Elizabeth and Mary : Cousins, Rivals, Queens

Okay I am a bit of a dolt as far as my history is concerned.  Took two AP classes in High School (college level) and promptly forgot most of it.  

So I was in Barnes and Nobel yesterday and this book (Elizabeth and Mary : Cousins, Rivals, Queens by Jane Dunn)
was advertised.  Well being the ultimate consumer of books and all things music I bought it.

Has anyone read it?  I thought the appraoch was interesting in that it is in effect a dual biography.

Will let you know as I get more into it.

I actually haven't heard of it, but please do let us know how you like it!

My favorite Mary bio so far is "Mary:  Queen of Scotland and the Isles" by Margaret George, it's a nicely balanced view of Mary and there are some scenes of Elizabeth in it too.  I think it's so interesting, that after all these two women went through with each other they never actually met...and now they're buried across the floor from each other.

Anyway, let us know, and let us know what you think of Mary!  Victim or villain?

Villain, definitely.  I don't know why Elizabeth put up with her for so long!  And Mary's descendants, the Stuarts who ruled both countries, were a pretty unimpressive lot!

There's a good Mary Queen of Scots bio by Antonia Fraser too, bit of a weighty tome but worth the effort.

And everyone was a villain back then weren't they?? I love the Tudor/Stuart period, all that galivanting about in big dresses and having massive banquets

I read the book by Antonia Fraser too.  As far as victim or villian, I couldn't really comment, however, I do think the word that best describes her was foolish.

With you, Caitlinn: foolish and malleable, rather than villainous.

galivanting about in big dresses

... and big cod-pieces!

I fear this board isn't exactly my forte.....

Sean took me to Westminster Abbey a while back for a bit of  cultural/historical awareness.  We happened upon the tomb of Queen Elizabeth I.  I sheepishly asked who the present queen was.. he responded politely saying it was Queen Elizabeth II.  I looked at him questioningly for a bit until he noticed my puzzlement... "So.. is Queen Elizabeth I the mom of Queen Elizabeth II?"  came my question.

He sat in stunned silence before errupting into laughter.  "They're not a bloody movie sequel." was his response, while still laughing heartily at my misunderstanding.

He continued on to explain their reigns but I was too embarrassed to pay much attention.  

I don't think you'll be seeing me much around here.  History never was my strong point.  

Ah, *bless*, Terinth!  But do stick around!  Your Virginia is so-called because Elizabeth I was called "The Virgin Queen" - she never married.  And indeed the present Queen's mother was called Elizabeth, though doesn't get a Roman numeral because she was queen by virtue of being married to the King.

Georgia and Carolina are also called after Brit monarchs.

 Yes do stick around Terinth! Thats how we learn interesting things.Nobody is born a history scholar,although some Brits might led you  to think otherwise   lol

 I love history,and believe me,Iam still very much a novice at it!

Rhia

With you, Caitlinn: foolish and malleable, rather than villainous.

I agree as well.  Would have made a good nun, but not a good Queen.

And I'm still unsure about whether Boswell truly killed Dudley.  Margaret George has a very interesting take on it all.

I think perhaps you mean Bothwell and Darnley, SAF?

What was Margaret George's angle on it?

I think perhaps you mean Bothwell and Darnley, SAF?

I can only plead to having a whiny two-year old crawling all over me as I typed, Teletubbies blaring in the background, and 4 hours of sleep.  But there is no excuse.  Doh!

What was Margaret George's angle on it?

She thinks most of the casket letters were false, and that Darnley was planning to kill Mary (syphilitic lunacy, y'know) and he actually brought all the gunpowder in.  She also thinks Bothwell was a good guy and he and Mary were secretly in love before Darnley died anyway, and that he tried to rescue Darnley but got there too late.  Bothwell was framed, in her opinion.

But there is no excuse

No probby at all, SAF: you're talking to the man who once misspelled the word "misspell" in an official report (never did hear the last of that!)

You know, I'm quite taken with Margaret George's theory, and have just been discussing it with Molly, my business partner, who is Scottish.  It is difficult to make sense of Bothwell's 'abduction' of Mary unless they had some sort of an understanding.  And Darnley's death is one of the great mysteries of history.

I noticed from reading the Guardian book reviews on Saturday that there is a new bigraphy of Mary just out, by John Guy.  

The review says:

"On to this already crowded stage steps John Guy, with the aplomb of a magician about to pull several large, lively rabbits from the hat. In a surprisingly partisan new biography, there is scarcely a single aspect of her life to which he does not give a twist."

It seems he has a new view on who concocted the Casket Letters:

"It is nothing new to suggest that they were a forgery, albeit concocted from genuine letters written either by other parties, or by Mary herself at times and to people other than those alleged. This, broadly speaking, was the conclusion Antonia Fraser reached in her landmark biography of Mary more than 30 years ago. But the devil is in the detail here. Guy, returning to the archives and examining all the documentation in a way no one has done for more than a century, provides a riveting new analysis of who wrote what, and why. His personal devil has a face, and it looks much like Elizabeth's chief minister, William Cecil. "

Anyhoo, the full review can be read at:

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1129152,00.html