No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

While a more accurate appraisal of Mary Tudor’s life and reign is underway, historians of literature continue either to ignore or to misinterpret surviving representations of Princess Mary. To begin correcting this failure, the article analyzes a complex 1525 verse portrait of Mary, setting that text within its contemporary political contexts. Analysis of William Newman’s unpublished manuscript poem, “My ladie princesse doughter to king harry the VIII,” recovers an intriguing characterization of the first Tudor princess in the period immediately prior to Henry’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon and frustrates attempts to understand the first Tudor queen as a lifelong loser destined to failure by her own limited abilities. Newman’s long poem represents the princess as uniquely qualified and admirably prepared to rule England as Henry’s heir. Bien qu’une réévaluation de la vie et du règne de Marie Tudor soit en cours, les historiens de la littérature continuent d’ignorer ou de mal interpréter les représentations de la princesse Marie qui nous sont parvenues. Afin de contribuer à corriger cette lacune, cet article analyse un portrait littéraire complexe de Marie, long de 1525 vers, et le situe dans son contexte politique. L’analyse du poème manuscrit et inédit de William Newman, intitulé « My ladie princesse doughter to king harry the VIII », présente une intéressante description de la première princesse Tudor, durant la période précédant immédiatement le divorce d’Henri VIII et de Catherine d’Aragon ; ce choix chronologique empêche de considérer la première reine Tudor comme une perdante, que ses compétences limitées destinent à l’échec. Le long poème de Newman représente en effet la princesse comme l’héritière d’Henri VIII, exceptionnellement compétente et parfaitement préparée à diriger l’Angleterre.

Giles Duwes's An Introductorie for to Learn to Read, to Pronounce, and to Speak French and John Heywood's ‘Geve Place, ye Ladyes’ (both 1534) initially seem insignificant publishing events. Serving, however, as both public counsel and as strategic negotiations of royal authority, these texts actively competed in a public sphere growing in the 1530s. Hoping to control royal representations in that public sphere, the Treasons Act of 1534 made it a capital offence to question Henry's authority or his decisions. Writing in this dangerous political moment, servants of the Crown, Duwes and Heywood, carefully enter the public debate on Henry's religio‐legal authority and his divorce, significantly recasting the political identity of Mary. Rather than effectively marginalized or silenced, Mary emerges in 1534 as a gifted royal princess dedicated to God, to family, and to protecting her royal image. Such a strong image, moreover, circulated effectively despite the Crown's efforts to demote the popular princess to simply ‘Lady Mary’, the ‘King's daughter’. As respected members of the contemporary ‘publics’ or public sphere, Duwes and Heywood reject that demotion, countering the king's propaganda as they work to bolster Mary's royal agency in a then‐fading culture of counsel.