What do you think?
Rate this book
My Heart is My Own: The Life of Mary Queen of Scots
Acclaimed Tudor historian John Guy offers a compelling re-interpretation of Mary Queen of Scots in My Heart is My Own.
For centuries, Mary, Queen of Scots has been a figure of scholarly debate. Where many have portrayed her as the weak woman to Elizabeth's rational leader, John Guy reassesses the young queen, finding her far more politically shrewd than previously believed.
Crowned Queen of Scotland at nine months old, Queen of France by age sixteen and widowed the following year, Guy paints Mary as a commanding and savvy queen who navigated the European power struggles of the time to her advantage.
Her life was one of drama and conflict - Scottish lords constructed labyrinthine plots to wrest power from her and attempts to prove her claim to the English throne were thwarted by English ministers bent on protecting Elizabeth.
My Heart is My Own re-examines the original sources, resulting in a riveting new argument surrounding Mary's involvement in her husband Lord Darnely's murder and her subsequent marriage to his suspected assassin.
Guy's accessible treatment of the well-trodden story, his deft storytelling and insightful new arguments provide compelling and dramatic reading.
'An absorbing biography . . . meticulously researched . . . scholarly and intriguing' Peter Ackroyd, The Times
'Rarely have first-class scholarship and first-class storytelling been so effectively combined' John Adamson, Daily Telegraph
John Guy is an award-winning historian, accomplished broadcaster and a Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge. His previous books include the highly acclaimed dual biography A Daughter's Love: Thomas and Margaret More a history, Tudor England, which has sold over 250,000 copies worldwide and a biography of Thomas Becket, published in 2012.
551 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 19, 2004
4870 people are currently reading
9913 people want to read
About the author
John Guy
165 books256 followersJohn Guy is recognised as one of Britain's most exciting and scholarly historians, bringing the past to life with the written word and on the broadcast media with accomplished ease. He's a very modern face of history.
His ability for first class story-telling and books that read as thrillingly as a detective story makes John Guy a Chandleresque writer of the history world. Guy hunts down facts with forensic skill, he doesn't just recite historical moments as they stand; he brings names and faces to life in all their human achievements and weaknesses. He looks for the killer clues so we can see how history unfolded. Like a detective on the trail of a crime, he teases out what makes his subjects tick. With his intimate knowledge of the archives, his speciality is uncovering completely fresh lines of enquiry. He's never content to repeat what we already know but rather, he goes that extra step to solve history's riddles. He takes you on a journey to the heart of the matter. Forget notions of musty academics, when Guy takes hold of history the case he states is always utterly compelling. Whether it's Thomas More or Mary Queen of Scots, Guy makes these people so real you suddenly realize you are hearing them speak to you. You enter into their world. You feel you can almost reach out and touch them.
Born in Australia in 1949, John Guy grew up in England and by the age of 16 he knew he wanted to be a historian. In 2001 he made an accomplished debut as a presenter for the television programme Timewatch, on the life of Thomas More. Today he's turning history books on their head as he wins universal praise and the 2004 Whitbread Prize for biography for his thrilling account of the life of Mary Queen of Scots.
As well as presenting five documentaries for BBC 2 television, including the Timewatch film The King's Servant and the four-part Renaissance Secrets (Series 2), he has contributed to Meet the Ancestors (BBC 2), and to Channel 4's Time Team and Royal Deaths and Diseases. Wolsey's Lost Palace of Hampton Court was a short-listed finalist for the 2002 Channel 4 television awards.
John Guy also appears regularly on BBC Radio 2, Radio 3, Radio 4, BBC World Service and BBC Scotland. In print he currently writes or reviews for The Sunday Times, The Guardian, The Economist, the Times Literary Supplement, BBC History Magazine and History Today.
His broadcast and journalism experience builds upon his impeccable CV as an academic and author.
Having read History under the supervision of Professor Sir Geoffrey Elton, the pre-eminent Tudor scholar of the late-twentieth century, John Guy took a First and became a Research Fellow of Selwyn College in 1970. Awarded a Greene Cup by Clare College in 1970, he completed his PhD on Cardinal Wolsey in 1973 and won the Yorke Prize of the University of Cambridge in 1976.
John Guy has lectured extensively on Early Modern British History and Renaissance Political Thought in both Britain and the United States. He has published 16 books and numerous academic articles.
John Guy lives in North London. He is a Fellow of Clare College, University of Cambridge, where he teaches part-time so he can devote more time to his writing and broadcasting career.
His ability for first class story-telling and books that read as thrillingly as a detective story makes John Guy a Chandleresque writer of the history world. Guy hunts down facts with forensic skill, he doesn't just recite historical moments as they stand; he brings names and faces to life in all their human achievements and weaknesses. He looks for the killer clues so we can see how history unfolded. Like a detective on the trail of a crime, he teases out what makes his subjects tick. With his intimate knowledge of the archives, his speciality is uncovering completely fresh lines of enquiry. He's never content to repeat what we already know but rather, he goes that extra step to solve history's riddles. He takes you on a journey to the heart of the matter. Forget notions of musty academics, when Guy takes hold of history the case he states is always utterly compelling. Whether it's Thomas More or Mary Queen of Scots, Guy makes these people so real you suddenly realize you are hearing them speak to you. You enter into their world. You feel you can almost reach out and touch them.
Born in Australia in 1949, John Guy grew up in England and by the age of 16 he knew he wanted to be a historian. In 2001 he made an accomplished debut as a presenter for the television programme Timewatch, on the life of Thomas More. Today he's turning history books on their head as he wins universal praise and the 2004 Whitbread Prize for biography for his thrilling account of the life of Mary Queen of Scots.
As well as presenting five documentaries for BBC 2 television, including the Timewatch film The King's Servant and the four-part Renaissance Secrets (Series 2), he has contributed to Meet the Ancestors (BBC 2), and to Channel 4's Time Team and Royal Deaths and Diseases. Wolsey's Lost Palace of Hampton Court was a short-listed finalist for the 2002 Channel 4 television awards.
John Guy also appears regularly on BBC Radio 2, Radio 3, Radio 4, BBC World Service and BBC Scotland. In print he currently writes or reviews for The Sunday Times, The Guardian, The Economist, the Times Literary Supplement, BBC History Magazine and History Today.
His broadcast and journalism experience builds upon his impeccable CV as an academic and author.
Having read History under the supervision of Professor Sir Geoffrey Elton, the pre-eminent Tudor scholar of the late-twentieth century, John Guy took a First and became a Research Fellow of Selwyn College in 1970. Awarded a Greene Cup by Clare College in 1970, he completed his PhD on Cardinal Wolsey in 1973 and won the Yorke Prize of the University of Cambridge in 1976.
John Guy has lectured extensively on Early Modern British History and Renaissance Political Thought in both Britain and the United States. He has published 16 books and numerous academic articles.
John Guy lives in North London. He is a Fellow of Clare College, University of Cambridge, where he teaches part-time so he can devote more time to his writing and broadcasting career.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 527 reviews
July 4, 2022
“She had finally won. Her victory was more conclusive than even she might have dared to hope, because every subsequent British ruler has been descended from her, and all derive their claim to the throne from her and not Elizabeth.”
I’m not sure if one can really claim victory after having been deposed, imprisoned and beheaded, but I’m not a historian and so lack that grander perspective. So let’s give Mary Stuart that long-awaited victory.
Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, has quite a story. At the age of six days she became the Queen of Scotland, and then briefly became the Queen of France as well - until unexpected widowhood in her teens. She then went on to be a reigning Queen in Scotland for six years, and immediately became caught in the hostilities between Catholics and Protestants after England and Scotland have recently been made Protestant following Henry VIII ingenious solution to his known wives problem, and ran into huge issues with Scottish lords who were looking out for their own interests.
“The factionalism of the lords was relentless and on a scale beyond anything she could have imagined. Violence was endemic in Scotland. Politics were tribal, based on organized revenge and the blood feud. An anointed queen she might be, but the monarchy lacked the financial resources and centralized institutions of France.”
The young widow then married twice more, once to a syphilitic narcissist who perished in an explosion and for assassination of whom she was framed by the rebellious Scottish lords, then hastily to a violent scheming man who may have raped her and almost definitely took part in the assassination of the previous spouse of Mary’s.
Mary had the most rotten luck with husbands, surely. Had she followed the example of Elizabeth I and remained unmarried, her life may have been very different. But her lack of male genitalia meant that she was supposed to find a pair attached to someone else to help her rule — and, in this case, help speed up her downfall.
Elizabeth I made a smarter decision remaining unmarried, after all.
Forced to abdicate, she spent the rest of her life in comfortable but detested imprisonment in England, at the mercy of her cousin and political rival — and another female monarch during those times — Elizabeth I. And her son who was taken from her at the age of ten months went on to become the King of England and Scotland — perhaps something that can be viewed as posthumous political and dynastic victory, but scarcely worth a terribly botched beheading.
“Mary was the unluckiest ruler in British history. A more glittering and charismatic queen could not be imagined, and yet Scotland was a small and divided country, prey to its larger neighbors. On top of this, the Protestant Reformation had combined with the factionalism of the lords to create a moment when the monarchy was more than usually vulnerable. “Mary Queen of Scots got her head chopped off” is still a familiar children’s skipping rhyme in Scotland. But to let the end of her life overshadow the whole is an injustice. The odds were stacked against her from the beginning.”
—————
John Guy put quite an effort into this biography, and he researched his subject exceedingly well. Does it appear at times that he’s quite taken with the persona of Mary and can’t find any fault with her? Sure. But it’s actually a bit endearing as well — and something that Mary herself probably would have approved of.
“Mary herself was a mass of contradictions, but some qualities abided. She was glamorous, intelligent, gregarious, vivacious, kind, generous, loyal to her supporters and friends, and devoted to her Guise relations, whether or not they returned her love. She could be ingenious and courageous with a razor-sharp wit, and never more animated and exuberant than when riding her horse at the head of her army wearing her steel cap.”
It’s a biography that reads like a historical novel at times. Guy manages to balance details and historical minutiae with still maintaining an engaging story of a young ruler trying to find her footing despite the odds. Even for someone like me, not well-versed in the history of that particular time period, it remained very accessible and easy to follow. Somehow Guy succeeded in making me care about a historical figure I had little interest in when starting this book.
“The portrait that emerges of her is not of a political pawn or a manipulative siren, but of a shrewd judge of character who could handle people just as masterfully as her English cousin and counterpart. She relished her role as queen and, for a time, managed to hold together a divided and fatally unstable country. Contrary to Knox’s well-worn stereotype, she knew how to rule from the head as well as the heart.”
4 stars for an engaging and well-researched biography. Now I need to find a good biography of Elizabeth I. Any suggestions?
——————
Recommended by: Nastya
June 30, 2017
I've given this book 5 full stars. It took me an inordinate amount of time to finish it due to the humongous cast of characters and the tangled relationships that the Tudor and Stuart family trees exhibit. Now that the reading is done, I can say that I’m truly impressed by this luminous, expertly researched biography of the gracious, witty, brave and ill-fated Scottish Queen, from whom every subsequent British ruler has been descended.
Mary Stuart was crowned Queen of Scotland when she was less than a year old. As the only daughter of James V, granddaughter of Margaret Tudor and great-granddaughter of Henry VII of England, she had a rightful claim to the English throne.
At the age of six, under the auspices of Mary’s powerful maternal uncles at the French court, the de Guises, she was sent to France to be betrothed to the dauphin Francis. They were married when Mary was fifteen (in 1558). In 1559, Henry II of France died and the dauphin was crowned Francis II. A year later, Mary’s mother, who was ruling Scotland as sole regent for the absent Queen, died. Six months thereafter, Mary’s husband, King Francis II, also died. The ambitious de Guises sent eighteen-year-old Mary back to Scotland, envisioning a unified claim to the thrones of Scotland, France and England. It was there and then that her nightmare began.
On the one hand, Mary was immediately plunged into a factional melee of violent Scottish tribal politics, which were often tinged with religious sectarianism and always motivated by the nobles’ self-interests. On the other hand, Elizabeth I of England did her best to clamp down on Mary (one of her demands was so draconian as to dictate whom Mary could marry), as she was fearful that Mary might usurp her throne (her fear being constantly magnified by her secretary William Cecil).
In her home turf, Mary found herself surrounded by treacherous, vicious and depraved courtiers, including her sly and duplicitous half-brother James Stuart (Earl of Moray). Her de Guise relations used and abandoned her as situations warranted and were hardly a source of support. Unfortunate for Mary, her trusting and big-hearted nature would often land her in a perilous position. Her predicament was further exacerbated by constant threat of religious war all over Europe (Catholicism vs. Protestantism). As witty and tenacious as she was, the odds were always stacked against her. Despite all, Mary still strove to preserve her reign as the Scottish Queen and to claim her legitimate right to be Elizabeth’s successor.
The last third of the book unfolds like a thriller/mystery novel, as Mary tried to eke out some breathing space for herself by seeking political marriage. She first wedded Lord Darnley, an English royal whose maternal grandmother was Margaret Tudor, and who would thus strengthen Mary’s claim to the English throne. Then when self-serving and deceitful Darnley was murdered, she married Lord Bothwell, a powerful and ruffian Scottish lord, who also betrayed her trust in times of need. The melodrama of her life culminated in 1568 when Mary naively tried to seek protection from Elizabeth but ended up being captured on English soil, where she would be under house arrest for the following eighteen years. In 1586, out of desperation, she fell into the trap that William Cecil had set up and took part in a madcap assassination plot against Elizabeth. She was tried in October 1586 and executed on February 8, 1587.
It is impossible not to feel sympathy for this hapless but good-hearted Queen, whose only flaw was perhaps her deep emotional need to be loved.
Mary Stuart was crowned Queen of Scotland when she was less than a year old. As the only daughter of James V, granddaughter of Margaret Tudor and great-granddaughter of Henry VII of England, she had a rightful claim to the English throne.
At the age of six, under the auspices of Mary’s powerful maternal uncles at the French court, the de Guises, she was sent to France to be betrothed to the dauphin Francis. They were married when Mary was fifteen (in 1558). In 1559, Henry II of France died and the dauphin was crowned Francis II. A year later, Mary’s mother, who was ruling Scotland as sole regent for the absent Queen, died. Six months thereafter, Mary’s husband, King Francis II, also died. The ambitious de Guises sent eighteen-year-old Mary back to Scotland, envisioning a unified claim to the thrones of Scotland, France and England. It was there and then that her nightmare began.
On the one hand, Mary was immediately plunged into a factional melee of violent Scottish tribal politics, which were often tinged with religious sectarianism and always motivated by the nobles’ self-interests. On the other hand, Elizabeth I of England did her best to clamp down on Mary (one of her demands was so draconian as to dictate whom Mary could marry), as she was fearful that Mary might usurp her throne (her fear being constantly magnified by her secretary William Cecil).
In her home turf, Mary found herself surrounded by treacherous, vicious and depraved courtiers, including her sly and duplicitous half-brother James Stuart (Earl of Moray). Her de Guise relations used and abandoned her as situations warranted and were hardly a source of support. Unfortunate for Mary, her trusting and big-hearted nature would often land her in a perilous position. Her predicament was further exacerbated by constant threat of religious war all over Europe (Catholicism vs. Protestantism). As witty and tenacious as she was, the odds were always stacked against her. Despite all, Mary still strove to preserve her reign as the Scottish Queen and to claim her legitimate right to be Elizabeth’s successor.
The last third of the book unfolds like a thriller/mystery novel, as Mary tried to eke out some breathing space for herself by seeking political marriage. She first wedded Lord Darnley, an English royal whose maternal grandmother was Margaret Tudor, and who would thus strengthen Mary’s claim to the English throne. Then when self-serving and deceitful Darnley was murdered, she married Lord Bothwell, a powerful and ruffian Scottish lord, who also betrayed her trust in times of need. The melodrama of her life culminated in 1568 when Mary naively tried to seek protection from Elizabeth but ended up being captured on English soil, where she would be under house arrest for the following eighteen years. In 1586, out of desperation, she fell into the trap that William Cecil had set up and took part in a madcap assassination plot against Elizabeth. She was tried in October 1586 and executed on February 8, 1587.
It is impossible not to feel sympathy for this hapless but good-hearted Queen, whose only flaw was perhaps her deep emotional need to be loved.
January 21, 2020
Turning my attention to a historical figure about whom I have heard much but know little, I chose John Guy’s tome on Mary, Queen of Scots. A woman of great interest whose short life made an impact, both in her native Scotland as well as England, Mary will long be remembered in the annals of history as a strong-willed woman with something to prove. Born the daughter—and only legitimate child—of James V of Scotland, Mary ascended to the throne six days later. While Scotland was ruled by regents, Mary spent much of her time in her mother’s native France, where she was betrothed to Francis, the Dauphin of France. This marriage would, as some at the time proclaimed, make Mary the queen of not only Scotland and France, but also permit her a claim to the English Throne, as she was the grand-niece of Henry VIII and had indisputable Tudor blood in her veins. This piqued the interest of the English, as shall be seen later. When Francis died soon after taking the French Throne, Mary was lost and left when those at Court did not seek to protect her or allow her role as Dowager Queen to hold much merit. When she returned to Scotland, Mary engaged in promoting the Scottish rights and soon married her half-cousin, Henry Stuart. Rightful Queen of Scotland, Mary engaged in what could be said to be tense relations with her distant cousin, Elizabeth I of England. ‘Sisters’, as they referred to one another, Mary and Elizabeth eyed each other with trepidation, as Guy depicts so well in his tome. Mary bore a son, James, ensuring an heir to the throne, but things went downhill from there. When Henry died in an explosion, Mary was again a widow, but she need not wait too long, as the man accused (and acquitted) of the act, James Hepburn, soon took her as his wife. Guy explores the role that Mary might have had in her second husband’s death, as well as how this could have advanced her control in Scotland. However, the people of Scotland could see this wily couple for what they seemed and a revolt saw Mary forced to abdicate and pave the way for her one-year-old son, James VI, to take the throne. Fleeing Scotland, Mary sought refuge in England with Elizabeth I, but the English monarch as too cunning to simply provide refuge. After keeping Mary captive for over eighteen years, Elizabeth I had her ‘sister’ executed after found guilting of plotting an assassination plot. Perhaps Mary ought never to have made a claim to the English Throne all those years ago. John Guy takes the reader through this tumultuous life with a great deal more detail than I expected, which thickens the plot and will keep readers astounded until the final page turn in a tome that has recently been made into a full-length movie. Recommended to history buffs like myself who seek something meaty about the goings-on in 16th century Europe, as well as the reader who loves all things regal and full of intrigue.
As with many of the biographies that I have read over the years, John Guy does a formidable job of laying down the groundwork for a strong story and builds on it from there. His attention to detail and formulation of a strong narrative helps keep the biography moving along. Guy is able to convey the highly varied and exciting life lived by Mary throughout, paying particular attention to some of the more dramatic aspects that led to her downfall. Some may wonder why my summary paragraph was much shorter than usual. I chose not to reveal much, as I wanted other readers to learn many of the nuggets I found throughout. The book paced itself nicely, allowing the story to develop and the reader to discover some of the nuances in Mary’s life, particularly her life as a monarch. Guy’s use of many documents not used for centuries helps to answer some questions past historians have left out while also challenging many of the norms history has attributed to this most controversial queen. Guy presents these documents in the text, at times explaining their significance to the reader and discussing how some of this is ‘new ground’ that will flavour his tome differently from what others have noticed. I found myself better acquainted with the key actors in this dramatic Europeans monarchical soap opera and would love to see the film based on this book, if only to discover if the clashes between Elizabeth and Mary were as subtle as they appear herein. Guy transports the reader back centuries, but brings the entire story to life in the present. His longer chapters are through and his easy to comprehend narrative makes for a wonderful learning experience that does not get too academic. I hope to find more of his work in the coming years to educate myself on more topics!
Kudos, Mr. Guy for a fabulous review. I cannot wait to read more of your work!
This book fulfils Topic #2: Time Traveller, in the Equinox #9 reading challenge.
Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
A Book for All Seasons, a different sort of Book Challenge: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...
As with many of the biographies that I have read over the years, John Guy does a formidable job of laying down the groundwork for a strong story and builds on it from there. His attention to detail and formulation of a strong narrative helps keep the biography moving along. Guy is able to convey the highly varied and exciting life lived by Mary throughout, paying particular attention to some of the more dramatic aspects that led to her downfall. Some may wonder why my summary paragraph was much shorter than usual. I chose not to reveal much, as I wanted other readers to learn many of the nuggets I found throughout. The book paced itself nicely, allowing the story to develop and the reader to discover some of the nuances in Mary’s life, particularly her life as a monarch. Guy’s use of many documents not used for centuries helps to answer some questions past historians have left out while also challenging many of the norms history has attributed to this most controversial queen. Guy presents these documents in the text, at times explaining their significance to the reader and discussing how some of this is ‘new ground’ that will flavour his tome differently from what others have noticed. I found myself better acquainted with the key actors in this dramatic Europeans monarchical soap opera and would love to see the film based on this book, if only to discover if the clashes between Elizabeth and Mary were as subtle as they appear herein. Guy transports the reader back centuries, but brings the entire story to life in the present. His longer chapters are through and his easy to comprehend narrative makes for a wonderful learning experience that does not get too academic. I hope to find more of his work in the coming years to educate myself on more topics!
Kudos, Mr. Guy for a fabulous review. I cannot wait to read more of your work!
This book fulfils Topic #2: Time Traveller, in the Equinox #9 reading challenge.
Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
A Book for All Seasons, a different sort of Book Challenge: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...
February 10, 2017
To say this was a sympathetic biography of Mary Queen of Scots would do an injustice to the word sympathetic. I hate to use the word hagiography but this is as close as it gets.
The author is a specialist in Tudor history and is to be respected but I have come away from this very readable book, and I mean very readable, profoundly confused. He has, in my opinion, let his deep research into the subject cloud his judgement in the presentation of the biography. His sympathy spoils the entire narrative.
Yes he is occasionally critical of Mary's decisions but then there seems to be excuses. Lets be honest, her decision to marry Bothwell must rank as one of the most ludicrous acts by a reigning monarch in British history. Yes the author says as much but makes excuses. I was almost waiting for Stockholm Syndrome to be evoked after she was raped by Bothwell!
The superlatives used to describe Mary are constant throughout:- intelligent, ingenious, razor sharp. And in the end when things have gone disastrously wrong we get told she was "unlucky".
Well yes, maybe, but her bad luck is apparently just a constant throughout her life. The author works hard to make it all very unlucky that way via some very sympathetic eulogising. I tended to want him to tell the story and let me decide, not editorialise.
My other major criticism is the use of the sources. I have to be critical of the notes, sources and the bibliography used in the research for the fact they are not mapped by footnotes. The book is a revisionist opinion and that is fair enough, but with that, if the author going to make statements as to it being a "cold day", one of the protagonists feeling "happy", "sad"` or indifferent at least map the source via a footnote. I mean if Mary was born in the coldest winter (first page of the first chapter) what was the source? This was constant throughout and a distraction from a very good history to tell.
So with all that in mind would I recommend this to others who are interested in the life of Mary Queen of Scots? Yes as at its best this is an an extremely interesting book. I just wish the author had been a bit more circumspect in his delivery.
The author is a specialist in Tudor history and is to be respected but I have come away from this very readable book, and I mean very readable, profoundly confused. He has, in my opinion, let his deep research into the subject cloud his judgement in the presentation of the biography. His sympathy spoils the entire narrative.
Yes he is occasionally critical of Mary's decisions but then there seems to be excuses. Lets be honest, her decision to marry Bothwell must rank as one of the most ludicrous acts by a reigning monarch in British history. Yes the author says as much but makes excuses. I was almost waiting for Stockholm Syndrome to be evoked after she was raped by Bothwell!
The superlatives used to describe Mary are constant throughout:- intelligent, ingenious, razor sharp. And in the end when things have gone disastrously wrong we get told she was "unlucky".
Well yes, maybe, but her bad luck is apparently just a constant throughout her life. The author works hard to make it all very unlucky that way via some very sympathetic eulogising. I tended to want him to tell the story and let me decide, not editorialise.
My other major criticism is the use of the sources. I have to be critical of the notes, sources and the bibliography used in the research for the fact they are not mapped by footnotes. The book is a revisionist opinion and that is fair enough, but with that, if the author going to make statements as to it being a "cold day", one of the protagonists feeling "happy", "sad"` or indifferent at least map the source via a footnote. I mean if Mary was born in the coldest winter (first page of the first chapter) what was the source? This was constant throughout and a distraction from a very good history to tell.
So with all that in mind would I recommend this to others who are interested in the life of Mary Queen of Scots? Yes as at its best this is an an extremely interesting book. I just wish the author had been a bit more circumspect in his delivery.
April 2, 2021
If only her father hadn't died and left her a queen at 6 days old with a French foreigner mother as regent.
If only Francis II of France hadn't died so young.
If only he gave her a dauphin and left her a queen mother.
If only her ambitious Guise uncles were not so pushy and used her so shamelessly as their pawn.
If only Catherine de' Medici did not hate Guise family and by extension Mary herself.
If only she hadn't married the buffoon Darnley.
And the hugest disaster - if only she hadn't married Bothwell.
If only she hadn't decided to become a devout catholic in her captivity and had contacts with Philip II of Spain.
And lastly and most importantly - if only William Cecil hadn't decided she was a threat and his nemesis and meticulously destroyed her over the years.
If only Mary and Elizabeth had met...
This is the best historical biography I've ever read. It has such an engaging story and complex portrait of a monarch as a woman who just couldn't catch a break and by the end was betrayed by everybody. And their relationship with Elizabeth I is incredibly complex and interesting. To make me care so deeply about a historical figure I was only mildly interested in - it's a great achievement.
And yet his chief priorities were to exclude Mary from the English succession by fair means or foul, while undermining her rule in Scotland by destabilizing her at critical moments—whereas Elizabeth respected Mary’s rights as independent Queen of Scots and was repelled by Henry VIII’s cavalier disregard for the principles of hereditary succession in his will. Repeatedly, Cecil complained that Elizabeth had been far too generous and understanding to Mary and far too willing to compromise.
*****
If Elizabeth had triumphed in life, Mary would triumph in death. Far from disappearing into oblivion, as Cecil had intended, she rose from the ashes to become one of Britain’s most celebrated and beguiling rulers. In choosing the phoenix as her last emblem, she had written her own epitaph: “In my end is my beginning.”
If only Francis II of France hadn't died so young.
If only he gave her a dauphin and left her a queen mother.
If only her ambitious Guise uncles were not so pushy and used her so shamelessly as their pawn.
If only Catherine de' Medici did not hate Guise family and by extension Mary herself.
If only she hadn't married the buffoon Darnley.
And the hugest disaster - if only she hadn't married Bothwell.
If only she hadn't decided to become a devout catholic in her captivity and had contacts with Philip II of Spain.
And lastly and most importantly - if only William Cecil hadn't decided she was a threat and his nemesis and meticulously destroyed her over the years.
If only Mary and Elizabeth had met...
This is the best historical biography I've ever read. It has such an engaging story and complex portrait of a monarch as a woman who just couldn't catch a break and by the end was betrayed by everybody. And their relationship with Elizabeth I is incredibly complex and interesting. To make me care so deeply about a historical figure I was only mildly interested in - it's a great achievement.
And yet his chief priorities were to exclude Mary from the English succession by fair means or foul, while undermining her rule in Scotland by destabilizing her at critical moments—whereas Elizabeth respected Mary’s rights as independent Queen of Scots and was repelled by Henry VIII’s cavalier disregard for the principles of hereditary succession in his will. Repeatedly, Cecil complained that Elizabeth had been far too generous and understanding to Mary and far too willing to compromise.
*****
If Elizabeth had triumphed in life, Mary would triumph in death. Far from disappearing into oblivion, as Cecil had intended, she rose from the ashes to become one of Britain’s most celebrated and beguiling rulers. In choosing the phoenix as her last emblem, she had written her own epitaph: “In my end is my beginning.”
January 29, 2019
I’d planned to read this prior to the movie release, but it soon became apparent with the level of in-depth research on a complicated period in British history that I wouldn’t finish this in time.
That’s a massive compliment to the author, it’s a time that I’m overly familiar with and with each chapter I was continuing to learn so much.
As Guy carefully explains what life was like for Mary, from the daily living conditions to the political climate at the time.
It’s also non-fiction, so I wasn’t too worried about spoilers!
I knew how Mary’s story ended.
I’ve seen a few people say that the film was slow, but having read a substantial amount prior to watching the movie I felt that I was well equipped to just still back and enjoy both Ronan’s and Robbie’s performances.
I’m not sure why I don’t read much non-fiction, as it was so interesting to learn more about this period.
Ooh and I loved the movie too!
That’s a massive compliment to the author, it’s a time that I’m overly familiar with and with each chapter I was continuing to learn so much.
As Guy carefully explains what life was like for Mary, from the daily living conditions to the political climate at the time.
It’s also non-fiction, so I wasn’t too worried about spoilers!
I knew how Mary’s story ended.
I’ve seen a few people say that the film was slow, but having read a substantial amount prior to watching the movie I felt that I was well equipped to just still back and enjoy both Ronan’s and Robbie’s performances.
I’m not sure why I don’t read much non-fiction, as it was so interesting to learn more about this period.
Ooh and I loved the movie too!
May 26, 2020
In a word, this book is brilliant! The breadth of research and expertise in writing makes this the best book I have read in quite a while. John Guy plumbed the depths of the archives to discover new evidence about Mary and constructed a great book. His attention to detail and writing ability makes it a "must read" for anyone with an interest in history.
Mary's story at once allows the reader to understand the obstacles faced by female rulers. Her dynastic parentage meant that she would be sought after by monarchies anxious to join forces to form powerful alliances in the rough and tumble politics of 16th Century Europe. She was married to the Dauphin, Henry and it looked as if she had a successful marriage and a successful future life in France, but also in England where her dynastic rights awaited. Sadly, her marriage to the dauphin would be cut short by his very early death. As a toddler, she had been crowned queen of Scotland and after being widowed, traveled there to assume her crown. What she could not have known was that she was monarch over a split and disorganized country. Her lords, including her half brother, did not accept the idea of a woman queen and decided that they would control her from the start. When she proved to be her own woman, the plots that would eventually bring about her downfall began.
She would be imprisoned for 18 years, all the while hoping and pleading with Queen Elizabeth, her cousin, for an intervention that never came. Elizabeth's "right hand man" Cecil, a devout and maniacal Protestant planned the Catholic Mary's downfall from the moment she left France. The rest, I leave to other readers to learn.
Mary's story at once allows the reader to understand the obstacles faced by female rulers. Her dynastic parentage meant that she would be sought after by monarchies anxious to join forces to form powerful alliances in the rough and tumble politics of 16th Century Europe. She was married to the Dauphin, Henry and it looked as if she had a successful marriage and a successful future life in France, but also in England where her dynastic rights awaited. Sadly, her marriage to the dauphin would be cut short by his very early death. As a toddler, she had been crowned queen of Scotland and after being widowed, traveled there to assume her crown. What she could not have known was that she was monarch over a split and disorganized country. Her lords, including her half brother, did not accept the idea of a woman queen and decided that they would control her from the start. When she proved to be her own woman, the plots that would eventually bring about her downfall began.
She would be imprisoned for 18 years, all the while hoping and pleading with Queen Elizabeth, her cousin, for an intervention that never came. Elizabeth's "right hand man" Cecil, a devout and maniacal Protestant planned the Catholic Mary's downfall from the moment she left France. The rest, I leave to other readers to learn.
February 16, 2019
This is a well researched and well written, detailed story of Mary, Queen of Scots. It seems to me that history has kind of pushed Mary under the carpet so to speak. There doesn't seem to be as much written about her when compared to the Tudor period in England or Russia's storied czars and leaders.
Mary truly was a courageous woman, and her life was filled with continual drama. It took extreme determination on her part to demand her claim to the throne of Scotland and later England be recognized.
It seems to me that prior tomes based on her life were either shrouded in bias: she was either loved or vilified. However, John Guy uses documents that were heretofore undiscovered to reveal the true Mary Stuart. It makes for very interesting reading for anyone who is a history buff, a follower of all things royal, or someone who just enjoys a good factual read.
Like many royals, Mary faces betrayals, deceit, others who would take her crown, and religious zealots.
Whether the Mary, Queen of Scots you learned about was shown to be a saint, a martyr, or a demon, this book may change the way you look at her and her place in the history books.
Mary truly was a courageous woman, and her life was filled with continual drama. It took extreme determination on her part to demand her claim to the throne of Scotland and later England be recognized.
It seems to me that prior tomes based on her life were either shrouded in bias: she was either loved or vilified. However, John Guy uses documents that were heretofore undiscovered to reveal the true Mary Stuart. It makes for very interesting reading for anyone who is a history buff, a follower of all things royal, or someone who just enjoys a good factual read.
Like many royals, Mary faces betrayals, deceit, others who would take her crown, and religious zealots.
Whether the Mary, Queen of Scots you learned about was shown to be a saint, a martyr, or a demon, this book may change the way you look at her and her place in the history books.
January 15, 2023
This was a detailed and at times a heavy biography of Mary Queen of Scots. I believe Guy didn't wish to leave anything of importance out, but at times, he seemed to be rambling about insignificant things, which didn't hold my attention.
Mary Queen of Scots had a rather interesting life, had much confidence and assertiveness, but ultimately, she made mistakes which would later cost her her life.
Mary Queen of Scots had a rather interesting life, had much confidence and assertiveness, but ultimately, she made mistakes which would later cost her her life.
August 1, 2009
Interesting insight on what Mary was really like but the author is VERY biased in her favour and bends over backwards to show her in a favourable light, often to the detriment of others. I wonder how he feels about the recent revelations by medical historians that for it to be apparent that Mary had miscarried Bothwell's twins (rather than a single baby), she must have been at least five months pregnant - 16th century medicine would not have been able to discern twin foetuses before that stage. This means Mary was pregnant by Bothwell before Darnley's murder, and gives her a compelling motive for wanting to get her husband out of the way. She was almost certainly complicit in his murder and she not only failed to make any serious effort to bring her husband's killers to justice, she married one of them! The Casket Letters may well be forged but they are beside the point really: as Mary's actions speak for themselves.
Anyone wanting to read a rather more honest account of Mary's life and character would do better to read An Accidental Tragedy by Roderick Graham, which treats Mary as the flawed human being she was, and even explains how the "cult of Mary Stewart" with all its silly myths, developed after her death.
Anyone wanting to read a rather more honest account of Mary's life and character would do better to read An Accidental Tragedy by Roderick Graham, which treats Mary as the flawed human being she was, and even explains how the "cult of Mary Stewart" with all its silly myths, developed after her death.
October 27, 2016
I enjoyed this book but found it difficult not to be furious with Mary's stupidity and short-sightedness, not to mention her vanity which allowed her to be easily led by similarly vain and ambitious men. Guy perhaps is a little in love with Mary and the book lacks incisiveness and impartiality because of it but it's still one of the best biographies I've read.
September 13, 2025
I listened to the audiobook, and I learned so much. Her charisma was larger than life, and though her life was filled with tragedy as one might expect after being crowned queen at months old, her spirit of pageantry prevailed to the very end, and it is her dynasty that survived.
September 15, 2017
This is the best book currently available on Mary Queen of Scots. Guy effortlessly straddles the chasm between precise and nuanced scholarship and popular history offering us a narrative which is as thrilling and articulate to read as it is academically dependable.
The pace is brisker than Antonia Fraser's now classic study Mary Queen of Scots and Guy is a sympathetic reader of Mary without ever becoming sentimental or romanticising her. He points out the extent to which the more usual unthinking dichotomy of Elizabeth as rational, 'masculine' and 'good' ruler versus Mary as emotional, 'feminine' and 'bad' ruler breaks down under scrutiny, and the extent to which, even today, historians and readers are victims of Protestant propaganda which had an agenda of portraying Mary, both Catholic and a female ruler, in these rather obvious terms.
Guy, unlike more popular historians, bases his work on the archives, uncovering previously unassessed material, and subjects it to sober analysis. His discussion of the various stories or narratives that were current, and his analysis of the 'casket letters' are particularly strong.
So overall this is a comprehensive and vibrant biography, properly researched and crafted, and beautifully written - it's difficult to imagine a better life of Mary.
The pace is brisker than Antonia Fraser's now classic study Mary Queen of Scots and Guy is a sympathetic reader of Mary without ever becoming sentimental or romanticising her. He points out the extent to which the more usual unthinking dichotomy of Elizabeth as rational, 'masculine' and 'good' ruler versus Mary as emotional, 'feminine' and 'bad' ruler breaks down under scrutiny, and the extent to which, even today, historians and readers are victims of Protestant propaganda which had an agenda of portraying Mary, both Catholic and a female ruler, in these rather obvious terms.
Guy, unlike more popular historians, bases his work on the archives, uncovering previously unassessed material, and subjects it to sober analysis. His discussion of the various stories or narratives that were current, and his analysis of the 'casket letters' are particularly strong.
So overall this is a comprehensive and vibrant biography, properly researched and crafted, and beautifully written - it's difficult to imagine a better life of Mary.
July 21, 2022
This was slow, boring and unnecessarily detailed.
There's good information here but the author treats both Mary Queen of Scots and Bess of Hardwick with a large dose of sexism.
Mary's relationship with Bothwell can't be removed from his kidnap of her. We have no way to judge if Mary married him out of trauma bonding or fear. The author stipulates that she is so abused by Bothwell that it impacts her beauty but refuses to acknowledge that trauma would be the result of abuse of that magnitude. There's certainly no reason to believe that a grown woman, who was twice widowed, a mother and a queen in 2 Nations would fall into bed with her low born, already married, protestant Lord after he kidnapped her. Bothwell had served her mother and it's doubtful she seriously considered someone of his station acceptable for marriage to a queen, even had he been unmarried.
I'm aware that Queen Mary wrote letters to argue that the marriage was her free choice. However admitting that a monarch could or had been stolen, held against their will and sexually assaulted, especially if Bothwell held her prisoner her until she was pregnant, would make her already difficult position as a woman ruler near impossible.
I think it's very likely she lied to save face.
Instead of, as the author suggests, Bothwell was a better lover than Francis II or Darnley🙄
I'd argue that but for Bothwell's assault of her Mary would never ever have married him.
Mary was raised primarily at the French court. The French Monarchy viewed itself as a step above non-royal humans and a step slightly below angels, semi-divine at the least. It's highly doubtful she'd have considered a Lord of Bothwell's statue acceptable as a consort, especially considering he was already married.
Bothwell would not be acceptable under any circumstances. Their marriage was scraping the barrel and I think Bothwell stole her precisely because he knew she'd never consent to marry him otherwise. I honestly think Mary would've looked around for a third husband, probably another monarch, in time had Bothwell not stolen and 'ravished' her.
I don't know if Mary had advance knowledge of the plot to murder her 2nd husband Darnley. I kinda hope so but there's really not enough evidence to say either way.
I do think that much of the situation with regards to Darnley's behavior and the court's response to it is impacted by Mary being Queen Regnant and not King. There were so many misconceptions about women rulers during this time period. This really worked to Mary's disadvantage in a way it never would've impacted a King.
For example, Mary needs Darnley to publicly acknowledge her son. If she was King that wouldn't be an issue. No Queen Consort has the power to impact the succession by refusing to acknowledge her own child. It's also unlikely a titled Lady would or could hold a King hostage and sexually assault him until she was pregnant. Even if such a Lady managed to kidnap a King and rape him until she got pregnant, he couldn't be forced to marry her. A bastard born to King doesn't impact him like a bastard born to a Queen Regnant would. The author just ignores the role gender plays in Mary's choices and it's both frustrating and ahistorical.
The comparisons between Mary and Elizabeth I are unfair. England was considerably easier to rule and plenty of male Scottish rulers struggled to keep the Scottish Lords in check. James IV was probably better than his son or great grandson at it. Scotland is notoriously complicated to rule and Mary had been trained to be Queen of an entirely different Court.
Mary also had a much more stable childhood and was likely not as quick and intelligent as Elizabeth. She certainly wasn't as formally educated. Nor had she been basically parentless since toddlerhood.
Mary's mother did not live with her but she was with extended family and quite surrounded by security. That was not true for Elizabeth who's status is never made clear until she takes the throne. Her father, Henry VIII, and her oldest sister, Mary I, both blow hot and cold depending on their own situations. This forges Elizabeth into the Queen Regnant she becomes. Had Mary had Elizabeth's experiences she might've made significantly different choices.
The author portrays Bess of Hardwick as scheming and social climbing. Yet that was the standard practice of her day. Both men and women made marriages as high and connected as they were able to make. There's some luck implied in Bess's life and marriages but no animus.
As far as records show Bess made honest upfront marriages and dealings. It is unique that her husband's made her their sole beneficiary on their deaths but given her involvement in business it makes sense. Also she is an excellent step-mother, everyone in her charge makes excellent marriages, whether her child or step-child. I think this historian views her via a sexist and classist lens.
Bess of Hardwick is a powerhouse of a woman and probably only could've risen as she did in Tudor England. Lots of middle class merchants rose to higher classes during The Tudor reign.
The authors research is solid it's his conclusions I disagree with.
There's good information here but the author treats both Mary Queen of Scots and Bess of Hardwick with a large dose of sexism.
Mary's relationship with Bothwell can't be removed from his kidnap of her. We have no way to judge if Mary married him out of trauma bonding or fear. The author stipulates that she is so abused by Bothwell that it impacts her beauty but refuses to acknowledge that trauma would be the result of abuse of that magnitude. There's certainly no reason to believe that a grown woman, who was twice widowed, a mother and a queen in 2 Nations would fall into bed with her low born, already married, protestant Lord after he kidnapped her. Bothwell had served her mother and it's doubtful she seriously considered someone of his station acceptable for marriage to a queen, even had he been unmarried.
I'm aware that Queen Mary wrote letters to argue that the marriage was her free choice. However admitting that a monarch could or had been stolen, held against their will and sexually assaulted, especially if Bothwell held her prisoner her until she was pregnant, would make her already difficult position as a woman ruler near impossible.
I think it's very likely she lied to save face.
Instead of, as the author suggests, Bothwell was a better lover than Francis II or Darnley🙄
I'd argue that but for Bothwell's assault of her Mary would never ever have married him.
Mary was raised primarily at the French court. The French Monarchy viewed itself as a step above non-royal humans and a step slightly below angels, semi-divine at the least. It's highly doubtful she'd have considered a Lord of Bothwell's statue acceptable as a consort, especially considering he was already married.
Bothwell would not be acceptable under any circumstances. Their marriage was scraping the barrel and I think Bothwell stole her precisely because he knew she'd never consent to marry him otherwise. I honestly think Mary would've looked around for a third husband, probably another monarch, in time had Bothwell not stolen and 'ravished' her.
I don't know if Mary had advance knowledge of the plot to murder her 2nd husband Darnley. I kinda hope so but there's really not enough evidence to say either way.
I do think that much of the situation with regards to Darnley's behavior and the court's response to it is impacted by Mary being Queen Regnant and not King. There were so many misconceptions about women rulers during this time period. This really worked to Mary's disadvantage in a way it never would've impacted a King.
For example, Mary needs Darnley to publicly acknowledge her son. If she was King that wouldn't be an issue. No Queen Consort has the power to impact the succession by refusing to acknowledge her own child. It's also unlikely a titled Lady would or could hold a King hostage and sexually assault him until she was pregnant. Even if such a Lady managed to kidnap a King and rape him until she got pregnant, he couldn't be forced to marry her. A bastard born to King doesn't impact him like a bastard born to a Queen Regnant would. The author just ignores the role gender plays in Mary's choices and it's both frustrating and ahistorical.
The comparisons between Mary and Elizabeth I are unfair. England was considerably easier to rule and plenty of male Scottish rulers struggled to keep the Scottish Lords in check. James IV was probably better than his son or great grandson at it. Scotland is notoriously complicated to rule and Mary had been trained to be Queen of an entirely different Court.
Mary also had a much more stable childhood and was likely not as quick and intelligent as Elizabeth. She certainly wasn't as formally educated. Nor had she been basically parentless since toddlerhood.
Mary's mother did not live with her but she was with extended family and quite surrounded by security. That was not true for Elizabeth who's status is never made clear until she takes the throne. Her father, Henry VIII, and her oldest sister, Mary I, both blow hot and cold depending on their own situations. This forges Elizabeth into the Queen Regnant she becomes. Had Mary had Elizabeth's experiences she might've made significantly different choices.
The author portrays Bess of Hardwick as scheming and social climbing. Yet that was the standard practice of her day. Both men and women made marriages as high and connected as they were able to make. There's some luck implied in Bess's life and marriages but no animus.
As far as records show Bess made honest upfront marriages and dealings. It is unique that her husband's made her their sole beneficiary on their deaths but given her involvement in business it makes sense. Also she is an excellent step-mother, everyone in her charge makes excellent marriages, whether her child or step-child. I think this historian views her via a sexist and classist lens.
Bess of Hardwick is a powerhouse of a woman and probably only could've risen as she did in Tudor England. Lots of middle class merchants rose to higher classes during The Tudor reign.
The authors research is solid it's his conclusions I disagree with.
December 9, 2015
Mary, Queen of Scots, doesn’t have the best reputation. Said to have ruled with her heart rather than her head; Mary Stuart was surrounded by drama, heartbreak, forced to abdicate her throne, and eventually beheaded after being held captive in England. Yet, there is much to credit Mary that many people overlook. Historian John Guy attempts to rehabilitate this infamous woman in, “Queen of Scots: The True Life of Mary Stuart”.
Guy presents “Queen of Scots” as a full-fledged biography beginning with a description of Mary’s birth and subsequent childhood. This beginning is slightly less evasive to the actual Mary as Guy focuses more on the environment around Mary and of key figures in her life versus just of Mary herself. It can be argued that Guy goes slightly off tangents at times. However, stick to the reading as “Queen of Scots” does reveal Mary more as the pages progress.
Readers need not worry that Guy puts Mary on a pedestal merely to reverse the consensus image of her character. Rather, “Queen of Scots” is actually quite straight forward and a better-formed big picture portrait of Mary than most other biographies.
Guy does suffer from his usual tendency of making speculative and “would have” and “could have” – statements. Luckily, based on other books of his I have read; “Queen of Scots” is the least to overuse these. Guy’s prose and text is also a bit too flowery and visual (which is also a habit of his and means he could pen a terrific HF novel) which deters some readers. On the other hand, this writing style prevents “Queen of Scots” from being too dry and scholarly and thus heightens the pace.
In other flaws, Guy sometimes backtracks in time and events when presenting information which can cause confusion with readers. Also evident is repetition – literally. There are phrases which appear almost copy/pasted. I’m not sure how the editor missed this.
On a positive note, “Queen of Scots” is peppered with myth debunking and detective work performed by Guy. In fact, some of the information is fresh or explored in a way that even those readers familiar with the life of Mary will find amusing, revealing, and interesting.
“Queen of Scots” sort of shifts gears from a biography to an investigative piece when discussing the murder of Darnley. Guys presents this event in a court case-like manner and proceeds to break down the history and subsequent events in points of view of Mary, Bothwell, and the nobility. This is done in a very well-rounded and complete way revealing multiple angles and information previously not discussed. Guy even quotes documents not mentioned by historians since the 1800s. This helps explain Mary’s position in a far better conclusive way than other biographies. Yet, Guy doesn’t push his beliefs or biases; he merely gives a better insight for readers to make their own judgments while debunking myths.
On similar grounds, Guy’s discussion of the Casket Letters and its impact is thorough, riveting, and much more in-depth (and investigative) than many other sources. Again, all sides are explored and myths are exposed/debunked resulting in compelling reading.
Sadly, concluding chapters slow down in pace and return to a biography style—which isn’t necessarily a problem. The problem is that Guy seems to rush over topics and “Queen of Scots” feels as though a deadline was approaching or the word count was being met and therefore Guy had to wrap it up.
The epilogue of “Queen of Scots” features a strong summary of Mary’s legacy followed by chronological time lines of events both in Mary’s life and in Britain during her lifetime. This is followed by annotated notes and a section of sources (a satisfying amount of primary sources were used). Guy also infuses “Queen of Scots” with two sections of black and white photo plates.
“Queen of Scots” is a very well-written, heavily researched biography which takes a unique investigative look at Mary’s life offering an out –of-the-box view without simply hero worshipping her. “Queen of Scots” is recommended for all readers interested in British history, queens, and Mary, herself. “Queen of Scots” is definitely one of Guy’s stronger works.
Guy presents “Queen of Scots” as a full-fledged biography beginning with a description of Mary’s birth and subsequent childhood. This beginning is slightly less evasive to the actual Mary as Guy focuses more on the environment around Mary and of key figures in her life versus just of Mary herself. It can be argued that Guy goes slightly off tangents at times. However, stick to the reading as “Queen of Scots” does reveal Mary more as the pages progress.
Readers need not worry that Guy puts Mary on a pedestal merely to reverse the consensus image of her character. Rather, “Queen of Scots” is actually quite straight forward and a better-formed big picture portrait of Mary than most other biographies.
Guy does suffer from his usual tendency of making speculative and “would have” and “could have” – statements. Luckily, based on other books of his I have read; “Queen of Scots” is the least to overuse these. Guy’s prose and text is also a bit too flowery and visual (which is also a habit of his and means he could pen a terrific HF novel) which deters some readers. On the other hand, this writing style prevents “Queen of Scots” from being too dry and scholarly and thus heightens the pace.
In other flaws, Guy sometimes backtracks in time and events when presenting information which can cause confusion with readers. Also evident is repetition – literally. There are phrases which appear almost copy/pasted. I’m not sure how the editor missed this.
On a positive note, “Queen of Scots” is peppered with myth debunking and detective work performed by Guy. In fact, some of the information is fresh or explored in a way that even those readers familiar with the life of Mary will find amusing, revealing, and interesting.
“Queen of Scots” sort of shifts gears from a biography to an investigative piece when discussing the murder of Darnley. Guys presents this event in a court case-like manner and proceeds to break down the history and subsequent events in points of view of Mary, Bothwell, and the nobility. This is done in a very well-rounded and complete way revealing multiple angles and information previously not discussed. Guy even quotes documents not mentioned by historians since the 1800s. This helps explain Mary’s position in a far better conclusive way than other biographies. Yet, Guy doesn’t push his beliefs or biases; he merely gives a better insight for readers to make their own judgments while debunking myths.
On similar grounds, Guy’s discussion of the Casket Letters and its impact is thorough, riveting, and much more in-depth (and investigative) than many other sources. Again, all sides are explored and myths are exposed/debunked resulting in compelling reading.
Sadly, concluding chapters slow down in pace and return to a biography style—which isn’t necessarily a problem. The problem is that Guy seems to rush over topics and “Queen of Scots” feels as though a deadline was approaching or the word count was being met and therefore Guy had to wrap it up.
The epilogue of “Queen of Scots” features a strong summary of Mary’s legacy followed by chronological time lines of events both in Mary’s life and in Britain during her lifetime. This is followed by annotated notes and a section of sources (a satisfying amount of primary sources were used). Guy also infuses “Queen of Scots” with two sections of black and white photo plates.
“Queen of Scots” is a very well-written, heavily researched biography which takes a unique investigative look at Mary’s life offering an out –of-the-box view without simply hero worshipping her. “Queen of Scots” is recommended for all readers interested in British history, queens, and Mary, herself. “Queen of Scots” is definitely one of Guy’s stronger works.
Want to read
September 10, 2022Hollywood expresses its appreciation of diversity by portraying the ethnic demographics of modern western nation states as having been similar in the distant past. So it casts African and Asian actors to play random parts in movies set, for example, in Tudor England. Because England, don’t you know, has always been diverse. Fuck you, Brexit!
But if Hollywood really appreciated diversity, it wouldn't film the umpteenth version of Mary Queen of Scots or Anne Boleyn. It would mine the rich vein of non-western history and myth, and film that.
And a lot of people would be into it, too. I'd be one of them. I’d love to see a great film about the rise of Baibars from slavery to the Sultanate of Egypt. Or deadly intrigue at the court of the Tang empress Wu. Or the deeds of Rostom, the legendary hero from The Persian Book of Kings. Or Antarah ibn Shaddad, the warrior poet of ancient Arabia.
How about the Saadian invasion of Songhai as a setting for a film?
Or the Mongol invasion of Japan?
Or the Afghan revolt against the Mughal dynasty of India? Or the Zanj against the Abbasids?
Or the rise of The Triple Alliance in Aztlan?
Or the Austronesian discovery of Madagascar?
The human epic overflows with legendary lives. A filmmaker of vision would break free from the Eurocentric bubble to behold an endless and irresistible source of drama, spectacle, and emotional truth--most of it yet to be explored by cinema. Too bad the Anglosphere's modern film industry is full of people whose big idea is, like, "Anne Boleyn...but she's Black!"
I'd be thrilled and grateful if authentic historical dramas from around the world were constantly showing up in my neighborhood theatres. I'd pay to see movies all the time, instead of just once or twice a year.
But please don't cast Matt Damon as Shaka Zulu so, you know, I can feel included too.
Is Hollywood more patronizing or provincial? I can’t make up my mind.
But if Hollywood really appreciated diversity, it wouldn't film the umpteenth version of Mary Queen of Scots or Anne Boleyn. It would mine the rich vein of non-western history and myth, and film that.
And a lot of people would be into it, too. I'd be one of them. I’d love to see a great film about the rise of Baibars from slavery to the Sultanate of Egypt. Or deadly intrigue at the court of the Tang empress Wu. Or the deeds of Rostom, the legendary hero from The Persian Book of Kings. Or Antarah ibn Shaddad, the warrior poet of ancient Arabia.
How about the Saadian invasion of Songhai as a setting for a film?
Or the Mongol invasion of Japan?
Or the Afghan revolt against the Mughal dynasty of India? Or the Zanj against the Abbasids?
Or the rise of The Triple Alliance in Aztlan?
Or the Austronesian discovery of Madagascar?
The human epic overflows with legendary lives. A filmmaker of vision would break free from the Eurocentric bubble to behold an endless and irresistible source of drama, spectacle, and emotional truth--most of it yet to be explored by cinema. Too bad the Anglosphere's modern film industry is full of people whose big idea is, like, "Anne Boleyn...but she's Black!"
I'd be thrilled and grateful if authentic historical dramas from around the world were constantly showing up in my neighborhood theatres. I'd pay to see movies all the time, instead of just once or twice a year.
But please don't cast Matt Damon as Shaka Zulu so, you know, I can feel included too.
Is Hollywood more patronizing or provincial? I can’t make up my mind.
August 1, 2009
Good read but too biased and tries to present Mary as a far better person than the evidence suggests she could possibly have been.
What are we to think of a woman who, when the husband she loathes is murdered, gives his horse and some of his clothes to the man EVERYONE says is the killer?
What should we think when she refuses to allow more than a "show" trial at which the court is surrounded by armed men employed by the defendant, who threatens to kill anyone who speaks out of turn?
What should we think when the widow marries that defendant less than three months after the murder?
And what do we conclude when the widow, pregnant by the murderer, miscarries of twins, bearing in mind that in the 16th century it wouldn't have been possible to tell the foetuses were twins until five months into the pregnancy, so that conception must have taken place well before her husband's murder but after her estrangement from him?
Is she not condemned by these actions, irrespective of the Casket Letters?
For a much better and quite unbiased account of Mary's life, read An Accidental Tragedy, by Roderick Graham.
What are we to think of a woman who, when the husband she loathes is murdered, gives his horse and some of his clothes to the man EVERYONE says is the killer?
What should we think when she refuses to allow more than a "show" trial at which the court is surrounded by armed men employed by the defendant, who threatens to kill anyone who speaks out of turn?
What should we think when the widow marries that defendant less than three months after the murder?
And what do we conclude when the widow, pregnant by the murderer, miscarries of twins, bearing in mind that in the 16th century it wouldn't have been possible to tell the foetuses were twins until five months into the pregnancy, so that conception must have taken place well before her husband's murder but after her estrangement from him?
Is she not condemned by these actions, irrespective of the Casket Letters?
For a much better and quite unbiased account of Mary's life, read An Accidental Tragedy, by Roderick Graham.
May 27, 2019
To say I thoroughly enjoyed reading this is a bit of an understatement. I was a bit skeptical going into this biography, considering I didn't enjoy Guy's biography on Elizabeth I very much because I don't think he painted her in an exceptional light (mostly focusing on the men in her life). However, I do think he did Mary much better justice.
There is SO much information here, and every question seems to be answered, without the text becoming too dry or boring. I had watched the movie before reading this, and that was what had initially sparked my interest, and wow are the two different. They really gloss over (in the movie) how awful Darnley and Bothwell both were to her, along with her imprisonment in England for almost two decades. I didn't realize how old she had become at the time of her execution because the movie makes her look so young.
I do think Guy could have cited some more specifics in the footnotes, because there were so many instances where he states that Mary "burst into tears". How does he know that? Is it written somewhere? Is it just an account? For all Mary's strength and regality, which Guy emphasizes, it seems strange that she was constantly overcome with such emotion in public spaces.
And on a personal note, this was so much fun to be reading while I was on the train to and from Scotland/Edinburgh and while I was there! To be able to visit the places that Mary lived and see Edinburgh itself really enriched my reading of this!
There is SO much information here, and every question seems to be answered, without the text becoming too dry or boring. I had watched the movie before reading this, and that was what had initially sparked my interest, and wow are the two different. They really gloss over (in the movie) how awful Darnley and Bothwell both were to her, along with her imprisonment in England for almost two decades. I didn't realize how old she had become at the time of her execution because the movie makes her look so young.
I do think Guy could have cited some more specifics in the footnotes, because there were so many instances where he states that Mary "burst into tears". How does he know that? Is it written somewhere? Is it just an account? For all Mary's strength and regality, which Guy emphasizes, it seems strange that she was constantly overcome with such emotion in public spaces.
And on a personal note, this was so much fun to be reading while I was on the train to and from Scotland/Edinburgh and while I was there! To be able to visit the places that Mary lived and see Edinburgh itself really enriched my reading of this!
November 1, 2017
Unfortunately Mary was just not a smart or well-connected woman.
Even though Guy is incredibly sweet towards her in his descriptions there is no way he can truly hide the fact that Mary's lineage represented the perfect triangle of power to the thrones of France, England, and Scotland but had absolutely no one looking out for her or any family and was just shuttled from one aggressive political fiend to the next.
Mary's mother sent her to France thinking this would benefit her, but could not foresee Catherine de Medici. Once she rose to power and Mary's husband died she was sent home (Guy states this was Mary's decision, but a young girl is really no match for the older, wiser, full of spies and connections Catherine).
Once home Mary had barely any supporters or a close circle that put her ideals and goals at the front. Her lords were all fighting and her half-brother was gallivanting around. Still young, with her only attributes being 'charisma' as Guy states (not sure how this is supposed to translate into effective leadership), and this being the 16th century, where despite the many female rulers, men still were able to beat women and held the true power, I find it incredibly hard to believe Mary really was effective or made any decisions at all.
She married Darnley, which made no sense unless her goal was to be a vengeful upon Elizabeth. Then married Bothwell, which also makes no sense politically. (Guy states that Mary must have chosen to marry Bothwell because of her energetic, proud demeanor would never let her forgive someone who raped her....hate to break it you Guy, but many beautiful, smart women decide to stay with angry, abusive men for many reasons and none of them truly out of choice.) Then she runs to Elizabeth, which also made no sense politically.
So without family or a close circle vying for her interests, Mary, being young and beautiful, was run over by incredibly aggressive men and lead into political traps, never really knowing who to trust.
She makes an interesting historical figure because of her dramatic lineage and how her son ultimately ascended to the English throne, but in life she must have been haughty, in abusive relationships and sad.
Also- Can you really call her a queen if she never effectively ruled and spent her who life in some sort of captivity?
Even though Guy is incredibly sweet towards her in his descriptions there is no way he can truly hide the fact that Mary's lineage represented the perfect triangle of power to the thrones of France, England, and Scotland but had absolutely no one looking out for her or any family and was just shuttled from one aggressive political fiend to the next.
Mary's mother sent her to France thinking this would benefit her, but could not foresee Catherine de Medici. Once she rose to power and Mary's husband died she was sent home (Guy states this was Mary's decision, but a young girl is really no match for the older, wiser, full of spies and connections Catherine).
Once home Mary had barely any supporters or a close circle that put her ideals and goals at the front. Her lords were all fighting and her half-brother was gallivanting around. Still young, with her only attributes being 'charisma' as Guy states (not sure how this is supposed to translate into effective leadership), and this being the 16th century, where despite the many female rulers, men still were able to beat women and held the true power, I find it incredibly hard to believe Mary really was effective or made any decisions at all.
She married Darnley, which made no sense unless her goal was to be a vengeful upon Elizabeth. Then married Bothwell, which also makes no sense politically. (Guy states that Mary must have chosen to marry Bothwell because of her energetic, proud demeanor would never let her forgive someone who raped her....hate to break it you Guy, but many beautiful, smart women decide to stay with angry, abusive men for many reasons and none of them truly out of choice.) Then she runs to Elizabeth, which also made no sense politically.
So without family or a close circle vying for her interests, Mary, being young and beautiful, was run over by incredibly aggressive men and lead into political traps, never really knowing who to trust.
She makes an interesting historical figure because of her dramatic lineage and how her son ultimately ascended to the English throne, but in life she must have been haughty, in abusive relationships and sad.
Also- Can you really call her a queen if she never effectively ruled and spent her who life in some sort of captivity?
December 31, 2008
Mary was in my estimation was still a nitwit, but I enjoyed this book immensely.
September 16, 2025
Overall: 3 stars
This was one of the most meticulously researched and incredibly detailed histories I've ever read.
It was also one of the biggest slogs.
Don't get me wrong: I appreciate the immense amount of research and writing the author must have done, and I loved all of the period quotes. You really get a feel for how the people are talking and living in this book.
But. The author is also clearly *obsessed* with Mary Queen of Scots in a way that no ordinary reader of popular history or even a Tudor nerd like me is going to be. The sheer number of contemporaneous quotes from or about Mary and then subsequent analysis of those quotes and what it does and doesn't mean and then analysis of contemporary and more modern critics of those quotes and actions and aaaaaaaaaah. It's like reading someone's dissertation.
To be fair, I don't think I will ever have to read another biography of Mary Queen of Scots ever again. If I remember even part of this book, I will be a word-class expert in the topic, given just the sheer breadth and depth of details the author covers. And some of them are truly fascinating, but the author's habit of retreading the same ground through several perspectives was a bit exhausting.
So yeah, 3 stars because this was truly a very well researched and written history and also intermittently boring and tiring to get through. Also Mary’s life was a real bummer, so just be aware of that going in.
This was one of the most meticulously researched and incredibly detailed histories I've ever read.
It was also one of the biggest slogs.
Don't get me wrong: I appreciate the immense amount of research and writing the author must have done, and I loved all of the period quotes. You really get a feel for how the people are talking and living in this book.
But. The author is also clearly *obsessed* with Mary Queen of Scots in a way that no ordinary reader of popular history or even a Tudor nerd like me is going to be. The sheer number of contemporaneous quotes from or about Mary and then subsequent analysis of those quotes and what it does and doesn't mean and then analysis of contemporary and more modern critics of those quotes and actions and aaaaaaaaaah. It's like reading someone's dissertation.
To be fair, I don't think I will ever have to read another biography of Mary Queen of Scots ever again. If I remember even part of this book, I will be a word-class expert in the topic, given just the sheer breadth and depth of details the author covers. And some of them are truly fascinating, but the author's habit of retreading the same ground through several perspectives was a bit exhausting.
So yeah, 3 stars because this was truly a very well researched and written history and also intermittently boring and tiring to get through. Also Mary’s life was a real bummer, so just be aware of that going in.
May 15, 2013
Mary Queen of Scots, when she's not being muddled up with Mary Tudor, is generally known as a scandalous Queen. She is the emotional, flighty counterpart to Elizabeth I's steely calculation. John Guy does a wonderful job of rubbishing this stereotypical view.
He is obviously a fan of Mary and does his best to show the other, lesser known facets of her character. Unlike her English cousin, Mary became the Queen of Scotland when she was only six days old and she left Scotland to marry the French Dauphin as a young girl. In time, she would become the Queen of France, even if only for a brief, glittering period. The untimely death of her first husband saw her heading home to claim a throne that she hardly knew, and which was a world away from the sophistication of the French court. It is in the murky, politically and religiously volatile environment of Scotland that Mary's life and fortunes take off. Through murder, intrigue and scandal, Mary was forced to try and negotiate her path as both a female ruler and one of the wrong religion. Added to this was Mary's relationship with England. As a direct descendant of Henry VII, Mary's claim to the throne was closest to Elizabeth Tudor's and as two Queens in the same island, the relationship between the women was both familial and full of danger. This danger would eventually lead Mary to her end, the part of her life for which she is probably best known today.
John Guy writes a fantastic biography in this book. Entertaining and thorough, he guides his readers through Mary's complex life. The mysteries remaining over the death of Darnley, Mary's second husband, and her third marriage are combed over life a crime novel and he attempts to exonerate her from some of the slurs that have been laid against her over the centuries since her death. Guy's portrait of Mary is as an intelligent and mostly rather politically astute ruler, who does a largely good job of controlling her nobles and navigating the labyrinth Scotland's tribal society. Her weakness is in choosing her husbands. Unable to even contemplate ruling alone like her cousin, Mary makes bad romantic decisions that erode her power base and respectability.
For anyone who is interested in Tudor-era British history, this book is a great read. For everyone else, Mary Queen of Scots is a vibrant and fascinating character whose direct bloodline still sits on the British throne today. Definitely worth reading about.
He is obviously a fan of Mary and does his best to show the other, lesser known facets of her character. Unlike her English cousin, Mary became the Queen of Scotland when she was only six days old and she left Scotland to marry the French Dauphin as a young girl. In time, she would become the Queen of France, even if only for a brief, glittering period. The untimely death of her first husband saw her heading home to claim a throne that she hardly knew, and which was a world away from the sophistication of the French court. It is in the murky, politically and religiously volatile environment of Scotland that Mary's life and fortunes take off. Through murder, intrigue and scandal, Mary was forced to try and negotiate her path as both a female ruler and one of the wrong religion. Added to this was Mary's relationship with England. As a direct descendant of Henry VII, Mary's claim to the throne was closest to Elizabeth Tudor's and as two Queens in the same island, the relationship between the women was both familial and full of danger. This danger would eventually lead Mary to her end, the part of her life for which she is probably best known today.
John Guy writes a fantastic biography in this book. Entertaining and thorough, he guides his readers through Mary's complex life. The mysteries remaining over the death of Darnley, Mary's second husband, and her third marriage are combed over life a crime novel and he attempts to exonerate her from some of the slurs that have been laid against her over the centuries since her death. Guy's portrait of Mary is as an intelligent and mostly rather politically astute ruler, who does a largely good job of controlling her nobles and navigating the labyrinth Scotland's tribal society. Her weakness is in choosing her husbands. Unable to even contemplate ruling alone like her cousin, Mary makes bad romantic decisions that erode her power base and respectability.
For anyone who is interested in Tudor-era British history, this book is a great read. For everyone else, Mary Queen of Scots is a vibrant and fascinating character whose direct bloodline still sits on the British throne today. Definitely worth reading about.
September 12, 2018
This is a pretty good biography of Mary which staunchly defends her reputation and resents the commonly held belief that Mary was a weak-willed victim of her emotions. It finds unfair the longstanding unfavorable comparison with her cousin Elizabeth.
Mary was born a queen, almost; she inherited the throne of Scotland upon the death of her father when she was six days old. (“It came with a lass, and it will pass with a lass,” supposedly said her disappointed father on his deathbed, referring to the founder of the Stuart line, Marjorie Bruce.)
Mary was raised at the French court, and married the young Dauphin, and for about eighteen months she was queen of both Scotland and France (and loudly proclaimed queen of England by her mother’s family, the Guises). She was the first cousin, once removed, of the childless queen Elizabeth of England, and was the most obvious choice of a successor; as well as the choice Elizabeth initially disliked the least. (Elizabeth felt that actually naming a successor would be "to require me in my own life to set my winding-sheet before my eye", and she never did).
The early death of Mary’s first husband catapulted her back to Scotland and into the midst of heated politics she was not well trained to understand, where she tried to keep the balance between the Protestant and Catholic factions among the Lords of Scotland. She was no more of a religious zealot than was Elizabeth; it was later, during her long imprisonment, when she styled herself a Catholic martyr.
Despite her tolerance she was harangued by Calvinist leader John Knox, author of that charming pamphlet, "The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women".
Unlike her fellow queen, Mary quickly sought a new alliance through marriage. She chose her handsome first cousin, Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley; a match designed to strengthen her claim to the English throne. Mary bore a son, the future James VI of Scotland, I of England.
Unfortunately Darnley’s character was “tainted by recklessness, sexual excess, pride and stupidity.” He was a drunk and a syphilitic. After less than two years of marriage Mary was in discussion with the lords over the possibility of divorcing him, when he was spectacularly murdered: someone blew up the house in which he was staying AND strangled him.
The author champions Mary’s innocence in the matter of the assassination, asserting that Mary was on the verge of an agreement with Elizabeth which would have acknowledged her place in the English succession, and that she would not have jeopardized those negotiations even to get rid of a despised husband.
A few months later Mary was dramatically abducted (but probably not raped, the author contends) by Lord Bothwell, who was strongly implicated in Darnley’s murder. To the horror of nearly everyone, she promptly married him. A group of Scottish lords revolted against Mary and Bothwell. She was captured and forced to abdicate in favor of her infant son. She fled to England, hoping for Elizabeth’s help in regaining her throne, and instead was imprisoned.
The author examines the Casket Letters extensively. This was an assortment of unsigned, unaddressed, undated letters purportedly written by Mary, which the Scottish lords put forth as evidence that Mary and Bothwell were lovers who colluded in the murder of Darnley. The author concludes that the letters were probably written by Mary, but were actually excerpts or drafts of letters she wrote to Bothwell after their marriage, or were in fact from letters she wrote earlier to Darnley.
Elizabeth and her people didn’t find the letters convincing either, as much as Cecil, Elizabeth’s chief minister, wanted to. The author describes Cecil as Mary’s chief antagonist: “more than anyone else, he was her great nemesis”.
Mary was not convicted of the charges - but neither was she acquitted, and she spent the rest of her life a prisoner in England. She kept her royal status as a prisoner, with a large staff of servants and attendants and rich food and clothing, but she was often kept in close confinement, and not allowed her usual outdoor exercises. She gained weight and her health deteriorated.
In the end, devastated when her own son rejected her claim to the Scottish throne, Mary fell into a trap set by Walsingham, Elizabeth’s spymaster, and put down in writing her approval of a scheme to assassinate her royal cousin. Mary’s execution was a drama for the ages.
I found the author’s prose readable, if not gripping, and I enjoyed his staunch defense of all of Mary’s bad decisions.
Mary was born a queen, almost; she inherited the throne of Scotland upon the death of her father when she was six days old. (“It came with a lass, and it will pass with a lass,” supposedly said her disappointed father on his deathbed, referring to the founder of the Stuart line, Marjorie Bruce.)
Mary was raised at the French court, and married the young Dauphin, and for about eighteen months she was queen of both Scotland and France (and loudly proclaimed queen of England by her mother’s family, the Guises). She was the first cousin, once removed, of the childless queen Elizabeth of England, and was the most obvious choice of a successor; as well as the choice Elizabeth initially disliked the least. (Elizabeth felt that actually naming a successor would be "to require me in my own life to set my winding-sheet before my eye", and she never did).
The early death of Mary’s first husband catapulted her back to Scotland and into the midst of heated politics she was not well trained to understand, where she tried to keep the balance between the Protestant and Catholic factions among the Lords of Scotland. She was no more of a religious zealot than was Elizabeth; it was later, during her long imprisonment, when she styled herself a Catholic martyr.
Despite her tolerance she was harangued by Calvinist leader John Knox, author of that charming pamphlet, "The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women".
Unlike her fellow queen, Mary quickly sought a new alliance through marriage. She chose her handsome first cousin, Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley; a match designed to strengthen her claim to the English throne. Mary bore a son, the future James VI of Scotland, I of England.
Unfortunately Darnley’s character was “tainted by recklessness, sexual excess, pride and stupidity.” He was a drunk and a syphilitic. After less than two years of marriage Mary was in discussion with the lords over the possibility of divorcing him, when he was spectacularly murdered: someone blew up the house in which he was staying AND strangled him.
The author champions Mary’s innocence in the matter of the assassination, asserting that Mary was on the verge of an agreement with Elizabeth which would have acknowledged her place in the English succession, and that she would not have jeopardized those negotiations even to get rid of a despised husband.
A few months later Mary was dramatically abducted (but probably not raped, the author contends) by Lord Bothwell, who was strongly implicated in Darnley’s murder. To the horror of nearly everyone, she promptly married him. A group of Scottish lords revolted against Mary and Bothwell. She was captured and forced to abdicate in favor of her infant son. She fled to England, hoping for Elizabeth’s help in regaining her throne, and instead was imprisoned.
The author examines the Casket Letters extensively. This was an assortment of unsigned, unaddressed, undated letters purportedly written by Mary, which the Scottish lords put forth as evidence that Mary and Bothwell were lovers who colluded in the murder of Darnley. The author concludes that the letters were probably written by Mary, but were actually excerpts or drafts of letters she wrote to Bothwell after their marriage, or were in fact from letters she wrote earlier to Darnley.
Elizabeth and her people didn’t find the letters convincing either, as much as Cecil, Elizabeth’s chief minister, wanted to. The author describes Cecil as Mary’s chief antagonist: “more than anyone else, he was her great nemesis”.
Mary was not convicted of the charges - but neither was she acquitted, and she spent the rest of her life a prisoner in England. She kept her royal status as a prisoner, with a large staff of servants and attendants and rich food and clothing, but she was often kept in close confinement, and not allowed her usual outdoor exercises. She gained weight and her health deteriorated.
In the end, devastated when her own son rejected her claim to the Scottish throne, Mary fell into a trap set by Walsingham, Elizabeth’s spymaster, and put down in writing her approval of a scheme to assassinate her royal cousin. Mary’s execution was a drama for the ages.
I found the author’s prose readable, if not gripping, and I enjoyed his staunch defense of all of Mary’s bad decisions.
January 16, 2019
Centuries after her execution, Mary Queen of Scots remains one of the most divisive and enigmatic figures in British history. Was she manipulated and betrayed by those around her? Or was she conniving, untrustworthy, and perhaps even a party to the murder of her own husband?
Those wanting to find out the truth (insofar as "the truth" can be recovered after so much time) could do far worse than to read John Guy's scholarly, masterful biography. Guy presents Mary as a sympathetic, generous woman who was actually – for a short period, at least – also rather a shrewd political leader. The Scotland of which she was Queen was a divided place, torn apart by competing religious, political and familial factions. She lacked the support of a loyal nobility (one of the considerable advantages possessed by Queen Elizabeth, who is, of necessity, also a major presence in the book). She perhaps did well to hold the country together for as long as she did.
Where did it all go wrong for Mary? Perhaps it all began with her marriage to Darnley – a good husband from the vantage point of a monarch who wanted to bolster her claim to the English throne, but a disastrous one from a personal perspective. Darnley was selfish, scheming, and an inveterate plotter, and while Mary almost certainly had no direct involvement in his assassination – she actually stood to lose a great deal from his death – she could hardly have been expected to mourn the passing of a man who had proved such a disappointment to her.
It was, though, with her marriage to Bothwell that Mary's tottering reign began to utterly crumble. Bothwell himself is presented as a more rounded figure than is usual – both rough and smooth, he could boast a French education and was charming when it suited him, but he also placed personal ambition far above his feelings for Mary. By marrying him, Mary hoped to unite her factious nobles; in fact, she just exacerbated the country's internal divisions, and probably sealed her own doom.
Whatever Mary's flaws and mistakes, however, she ultimately comes across as a warm-hearted, well-rounded woman who might – had things been just slightly different – have been a uniting, rather than a dividing, force. Her accomplishments are not glossed over: despite her personal commitment to Catholicism, she was tolerant of differing views (the same cannot always be said of her opponents, most notably the Protestant preacher John Knox). During her brief reign, she could on occasion be every bit as astute a politician as Elizabeth, which counters her usual image as a woman ruled by her heart rather than her head. Ultimately, though, this was a woman destroyed by in-fighting, political machinations, and the misogyny of her own times. Well worth a read for anyone interested in this most charismatic of monarchs, or in Scottish or British history in general.
Those wanting to find out the truth (insofar as "the truth" can be recovered after so much time) could do far worse than to read John Guy's scholarly, masterful biography. Guy presents Mary as a sympathetic, generous woman who was actually – for a short period, at least – also rather a shrewd political leader. The Scotland of which she was Queen was a divided place, torn apart by competing religious, political and familial factions. She lacked the support of a loyal nobility (one of the considerable advantages possessed by Queen Elizabeth, who is, of necessity, also a major presence in the book). She perhaps did well to hold the country together for as long as she did.
Where did it all go wrong for Mary? Perhaps it all began with her marriage to Darnley – a good husband from the vantage point of a monarch who wanted to bolster her claim to the English throne, but a disastrous one from a personal perspective. Darnley was selfish, scheming, and an inveterate plotter, and while Mary almost certainly had no direct involvement in his assassination – she actually stood to lose a great deal from his death – she could hardly have been expected to mourn the passing of a man who had proved such a disappointment to her.
It was, though, with her marriage to Bothwell that Mary's tottering reign began to utterly crumble. Bothwell himself is presented as a more rounded figure than is usual – both rough and smooth, he could boast a French education and was charming when it suited him, but he also placed personal ambition far above his feelings for Mary. By marrying him, Mary hoped to unite her factious nobles; in fact, she just exacerbated the country's internal divisions, and probably sealed her own doom.
Whatever Mary's flaws and mistakes, however, she ultimately comes across as a warm-hearted, well-rounded woman who might – had things been just slightly different – have been a uniting, rather than a dividing, force. Her accomplishments are not glossed over: despite her personal commitment to Catholicism, she was tolerant of differing views (the same cannot always be said of her opponents, most notably the Protestant preacher John Knox). During her brief reign, she could on occasion be every bit as astute a politician as Elizabeth, which counters her usual image as a woman ruled by her heart rather than her head. Ultimately, though, this was a woman destroyed by in-fighting, political machinations, and the misogyny of her own times. Well worth a read for anyone interested in this most charismatic of monarchs, or in Scottish or British history in general.
August 29, 2023
A well researched and well written biography of Mary, Queen of Scots that analyzes her approach to queenship and does not dismiss her as a "femme fatale." The early chapters about her education and upbringing in France are especially insightful and Guy provides an in depth analysis of the murder of her second husband Lord Darnley (though I wondered if it was possible that Mary was entirely ignorant of the plot as so many Scottish nobles were involved) and the history of the casket letters. There is some strong analysis of the similarities and differences between Mary, Queen of Scots and Elizabeth I as monarchs. I disagreed with Guy's analysis of Mary's relationship with her third husband Lord Bothwell, however. Guy argues that Mary was kidnapped against her will by Lord Bothwell but that he quickly won her over and she became "a fool for love." If the kidnapping was genuine and did not involve Mary's collusion, it seems likely that Mary had little choice in her third marriage and some of her subsequent actions may have been informed by the shock of having been kidnapped and coerced into marriage. The chapters about Mary's imprisonment in England go by quickly and this section could have been expanded. A good biography, when read in conjunction with other works about Mary, Queen of Scots.
August 6, 2015
I'll admit it: the reason I wanted to read this book is because I watch (and love) the CW show "Reign," which is loosely based on the life of Mary, Queen of Scots. How loosely? Pretty darn. But one thing is the same-I am Team Mary forever and ever, amen. She may occasionally make some pretty bad decisions about her love life, but that doesn't change my love for her. She was an awesome lady. And if everyone around her hadn't sucked so much (if you don't believe me, read the book. They were all the absolute worst) she would probably have been an awesome queen.
The book itself is an impressive achievement. I'll admit to taking almost 2 months to read it, but most of that is because the sheer depth of the detail doesn't allow you to give it a quick read. John Guy obviously dedicated a lot of his time to researching and writing this, and if you read it, you'll have to invest some time as well. But it's totally worth it! And not just because you will look smart carrying it around.
The book itself is an impressive achievement. I'll admit to taking almost 2 months to read it, but most of that is because the sheer depth of the detail doesn't allow you to give it a quick read. John Guy obviously dedicated a lot of his time to researching and writing this, and if you read it, you'll have to invest some time as well. But it's totally worth it! And not just because you will look smart carrying it around.
May 20, 2009
Biographies are not typically my "thing." However, I found this a fascinating read, and while some of the day-to-day is obviously fictionalized dialogue, etc., it kept it interesting for me.
December 31, 2024
An essential element of any historical biographer's task is to put colour into the cheeks of their subject, which Professor Guy effects with aplomb in this meticulously penned tome. This queen, who has for centuries polarised commentariats, is a personal favourite, this being the twenty-something book of her I've relished. Each biographer depicts her as predominantly innocent or guilty. This one is firmly on Mary's side and puts his case supremely.
The details that divide on the Queen of Scots are those absent from posterity, those which perhaps Mary's royal son James I & VI helped erase from record, or which Mary's accusers collectively disposed of to save their own reputations with the passage of time. Much has been powerfully theorised on the potential forgery of her incriminating 'casket letters' with as much effectively arguing their authenticity.
We'll never know for sure, without some revelation becoming unearthed. Such are the tantalising dynamics of the relationship between this and her cousin queen and executioner Elizabeth I, of whom similarly divided thought tribes have evolved for similar reasons. Both queens have benefited and suffered from each other's propagandists.
In the face of excellent wider reception, this author has by some been unfairly accused of being as enamoured with Mary Stuart as her contemporary devotees were, his detractors complaining of his bias in her favour. Yet septuagenarian Professor Guy, who read history at Cambridge before teaching there, is a veteran historian of the highest order. He is as entitled, perhaps more so than his armchair critics, to an informed opinion.
It never fails to baffle me, reading critiques from those a half or quarter Guy's age, qualifying their pickiness citing not a single academic endowment of their own – I'm not talking critiques of his style but of his capacity to know his material – just how ferociously opinionated today's readers still find themselves on this dividing monarch. The bare facts still trigger kneejerk moral reactions to her legendary deeds.
I agree with John Guy on the reality of Mary of Scots' personally redeeming qualities. Without a religious agenda to my name and having equal fondness for her archrival, Elizabeth, I too have always kept an open mind on Mary's broader innocence and have consistently concluded that, like so many martyrs of her age put to death for treason, she cannot have been entirely guilty of everything charged against her. Such was the politico-judicial machine's modus operandi and still is. Evidence is, and always was to some degree, controlled, manipulated and confected by those in power over any such accused.
Nor can any rational apologist concede Mary's total innocence (anyone so unjustly imprisoned for so long would have plotted towards their liberty on whatever ethical ground presented itself). The truth, as always, must lie somewhere in the centre. I once more concluded, nevertheless, that here was an extremely likeable woman. One I still find intriguing enough to keep reading on as more gets written with the sophistry of modern research. One I remain unable to side either with or against. It's a stimulating position.
Highly recommend this book, especially to the unbigoted.
The details that divide on the Queen of Scots are those absent from posterity, those which perhaps Mary's royal son James I & VI helped erase from record, or which Mary's accusers collectively disposed of to save their own reputations with the passage of time. Much has been powerfully theorised on the potential forgery of her incriminating 'casket letters' with as much effectively arguing their authenticity.
We'll never know for sure, without some revelation becoming unearthed. Such are the tantalising dynamics of the relationship between this and her cousin queen and executioner Elizabeth I, of whom similarly divided thought tribes have evolved for similar reasons. Both queens have benefited and suffered from each other's propagandists.
In the face of excellent wider reception, this author has by some been unfairly accused of being as enamoured with Mary Stuart as her contemporary devotees were, his detractors complaining of his bias in her favour. Yet septuagenarian Professor Guy, who read history at Cambridge before teaching there, is a veteran historian of the highest order. He is as entitled, perhaps more so than his armchair critics, to an informed opinion.
It never fails to baffle me, reading critiques from those a half or quarter Guy's age, qualifying their pickiness citing not a single academic endowment of their own – I'm not talking critiques of his style but of his capacity to know his material – just how ferociously opinionated today's readers still find themselves on this dividing monarch. The bare facts still trigger kneejerk moral reactions to her legendary deeds.
I agree with John Guy on the reality of Mary of Scots' personally redeeming qualities. Without a religious agenda to my name and having equal fondness for her archrival, Elizabeth, I too have always kept an open mind on Mary's broader innocence and have consistently concluded that, like so many martyrs of her age put to death for treason, she cannot have been entirely guilty of everything charged against her. Such was the politico-judicial machine's modus operandi and still is. Evidence is, and always was to some degree, controlled, manipulated and confected by those in power over any such accused.
Nor can any rational apologist concede Mary's total innocence (anyone so unjustly imprisoned for so long would have plotted towards their liberty on whatever ethical ground presented itself). The truth, as always, must lie somewhere in the centre. I once more concluded, nevertheless, that here was an extremely likeable woman. One I still find intriguing enough to keep reading on as more gets written with the sophistry of modern research. One I remain unable to side either with or against. It's a stimulating position.
Highly recommend this book, especially to the unbigoted.
December 3, 2014
John Guy’s biography is hailed as a sympathetic biographyl s0 I was excited. Indeed, I did enjoy the first 300 pages. It established Mary as a complete capable as a political player, whereas she is usually seen as tone deaf to politics. While also pointing out her flaws, like to trustworthy of people she considered family. It shows her dealing with Elizabeth and also setting up her band of councilors and battling the different factions in Scotland. After her marriage to Lord Darnley, his strength in painting her as a character falls apart. He cannot define her as he wants to and he loses focus. Further, his view on Bothwell is just wrong. The fact that he asserts that she was kidnapped, but he didn’t rape her. She was kidnapped. Don’t give her an illusion of choice. Yes, she didn’t try to escape for twelve days. But rape has after effects; it doesn’t just happen. Considering her husband just was murdered and she lived in a state of fear, it’s no wonder that she didn’t. He stops trying to read her as a human at this point and the book really suffers because of this. Also given Bothwell’s history of violence before and after the marriage, with being abusive to Mary, I don’t buy that Mary fell in love with him and I laugh at historians who don’t believe Mary was raped. Rape culture is everywhere. You can easily read her history after as a psychology of a rape victim. It’s just that people don’t want to. They want to paint her as an idiot instead. The book also spends too much time on Lord Darnley’s murder. Mary, Bothwell, and the other councilor’s each get a chapter. It’s great you did research, but what really matters is what happened not every specific thing and everyone’s story. He also spends an enormous amount of time on the Casket Letters, which were disproven at the time, so I don’t understand why he needed to talk about them and not really make a judgment either way. The chapters on the different views and the Casket Letters really should have been in end notes. He also skirts over things I’d like to hear about like Mary’s escape to England. Things that are more significant to her life. However, what really ruins the book is the epilogue, which basically asserts Mary just needed the right man and she could rule. When do we ever say that to a male king? Never. Second, after pointing out that Elizabeth was not this plainly mindful ruler and she did have a heart. Also, not painting her as perfect with her associations with Mary and also talking about how Elizabeth did want Mary dead - whereas most books paint it as somehow not her fault. He clears Elizabeth of all guilt of her dealings with Mary, saying that Cecil was her main antagonist. While I believe this to a point, it’s just a shame that he back peddles and tries to clear Elizabeth of all guilt when he tried not do this throughout the entire book. I guess I will just have to keep searching for an actually sympathetic biography of Mary Stuart, even if I have to write it myself.
August 21, 2019
*3.5 stars
A very insightful and detailed biography on Mary, Queen of Scots. Honestly, I can’t really fault this as a biography. John Guy was very meticulous and detailed in the life of this great yet tragic Queen. As a read, however, it was a little dense. I listened to this on audiobook, which I definitely think helped me get through, but it meant that I wasn’t retaining all the information I was being fed. Probably should have sat and dedicated time to simply listening to it, rather than listening to it when doing my make up, tidying and so on.
Nevertheless, very detailed and very interesting. Mary, Queen of Scots is a figure who has always interested me (thanks Reign) and it was nice to get this insight into her life, her family, her relationships and her reign. Just very dense and long winded, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing for a biography, but can hinder enjoyment for leisurely reading.
A very insightful and detailed biography on Mary, Queen of Scots. Honestly, I can’t really fault this as a biography. John Guy was very meticulous and detailed in the life of this great yet tragic Queen. As a read, however, it was a little dense. I listened to this on audiobook, which I definitely think helped me get through, but it meant that I wasn’t retaining all the information I was being fed. Probably should have sat and dedicated time to simply listening to it, rather than listening to it when doing my make up, tidying and so on.
Nevertheless, very detailed and very interesting. Mary, Queen of Scots is a figure who has always interested me (thanks Reign) and it was nice to get this insight into her life, her family, her relationships and her reign. Just very dense and long winded, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing for a biography, but can hinder enjoyment for leisurely reading.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 527 reviews