Most Helpful Customer Reviews
72 of 76 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A fascinating side-by-side comparison of two rival queens., May 21, 2004
Many have criticized this dual biography for not introducing new material, and simply re-hashing what has been written elsewhere. And clearly there is no shortage of excellent biogaphies on both of these queens. However, it is the format of Dunn's book that sets it apart and gives us an innovative perspective. Queen Elizabeth I of England and Mary, Queen of Scots, were both fascinating monarchs in their own right, but equally fascinating is the complex relationship between them. Both women had a claim to the throne of England. Elizabeth was the daughter of King Henry VIII and his second wife, Anne Boleyn. Elizabeth's grandfather, Henry VII, who overthrew Richard III and founded the Tudor dynasty, was also the great-grandfather of Mary (born to King James V of Scotland and Mary of Guise). Elizabeth was Mary's elder by only nine years. Both women were ambitious, passionate, and cunning. Yet despite their similar status as queens and cousins, these two women were also very different from one another. Mary became Queen of Scotland only six days after her birth in 1542, upon the death of her father. In 1548 she was sent to France, to grow up in the court of her French fiance, the dauphin Francis. Her status was never in question, and therefore she never questioned it herself. Elizabeth, however, traversed a much more tumultuous path to her throne. When her mother was beheaded so Henry VIII could marry his third wife, the young princess was declared illegitimate and removed from the succession. Ultimately her place in the succession was reinstated, but this in no way guaranteed that she would ever become queen. First in line was her radically Protestant half-brother, Edward, who died young. Next came the devoutly Catholic Mary I ("Bloody Mary"), Elizabeth's half-sister from Henry VIII's first marriage, under whom Elizabeth even spent some time in the Tower of London. It was only upon Mary's death in 1558, when Elizabeth was 24 years of age, that she finally ascended the throne herself. The relationship between Elizabeth and Mary was very multi-faceted (despite the fact that the two queens never met). For most of her life, Mary referred to Elizabeth as a dear sister, and actively sought her cousin's favor. Yet at the same time Mary coveted the English crown, and even on several occasions declared that she herself was the rightful Queen of England. Yet the Queen of Scots, by dint of her as-yet unthreatened sovereignty, could also be presumtuous to a fault. Her impulsive marriage to Lord Darnley, her second husband (who was shortly thereafter murdered), against the will and advice of many in both Scotland and England, marked the beginning of her ultimate downward slide. Elizabeth, while she displayed more pragmatism in matters of the heart, was also somewhat jealous of her cousin's romantic exploits. Elizabeth had realized early on that she could never marry her personal favorite, Robert Dudley, the Earl of Leicester, and that she must instead declare herself to be married to her country, but this did not erase her longing for romantic fulfilment. Ultimately Elizabeth was forced to imprison, and eventually execute, her cousin and rival queen. Mary, fleeing from Scottish rebels, thought to run to Elizabeth for refuge and support. But Elizabeth insisted on an investigation into Mary's possible involvement in the murder of Lord Darnley, and therefore detained the Scottish queen in a remote castle. Despite Mary's repeated pleas, she refused an audience with her, fearing the Queen of Scots' reputation for beguiling charm. Mary's imprisonment became all the more serious when she was implicated in a plot to assassinate Elizabeth. The English queen had no desire to execute her cousin, despite pressure from her counselors. Only when irrefutable proof of Mary's involvement was produced did Elizabeth finally sign the death warrant, and even then she was plagued with guilt. In all, Mary spent nearly two decades as Elizabeth's prisoner, and was finally beheaded in 1587, still having never met her cousin and greatest rival. The basic story is obviously the same. Indeed, I think it would be hard to introduce any new material on the lives of Elizabeth and Mary at this point, when we probably already know all we ever will about them. Yet Dunn's presentation here is fascinating. By placing the two queens side-by-side for comparison and contrast, and focussing on their relationship, we get to see both sides of the story simultaneously. This format emphasizes the inter-connectedness of their lives, and really shows how much each was dependent on the other. In many ways each served as the only person who could truly identify with the other, both being women rulers in a time when females were seen as incapable of effective leadership, and being each other's closest blood relatives (with the exception of Mary's son, James VI & I). Dunn's writing style, while not the most engaging I have ever read, is nevertheless very accessible. She has clearly done her research, and paints a lovely dual portrait of these two women. I also liked the fact that, when using direct quotes, Dunn gives both the original text with its archaic and unstandardized spellings, and also the same quote written with modern spellings, which makes it easier to read and understand. My only real criticism of the text is that she skims over a few events that are considered "well-known," when the book would have been more balanced and informative if Dunn had written on all events with equal detail. After all, not all her readers will have read extensively on these monarchs before picking up this book. On a positive note, the book is equipped with numerous full-color pictures, including portraits of the queens, their family members, important members of their courts, and even some pictures of embroidery Mary completed while imprisoned in England. Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this book, learned much from it, and would definitely recommend it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
38 of 40 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A Pair of Queens, April 4, 2004
Some have criticized Jane Dunn's history of Elizabeth I and Mary, Queen of Scots, for not covering any new ground. I find that the parallel biography format makes a new look at an old story well worth while. You may already know the histories of the two queens and their separate lives, but to read about them simultaneously makes vividly clear how intertwined their stories are. Dunn's style is accurate and entertaining without being over-scholarly. The addition of details that other biographers have omitted is welcome. (She mentions that Elizabeth was nearsighted, for instance.) The narrative flows naturally from one queen to the other without seeming choppy. Just when you are starting to wonder what's going on with the other, the scene changes to keep you up to date. I was somewhat disappointed with the way Dunn treats the murder of Riccio (spelled Rizzio in some accounts). While she discusses fully the repurcussions of the murder, she glosses over the actual sequence of events in one sentence, since the story "is well-known." I think a popular history such as this is the perfect place to include a full account, both for those who are new to the subject and to re-acquaint the rest of us with a dramatic event. Dunn, like many biographers, is attached to her subjects. She gives everyone the benefit of a doubt. This is surely the most sympathetic account of Lord Darnley that I have read yet. (Especially on the heels of the recent Alison Weir history of Mary and Darnley.) But she backs up her assertions and conclusions with solid arguments and thorough documentation. And although she says that people still tend to divide themselves into Elizabeth admirers and Mary supporters, she seems to have an equal bias for each queen.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
27 of 29 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
"This island isn't big enough for the two of us", March 30, 2006
This review is from: Elizabeth and Mary: Cousins, Rivals, Queens (Paperback)
First, I would like to review the book itself, and then address some of its critics.
Two of history's most famous queens, one for her unexpected and remarkable greatness, the other for her inexplicably poor judgment and bad luck. But was their famous rivalry inevitable? Was Elizabeth always the popular, talented, dominant one while Mary remained in her shadow? Jane Dunn asks these questions, and I was surprised - and pleased - by some of her answers.
The first part of the book is essentially a point-by-point comparison of the two queens, detailing their very different youths and explaining how they would influence the women in later years. Essentially, Mary had a huge sense of entitlement, was overconfident in her own power and security, and was a much more 'traditional' woman - and Queen - of her day. Elizabeth, whose childhood was punctuated by dramatic changes of fortune, had a much more acute sense of how tenuous her position was, and how much she depended on the good will of her people to maintain power.
Dunn does beat the Mary-as-charming-but-spoiled and Bess-as-brilliant-control-freak comparison into us a bit, but it is a good way of looking at the very different natures of these two women. Her book isn't a full biography of either queen; rather it's a look at the intersection between them - their relationship with each other, their competition, rivalry, and common causes. As such it's a fascinating look at a unique time in European history, the so-called "Age of Queens".
Posterity-wise, Mary got the short end of the stick. History will always remember her as Elizabeth's paler shadow, a major annoyance and minor queen who had no one but herself to blame for her tragic end. Although Dunn does occasionally (perhaps unavoidably) slip into Mary-bashing and Bess-worship, on the whole she does a good job pointing out that that wasn't always the case - and, had a few things gone differently, we would paint a very different portrait of the two cousins. Her Mary and Elizabeth are fully human - flaws, quirks, charms, and all. It's the best way to explain the convoluted relationship between the two, and it provides a lot of useful character insight into all other aspects of these Queens as well. (I do wish Dunn had gone further into the possibility that Mary was bipolar. It's a fascinating hypothesis, and it would explain a lot.)
Mary's end - which also serves as the book's - is too rushed; twenty years are covered in a handful of pages and the account of the execution itself offers nothing new. But until that point, I thoroughly enjoyed this provocative and inspiring portrait of two very different women whom circumstances thrust into such fierce competition.
Now: Some reviewers seem to feel that Dunn was somehow "unfair" to Mary and that her comparison of the two queens is misogynist. I admit to being completely baffled by this point of view. It appears to stem from the argument that somehow Mary was a better "feminist" queen than Elizabeth, I suppose because Elizabeth "betrayed the sisterhood" by having Mary executed.
Further, Dunn's critics seem to argue that Mary was a better "feminine" role model than Elizabeth was, apparently because she ruled through emotion rather than reason. They complain that Elizabeth is too "cold" and "calculating" to be a good example of a female ruler, while waxing rhapsodic about Mary's "mercy" and "gentleness". Let me be blunt: this is the sort of idiotic, feel-good, p.c. claptrap that has set the cause of working women back 50 years. Yes, there is something to be said for women's differing management styles; you will get no argument from me that in today's world, women should not have to emulate uber-masculinity to succeed. But - newsflash! - this was the 16th century. Not only were the roles of men and women completely different - and thus incomparable - than they are today, have you ever actually tried to get anything done with the kind of dithering, vapid leadership exemplified by Mary and her ilk?
Attempting to repaint Dunn's dual biography as some sort of feminist management manifesto does a disservice, both to the author and her subjects. We should admire both Elizabeth and Mary for who they were and what they did, while admitting their flaws and shortcomings. But this is not the 1500s, and trying to appropriate their story to make a point about women today is grossly misrepresentative, self-centered, and intellectually careless. If you want to adopt antiquated delusions about women in the workplace, try reading Forbes online - not "Elizabeth and Mary".
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
