?

    Also, even though the battle did not turn out to be the "decisive breakthrough" it was intended to be, astonishingly, the Germans suffered from more casualties than the British and the French put together - by the end of the war, the British suffered from 420,000 casualties, the French 195,000 and the Germans 650,000 (source: bbc history).

  2. Could an event like Bloody Sunday happen again?

    Even though this idea failed there was a sense of trust and compromise started to come from the Nationalist which show if it continues in this way then there won't be another Bloody Sunday in the future. In 1985 there was an Anglo-Irish agreement, this was agreed by the British and Irish Prime ministers-Margaret Hatcher and Garret Fitzgerald.

  1. Does Haig deserve the title Butcher of the Somme?

    One of the German generals admitted later that this broke the heart of the German Army. ?We were completely exhausted?, he wrote, ?If the war lasted, our defeat seemed certain.? Also the British had helped to save Verdun by keeping a million German soldiers occupied on the Somme.

  2. What happened to Catholism in Tudor England?

    Henry?s only son Edward was Protestant. These are some of the changes he introduced. The king was Supreme Head, Psalm Sunday was banned, from 1549 priests were allowed to get married, you could not buy your way to heaven. Edward completely changed what was inside the church.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work