What do you think?
Rate this book
Mary and Elizabeth
Two Sisters, United by Blood, divided by the Crown.
They shared childhood memories and one grand ambition.
Mary was England's precious jewel, the surviving child of the tumultuous relationship between Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon. However, when Henry fell passionately in love with the dark-eyed Anne Boleyn, he cast his wife and daughter aside.
Henry and Anne's union divides the country, and with the birth of Elizabeth, Mary becomes a pariah, stripped of all royal privileges. Yet, there is something enchanting about Elizabeth, and Mary soon grows to love her like a sister.
But every rose has its thorn, and following Anne Boleyn's execution, a rift begins to grow between the sisters. Mary assumes her place as queen, her reign of terror turning the people's love to hate. Elizabeth, whose true love is her country, must defy her tyrannical sister to make way for a new era...
Mary and Elizabeth is a rip-roaring story of a love, power, and rivalry that will delight fans of The Tudors.
They shared childhood memories and one grand ambition.
Mary was England's precious jewel, the surviving child of the tumultuous relationship between Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon. However, when Henry fell passionately in love with the dark-eyed Anne Boleyn, he cast his wife and daughter aside.
Henry and Anne's union divides the country, and with the birth of Elizabeth, Mary becomes a pariah, stripped of all royal privileges. Yet, there is something enchanting about Elizabeth, and Mary soon grows to love her like a sister.
But every rose has its thorn, and following Anne Boleyn's execution, a rift begins to grow between the sisters. Mary assumes her place as queen, her reign of terror turning the people's love to hate. Elizabeth, whose true love is her country, must defy her tyrannical sister to make way for a new era...
Mary and Elizabeth is a rip-roaring story of a love, power, and rivalry that will delight fans of The Tudors.
380 pages, Paperback
First published June 9, 2011
5 people are currently reading
320 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
July 6, 2011
Before I get into the review proper, for the benefit of fellow readers and to help them avoid any confusion, I just want to highlight the fact that this novel is also published under the title The Tudor Throne in the USA and under the author’s real name Brandy Purdy. So I understand, the decision to publish her novels under the nom de plume Emily Purdy in the UK was taken by the publishers, not the author herself, and she has been at pains to bring attention to the fact that these are in fact the same book. However, why the publishers chose to take this decision is honestly baffling to me. I read somewhere that the publishers felt that Brandy was a strongly American name and too unusual in the UK, and that they thought the British public would be more receptive to a solid British name like Emily. As a Briton, the publisher’s assumption is outdated and it seems mildly offensive to suggest that British people will go for a traditionally British name over a less conventional name. Speaking for myself, I don’t care what name’s on the cover, just as long as the content inside is good. I do think that people calling this rebranding a "con" are going a little too far, as that’s not what was intended I’m sure, but as other reviewers have said a reader shouldn’t have to play detective and it is up to the publishers and vendors to make it clear to consumers when a book has been rebranded, otherwise yes I do think disgruntled purchasers have some justification in their outrage.
Getting into the review proper, I rather felt that Mary & Elizabeth had its good points and bad points, and they actually balanced each other out, resulting in a fairly mediocre, middle-of-the-road book. Let’s talk about the good stuff. I thought the premise was interesting, the focus on their relationship in the early years up to Elizabeth’s accession, and the idea that despite their differing ideological, political and personal backgrounds their dynamic simply as sisters had a significant impact on their other roles to each other. I did expect this to cover a little more of their early years together, Mary’s transformation from favoured princess to Elizabeth’s nursemaid and how she grew to love her sister despite this, and then how the disappointment in her life gradually pushes them apart, but their earliest years together were rather summarised just in the first chapter. Fair enough, that’s not a true criticism of the book, that was just a personal wish on my part so I don’t mark the novel down for that. Writing alternate chapters from one sister’s point of view and then the other’s was an interesting way of exploring these questions, but writing it in first person? I think it’s a risk. Usually I would say that third person is the way to go in historical novels otherwise an author is in danger of painting themselves into a corner when an historical event happens that their first person character doesn’t directly experience, but it can be done, and in novels such as this where the focus is directly on intimately personal character relationships it’s worth considering using first person. The risk in using first person is that historical figures are wonderfully and horribly complex to nail down, and it’s a feat rarely pulled off. Mary and Elizabeth in this novel are interesting and entertaining characters, but they’re not true to life, in my opinion. I felt that the language and writing skill Purdy displayed was competent, and there were moments in particular that I really enjoyed, such as her description of the masque of flowers and the wares of "the Cakes and Ale Man".
However, for me there were a few negative points as well. I mentioned the language skill, and whilst it was largely good there were a handful of errors. There was the usual sprinkling of typos and grammatical blips – honest mistakes, I stress, but it is always nice to read something that’s error free. Here and there certain sentences, usually describing a character’s attire, went on and on and a few were longer than paragraphs – you’d need to take a big breath if you were reading such sentences out loud and they’re a little bit unwieldy. It would be better if they were broken down into a couple of shorter, snappier sentences to make them more manageable, or if the adornments were summarised a bit more – as much as I love the fashion of this period and appreciate that these characters were extravagantly lavish, there was a point when I began to tune out how many seed pearls were sewn into the gown or what material the hood was lined with, and it wasn’t sinking in – it would be more effective if this were mentioned less often, or if only one or two points about the details of the clothes were picked out, more memorable and impactful. Also, there were certain words and phrases that were anachronistic. Now, there’s a line to be trodden here; no one expects an author to write a story entirely in the language of the times, indeed if they did it could be difficult for readers to understand and potentially limit the author in what they can convey. However, I think it’s reasonable to expect that certain watch words and phrases be avoided, for example you wouldn’t expect a novel set in ancient Rome to mention the word "electricity", so one has to be careful about certain words and also things like idioms and peculiar sayings – many of which are often characteristic of a certain period in time. In third person descriptive, one can allow some leeway, but in character dialogue or first person narration that’s when the anachronisms jump out. In particular the word "ammunition" which didn’t enter the English language until c. 1625 CE jumped out at me (it would have been called "shot" prior to this one presumes), and the phrases "curiosity killed the cat", "the light at the end of the tunnel" and "agree to disagree" which aren’t attested until 1898, 1922 and 1770 CE respectively stuck out.
My other big bugbear in this novel was the historical accuracy, or rather the lack therein. For example, Elizabeth is frequently titled "Princess" throughout the novel when of course when she was bastardised at age 2 she became known as Lady Elizabeth, and she was never reinstated as princess even though her father’s will wrote Elizabeth into his succession. The novel has it that Anne Boleyn’s motto was "All or Nothing", and it was actually "The Most Happy". Droit de seigneur is presented in the story, something which seems to be an extremely common popular misapprehension but which there is no solid evidence for and was probably a myth invented by the Romantic movement centuries later. But it’s the sensationalism that really bothers me. Lady Jane Grey is portrayed as a viciously beaten down child and her parents obsessed with hunting, but in fact there was actually very little evidence for this besides Roger Ascham’s recounting of her speech some 20 years later, a source which has had considerable doubt cast upon it. Her supposed rant to Ascham is almost exactly reproduced in the novel, but told to Elizabeth instead. During the course of the book there’s a strong suggestion that Thomas Seymour had Catherine Parr poisoned and that Anne Boleyn had Catherine of Aragon poisoned, both rumours with only circumstantial evidence to back them up. The novel mentions Jane Parker, Lady Rochford as the stereotypical voyeur peeping through keyholes – a view recently revised as its foundations are baseless – and it is mentioned that Anne Boleyn wore long sleeves to hide a slight deformity on her hand, the old sixth finger nonsense dragged up again – once more, utterly without foundation, and only mentioned by the acknowledged unreliable and biased Catholic writer Nicholas Sanders, who wrote 50 years after Anne’s death. It’s even stated that the fact that Elizabeth was not a boy was what condemned Anne to the scaffold – actually it was the two miscarriages, one of which was definitely male, which followed after Elizabeth’s birth, and the fact that Henry had decided to replace her with Jane Seymour that were the impetuses for Anne’s downfall. During the course of the novel Edward is subjected to the efforts of first a hippie circle and then 20th century black magic worshippers – way too modern and no evidence he ever had to go through that. I know some will raise the familiar calling cry "it’s only fiction" in response to this point, but there are several reasons why this is no excuse. Firstly, if you ask me, history is interesting enough to stand on its own, it doesn’t need to be spiced up. Secondly, historical figures were real people and I think we have a duty to treat them with respect and objectivity, as many of my most admired historical fiction authors like to say; "do not defame the dead". Thirdly, á la Philippa Gregory’s The Other Boleyn Girl there comes a point when historical accuracy is so removed from the facts, when the characters are unrecognisable from the historical people, that the author might as well have just written a story about entirely fictitious characters. Fourthly, if an author is going to go ahead and mess with the historical facts in the novel it seems only courteous to mention this in an author’s note. To me personally I prefer accuracy and it just seems unnecessary to drag historical figures through the mud by repeating all the lurid unsubstantiated rumour about them instead of focusing on the facts and providing a balanced view. I love history, so when I read historical fiction I’m hoping for the story to give me an insight into the real historical people, and to treat them as human beings with shades of grey. I’m not looking for a Tudor gossip magazine.
Just a final note, Purdy’s previous novel attracted a certain amount of criticism for the lurid sex scenes. I didn’t feel like there were too many sex scenes in this book, but what sex scenes there were I thought were rather on the lurid side – not intolerable, but definitely lurid. Instead I thought Mary’s recounting of the disgusting offenses against Catholics during the Reformation was definitely a too-much-information moment, and that comes from someone who has a pretty strong stomach in her media and literature preferences.
5 out of 10. Pretty good writing and an interesting premise, but let down by anachronistic niggles, a couple of gross moments, and big historical inaccuracies. I would read Purdy again, but I would get the book from the library and then only buy if I loved it.
Getting into the review proper, I rather felt that Mary & Elizabeth had its good points and bad points, and they actually balanced each other out, resulting in a fairly mediocre, middle-of-the-road book. Let’s talk about the good stuff. I thought the premise was interesting, the focus on their relationship in the early years up to Elizabeth’s accession, and the idea that despite their differing ideological, political and personal backgrounds their dynamic simply as sisters had a significant impact on their other roles to each other. I did expect this to cover a little more of their early years together, Mary’s transformation from favoured princess to Elizabeth’s nursemaid and how she grew to love her sister despite this, and then how the disappointment in her life gradually pushes them apart, but their earliest years together were rather summarised just in the first chapter. Fair enough, that’s not a true criticism of the book, that was just a personal wish on my part so I don’t mark the novel down for that. Writing alternate chapters from one sister’s point of view and then the other’s was an interesting way of exploring these questions, but writing it in first person? I think it’s a risk. Usually I would say that third person is the way to go in historical novels otherwise an author is in danger of painting themselves into a corner when an historical event happens that their first person character doesn’t directly experience, but it can be done, and in novels such as this where the focus is directly on intimately personal character relationships it’s worth considering using first person. The risk in using first person is that historical figures are wonderfully and horribly complex to nail down, and it’s a feat rarely pulled off. Mary and Elizabeth in this novel are interesting and entertaining characters, but they’re not true to life, in my opinion. I felt that the language and writing skill Purdy displayed was competent, and there were moments in particular that I really enjoyed, such as her description of the masque of flowers and the wares of "the Cakes and Ale Man".
However, for me there were a few negative points as well. I mentioned the language skill, and whilst it was largely good there were a handful of errors. There was the usual sprinkling of typos and grammatical blips – honest mistakes, I stress, but it is always nice to read something that’s error free. Here and there certain sentences, usually describing a character’s attire, went on and on and a few were longer than paragraphs – you’d need to take a big breath if you were reading such sentences out loud and they’re a little bit unwieldy. It would be better if they were broken down into a couple of shorter, snappier sentences to make them more manageable, or if the adornments were summarised a bit more – as much as I love the fashion of this period and appreciate that these characters were extravagantly lavish, there was a point when I began to tune out how many seed pearls were sewn into the gown or what material the hood was lined with, and it wasn’t sinking in – it would be more effective if this were mentioned less often, or if only one or two points about the details of the clothes were picked out, more memorable and impactful. Also, there were certain words and phrases that were anachronistic. Now, there’s a line to be trodden here; no one expects an author to write a story entirely in the language of the times, indeed if they did it could be difficult for readers to understand and potentially limit the author in what they can convey. However, I think it’s reasonable to expect that certain watch words and phrases be avoided, for example you wouldn’t expect a novel set in ancient Rome to mention the word "electricity", so one has to be careful about certain words and also things like idioms and peculiar sayings – many of which are often characteristic of a certain period in time. In third person descriptive, one can allow some leeway, but in character dialogue or first person narration that’s when the anachronisms jump out. In particular the word "ammunition" which didn’t enter the English language until c. 1625 CE jumped out at me (it would have been called "shot" prior to this one presumes), and the phrases "curiosity killed the cat", "the light at the end of the tunnel" and "agree to disagree" which aren’t attested until 1898, 1922 and 1770 CE respectively stuck out.
My other big bugbear in this novel was the historical accuracy, or rather the lack therein. For example, Elizabeth is frequently titled "Princess" throughout the novel when of course when she was bastardised at age 2 she became known as Lady Elizabeth, and she was never reinstated as princess even though her father’s will wrote Elizabeth into his succession. The novel has it that Anne Boleyn’s motto was "All or Nothing", and it was actually "The Most Happy". Droit de seigneur is presented in the story, something which seems to be an extremely common popular misapprehension but which there is no solid evidence for and was probably a myth invented by the Romantic movement centuries later. But it’s the sensationalism that really bothers me. Lady Jane Grey is portrayed as a viciously beaten down child and her parents obsessed with hunting, but in fact there was actually very little evidence for this besides Roger Ascham’s recounting of her speech some 20 years later, a source which has had considerable doubt cast upon it. Her supposed rant to Ascham is almost exactly reproduced in the novel, but told to Elizabeth instead. During the course of the book there’s a strong suggestion that Thomas Seymour had Catherine Parr poisoned and that Anne Boleyn had Catherine of Aragon poisoned, both rumours with only circumstantial evidence to back them up. The novel mentions Jane Parker, Lady Rochford as the stereotypical voyeur peeping through keyholes – a view recently revised as its foundations are baseless – and it is mentioned that Anne Boleyn wore long sleeves to hide a slight deformity on her hand, the old sixth finger nonsense dragged up again – once more, utterly without foundation, and only mentioned by the acknowledged unreliable and biased Catholic writer Nicholas Sanders, who wrote 50 years after Anne’s death. It’s even stated that the fact that Elizabeth was not a boy was what condemned Anne to the scaffold – actually it was the two miscarriages, one of which was definitely male, which followed after Elizabeth’s birth, and the fact that Henry had decided to replace her with Jane Seymour that were the impetuses for Anne’s downfall. During the course of the novel Edward is subjected to the efforts of first a hippie circle and then 20th century black magic worshippers – way too modern and no evidence he ever had to go through that. I know some will raise the familiar calling cry "it’s only fiction" in response to this point, but there are several reasons why this is no excuse. Firstly, if you ask me, history is interesting enough to stand on its own, it doesn’t need to be spiced up. Secondly, historical figures were real people and I think we have a duty to treat them with respect and objectivity, as many of my most admired historical fiction authors like to say; "do not defame the dead". Thirdly, á la Philippa Gregory’s The Other Boleyn Girl there comes a point when historical accuracy is so removed from the facts, when the characters are unrecognisable from the historical people, that the author might as well have just written a story about entirely fictitious characters. Fourthly, if an author is going to go ahead and mess with the historical facts in the novel it seems only courteous to mention this in an author’s note. To me personally I prefer accuracy and it just seems unnecessary to drag historical figures through the mud by repeating all the lurid unsubstantiated rumour about them instead of focusing on the facts and providing a balanced view. I love history, so when I read historical fiction I’m hoping for the story to give me an insight into the real historical people, and to treat them as human beings with shades of grey. I’m not looking for a Tudor gossip magazine.
Just a final note, Purdy’s previous novel attracted a certain amount of criticism for the lurid sex scenes. I didn’t feel like there were too many sex scenes in this book, but what sex scenes there were I thought were rather on the lurid side – not intolerable, but definitely lurid. Instead I thought Mary’s recounting of the disgusting offenses against Catholics during the Reformation was definitely a too-much-information moment, and that comes from someone who has a pretty strong stomach in her media and literature preferences.
5 out of 10. Pretty good writing and an interesting premise, but let down by anachronistic niggles, a couple of gross moments, and big historical inaccuracies. I would read Purdy again, but I would get the book from the library and then only buy if I loved it.
June 3, 2016
Being honest, I was a bit disappointed in this book. I really liked the premise of the two sisters;Mary and Elizabeth, and telling their story from their perspective. The writing I thought was good but I did not like the way Elizabeth was portrayed in this novel, I found the sexual scenes rather distasteful as we have to remember although this is historical fiction, it is still real peoples lives and I believe we should respect that.
October 26, 2013
This was a really interesting and enjoyable read.
I love history, but if I'm being honest with myself, I know I would never pick up a non-fiction history book and read it from cover to cover, with the exception of the VERY occasional biography. So I like reading historical fiction because it's a fun way to learn more about times in the past and to get you to think and consider a new perspective. It's educational but you don't even realise that you're learning.
This book starts with the death of Henry VIII and follows the stories of his two daughters, half sisters Mary and Elizabeth. Both girls' early lives followed similar patterns in that their mothers fell out of favour and the girls went from being cossetted and lavished with love to being isolated and unprotected, having to survive as best they can, at the mercy of the Council and their half-brother, the sickly child-King Edward VI.
As I was christened in the Roman Catholic church, I have always been sympathetic towards Mary and can't imagine what it must have been like for her to have herself declared a bastard and not being allowed to publicly follow her religion anymore. I also felt that as she was the firstborn surviving child, it should have been her who had the long, successful reign that Elizabeth had. However, while I was pleased to see that Mary was dealt with sympathetically and with nuance (not excusing her stubbornness, her mistakes and the immorality of sending so many innocent people to their deaths), this book did make me admire Elizabeth. Mary was weaker because with Elizabeth, England and the crown were enough for her. She wanted to serve her people and make life stable and prosperous for her subjects, and her intelligence and ability to learn from her mistakes served her well in making her the person that she was; a person able to be an outstanding Queen. In contrast, Mary was too blinded by her religious prejudices and too desirous of being loved that she put the wellbeing of her country and her people second to her religious convictions and willingness to have blind faith in her husband.
I liked how it was juxtaposed by the author that both Mary and Elizabeth were both deceived in love; however, while it was the making of Elizabeth, for Mary it had a much different outcome: it basically destroyed her. While I read about the 'courtship' between Elizabeth and the "Cakes and ale" man, I was quite shocked to begin with; the descriptions are reasonably salacious, especially how Elizabeth's governess Mrs Ashley is involved; and I was stunned to see that Brandy Purdy portrayed this relationship as having been consummated. It had never occurred to me to wonder before whether the Virgin Queen was actually a virgin, but it is interesting idea. (Not one, however, which I am convinced by; I do not think Elizabeth would have let it go that far).
It was actually quite painful to me to read how Mary was so completely in love with Prince Philip of Spain, firstly purely through the portrait and the descriptions of him from the Ambassador, and then even when he arrived and treated her so cruelly and coldly, Mary convinced herself that he was simply being strong and encouraging her to override her emotions, as she believed any good Queen ought. The scenes of 'intimacy', like those with Elizabeth and Tom Seymour, were uncomfortable and really conveyed a sense of how Mary was being exploited. Add to that how he pursued Elizabeth, Mary's phantom pregnancy, her unanswered letters, her physical decay, and her knowledge that the people preferred Elizabeth and looked to her as the future who would save them, and it's all just heart-breaking. Even though Mary was so very wrong, and so many people were sent to their deaths, her delusions and mistakes were so very human and you could understand how she did what she did. How awful the transition from 'Merciful Mary' to 'Bloody Mary'! She was so easily manipulated by those around her, so blind and stubborn. Especially how she sent poor Lady Jane Grey to her death. It was incredibly moving how at the end she died with the visions and happiness of having her own babies to hold and love and who loved her back. Like another reviewer stated, Elizabeth's perspective on her sister, and how the tragedy was that Mary had so much love to give and was so loving and the people she gave it to did not deserve or want that love; it was so true.
I thought the book was very powerfully written. All of the characters, from Tom Seymour, to Lady Jane Grey, to the boy-king Edward himself, to the fat gaoler who attends to Elizabeth; all were well portrayed and they were very strong portraits so you get a real sense of them as characters. As for the sisters themselves, I really liked the portrayal of Mary and Elizabeth's relationship. It is very sad how mistrust and miscommunication (or lack of it), plus their religious differences, meant that they could not be sisters of the heart and be close and friends. I read an interview with Brandy Purdy in which she said that she identified with Mary more than she would like to admit, and that Elizabeth's strength and determination are a real inspiration, and I would be inclined to agree with those sentiments. I do feel a strong desire to be loved, like Mary, and to be a wife and mother. On the other hand, I also wish I could be strong like Elizabeth, but although her life was a glorious achievement for her, I must admit, I personally wouldn't have wanted her destiny. For me, my heavenly vision would be like Mary's, with me with a baby in my arms, I think. Still, it is lovely at the end, after all the strife and heartache, that Elizabeth embraces religious tolerance, and you really do feel by the end of the book that it is a new era.
My last comment to add is that the descriptions are glorious (as another reviewer elsewhere has stated, with truth). Mary loves jewellery and opulence and elaborate designs, and Purdy's descriptions of the gowns and jewels are wonderful and quite detailed. How sad it is that those gifts she gives are never appreciated as she hopes!
Conclusion: Some parts of the book may be shocking and speculation, and obviously this is only one person's imaginings of the sisters' thoughts, emotions and motivations, but I came away from this book having a much enriched understanding about these two women, their differences, similarities, and how their experiences in life made them into the two very different women they became.
I love history, but if I'm being honest with myself, I know I would never pick up a non-fiction history book and read it from cover to cover, with the exception of the VERY occasional biography. So I like reading historical fiction because it's a fun way to learn more about times in the past and to get you to think and consider a new perspective. It's educational but you don't even realise that you're learning.
This book starts with the death of Henry VIII and follows the stories of his two daughters, half sisters Mary and Elizabeth. Both girls' early lives followed similar patterns in that their mothers fell out of favour and the girls went from being cossetted and lavished with love to being isolated and unprotected, having to survive as best they can, at the mercy of the Council and their half-brother, the sickly child-King Edward VI.
As I was christened in the Roman Catholic church, I have always been sympathetic towards Mary and can't imagine what it must have been like for her to have herself declared a bastard and not being allowed to publicly follow her religion anymore. I also felt that as she was the firstborn surviving child, it should have been her who had the long, successful reign that Elizabeth had. However, while I was pleased to see that Mary was dealt with sympathetically and with nuance (not excusing her stubbornness, her mistakes and the immorality of sending so many innocent people to their deaths), this book did make me admire Elizabeth. Mary was weaker because with Elizabeth, England and the crown were enough for her. She wanted to serve her people and make life stable and prosperous for her subjects, and her intelligence and ability to learn from her mistakes served her well in making her the person that she was; a person able to be an outstanding Queen. In contrast, Mary was too blinded by her religious prejudices and too desirous of being loved that she put the wellbeing of her country and her people second to her religious convictions and willingness to have blind faith in her husband.
I liked how it was juxtaposed by the author that both Mary and Elizabeth were both deceived in love; however, while it was the making of Elizabeth, for Mary it had a much different outcome: it basically destroyed her. While I read about the 'courtship' between Elizabeth and the "Cakes and ale" man, I was quite shocked to begin with; the descriptions are reasonably salacious, especially how Elizabeth's governess Mrs Ashley is involved; and I was stunned to see that Brandy Purdy portrayed this relationship as having been consummated. It had never occurred to me to wonder before whether the Virgin Queen was actually a virgin, but it is interesting idea. (Not one, however, which I am convinced by; I do not think Elizabeth would have let it go that far).
It was actually quite painful to me to read how Mary was so completely in love with Prince Philip of Spain, firstly purely through the portrait and the descriptions of him from the Ambassador, and then even when he arrived and treated her so cruelly and coldly, Mary convinced herself that he was simply being strong and encouraging her to override her emotions, as she believed any good Queen ought. The scenes of 'intimacy', like those with Elizabeth and Tom Seymour, were uncomfortable and really conveyed a sense of how Mary was being exploited. Add to that how he pursued Elizabeth, Mary's phantom pregnancy, her unanswered letters, her physical decay, and her knowledge that the people preferred Elizabeth and looked to her as the future who would save them, and it's all just heart-breaking. Even though Mary was so very wrong, and so many people were sent to their deaths, her delusions and mistakes were so very human and you could understand how she did what she did. How awful the transition from 'Merciful Mary' to 'Bloody Mary'! She was so easily manipulated by those around her, so blind and stubborn. Especially how she sent poor Lady Jane Grey to her death. It was incredibly moving how at the end she died with the visions and happiness of having her own babies to hold and love and who loved her back. Like another reviewer stated, Elizabeth's perspective on her sister, and how the tragedy was that Mary had so much love to give and was so loving and the people she gave it to did not deserve or want that love; it was so true.
I thought the book was very powerfully written. All of the characters, from Tom Seymour, to Lady Jane Grey, to the boy-king Edward himself, to the fat gaoler who attends to Elizabeth; all were well portrayed and they were very strong portraits so you get a real sense of them as characters. As for the sisters themselves, I really liked the portrayal of Mary and Elizabeth's relationship. It is very sad how mistrust and miscommunication (or lack of it), plus their religious differences, meant that they could not be sisters of the heart and be close and friends. I read an interview with Brandy Purdy in which she said that she identified with Mary more than she would like to admit, and that Elizabeth's strength and determination are a real inspiration, and I would be inclined to agree with those sentiments. I do feel a strong desire to be loved, like Mary, and to be a wife and mother. On the other hand, I also wish I could be strong like Elizabeth, but although her life was a glorious achievement for her, I must admit, I personally wouldn't have wanted her destiny. For me, my heavenly vision would be like Mary's, with me with a baby in my arms, I think. Still, it is lovely at the end, after all the strife and heartache, that Elizabeth embraces religious tolerance, and you really do feel by the end of the book that it is a new era.
My last comment to add is that the descriptions are glorious (as another reviewer elsewhere has stated, with truth). Mary loves jewellery and opulence and elaborate designs, and Purdy's descriptions of the gowns and jewels are wonderful and quite detailed. How sad it is that those gifts she gives are never appreciated as she hopes!
Conclusion: Some parts of the book may be shocking and speculation, and obviously this is only one person's imaginings of the sisters' thoughts, emotions and motivations, but I came away from this book having a much enriched understanding about these two women, their differences, similarities, and how their experiences in life made them into the two very different women they became.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 28, 2020
Well written and evocative, but a little dramatic and saccharine at points, it's a good potboiler, but not the best example of historical fiction I've ever read.
If you want to be entertained, maybe even a little moved pick this up - if you want an accurate work of historical fiction, consider looking elsewhere.
If you want to be entertained, maybe even a little moved pick this up - if you want an accurate work of historical fiction, consider looking elsewhere.
October 14, 2019
Loved it. I couldn’t get enough of both Elizabeth 1 and Mary. Loved the way it was told from each womens point of view. Sad vicious and at times quite bold in the bedroom department...this book has it all while still delving quite excellently into the fabulous Tudor history.
August 21, 2022
This book fetishises the sexual assault and rape of a thirteen year old girl by a 40 year old man. It is not well written, it is not historically accurate and I cannot believe it was allowed to be published. I'm burning my copy.
Read
October 2, 2020Good book and interesting story of two sisters, once had been declared 'bastards', then to queens with interesting reigns!!
December 30, 2020
Love this. Not sure if it's all historically accurate but nice read x
January 15, 2013
One of the most intensely dramatic blood bonds within history, told with such deep poignancy and fever as to be remembered!
Elizabeth and Mary. Both daughters to the greatest monarch who ruled over England, and who became divided by the crown and that impassioned rivalry between them. This spectacular novel re-tells Elizabeth’s and Mary’s story from the very beginning – from childhood to adulthood, bringing to life those turbulent changeable times. Beautifully written, vivid and dramatic the Tudor’s are spectacularly envisaged most realistically and acutely. As an avid reader of historical fiction this book is a delight to behold, and something that is extremely interesting for it professes a most fascinating insight into their relationship.
They shared childhood memories and one grand ambition…
Mary was England’s precious jewel, the surviving child of the tumultuous relationship between Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon. However, when Henry fell passionately in love with the dark-eyed Anne Boleyn, he cast his wife and daughter aside. Henry and Anne’s union divides the country and with the birth of Elizabeth, Mary becomes a pariah, stripped of all royal privileges. Yet there is something enchanting about Elizabeth, and Mary grows to love her.
But every Rose has its thorn, and following Anne Boleyn’s execution, a rift begins to grow between the sisters. Mary assumes her place as Queen, her reign of terror turning the people’s love to hate. Elizabeth, whose true love is her country, must defy her tyrannical sister to make way for a new era…
The death of Mary has to be one of the most marked moments within history, and the blood bond between her and the greatest female monarch to assume the throne is so distinctive. Her time as monarch to her eventual death is something that causes much controversial remarks even today, as the two females were so different in ideals and principles. Elizabeth’s forty-five year reign (known as “the Virgin Queen”) still remains noteworthy; as she became the greatest monarch England has ever known surpassing the deeds even of her great father. What is ironic is that despite the rift between them, Mary and Elizabeth share the same tomb, which inscribed it reads:
‘Consorts in both throne and grave
Here rest we two sisters,
Elizabeth and Mary,
In the hope of one resurrection.”
Unable to put this book down for even a moment, I was lost within a past age of love, power and rivalry in which the ambition and the greed, the dominance and unjust times are perfectly captured. The connection between these two sisters is so strong, with the same blood running though their veins as they share similar desires and visions in life. Absolutely stunning, beautifully captured and quite exquisite this stunning historical novel totally blew me away and is something that I shall definitely be re-reading again. I look forward to reading more work by Emily Purdy.
Elizabeth and Mary. Both daughters to the greatest monarch who ruled over England, and who became divided by the crown and that impassioned rivalry between them. This spectacular novel re-tells Elizabeth’s and Mary’s story from the very beginning – from childhood to adulthood, bringing to life those turbulent changeable times. Beautifully written, vivid and dramatic the Tudor’s are spectacularly envisaged most realistically and acutely. As an avid reader of historical fiction this book is a delight to behold, and something that is extremely interesting for it professes a most fascinating insight into their relationship.
They shared childhood memories and one grand ambition…
Mary was England’s precious jewel, the surviving child of the tumultuous relationship between Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon. However, when Henry fell passionately in love with the dark-eyed Anne Boleyn, he cast his wife and daughter aside. Henry and Anne’s union divides the country and with the birth of Elizabeth, Mary becomes a pariah, stripped of all royal privileges. Yet there is something enchanting about Elizabeth, and Mary grows to love her.
But every Rose has its thorn, and following Anne Boleyn’s execution, a rift begins to grow between the sisters. Mary assumes her place as Queen, her reign of terror turning the people’s love to hate. Elizabeth, whose true love is her country, must defy her tyrannical sister to make way for a new era…
The death of Mary has to be one of the most marked moments within history, and the blood bond between her and the greatest female monarch to assume the throne is so distinctive. Her time as monarch to her eventual death is something that causes much controversial remarks even today, as the two females were so different in ideals and principles. Elizabeth’s forty-five year reign (known as “the Virgin Queen”) still remains noteworthy; as she became the greatest monarch England has ever known surpassing the deeds even of her great father. What is ironic is that despite the rift between them, Mary and Elizabeth share the same tomb, which inscribed it reads:
‘Consorts in both throne and grave
Here rest we two sisters,
Elizabeth and Mary,
In the hope of one resurrection.”
Unable to put this book down for even a moment, I was lost within a past age of love, power and rivalry in which the ambition and the greed, the dominance and unjust times are perfectly captured. The connection between these two sisters is so strong, with the same blood running though their veins as they share similar desires and visions in life. Absolutely stunning, beautifully captured and quite exquisite this stunning historical novel totally blew me away and is something that I shall definitely be re-reading again. I look forward to reading more work by Emily Purdy.
March 20, 2014
Written in the first person narrative, this historical story follows the tempestuous relationship between Henry VIII's two daughters, Mary Tudor and the younger Elizabeth. Told from alternate perspectives, the writing is competent and descriptive. Purdy manages to paint the two monarchs with such complexity of emotion that I soon lost myself in the story as if learning it for the first time, even though Tudor lovers and historians know it well.
When King Henry dies, Edward VI inherits the throne, but the sickly boy's reign is short lived when he succumbs to various ailments at the age of sixteen. The author reveals more speculative details about Edward on his death bed than one might normally read, such as the placement of dead rotten fish strapped to the boy's feet in order to 'draw out' the wicked tumors which assailed his frail body. There are many details such as this throughout the story which leave you wondering how far the author went to distort, embellish the facts, or merely choose to add her own creative flavours.
In particular, the ‘passionate’ chapters involving Elizabeth and the characterful Sir Thomas Seymour are eye-opening. In most Tudor accounts, such stark and erotic details are usually left to the reader’s imagination. Purdy obviously decided that we ought to be much more enlightened and provided a 'nitty gritty' account as to their supposed ‘affair.’ One can only wonder whether Seymour really did 'woo' the young princess in such a frivolous and open manner. The big question left in my mind is…'did he really place a strawberry between her thighs and then eat it?' Who can really know?
If the reader can blindly accept these eroticisms as being part and parcel of the author’s creative poetry, then the story itself is grandly told. The writing flowed beautifully and gave us a great insight into the difficulties the two monarchs faced with their commanding positions heading two very politically defended religions, Protestantism and Catholicism, whilst also trying their utmost best to be nothing more than loving sisters. There are some great scenes which depict their feelings for each other as they attempt to offer piety and forgiveness, whilst all the while harbouring doubts and fears over secret treasonous rebellions and plots. Once is left with the notion that the life of a Tudor monarch is one that is neither enviable, nor pleasant to live.
A thoroughly recommended read.
When King Henry dies, Edward VI inherits the throne, but the sickly boy's reign is short lived when he succumbs to various ailments at the age of sixteen. The author reveals more speculative details about Edward on his death bed than one might normally read, such as the placement of dead rotten fish strapped to the boy's feet in order to 'draw out' the wicked tumors which assailed his frail body. There are many details such as this throughout the story which leave you wondering how far the author went to distort, embellish the facts, or merely choose to add her own creative flavours.
In particular, the ‘passionate’ chapters involving Elizabeth and the characterful Sir Thomas Seymour are eye-opening. In most Tudor accounts, such stark and erotic details are usually left to the reader’s imagination. Purdy obviously decided that we ought to be much more enlightened and provided a 'nitty gritty' account as to their supposed ‘affair.’ One can only wonder whether Seymour really did 'woo' the young princess in such a frivolous and open manner. The big question left in my mind is…'did he really place a strawberry between her thighs and then eat it?' Who can really know?
If the reader can blindly accept these eroticisms as being part and parcel of the author’s creative poetry, then the story itself is grandly told. The writing flowed beautifully and gave us a great insight into the difficulties the two monarchs faced with their commanding positions heading two very politically defended religions, Protestantism and Catholicism, whilst also trying their utmost best to be nothing more than loving sisters. There are some great scenes which depict their feelings for each other as they attempt to offer piety and forgiveness, whilst all the while harbouring doubts and fears over secret treasonous rebellions and plots. Once is left with the notion that the life of a Tudor monarch is one that is neither enviable, nor pleasant to live.
A thoroughly recommended read.
September 18, 2014
I don't know why but when I put this book on my wishlist, I thought it was a history book. It wasn't until I started reading that I released it was historical fiction. Which is not a bad thing as I love historical fiction but I always find non fiction to be more exciting where Elizabeth is concerned.
This book started out great, really got into it. Purdy played with the Tom Seymour storyline but in a believable way, as we will never know what really happened there. I don't believe that he took her virginity but I feel like she may have been flirty with him as she was just a young girl. However later in the book, Elizabeth gave Prince Philip a hand job which I just thought took the story into the realms of fantasy. I really doubt she would have been that stupid. I do not think she would have gone any further than flirting with him. Elizabeth is the more likable sister. She is more tolerant than Mary, and doesn't burn anyone.
I do feel sorry for Mary. She had a pretty shitty life. If only her father had loved her more, if only Philip had loved her, if only she had been married at a younger age, if only she had, had a child. All these if onlys, could have stopped her turning into the bitter woman she became. And then all those nameless people who were sent to their deaths at her whim. It must have been a terrible time to live.
Overall a pretty average, entertaining read of The Tudor sisters but it has some flaws and I'm sure there are better books out there.
This book started out great, really got into it. Purdy played with the Tom Seymour storyline but in a believable way, as we will never know what really happened there. I don't believe that he took her virginity but I feel like she may have been flirty with him as she was just a young girl. However later in the book, Elizabeth gave Prince Philip a hand job which I just thought took the story into the realms of fantasy. I really doubt she would have been that stupid. I do not think she would have gone any further than flirting with him. Elizabeth is the more likable sister. She is more tolerant than Mary, and doesn't burn anyone.
I do feel sorry for Mary. She had a pretty shitty life. If only her father had loved her more, if only Philip had loved her, if only she had been married at a younger age, if only she had, had a child. All these if onlys, could have stopped her turning into the bitter woman she became. And then all those nameless people who were sent to their deaths at her whim. It must have been a terrible time to live.
Overall a pretty average, entertaining read of The Tudor sisters but it has some flaws and I'm sure there are better books out there.
September 13, 2012
Reasonably accurate and worth a read if you are interested in this period of history. I enjoyed reading from both perspectives which highlighted the differences between the sisters very well. I have never really been a fan of Mary and as a result I did find it hard to find any sympathy for her despite the awful things she went through. Underneath her arrogant pride she was actually a rather foolish woman.
One part which annoyed me a little was the section that described Elizabeth's time with Katherine Parr and Thomas Seymour. Although they did reside at Chelsea for a time, Katherine and Thomas actually lived at Sudeley Castle during her pregnancy and Katherine died there. She was buried in the local church before her body was moved into the chapel on the castle grounds many years later. I visited Sudeley a couple of months ago and saw her tomb. Anyone interested in Tudor history would find this castle a worthwhile visit.
There are some explicit scenes in this book and I was reminded of the TV series, The Tudors, whilst reading. The most scandalous scenes being those between Elizabeth and Thomas Seymour. Also included is the curious incident in the garden between them concerning the cutting up of Elizabeth's dress whilst Katherine Parr holds her still.
November 9, 2014
Again, I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed Emily Purdy's "Mary & Elizabeth" - Purdy tells a really good story (I'm not saying it's historically accurate, or that the characters are true to life representations) - but she writes in a really fun, vibrant, vivid and romantic way that draws the reader in and leaves you wanting more. I'm glad that I read "The Boleyn Bride" before this novel, because "Mary & Elizabeth" felt almost like a natural continuation of where "The Boleyn Bride" finished up. I enjoyed the way Purdy portrayed the relationship between a young Elizabeth and Tom Seymour - I think I probably would have fallen for his charms too, even though he was a complete rogue. I also liked the constant struggle between Mary and Elizabeth, who were rivals as well as sisters - they both had very different attitudes to many things in life: their faith, how England should be ruled, who or if they should marry - but I liked the way Purdy always had them both having a spark of realisation and remembrance that they were in fact sisters, despite everything that made them different and opposed to each other.
February 2, 2020
Review - I didn't like this book as much as Purdy's The Tudor Wife, though I think the storyline was probably more accurate, as pertains to the historical record. Mary and Elizabeth essentially charts their lives, from the death of their father, Henry VIII, to Elizabeth's ascent to the throne. What is particularly interesting is the descent of Mary into unrequited love, and kind of into madness as she grieves for the loss of her child and her husband. Elizabeth's strength is a clever contrast, and it makes for two very different, but intertwining stories, told at the same time.
Genre? - Historical / Romance / Drama
Characters? - Mary I / Elizabeth I / Kat Ashley / Philip II of Spain / Robert Dudley / Edward VI / Henry VIII / Jane Grey / Guildford Dudley
Setting? - London, Framlingham & Hatfield (England)
Series? - N/A
Recommend? - Yes
Rating - 18/20
For discussion questions see my blog https://bookbloggerish.wordpress.com/...
Genre? - Historical / Romance / Drama
Characters? - Mary I / Elizabeth I / Kat Ashley / Philip II of Spain / Robert Dudley / Edward VI / Henry VIII / Jane Grey / Guildford Dudley
Setting? - London, Framlingham & Hatfield (England)
Series? - N/A
Recommend? - Yes
Rating - 18/20
For discussion questions see my blog https://bookbloggerish.wordpress.com/...
December 5, 2013
There are a lot of books about the Tudor period and doubly so detailing the relationship between Elizabeth and her older sister, 'Bloody' Mary. As one might expect, it is a subject filled with all manner of pitfalls and cliches, which Purdy seems to - for the most part- have avoided.
This is not an especially long book and I remember wishing it was, to really bite into what were very different Queens. I enjoyed the element of miscommunication between the pair and how that fed into their rivalry, though my complaint on this front is that Purdy seems to have followed through with what appears to have become a common trope with Elizabeth's characterisation: that of two dimensional promiscuity as a nod to her later title of 'Virgin Queen'. The promiscuous, sensual side to Elizabeth is tired and overdone and, while this is no fault of Purdy's, I do feel this novel would have fared better without the gratuitous sex scenes, considering how clumsily they are actually written. There is nothing remotely sexy about a 'cannonball load'.
This is not an especially long book and I remember wishing it was, to really bite into what were very different Queens. I enjoyed the element of miscommunication between the pair and how that fed into their rivalry, though my complaint on this front is that Purdy seems to have followed through with what appears to have become a common trope with Elizabeth's characterisation: that of two dimensional promiscuity as a nod to her later title of 'Virgin Queen'. The promiscuous, sensual side to Elizabeth is tired and overdone and, while this is no fault of Purdy's, I do feel this novel would have fared better without the gratuitous sex scenes, considering how clumsily they are actually written. There is nothing remotely sexy about a 'cannonball load'.
Read
June 29, 2011They shared childhood memories and grown-up dreams…
Mary was England's precious jewel, the surviving child of the tumultuous relationship between Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon. However, when Henry fell passionately in love with the dark-eyed Anne Boleyn, he cast his wife and daughter aside.
Henry and Anne's union sees the birth of Elizabeth. Mary is soon declared a bastard, stripped of all royal privileges, performing the lowliest tasks. But, there is something about Elizabeth. And Mary soon grows to love her like a sister.
After the passage of three years, and Anne Boleyn's execution, Henry can no longer bear the sight of his female heir. With the birth of a son, Edward, both Mary and Elizabeth seem destined for oblivion. But as history will show, fate had something far more elaborate in store…
Mary and Elizabeth is an unforgettable story of a powerful love affair that changed the course of history, perfect for fans of The Tudors and Philippa Gregory.
Mary was England's precious jewel, the surviving child of the tumultuous relationship between Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon. However, when Henry fell passionately in love with the dark-eyed Anne Boleyn, he cast his wife and daughter aside.
Henry and Anne's union sees the birth of Elizabeth. Mary is soon declared a bastard, stripped of all royal privileges, performing the lowliest tasks. But, there is something about Elizabeth. And Mary soon grows to love her like a sister.
After the passage of three years, and Anne Boleyn's execution, Henry can no longer bear the sight of his female heir. With the birth of a son, Edward, both Mary and Elizabeth seem destined for oblivion. But as history will show, fate had something far more elaborate in store…
Mary and Elizabeth is an unforgettable story of a powerful love affair that changed the course of history, perfect for fans of The Tudors and Philippa Gregory.
August 25, 2013
Emily Purdy has written a fascinating novel on the points of views of the two Queens Mary and Elizabeth. This book demonstrated a rivalry for the throne, but also a rivalry of sisterhood for the love of their father Henry VIII and their brother Edward VI and also their English subjects!
Mary was a loving sister in the beginning , who let religion and fear affect her relationship with Elizabeth . Elizabeth was strong ,though somewhat misguided as a young woman by Tom Seymour and inherent own right became virtuous to the point that the only relationship for her was the one with the throne of England.
I loved how the chapters swapped from Mary to Elizabeth continuously in a seamless manner , this helped the novel to flow easily.
Tudor history has always been my favourite historical era , and this book has only enhanced that more!
Mary was a loving sister in the beginning , who let religion and fear affect her relationship with Elizabeth . Elizabeth was strong ,though somewhat misguided as a young woman by Tom Seymour and inherent own right became virtuous to the point that the only relationship for her was the one with the throne of England.
I loved how the chapters swapped from Mary to Elizabeth continuously in a seamless manner , this helped the novel to flow easily.
Tudor history has always been my favourite historical era , and this book has only enhanced that more!
June 22, 2012
A perfectly enjoyable read, though a bit too sensational and the characterisations a bit too simple. The writing was pleasant, though I found it a touch too florid in places. I would recommend it to anyone enjoying the current spate of Tudor novels but doesn't expect too much. I picked my copy up for $2 new at the cheap bookshop and don't regret my choice, but I'll be passing my copy on.
Read
December 18, 2016I admit I love a good historical fiction but I found this one a little bit tedious. The writing was good and descriptive but I found it to be too descriptive. Which in turn made for a long and drawn out read. The story itself was good but I think some of the sexual scenarios where not really needed either.
July 26, 2012
To be perfectly honest, I don't really have a huge opinion on this book. I didn't dislike it but it wasn't a real page turner either. I thought it was an interesting concept but found the sex scenes to be a little distasteful.
August 30, 2012
A very slow start, but it picked up quite a bit. Mary was a very sad Queen. So strong, surviving in her father and brothers reign, to completely lose it all was incredible. She wouldn't listen to anything but what she wanted to hear. A book true to history, in the most part.
February 16, 2014
I think that Norah Lofts, Margaret Campbell Barnes or Margaret Irwin treated these characters and their historical period better, but this novel is a pleasant read. Mary and Elizabeth speak in alternating chapters. The author's sympathies seem to be with Elizabeth.
February 11, 2015
I love these historical novels, shows you what life was like then and how dangerous it is. Interesting to see the different personalities between the two sisters Elizabeth and Mary. Some raunchy bits in it hehe which I wasnt expecting
November 15, 2015
My penchant for historical fiction made me read this, although it's neither a literary masterpiece nor historically credible. I should have been warned when the blurb said it was 'rip-roaring'. Hilary Mantel it is not. However, despite this I enjoyed it.
February 12, 2016
Really enjoyed this book as i read it in 1.5 days. Liked the alternative chapters so it kept me interested. Love Elizabeth stories and reading about her early life was different to the usual stories. Worth giving it a shot.
April 3, 2023
Descriptive and detailed writing - if you want an inventory of Tudor fashion.
Historically it is essentially accurate with much embroidering. The sexual scenes are overdone, there are a lot of similes, but overall I do think it is an enjoyable, scandalous read.
Historically it is essentially accurate with much embroidering. The sexual scenes are overdone, there are a lot of similes, but overall I do think it is an enjoyable, scandalous read.
July 28, 2012
More like one star and a half honestly , most of all I liked the first few chapters ... And the last couple of chapters , not the stuff in the middle.
June 1, 2016
Horrible piece of fluff
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews