Customer Reviews

Mary Queen of Scots

5 star:		(24)
4 star:		(12)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

It probably is unfair to compare the writing styles of Fraser and her counterpart, Alison Weir, but having just read what seems like a mountain of books by both of them, I can't help but do so and find Fraser ahead on some points, behind on others.

Fraser has a methodical style wherein each sentence is so cram-packed with detail that her books probably improve on their second or third readings. She takes a comprehensive, relatively non-biased look at her subject here and provides an interesting biography of a woman who has been characterized as everything from a near saint to a scheming, treasonous viper who deserved her eventual beheading. While Weir seems to take the position that Elizabeth I was some beloved angel who eventually had to sully her hands and cut off the head of her cousin for national security, I think the truth is somewhere else, as does Fraser.

In terms of historical accuracy, I think Fraser probably has the edge over Weir, notwithstanding both authors' impeccable research. Weir allows story to take precedence over fact, something that doesn't seem to happen as much with Fraser.

Which brings me to my list of quibbles with this book. Fraser may write factually, but in doing so, she comes thisclose to having written a book every bit as dry as the ones I steered clear of in school. It was torture to get through some of the passages and I put the book down more than once, not to pick it up again for days. I wasn't compelled to finish the book and find out the rest of the story the way I was with Weir's.

My second issue was with all of the passages in untranslated languages, French primarily. A few years ago, I'd say I spoke French fluently, but even I had to look up some of the phrases here. It wouldn't have hurt the narrative to provide a parenthetical translation for those of us not fluent in multiple languages who don't feel like getting up to run the thing through Babelfish. Intended or not, it gave the author an air of arrogance and was my main stumbling block to enjoying this book as fully as I wanted to.

Overall, it was a detailed biography, probably as accurate as anything else that's out there, without the apparent author bias that's seen in Weir's book. This is not easy reading though; the story is unevenly written, overly laden with minutiae where it's not necessary and filled with passages and important comments that a lot of people won't even be able to decipher without help. I'd give it 4 stars for credibility, 2 for accessibility, for a final 3 stars overall.

Most famous for her beauty and horrific execution the history of her life is compelling litany of betrayal and tragic mistakes. For anyone interested in the period this is defiantly a must read. However there one issues that I take with the book. One is that Ms Fraser's good schooling shines through on many pages as she often quotes a line of two from Mary written in French without bothering to provide the led elite with a translation. This can often make funny little anecdotes seem rather pointless to the reader.

Still there is no better way to discover the full scope of Mary and how people and events all conspired against her.

Perhaps no resident of Edinburgh is more famous than Mary Queen of Scots. Ironically, she lived in the land for only twelve of her forty-four years and her period of personal rule lasted a mere six years, none of which were free from strife.

Born as her father lay dying she became Queen before she was a week old. During her infancy King Henry VIII of England raided the country several times in order to kidnap the girl and secure her as a bride for his son Edward. She was sent to France by her Mother and raised as a daughter by the King. At the age of 16 she married the heir to the French throne who became King shortly thereafter. When her young husband died a year into his reign she was left a teenaged childless Queen Dowager.

She returned to the land of her birth to find herself a Catholic Queen in a country in the midst of Protestant Reformation. Many of her protestant subjects feared that she would become a second 'Bloody Mary' and like her cousin Mary Tudor attempt to force her country back to the Catholic faith. Plots and rebellions against her were a persistent occurrence. Knowing herself to be in a weak position, needing to keep both her Catholic allies and her subjects contented, Mary set a policy of tolerance and moderation in religious matters. Radicals on both sides of the religious spectrum found fault with Mary's tolerance of the religious diversity in Scotland.

Mary herself made matters worse by her disastrous romances. She married her cousin Henry Darnley in the hopes of strengthening her claim to the English throne. After only a few short months he began to plot against her in the hope of securing the throne of Scotland for himself. He and other Scottish nobles murdered Mary's private secretary and friend David Rizzio as she watched, helpless to intervene. When Mary was able to put down this rebellion he turned on his former allies and attempted unsuccessfully to reconcile with the Queen. In the end his erstwhile allies disgusted at his betrayal murdered him as he lay ill at his home Kirk O' Field. It is still debated how much Mary herself knew about the plans to murder her husband the Scottish king.

With Darnley out of the way the remaining Scottish lords were horrified when one of their own kidnapped Mary and became her third husband. He was James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell was one of the leading suspects in the murder of Darnley. Her marriage to him cost her the love of her people, her tenuous friendship with her cousin Elizabeth I, and her catholic allies around Europe. In one short month Mary was driven from the throne, forced to abdicate in favor of her infant son and placed in captivity by the Scottish lords. Her husband escaped the country only to be taken prisoner in Denmark. Bothwell would live another eleven years in a dungeon slowly going insane.
Mary was also able to escape from her prison, the castle and Lochleven, and she made her way to the English border. Mary of Scotland was the last person whom Elizabeth would wish to see in her kingdom. Viewed by many Catholics as the rightful Queen of England, Mary was a great danger to Elizabeth. Mary became Elizabeth's "guest" and spent nineteen years in captivity in her cousin's country. Since Mary was also the unacknowledged heir to the throne, her jailers were always cautious to treat her with the respect due to one so close to becoming Queen of the land.

As the years passed the captive Mary became a romantic figure to many and was able to restore the reputation lost by her marriage to Bothwell. In hopes of securing her freedom and of capturing Elizabeth's throne, Mary began to communicate clandestinely with English Catholics and her European allies. Using her claim to the English throne as leverage, she began to look for a fourth husband who would free her, overthrow Elizabeth and rule at her side. Eventually Elizabeth was forced to have Mary executed in 1587.
Her execution led Phillip of Spain to launch the armada against England in 1588. Mary was never able to sit on the throne of England as Queen. However, since 1603 all the monarchs of England have been her direct descendants. She is buried in Westminster Abbey in London, a city she never saw while alive.

Mary Queen of Scots is rarely discussed by historians in a dispassionate tone. Either they love her or they hate her. Antonia Frasier is VERY fond of her subject. While she makes good use of sources, she has an annoying habit of blowing off the sources that describe Mary as anything but a delightful, misunderstood monarch who was ahead of her time. This goes for everything from her involvement in the Darnley murder to her looks (god forbid someone say she was anything less than drop dead gorgeous). In some cases explaining away remarks as prejudiced is understandable, but often it is not.

Criticism aside, Frasier delievers a rich narrative of the life of Mary, including her life in France before her personal rule, a side of the queen we rarely hear about. She also displays an impressive understanding of the Scottish court and the Elizabeth's England's relationship to Scotland. She manages to keep her ponderings about Mary's private feelings to a minimum. Although there is some attempts to explain Mary's psychological state, its only done when absolutely needed (after all, if you're reading this there's going to be times when you're mind is screaming "why?" when you read over some of the yutz stuff Mary seems to do).

All in all, "Mary Queen of Scots" is a good read and more importantly, good history.

After having read many biographies on Elizabeth I, I decided I should now take a look at the view point of her rival, Mary. Indeed, it was eye opening.

Frasier does an excellent job at making sure that no details are left out. She takes the time to look at each side of the coin, dismissing blatant rumors and indicating what is fact and what is mere speculation. She also leaves no thread loose, making sure to add a footnote to even minor characters of interest so that the reader may know of what happened to them. Indeed, her research is thorough, and lacks a lot of the nagging questions about people and events I find that I have when I read biographies written by other writers.

Yet despite all of the heavy reading, the narrative does not lag, but is fresh and interesting.

My only complaint was the untranslated French phrases. Even with the assistance of several French-to-English dictionaries, I often had a hard time finding specific words or phrases. Yet this was a minor annoyance, and did not interefere with the quality of the work as a whole.

For those looking for a detailed and thrilling biography, I highly recommend this book.

Most of us are familiar with the later story of Mary Queen of Scots and her tragic demise at the hands of Queen Elizabeth. This studiously written book fills in the early details of Mary's life and so forth. Reading like a text book this account is often ponderous but read in small increments it is palatable and worthwhile, especially for those history buffs or students who need minute details of the life of Mary. Often times the reader gets the feeling much of the old accounts are surmised and subject to interpretation. In this case all the facts are carefully documented with footnotes and references used to obtain them. There have been many more interesting accounts of Mary written but how accurate and truthful is a valid question. The precise documentation of this book leaves little doubt as to its validity in this interesting chapter of history.

If somewhat dry. And there is an overwhelming amount of detail. Occasionally one gets confused as to the identity of the sources, why they were chosen, why their particular view of an event was chosen over another, or if another source wrote about the same event at all. Fraser, relies heavily on "Throckmorton," Elizabeth's ambassador in Paris, and on the Venetian ambassador. Since it is a cousin of the first who is eventually implicated in the ultimate Marian plot against Elizabeth, it would have been nice if Fraser had elaborated on the perspectives of her sources. There is some very factual clearing up of misconceptions here though. That Elizabeth and Mary never met during all the years of Mary's incarceration quite shocked me. The historical facts of Mary and Bothwell's relationship are explained, though the actual tenor of it is not ventured upon. Fraser's disparagement of the casket letters, which were used to convict Mary of complicity in the death of Darnley, her second husband, is quite convincing. She makes an excellent case that, whatever the original content, Walsingham and Cecil doctored the heck out of them. And there are poignant details, such as Mary's jurors wearing riding boots on the second day of her trial, indicating that the trial was in form only. I don't find Fraser particularly biased in favor of Mary though she obviously thinks well of her subject. A little more detail on Riccio and Darnley would have been nice, considering the vital role they played in Mary's expulsion from the Scottish throne.

Fraser's work was so biased towards Mary that I had to put the book down in disbelief at some points. While I agree that the Scottish queen was probably only guilty of naivete and poor judgement in some cases, Ms. Fraser tries to make this case at every charge. When, of course, she's not telling us that Mary was a serene martyr for the Catholic cause. For instance, we're told that Mary's comment to her nobles, when broached about killing Darnley, that she would "have no more speech on the matter" is proof positive that she is completely innocent and had no idea his murder was being planned. I think most people agree she probably wasn't actively involved but that doesn't necessarily mean she didn't have an idea it was coming. Fraser's positive bias towards Mary rather negatively impacts Elizabeth I (not surprisingly). Although Elizabeth was certainly no angel, Ms. Fraser sees nothing good in anything she does unless it was positive concerning Mary. Besides the bias, a more minor complaint is the failure to translate most of the quotes included in the book. Most of us don't speak French or Latin and if you're not going to include a translation you may as well not include the quote. The failure to do so is, frankly, a little insulting.

This is an informative biography even for those not familiar with the period. However, don't take everything you read as gospel.

Every time I finish one of Lady Antonia Fraser's historical works, it is with a deep feeling of satisfaction, and also with newly-increased admiration for her intelligence and analytical skills. Queen Mary comes completely alive in this book, and we walk with her along the smooth way of her happy early life and the treacherous paths of her adulthood, while learning a lot about her historical background and her genuine, deep sensitivity. This was a great woman, and Fraser does a great job in this engaging, comprehensive portrait.

The book was biased, misleading, and, ironically--considering Fraser's obvious efforts to present her as a saint--extremely unflattering to Mary. Mary comes off as weak, neurotic, helpless, and none too bright. She deserves better than that. While I believe Mary was guilty of most of the "crimes" attributed to her (an adulterous love affair with the Earl of Bothwell, complicity--or at least acquiescence--in Darnley's murder, intrigues against Elizabeth, etc.) I also believe that a case could be made making all these actions forgivable, under the circumstances. This is a point Fraser cannot seem to comprehend, leaving her to do a simple-minded "exoneration" of Mary that leaves her, as I said, difficult to sympathize with. Whatever her flaws, Mary was a strong-minded woman of intelligence, spirit, loyalty, and immense courage. You would never know it from this book, however. Also disturbing is Fraser's habit of distorting or omitting facts that disagree with her personal biases, especially where Bothwell is concerned. Fraser falls along with that tired old story of Bothwell-as-villain--in truth, he was one of the very few heroes in this whole grim story--which leads Fraser into some ludicrous and misleading conclusions. For example, she asserts that once Mary was separated from Bothwell, she was glad to be rid of him and immediately forgot him. The fact that all Mary's known words and actions suggest otherwise is ignored. That Mary continually contrived to send letters to Bothwell during her captivity on Lochleven, that on her escape, one of the first things she did was to send an envoy to negotiate his release from Denmark, where he was being detained, so they could be reunited, that she continueda frequent correspondence with him for years afterwards, that she interceded with the King of Denmark to plead with him to treat her husband well--all that, and more, is ignored.

However, the book is not without`its good points as a reference guide. It is heavily detailed and researched--when she wishes it to be, at least. If you want to know what Mary had for breakfast on December 6, 1563, this is the place to find out. As an overall understanding of her as a person, however, it is a complete failure. For that, I would suggest Elizabeth Byrd's novel, "Immortal Queen," which is, to me, the most intelligent and insightful book yet on Mary, fiction or non-fiction.

I read Lady Antonia Fraser's book "Mary Queen of Scots" some time ago. It is a fascinating biography of one of England's most tragic figures. This account leaves one question; did Elizabeth I, really want to execute her because she posed a dangerous threat to the throne, or was she simply afraid not to? Most all accounts have Elizabeth struggling with what to do with Mary, Queen of Scots. We will never really find out for sure, but it was a sad life she struggled with even though her son, James, ascended the throne after Elizabeth Tudor left no issue. A very good read and the reader will learn much.