Sign in or 
Location: Team Maria/Katherine of Aragon and Team McKeown/Bolger/Mary Partnership Page
Discussion: Mother and Daughter!
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this
Reggie19 |
Mother and Daughter!
Feb 27 2009, 9:29 AM EST
I've just read so i may be jumping to conclusions, but Mary wasn't permitted to be buried with her mother like she wanted, why was that?
Do you find this valuable?
Keyword tags:
KOA
Mary Tudor
|
Ebusitanus |
1. RE: Mother and Daughter!
Feb 27 2009, 2:36 PM EST
I would think Elisabeth could care less about her sister´s wishes and just basically dumped her into a hole which she filled with broken altar stones. Not till James I made a grandiose tomb for Elisabeth was Mary given a half way decent resting place. That is, under Elisabeth´s casquet. Not very respectful either.
2
out of
6 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
Anne'sCurls |
2. RE: Mother and Daughter!
Feb 27 2009, 3:05 PM EST
Ok another question, where was Katharine buried? I would think that it was not in some royal place fit for a monarch. So would that play a part in why Mary wasn't buried near her? I mean isnt Mary still not buried next to Catharine?
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
Ebusitanus |
3. RE: Mother and Daughter!
Feb 27 2009, 3:14 PM EST
That one was easy :)http://tudorswiki.sho.com/page/Tudor+Burials 2 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Anne'sCurls |
4. RE: Mother and Daughter!
Feb 27 2009, 3:21 PM EST
Then why exactly are you berating Elizabeth for just throwing her sister in a grave and not caring the least about her if she gave her a royal funeral? Just because she didnt bury her next to her mother? Well as a monarch of England I'm sure that was pretty impossible. It's like if William ever becomes King he wouldn't be allowed to be buried on his mother's island.
2
out of
4 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
Ebusitanus |
5. RE: Mother and Daughter!
Feb 27 2009, 3:26 PM EST
Errr...because she got the funeral (there would have been some trouble if she did not just after Mary´s death) and then placed her in a temporary tomb. That was it. She never even gave her a miserable tombstone, just loose rubble on top of her casquet. This did not change till James I made the ornate tomb Elisabeth is now under and moved both Queens there. And KOA was actually a Queen of England, why would she not be granted a tomb along Mary? I would inmagine moving both together, like Mary wished, would not have been such trouble for Elisabeth. 2 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Anne'sCurls |
6. RE: Mother and Daughter!
Feb 27 2009, 3:33 PM EST
Your first part makes sense but the second part I feel is a little difficult. Yes in all our eyes KoA was a queen of England but in her husbands mind she was not. She was the princess dowager which is why she is not buried in the same place as Henry and Jane Seymour. For Elizabeth to move Katharine within there so she could be buried next to her daughter would cause trouble for the daughter of Anne Boleyn who already has enough difficulty with the right to rule issue.
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
Ebusitanus |
7. RE: Mother and Daughter!
Feb 27 2009, 3:41 PM EST
I´m sorry but if Anne of Cleves got burried at Westminster why would the same not happen with KOA and Mary? Katherine Parr was also burried outside Westminster, thus it would have been no outrage to bury Mary at Peterborough Cathedral. Henry got burried with Jane at Windsor Castle. I think you are confusing places IMHO.
0
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
LNor19 |
8. RE: Mother and Daughter!
Feb 27 2009, 3:57 PM EST
| Post edited: Feb 27 2009, 4:00 PM EST
"I would think Elisabeth could care less about her sister´s wishes and just basically dumped her into a hole which she filled with broken altar stones. Not till James I made a grandiose tomb for Elisabeth was Mary given a half way decent resting place. That is, under Elisabeth´s casquet. Not very respectful either."It was Mary's final wish, to buried beside her mother. Also not all royalty was buried in Westminster Abby. Mary could have easlliy been interred in Petersborough. That's what always gets me about Elizabeth, her lack of respect toward her sister's burial. During all of Elizabeth's reign, Mary was cover by loose rocks. In the beginning if it was b/c a lack of funds, then I'd understand but during Liz's later reign...she had more than enough to give her sister a decent grave. Also, going back to the issues of funds, Mary didn't have a lot but she still gave Edward a great tomb. Mary's buried UNDERNEATH, not beside Elizabeth and on top on that....the only way you would even know that Mary is their is a little black slate, b/c everything else is about Elizabeth, even the effigy is just for Elizabeth. It just makes me sick to think that's how England's first queen is buried and how her remains are negelected. I mean even Nixon has a decent grave....and nobody has a high opinion of him either. Andrew Jackson....Trail of Tears...he's got a nice resting place too. 2 out of 4 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Anne'sCurls |
9. RE: Mother and Daughter!
Feb 27 2009, 4:13 PM EST
"I´m sorry but if Anne of Cleves got burried at Westminster why would the same not happen with KOA and Mary? Katherine Parr was also burried outside Westminster, thus it would have been no outrage to bury Mary at Peterborough Cathedral. Henry got burried with Jane at Windsor Castle. I think you are confusing places IMHO."Because none of those women caused a problem for Anne being legally queen of England. If it was so easy to do Mary should have done it herself and not have left it up to the daughter who is seen as a bastard queen by many. LNor your explanation makes sense. Elizabeth should have done more for Mary's grave. The reason I am asking so many questions about it is because I have no knowledge of any of this. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
Boudica |
10. RE: Mother and Daughter!
Feb 27 2009, 5:31 PM EST
| Post edited: Feb 27 2009, 9:43 PM EST
"I would think Elisabeth could care less about her sister´s wishes and just basically dumped her into a hole which she filled with broken altar stones. Not till James I made a grandiose tomb for Elisabeth was Mary given a half way decent resting place. That is, under Elisabeth´s casquet. Not very respectful either."Well we can debate whether or not Elizabeth's decision to respect Mary's wishes to bury her with Katherine in Peterbough was meant to be disrespectful or not, but a burial at Westminister Abbey, in the Chapel their grandfather Henry VII built, isn't the same as dumping her into a hole in the ground. Elizabeth gave Mary a funneral that was given only for monarchs of England, with full pomp and ceremony, it wasn't cheap either - I don't have my notes in front of me to say the exact sum but it was in thousands of pounds, a fortune considering the English treasury was bankrupt at the time. And Mary may not have had a tombstone or a marker but she did have an effigy which was aparently very skillfully done. All that remains of Mary's effigy is the head which is currently in the museum of Westminster Abbey. The broken altar stones, considering Mary was a Catholic and tried in vain to restore England to Catholicism, I always thought of it as a symbolic gesture akin to the breaking of staffs that a late king's government also threw into the grave a decessed monarch at the funneral (It symbolized the end of an old order of government). So I disagree that while Mary's tomb didn't recieve the proper care it should have during Elizabeth's reign, she did get a proper burial and funeral fitting the monarch she was although it didn't fit the specifics Mary had outlined in her will. 2 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
Holly2 |
11. RE: Mother and Daughter!
Feb 27 2009, 7:35 PM EST
"Mary's buried UNDERNEATH, not beside Elizabeth and on top on that....the only way you would even know that Mary is their is a little black slate, b/c everything else is about Elizabeth, even the effigy is just for Elizabeth. "Why was Mary buried underneath Elizabeth rather than beside her? The tomb looks wide enough for two coffins to be placed side by side, and the plaque describes them as "partners". Was it usual for one casket to be placed above another or were they usually laid side by side in Tudor times? 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Boudica |
12. RE: Mother and Daughter!
Feb 27 2009, 9:29 PM EST
| Post edited: Feb 27 2009, 9:40 PM EST
"Why was Mary buried underneath Elizabeth rather than beside her? The tomb looks wide enough for two coffins to be placed side by side, and the plaque describes them as "partners". Was it usual for one casket to be placed above another or were they usually laid side by side in Tudor times?"That's what I've never understood either, it would have made more sense to have done a "double bed" type set up where the caskets are placed side by side with two effigies on top (like Henry VII and Elizabeth of York are buried) not just one for Elizabeth. When I visited the Abbey, I didn't remember it being very wide but who knows there could be a vault underneath with more room to spread caskets out? As they're set up right now, they're pretty much "partners" in that they share the same crowded space! :P 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Boudica |
13. RE: Mother and Daughter!
Feb 27 2009, 9:51 PM EST
| Post edited: Feb 27 2009, 9:56 PM EST
"I mean even Nixon has a decent grave....and nobody has a high opinion of him either. Andrew Jackson....Trail of Tears...he's got a nice resting place too."Well look at the graves of Henry VIII and Edward VI. The later is buried in an ornate tomb in the Chapel of Henry VII in Westminster Abbey, while his father is buried in the center aisle of St. George's Chapel of Windsor Castle that he shares with other later royals, with a black marble slab to mark it. You'd think, as a layperson who didn't know much about English history, that by the way they were buried Edward VI had a bigger impact on English history than his Dad, but he only ruled for less than seven years while Henry ruled for nearly 40! Granted the reason why Henry's is so dingy is because it was supposed to be a temporary grave until his more elaborate one was created, but it never happened. 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Boudica |
14. RE: Mother and Daughter!
Feb 27 2009, 10:13 PM EST
| Post edited: Feb 27 2009, 10:29 PM EST
"I´m sorry but if Anne of Cleves got burried at Westminster why would the same not happen with KOA and Mary? Katherine Parr was also burried outside Westminster, thus it would have been no outrage to bury Mary at Peterborough Cathedral. Henry got burried with Jane at Windsor Castle. I think you are confusing places IMHO."I think it's helpful to remember status of these women, status had everything to do with how you were buried, if not where your grave ended up being. Yes they were all "queens" but Anne of Cleves, Catherine Parr, Jane Seymour were all Queen Consorts and were buried according to their status as wives of Henry. Even though Anne of Cleves was divorced, she left on good terms and was given the honary title of "sister". Parr was buried at Sudley which was the chapel in the estate that had belonged to her fourth husband Thomas Seymour, even though she was a queen dowager, the fact she remarried probably meant she wasn't going to burried with Henry or in Westminster. Katherine of Aragon was not only divorced by Henry, her funneral was specifically dictated by Henry as to adhere to her status as the Princess Dowager of Wales, consort of Prince Arthur. That's why her grave for years didn't mention her title "Queen" until the sign and banners that we see today was erected by Mary of Teck, the wife of King George V. Kings are usually buried with their queen consorts but in Henry's case he was buried with his "first" wife Jane Seymour. But Queen Mary I was a queen regnant, she ruled in her own right so I'm not sure what the burial protocol would have been that would have prevented her from being buried next to anybody if she had wished it so. 2 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Ebusitanus |
15. RE: Mother and Daughter!
Feb 28 2009, 3:27 AM EST
I´m sure ifg there would have been such a stickt protocol as you say then Mary would have taken good care of moving KOA to Westminster before her own death. She did declare her mother´s divorce null and void. That alone should have suficed in the sense of red tape. Mary had full intention of joining her mother at Petersborough and that express wish was not followed due to simple, almost insulting, indiference. You can not try to say Mary herself did not know and was aware of the problems or lack of them for being burried with KOA and had simply left it to Elisabeth to figure it out. Anne of Cleves no matter how good terms she had with Henry had her marriage declared null due to it not being consumated. She was for all purposes never really a Queen yet there she goes to Westminster. And it was Mary who burried her there to start with. Jane and Henry himself got burried at Windsor instead. It looks quite obvious that burial place was not such a strict thing and personal wishes were indeed followed for some. Its quite easier and more logic to sumaritze that Elisabeth simply could not care one jota about Mary´s burial place and her death wish. You can give the loose rubble on top of her some beautiful occult meaning but it does not change the fact that it was a mere temporary tomb that did not even get a miserable slab to cover it with her name. Elisabeth reigned 40 years. Plenty of time to take care of some minimal decency. She did not and it was not even her own burial wishes that changed that to what we see today. If it would not have been for James I then Mary would still have been there alone under rubble. When Elisabeth got the crown from Mary it would have been quite hard and violent to not have given her a propper ceremony as she got. Most of the leading figures at the time of that ceremony were still catholic, so was the populance. It was certainly easier to give them a decent ceremony put Mary in a "temporary" tomb and let time pass. 0 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
angelosdaughter |
16. RE: Mother and Daughter!
Feb 28 2009, 3:14 PM EST
"I would think Elisabeth could care less about her sister´s wishes and just basically dumped her into a hole which she filled with broken altar stones. Not till James I made a grandiose tomb for Elisabeth was Mary given a half way decent resting place. That is, under Elisabeth´s casquet. Not very respectful either."To do justice to Elizabeth, she had Mary given a magnificent royal funeral costing over 2 million pounds at today's rates. Every honor was paid to her as ruler of England and her funeral was conducted according the the rites of the Roman Catholic Church. Lady Margaret Douglas was chief mourner. (Rulers did not attend their predecessors' funerals) Mary was buried in a vault in the chapel of her grandfather King Henry VII as Elizabeth herself would be.. As in so much with Elizabeth, her deeds seem to have shown what was in her heart in place of what she could not say. Her feelings about Mary were no doubt mixed. She did have to honor the predecessor from whom she inherited the throne, but she did so unreservedly. Perhaps at the end, Elizabeth remembered the early kindness of this much older sister and was returning it in the way she honored her in death. The damage to the tomb occurred later. James I placed the sisters in the same tomb. The bishop who conducted the funeral did manage to offend Elizabeth with his eulogy and did eventually lose his bishopric for opposing Elizabeth's religious reforms. Mary's husband, Phillip II also gave his wife a funeral in Brussels where she was represented by a riderless black horse bearing a crown on its saddle. There was a requiem Mass. Phillp did observe a period of mourning. 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
angelosdaughter |
17. RE: Mother and Daughter!
Feb 28 2009, 6:12 PM EST
"Errr...because she got the funeral (there would have been some trouble if she did not just after Mary´s death) and then placed her in a temporary tomb. That was it. She never even gave her a miserable tombstone, just loose rubble on top of her casquet. This did not change till James I made the ornate tomb Elisabeth is now under and moved both Queens there.The tomb was not temporary and it was not filled with rubble. That happened at a later time I think during some restoration project or other in the Abbey. It is true that the hangings, banners, and standards decorating the Abbey in Mary's honor as well as her effigy having been left unguarded were pulled to pieces by the common people and the mourners after the funeral. Why is not specified, but it may have been to grab a memento of the late Queen as one author says that the mourners fougnt for 'scraps of cloth" '...every man a piece that could catch it..' Elizabeth did nothing to rehabilitate the burial of her own mother which had consisted fo being shoved in an old arrow chest and hastily burined under the floor of St. Peter ad Vincula, a common criminal's burial. Katharine had at least been granted the burial of royalty (Princess Dowager, relict of Prince Arthur) if not that of a Queen. Elizabeth had to take over the reins of a country in unrest. She had no time for the niceties. She did not fulfill any of the bequests in Mary's will, but this was probably because she had no time to deal with it rather than maliciousness. One author also suggests that with the changes she was comtemplating to Mary's Roman Catholic Church, she would not have wanted to unite two RC Queens in death in any case. Elizabeth herself was buried in the Henry VII chapel probably not far from her sister. It was James I who had his predecessors interred in one grave and commissioned the magnificent monument to Elizabeth, his immediate predecessor, and the plaque mentioning both sisters. 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Ebusitanus |
18. RE: Mother and Daughter!
Feb 28 2009, 6:31 PM EST
All what I have read about Mary´s burial speaks about being covered in rubble till James I took matters into his own hands. If you have any information of this happening at some later stage (Still under Elisabeth´s rule one would guess) then I would be thankful if you could provide me with where to look.Elisabeth, as said before, hardly had a choice with funeral, did she? She just got the crown from Mary and many of her adherents were still in positions of high power. Elisabeth took some time before being able to firmly gather all power in her hands. The funeral came before and would have been very poor planning if she had done less than that. Elisabeth herself was only known as the daughter of her father. She did not much herself to remember anyone she was the daugther of someone so much hated by the plebs. Would have been quite a bad move to have reinstated her as she knew. To compare that with Mary resotoration of KOA holds not much water and Elisabeth saw that herself. That Elisabeth had "no time" to place Mary in a decent burial, a minimal tombstone, lets alone just bury her with KOA can not be overlooked. She ruled for 40 years and had plenty of opportunity of doing the civilitzed thing. Had it not been for James Mary would still have been there under the loose stones. "No time" in 40 years is the worst excuse I have ever heard. 2 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
angelosdaughter |
19. RE: Mother and Daughter!
Feb 28 2009, 7:14 PM EST
"All what I have read about Mary´s burial speaks about being covered in rubble till James I took matters into his own hands. If you have any information of this happening at some later stage (Still under Elisabeth´s rule one would guess) then I would be thankful if you could provide me with where to look.England was practically bankrupt at Elizabeth's accession, and religious turmoil was rife. Elizabeth had not been trained for rule and had to deal with it all at once. Burials and reburials were the least of her concerns. For a description of the funeral Elizabeth arranged for Mary see "The First Queen of England" by Linda Porter pp. 407-410. It was certainly the elaborate burial of a ruler and respected Mary's faith, and all of this in spite of Elizabeth's resentment of her sister's treatment of her in adulthood.. Elizabeth always would see herself as the blameless victim of Mary's malice. Elizabeth herself did not have a monument until King James I commissioned one. It seems that the burial of the predecessor was the first duty of the succeeding monarch. It was James who had Elizabeth's coffin placed on top of Mary's. The monument was not placed until 3 years after Elizabeth's death. I know I read about the rubble covering Mary's tomb, but I cannot remember where. I do know that I read that it was caused by some restoration work. It must be remembered that Mary had been buried some 50 years before the death of Elizabeth, and the restoration was done at some time during those years. It was restoration work in St. Peter ad Vincula in 1876 that would lead to the honourable re-burial of Anne Boleyn, Katherine Howard, and Lady Jane Grey and the placement of gravestones commemorating the first two as Queens and one to the memory of Lady Jane. 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
