Rating: 
Summary: Forget the Casket Letters.
Review: It doesn't matter if they were forgeries, Mary's behavior is damning enough. In an extraordinary about face she suddenly reconciles with the husband she wants to be rid of, carries him off not to an established royal residence but a half ruinous house in Edinburgh and then conveniently goes to a wedding the night said house is blown sky high! When you throw in the fact she was visibly pregnant when she surrendered at Carberry Hill - a mere two months after her supposed 'rape' by Bothwell - it becomes rather difficult to defend her innocence.
Rating:
Summary: Get it from the Library...
Review: Alison Weir has often written books that sell rather widely. She is a decent writer, and upholds a strong narrative voice which - let's face it - many scholarly writers of history lack. Perhaps this is her greatest strength. It is a pity, however, that her facts are muddled and manipulated beyond recognition. Even pop history should make some attempt at accuracy beyond the well known details.
In the case of this book, Weir's research and knowledge of France is horribly lacking. Mary's childhood in France is very important to Weir's vision of Mary's adult characteristics - but at several points she makes embarrasingly incorrect statements or assumptions on both French royalty and French culture. To be frank, I felt like putting down the book after about 30 pages.
As for her analysis of the murder itself: It is clear that Weir is more comfortable with telling a story than with historical analysis. As I've mentioned above, she's a great writer, but I found nothing original or telling about her version of a rather well-known historical episode. Instead of giving the affair any historical importance, it is played out rather like a murder mystery.
In short, I have no problem with history as written by those not necissarily in the academic profession. Often these books bring more interest to the field than, let's say, Dr. Soandso from University X. On the other hand, it would perhaps bring more credability to non-academic historians if those like Weir were to truly research the context into which her historical snippit is placed.
Rating: 
Summary: Mary, Mary Quite Contrary
Review: Alison Weir's "Mary Queen of Scots and the Murder of Lord Darnley" is not the best of her popular histories, but it is still a well-written, copiously researched piece that despite its length goes along at a brisk pace. Weir defends her decision to write a detailed set-up to the murder of Darnley from the outset, and does so in great detail, most of it truly pertinent to the case.However, what it comes down to -- as it so often does with Mary -- is the question of the Casket Letters. Weir discounts their authenticity vehemently and exonorates Mary of any complicity in her husband's death. This begs the big issue of Mary's character as a ruthless schemer, brought up in Machiavellian France, losing her head over plots against Elizabeth. Weir makes a case here, but does not convince nor provide new interpretations of old evidence. If you are a Marian, this book will add ample fuel to your fire. If you are not, the last sentence will make you gasp in righteous indignation.
Rating:
Summary: The trials of a queen
Review: Anyone still defending hereditary monarchy as a valid political concept should spend a few days [weeks?] plowing through this soporific account. In Weir's long trail of redeeming the "maligned" monarchs of British history she has stumbled before. In this case her pratfall is staggering. Claiming Mary as "the most wronged woman in history" is so false on so many counts they don't bear extensive listing here. Weir has given us less a history than a legal brief. The evidence is either forgeries, polemics, or simply missing. Weir interleaves the text with close examination of a multitude of documents in attempting to clear Mary's name of the charge of accessory to Darnley's demise. By focussing on whether Mary, Queen of Scots, was instrumental in her husband's murder misses the point entirely. Mary was queen of the Scots in name only - a legal contrivance for someone who never really ruled her native land. Weir takes us over the events leading to the explosion in Edinburgh examining the lives and motives of the principals. Cabals form and disband - the issues involved; land, religion and power, are only superficially covered. Weir notes, for example the "Auld Alliance" of Scotland with France against England while avoiding the fear Scots Protestants had of liaison with Catholic France even against an old enemy. She lists who's Catholic or Protestant, pro- or anti-Mary, active participant or dissembler, without providing any background to the individual's outlook. To Weir, Mary stands as the pivot around which these forces swirl and engage. Mary's fitness to rule is carefully avoided. Only a dedicated monarchist could focus so narrowly in the face of the immense international and religious turmoil of the time. Mary has been the subject of much hostile attention, nearly all of it deserved. Married three times, with each match proving a disaster, the queen's life was permeated by one goal, to rule Scotland, and then Britain, by whatever means possible. Her fourth effort at a match was so blatantly political it ultimately cost yet another life. Her attempts to combine romance and politics provide Weir merely the opportunity to view Mary from a modern perspective, ignoring the impact of her actions. Mary's "cause" embroiled several nations in a generation of conflict, but Weir is too concerned with clearing her name to notice. She fails to note, for example, how Mary's co-regent, Elizabeth, kept her rule secure - by constantly referring to her people and how she loved them. Mary, in Weir's view, scorned the Scottish population as crude and ignorant. Hardly a strategy to earn support from someone who needed it so desperately. Weir's advocacy may raise some further serious study of what resources remain. Certainly this book fails in its avowed attempt to exonerate this "wronged woman". Even Weir accepts the disaffection Darnley engendered among the Lords of Scotland, while failing to note the parallel between Mary and Henry II. Henry, like Mary, cried out to be rid of one who "affronted" the monarch. Neither Henry nor Mary needed to be active participants in a murder to eliminate Thomas Becket or Lord Darnley. They both knew there were loyal subjects willing and able to perform the feat. That's what being a monarch can accomplish. Weir's superficial account can be overlooked without regret. It's a waste of time and trees. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
Rating:
Summary: The trials of a queen
Review: Anyone still defending hereditary monarchy as a valid political concept should spend a few days [weeks?] plowing through this soporific account. In Weir's long trail of redeeming the "maligned" monarchs of British history she has stumbled before. In this case her pratfall is staggering. Claiming Mary as "the most wronged woman in history" is so false on so many counts they don't bear extensive listing here. Weir has given us less a history than a legal brief. The evidence is either forgeries, polemics, or simply missing. Weir interleaves the text with close examination of a multitude of documents in attempting to clear Mary's name of the charge of accessory to Darnley's demise. By focussing on whether Mary, Queen of Scots, was instrumental in her husband's murder misses the point entirely. Mary was queen of the Scots in name only - a legal contrivance for someone who never really ruled her native land. Weir takes us over the events leading to the explosion in Edinburgh examining the lives and motives of the principals. Cabals form and disband - the issues involved; land, religion and power, are only superficially covered. Weir notes, for example the "Auld Alliance" of Scotland with France against England while avoiding the fear Scots Protestants had of liaison with Catholic France even against an old enemy. She lists who's Catholic or Protestant, pro- or anti-Mary, active participant or dissembler, without providing any background to the individual's outlook. To Weir, Mary stands as the pivot around which these forces swirl and engage. Mary's fitness to rule is carefully avoided. Only a dedicated monarchist could focus so narrowly in the face of the immense international and religious turmoil of the time. Mary has been the subject of much hostile attention, nearly all of it deserved. Married three times, with each match proving a disaster, the queen's life was permeated by one goal, to rule Scotland, and then Britain, by whatever means possible. Her fourth effort at a match was so blatantly political it ultimately cost yet another life. Her attempts to combine romance and politics provide Weir merely the opportunity to view Mary from a modern perspective, ignoring the impact of her actions. Mary's "cause" embroiled several nations in a generation of conflict, but Weir is too concerned with clearing her name to notice. She fails to note, for example, how Mary's co-regent, Elizabeth, kept her rule secure - by constantly referring to her people and how she loved them. Mary, in Weir's view, scorned the Scottish population as crude and ignorant. Hardly a strategy to earn support from someone who needed it so desperately. Weir's advocacy may raise some further serious study of what resources remain. Certainly this book fails in its avowed attempt to exonerate this "wronged woman". Even Weir accepts the disaffection Darnley engendered among the Lords of Scotland, while failing to note the parallel between Mary and Henry II. Henry, like Mary, cried out to be rid of one who "affronted" the monarch. Neither Henry nor Mary needed to be active participants in a murder to eliminate Thomas Becket or Lord Darnley. They both knew there were loyal subjects willing and able to perform the feat. That's what being a monarch can accomplish. Weir's superficial account can be overlooked without regret. It's a waste of time and trees. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
Rating: 
Summary: tedious
Review: I found this a very boring, tedious book and could not slog through it to the end. Ms. Weir embarks on a mission to "prove" Mary innocent of Darnley's death. I don't think anyone has ever suggested that she physically took part in the crime, but Ms Weir fails to make the case that she lacked complicity in the affair. I simply do not believe that Mary, brought up in the dissolute court of Henry II of France, was as naive as Ms Weir implies. Furthermore, Mary's later passion for, and complicity in, an extensive series of failed plots against Elizabeth of England belies this stand. The guilt or innocence of the Darnley plot rests-as it always seems to- on the evidence provided by the Casket Letters. About halfway through this discussion is where I gave up. Ms. Weir makes a case here, but neither convinces nor provides new interpretations of old, existing evidence. Finally, I have enjoyed tremendously every other one of Ms. Weir's Tudor biographies- she should stick with those rather than attempt a "scholarly" defense.
Rating: 
Summary: Mary's revisited
Review: I found this book excellent. Well researched and very clear in making the real killers appear from behind the shadows. I am very interested in this historic times and have read many new and old biographies of Mary (all of them in the research books mentioned by A. Weir) and they are not even close to be as interesting, dynamic and hard to put down as this book. I think that is difficult for us to appreciate the enormous task that a 20 year old young woman was put to endure, not only her kindom but the freedom of religion that we take for granted. She managed to be a Catholic in a country that was embracing the new religion and she managed to be fair with those whose faith was different than hers and at the same time she was able to reject the outside pressures, including that of the Pope, that wanted her to stop all oposition to her faith. This achievement alone is unparalleled at this time in history and she did it with great success. I think the author concurs with most present historians regarding Mary's inocence in the killing of her husband. Regarding David Rizzio's brother as one of the killers it seems far fetched but not impossible and for sure if he was involved he didn't do it alone.
Rating:
Summary: A Tragic Waste of Dead Trees
Review: Let me say from the outset that I strongly disagree with Weir's take on the Darnley murder (I also believe that Mary was innocent, but I maintain that Bothwell was not guilty as well,) and reading her book has done nothing to sway my views. Weir's latest is a non-effort, a slap-dash cut-and-paste job featuring paraphrased excerpts from Fraser's "Mary Queen of Scots," Davison's "The Casket Letters," and Mahon's "The Tragedy of Kirk o'Field." The only thing original about this book are the bizarre factual errors and deliriously silly conclusions one has come to expect from this "writer." (Doesn't anyone at her publishing house bother to even proofread her books before they're released?) In short--those interested in Mary should save their money and instead look for a secondhand copy of Elizabeth Byrd's excellent novel "Immortal Queen." Byrd's work may be fiction, but it is more grounded in reality than anything Weir has ever written.
Rating:
Summary: Mary won't make the Mensa Chapter of Monarchs!
Review: Mary Queen of Scots was a tragic figure in the history of
emerging Reformation Europe. The tall and beautiful queen was raised in the luxurious French court where she was wed for the
first time. As a Stuart and Scot she became Queen of that misty
Scottish land in which John Knox and a band of nobles were in the proces of turning the kingdom from Roman Catholic to Presbyterian.
Mary married often but without luck. Her second husband who was English and a cousin of the redoubtable Elizbeth one was Lord Darnley. He was brutally murdered by a group of nobles eager to murder the Catholic Darnley, confine Mary to domesticity and use the young son of Mary James VI as a pawn in which to wield power in Reformation Europe.
Unanswered is whether Mary assisted the plot? Did she conspire with her third husband Bothwell (who was undoubtedly involved in the gunpowder plot which catapulted Darnley to Kingdom Come?)
Are the casket letters containing incriminating letters from Mary to Bothwell and others geniune proving her participation in the murder plot? Historians are divided on this issue as Weir
makes clear.
She asserts that Mary was more sinned against and was innocent in the murder of Darnley. She asserts that Mary was raped and wed by Bothwell (who would die in madness in a Danish prison) in
a power play for to become King of Scotland and eventually even
England.
None of the characters are attractive personalities. Mary was often impetuous and foolish (e.g.-she fled Scotland for England where her putative friend in female thronedom Elizabeth had her promptly tried and imprisoned and finally executed!).
Darnley was a stupid fop eager for sex and play in the fields and in the parlors of Scotland. Bothwell was a brutal bully and womanizer who was a "rotter" of the first magnitude!
The book is long and often is quite dull. It takes a detailed knowledge of who was who in Scotland and Europe at the time. The cast of plotting, corrupt and sinister figures is vast and almost
impossible to keep straight as one reads.
I have read all of Alison Weir's books and she is a reuptable popular historian. However I would advise the Amazon reader to order the more lucid biography on Mary by Lady Antonia Fraser.
The book is well researched; Weir knows her subject well but
to the nonspecialist in the time and characters she has trouble keeping an American reader interested in whatever happens to the puppets who parade their sanguinary passiona in this six hundred page opus.
Rating:
Summary: Mary won't make the Mensa Chapter of Monarchs!
Review: Mary Queen of Scots was a tragic figure in the history of
emerging Reformation Europe. The tall and beautiful queen was raised in the luxurious French court where she was wed for the
first time. As a Stuart and Scot she became Queen of that misty
Scottish land in which John Knox and a band of nobles were in the proces of turning the kingdom from Roman Catholic to Presbyterian.
Mary married often but without luck. Her second husband who was English and a cousin of the redoubtable Elizbeth one was Lord Darnley. He was brutally murdered by a group of nobles eager to murder the Catholic Darnley, confine Mary to domesticity and use the young son of Mary James VI as a pawn in which to wield power in Reformation Europe.
Unanswered is whether Mary assisted the plot? Did she conspire with her third husband Bothwell (who was undoubtedly involved in the gunpowder plot which catapulted Darnley to Kingdom Come?)
Are the casket letters containing incriminating letters from Mary to Bothwell and others geniune proving her participation in the murder plot? Historians are divided on this issue as Weir
makes clear.
She asserts that Mary was more sinned against and was innocent in the murder of Darnley. She asserts that Mary was raped and wed by Bothwell (who would die in madness in a Danish prison) in
a power play for to become King of Scotland and eventually even
England.
None of the characters are attractive personalities. Mary was often impetuous and foolish (e.g.-she fled Scotland for England where her putative friend in female thronedom Elizabeth had her promptly tried and imprisoned and finally executed!).
Darnley was a stupid fop eager for sex and play in the fields and in the parlors of Scotland. Bothwell was a brutal bully and womanizer who was a "rotter" of the first magnitude!
The book is long and often is quite dull. It takes a detailed knowledge of who was who in Scotland and Europe at the time. The cast of plotting, corrupt and sinister figures is vast and almost
impossible to keep straight as one reads.
I have read all of Alison Weir's books and she is a reuptable popular historian. However I would advise the Amazon reader to order the more lucid biography on Mary by Lady Antonia Fraser.
The book is well researched; Weir knows her subject well but
to the nonspecialist in the time and characters she has trouble keeping an American reader interested in whatever happens to the puppets who parade their sanguinary passiona in this six hundred page opus.
|
