Welcome and I hope your husband makes it safely home soon.

Thank you. He’s been a show bus driver for thirty years, and has never missed a Christmas. Knock wood.

I was so sad at the ultimate outcome for Janet's own marriage. She had one of the few husbands who actually thought her thougths were worth listening to.

Not to go too much into the nuts and bolts of plot construction, I felt the need for a comment on the nature of rule. Since leadership isn’t just about controlling other people, I wanted to show that sometimes people in charge make mistakes without necessarily realizing the damage they do. Henry deRos learned his lesson, perhaps a little late. I didn’t think it would be terribly realistic for everything to go back to hunky-dory at the end, but my feeling is that eventually the friendship might return to the marriage. That’s a separate story.

Which I guess explains why so few countries of the time allowed female monarchs

Ah. Misogyny has been with us since the beginning of recorded history. I don’t think this period was unusual at all in this. In fact, it was remarkable that there were any female monarchs in Europe.

wondering just what would have happened to the Scottish succession had Mary not lived long after her birth? Who would have been crowned next?

My money is on brother James. With no legitimate heir for their father, James would have been the natural choice. He had a great deal of political support, which was what made him so dangerous to Mary. There probably would have been an armed conflict with the Gordons first, but James would most likely have prevailed. The Highland clans tended to splinter under circumstances like that, and Gordon was only a cousin to the king. It would have been a simple thing to get Parliament to mock up some sort of document declaring James legitimate, and that would have been the end of it.

I'd love to read a book about James Stewart.

I’d love to write one.

I can see what you're saying about the French wanting to still influence Mary. But did they?

No. But the idea was for Francis to rule Scotland. Influencing Mary was Plan B.

Watching her mother might have worked for Mary in much the same way as Elizabeth watching the mistakes of those who ruled before she did.

Mmm…Marie deGuise wasn’t queen and didn’t have those nobles climbing all over each other to force marriage on her. And marriage was the only way to produce a legitimate heir. Elizabeth never married, probably after seeing what had happened to the two Marys. And by then Prince James was born, who was plainly the most likely candidate to succeed her without a fuss, and there was a chance to join the crowns of England and Scotland, something England had wanted since Edward I. Elizabeth not only didn’t want to marry, she didn’t have to. That wasn’t true about Mary Tudor or Mary Stuart.

Mary Stuart might have been a stronger queen with her mother’s training, but that probably wouldn’t have saved her.

And maybe thought that Bothwell was as good – or as bad – as any of them.

It’s believed, but not proven, she caved when he told her he’d killed her previous husband. She may have believed that anyone she married instead of Bothwell would be in similar danger.

There is also that he, by most accounts, raped her. That held a lot more consequence for women then than it does now. She probably felt she had to marry him.

I used to be a Mary fan but now my sympathies have swung to Elizabeth

For me it’s not either-or. I think Mary Tudor has been maligned by history as evil or insane. I think she was just neurotic and as a monarch trying to emulate her parents. She had a lot going for her, but had too much baggage to make it work. Her poor health, much of which was psychosomatic, did her in. Some would say mercifully, and there is some truth to that.

nice to have you stop by and join in the discussion. Some authors don't care to

Silly authors.

Julianne

Hello, Jayne, and everyone. Killing time while waiting for my husband to come home off the road for Christmas, I've stumbled across this review and find your discussion fascinating. Though I can't claim to not be disappointed you didn't care for my book, you are absolutely entitled to your opinion and I've taken your comments to heart. You obviously know the subject matter well.

Welcome and I hope your husband makes it safely home soon.

Even had she been a stronger personality, she would have had trouble running things in a culture that looked upon all women as not just incapable of ruling men, but as basically incompetent in all areas of endeavor beyond squeezing out babies.

Something I think your book shows rather well. And this was another reason I was so sad at the ultimate outcome for Janet’s own marriage. She had one of the few husbands who actually thought her thougths were worth listening to.

Her rule was also thought to be against God's law. Her very religion told her it was improper for her to tell men what to do.

Which I guess explains why so few countries of the time allowed female monarchs. I’ve been thinking about this time period over the weekend and wondering just what would have happened to the Scottish succession had Mary not lived long after her birth? Who would have been crowned next? Anybody know?

She also had an older half-brother who thought he should have been king. James was at the heart of nearly every movement against her. She was not just politically dependent on him, but to an extent psychologically dependent. As you say, she'd been raised to be a consort and not trained in statecraft, for her French relatives expected Francis to rule Scotland, not her. It never occurred to them she might need to know how to rule, and if it had they might not have cared. Better for France if the queen on Scotland's throne is a weak relative they can influence, yes? In addition, by being female Mary had no hope of ever truly controlling her Scottish nobles, and had disadvantages even a weak male ruler wouldn't have had.

I’d love to read a book about James Stewart. He was a wily fox even if in the end, it didn’t get him much. I can see what you’re saying about the French wanting to still influence Mary. But did they? Did she have any contact with her uncles after she returned? But then how much influence did they have in French politics after she, their pawn and link to power, left the country? I also wonder if Mary would have been a better monarch had she stayed in Scotland and been raised there by her mother – who seemed much better at managing the Scottish lords. Watching her mother might have worked for Mary in much the same way as Elizabeth watching the mistakes of those who ruled before she did. And have given Mary much more experience in down and dirty political in-fighting.

Bothwell was a brilliant and valliant military commander, but had short man syndrome and bullied everyone he encountered. Especially women, and he was a known rapist. I have no doubt that his marriage to Mary was forced. I believe Mary acquiesced because she knew it was the only way to keep other men from trying the same thing. Basically, she gave up resistance because of ill health and exhaustion.

I guess by then she realized she couldn’t count on brother James and was going to have to have a strong man beside her. And maybe thought that Bothwell was as good – or as bad – as any of them.

I do watch movies, though, for the visuals. Showtime's “The Tudors” is beautifully photographed, but all in all the history of it is to laugh. Soap opera, indeed!

So true. But I watched only about 20 minutes of the first episode to realize that the historical fact twisting was going to drive me insane. That freed up 3 disc spaces on my Netflix queue!

Elizabeth is a truly fascinating figure. She was a brilliant woman at the heart of it, and far ahead of her time for fully understanding her perilous position as a female monarch. Plainly she took notes on the experiences of her sovereign relatives, particularly Mary I, who was at a greater disadvantage politically than Mary Stuart. Mary Tudor's story is even more tragic than her cousin's. I've recently delivered the manuscript for next year's book, titled “Her Mother's Daughter: A Novel of Queen Mary Tudor.”

I used to be a Mary fan but now my sympathies have swung to Elizabeth. What she managed to do in a time when women were viewed as boobs with heads is still amazing.

It's delightful visiting with you all. So nice to read comments from folks who know their British history.

Again, it’s nice to have you stop by and join in the discussion. Some authors don’t care to. Happy holidays!

You’re right, it’s a dark story. Mary’s situation was inherently quite depressing. Even had she been a stronger personality, she would have had trouble running things in a culture that looked upon all women as not just incapable of ruling men, but as basically incompetent in all areas of endeavor beyond squeezing out babies. Her rule was also thought to be against God’s law. Her very religion told her it was improper for her to tell men what to do.

She also had an older half-brother who thought he should have been king. James was at the heart of nearly every movement against her. She was not just politically dependent on him, but to an extent psychologically dependent. As you say, she’d been raised to be a consort and not trained in statecraft, for her French relatives expected Francis to rule Scotland, not her. It never occurred to them she might need to know how to rule, and if it had they might not have cared. Better for France if the queen on Scotland’s throne is a weak relative they can influence, yes? In addition, by being female Mary had no hope of ever truly controlling her Scottish nobles, and had disadvantages even a weak male ruler wouldn’t have had.

I do believe Mary had a crush on Henry, but only while he was courting her. That surely went away shortly after the wedding. I believe she saw him as weak and malleable, which to an extent he was. The fact that he didn’t know it and acted like a brat when he didn’t get his crown is what led to his assassination.

I believe brother James set the plot in motion, then carefully removed himself from the action, leaving Bothwell holding the bag.

Bothwell was a brilliant and valliant military commander, but had short man syndrome and bullied everyone he encountered. Especially women, and he was a known rapist. I have no doubt that his marriage to Mary was forced. I believe Mary acquiesced because she knew it was the only way to keep other men from trying the same thing. Basically, she gave up resistance because of ill health and exhaustion.

For the record, I avoid reading much historical fiction. I prefer nonfiction, for I am very fussy about my research and don’t care to sift through other people’s errors. I’ll make my own, thankyouverymuch, and take responsibility for them. I do watch movies, though, for the visuals. Showtime’s “The Tudors” is beautifully photographed, but all in all the history of it is to laugh. Soap opera, indeed!

Elizabeth is a truly fascinating figure. She was a brilliant woman at the heart of it, and far ahead of her time for fully understanding her perilous position as a female monarch. Plainly she took notes on the experiences of her sovereign relatives, particularly Mary I, who was at a greater disadvantage politically than Mary Stuart. Mary Tudor’s story is even more tragic than her cousin’s. I’ve recently delivered the manuscript for next year’s book, titled “Her Mother’s Daughter: A Novel of Queen Mary Tudor.”

It’s delightful visiting with you all. So nice to read comments from folks who know their British history.

I was ready to accept the premise that Elizabeth actually sent the handsome but weak and morally corrupt Darnley to prevent Mary from making a more powerful (and threatening) match. Wasn't that part of the story in the Glenda Jackson/Vanessa Redgrave movie? (I should probably feel embarrassed that I've seen Glenda Jackson in the movie but not in Elizabeth R.)

Yes, that’s how the film presents the events. And rather clever of Elizabeth if that’s what actually happened. There’s a line from their last (fictional) meeting just as Mary is hauled to Fotheringhay where Elizabeth tells Mary something to the effect that if her head had been as strong as her heart, it would be she, Elizabeth, standing there waiting to go on trial and face execution.

Plots, counterplots, drama, sex, death…a soap opera indeed. And here we are, over 400 years after their deaths, still discussing them.

Considering the relationship between Darnley’s mother, Margaret, Countess of Lennox, and Elizabeth prior to Elizabeth’s ascension– including the story about Margaret making the room above the Princess Elizabeth’s bedchamber in Whitehall deliberately into a kitchen so Elizabeth was disturbed by the noise overhead. Also it had been rumored that the Countess of Lennox had been considered by Queen Mary to be a possible successor, supplanting Elizabeth — I could easily see Elizabeth later taking revenge through Darnley who (from existing portraits) had a close physical resemblance to his mother.

What a soap opera this part of the Tudor era would make.

I've always found Elizabeth I more interesting than Mary. Mary's grasp of politics seemed weak for someone who grew up in the Court of France and the ruthless Catherine de'Medici.

But was she ever really trained in statecraft? She was at the court but always as the intended Queen Consort. She had very little to do with any policy making there and probably never would have had her first husband lived longer.

I also never did understand the tendency of some authors to make Bothwell into a romantic hero. Even if his acquittal for Darnley's murder wasn't suspect, he did treat the women in his life in an appalling manner. It was stealing the dowry and abandoning a previous lover that created the situation that allowed the King of Denmark to lay hands on him and imprison him for the rest of his life. Nice irony that.

Mary’s second and third husbands come off quite badly in the book. Darnley of course was what he was but Mary’s reasoning for marrying him comes off a little better then the books and films that portray her as just madly in lurve with him as a pretty boy. Here she’s strengthening her claim, and any claim of her children, to the English crown via Darnley’s own claim through Margaret Tudor.

Most of the early biographies I read as a child did portray Bothwell as Mary’s true love. Here he’s a power hungry brute who basically kidnaps Mary and forces a marriage – not that he was alone in trying that – he just managed to actually do it where other Scottish nobles failed. His ending is, as you say, delicious irony.

I’ve always found Elizabeth I more interesting than Mary. Mary’s grasp of politics seemed weak for someone who grew up in the Court of France and the ruthless Catherine de’Medici. I also never did understand the tendency of some authors to make Bothwell into a romantic hero. Even if his acquittal for Darnley’s murder wasn’t suspect, he did treat the women in his life in an appalling manner. It was stealing the dowry and abandoning a previous lover that created the situation that allowed the King of Denmark to lay hands on him and imprison him for the rest of his life. Nice irony that.

Anyhow, I found the best sections of this book to be the ones concerning Janet while she was pursuing her quest. It does have nice glimpses of middle-class life as well as the view point of the working class.

If you like the subject of Mary , I really liked Margaret George’s Mary Queen of Scots and re-read once a year or so . I highly reccommend her books Especially her BEAUTIFULLY done Cleopatra .

Here’s her website if she’s new to any of the DA readers.

http://www.margaretgeorge.com/books/books.asp