#this belief england was going to fall into perdition due to 'evil councilors' but she couldn't do anything to reverse it

[fideidefenswhore]

@bunniesandbeheadings I might misunderstand the text you linked. How could Mary call Edward a bastard? KoA was dead by then, and of course widowers can remarry. Calling Jane a legitimate Queen in no way would take away KoA’s status as Queen?

all of hviii's marriages after catherine of aragon were not recognised by the catholic church/pope. when he needed dispensations for these marriages, like for affinity (his marriage to jane was one of them), they were granted by the anglican church, whose authority the pope and other catholic monarchies of christendom did not recognise (the last real 'papal' henrician appointment, irony of ironies, was thomas cranmer's). there was also the matter of all marriages taking place when the realm was in schism, thus "all other women of henry concubines and not wives". prince edward was (legitimate) heir as reified by parliament; both retroactively from the succession act of 1536 and in name by the one of 1543.

foreign dignitaries of course, when they visited, would honour whoever henry's wife was as queen to maintain good relations and as matter of diplomacy (this wasn't, of course, done by the imperial until the last weeks of AB's time as queen, but otherwise, she was, even if 'frostily' by the french as in 1534). but they were often under instruction to treat this status as transient, as lauren mackay has summarized in her biography of chapuys, for example, charles v was rather mercenary in his attitude towards jane seymour, continually referring to her as henry's 'mistress' well into their marriage in his own instructions to chapuys:

"It appears Charles [V] was at times rather ruthless in regards to Jane, despite the fact that her being in power benefitted Mary. Charles referred to her in several dispatches as Henry's mistress rather than queen [...]" Inside the Tudor Court, Lauren Mackay

#bunniesandbeheadings #replies #there's like the question of why mary did not attempt to overthrow edward while he was king if she didn't believe his reign was legitimate #which is an interesting one... #but 1) her biographers really discount how much of a dissembler she was #2) loades theorized that she actually did buy into the henrician supremacy and her own illegitimacy and simply had a turnaround once #edward died believing that was god's sign she was the rightful heir thus legitimate...which i find an oversimplistic explanation. to say #the least... #i think psychologically in the last years of the edwardian regime she had something of a redeux of the AB years? #this belief england was going to fall into perdition due to 'evil councilors' but she couldn't do anything to reverse it #which is why there's an escape attempt not just an escape plan as in the former but she also decides against this in the last hour #so yes. what was her plan? or hope? it might've been that edward vi would be excommunicated as he reached his majority #and that charles v took up the call to invade and england became one of his dominions #and she would be set up as regent as he set up his other female relatives as regent in his absence #idk if i'd say jane being in power benefitted mary. all the 'benefits' she received came from her swearing to oaths she'd been pressurized #to swear to for the past two years...? #anyway this was illuminating and instructive. to me. it best explains imo why she took such a defiant attitude towards edward. she wouldn't #have seen it as defiant if she didn't believe in his authority in the first place