She was the first Queen regnant of England who addressed herself to be "Married to England" and "Mother to her subjects".

After so much injustice to her, she came to throne and reign for 5 years and 3 months almost.

She is often protrayed as Bloody Mary. But why? Does she really deserves this much hate?

Let's see her achievements and her bad descisions.

Achievements:

1. She passed the Act for Regal Power in 1554. She stated that a Queen can hold same powers as a reigning king. ( An early step for feminist ideology).
2. The Naval Reform Bill: Reorganized naval financing, introducing a fixed peacetime budget specifically allocated to the Admiralty.Repaired, expanded, and built several modern naval warships. Historians cite Mary's structural baseline as the logistical framework Elizabeth used to beat the Spanish Armada years later.
3. The Militia Act (1558): Modernized the nationwide system of domestic recruitment. This law forced local counties to maintain proper weapons storage caches and standardized armor equipment for regional troops.
4. Funded corporate exploration initiatives by the Merchant Adventurers to bypass established Spanish and Portuguese maritime blockades, mapping out alternative paths to Africa and northern Europe.

The Muscovy Company (1555): Granted a formal royal charter to England's first joint-stock trading enterprise. This created a lucrative, exclusive monopoly on trade between England and Moscow, expanding markets far beyond Western Europe.

1. She stopped the deep inflation caused by her father and brother's heavy debasement of the currency. She designed a comprehensive re-coinage program that stabilized the pound, which was later executed smoothly by Elizabeth I because Mary I was dead by then. Mary I also restored the silver coins.

The Book of Rates (1558): Completely updated England's customs duties for the first time in decades. This dramatically expanded crown revenues by raising import and export taxes, resolving structural deficits.

Streamlined national treasury collection by dissolving ineffective regional administrative structures. She absorbed the Court of First Fruits and Tenths and the Court of Augmentations into a unified Court of Exchequer.

1. She re-endowed five hospitals, including the Savoy Hospital in London, to help care for the needy.

2. Maundy Thursday Ceremonies: Mary took part in traditional humility rituals, washing the feet of poor women, giving them food, shoes, cloth for new clothes, and money.

She was actively involved in charity just like her mother, Queen Catherine of Aragon.

She never discriminated poors and rich and always saw them as her own citizens. She even donated her favorite purple velvet dress to a poor needy lady.

And many more.....

She was deeply traumatized by her past experiences, her mother's death and her illegitimate status by her own father. She viewed her faith in catholicism as a temporary relief from her all bad pasts. People actively used to mock her for her catholic beliefs. Even when she became queen, On April 8, 1554, an unknown Protestant rebel hanged a dead cat dressed like a Catholic priest from the gallows in Cheapside, London, to protest Queen Mary I's return to Catholicism. This incidents made her furious. She started to believe that catholicism was the only true church and way to salvation. She deeply hated her father and started to undo his all doings over the past. She started converting protestants to catholicism again. During this, about 283 people were executed by burning on stakes. One pregnant lady was even there who gave birth in the burning stakes. This made her unpopular for a short time.

She married to a Spanish prince and late became queen consort of spain for a brief time. Though she restricted her husbands control and never allowed him to took over English wealth or power. She even forbade him to play any role in England's court. She just wanted a heir.

Also she lost Calais, an english territory in France. This also made her unpopular too.

Her reign saw a little stability and a good growth for english economy, navy and overall power. But we must remember that she got a bankrupted country when she inherited the throne from her brother. But her policies changed the fate of England and most of her achievements were completely stolen by Elizabeth I.

During Mary's time, monarchs used to execute people whenever they wanted. It was common back then. Even her own father was like that. She was a result of being brought up in such an environment. I don't think she deserves the title "Bloody Mary." There were more cruel rulers than her throughout history.

Her own father, Henry VIII, sister Elizabeth I, and brother Edward VI killed more people than she did.

Her sister Elizabeth I tried her best to build her image as "The Virgin Queen" or "Gloriana" while portraying her sister, Mary I, as a bad queen. Elizabeth I heavily promoted Foxe's Book of Martyrs, written by a Protestant historian, and it was given almost the same importance as the Bible. It was kept alongside the Bible in churches, hospitals, schools, and official buildings. Mary I was heavily criticized in that book and labelled "Bloody Mary."

No wonder people have remembered only her cruel side, while remembering her step-sister as "The Gloriana," even though that Gloriana allegedly starved her own soldiers to death who fought for England during the Spanish Armada.

Never ever call Mary I "Bloody Mary" unless you also call her father "Devil Henry," her sister "Bloody Bess Elizabeth," and her brother "Evil Edward." She was always treated as a scapegoat in Tudor history, received all the blame, and was remembered only for her cruelty. No one could see her actual side either. A monarch can never be completely pure. But if you can't condemn the big tyrants like Henry VIII or Elizabeth I, then you shouldn't mock Mary I, who looks like a saint compared to them.

If her sister can get the title of Gloriana. Mary I definitely deserves the title "Holy Mary Of England".

Edit - I am not a catholic but a Hindu. So don't blame Catholics for my post. I have read history and shared my opinions.

Inspired by a previous post. Have fun <3

I’ve noticed something interesting about English monarchs: in terms of personality, appearance, ruling style, and other traits, they often resemble their grandparents more than their parents. I’d love to hear everyone’s thoughts on which traits each monarch inherited from their four grandparents. His grandparents were as follows:

Paternal grandfather: John of Gaunt

Paternal grandmother: Blanche of Lancaster

Maternal grandfather: Humphrey de Bohun

Maternal grandmother: Joan FitzAlan

The purpose is to surmise what monarchs would think of their successors based on their respective personalities, leadership styles, how they thought of their heirs while alive, and how their successor’s reign ultimately turned.

RULES:
1. Say what you think the predecessor would’ve liked about their successor.
2. Say what you think predecessor would’ve disliked about their successor.
3. Give what you think their overall rating/review would be based on these out of 10

Be as thorough as you wish.

Last time, George I gave his son George II a 7/10 for his accomplishments despite their bitter feud for most of their adult life. Today, George II reviews his grandson George III. I think George II would’ve disappointed by the loss of the American colonies (more so due to loss of British sovereignty over their own territories, but the lifted financial burden would’ve relieved him maybe), as well as sympathetic to the mental illness of his grandson. He probably would’ve been proud of the family-man image that George III cultivated and been pleased with the creation of the United Kingdom. Generally, I think George II would’ve been prouder of his grandson more than he was of his own son. What do y’all think?

Looking forward to reading!

I’ve heard that every US President is. Is this also true of British PMs? Are there any who wouldn’t be?

I tried to create a list of who would have been monach since Edward III (as I thought we avoid the war of the roses in this timeline). I used the male-preference primogeniture principles, so the sons come before daughters but daughters come before uncles. It is basically the culmination of York and Jacobite successions just with some different royal numerals. Longest serving monach would be King James III with a respectable 65 year long reign.

I’ve noticed something interesting about English monarchs: in terms of personality, appearance, ruling style, and other traits, they often resemble their grandparents more than their parents. I’d love to hear everyone’s thoughts on which traits each monarch inherited from their four grandparents. His grandparents were as follows:

Paternal grandfather: King Edward III of England

Paternal grandmother: Philippa of Hainault

Maternal grandfather: Henry of Grosmont

Maternal grandmother: Isabel de Beaumont

Top Ten Royal Mediaeval Commanders of the British Isles:

Ten. Owain Glyndŵr. Clearly an exceptional military leader but so many of his achievements and accomplishments are shrouded in mystery and superstition that it’s hard to rank him higher.
Nine. Richard III. A very competent general both as king and Duke of Gloucester, no matter what you think of him, his generalship defined by aggression and personal bravery. Not ranked higher because he lost the most important battle of his life; though this was perhaps due to treachery.
Eight. Richard I. I know, I know. Purely as a physical warrior he’s much higher and his individual victories like Arsuf and Jaffa were impressive but he was so irresponsible and so comprehensively outmanoeuvred by Saladin in terms of long term strategy that he can’t be higher.
Seven. Athelstan. He’d be much higher if we just knew more about *how* he did it, but defeating basically everyone else at Brunanburh and creating the borders of England with the storming of York were extraordinary. We just… know so little about him.
Six. Alfred the Great. He’s incredible, but again more a tactical mind than a battlefield commander. Ashdown and Edington proved he could do it when pushed but it clearly wasn’t his forte. The burhs are half military and half pure governance.
Five. Edward III and the Black Prince. I’m going to judge them together, as they were so integral to each others victories. The use of archers in crossfire at Halidon Hill was the start of an incredible career as a general - Edward III simply refusing to move at Crecy was deeply impressive and his son’s bravery was impeccable. That being said, you have to hold on to your conquests and the Edwards… didn’t.
Four. Edward I. His stupid cavalry charge at Lewes was thoroughly clawed back by Evesham (which was just beautifully done) and Falkirk. Not imaginative, not creative, just scarily efficient. Every time. Evesham especially and his use of Simon de Montfort’s son’s stolen banners show a very early understanding of psychological warfare.
Three. Robert the Bruce. Honestly the top three are interchangeable. Robert figuring out they needed to take the castles to gain independence was incredibly intelligent and using schiltrons offensively was far more effective than Wallace (who is deeply overrated)
Two. Henry V. The uber-warrior king. Fought with his men, destroyed the flower of French chivalry in one afternoon and all that jazz, just awesome. Only doesn’t make number one because he died before he could complete his conquests and they were starting to rack up rather worrying debts…
One. Edward IV. Never lost a battle. Won the largest single conflict of the Middle Ages at Towton. Both a magnificent frontlines fighter with an axe and a cool-headed field commander able to outmanoeuvre his opponents again and again. Reconquered England in just two battles in 1471. As a king he’s more mixed but purely as a general I don’t think he has that much competition.

Honourable mentions:
William I. Clearly a great general but the exhaustion of the Anglo-Saxon army is a major crutch for him: we don’t know how he would have fared against Godwinson at full power. His real ability is more in his administration.
Henry II. Same goes for him. Fighting on like four fronts simultaneously in 1173 is almost absurd but he was more of an administrator than a battlefield general.
Margaret of Anjou: as someone who never fought physically I can’t put her higher, but simply getting people to fight for her as a woman in the 15th Century is an incredible feat of generalship. Not to mention her operational and co-ordinating ability in organising the Lancastrian army for decades.

^{coughcoughdahliacoughcough} I think she was just a lovely, warm-hearted person! She had to endure so much and was a competent ruler when she had to be. Both her and Anne's relationships with their husbands is so sweet to read about, even if Mary's didn't start out that way at first

She was aware of her gaps in knowledge about leadership and let William handle most of the work, someone with much more experience, a decision I can respect her for. She did prove that she was capable later on though despite apprehensiveness which is cool!

As much as it is just a matter of opinion, she was far from boring to me. I relate to her deeply sensitive character and I feel she deserves more recognition outside of history circles!!

I’ve noticed something interesting about English monarchs: in terms of personality, appearance, ruling style, and other traits, they often resemble their grandparents more than their parents. I’d love to hear everyone’s thoughts on which traits each monarch inherited from their four grandparents. His grandparents were as follows:

Paternal grandfather: King Edward III of England

Paternal grandmother: Philippa of Hainault

Maternal grandfather: Edmund of Woodstock

Maternal grandmother: Margaret Wake

Edward IV deposed him but Henry VI came back for a year before his death probably murdered by Edward IV. A cult rose that regarded him as saint and martyr and miracles were attributed to him.

Just a bit of fun :)

This is her visiting the Great Yorkshire show. Thought it was neat to have a photo of her from the exact date of my birth.

Source: Cultural and Historical Archive of the Petralia Family, Civil Non-Profit Company

I’ve noticed something interesting about English monarchs: in terms of personality, appearance, ruling style, and other traits, they often resemble their grandparents more than their parents. I’d love to hear everyone’s thoughts on which traits each monarch inherited from their four grandparents. His grandparents were as follows:

Paternal grandfather: King Henry III of England

Paternal grandmother: Eleanor of Provence

Maternal grandfather: King Ferdinand III of Castile

Maternal grandmother: Joan of Dammartin

The medal is made of gold and measures approximately 57 mm in diameter. It is preserved by the Royal Museums Greenwich.

I’ve noticed something interesting about English monarchs: in terms of personality, appearance, ruling style, and other traits, they often resemble their grandparents more than their parents. I’d love to hear everyone’s thoughts on which traits each monarch inherited from their four grandparents. His grandparents were as follows:

Paternal grandfather: King Edward I of England

Paternal grandmother: Eleanor of Castile

Maternal grandfather: King Philip IV of France

Maternal grandmother: Queen Joanna I of Navarre