Donald E. Wilkes, Jr. Collection: Queen Mary II

Queen Mary II: A Woman of Virtue

[1]

When reflecting upon the Revolution of 1688, also called the Glorious Revolution, Mary wrote “to see my husband and father so far engaged against each other took off all the satisfaction I could have in this world.”[2]  It is hard to fully appreciate what a difficult position Mary II was in during her life.  She was the daughter of the current king of England, but she was married to the man who would dethrone him.  And despite her potential for personal conflicts, Mary played a critical role in the Glorious Revolution.[3]  She did not wish to rule but when called upon in William’s frequent absences to handle the country’s affairs, she showed that she was quite able to do so.[4]  She also contributed to the Revolution’s success by doing things such as helping to reunite the Tories with the dual monarchy.[5]  Mary was eventually able to reconcile herself to the Revolution by attributing it to the providence of God who had found her father “wanting.”[6]

Background, Birth & Childhood

Mary was eldest daughter of James, Duke of York, the future James II, by his first marriage to Anne Hyde.[7]  Mary was born on April 30, 1662 at St. James’s Palace.  She was married on November 4, 1677 to William of Orange, and she was crowned the queen of England on April 11, 1689.[8]  She later became queen of Scotland and Ireland as well.  Mary died on December 28, 1694.  Some scholars suggest that the personal life of Mary II is the least known of all the English queen regnant, [9] but history has preserved some information about Mary’s life.

Mary lived in the south of England until she married.  Her nursery was in her grandfather Lord Clarendon’s house at Twickenham, but she was often at St. James’s.  The question of her education was extremely important, given her father’s Roman Catholicism and Mary being the presumptive heir to the throne.[10]  Her father James II, then Duke of York, did not stand up to his brother Charles, King of England, when Charles requested his niece be raised a Protestant.[11]  Thus, every effort was made to ground Mary in Protestant theology, using multiple tutors and bishops. [12]  Mary's educators included George Morley, Henry Compton, and Edward Lake, who instructed her in the principles of the Church of England to which she became devoted.[13]

Mary had a lot of other interests besides religion as well.  Even at the early age of three, Mary was already a graceful child who danced “ravishingly.”[14]  She was such a proficient dancer that on December 2, 1674 she appeared in the title role of John Crowne's ballet, Calisto or The Chaste Nymph.[15]  Moreover, Mary enjoyed studying English history.[16]  Mary’s biographer Elizabeth Hamilton described the childhood of Mary as “idyllic,” stating that “[w]ell away from the wickedness of the court and breathing the clean country air . . . [Mary] lived an uneventful life, wandering in the deer park, playing cards and indulging in a ‘bellyful of discourse’ with the other young ladies who had been picked as suitable companions.”[17]

Marriage & Life with William

Since Mary was in the line of succession to the throne, the question of who Mary would marry was very important and was already being discussed when she was only eight years old.[18]  Military and political events finally made these talks settle on William of Orange.  In August 1673 the Dutch captured New York.  England retook possession in February 1674 under the Treaty of Westminster, and in an attempt to “bring about a general amnesty,” Charles wanted Mary to marry William of Orange.[19]  Mary was only fifteen years old when she was faced with the prospect of marrying this ugly Dutchman with blackened teeth and a hooked nose.[20]  She was naturally upset at the suggestion and some scholars say she wept for two days.[21]  Mary’s sister Anne is said to have referred to William as “Caliban” after the mythical Greek ogre with a monstrous appearance.[22]  William’s choice of marrying Mary was also determined “chiefly by political considerations.”[23]  If it were not for these political considerations, it is doubtful William and Mary would have been together because they were very different.  Mary was good looking, intelligent, “but ignorant and simple.”[24]  William acted much older than his age and was constantly occupied “by public business or by field sports.”[25]  Furthermore, Mary was taller than William, being 5 feet 11 inches while he was 5 feet 6½ inches tall.[26]  She was also a passionate woman, while he was cold and regarded as unfeeling.[27]

Their wedding took place at nine o'clock at night in Mary's bedroom in St. James’s Palace on November 4, 1677.[28]  This was only two weeks after all arrangements had been made for them to be married. Significantly King Charles and not Mary’s father James gave her away.[29]  After William and Mary were married they moved to Holland where they lived for twelve years.[30]  William was often gone during those years fighting the French, and it seems that Mary lived a solitary and lonely life in Holland.[31]  Her sadness was no doubt compounded by the fact that she miscarried twice, once in the spring of 1678 and again a year later.[32]

There are many theories as to why William and Mary were not able to conceive.  One theory is that either William or Mary was infertile.  Another possibility is that records indicate that Mary contracted malaria while living in Holland, and even benign malaria may compromise fertility.  Also, the fact that William and Mary were first cousins may have compromised Mary’s ability to carry a baby to term.  Finally, it is possible that because William was simply gone so often there were fewer opportunities to produce an heir.[33]

It is generally accepted that William was neglectful toward Mary and did not fully appreciate her until she died.[34]  William was more interested in Elizabeth Villiers, one of Mary’s friends, than he was with Mary.  Elizabeth is said to have been “ugly as a dragon” but had intellect and quick wit.[35]  Still, William’s interest in Elizabeth Villiers was not the chief concern at this time.  Affairs in England were in a state of tension.  The people were more determined with each passing month not to accept a Roman Catholic king, and James was more attached to his religion. Thus, William, husband to heiress and Protestant champion, became a “formidable foe” to James.[36]  Spies were hired by James to inform Mary of William’s unfaithfulness to her,[37] and while Mary was dismayed by William’s actions,[38]  she took it all with “with a meekness and patience which deserved, and gradually obtained, William’s esteem and gratitude.”[39]  Macaulay notes that Mary knew her marriage vow was to obey her husband and at this point it had not occurred to her that their positions may be inverted someday and he could be obeying her.[40] 

While in Holland, Mary was called upon to receive those who were fighting against her father.  She was asked at one point to receive Monmouth.  James II protested, but Mary felt that her husband was “her master and must be obeyed.”[41]  Also, in 1686 Gilbert Burnet took refuge from James II in the court of Mary and William.[42]  During his visit, Burnet pointed out to Mary that if she became queen, William would not be king.  He noted that Mary expressed surprise at this and asked him to propose an alternative.  He recommended that she could give William the “real authority.”  The Earl of Dartmouth suggested that William had requested Burnet to present this idea to Mary but Burnet insisted the idea was his own.[43]

            After Burnet’s visit, Mary became more concerned with the state of affairs in England.  She intervened in favor of Bishop Compton when her father suspended him, gave 200 pounds to the fired fellows at Magdalene College, and she endorsed William’s objections to her father’s Declaration of Indulgence.[44]  And while Mary was clearly taking actions that supported the Protestant church, during all this James was still seeking to convert Mary to the Catholic faith.  Finally, in November 1687, James ceased these fruitless efforts to convert his daughter.[45]

The Glorious Revolution of 1688: Mary Becomes Queen

Mary played a role in William’s decision to invade England in 1688.  In 1688 the policies and actions of James were “barely tolerable,” but the fact that Mary was the king’s heir presumptive was a comfort, seeing as how she was Protestant.[46]  Then rumors began that James may alter the succession to the throne of England in favor of a Catholic, taking away Mary’s precedence in the line of succession.  Some suggested it might be his illegitimate son, the Duke of Berwick.  Then on June 10, 1688 the king’s wife gave birth to a child.[47]  Protestants were immediately alarmed because now the child, known to history as the Old Pretender, who would be raised a Catholic, not Mary, would be first in line to the throne.  Some charged that the boy was "supposititious," and was secretly smuggled in the queen's room in a bed-warming pan.  Although there was no evidence to support this allegation, Mary was suspicious and sent a list of questions to her sister, Anne, regarding the birth.[48]  Also, Mary expressed her shock at the trial of the seven bishops, and had a letter written to Archbishop Sancroft expressing “real concern for your grace and your brethren.”[49]

In October, Mary went to the Hague to be present as William departed to invade England. He told her if he didn’t return, to remarry.[50]  Mary told him that she loved him only and “could never love another.”[51]  During William’s invasion, Mary was very concerned for his safety.  She worshipped four times each day and mediated and composed prayers.  Also, during the weeks of the Revolution she kept herself out of the public eye and abstained from one of her favorite pastimes, playing cards.[52]

Then, when James fled England, the Convention of 1689 determined on January 28, 1689 that he had deserted and the throne was vacant.[53]  Some prominent statesmen proposed to make Mary the sole ruler, but Mary, remaining loyal to her husband, refused.[54]  Mary made it clear that she had no intention of seeking a superior or even equal position to her husband.[55]  “My opinion,” Mary wrote, “has ever been that women should not meddle in government.”[56]  Macaulay writes that Burnet disclosed to important government officials that it “had long been [Mary’s] full determination, even if she came to the throne in the regular course of descent, to surrender her power with the sanction of Parliament, into the hands of her husband.”[57]  William was not happy about the idea of Mary being the sole ruler either.  At the beginning of February 1689 he held a meeting with leading politicians at which he stated that “if Mary were to be declared queen he could not think of holding any thing by apron strings. Unless he were offered the crown he would go back to Holland and meddle no more in their affairs.”[58]

Mary finally arrived in England on February 12, 1689.[59]  A black-letter broadside, the most popular print medium of that period, heralded Mary’s arrival in England with the words “Virtuous Wife in all her ways.”[60]  And while the country was excited about Mary’s return to her native land, all expected Mary to be sad when she arrived in England to take the throne “from which her father had just been hurled.”[61]  But Mary appeared anything but sad.  Mary was in “extravagant” spirits.[62]  She ran through Whitehall palace in delight.  Even Burnet was perplexed by her conduct until she explained that William had written to her and asked her to appear cheerful and she overacted the part.  Mary explained that William had not wanted people to think they were depressed about dethroning James.[63]

On February 13, 1689 the Crown was offered formally to William and Mary.  The unprecedented nature of the dual monarchy cannot be overstressed.  This was the first time there had been a king and a queen regnant ruling together.[64]  This novel arrangement of a dual monarchy satisfied various competing aims of the Convention of 1689 because it allowed William alone to direct the government but it transferred the right to the throne using the hereditary principle to Mary.  By making them king and queen, it gave recognition to all the effort William expended in invading England and acknowledged that the “strong-willed Prince of Orange” was not likely to be submissive to his wife. Still, the Convention of 1689 preserved the hereditary principle by having the Crown pass first to Mary and her heirs, then to Anne and her heirs, and lastly to William’s heirs by a later marriage.[65]

William and Mary’s coronation took place at Westminster Abbey on April 11, 1689.  Bishop Compton of London officiated the ceremony because the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Sancroft, declined.[66]  This coronation ceremony was unlike any other.  As joint sovereigns, Mary was made queen regnant, not simply queen consort.[67]  Thus, the former regalia of the queens-consort were deemed insufficient.  A second globe, a scepter, and a sword of state were made for Mary II.  The queen-consort’s crown, however, was considered sufficient.  Still a much greater change during the coronation ceremony was that the oath was altered to have a protestant tendency.[68]

Shortly after the coronation in England, commissioners arrived from Edinburgh to extend the offer to William and Mary to become the king and the queen of Scotland as well which they accepted.  William and Mary later become the rulers of Ireland, but their claim to Ireland was not secured for over a year because James II landed in Kinsale, which was reported to them on their coronation day in England.  James was effective ruler of Ireland for over a year, but afterward William and Mary ruled there as well.[69]

Life as Queen

Mary II’s short five-year reign as queen was full of anxiety, hostility, and brief pleasures.[70]  Mary ruled alone for the majority of her reign.  William was abroad for over two and a half years, and during this time Mary made crucial contributions to the country.[71]  While generally the queen was loved, some could not shake the feeling that while she was the ruler de facto, she was not the ruler as a matter of right.[72]  Still, regardless of some of her subject’s feelings toward her, she was preferred to her husband the Dutchman, and the personal attacks on her were not as common those directed at William.[73]  There were two main sources of criticism toward Mary.  First, she was condemned because she dethroned her own father.  In the poem The Female Parricide (1689) she is scorned for this:

Oft have heard of impious sons before,

Rebelled for crowns their royal parents wore;

But of unnatural daughters rarely hear

‘Till those of hapless James and old King Lear.

But worse than cruel lustful Goneril, thou!

She took but what her father did allow;

But thou, more impious, robb’st thy father’s brow.[74]

Another source of criticism for Mary was her Hyde ancestry.  One poem, On the Two Sisters, said: “To be but half a Hyde is a disgrace from which no royal seed can purge its race.”[75]  Mary’s reign was also marked with conflict with her sister Anne, making her life even more unhappy.[76]

Shortly after their joint reign began, William started what would become a series of military campaigns abroad, leaving Mary alone in her native land.  In June of 1690 William departed for Ireland.  This raised the problem of what the protocol would be for governing the country in his absence.  It was decided that Parliament would pass an act vesting the administration in Mary.  This act, the Regency Act, stated that, “notwithstanding the Bill of Rights: whensoever and so often as it shall happen that his Majesty shall be absent out of this realm of England it shall and may be lawful for the Queen's Majesty to exercise and administer the regal power and government of the kingdom.”[77]

            Some members of Parliament objected to the act because they were concerned that Mary would have a difficult time ruling, considering her possible divided loyalties between her husband and her father.  Still, “such arguments were set aside when it became clear that the king [was] resolved to trust the queen.”[78]  At this point Mary came out of virtual retirement to take on her numerous, new responsibilities.  She complained that she was so busy she didn’t even have time for prayer anymore.[79]  William appointed a council of nine ministers to advise Mary, but she was very unimpressed and called them weak, obstinate, untrustworthy and mad.[80]  Still, the council was not overly impressed with her ruling abilities either and therefore an agreement was made that Mary would ask the king his opinion on all matters that could be put on hold to get his opinion.[81]  Still, when urgent action was required, Mary rose to each occasion with bravery.  In his book Royal Marys, Cook writes, “[i]t was not for nothing that the blood of the Stuarts ran in her veins mingled with that of Clarendon . . . .” [82]  One example of a crisis Mary faced was when the English fleet was defeated by the French at Beachy Head in June 1690.  Burnet noted that during that time Mary showed “an extraordinary firmness,” and he referred to her as “heroical.”[83]  Mary even remembered the small details during this crisis and had all cattle removed from the coast as soon as the French appeared in the Channel.[84]

            Mary appears to have found strength for the daunting task of ruling the nation through her faith in God and in the comfort of writing letters to her husband.  Mary wrote a meditation for the year of 1690 which stated:

As I see the course of affairs at present, my husband is going to hazard his life and that perhaps in person against my father, when I know that here is a party formed in favour of the last . . . all that is enough to fright a person hardier than myself, nevertheless though I am sometimes afraid I put my confidence in thee, O God . . . .[85] 

Mary wrote William often during his Irish campaign to update him on the state of affairs in England, to warn him to be careful in battle, and sometimes just to feel connected to him.[86]  For example, one letter by Mary to William which was written during the Irish campaign on June 29, 1690 said, “You will be weary of seeing every day a letter from me . . . it is the only comfort I have in this world, besides that of trust in God.  I have nothing to say at the present time . . . .”[87]

            When William left England again in January 1691 for the Netherlands, the affairs in England were a lot less eventful.  The only “alarm” the queen faced was a fire at Whitehall that destroyed a large section of the palace, and forced Mary to flee in her pajamas.[88]  William was again out of the country from March 5, 1692 to October 18, 1692, but during this period Mary was more reluctant to make decisions without prior consultation about them with William and for this she was later criticized.[89]  William’s absence from March 24, 1693 to October 29, 1693 was somewhat different than the others had been.  Mary noted in her memoirs that during the previous years, the king had approved of almost everything that was done, but during this year he had disapproved of almost everything.[90]  It has been suggested that this was because there was a political friction that had formed between William and Mary because her attachment to the Tories had become stronger, while William began to show a preference for the Whigs.[91]  Mary played an even more minimal role ruling during William’s absence from May 6, 1964 to November 9, 1964, choosing to often not attend cabinet meetings.[92]

During her reign as queen, Mary also set out some of her own initiatives to make moral and educational reforms in England.  It is said that when Mary came to the throne she was shocked by the lack of religion in England.[93]  Thus, she set out to be an example of devotion to God.  Services in royal chapels became more frequent and more public.  In July 1691 she issued a proclamation to the justices of the peace for Middlesex “for suppressing of profaneness and debauchery.”[94]  The following year Mary gave orders to pass laws against drunkeness, swearing, and profanation on the Lord's day and sent directions to magistrates throughout England to enforce these laws.[95]  She also closely oversaw who was given ecclesiastical appointments.[96]  Furthermore, Mary showed her concern for education in 1693 by helping to establish the College of William and Mary in Virginia.[97]  Mary also founded the Royal Hospital for Seamen or Greenwich Hospital.[98]  The result of Mary’s initiatives was “that the Court, that is usually the centre of vanity and voluptuousness became virtuous by the impression of her example.”[99]

Death & Legacy

Mary died on December 28, 1694. [100]  The first signs of Mary's fatal illness appeared on December 19, 1694.[101]  She was at Kensington Palace when she began to feel ill.[102]  When Mary fell ill she immediately began to go through her personal papers such as family letters, and she burned many of them.  She then wrote a letter to her husband William.[103]  William, who had been camped at Whitehall palace, was summoned to Mary’s bedside by her nine doctors.  He came immediately and did not leave her bedside until she died.[104] William did this even though by insisting on ministering to her himself, he risked getting infected with smallpox as well.[105]

On Christmas Day some of Mary’s doctors had diagnosed her with measles while only one doctor favored the diagnoses of smallpox.[106]  But by December 27, all physicians agreed that Mary had smallpox.  The particular form of smallpox that she had was one of the least common types, accounting for less than three percent of all cases.  It was also always fatal and known to cause terrible suffering.[107]  That afternoon, the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Tenison, discussed with Mary the possibility of her impending death and took communion with her.[108]

Her death occurred at Kensington Palace about one o'clock on the morning on December 28, 1694.[109]  She died at the age of 32.[110]  Upon her death, Jacobites heartlessly asserted that “the smallpox from which Mary died was a visible sign of heaven’s vengeance.”[111]  Mary's body was embalmed the day she died, a necessary precaution of the smallpox.  It took from December 28, 1694 to February 21, 1695 to prepare for her lying-in-state funeral, which took place from noon until five o'clock every day until March 5.[112]  Mary's funeral procession was the largest ever held for an English monarch.[113]  All of Parliament men and 400 old, poor women attended and the streets were draped in black.[114] 

On her death there was still a reigning sovereign, so the usual events triggered by a royal demise, such as Parliament dissolving and officers changing, didn’t happen.[115]  But, that is not to say that Mary’s death was any less tragic.  After Mary died, William said “[i]f I could believe that ever mortal man could be born without the contamination of sin, I would believe it of the Queen.”[116]  Bishop Burnet wrote an epitaph on Queen Mary II that read:

To the state a prudent ruler.

To the church a nursing mother

To the king a constant lover

To the people the best example.

Orthodox in religion,

Moderate in opinion;

Sincere in profession,

Constant in devotion;

Arden tin affection.

A preserver of liberty,

A deliverer from popery;

A preventer of slavery;

A promoter of piety,

A suppressor of immorality;

A pattern of industry.

High in the world,

Low esteem of the world,

Above fear of death,

Sure of eternal life.

What was great, good, desired in a queen

In her late majesty was to be seen;

Thoughts to conceive, it cannot be expressed

What was contained in her royal breast.[117]

Bibliography

 

[1688-1697] 5 Poems on Affairs of State: Augustan Satirical Verse, 1660-1714, 37-38 (W.J. Cameron ed., Yale University Press 1971).

Bering-Jensen, Helle, Elevating the Glorious Revolution, Insight 51, May 15, 1989. (citing W.A. Speck).

Bowen, Marjorie, The Third Mary Stuart: Mary of York, Orange & England: Being A character Study with Memoirs and Letters of Queen mary II of England, 1622-1694 150 (John Lane the Bodley Head Limited 1929) (1929).

Burnet, Gilbert, An Essay on the Memory of the Late Queen. 79-82 (London: Richard Chiswell 1695).

Cook, E. Thornton, Her Majesty: The Romance of the Queens of England, 1066-1910 285 (E.P. Dutton & Co. 1927) (1927).

Cook, E. Thornton, Royal Marys: Princess mary and her Predecessors 166 (Books for Libraries Press, Inc. 1930) (1967).

Cook, Petronelle, Queen Consorts of England: The Power Behind the Throne 205 (Facts On File 1993) (1993).

 English Monarch William III and Mary II, http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/stuart_6.htm (2004-2005).

Holmes, Frederick, The Sickly Stuarts: The medical Downfall of a Dynasty 140-141 (Sutton Publishing Limited 2003) (2003).

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mary2England.jpg (2005).

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page100.asp (2006).

http://www.wikipedia.org.

Jones, Angela McShane, Revealing Mary: What Depictions in Broadsides of Mary II with Her Breasts Exposed Tell Us about 17th-Century Popular Attitudes to Royalty, History Today, March 2004.

Macaulay, Thomas Babington, The History of England from the Accession of James the Second 165 (C. Firth ed. 1913) (repr. 1968) (orig. pub. 1848). 

Mary II, Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9051211/Mary-II (2007).

Mary II of England, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_II_of_England (2007). 

Mary II of Orange, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/mary_ii_of_orange_queen.shtml (2007).

Miller, John, The Glorious Revolution 9 (Clive Emsley & Gordon Martel eds., Longman 1997) (1983).

Speck, W. A., Mary II in 37 Oxford Dictionary of National Biography 124, 135 (H.C.G. Matthew & Brian Harrison eds., Oxford University Press, 2004) (2004).

Speck, W.A., William – and Mary?, in The Revolution of 1688-1689: Changing perspectives 133 (Lois G. Schwoerer ed., Cambridge University Press 1992).

Strickland, Agnes, 13 Lives of the Queens of England from the Norman Conquest 1 (George Barrie & Sons 1903) (1903).

The Lives of the Kings & Queens of England 245 (Antonia Fraser ed., Heraldic consultant: J.P. Brooke-Little Richmond Herald of Arms, Alfred A. Knopf 1975) (1975).

The Columbia Encyclopedia (6th ed., Columbia University Press 2005).  See also Jone Johnson Lewis, Mary II, http://womenshistory.about.com/od/rulerspre20th/p/mary_ii.htm (2007).

Timeline, http://wwp.royalhistory.com/england/monarchs/william-mary.htm (2000).

Waller, Maureen, Ungrateful Daughters: The Stuart Princesses Who Stole Their Father’s Crown (Hodder & Stoughton) (2002).

William & Mary, http://www.wm.edu/vitalfacts/seventeenth.php (2007).

William and Mary Style, http://www.answers.com/topic/william-and-mary-style-2 (2007).

Wilkes, Professor, Class Notes, English Legal History Fall 2007.

---

¹ This image is in the public domain because its copyright has expired. This applies in the United States, Canada, and the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years.  The picture is on file in Wiki Commons. http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mary2England.jpg (2005) (last visited Oct. 24, 2007).