Ungrateful Daughters: The Stuart Princesses Who Stole Their Father's Crown (Paperback)

~ (Author) "In the balmy late summer of 1687 Bath received a royal visit..." (more)
Key Phrases: eldest bastard, bedchamber woman, dispensing power, Mary Beatrice, Princess Anne, Prince of Orange (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

In November 1688, the Protestant Prince William of Orange landed in England with an invading Dutch army. The Catholic King of Britain, James II, prepared to meet William in battle, but the unpopular James soon found himself deserted by his army and navy-and, most surprisingly, by his own daughters. Crestfallen, James fled to France, and William became king. This "Glorious Revolution," London-based historian Waller (1700: Scenes from London Life) tells us, was largely the product of a family feud. James's eldest daughter, Mary, was married to William, who was also James's nephew. James's other daughter, Anne, also defected to William. Why did both daughters betray their father at his hour of greatest need? Waller believes it was partly religion-the fervently Catholic James had failed to convert his Protestant daughters and nation. Moreover, Princess Anne loathed her Catholic stepmother, Queen Mary Beatrice. When the queen became pregnant in late 1687, Anne claimed the pregnancy was a papist hoax. As for Mary, she supported her husband, William, and her Anglican faith. Neither Mary nor Anne had children, and Anne eventually became the last Stuart monarch. Waller, using Stuart family letters and an impressive array of secondary sources, has written a highly readable, thoroughly researched family saga that shows vividly how the personal and the political interacted to produce one of the seminal events in British history. 16 pages of color photos not seen by PW.
Copyright 2002 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

Review

"...a family drama reported with a keen ear for delicious, gossipy detail and a satisfying willingness to take sides..." -- The Washington Times

"An absorbing narrative of the Glorious Revolution"
--The New York Times

"Waller, using Stuart family letters and an impressive array of secondary sources, has written a highly readable, thoroughly researched family saga that shows vividly how the personal and the political interacted to produce one of the seminal events in British history."
--Publishers Weekly

"A stirring and important story....Colorful period details and vivid portraits of legendary figures like the great Duke of Marlborough: lively, instructive history."
--Kirkus Reviews

"Waller makes an enthralling family saga out of the Glorious Revolution....[Ungrateful Daughters] is stimulating and enjoyable."
--Antonia Fraser, bestselling author of Marie Antoinette
-- Review

"Maureen Waller frames an absorbing narrative of the Glorious Revolution." -- ,The New York Times,

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 480 pages
• Publisher: St. Martin's Griffin (February 1, 2004)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0312307128
• ISBN-13: 978-0312307127
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6.1 x 1.3 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.3 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.7 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (19 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #420,152 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

11 of 13 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Shallow and Disappointing, June 14, 2007

By	Beth - See all my reviews

The Glorious Revolution of 1688 was a compelling human drama as well as a major political event. At the center of the political events were Mary II and Anne, daughters of James II, real human beings who faced difficult decisions as to where their duty lay. Unfortunately, Ungrateful Daughters does a very poor job of telling this story. Instead of a story of real people dealing with an actual dilemma, Waller's book tells the tale as a shallow soap opera with the principals divided into neat categories of victims (James II and Mary Beatrice) and villains (William, Mary, and Anne).

The theme of James II as victim has come into vogue in recent years, as the result of a revisionist historical interpretation which casts him as a proto-modern champion of religious toleration. Regardless of the sincerity of James's professions about liberty of conscience, they were the result of the fact that members of his own Roman Catholic faith were a minority in Britain and would thus be the beneficiaries of any alteration in religious policy. James certainly never exhibited any inclination toward tolerance that would not end up benefiting members of his own Church. There is no record that his enthusiasm for toleration ever led him to press for better treatment of Protestants in countries with a Catholic majority. At exactly the same time that James was advocating tolerance of Catholics in Britain, the Protestants in Louis XIV's France were being forced to either convert to Catholicism or emigrate, and there is no record that James II ever protested to Louis about their treatment.

However, the deeper issue between James II and Parliament was not religious but political. James professed that he, as king, had the power to suspend and dispense with laws enacted by Parliament. Parliament, understandably, strongly disagreed with this claim, and there was bound to be a clash at some point. Religious policy just happened to be the issue upon which the disagreement came to a head. Waller is not as sympathetic to James as the most extreme revisionists (which incurred the ire of at least one reviewer on this site), but the theme of James as victim is a major one, as evinced by the title of the book itself.

Waller spends a great deal of time discussing a pivotal event leading up to the revolution - the birth of Prince James Francis Edward (later known as the Old Pretender) to King James and Queen Mary Beatrice in the summer of 1688. It was the prospect of a Catholic heir to the throne that pushed many who were undecided into supporting the intervention of William. Even before the birth there were many rumors circulating that the Queen's pregnancy was a conspiracy on the part of the Catholics to ensure the birth of a Catholic heir to the throne, and the rumors became certainties for many people after a boy was born, just as many Catholics had predicted. The fact that both Mary and Anne gave credence to these rumors is the crux of Waller's portrait of them as "ungrateful daughters." Historians have long accepted that there was no truth to the rumors insinuating that the new prince was not the son of the king and queen, and Waller excoriates both Mary and Anne for doubting it and doing nothing to stop the rumors. Anne in particular is held up as the villain of the piece, and, reading Waller's account, one gets the impression that she single-handedly fomented the rumors surrounding the birth of her half brother and could have stopped the revolution in its tracks had she acted differently.

However, Waller utterly fails to take into account that the circumstances of the prince's birth were not nearly as clear in 1688 as they are with the benefit of hindsight. At the time there were plenty of suspicious circumstances for those who wanted to doubt. The very fact of the birth of a healthy son to a woman whose eight previous pregnancies either ended in miscarriage or produced sickly babies who died soon after birth was in itself suspicious. Also, the birth took place a full month earlier than was expected. Waller argues that the discrepancy was due to a mistake on the part of the royal physicians as to the date of conception, which was probably the case, although she does not explain why this should have been clear to everyone in 1688. Additionally, although the birth was witnessed by numerous people, they were all either Catholics or political allies of James, whose testimony was regarded as suspect. Notably absent, besides Anne herself, were the Dutch ambassador and Edward and Lawrence Hyde (brothers of James's first wife and thus uncles of Mary and Anne), whose testimony would have been accepted as conclusive. From the perspective of three hundred years in the future, all these things may appear insignificant next to the fact that a baby boy was born in full view of numerous witnesses. However, in the atmosphere of 1688, with the prospect of a Catholic heir who might someday decide that a re-conversion of Britain to Catholicism was preferable to toleration (just as Louis XIV had reversed his grandfather's edict giving toleration to French Protestants), the questionable aspects surrounding the birth gave plenty of material to justify doubts on the part of those who were disposed to be suspicious.

The doubts about the new prince's legitimacy did not rest upon the testimony of either Anne or her sister. Neither Anne nor Mary started the rumors, although Anne repeated them and Mary in Holland believed them. The stories were spread throughout the country by such popular press as existed at the time and many prominent political figures lent credence to them and spread them. Anne's conduct in this affair leaves a nasty taste in the mouth, but it is far from clear that she could have done anything effective to quash the rumors, even if she had wanted to. Even if she had publicly denied the rumors, there was nothing to prevent people from dismissing this as done at the behest of James. Nuance, however, has no place in this book. By portraying Anne as holding the balance of affairs in her hand and failing to accurately consider events in the context of their time, Waller gives an incomplete and distorted picture of events.

There are numerous instances throughout the book of sloppy research and assumptions presented as fact. For example, Waller claims at one point that certain letters (not written by Anne) "imply" that Anne promised her father that she would restore the throne to her brother. There is no solid evidence that Anne actually made such a promise, and Waller does not present any. However, this supposed promise becomes a major theme in the book, and Waller refers to it again and again as fact, describing certain actions of Queen Anne during her reign as violations of the promise that she made to her father - a promise that there is no proof Anne ever made. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated example, but rather typical of Waller's method. Assertions are made on flimsy evidence, or no evidence at all, and thereafter referenced as fact.

The story of the Revolution of 1688 has the potential to be a compelling tale of real people living through momentous events. The two princesses who are the chief subjects of this book could be portrayed as real women who had to make difficult choices when their duty to their father came into conflict with what they saw as their duty to their faith and their country. Instead, what this book gives is a two-dimensional caricature of two women who "stole their father's crown" for no better reason than petty vindictiveness.

11 of 13 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars King Lear in real life., August 3, 2004

By	Maureen Ogorman "leneker" (USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This review is from: Ungrateful Daughters: The Stuart Princesses Who Stole Their Father's Crown (Hardcover)

"Ungrateful Daughters" demonstrates (yet again) the absurdity of the warming pan plot and the legitimacy of James II's son. But the enjoyment in reading about the events of the time is diminished by a confusing narrative which jumps back and forth as well as the persistent theme of blaming everything on Anne.

Both Anne and her sister were raised as Children of State. Their upbringing was directed by Charles II and his ministers with the goal in mind of creating staunch Protestant heirs to the throne. From their earliest childhood they were brought up to disdain the religion of their father and stepmother and with a firm belief in popish plots. That in their adult years, they fulfilled this role shows them to be grateful Daughters of State more than ungrateful daughters to James.

This book is worth reading for it's strong narrative of events surrounding the birth of James' son and its recounting of the events in the revolution itself. However the reader must keep and open mind about some of the conclusions. "Ungrateful Daughters" chronicles the events and aftermath of the Glorious Revolution. The bloodless coup that removed James II from the English throne and installed his Daughter Mary and her husband William as joint monarchs. Maureen Waller, the author, writes not of high politics but rather tells the story of a family split by politics, religion, and perhaps even simple jealousy. While the title references both daughters, it is the younger Anne, who Ms Waller sees that the prime villain of the piece.

Maureen Waller's narrative of events is divided into three sections. In the first third of the book, she provides biographies of each of the main participants in the family drama. This is then followed with a narrative of the events surrounding the revolution itself and King James' escape to France to join up with his wife and infant son. The last third of the book presents the reigns of Mary, William, and the last Stuart, Queen Anne.

In an ironic twist the revolution's direct cause was the one thing all Kings strive for - the birth of a male heir. However, King James II was a Catholic king in a protestant country. While many of his subjects we displeased with the favoritism shown by James in promoting Catholics to high office, they were content to bide their time and await the reign of his daughter. When James announced that his young wife was pregnant, many Protestants began to see this a danger to the reformation and the country. Rumors were spread that the pregnancy was a hoax; that James was planning to foist an unroyal infant on the nation, and that the infant was to be raised a catholic to prevent the monarchy from falling back into protestant hands. To prevent this from happening, Protest nobles invited James' son-in-law, Prince William of Orange, to invade England in order to protect his wife's claim to the crown and to rule England in her name. James' escape to France proved a convenient excuse for Parliament to declare that he had abdicated the Throne and then award it to his heir Mary and her husband.

After the successful invasion, William became preoccupied with cementing his hold on the government and using English resources in his war against Louis XIV of France The relation ship between the Queen and Anne soon deteriorated as they quarreled over Sarah Churchill. After Mary's death from smallpox, Anne and William reconcile outwardly, but animosity remained throughout the rest of William's reign.

Anne's reign began in 1702 following the death of her unpopular brother-in-law. The premature death of Anne's son in 1701 meant that Anne would be the last Stuart monarch. It was a time of great success for Anne as England became the most powerful nation in the world thanks to its successful war against France ended in 1713; it was also a time of great sadness as Anne was to loose many of her former friends and favorites as she grew into the role of queen and attempted to implement her own policies. Anne's death in 1714 was end of the Stuart line. By the act of settlement in 1701 the throne passed to the Elector George Ludwig of Hanover.

Maureen Waller's book might as easily have been called "Ungrateful Anne". The author places much responsibility for the Glorious Revolution on Anne. Her position in the English court gave her greater access to information than her sister possessed. Mary was frustrated at Anne's failure to be at the birth of the Prince James and her inability to provide more accurate and unbiased facts surrounding the birth. It is Anne who always gets the role of bad apple. Anne who kills one younger sibling with an accidental exposure to smallpox. Anne who refuses to give up her court favorites at her sister's request. Anne who sends Mary nasty notes about their stepmother.

Mary is portrayed as devoted to her husband William and interested in making sure that a changling is not allowed to usurp the crown. James II is a doting father and Mary Beatrice is a loving, if naïve, stepmother who can't imagine how Anne or Mary would not be overjoyed at loosing her own place in the succession.

The narrative structure of the first third of the book focuses on each of the participants in turn. This means that a great deal of material is covered repeatedly. To some extent this is useful as each time it is from a different perspective, however it comes off primarily as redundant since the author is advocating for her perspective against Anne in each of these sections.

8 of 9 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Curiously overlooked period in British history, October 16, 2005

By	isala "Isabel and Lars" (Fairbanks, Alaska,, US) - See all my reviews (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)

This review is from: Ungrateful Daughters: The Stuart Princesses Who Stole Their Father's Crown (Hardcover)

We have all heard that the last invasion of England was in 1066. Well, we are wrong. The last *succesful* invasion of England was in 1688 (the *last* invasion of England was 1745, and of Great Britain 1798). Yes, we know that James II was deposed by the Prince of Orange, but we are not really taught the details in schools. Perhaps it is to embarrassing that 15000 Dutch soldiers occupied London and the south, that the lawful King was usurped by his own daughters and nephew, and that his younger daughter led the smear campaign against their father and step-mother.
It is not a pretty story, but an interesting and important one that Ms. Waller tells us. It is as much a story about religious intolerance as about petty, vindictive, ruthless, scheming, and stubborn characters.
What strikes me is how volatile the UK was because of religion, still over onehundred years after Henry VIII went protestant, and what enormous power individuals could wield, even private citizens like Lady Marlborough.
If it is one thing I have to say against this book is that I think the author concentrates to much on the gossip and petty rivalries between the protagonists, and does not totally succedd in explaining why they are important.