Customer Reviews

Her Mother's Daughter: A Novel of Queen Mary Tudor

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I admit that my opinion of this novel was shaped in part by the rather bizarre preface, in which a group of modern day schoolgirls at a slumber party try to conjure up the spirit of "Bloody Mary" in an old mirror without really knowing what they're doing or who Mary Tudor (daughter of Henry VIII, half sister to Elizabeth) may have been. Of course, once all the girls are asleep in their sleeping bags, Mary materializes and studies the sleeping girls, almost tearfully. "Wretched, undeserved name," she says of her nickname. "Would that I could tell you and you would listen."

And that's the device that Julianne Lee uses to launch this novel, one that rushes over or omits Mary's reaction to major life events (her separation from her mother, Catherine of Aragon; her mother's death; the execution of Anne Boleyn) in favor of 'insights' from characters like a pickpocket and a Catholic Londoner. The narrative doesn't flow smoothly, but bumps along - I kept wondering if I was misreading something when in the space of a page or two we moved from Mary at age 11 to Mary age 17. Even more distracting was the interruption to the story itself when Mary addresses the reader (presumably her school girl audience?), as if recounting a history lesson. ("My father's final years were the most pleasant of my adult life" and "I knew my purpose was to save my people from those who would destroy their very souls" are examples of this ponderous device at work.)

Leaving aside the fact that the book is littered with small errors that multiply over time (Lee has Bishop John Fisher being hung; in fact, his sentence was commuted to beheading) and elements that simply don't ring true (would she really have addressed Anne Boleyn as "stepmother" to the latter's face, since Mary rejected the idea that the marriage was valid), this simply is a tedious book. After struggling through the first half, which failed to capture my interest at all, I skimmed over the second half, seeing no sign of any improvement.

It's a shame, because Mary Tudor is, as Lee clumsily notes in the introduction, a monarch who struggles to shake off the reputation earned in the last years of her life and a woman who was known during her life before taking the crown for her generosity and wide-ranging friendships (she was a close friend of Anne of Cleves, for instance) as for her piety and oppression of her sister Elizabeth. She's also one of the only members of the Tudor dynasty who hasn't been written about from several dozen different angles. (I'm convinced that there's nothing fresh at all to say about either Anne Boleyn or her daughter, Elizabeth, by this point.) There have been a few other ham-handed efforts to humanize Mary, such as the rather bad book by Suzannah Dunn, The Queen's Sorrow (Lee's book makes this one seem much stronger in retrospect...)

Perhaps this will appeal to die-hard Tudor historical fiction afficionados, at least those who don't have a knowledge of the character or the period and who thus are less likely to find the frequent interruptions by Mary's first-person summaries of historical events to be deeply irritating. But I'd suggest avoiding this book, and turning instead to the excellent books about Mary by Hilda Lewis. Originally published in (I believe) the 1960s/1970s, they are lively reads, accurate and gripping. Yes, they are out of print (although some of Lewis's other books are being republished, so at least there is hope...) but they are extraordinarily affordable on Amazon's British site. The trilogy begins with I Am Mary Tudor, continues with Mary the Queen and ends with Bloody Mary. Those are excellent four-star books; this I've rated 1.5 stars and rounded up only because I suppose it will appeal as a first step toward understanding a complex character and a turbulent period of history. As far as I'm concerned, unfortunately, it's a purchase that I regret having made.

Julianne Lee attempts to bring to modern day readers the sympathetic view of Mary Tudor, the misunderstood queen of the sixteenth century. Queen Mary did not have an easy life, and the author immediately sets off to show her readers the myriad of different situations that she was placed in due to the fact that she was the daughter of King Henry VIII. Most Tudor era fans know the story of this Mary Tudor, who was otherwise known as Bloody Mary due to her excessive execution of heretics. She was the only surviving issue of Catherine of Aragon and Henry VIII; at first treated as a princess should be until Henry divorced her mother. Yet, it is her younger half-sister, Elizabeth I, who gets the credit for being a strong female monarch in the sixteenth century.

The author shows how Mary may have felt when she was told by her mother that her father was divorcing her, which jeopardized Mary's own status. She was stripped of her princess title, and simply became "Lady Mary." We see how Mary was indeed her mother's daughter, embracing the Catholic religion with zeal, as this was the only constant in her life. The story the author tells focuses on Mary's life and the major events that occurred around her, although we very quickly advance in the author's telling to Henry marrying Anne Boleyn, beheading her and taking Jane Seymour as a wife. Throughout this period we are privy to Mary's personal thoughts as she despises Anne, yet yearns for her place at her father's side. Henry is portrayed as unfeeling and callous towards his daughter Mary, but as doting on Elizabeth when she was a baby. Obviously for the sake of the story itself this works well in the author's favor for attempting to achieve sympathy for Mary. How much of this is factual is for another book.



We blink, and Henry is dead and his only sickly son, Edward is on the throne at age 9. I don't even recall the sixth wife being mentioned. With the bulk of the book being told in third person, we are privy to the council meetings and the thoughts that the council members had about Mary, being a Catholic twenty-four year old potential claimant to the throne, never mind the fact that she was a woman. Mary is shown as very insecure, very pious and of ill health. Whenever she was stressed, it put her in a dangerous state of illness. Mary had feared poison from the heretic Protestant factions, and was beginning to lose faith in her own father's loyalty and regard for family ties. She always felt he would never execute her because of the fact that she was his daughter, but Henry was a ruthless man and did not like being refused his requests. This request in question (which spanned the first half of the book) that Henry demanded of her was going against the very grain of Mary's Catholic faith, for Henry wanted Mary to recognize him as having authority over the church and the pope. Mary finally felt that she could no longer trust in her faith to keep her alive. It seems Mary's only friend was her imperial ambassador, Eustace Chapuys. He advised her in most things and she is shown as relying on him at critical times, just as he advised her to accept the Act of Supremacy, although with a helpful caveat. Upon doing so, Mary was finally allowed some peace, and was welcome at her father's court after this long battle. She failed in the very things she lived for, such as having children and restoring England to the Catholic faith, and perhaps it was this failure that distressed her so much that caused her illnesses. But even through these failures, she unknowingly taught Elizabeth what to do or not do once Elizabeth ruled.

What makes this novel unique is the way it opened up, with a modern day setting; and then the rest of the story is being told in an almost flashback fashion as Mary periodically appears as she explains what happens next. The chapter would open up with an italicized paragraph of Mary speaking her mind, and that chapter would tie itself into that foreshadowing opening paragraph. Also unique, are the "extras" to the novel. There are commoners, from thieves to family men that have their chance to their story in this novel as well. Through their eyes we get a broad scope of what the political and religious turmoils that the people in England were subject to, and this also helped keep the novel intriguing.

As a Tudor junkie, I enjoyed it. As a historical fiction reader, I loved it. There is nothing that I can say in hindsight that I think the author should have done differently. The writing flowed simply and I was entertained by the clever outline of the novel with the diary style entries by Mary and the outlooks from the commoners. This was a unique approach towards a story that has been told many times before, but truly gives a realistic touch towards the humanity of Bloody Mary. The author successfully portrayed Mary in a more favorable light as we begin to understand the depth of Mary's faith and the mechanisms behind it. As the story progresses, we are more empathetic towards Mary as we witness the accounts of the relationships that Mary had with her family and her controversial husband, Philip of Spain. For the many readers who like to focus on the Tudor era, this is a read that must be added to your library, both for its original storytelling and the unique approach with which the author utilizes to tell this compelling story of Mary Tudor. I enjoyed this new novel by Julianne Lee so much so that I will be looking for her previous historical fiction read A Question of Guilt: A Novel of Mary, Queen of Scots, and the Death of Henry Darnley (Oct 7, 2008) which focuses on another Queen Mary that I have not had a lot of sympathy for either. After reading Her Mother's Daughter: A Novel of Mary Tudor by Julianne Lee, I am definitely much more sympathetic to the views of Bloody Mary and more understanding of why she seemed a bit over the top. I recommend this one to those interested in the Tudor era and for historical fiction fans in general.

I had this book on my shelf for several weeks before I finally got time to read it. Once I started it, I cleared my weekend so I wouldn't have to put it down. The book is well written, moves along quickly and allows Mary to explain herself during the various story intervals.
One of the things I was most impressed with was Lee's ability to convey the mindset of royalty. Through modern day media, society has learned that members of royalty (Prince Charles, Lady Di etc) must remain stoic and strong no matter what happens in their lives. Mary's ability to carry on as the princess she was born to be when she refuses to appear weak in front of others at all times is an example of Lee's grasp on the realities of Mary's world and society's expectations of Mary throughout her life. Whether it was the death of her mother, her father's betrayal or something else, Mary continued to conduct herself as someone of her station would be expected to do.
If you are a fan of Tudor era novels, you will enjoy this book because it presents a wonderful in-depth examination of Mary's life, heart and thoughts. If you are a beginning Tudor reader you will also love it for it's clear and concise explanations of many historic facts.
I highly recommend this book!

The seventh grade girls and one younger sister Karen were playing "Bloody Mary" when Queen Mary Tudor arrived to tell the truth to the lone fifth grader who called out to her. She explains the reality behind her notorious legend. Her father King Henry VIII adored her until she turned eleven when he tossed her and her mother Katherine of Aragon aside for Anne Boleyn. She returns to the court as a servant to her half sister Princess Elizabeth. Acrimonious and angry due to her father's rejection and her inability to see her mother, Mary finds some joy eventually in her marriage to Philip of Spain, but that is not enough as he was more away than with her. When she became Queen, she pushed to end the heresy of her father by returning the country to the Catholic Church leading to the deaths of many.

This is a terrific "autobiographical" fiction as Mary reminds readers history is written by the surviving victors, which in this case is her half-sister Elizabeth. Readers will enjoy this fine version although using a fifth grader as her listener seems like an unnecessary gimmick even based on the mythos that Bloody Mary kidnaps little children, as the strength of the novel is in Mary's explanations and rationalizations for her actions built predominantly on her deep religious belief that Catholicism was the pure version of Christianity. This is a winning portrait.

Harriet Klausner

I'm a huge fan of historical fiction of any of the Tudors. Henry, Mary, Elizabeth, you name it, I'll read it. I haven't found many books that tell Mary Tudor's story and so I was very excited to read this book. I was puzzled from the first page, however. All in all, I don't think I could recommend this book to anyone.

I found so many oddities in this book its hard to know where to start. The book begins with a slumber party in the modern day, where a group of middle school girls attempt to summon "Bloody Mary." Very, very odd. Mary appears in a mirror once the girls have fallen asleep and starts to relate the story of her life. She tells of her father, his marriage of Anne, the birth of Elizabeth, and Henry's death in a very short amount of time, though I found these portions of the book to be fairly engaging. The story during Edward's reign was somewhat interesting as well because of the interesting story telling via the point of view (POV) of the common folk. These accounts added flavor as the author was obviously trying to show how the commoners lived during the reigns of Henry VIII, then Edward, and eventually Mary.

However, elsewhere, the book glossed over some VERY major events. Mary's relationship with Elizabeth is nonexistent throughout the book. Once Mary comes to power, Elizabeth is mentioned approximately three or four times. Nothing is ever mentioned about the fights the two sisters had over religion (i.e., that Mary attempted at various times to force Elizabeth into Catholicism).

Once Mary comes to power, the story focuses only on her increasing radicalism and her relationship with Philip I of Spain. The scenes become rather repetitive. Mary will say, over and over, "Lets burn the heretics." And her advisers (and Philip) will reply with "lets go with moderation." The rebellion of Thomas Wyatt is mentioned almost as an afterthought, Philip's support of mercy towards Elizabeth is never mentioned, the first false pregnancy comes and goes extremely quickly, Philip leaves for Flanders, and then you read an account of him in Flanders from the POV of a prostitute there. I found this totally unnecessary. This is also very near the end of the book and the reader is left wondering how the events of the rest of her reign (Calais and her "second pregnancy") could ever be shoved into the last 5-10 pages of the book. In a nutshell, Philip asks for money and men to go to war with France, Mary gives it to him, he leaves, and she dies all within these last 5-10 pages. Nothing is ever mentioned on the loss of Calais, which I found extremely disappointing.

This book is about Queen Mary I, the daughter of King Henry VIII, known to Protestants as "Bloody Mary". Her story is told in part by her ghost, and in part told in third person viewpoint.

Although it has good vocabulary has several interesting scenes, I found it disappointing.

1) It is the first novel about Mary Tudor I've read that hardly mentions her half-sister and rival Elizabeth. Elizabeth was the bane of her life, especially after Mary became queen. Elizabeth's mother broke her parents' marriage and thus Mary's mother's heart. Because of Anne Boleyn, Mary's father degraded her from "princess" to "bastard" and forced her to renounce her Catholic faith. And unless Mary gave birth to an heir to her throne, Elizabeth would succeed her as queen and undo her work restoring the Catholic Church. Mary merely refers to her as a "monster" (other than that Elizabeth is the darling of the anti-papists and "that whore's" daughter, we don't know why Mary calls her that. Elizabeth herself does not appear in the book, so the reader can't judge her character, or whether Mary's epithet is justified.) Mary seems offhand about imprisoning her after the Wyatt rebellion. No mention of her release and King Philip's part in effecting it. No word of jealousy about that from Mary.

2) The book glosses over Mary's life. First we see her at 5, being presented to her cousin, the Emperor Charles. A couple of pages later, she is 9 years old and in Wales. We hardly sense what she senses, or understand what she feels and why, before she's two, four or ten years older and somewhere else. It's herky-jerky - very little flow and very little connection between the episodes.

And there could have been more, particularly about Queen Katherine of Aragon, the 'mother' in the title. Anne of Cleves was scarcely mentioned and Katherine Parr not at all, yet the scuttlebutt in the history books is that Mary converted Anne to Catholicism and Mary had a good relationship with Katherine Parr while the latter was queen, yet Mary felt Catherine had broke faith with her father after his death when she suddenly married Thomas Seymour.

Mary, in this novel, is very concerned about how others perceive her. In the prologue, when a group of modern day girls at a slumber party attempt to conjure up her ghost by repeating "Bloody Mary", Mary remarks that it was "a wretched, undeserved name." When her state is degraded from "princess" to "lady", she fights being called "lady" whenever she can, her reason being that "I Am The King's Only Legitimate Daughter, Not a Bastard." That's true to the real Mary Tudor. But the author made a big mistake when the fictional Mary calls Anne Boleyn her stepmother. The real Mary would never have called her that. Calling Anne "stepmother" acknowledges that Anne was legitimately married to Henry.

That brings me to another boo-boo: the egalitarian use of first names. The Tudor court was very status conscious. It had to be. The Tudors were conscious of being the new [read "upstart"] dynasty among royal families and also because Henry VIII made himself 'Pope of England'. To call King Henry or King Edward "Henry" or "Edward" was in effect denying the King's titles. Hundreds of folks were executed for even mildly criticizing among friends that the King should not have taken control of the Church. King Henry could call Cardinal Wolsey or the Duke of Norfolk "Thomas". He ranked above them all. They would never call him "Henry". Always "Your Grace", "Your Majesty" or "Sire". Same with Edward VI, though Edward was a boy and they were men. Even his sister had to kneel at his feet. Yet in this novel, his Accession Councillors, all inferiors to him in rank, called him "Edward" to his face.

There are other historical problems. King Henry commuted Cardinal-Bishop Fisher of Rochester's sentence to simple beheading - not the whole "hanged - drawn - quartered" scenario presented in the novel.

There are some fine little vignettes scattered through the book. Mary's sexual awakening by Philip, and her qualms about her feelings being "Sin". The fire that burned down a Catholic church and killed several children. Bishop Hooper's death at the stake. The author wrote them well; but they are like pearls and gems strung on a rough string.

Hilda Lewis's "I Am Mary Tudor" and "Bloody Mary", though out of print, are closer to the historical Mary I than this slim story. I also recommend Carolly Erikson's "Bloody Mary" Bloody Maryas a good popular history, as it is novelistic in approach.

This is not the subtlest rendition of the life and times of Mary Tudor.

It's obvious from the prologue that this book was not meant to be read by people who are already knowledgeable about Mary Tudor and her story. The book makes it clear that it wants to shatter your preconceived notions about Mary, which, of course, if you've read a lot about the period, have long since been shattered.

Historical events are over simplified, and people often seem to be broad brushstrokes of their true selves, presumably not to bog the reader down in complex plots or overly detailed motivations. The novel states many times the title of the book, hammering it into us that yes, Mary is in fact Catherine's daughter in both blood and deed. We get it. It's in the title! The constantly switching POVs I found distracting and not effective, except in one case, that of showing why Mary's people, including Catholics, started pulling away from her and being disgusted by the burnings.

If you know nothing about this time period, this is probably a great book to dive into, get to know the various people, become familiar with the politics and the religion. If you are already brushed up on your Tudor knowledge, you might do better with a solid biography of Mary Tudor.

This was a look at events in Mary Tudor's (daughter of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon) life through not only her own eyes but through the eyes of some of those around her. While I am not a big fan of Mary, I do enjoy reading different versions of her life.

The story begins when she's about six and betrothed to her cousin Charles and continues all the way to her death. There is a closer look at her feelings and emotions throughout the events in her life, which has been lacking in other novels about her. The author appears to have really tried to show what Mary could possibly have been thinking and feeling at many different points in her life. We also get, at the start of most chapters, what appears to be Mary's thoughts about events as if she's looking back after her death and commenting on the coming events. This is an intriguing addition to the story that I enjoyed. Mary's portrayal here is quite believable - she is not shown as being as horrible as some like to think her but she also does not come across as a saint. We see a woman who can and wants to love but we also she her stubbornness, especially when it comes to her religion. My heart went out to her after her marriage and we got more of a look at Prince Philip; she did not deserve to be treated in that manner.

There really was no new insight into her life but that was okay. I will admit, the beginning of the novel had me confused for a while until I realized what the author's intent was - to show how modern people view Queen Mary. The bits where she is looking back and commenting on the past were my favorite parts of the story. That being said, while I thought the author's portrayal of Mary was believable, the entire story moved along very, very quickly, seeming to just glaze over some rather important aspects of Mary's life. I was also a bit puzzled as to why the author decided to throw in some of the other points of view (such as the London pickpocket) unless it was to simply show the reader how the "common" person might have felt about the royal family and current events. I did not think this added to the story in any way and made the reading a bit choppy.

While this was not a horrible read it did not live up to my expectations. I probably would only recommend this to die-hard Tudor fans and to those that are just looking for an introduction to the big players in this drama filled time period. The author did try to present a tale that shows the "hows" and "whys" of this Queen's behavior but the overall novel just fell short.

I feel this novel just skimmed over Mary's life. Just when I thought there would be detail about a big event in her life, the author moved on. She covers her entire life in the book and I felt there was just no substance. Needed more detail!

I can never get enough of Tudor novels. I like to read the stories of the wives, and especially that of Elizabeth. This was the first novel I've ever read from Mary's point of view, and I couldn't help but find that it didn't come to par with other books by other authors.

Though Ms. Lee got the history right, she failed to mention some important aspects, like even mentioning wife number six of her father's. Also, the author failed to mention Elizabeth in the last half of the book, who in real life, was probably always on her mind, being her heir apparent. Elizabeth was with Mary when she made her triumphant march into London. Also, from biographies, the sister generally got along with each other, despite the fact that their mother's were the greatest of enemies.

Perhaps because I know so many of the facts during this period, I just can't give a high rating to a book that either doesn't give the facts, or fails to do it all together.