“Of rose and pomegarnet the redolent pryncesse”: Fashioning Princess Mary in 1525
Bibliographic record
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 Analysis of William Newman’s unpublished manuscript poem, “My ladie princesse doughter to king harry the VIII,” recovers an intriguing characterization of the first Tudor princess in the period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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".