Unnatural, Unlawful, Ungodly, and Monstrous: Manipulating the Queenly Identities of Mary I and Mary II

Abstract

Writing shortly after Elizabeth’s accession, the administrator and reformer, John Hales, portrayed Mary I as wholly unnatural, to the extent that she ceased to be a woman but was instead a monster, even the Devil himself in the form of a woman. Such a vociferous attack was not an isolated occurrence and Hales’ portrayal of the late queen was typical of that expressed by radical Protestant reformers in a series of polemical tracts that appeared during Mary’s brief reign. In the mid-sixteenth century female rule was perceived by many as unnatural, contrary to both divine and natural law, and critics of the queen and her Catholic regime drew upon these widely held beliefs to construct Mary as unnatural, ungodly, and monstrous. According to radical Protestants Mary was a monstrous tyrant who was governed by her own unnatural and uncontrollable lusts, lusts that led, they argued, to her marriage to Philip of Spain and betrayal of her kingdom to a foreign power. Furthermore, they alleged that she was illegitimate and consequently had no right to the throne of England, her tainted blood making her queenship unlawful. But the concept of a regnant queen’s unnaturalness was not solely the preserve of sixteenth-century Protestant polemics against Mary I. In the latter seventeenth century the rule of a woman was still problematic, particularly when that woman, Mary II, was deemed by some to have usurped her father’s throne.2 And supporters of the queen’s father, the Catholic James II, known as Jacobites, used broadly similar themes to attack the queen and the new regime in the numerous satirical verses of the period. Seizing upon the notion of lust, Jacobites accused Mary II of forgetting her filial duty to her father in her lust for power, and used this perceived lapse in her Christian duty to imply that she was ungodly and an unnatural daughter. Furthermore, not only had she lusted after power, but also sex, as critics alleged she took lovers. As Mary Tudor’s blood had been scrutinised over a century earlier, Mary Stuart’s blood was also held up for scrutiny: critics implied that her blood was also tainted. By considering the significant interplay between gender, blood, and authority, this essay will analyse how critics of Mary I and Mary II, enabled by contemporary beliefs about gender, used notions of unnaturalness and tainted blood to manipulate the identities of these queens. It will also demonstrate that despite the significant political and religious changes that occurred across the period, including the evolution of monarchical office, attitudes towards female rulers had not evolved to the same extent.