Rating: 
Summary: Asking for forgiveness on behalf of Mary Queen of Scotts
Review: Queen Mary was not an intelligent woman... She was carried away by her passion, feelings, desires... She has never been a true and competent ruler... She was just a tool for Catholics to be played against Protestants... However, the heroine in Antonia Fraser's book is an underestimated leader betrayed by all and all her mistakes she committed are the faults of others and of her naivité... What is the truth then?... Is the truth what the history says or what a biased writer says?
Rating: 
Summary: This book is as trustworthy as a Bill Clinton deposition.
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Many detaila along with divergence
Review: The story of Mary Stuart is facinating; however, Antonia Fraser tends to diverge on several occasions in this long drawn-out biography. Fraser accounted for a great many details of Mary's life from her upbringing in France to her rule in Scotland and finally to her imprisonment in England. The details spill over to many others in Mary's court, which made this biography of Mary a little long and laborous. In Fraser's quest for authencity, she used a great deal of French and Latin phrases, but she did not, at times, define the meaning of the phrases. Unless the reader if fluent in either language, there is a sense of missing something. The biography is well researched and the many footnotes, which at times takes away from the flow of the read, prove it. Antonia Fraser's biography of Mary Queen of Scots would be an easy read if the reader can get past the sometimes grueling details of the other individuals in Mary's court. Despite this obstacle, the life of Mary Stuart, as presented by Fraser, is an interesting one. For those interested in the Stuart and Tudor periods, try Alison Weir's books, which has a much more even flow to it.
Rating: 
Summary: Read by a teenager!
Review: This book is really interesting. I loved how Antonia Fraser managed to draw conclusions out of raw information. It was very readable. It gave me a great understanding of Mary Queen Of Scots' life and the turmoil of the time period she lived in.
Rating:
Summary: A must read for history buffs
Review: This book is wonderful if you would like to research Queen Mary or if you would like a good book to read next to the fire. It was wonderfully researched, easy to read, captivating and flowing-very unique traits for a "history report." It is filled with black and white pictures of the Queen and other people in her life, giving you a face to the names.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Historically Sound Biography and B&W photos ...
Review: Very well written and a lengthy accounting of Mary Queen of Scots. This story is so compelling and yet seldom heard. Rich in history and the black and white photos add to so much to aid the reader with this story. You can not help but get caught up in the suspense and conflict of Queen Elizabeth I and Mary. You will read about Mary's life from birth to her beheading, and the conflicts of her life. The impact of religious beliefs and the history of the monarchy. Even though I came to this title with a bias of having seen the movie, the book still held my interest and further added detail to this historic accounting. A truly enjoyable biography. Excellent read-historically sound!
Rating:
Summary: Was she really the Queen of Scots?
Review: Why is it that historical comparisons of Mary and Elizabeth so often assume that the legend of "Tragic Mary and Envious Elizabeth" is true? I see it again and again in commentaries on Mary: Mary was beautiful and fragile and good, and then the evil, envious Elizabeth murdered her...The historical record does not support this view.
The truth is that Mary was run out of Scotland on a rail for conspiring with her adulterous lover to murder her husband (which she/they probably did). It was vulgar; it was like "Body Heat." She barely escaped, and Scotland never wanted her back. The Scots never said, Oh, give us back our Tragic Queen. That never happened. If she had been so great, don't you think the Scots would have tried to get her back? Instead they were happy that Mary was now Elizabeth's burden. And it's not like Mary was held under lock and key. Anyone could have carted her off. She was no captive for a Scarlet Pimpernel to daringly rescue. Moreover, Elizabeth maintained Mary as if she were a queen--I say as if she were--for 16 years. This, even though Elizabeth was notoriously frugal and reluctant to collect taxes, rest her soul. Elizabeth paid for Mary's extravagent upkeep out of her own pocket.
For 16 years Elizabeth maintained the woman, refusing the councels of Wolsey and then Wallsingham to execute Mary. For 16 years Elizabeth stubbornly maintained this Catholic threat to her throne because Mary was family, because she was royalty. Finally, Wallsingham forced Elizabeth's hand by tempting Mary into treason, and Mary had no hesitation whatsoever. Had Elizabeth faltered--had she not sucked up her hesitation and made the Machiavellian decision to eliminate Mary--what then? No Britain? Can anyone imagine? What of Science? Literature? Liberty? Would anyone have preferred a French or Spanish empire?
Elizabeth was the crucial monarch in our civilization; Mary was a mere would-be gadfly. Elizabeth cunningly prevented both Spain and France, which were larger powers than England, from swallowing up England by feigning intent to wed--for like thirty years. A woman in the 1500s out-foxed all the men, even those of her own realm--and for their own good. By keeping England free whilst building its navy she made it possible for England to conquer the world with reason. From England's ascendance comes all of the ideas of human liberty and rights that we all now take for the foundation of liberal civilization. Elizabeth is a towering hero. She is greater even than the great Churchill (who withstood Hitler's onslought and refused to cave until America joined him) because she kept her tiny nation safe and sound when it, a little island just beginning to bloom, would certainly have been absorbed into either France or Spain. We should all worship her.
Instead, absurdly, Elizabeth's memory continues to be dogged by that of Mary! Mary, who never cared for anyone but herself. Mary, whose word and deed were vacant, who did nothing on behalf of her people. Mary followed her bodily passion to her ruin in Scotland and then allowed herself to be a Catholic pawn for French Catholics in England. She was merely human, whereas Elizabeth was great. Mary was a willing threat to Elizabeth and the people of England, though they had maintained her in style for well over a decade when no one else would!
Mary was not the Queen of Scots: they would have executed her had she stepped foot in Scotland; they were delighted to let Elizabeth deal with her. Mary was the corrupt cousin of Elizabeth; she deserved to die, and I abhore books such as these that celebrate Mary, for had her coup on Elizabeth succeeded...who knows? Catholics at the time were burning Protestants and scientists at the stake! God save Queen Elizabeth, and to Hell with Mary! That's what I say!
|
