This gave Mary Tudor ultimate power when she became queen Mary I. It is this ultimate power for which Mary Tudor has an infamous reputation. With her persecution of those who were of the protestant faith, by burning protestants at the stake, she is now renowned as Bloody Mary.
It is for Mary's religious persecutions that she is most known for, rather than being well known for the first female ruling monarch of England. Mary had followed in her fathers footsteps in burning so called 'heretics' at the stake. King Henry VIII is rumored to have executed between 57,000 and 72,000 people at the stake. Most likely due to being heretics. However, there is no actual evidence as to how many people Henry VIII did burn at the stake for religious reasons. Whereas, Queen Mary I is thought to have executed between270 and 300 protestants at the stake.
Although the title of Bloody Mary seems justified because of the notorious religious executions being carried out at her command, perhaps in someways the chosen name of 'Bloody Mary' can be seen in another way. Was the name of Bloody Mary really given to her because she was bloody? Or, was it a name given to her because of her Catholic faith, and therefore a way to demonize her? Or, was it a way to demonize her for being a female monarch, in a mans world? These two points are not being raised because she wasn't notorious, bloody or ruthless, she was. And evidence shows she was. These points are being raised because burning at the stake had been a method of execution in England since medieval times.
There is evidence that burning at the stake was a common method of execution since the medieval era in England, at least. It was a common method of execution to use on so called blasphemers. The law of monarchy of England routinely burned those at the stake who wereaccused of blasphemy. It was also used as a form of punishment and death before Mary became queen. Both in Scotland and in England. Below is a scene from The Tudors, which portrays the stake burning during Henry VIIIs reign.
There is evidence to suggest that Mary Tudor wasn't necessarily more bloody than previous monarchs. She was bloody, but so was her father before her. And monarchs before him. Executions of a religious nature at the time was 'the spirit of the age', as one historian put it. Which is accurate. But, whether we see the 'bloody' connotation given to Mary as something because of her religion, or sex is up for debate. Perhaps it is both. But it seems disingenuous to say that she was more bloody than previous monarchs.
Mary's ruthlessness is not only seen in the way she treated those with a different faith than her, it is also seen in her accession to power.
Mary came to power on the back of the death of her half-brother, Edward VI. Though, before Mary came to power to become queen, Lady Jane Grey had briefly assumed to role as ruling monarch. Grey was Mary Tudors cousin, is also known as the nine day queen. The time she had spent in the role as queen. She was just a teenager at the time she was executed on command of Mary. Through both claiming the title of queen, and the role her allies played in leading a rebellion against the first female monarch. The way that Mary handle the situation, and crushed her opponents may have made her father change his mind about being obsessed with the need of a male monarch to continue the line. Though, that's hypothetical. Mary handled the situation and won like a king would. The notion that Henry needed a male heir for the succession of the Tudor line seems somewhat silly in hindsight. As Henry's two daughters, Mary and Elizabeth were strong in their own right. Ironically stronger than the son that Henry wanted so desperately. Mary Tudor may not have been a long reigning queen, however, she is a queen that made an impact on history. Mainly a notorious one. But, like her father Henry VIII and her half-sister Elizabeth I, Mary was anything but boring. Mary I died on this day, the 17th of November, 1558.
0 Comments
The Dardanelles Campaign was a disaster for the allies. But, it was a success for the Ottomans. Churchill believed that his campaign would undermine the Germans - by attempting to knock the Ottomans out of the First World War. Shortly before World War One had broke out, the Ottoman Empire and the German Empire formed an alliance, on the 2nd of August, 1914. This alliance was known as the Ottoman-German Alliance. The alliance helped the Ottomans and the Germans in equal measure. It helped the Germans through giving them a means to undermine the British. While the Ottomans had support of what was a failing Empire. As a result, when war did come around, Churchill viewed the attack on the Ottomans through the Dardanelles Campaign, as a way to weaken Germany, by dismantling the Ottomans. It wasn't a successful venture for Churchill. The Ottomans came out successful in the campaign, which lasted from the 19th of February 1915, until March 18th, 1915. It was a significant victory for the Ottoman Empire by the time the campaign ended. Even though there were many lives lost. However, it was a crushing blow for Winston Churchill. And a miscalculation of the strength of his opponent(s). The British Cabinet favored continuing the campaign at time, in spite of the crushing defeat. However, they finally shelved any future plans to go on with the campaign on the 7th of December, 1915. Just a few weeks after Winston Churchill's resignation.
It is thought that Edward was born in Windsor. His parents were Edward II of England, and Isabella of France. He was a member of the House of Plantagenet. The House of Plantagenet was a royal house. And ended with the late king, King Richard III; the latest English (and British) king to die in battle.
Like Richard III, Edward was a memorable monarch. He ruled during an interesting time in monarch. A focal point of Edwards complete rule as monarch was in ruling during the 100 years war. The 100 years war started ten years after Edward came to power. It was a war that raged on well after Edward was gone, dead. It didn't end until 1453. Edward had died in 1377. The war was one of the most notable battles from the medieval era. It was a battle between the House of Plantagnet and the House of Valois. The House of Valois were the rulers of France. The one hundred years war was a battle for the Kingdom of France.
Edward III would not live to see the end of the 100 years war. But, during his time as ruler during the 100 years war, the war went well for Edward. And for England. There were a few setbacks for Edward III during the war. But, there were notable successes for Edward during the war. Such as at The Battle of Crecy, which was a success for the English. And the Battle of Poitiers. This shows that Edward III was a successful ruler. With even some calling Edward III one of the most successful rulers of England.
But, even though Edward may have been a success, it did not mean that his monarchical rule was free from problems, it wasn't. One of the most notable anxieties of Edward III rule was the Black Death. Also known as the Black Plague. However, the Black Death was not just confined to England, it was widespread across Europe at the time. Another thing which plagued Edwards reign was his increasing ill health during the latter end of his reign. He suffered from ill health. Which made him not only inactive in life. It made him inactive as a monarch. The result was that the successes of his early reign, started to be replaced my failures. Edward III died on the 21st of June 1377.
Sadly, this is the end of Ripper Real Time for this year. But. Next year Ripper Real Time will be back to follow the events of Jack the Ripper as they unfold in real time. I would like to thank you for being part of Ripper Real Time. And, I hope you have enjoyed (if that is the right word), following and learning about the Ripper events. This was the first time I have followed the events of Jack the Ripper in real time. It always seems like a historical event that there is more to learn about. As it is so large. You just have to look at the Jack the Ripper website Casebook to see how large it is.
Everyone has their own theories on Jack the Ripper. Everyone who studies Jack the Ripper has their own theories. To who they think the ripper was, or who it wasn't. To what happened. And why.
For me, I would say that I don't know who Jack the Ripper was. There really isn't a lot of evidence to come to a conclusion about the rippers real identity. Which is the reason why the events of Jack the Ripper are still surrounded in mystery. But, it is that same mystery which keeps, and has kept people interested in the Jack the Ripper case. If we knew it was John Miller from Whitechapel Road, for example, would we still be talking about it in the same way today? Doubtful. The mystery of Jack the Ripper is what grips us. When you read about the suspects, you change your mind constantly. 'He fits. It is definitely him.' 'That theory looks good. It is definitely that.' There is't any (concrete) evidence to tell us who Jack was. The likelihood is, that we will probably never know who Jack the Ripper was. What his motivate was. How many victims there actually were. And the true true extent to his crime. Unless we are enlightened with new information. Such as the hidden files at Scotland Yard. Could these secret files either identify Jack the Ripper, or give as a strong inclination as to who Jack the Ripper was? It is possible. It does seem strange that you have historical sources kept hidden. And only fuels theories like the royal conspiracy. It could also be a case where these files aren't really that interesting, and reveal nothing at all. We can be sure though, in the mean time, that people will continue to speculate about the Jack the Ripper murders. Next year I will be back with some Ripper Real Time tweets. Next up is Titanic Real Time - which is coming soon! Thank you! TheMcnaughten Memorandum was written by an Assistant Commissioner of Crime, at London Metropolitan Police. That Assistant Commissioner's name was Mellvile Mcnaughten. Was was Assistant Commissioner of Crime during 1903 to 1913. He was not part of the original Jack the Ripper Metropolitan Police investigation into the Jack the Ripper murders. However, Mcnaughten did work on the case just after the ripper murders had stopped, between 1889 and 1891. The Mcnaughten Memorandum was written a few years after he had stopped working on the ripper case. In the Mcnaughten Memorandum, 1894, he lists three men who he believes are Jack the Ripper. However, his memorandum has came under some criticism. When one reads the Mcnaughten Memorandum, it becomes clear why Mcnaughten is criticized - even though he does list suspects who he believes to be Jack the Ripper - he doesn't really offer any real evidence as to why he believes those three men are likely to be the killer. You can read an excerpt from The Mcnaughten Memorandum below. And see what you think of Melville's three Jack the Ripper suspects. ''Now the Whitechapel murderer had 5 victims -- & 5 victims only, -- his murders were:(1) 31st August, '88. Mary Ann Nichols -- at Buck's Row -- who was found with her throat cut -- & with (slight) stomach mutilation. (2) 8th Sept. '88 Annie Chapman -- Hanbury St.; -- throat cut -- stomach & private parts badly mutilated & some of the entrails placed round the neck. (3) 30th Sept. '88. Elizabeth Stride -- Berner's Street -- throat cut, but nothing in shape of mutilation attempted, & on same date Catherine Eddowes -- Mitre Square, throat cut & very bad mutilation, both of face and stomach. 9th November. Mary Jane Kelly -- Miller's Court, throat cut, and the whole of the body mutilated in the most ghastly manner -- The last murder is the only one that took place in a room, and the murderer must have been at least 2 hours engaged. A photo was taken of the woman, as she was found lying on the bed, withot seeing which it is impossible to imagine the awful mutilation. With regard to the double murder which took place on 30th September, there is no doubt but that the man was disturbed by some Jews who drove up to a Club, (close to which the body of Elizabeth Stride was found) and that he then, 'mordum satiatus', went in search of a further victim who he found at Mitre Square. It will be noted that the fury of the mutilations increased in each case, and, seemingly, the appetite only became sharpened by indulgence. It seems, then, highly improbable that the murderer would have suddenly stopped in November '88, and been content to recommence operations by merely prodding a girl behind some 2 years and 4 months afterwards. A much more rational theory is that the murderer's brain gave way altogether after his awful glut in Miller's Court, and that he immediately committed suicide, or, as a possible alternative, was found to be so hopelessly mad by his relations, that he was by them confined in some asylum.'' ''No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer; many homicidal maniacs were suspected, but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one. I may mention the cases of 3 men, any one of whom would have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders: (1) A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family -- who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder, & whose body (which was said to have been upwards of a month in the water) was found in the Thames on 31st December -- or about 7 weeks after that murder. He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer. (2) Kosminski -- a Polish Jew -- & resident in Whitechapel. This man became insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices. He had a great hatred of women, specially of the prostitute class, & had strong homicidal tendencies: he was removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889. There were many circumstances connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'. (3) Michael Ostrog, a Russian doctor, and a convict, who was subsequently detained in a lunatic asylum as a homicidal maniac. This man's antecedents were of the worst possible type, and his whereabouts at the time of the murders could never be ascertained.'' There are three Jack the Ripper suspects for Melville in his memorandum. They are, in the order he lists them, (1) M. J. Druitt, (2) Kominski, and (3) Ostrog. The reasons he suspects Druitt is because, in his words, Druitt is ''sexually insane'', and ''his own family believed him to be the murderer. His case for suspecting Kominski seems stronger. He argues that Kominski was ''insane'', ''had a hatred of women...especially prostitutes'', and, had ''homicidal tendencies'', in his words. Lastly, his reasons for believing that Ostrog was Jack the Ripper, was because he was ''insane'', a ''homicidal manic'', and, his whereabouts during the ripper murders is unclear. For a police officer who presumably had first hand knowledge about the ripper murders, Mcnaughten doesn't provide any evidence for suspecting these men. He does site reasons for suspecting these men. But that isn't good enough. It falls short of hard evidence. Source: www.casebook.org/official_documents/memo.html
This is because, Tumblety was likely in police custody at the time of the last ripper murder, of Mary Jane Kelly. Tumblety was bailed on the 16th of November, 1888. Then fled to America four days later, on the 20th of November. There are many reasons to argue that Tumblety was not Jack the Ripper. Firstly, there is the possibilitythat Tumblety was in police custody at the time of Mary Jane Kelly's murder. If he was, that probably rules him out as Jack the Ripper. Secondly, if Tumblety was Jack the Ripper, then why did he not immediately flee to America before the 20th of November. Surely at that point if he was the ripper, then he would have been well aware that police attention was on him - this seems to conflict with Jack the Ripper's calculated and careful approach.
We must consider that police attention was on Tumblety by the time of Mary Jane Kelly's murder, if he was on bail during the time of the murder. He would have been aware of this. Therefore, why would he chance drawing more attention to himself at this particular time. We should also consider that Jack done his best to avoid attention, was secretive and evasive. During the whole of October, the ripper didn't murder. Why, it is unclear. However, there is a good chance that Jack lay low out of an increasing police presence, and almost being caught on the night of the Double Event.
It can be suggested that Jack was scared of being caught after the Double Event. So much so that he didn't commit another murder for around six weeks later. To put that into perspective of Mary Jane Kelly's murder, and the police attention on Tumblety at the time of the 9th of November, it seems unlikely that a very cautious Jack, was suddenly turn out so stupid to commit a murder when the headlights were on him. For this reason, it seems highly unlikely that Francis Tumblety was Jack the Ripper. There are also other reasons to suspect that Francis Tumblety was not Jack the Ripper. Although he was in London at the time of the ripper murders, we have no evidence that he ever visited the Whitechapel area. He was however known to have hated woman. However, there is no evidence that he was ever violent. If we are to believe that the ripper murders stopped after Mary Jane Kelly, which in itself is another debate, then Tumblety fleeing the UK for America in November, 1888, would explain why the ripper murders stopped. However, this alone isn't sufficient enough evidence to say that Francis Tumblety was Jack the Ripper. He probably was not Jack the Ripper.
Below is a video which states the Top Ten Jack the Ripper suspects. Interestingly, this person argues that Francis is highly plausible suspect. What do you think?
|
Archives
April 2023
Categories
All
← Resize me
|